A Separartion (2011)

The first time I heard of A Separation was on the list of films for the New York Film Festival this year. The description of a domestic drama that turns into a court room thriller piqued my interest. I had it on my list of films to see. Unfortunately in both the public screenings and press screenings I couldn't find a slot to see it.

My desire to see the film increased when very positive talk at other press screenings was matched by orgasmic talk outside the public screenings. Talk about the film outside the second screening was so intense and so involving that not only was the lobby of Alice Tully Hall full of groups of people talking to each other about the film, but they were sucking in those of us going into the next screening. Rarely have I ever seen so many people taking about a film so animatedly - and so positively. Honestly, this was the best received film of the year as far as I was concerned.

The film opened elsewhere in the world earlier in the year and it's just opened in the US, where it's the front runner for a Best Foreign Language Oscar, and where it may get more nominations.

I am happy to report that A Separation is a film that is rightly being touted highly across the board. This is one of the few times where I'm on board with the uber-love for a film.

The plot of the film has a husband and wife asking for a divorce. She wants to take their daughter and leave the country, while he doesn't want to leave his father who is suffering with Alzheimer's. The divorce isn't granted but they separate. In order to help with the father the husband hires a woman to come in and watch the father while he works. Complications arise and soon the film becomes a court room thriller with hints of murder.

I really liked this film a great deal. Its a gripping domestic drama that, naturally drifts into court room thriller. Nothing that happens feel wrong or contrived. Every twist, every turn feels right, feels plausible. It feels like it could happen.

Beautifully acted, it would be an injustice if the Oscars didn't nominate someone from the cast for an acting award. These aren't characters, they are people.

Go see this movie. This really is one of the times when you should believe the hype and see the film.

(FYI: The title on the film itself is Nader and Simin A Separation which is why I picked the image I did)

The Artist in brief PLUS Links, Updates and Other Nonsense

It's been a while since I've posted some links, and I'll do so shortly. First I want to just make a few notes before we get to the end of the year.

First up earlier this week I finally saw The Artist. This is the silent film from France that many people have picked as a shoe in for this year's Oscar for Best Picture. I was supposed to see the film at the New York Film Festival, however a familial emergency prevented it.

I'm not going to go into great detail on the film right now. I may at some later time do so, but for now know the film is good. I didn't connect to it the way many critics and many people in the audience have. My reservations come from my feeling it's more someone's idea of what a silent film should be rather than what a silent film is or was. Its a homage to a by gone era, done in a style that never existed. It also has the wonky story construction that is similar to some French comedies (which ultimately is what this is.)

Don't get me wrong, the film is most certainly worth seeing in a theater. I saw it at New York's Paris Theater and sat up in the balcony, imagining I was in an old movie palace. The joys of the film are best summed up in a numerous small moments, including one that had me tearing up, and another laughing at a joke that can only work in a silent film.

See the the film, just don't believe the hype.

And Now some notes and some links....

The second series of family films at Lincoln Center starts the day before Christmas and runs through February. There are some goodies here so do check them out:

Fantastic Voyages
December 26 – February 26

A Trip to the Moon + Other Shorts
Georges Méliès, France, 1902, Digital; approx. 80m
A special chance to see the wondrous, playful movies featured in the recent film Hugo (based on the critically acclaimed book The Invention of Hugo Cabret). Former magician Georges Méliès was the wizard of early cinema with his magical creations of spacemen, fairies, magicians, and mermaids. Silent with recorded music.
All ages.
Dec 31 & Jan 1: 2pm

Explorers
Joe Dante, U.S., 1985, Digital; 109m
In this delightful 1980s caper, three restless boys find a way to journey into outer space using the latest in technology — an Apple //c. Science fiction fan Ben (Ethan Hawke), boy genius Wolfgang (River Phoenix), and bored buddy Darren (Jason Presson) travel in a cool see-through space bubble, make contact, and find out an eternal truth: aliens love television. Featuring kids who talk like kids, and a real sense of play, director Joe Dante (Gremlins, Innerspace) gets what it’s like to be a kid and, just sometimes, go intergalactic. Rated PG.
Rated PG
Jan 1 & 7: 11am

Bedknobs and Broomsticks
Robert Stevenson, U.S., 1971, Digital; 139m
Restored Roadshow Version!
Three English children are evacuated from war-torn London to live in a quite village—with a trainee witch (played by Angela Lansbury). To ensure the children keep her secret, she gives them a magic bedknob that allows them to travel anywhere they wish on a flying bed! Featuring the eye-popping scene on the Isle of Naboombu using a delightful mix of live and animated characters.
Rated G
Dec 31 & Jan 8: 11am

The Incredible Journey
Fletcher Markle, U.S./Canada, 1963, Digital; 80m
How else could you describe a 200-mile journey by three house pets if not as fantastic? Two dogs and a cat get lost on a family vacation and must make their perilous way home. Shot on location in the Canadian wilderness, the story is told by the plucky animals themselves. If you only know the title from the 1993 remake, this is the one to see!
Rated G
Jan 14 & 22: 11am

Jason and the Argonauts
Don Chaffey, U.K., 1963, Digital; 104m
In order to claim his throne, Jason must bring back the Golden Fleece from the distant land of Colchis. Even with the help of Hercules and the protection of the goddess Hera, their foes are daunting: a cyclops, harpies, an army of skeletons, and the seven-headed hydra. This is a great introduction to the special-effects genius of Ray Harryhausen and a truly mythic adventure.
Rated G but can be scary for those under 5
Jan 15 & 21: 11am

Time Bandits
Terry Gilliam, UK, 1981, Digital; 110m
A young boy meets a restless band of little people through a time hole in his closet. He joins them on their escape from their employer (the Supreme Being) after “borrowing” his map of the universe’s time holes to hunt for treasure. They run through different periods of history before encountering the Fortress of Ultimate Darkess where evil lives and must be defeated. Terry Gilliam’s lovingly crafted adventure is a funny, rambunctious delight (featuring, along the way, John Cleese, Sean Connery, and Michael Palin).
Rated PG
Feb 4 & 12: 11am

The 7th Voyage of Sinbad
Nathan Juran, U.S./Spain, 1958, Digital; 88m
In another great Ray Harryhausen adventure, Sinbad and his shipmates first encounter the island of Colossa and the mythic beasts that populate it while sailing home. They are tricked by a magician into stealing the cyclops’ magic lamp and only just manage to escape. Back in Baghdad Sinbad marries his princess but the evil machinations of the wizard force a return trip to the island...
Not rated.
Feb 5 & 11: 11am

Body Troopers aka Chasing the Kidneystone
Jakten på nyresteinen
Vibeke Idsöe, Norway, 1996, Digital; 91m
Eight-year-old Simon shrinks himself down to travel into his grandfather’s body to fight the kidney-stone that is making him sick. With the help of a white blood cell, he meets the Secretions Agent and Bile Duct among others on their way to try to stop the evil Calcium Crystals who are building a stone in Grandpa’s bladder. Note: English subtitles will be read aloud.
12 and under
Feb 19: 2pm
Feb 26: 11am

Manuelita
Manuel García Ferré, Argentina, 1999, Digital; 86m
Based on a famous Argentinian children’s song, Manuelita is a young turtle who gets lost from home in a runaway balloon. On her trip she makes new friends and discovers a talent for hat-making. A simple story with sweet songs, it’s perfect for the youngest viewers (and rarely seen on the big screen!).
Rated G
Feb 19 & 25: 11am

Mary Poppins
Robert Stevenson, U.S., 1964, Digital; 139m
Share the rollicking Disney musical with a new generation, as umbrella-toting super-nanny Julie Andrews reinvents child care with the help of a little magic and a lot of fun. When Mary Poppins appears, the Banks family of London finds an answer to the misbehaviour of young Jane and Michael. As fresh and lively as ever, the film’s tuneful, airborne delights are supported by a charming Dick Van Dyke as a chimneysweep, among others, as well as a beautiful flight into an animated Sunday paradise. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, indeed: this one’s a classic for a reason!
Rated G.
Dec 24 – 30: 10:30am & 2pm daily

(and no the Film Society doesn't pay me to promote their stuff they just send me press releases)

Andrew Bird, subject of Andrew Bird:Fever Year which screened at the New York Film Festival is touring this spring if you want to see what all the shouting is about.

