The Restless (2006)

Korean martial arts fantasy about a vagabond demon killer, who is actually a wanted royal demon killer, who is drugged by a village and flees before he can get caught and turned over to soldiers for the reward. Falling asleep in what appears to be a temple he crosses over to Mid-Heaven where he arrives just in time to help a higher soul on a special mission who is under attack. The higher soul looks exactly like his lost love, but she doesn't remember anything. The villains are his old friends in the royal demon slayers, now dead and seeking to cross back over into the world of humans.

Trust me its way better then that.

Grand romantic martial arts film is a visual treat. Better yet its really romantic as the notion of "I will remember you forever" is put to the test. And it raises the question of are we our memories, or are they simply the source of all our pain...and joy? There are times when this film just soars with emotion and ideas. Will you love some one forever for real? The film looks great. The world of Mid-Heaven is lush and magically alive. The action sequences, which do rely on CGI and wire work are impressive no matter how you slice them. I particularly liked the battle on the ropes holding up the lanterns which shouldn't work for any number of reasons but manages to actually be something special. Only the final battle to the bad guy a bit too CGI with the vast armies clearly make believe.

I really liked this film a great deal. I don't know if its one of the best (some of the plotting is unclear or takes an odd turn) but for the most part its a solid two hours enjoyment and entertainment.

8 out of 10.

Eddie Adams: Saigon '68 (2012) DOCNYC 2012

Photographs do lie - Eddie Adams

My final night at the DOC NYC Film Festival was less film and more discussion. It was also one of the best and most thought provoking nights at the cinema all year.

The evening consisted of a short film called Saigon '68 which looks into the the iconic photograph, see above, that was taken during the Tet Offensive. The film, which had only been finished a day or two before, was made as a kind of trailer or show reel for a longer film on Adams, talks about Adams and then gives the back story concerning the photograph.

The photo, which galvanized many people shows General Loan shooting a prisoner, Nguyễn Văn Lém, on a street in Saigon. Without the back story, and even with it, it is a brutal act showing one man ending another's life. One would think that the dead man was innocent, the truth is another matter. The dead man was a known assassin who was caught in the act of disposing of 30 of his victims. He had earlier killed the family of one of the Generals very good friends. He was operating in a combat zone, in civilian clothes which made him immune to the rules of war. It was even by US standards okay to execute him. Ultimately the dead man was a bad man, as one person on the panel said, he was comparable to Osama bin Laden.

That's the simple version of the story, the full story of all of the parties is even more complex. And its a complexity that was given full reign in the film.

The heart of the evening was an hour plus long discussion of the film, the photograph and history.

The discussion began right at the top when Thom Powers had all of the panelists Hal Buell, former AP photographer and editor; Walter Anderson, former Parade magazine editor; Richard Pyle, former AP photographer; Bill Epperidge, former Life photographer; James S Robbins, author "This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive"; and the director Douglas Sloan, come to the stage to discuss photographer Eddie Adams. Each man talked a bit about their own background and their relationship with Adams, whom they all knew except Robbins, who was well versed on him having written an account of the Tet Offensive where Eddie figured prominently.

After the intros the film was shown before the guys were brought back on stage.

The discussion was incredible. I had thought that the film was going to be the listed 75 minutes so I didn’t bring my camera, figuring that the 10 or 15 minute discussion would be recorded and placed on the Internet. Sadly there was no recording so all that is left to record this monumental gathering of minds is my spotty notes and any memories of any one who was there. I’m going to try and relate what happened but you’ll forgive me when I don’t attribute who said what since I didn’t take complete notes (I was too busy listening and learning). Also keep in mind the order will also not be exactly as it happened rather as I remember it, or in the order I remembered it.

I believe the discussion began with one of the men relating how the first time he met Eddie was when the Beatles came to New York. He was assigned to try and get shots that no one else would and found Eddie in the same place. (In his diary Eddie commented that he considered letting the air out of the Beatles tires so that the fans would have time to break down the barrier and get to them) He then didn’t see Eddie for another year or so when he wandered into a brothel in Viet Nam and met Eddie there. The brothel had been bought out by the Air Force to be used as a press center.

The discussion shifted to how photos have more power than video. With photos the image is frozen in time and you can look at all of the details. With film the images, in the words of one panelist, go in one eye and out the other. To everyone on the panel photos are more powerful.

Will photos have a place without newspapers and magazines? Yes, they said, it will move to the Internet. They felt that there will always be a place for photos, however with the proliferation of everyone’s photos the truly great photos may get lost in the visual noise. (There was also the feeling that the mass population of photographers are no replacement for the trained photojournalist)

Most of the discussion centered on the context of the photo. Director Douglas Sloan asked everyone knowing the story behind the photo does that change how we see the picture. I think it did for most people.

He then asked knowing the background of the people involved, had we been the one with the option to shoot would we have executed the prisoner? I and just under half of the audience said we would. I think this kind of shocked some people, but context is everything and it’s one thing to be safe in a theater in NYC and another to be in a city and country under siege. As one of the panel said the execution is kind of like what happened to Osama bin Laden, and most people seem okay with that.

There was much discussion of Eddie’s feeling toward the picture. Eddie respected the General and kind of regretted taking the picture because it caused him so much trouble (Loan was hounded and branded a war criminal by some even though technically what he did was NOT a war crime). While Eddie didn’t condone what he did he did understand why he did it. Besides Eddie didn’t have any politics, he was there only to take pictures. (Everyone was pretty sure that had he known the impact of the photo in advance Eddie still would have taken it.) Eddie really didn’t want to talk about the photo and would not use it in a collection of his photos. (In the film actor Danny Burstein does quote Eddie talking about the shot)

There was a discussion of the cut throat nature of the photo game and how everyone fought to get the good stuff. Where movies were concerned there was a delay in it getting out since any film had to be flown to Tokyo for processing. The need for speed was such that NBC used a Grand Prix motorcycle rider to get the films to and from the lab.