The first animated Tin Tin feature can be found here. Its from 1947. We're going to be running a review of the new one before it opens on the 21st.

The Rubin Museum in New York is running a film that is called Prince of the Himalayas. Its a version of Hamlet in Tibet. I'm planning on going as soon as Bully returns from his super secret mission to find a stolen egg salad sandwich recipe. Details can be found here.

Because we like to plan way ahead, The Museum of Art and Design in New York in screening a series on the Argentos, Dario and Asia in the spring. In formation on that series and their other cinematic offerings can be found here.

Wim Wenders on 3D

Slant Magazine on the best horror films of the last ten years is here

The story behind Arsenic and Old Lace is here.

Lost Snow White Lyrics.Something about being banned in Boston.

Aliens on Ice


In other news the music sidebar that we were hoping to get up and running has been put on the back burner. Its not for lack of interest, its simply that there is way to much going on in our lives to make a go of it. Its still on the boards, but the promised before years end deadline is going to wooosh past.

One of the things that is distracting us, or me is trying to see if I can get this multi-media nightmare up for New Years Eve. It's something I've been delaying since the summer and it's either going to work or crash and burn. I'll know in a week or so if it's going to work.

I'm not ready to move into 2012 just yet but do keep in mind that tickets for the New York Jewish Film Festival, BAM Kids Fest, The New York International Children's Film Festival will be going on sale soon. Also Wim Wenders Pina opens on Christmas.

And while we at Unseen have been kind of quiet on some of the more recent releases reviews of some of the major non-festival films from the fall will be appearing here and there over the next few weeks. Trust me there is a ton of good stuff coming and I should know since I'm having to dance around a schedule that now stretches into the end of May.

Congratulations Ken, a few last words on the NYFF and Comicon plus links and other things.

There is a bunch of business I need to attend to and instead of giving you a series of small posts I’m going to mash them all together in one larger post.

First and foremost everyone here at Unseen Films wants to wish our very own Ken hearty congratulations on getting engaged. I’m sure both he and the lovely Kat will be very happy.

Despite it being a kind of tradition after a film festival to do a wrap up post I find that I’m at a loss for words when it comes to this years New York Film Festival. It was not a bad experience, frankly I had a blast, but at the same time there really isn’t much to sum up after posting reviews for over 40 films.

Actually there are two things I am taking away from the festival:

First as it’s been the last couple of years the truly exciting stuff is not on the main slate but in the side bars where things like The 99 Unbound, The Ballad of Mott the Hoople and Patience (After Sebald) delighted with their unexpected charm and wonder. These were films that should have gone to the main slate and played the big room. I would like to request that whomever is doing the Special Events be given the Main Slate next year.

The second thing that the Film Festival did, was it very clearly showed why 3D needs to be used sparingly. The joys of 3D were revealed in Wim Wenders marvelous Pina. It was a film that clearly showed when and how to use the effect. At the same time the screening of Martin Scorsese’s Hugo clearly showed how the effect can even trip up a master filmmaker when the 3D doesn’t have a real point. Yes it’s a great film, and yes the 3D looks great, but the story is sacrificed for the effect in a couple of places. Worse when the film runs without the 3D its going to look awfully strange at times.

For those keeping track of such things the best worst and surprises of the Festival are as follows:

BEST
The Ballad of Mott the Hoople
My Week With Marilyn
Pina
This is Not a Film (I should mention that director Jafar Panahi has been sent to prison as his sentence has been upheld)
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia
A Colt is My Passport
La Havre
Patience (After Sebald)
The middle section of Dreileben

WORST
Policeman
Miss Bala
Susan Orlean's non-discussion of Rin Tin Tin
Mud and Soldiers
Woman with Red Hair
Corpo Celeste (If you don't read the press notes)

FINDS
The 99 Unbound
444 Last Day of the Earth
We Can't Go Home Again

As with the NYFF so goes with Comicon. I had a blast there but because of things happening in and around it I can’t fully sum up other than to say I’ll be back next year.

Speaking of next year or leading into next year I want to mention that we're trying to see if we can get a special series on music together. We're still working it out but if it goes it should be close to years end.

Lastly here are a few links I've been collecting

Moving stills

William Friedkin on Comic Book movies

Who Killed 3D?

Fiona Shaw's brain while performing

Keaton and gravity

On the documentary Senna

More decaying theaters

John Carpenter's The Thing from the Monster's point of view.

On the notion of film as dare and the inability to see every film ever made

NYFF 2011: George Harrison: Living in the Material World (2011)

As you grow, your musical tastes often change like your palate. The joy of tasting olives or a fresh snap peapod is usually an experience of adult, not childhood. Conversely, I find myself craving Space Food Sticks much less now than when I was ten. Musical changes in taste evolve and mature as well, sometimes even within the same band. A Beatles fan at a young age, ask me who my favorite of the Fab Four was before I turned fourteen and I would probably answer with Ringo: goofy, affable, offbeat; the clear star of the movies that introduced me to the Beatles (A Hard Day’s Night, Help, Yellow Submarine). Ask that same question to me as a record-collecting teen and I’d have said Paul McCartney. The 1970s and early ‘80s were good to Paul with cheerful, infectious pop record after record, and really, what was the problem with silly love songs? In my college years, when I considered myself older and more sophisticated, I gravitated towards the rebellion and anger, but ultimately love, of the songs of John Lennon. His death in a year when I was first on my own drew me closely to his music and philosophy and to endless conversations with like-minded fans on the subject of “Yoko: Threat or Menace.”

And now I’m much older and find myself above all a fan of George. No, not producer George Martin (that may yet come in my dotage) but George Harrison. The “hippie” Beatle, the “quiet” one, the fighter trying to get his songs on an album, the humanitarian who pioneered the modern benefit concert, the quiet country gentleman and film producer. He’s been my favorite for quite some time for quite a lot of reasons: his involvement and support of the Monty Python troupe (without him we’d never had had The Life of Brian, one of the most brilliant religious satires of our time); his co-founding of HandMade Films, the studio that brought us more than a fair percentage of my favorite movies of all time (Time Bandits; Mona Lisa; Withnail and I; Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels), his gentle religious and spiritual philosophy that defines my own more than organized religion, and his music: the unmistakable sound of George’s guitar playing is one of the three guitarists I can identify by listening to an unidentified song. His sublime (and, heck, even his substandard) solo work of the 1970s and ‘80s, the back-to-your-roots collaboration of the Traveling Wilburys, his all-too infrequent film cameos. His collaboration with Belinda Carlisle, of all people. The songs that would threaten to fill up my own Desert Island Discs with an all-Harrison playlist: “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.” “Here Comes the Sun.” “All Things Must Pass.” “Give Me Love.” “Love Comes to Everyone.” Heck, for “Blow Away” all by itself.

I’ve now rambled for two long paragraphs without even mentioning George Harrison: Living in the Material World, the documentary directed by Martin Scorsese. You might guess I’ve seen quite a few documentary films on the Beatles and the individuals of the Fab Four. Hyperbole aside, and allowing me my love of Harrison, this is one of the finest Beatles biofilms I’ve seen. You don’t have to be a Beatles fan to enjoy this (but if you are, you’ll likely love it). It’s often all too simple to throw a bunch of interviews, stock footage and still photographs together and call it a documentary, but those never reach the true state of being a film. Scorsese knows how motion pictures tick: the pacing and timing of Living in the Material World is enthralling and driving as much as if it were a fictional story—there are no “slow bits.” If you’ve seen a group of Beatles documentaries, especially The Beatles Anthology, you’ve seen the same footage pop up again and again: here’s the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. Here’s the Beatles getting off a plane. Here’s the Beatles meeting Queen Elizabeth I. (Yawn.) But Scorsese has found a treasure trove of footage I’ve never seen, a surprise considering the long media exposure of his subject. There’s lots of compelling interviews. Paul and Ringo appear, of course, but also friends and collaborators from his whole life: Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Yoko Ono, Eric Clapton, Tom Petty, Ravi Shankar, Klaus Voorman, Astrid Kirchherr, Phil Spector, Jackie Stewart.

Intimate and personal, Living in the Material World takes us inside the private life of Harrison (and he was an intensely private man). Extensive coverage is given to his philosophical and spiritual evolution during the 1960s-70s, featuring fuller and more incisive interviews and examinations of that period of Harrison’s life than I’ve seen on screen. For a biography of one of the most media-covered men of the latter half of the twentieth century, Living in the Material World is surprising in its wealth of new and underused footage. When this comes out on DVD, this is going to be a must-have for all Beatles fans.

It succeeds, though, on the level of being just a wonderfully entertaining film. It’s a filmmaker of the caliber of Martin Scorsese who can take interviews and footage and spin them into a true film, with story beats, subplots, and recurring characters. We know the story will end with George’s death in 2001…and the tears come to my eyes long before the film reaches that point…but Scorsese spins the inevitable masterfully, so that you can’t help but feel more connected to George Harrison than before. Going in as a Harrison fan I felt it was a great celebration; I can imagine this film will inspire the uninitiated or casual fans to a much greater understanding and appreciation.

In my opinion, the finest thing I can think of to say about a biographic documentary is that it inspires you to celebrate the life you’ve just seen on the screen, to revisit and examine the life and work of the subject, and to find new meaning or joy within. So powerful was Scorsese’s film that I came home from the movie and broke out my George Harrison CDs and listened to them all day, and several songs a day since, reminding myself of the happiness, comfort, humor and humanity within them. As I said above: George is my favorite Beatle. Even if he weren’t already, I’m pretty sure he would be now.

George Harrison: Living in the Material World is airing on HBO in two parts throughout October 2011.

NYFF 2011: Upending (2011)

I've been playing about quite a bit with Icelandic songstress Björk's iPad app Biophilia.





Presenting songs from her album of the same name, Biophilia presents the user (I was about to type "viewer" there, but it's to play with, not simply watch) with a virtual galaxy of constellations and stars. Touch the screen and slide your finger to spin around or zoom into a star system; each super-bright (nova exploding?) star represents a different song containing an experimental interactive touchscreen visualization on microbiology, cosmography, and their mathematical and chemical relations to music.





Watching Upending , a fifty-minute avant-garde film by the OpenEnded Group, reminded me of the Biophilia app. Abstract and highly subjective, Upending presents a series of computer-animated designs that slowly spin, turn, and coalesce into mundane objects of our lives: a chair, rooms, a swing on a tree. More than simply a "what's that going to be?" guessing game, Upending challenges us to perceive the world around us in different ways, from diverse angles. The slow and gradual build and shift from one visual to the other is accompanied by Morton Feldman's String Quartet No. 2, the celebrated experimental work whose deliberate tempo is made up of a slow beat of about one per second. Giving the images a dreamy and hallucinatory accompaniment, the soundtrack also gives us little explicit or concrete to interpret: whatever we make of it, it's all in our own minds. It's a carefully orchestrated art piece and a proper study of it in the context of other works by the OpenEnded group would likely be a strong study or thesis for an art, film, or music graduate student.





As a film, however, Upending seems misplaced and misdirected, certainly among the other movies of the New York Film Festival. Suggesting it fails for me because it "doesn't have a plot" is crass, but a more accurate and significant opinion may be that the form and presentation actually distanced me from the motion picture. Much of the blame for this can be placed on OpenEnded decision to release this in 3D, which requires the usual dark uncomfortable glasses and puts one more barrier between the viewer and an already-challenging film. I'd describe the 3D effects as no more than "pretty," and Upending's attempts to expose the viewer to a new way of perceiving an old familiar world, even in three dimensions, isn't helped by this rave tech du jour that's been too-overused in only a couple years. Can we blame the technology? Well, in some way. 3D has not yet reached the point where a bright screen image is not substantially dimmed by the glasses. The screen image looked murky and underlit to my admittedly nearsighted eyes; several times I took off the glasses to see if there was anything on the screen because nothing was visible through the glasses.

In MoMA or the Tate Modern, I would stand and watch Upending with interest and, if not comprehension, then at least a fuller idea of what it is trying to do. Oversized, in a movie theater, with newfangled sunglasses on, my only reaction was appreciation of the computer technology used to create the film. Perhaps, like Biophilia, it could have used a few more exploding stars.

New York Comicon Day 2 and 3 plus a few words on the closing days of the New York Film Festival

Its been a hectic couple of days.

A family emergency kept me from attending the the New York Comicon yesterday as well as some screenings at the New York Film Festival (more on that below). Mondocurry was there and is planning on filing his own report on the whole affair when he's done with his three days of madness. In the mean time my spies report that it was a quite low key day with little to report.

On the way to the Javitts center I watched a person in a Star Wars costume freak out several people on a walk to raise funds for a cancer charity. The double and triple takes were hysterical and made me wish I had a camera.

Also amusing was a person costumed as Boba Fett sitting on a street corner playing the accordion...Star Wars tunes of course....

Then there was the topless woman dressed as Salvador Dali...

Inside the Javitts Center things were hopping. Because they spread out more things were still crowded but not as bad as in past years.... It was still tough to get around but not like last year where it was so bad that you could be moved around by the weight of the crowd.

The Anime Festival section was okay. I was amused by the lines to the bathrooms since they looked like all of the anime and manga characters got off their pages because they had to pee at the same time. Its really surreal.

The only panel I went to was the one for the up coming Liar's Autobiography, and animated version of the life of Graham Chapman. Its being produced in part by Epix.

The presentation was announced as being bawdy if not not down right filthy. They gave a disclaimer which promised Strong Sexual Content (cheers), Profanity(cheers), nudity (cheers), adult situations (cheers) and racy raunchy and rude material (wild applause)

Hosted by Lloyd Kaufman of Troma Films the panel was a great deal of fun. It began with a cut of Graham being brought out and Kaufman reading a letter from Graham who said he wanted to be there but couldn't since he's been dead for 22 years.

The panel was made up of the three directors Jeff Simpson, Ben Timbell (I may have written that wrong so for give me) and Bill Jones (son of Python Terry), as well as two of the New York Based animation studio that did some of the animation.

Jeff ca,e up with the idea, wanting to do a bio pf Chapman and the others came aboard after. The idea was to do a documentary but there wasn't a great deal of old photos or film that hasn't been seen...however Grahams boyfriend said there were audio tapes, specifically the recording Chapman made of his autobiography. They then used it as the basis of a film where Graham talks to John Cleese about his life.

The film is being done as 3D animation and incorporates 17 styles by 15 animation companies. The idea to was to match the flowing nature of Graham's tale. They only thing they couldn't do was typical Terry Gilliam style since he refused to animate anything for the film (though he does some voices-despite never really vocally acting before.) Styles are CGI, Stop Motion, oil paint on Glass as well as every other type you can think of. They showed stills and it looks great.

The hook of the film is that Chapman was openly gay but a secret drunk. The change came when the Pythons basically told him to dry out or they wouldn't work with them. He did and it changed him.(an aside all the pythons except Eric Idle are involved, however that may change)

They showed two clips, one CGI piece of Chapman as a boy in the backseat of a car while on holiday with his parents, and the other a very rude version of Sit on my Face which goes into Grahams sexual exploits.(Graham said he was 70% gay and 30% straight) If you're offended by the thought of gay sex stay away...


The q&A produced two great moments, first when someone said they wanted to ask Graham a question but decided against it because he was looking rather stiff. Some yelled "too Soon" and the rest of the audience roared.

The other moment was the appearance of a group of Ghostbusters who wanted to know if anyone saw Graham because they were called to deal with a Graham ghost sighting.

The film looks great ad I can't wait to see it. I;m also going to have to get on the Liar's Autobiography Facebook page and see if I can be seen in the video of the audience singing Sit on My Face.

After that I wandered, tried to get into panels, but was rebuffed due to all the seats being full.

On the way out I finally ran into Mondocurry and Mr C who were attending Cartoon Network panels. We then plotted getting together tomorrow.

It was fun. It was a blast...and I get to do it all over again tomorrow.

--------

The family emergency I spoke with has cut short my time at the New York Film Festival. Its nothing serious just more an annoyance than anything- at least in retrospect. This has kept me away from many of the final press screenings, and made me too tired to attended tonight's Buckaroo Bonzai screening.(I may not attend tomorrow's Wim Wenders talk either- but we'll see)

Not to worry coverage is still coming, John has several reviews going up during the first part of the week coming up.(They are great pieces so you'll want to read them). I'm also going to post a final look back piece with in a week or so.

That's it for now. Time for bed for me so I can go back into Manhattan and see more things you might want to hear about.

NYFF 2011: The Ballad of Mott the Hoople (2010)

The screening Tuesday night was a mixed affair, it was a great movie with a great audience with some miscues getting everyone in to the theater.

I'm not going to go into anything that went on before the screening I'm only going to say that I am displeased with whomever scheduled Paradise Lost 3 at 615, with a post film Q&A with The Ballad of Mott the Hoople at 9. My complaint is simply that because of all of the events with Paradise, Mott the Hoople started about 15 minutes late which meant that Stan and I had to fly as soon as the credits rolled to make trains home. Normally this would be fine but the fact that Ian Hunter, lead singer of Hoople was in the house and going to be interviewed, meant that a truly once in a life time opportunity was lost by yours truly.

It was nice that Stan got a wave from Hunter as he went into the theater and it was great that Hunter was cheered when he took his seat. Hunter has touched the lives of many people and it's nice that we could give some appreciation back.

Actually I think the screening of The Ballad of Mott the Hoople was my favorite of any one at the film festival so far. Here was small, but very appreciative audience which was there because it loved the subject. I don't think there was anyone in the house how didn't want to be there. Basically there wasn't anyone who wandered in because this is what they got a ticket for or because it was a main slate selection and must be good or for any reason other than Ian Hunter and the music. It was the first film I saw where no one walked out, where everyone did more than just stare at the screen (they bopped along to the music) and where there was a real sense of being at something truly magical and special.

There was a moment, not surprisingly during the section on All The Young Dudes when I noticed that every person there was into the film. Everyone that I could see was moving to the music. Anyone who's face could see was singing along silently. It was this glorious moment when the festival stopped being a bunch of single people sitting alone among strangers, and it became a community of people sharing a marvelous experience.

The film that created this love is one of the best films at the festival. This is pretty much the story of how Mott the Hoople came together and eventually came apart...until the 2009 reunion.

Its an often funny story full of great music. Its a film that had me laughing, singing along and smiling from ear to ear. Its a nostalgia trip back to the early 1970's when pop and rock and roll were changing and colliding in all sorts of interesting ways.

I should warn you that the film is focused just on the story of Mott the Hoople. You are getting the story of the band and little else, perhaps the story of some fans, but that's all. There is no detailed back story of any of the members, to the point that you will not even learn anything about their families or what happened to any of them after they left the group. This last bit is kind of the film's only real flaw.

I loved the film a great deal. After I have no idea how many films at the festival that seemed to take forever, I can honestly say that this one moved like the wind. I couldn't believe how much they were getting into such little time, only to realize that the film was over. I did check my watch once...moments before the end credits rolled.

This film is a blast, and a real joy to see with a room full of unintroduced friends with a love of the same thing. Sadly there weren't as many as it should have been, and so only the few of us in attendance will ever know how great the film plays on a big screen.

If you get the chance to see this film do so. Yes I know the screening at the festival is done, but it's coming out on DVD in about 4 weeks so you can do it that way...or you can and should hope this gets even a brief theatrical release where the real magic of the movies can be seen in all it's glory.

NYFF 2011: Turin Horse (2011)

" Wooooooooooooooooooo BELA!!!!!!!!!!!" audience members when Bela Tarr stepped on stage.

"Oh Christ no." groan of an audience member when a title saying Fourth Day appeared on the screen.

A highly anticipated film at the New York Film Festival prompted shouts of joy when director Bela Tarr took the stage. It also prompted the above comments and at least 25 walkouts. Simply put it was a love it or hate it film from the master filmmaker Tarr.

Nominally the story of what might have happened to the horse who's beating sent Friedrich Nietzsche into decline,tThe film is actually the story of a driver and his daughter who go through life over six days into a personal apocalypse. I say this because if there wasn't a voice over you'd never know about Nietzsche...and frankly the voice overs aren't needed since they only add details that are pointless.

The film is simply six declining days that more or less repeat, as the pair get up, get dressed, get water, make food, and try to do something with the horse. Into the mix comes a neighbor who talks about the destruction of a town, the arrival of gypsies who take the water and leave a book, an attempt to flee and darkness....

What's it mean?

Beats the snot out of me. I don't have a clue.

Is it any good?

On some level yes it is. There is a beauty and a simplicity to it. To me had the film lost about 45 minutes this would have been a truly great film, but at two and a half hours this film in too damn long...which makes the repetition even from different angles almost intolerable at times.

In talking with people over the last few weeks I've heard the film called one of the best of the year and a complete piece of crap. That last remark coming from both long time fans and enemies of Tarr. I went in epecting to walk out since Tarr's last film, The Man From London was one of the longest 90 minutes of my life. Instead I stayed to the end...though I scooted out at the credits because I had had enough.

The film is your typical black and white long take film from Tarr. The camera moves about and things happen, slowly. The film looks not so much like a Bela Tarr film as the work of a film student aping the style of Tarr. Occasionally its classic Tarr, but often its imitation Tarr.

I don't hate the film but I didn't love it. Its a great looking film, but as I said it's too damn long. Its also terribly artificial with a wind that only seems to blow when and where our two main characters are.

Is it worth seeing?

If you're a Tarr fan. If not I'd try one of his other films like Damnation.

Frankly appreciation for the film will depend on what you bring to it, which I think is why some people are over praising it, they are finding a greatness they are bringing with it.

NYFF 2011: My Week With Marilyn (2011)

The world premiere of this film was the Centerpiece of the New York Film Festival, it's also one of the best films they've screened.

Based upon the memoirs of Colin Clarke about his time working on the film The Prince and the Showgirl with Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. The film charts Clarke's effort to break into film and how that morphs into a brief close friendship with Marilyn Monroe.

The film is a comedy of manners mixed with a touching personal drama. Its a wonderful film that is damn near close to being a truly great film (I reserve the right to fully decide until after I see it a couple more times.) The few flaws in the film are Kenneth Branaugh's ever shifting accent as Olivier and the nagging feeling that this film should have been a bit a longer...

But I'm nitpicking (as is my norm). Trust me, whatever reservations you have will be wiped away in the final two scenes which will have a tear in your eyes.(What can I say I'm a sucker for cleverly used Shakespeare).

Everyone is going to talk about Michelle Williams as Monroe. Yes, she's great. There I said it, and so will everyone else.

What everyone will not be talking about, and they should, is Emma Watson. Watson is going to be genuinely huge as an actress. She is going to become one of the great actresses of her age.

You think I'm nuts, don't you. She has a couple of scenes as a wardrobe girl that Colin Clarke fancies. Its a nothing role...

...it should have been but its not. Watson sells it. Watson doesn't just sell it she makes you wonder why Clarke wouldn't chase her. She walks on stage and you sit up and go "Hello who is this..." and then you realize..."hey that's Emma Watson". She has the screen presence that had me wondering what she would have done as Marilyn since she really holds the screen.

Seriously it's a small role but you remember it and it makes a real impression to the point when Monroe comments on her late in the film that Clarke should date her you know she's right.

I'm over selling things to a certain degree, but she is that good.

I'm sorry I'm not going on about the film in greater detail, but everyone else is going to do that. Its a damn fine film that won't be unseen for long...so it doesn't need my help. Since you're going to see it anyway I might as well point out something you she be seeing in a film you're going to see anyway.

Go see this film when it opens. You'll laugh, you'll smile and you'll be touched.

One of the best at the New York Film Festival.

NYFF 2011: This is not a review of Hugo (2011) a work in progress (with a brief mention of Paradise Lost 3)

Richard Pena asked that the press coming to the work in progress screening of Martin Scorsese's film Hugo not review the film. I don't know if that means I can't tell you that I think the film is quite good.

Actually while I am on some level press, I was there as a person. I paid for a ticket (actually 2) and I went for me. To that end I'm going to say some personal words on the film after making a few comments about the rest of the day so this seems more like a personal journal entry.

What follows is not a real review...it's a journal entry.

After several complications I managed to get into the city, and while I did manage to hook up briefly with Mondocurry and Shigeko, I had to pass the chance to have dinner with them since the people who were going to take the Paradise Lost 3 tickets backed out. I was going to have to try and sell them.

The sale failed since there was no standby line since, I was told the screening didn't sell out. I decided the just go for it and go, briefly to the screening before cutting over to the super secret sneak preview of a work in progress. However when I went to go in I found the lobby over run by PR people who were more intent on letting the press snap pictures rather than letting me cross to get into the theater. I gave up and then walked over to Avery Fisher Hall to wait for the film.

(When I was heading home I spoke with someone who stayed and saw Paradise Lost 3, and they liked it a great deal, though they didn't like the PR stuff that was going on)

While standing around by the fountain I got into a conversation with a couple of people who said the surprise was broken hours before when several celebrities attending the screening tweeted what they were going to see...the new Scorsese film Hugo.

The screening was only going to have seating in the orchestra, the balconies where draped off with black curtains.

Security was tight since there was at least 15 guys with night vision goggles all around the auditorium.

Talking to people the general feeling at the start was disappointment. The adults felt the choice of Hugo was weak since it's a kids film. Many people wanted a grittier film while a few others hated the thought of a 3D film.

As the center section, which was full of families (clearly someone was talking about what the film was otherwise there wouldn't have been kids) and people related to the production, filled we sat around for an extra 15 minutes (NYFF screenings almost never start late). Then the lights went down and Richard Pena came out to talk briefly before introducing Martin Scorsese to a standing ovation.

We were told the effects were incomplete, the color unmatched, some of the 3D was undone and the score incomplete. We were then told to enjoy.

Hugo is the big screen adaption of The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. It concerns Hugo who lives in the walls of a Paris railway station keeping the clocks running and trying to fix a automaton that his father had brought home before he died. Hugo then runs a foul of Georges, a man who runs a toy shop in the station. It seems Hugo has been stealing wind up toys in order to fix the automaton.

From that simple beginning the film spins out into a mystery that encompasses the early days of film.

I'm not going to say too much about the film. It's a quite good and is perfect Scorsese material since it deals with one of his passions, early movies. Its a beautiful film with some stunning set pieces and some real movie magic. (There was happy applause at the end even from the people who didn't want to see it)

The film has some great performances, including an intriguing one by Sacha Baron Cohen as the Railway Inspector who is always on the hunt for orphans like Hugo. While never really menacing (which he should be) he is amusing. Frankly, it's clear that if anyone should ever make a film about the late great Peter Cook, Cohen is the man to play Cook since he seems to be channeling him through the whole film.

I should also like to say that Christopher Lee is wonderful in an important cameo as a bookseller who befriends Hugo.

I like the film and think you'll like it when it's done and in theaters ina few months.

Okay, now, there is something I have to say because the film is being looked at as an indication as to whether the 3D craze is doomed or not... Actually it's a question I have to ask...

...Why is this film in 3D?

Yes it looks better than most. Yes Scorsese uses it to great effect in a couple of shots, but did this film NEED to be in 3D?

I'm not so sure. Actually, I'm not so sure that some of this will work in 2D because there are some shots which have been clearly constructed to look great in 3D but which will look off in 2D (shades of Christopher Lee's I, Monster, which was shot in 3D and looks really odd flat.)

Is this going to be proof that 3D has a viable life beyond certain films? I don't think so. The film is still dark thanks to the glasses and while in a masters hands like Scorsese there isn't the head aches and eye strain (he knew how to shoot the film to avoid that) the story and plot aren't really enhanced by the process.

I'm sorry for my money there have only been 2 films that really work in 3D Caves of Forgotten Dreams and Pina. Both films work in 3D and in 2D with 3D genuinely adding to the experience. Hugo doesn't need it, the story fine without it and it's not improved by it (though I will say the chance to see Melies films in 3D is way cool.)

That's not a review of the film but of the process.

If you want a review of the film you'll have to wait until it comes out so I can say this is very good little film, that will move you and bring a happy tear or two to your eye.

Okay bed time.

NYFF 2011: Marilyn, Bela and whats coming up- Unseen Films Centerpiece post.

The New York Film Festival is half over chronologically. The Festival began on September 30th and ends next Sunday. As you've seen we've been chugging along with reviews from even before it started. By my estimate we've seen 40 films and posted reviews for most, with more to come all through the next week.

How is it been? A tough slog. There has been a great deal of motion to and from the screenings, our day jobs,illness and some family obligations to deal with. The movies have been as you've seen.

I feel like Captain Willard in Apocalypse Now, looking for a mission at the start but hoping never to get another one by the end...it's purely the exhaustion talking, because once you get past the tiredness it's been a blast, even when the movies have been less than spectacular.

There is more coming and as this final week starts and our schedule heats up I want to say a few things about whats coming.

First off early yesterday I went to the press screening of My Week With Marilyn, the story of what happened when Marilyn Monroe went to England to make the Princess and the Show Girl. I am going to write this up for Tuesday, but for right now you need to know that this is one of the best films of the Festival. It has a stellar performance by Michelle Williams as Monroe and a small, but brilliant turn by Emma Watson, who looks like she'll be the one to go super nova out of all the Harry Potter stars. I'll explain when I do the full review. Right now just put this on your must see list.

Wednesday I'll be writing up Bela Tarr's Turin Horse. Its another love it or loath it film from Tarr that had some screaming with joy while others were heading for the exits. I liked it on some level, but I don't love it. Check back really late on Wednesday to see what I have to say.

Tomorrow night I'll be reporting on the special Work In Progress sneak preview that everyone is talking about at the festival. They haven't said what it is though the speculation has been rampant (Girl with a Dragon Tattoo? Tin Tin? War Horse? Hugo? J Edgar?). The answer will be revealed tomorrow.

Also tomorrow we may have a report on Paradise Lost 3. I'm trying to find someone to cover this since I'm planning on going to the counter programmed preview.

After that we've got a few more press screening, plus Mott The Hoople, Abel Ferrara, Wim Wenders and Buckaroo Bonzai with the cast and Kevin Smith in the house. Reviews will posted as they happen...(and subject to conflicts like Comicon)

We're tired but we're soldiering on... Keep reading...and if possible go to a few things, This is Not a Film, My Week With Marilyn , Pina and some other great films are still to screen...

NYFF 2011: Pina: Dance Dance Otherwise We Are Lost(2011)

Wim Wender's tribute to choreographer Pina Bausch is one of the best uses of 3D I've run across. This is what people should be doing with 3D, namely using it to enhance a film with a glorious sense of place and space. But don't kid yourself, the film also works 2D, thanks to the marvelous dancing and mindblowingly wonderful soundtrack.

Okay, now that I've started in the middle let me start over.

Pina is a film that is made up of dance sequences from various pieces that were put together by Pina Bausch and her troop. The dances have been staged in the groups theater or in many of the most breathtaking cases in the real world (The tram bits are amazing in 3D). Interspersed with the dancing are brief statements by the dancers and friends of Pina.

For me the film started off as nothing special as we see some longish dance sequences. Then the film shifted from the theater into the real world, and director Wenders began to use film tricks for some stunning effects and suddenly this became a real joy to watch. Things got even better as the sequences became shorter and the world began to collide the stage.

You will forgive me for not being able to adequately describe this film, but I am not a dance fan. You could not get me to see any of these dances in a theater, so my vocabulary for describing what I saw is even more limited than normal. the best I can hope for is to describe the wonder and magic that is in this film.

I think the best way to express it might me to say "way cool".

I really liked what I was seeing and I was carried along by it all.

Keep in mind this is not a documentary. I know some places list it as such, and while to a small degree it kind of is, its really simply a dance film. If you are not a dance fan you may not like it, but if you're open to dance and want to see truly wonderful 3D see this film.

This film gets a US release December 23rd from IFC Films.

NYFF 2011: Shame (2011) (An On Futher Review style review- with spoilers)

Steve McQueen's follow up to Hunger once again has him working with Michael Fassbender. Fassbender and the film are on the short list for Oscars come the end of the year. While I like the film, I can't quite give the film that much love.

The plot of the film follows Michael Fassbender's sex addict as he goes through life keeping everyone and everything at a distance. He's so disconnected that he won't even talk to his sister who calls him everyday and leaves long messages. Unfortunately for Fassbender he comes home one day to find his sister in his bathtub. She's got a singing gig in New York and she's planning on staying with him. It's a move that upsets his ordered life and sends him scurrying in all sorts of directions, including into a possible relationship with a woman from his office.

My first question is why is it that many critics rave about any reasonable performance by an actor when he does full frontal nudity? Apparently this is a big to do. To me the fact that Fassbender wanders through several scenes naked is nothing special, its simply how he would be in those scenes. I'm shocked that no one has talked about the fact that he urinates in an early scene, which is even rarer on screen.

I'm sorry, but Fassbender's performance isn't anything special. The big daring move here is the nudity, but outside of that, Fassbender doesn't really do much. Yes, there are some emotional moments but mostly he plays it silent. Fassbender says little and lets the audience read into what he is doing anyway that they want (at the press conference after the film director Steve McQueen said that he designed bits of the film that way). I suppose that's a good thing, but to me, I'd like to have the director and the actor give me a little bit more than a mirror, I mean a few more personal details would have been nice. To me other than some turmoil in a few scenes I don't think there was very much going on behind his eyes. He's a cypher to start and that's how he ends, even with some late in the game emotions.

Cary Mulligan as his sister is more interesting in her few scenes. There is clearly something more going on there, but again, so much isn't spoken. I would love to see a film about her character. ( I need to point out that Mulligan delivers one of the best, and most heart rending versions of New York, New York you'll ever hear. It's brilliant)

I don't think the film really works. I know people like Fassbender's character and in some ways I can relate to his obsessions (you've seen this blog so you know I'm obsessive) but there is something about him that doesn't quite ring true. It's not so much that what he does is wrong, it's that the weird swings he takes just don't seem real in the way they play out. They seem more constructed rather than natural, he will do this now and then that... Actually, yes what doesn't seem real is the construction of the film, which has the various characters rambling around for the first two thirds before Fassbender drops into hell in the final third, taking his sister with him.

I need to ask, am I the only one bothered by the film's equating gay sex and threesomes with a descent into depravity? I have nothing wrong with either, but the fact that McQueen uses them as a shorthand for Fassbender going off the rails is just wrong and borederline offensive. Actually the whole sequence from the hooker, to bar to gay club to threesome felt gratuitous and off base and like I was being cheated or treated like a child...or more like McQueen decided to come clean and say "you've sat for an hour of no sex so here's everything we promised you in one shot".

I won't go into the life changing sequences that follows Fassbender's binge when he heads home... all I'll say is that I can't believe that McQueen actually did it since it smells of the tendency to have great art go tragic just to bring about catharsis or bring about the desired end of the story (never mind if it's out of place and made me think of former Saturday Night Live and National LAmpoon writer Michael O'Donoghue's piece The Way to Write Good which says effectively the way to be taken seriously is bring in tragedy at the end).

Because I've been bad mouthing the film I need to say that this isn't a bad film. It really isn't. It's just not what all the many reviews I've read have made it out to be. Its good, but no religious experience. Personally, I think it's simply the sort of film that has a "daring" subject which has gotten under the skin of some critics and audiences who are used to more sedate subjects.

If the subject intrigues you give it a shot, just don't feel the need to go running out to see it.

NYFF 2011: This is Not a Film (2011)

The camera's must keep recording

Highly touted and much heralded "important" film for the festival actually lives up to the hype. This is simply put one of the best films at the Festival so far. It's getting one screening on October 13th and you owe it to yourself to go see it.

The film is a day in the house arrested life of Jafar Panahi. He's waiting to hear what happens with his appeal of his sentence for making a film the Iranian government didn't like. He's been sentenced to 6 years in prison and is to be banned from making a film, writing a screenplay or leaving the country for 20 years. Needing to pass the time he calls up his friend and documentary filmmaker Mojtaba Mirtahmasb to come over and go over somethings with him. What transpires is a look back on his films, a semi performance of the film he was making, and a look at his life and the life in Tehran.

I loved it.

I didn't think I would. The film starts with a groan inducing filmmaker films his own breakfast/phone calls. Its been done to death and I had fears that this was going to be something along the lines of Tahrir's home video approach.

I shouldn't have worried because very quickly the film shifts gears and it hooks you in the time it takes from the film to simply cut from one shot to another. In literally the split second I went from not wanting to see any more to willingly wanting to follow it anywhere. Talk about the magic of the movies.

This wonderful film is not only a day in the life, but also examines life in Iran (and what it takes to get by there), the need to create, the need to record, and just the human condition. Yes it's a trip through the life of the director, but as things happen and as we reflect on them we begin to realize that some how there are other issues at play.

When it was done I wanted to see it again.

I can't recommend this film enough.

I have no idea if the film has secured a regular US release but I hope it has, partly because it may help keep Jafar Panahi out of prison but also because it's a damn good film and I want to spend more time with the people inside it.

(And you have to see his pet lizard....)

NYFF 2011: Not a review of Policeman (2011)

This is not a review. I refuse to review this film. It's the first film that I've seen at a film festival since I started this blog that I simply don't want to review or acknowledge exists.

I know you're saying if the movie isn't something you like, why even mention it?

I mention it because my personal mandate is that if I see a film at a film festival, especially at a press screening I mention it.

This one I probably shouldn't.

In fairness I need to mention that I walked out of the film about 45 minutes in. Nothing much was happening and I figured my life has only so much time and I could better spend it not watching an anti-terrorist cop wander about massaging his pregnant wife's legs and dealing with a sick friend who he wants to take the fall for a raid that went partly wrong.

I'm not sure what happens in the second half, but I didn't much care. The festival write up for the film said something about it being a nail biting political thriller about the anti-terrorist squad and a group of wealthy anarchists. When I left we had the anti-terrorists but no anarchists.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't be bothering to write this up but as much as I have not liked some films at the New York Film Festival (say Miss Bala or Tahrir) those films at least had something about them that made me watch them. They had something to engage me to make me angry or annoyed or something, Policeman has nothing. Its dull people doing dull things, filmed in a manner that is the dullest I've run across in years (The open bicycle ride goes in and out of focus).

Perhaps it gets better, perhaps there is something there...and had I been engaged I might have stayed, but having seen Shame and Pina earlier in the day, and police films like Unjust earlier in the year, you need to show me something that makes me sit up and take notice. There is nothing in the film that made me sit up and take notice.

Anyway...the point is this isn't a review and I never made it to the end.

NYFF 2011: 4:44 Last Day on Earth (2011)

I attended the first public screening of Abel Ferrara's 4:44 Last Day on Earth with Mondocurry. It was a very special evening. Not only was the director there, but also stars Willem Dafoe, and Shanyn Leigh. This is a completely atypical film from Ferrara who is best know for his gritty and often violent films like King of New York and Bad Lieutenant.

The plot of the film has the end of life rapidly approaching. Our abuse of the enviorment has depleted the ozone layer and it's believed that at 4:44 (give or take a few seconds) the world will end as far as life is concerned. In their apartment on Essex Street and Delancy in Manhattan a couple tries to come to terms with the approaching end of everything.

I had been warned at several press screenings that Abel Ferrara had made a mess of a film. It was self indulgent and rambled on and on to no point. I was told that I was going to be bored to tears.

What film did the critics who spoke ill of the film see?

Okay yes the sex scenes get monotonous, but outside of that this is an intriguing film that upsets everything you know or expect from an end of the world tale.

First off in typical New York fashion, life goes on. There is traffic and food delivery.(The food delivery results in an extremely moving scene when the delivery man asks to use Dafoe's Skype hook up to say good by to his family on the far side of the world.)

Secondly there is no crazed behavior. The world seems to have accepted the end and waits for it to come. as Ferrara said after the film what would be the point of going crazy? He added that there would be no point in looting since you'd never be able to use the TV you stole.

The film is a wonderful mediation on religious thought. As the world ends Leigh is constantly watching Buddhist lectures. We see symbols from various churches. The film is very Zen, a point pointed out by the director who said the film is ultimately about how we might react if we saw the world as having no tomorrow. In the films case there is literally no tomorrow, however in our lives, there is a choice. Those choices will effect how we interact with the people around us.

Did I mention that the film is also a love story?

One of the things about the film that I loved was that it doesn't do anything you think it should. As I've said the film takes every end of the world cliche and tosses it out the window. For the most part this is a film about real people and not the movies' idea of what people are.

...though I will be the first to admit that in a couple of places the dialog can get a little too philosophical..on the other hand I can't imagine not trying to come to grasp with the end with out looking to philosophy.

I'm not going to lie and say this film is for everyone, it's not. After all I was told by several people at the press screening that the film wasn't really good. I on the other hand really liked it, especially the more I think about it.

Will you like it? Well, if you want action and sex and violence look elsewhere. As I said, this is not your typical Abel Ferrara film. If you don't like thoughtful meditations you should also look elsewhere. The same goes for anyone who wants to see the same old same old. If on the other hand you want to see a unique vision about the end of the world that is also about other things, then see this film.

Frankly, this is the sort of treasure that I think of when I think of what a film festival should be.

If you want a challenging little confection see this film.

(If what I heard was right this film is due for release on Valentines Day from IFC Films.)

Here's Willem Dafoe, Shanyn Leigh and Abel Ferrara at the post screening discussion (A huge thank you to Mondocurry for the photo)

The 99 Unbound (2010) — NYFF 2011

This feature film is the first four episodes of a TV show which is based on a comic book. The story has the possessors of the magic noor stones coming together to fight evil. There are 99 stones each of which give the owner some sort of power. The first episodes show how the groups first five members are brought together...and things are set in motion for the remaining episodes of the TV series (22 more for season one and however many that are in the now in production second season.)

As a superhero TV show this is a very well written show with real characters and no sign of the typical American cartoon stupidness. If writing and characters are enough this should run for a very long time. The problem is that the animation is very uneven computer animation that just seems really cheap at times. Its the sort of thing that Cartoon Brew and others rake of the coals as being poorly done. I'm not a fan and if I was just looking at the show on TV and not in a theater I would have just turned it off...which would have been my loss because the story gets better as it goes on.

This is a really good series and when it finally shows up on the Hub it's worth seeing.

Actually I should have said if the show shows up on the Hub since despite buying the series a year and a half ago they refuse to show it.

Why?

Because the 99 is based on the 99 attributes of Allah, which pisses off the right wing pundits in the media. Since the series, and the comic it's based on, are based on some Islamic ideas they say they are jihadist.

Of course it's not true. The comic and the TV series were started to counteract extremist ideas. The 99 is so anti-extremist that some Islamic fundamentalists are against it.

As the 99's creator Naif A Al-Mutawa said "My Characters are being judged my the color of my skin" and it's true. If I didn't tell you that the 99 was based on Islam you'd never know since there is no mention of it, and barely any mention of even nationality. It's simply good people fighting bad people for the betterment of mankind. Its all of your typical American superheros reconfigured and they can and do fit nicely with people like Batman.

Its sad that a few small minds are keeping us from seeing what is a great little TV show.

Do yourself and your kids a favor write the people at the Hub network and tell them you want to see this show. This is a really good show that will teach them to be better people all the while entertaining you and them.

NYFF 2011: A Dangerous Method (2011) (or Keira Knightley's Chin)

This film began life as a screenplay called Sabine by Christopher Hampton about Sabine Spielrein, a patient of Carl Jung's, and one of the factors that caused a rift between Jung and Sigmund Freud. The film collapsed and Hampton turned it into a play called The Talking Cure, which David Cronenberg read and liked and decided to turn into a film (adding material from a book called A Dangerous Method).

The film A Dangerous Method is one of the big films of the New York Film Festival taking a featured spot as Gala Presentation. It is also on many people's short list for a slew of Oscars come years end.

Let me cut to the chase, this is a good, but overly praised film. Its an almost (intentionally)comedic film from David Cronenberg that suffers because it isn't as meaty as most of his other films are. There is also a good chance that if enough people don't find Keira Knightley's performance as silly as I did then she may get an Oscar (for best performance by a chin).

The plot of the film has Knightley's Sebine being brought into the hospital where Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) is a doctor. He begins to use Freud's talking cure on Sabine to great effect. Eventually (about 50 minutes into the film) Jung and Freud meet and become great friends. Then things begin to sour as Jung heads into other directions and patient sent to him by Freud, nudges him into a relationship with Sabine.

It's an interesting story that never really gets all that detailed. I kept wanting to know more, but it never really told me enough that I felt like I had the whole story. To me it was a highlight reel spiced up by a couple of kinky sex scenes. (We do know that Jung did sleep with Sabine, we just don't know if spanking was involved).

Forgive the disappointment, it comes from the lack of meat. After listening to David Cronenberg Saturday at the New Yorker Festival and again after the screening I really would have liked more of the details of the relationship that he kept talking about being contained in the letters of all the principles. Again and again he spoke of how they recorded everything but we don't get it, we just get the highlights, especially with Freud, who is reduced to simply saying clever statements that just move the plot along. If he wasn't a real person I could argue he's simply a deus ex machina.

If you want a perfect example as to the lack of details consider a meeting around the time of the final break where Freud collapses. A meeting is adjourned Jung and Frued spar verbally and then Freud collapses as he is leaving. Why or what brought it on is never mentioned, it's simply used to give Freud a chance for a witty line to Jung. I'm sure the scene has great power if you know the story, but in the film, where its uncconnected to so much, the sequence just sort lies there. Clearly Cronenberg and Hampton and the rest of the cast and crew know way more than they ever impart on the audience.(This seems to be a common thread running through too many films at this years NYFF)

Its not bad, it never bad. Actually it's quite good...it's just not the great film that many people have said it is.

Lack of meatiness aside the films biggest problem is Keira Knightley. If her performance hits you wrong, you will be, like me chuckling through much of the film. Its a performance that is calculated to be showy and win an Oscar.

Its a performance that was worked out between the actress and director in an effort to show the effects of hysteria for what it is. Cronenberg said that what Knightley does is mild compared to what the records in photos and on film show of the disorder. Sabine was sent to see Jung because he was suppose to be able to help her with her hysteria but we don't see any anyone else so we are seeing Sabine in a vacuum with the result that her thrusting jaw seems laughable. I really mean that, devoid of anything we can compare it to, we see no other patient with the maladay,it comes off as a great deal of jaw motion and body twisting that just seems like show offy behavior from a well know actress. Actually we see no other patients for much of the film, we only see one of Jung's patients late in the game and she is sedate.

Cronenberg said that he wanted Knightley to behave like this because she was going to have to say dirty things and that the battle to say the words and repress them was going to make her thrust and move her jaw. I can buy the reason but did anyone actually look at it and her performance which in the early part of the film makes her look like Terry Gilliam in one of his maddest moments during a Monty Python sketch.(I have yet to see any of it in any clips because does look silly)

I probably shouldn't say that once she is cured we are left with a Russian accent that seems overly silly...but it's there and it's never real.

I'm not going to blame Knightley for any of it since it was clear that it's all Cronenberg's doing.

Again I need to say this is not a bad film, but it's not a great one either. Its a pleasant time killer that will be worth seeing when it comes out in a couple of weeks, I can't see running off to the Gala at the Film Festival.

I'm disappointed.

Partly because the earlier reviews promised so much, but also because I kind of expected something... more... from director Cronenberg. I've been a fan for decades and always left one of his films feeling like I had a big sit down meal. This time it's more like having a donut on the fly.

(I know I promised a greater discussion of what Cronenberg said at the New Yorker Festival, but the shape of the review hasn't allowed for it. Maybe I'll whip something up once the festival is over)

NYFF 2011: Miss Bala (2011)

Let me not beat around the bush, I think this is one of the stupidest films of the year. It's a film that makes no logical sense from the get go and makes less it goes on.

This is being picked as a shoe in for at the very least on Oscar nomination.

Really?

Are these people seeing the same film as me?

Apparently.

(The next three paragraphs are all spoilers)

The plot of the film concerns Laura, a beauty contest wanna be. She and her friend manage to get themselves into a beauty contest. Before they can go buy a dress the friend's boyfriend shows up and she goes off to party with him. Laura tracks them down at a club and tries to talk her friend into leaving. While in the bathroom a bunch of drug dealers come in and kill a good many of the people in the place. Laura escapes in part because the head bad guy takes a shine to her and tells her to just leave.

The next day Laura tries to find her friend but can't do so. Distraught she turns to a traffic cop who turns her over to the drug dealers. The drug dealer takes a bigger liking to her and asks her to drive a car and leave it where he tels her. She does so...

As the film goes on we get some bizarre turns of fate as Laura's house is taken over, she's used as a mule for money, gets involved in a fire fight, and wins a beauty contest (the last three on a single day), raped, used as bait for a traitor, gets involved in another fire fight, is set up, arrested, paraded in front of the media and then dumped on a street handcuffed.

(End the major spoilers)

I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I wanted to leave, but I found that every time I started to get up some whacked out twist happens and I stayed because I couldn't believe what I was seeing.

None of this makes sense.

First off how stupid is Laura to begin with? Is she that out of touch at the start Apparently. In a city where the cops are better armed than many armies and the sky is filled with the smoke of their clashes she seems to be rather oblivious to what's going on. Worse she continually does stupider and stupider things...like going back to the drug dealer when she was free.

And there are other things that don't make sense, for example the drug dealers continuously drag Laura along. In the middle of a fire fight they go to great length to drag her along. Why? To protect themselves? She knows nothing? Simply because if they don't the film stops.

Laura signs up for a beauty contest and wins it two days later...two days despite needing to learn dance steps...and never mind how she just steps into the event...huh?

And if someone can explain the bedroom shoot out let me know since I have to no idea what happens...it makes no sense. (actually none of this does)

I know some one is going to say that the film is just a metaphor, and I say nertz to you. Even a metaphor has to make sense on some level, here it doesn't. (as for it being based on a real story, maybe but they drained the reality from it)

What is it suppose to be, everyone is corrupt?

Bah.

The good characters are simply too stupid. The bad guys aren't that much better. I don't blame the actors who are good, I blame the writer and director who came up with this mess.

The only thing I can say is that the bridge shoot out is great, but everything else is just jaw droppingly stupid.

I know some of you may say I'm missing something, or that I don't get it. But trust me I do, I really do. I just can't forgive the film its numerous omissions and stupid turns (and they are stupid, watch the film and see what happens and you tell me its not dumb). This is one of the stupidest films of the year.

Stupid? Does that mean it's bad? Yes, because it's so illogical that anything that might be good is wrecked by the stupidity.

Avoid this one...and let's hope this doesn't get noticed by Oscar.

NYFF 2011: Susan Orlean, Rin Tin Tin, a big thank you and other tales

a
This is not going to be a straight review. As we wind down our last week of dedicated New York Film Festival (we shift gears Saturday with the first of the two live action Tin Tin films plus a review of End of Animal, the next film at the Korean Cultural Service next Tuesday night) I'm going for something a little different.

First and foremost I should take this time out and thank the staff and particularly the volunteers of the New York Film Festival. I may be mixed about the films at this years festival but everyone from the festival has been great. They have made the experience in both the public and press screenings a true joy. Why anyone would give them a hard time beyond me, and when it's happened (I've seen some really bad behavior) they have dealt with it with grace and smiles.(I'll relate an example in a bit)

Today was a long day, starting with press screenings for two films I'll have reviewed in the next couple of days This is Not a Film , which is one of the best films I've seen, and A Dangerous Method which is good but being over praised.

After that I went off to lunch and for a long walk before heading back to Lincoln Center.

Standing on line to get into the Susan Orlean talk I had to deal with some rude behavior from one lady who refused to get into the line. She wanted to know what the line was for, so I told her...over and over again...she then insisted she didn't have to wait because she had a ticket. I said so did I, and then she said, no she had a ticket and showed it to me, so I and several other people showed her ours. Undeterred she headed in until she was gently steered to the back of the line by a volunteer. (Inside this person tried to take other people's seats because she wanted an aisle one...that lasted until she was yelled at by another patron)

The thing I bought a ticket for was Susan Orlean:A Lecture on Rin Tin Tin plus a screening of 1925's A Clash of Wolves. What I got that had almost nothing to do with Rin Tin Tin, and a great deal to do with Ms Orlean. (Ms Orlean is the author of a recent book on Rin Tin Tin that has just hit the bestseller list.)

We first got a video that told briefly of Ms Orleans' interest in Rin Tin Tin and a very very cursory bio of the dog.

Then we got some thank yous and Ms Orlean introducing one of the dogs from the NYPD canine unit (who has no connection to Rin Tin Tin other than being of the same breed)

Ms Orlean then read a couple of passages from the book, about her travel to find Rinty's birth place, a passage about her going to find his grave and a passage about how Rin Tin Tin will last forever. There was only fleeting references to the bio of the dog. And when it was over I learned almost nothing about Rin Tin Tin, but a great deal about Ms Orlean and her travels. (I've read a couple of reviews for the book which indicated that her book was the same way)

It was, simply put, the biggest waste of time I've ever had at the New York Film Festival (and possibly at a Lincoln Center event of any sort). It was hands down the most inane talk I've seen. While I think that the idea of a talk on Rin Tin Tin in connection with the film festival is a great one, I think someone should have checked her notes and kept her on point. I paid to hear a talk on Rin Tin Tin and not on Ms Orlean's travels.

After almost an hour she said that they were going to start the film and that she would come back with a Q&A and a book signing.

Clash of the Wolves is a once thought lost film that was found in South Africa in the 1970's and restored a couple of years ago by the Library of Congress. It's the story of Lobo (Rin Tin Tin) a half wolf half dog who along with his pack is forced into the desert from the forest by a forest fire. The wolves begin hunting cattle, however Lobo becomes domesticated to a certain degree when he is helped by a tender foot looking for borax. Add into the mix a romance, a dopey ranch hand and a claim jumping chemist and you have the making of a good, but not particularly great comedy western.

For me it was nice to see a Rin Tin Tin film on the big screen. Is it the best I've seen? No, but it still was a great deal of fun. If you get the chance to see it do give it a shot.

When the film ended Ms Orlean reappeared and started a brief Q&A. I on the other hand disappeared, I had no more patience for her self-centered nonsense.

For me it was a day of good films ruined by some idle chatter.

Sorry Ms Orlean I wanted to hear about the dog, not you.