The decision to use photos was discussed. Every photo used was always debated, even one such as this. Everyone knew it would go out, but it was still debated as a matter of formality. They said that once the photo went into the AP offices in New York the photo was looked at and then sent down the wire within an hour or so. Because of the lag time the explanation of the photo only followed a day later (the movie footage was released several days later and was heavily censored by TV networks)

As time was running out the floor was opened for discussion with the audience. It was an interesting event that resulted in a couple impassioned statements/questions.

One man railed about how it was not okay to execute anyone under any circumstances. He said that Americans should not behave like that. It was pointed out that this was not something that American troops did only something Americans witnessed. (You’ll forgive me I don’t fully remember everything he said). There was a discussion of the US policy that American troops are not to execute prisoners unless there is an absolutely good reason. An account of US troops killing Korean prisoners was related saying that the troops were evacuating and that had they let the prisoners go or left them they would have frozen to death before they could get anywhere.

Later another man, and forgive me for editorializing, who has spent way too long in academia and dealing with the intelligentsia in an ivory tower, asked two questions. The first asked in a condescending manner wondered if we really knew the man executed was bad guy and how? James Robbins, the author of the book on Tet, looked more than a little annoyed with the question and the tone since it was clearly something a person who was not paying attention would ask. He replied off handedly that we knew he as bad because he was caught with 30 bodies, we could track his deeds through pay and other records, past run ins with the man and because his widow said so.

The second question, equally disconnected to reality, he asked about whether Eddie, or any of the photographers ever wondered about the later contextualizing or use of the photos after they took them (Actually it was an incredibly long question full of large words and signified nothing unless you were an academic with no real world experience) . Everyone on the panel basically said you just take the picture,  you react and act you don’t think. There was never a thought about anything other than just capturing the moment.

At some point someone asked about other photographs particularly about one of Jane Fonda in tank. After one of the men quoted an American officer as saying “I wouldn’t cross the street to watch Jane Fonda hang herself” , at that point  the director seized control of the discussion and forced it back on track.

The panelists then discussed how at the same time as this picture appeared the picture of  South Vietnamese soldier carrying his dead daughter from his house was also released. Several places ran the two photos in tandem. The family of the soldier had been killed by an assassin of the sort that the executed Nguyễn Văn Lém was, operating off death lists and killing everyone they found at any target home.

The talk ended not long after that , however I do want to mention that there were two other comments worth noting.

First one of the panelists pondered what the reaction would have been had instead of General Loan, General Westmoreland had done the shooting. The reaction was first there would have been a congressional hearing and after that no one was sure.

There was also much discussion about ending the war and wars. No one on the panel really believed that the photo ended the war, since it was pointed out,  that US involvement lasted longer after it was taken then before.

They commented that ending any war will depend upon how much "skin" the average American would have to give up. With the draft in effect everyone had "skin" in the pot and it helped to end things. Today there is limited exposure and as such the wars drag on. If there was a draft things would be different.

And with that the discussion ended and we were hustled out.

To me it was one of the best and most thought provoking nights at the movies and a perfect way to close out DOC NYC. Honestly I don't think it could have been topped.

Baby Face Morgan (1942)

Baby Face Morgan is a crime comedy Producer Releasing Corporation (PRC) that isn’t half bad.

The plot has a bunch of aging con men, crooks and gangsters being called together by one of their own played by Robert Armstrong (aka Carl Denham in King Kong). It seems that their ‘gang” has gone to hell since the big boss “Machinegun” Morgan died several years earlier. They have been limping along but are facing the danger of getting swallowed up by other gangs. Armstrong has discovered a way of returning the gang to power. They plan on recruiting Morgan’s son as a figurehead for a shell company, an insurance company, that Morgan had set up years before as a cover. The plan is to keep the kid in the dark and use him as a fall guy if the police try to bust them. Morgan’s son is talked into taking what is the supposed to be a do nothing gig, however bored by not doing anything the kid goes out and begins selling insurance policies to the very people Armstrong are strong arming…

Inconsequential and inoffensive this is a breezy time killer. It’s the sort of film that if you stumbled upon it you’d probably get hooked in if you stopped on it while channel surfing. That’s what happened, after a fashion as I was going through a collection of PRC films that I picked up from Sinister Cinema. Each disc was a double feature, so when I popped in a dic with a movie I wanted to see, this was on the disc as well. I figured I’d give it a go. I liked what I saw and kept watching.

I liked it. It made me smile. Will I intentionally go looking for the film? Probably not, but when I come across the DVD again, I’m pretty sure that I’ll pop it in again. Following that logic, if you come across it give it a shot, you just don’t need to go looking for it on it’s own

Capsule Random - Keeping Mum, Project Grizzly, Night Train to Terror

Keeping Mum @005)

Rowan Atkinson is a "straight" role? And damn if he isn't good.
The plot concerns vicar Rowan and Kristin Scott Thomas who are trying to get along with their lives in a tiny english village. Life for Thomas has gone south, her daughter is a nympho , her son..., and her relationship with her husband is in the toilet. Its dullsville all around. Just as she begins to think of taking up with a slimey golf pro, a new housekeeper turns up. The house keeper of course is a sweet old lady played by Maggie Smith, who went away for the double murder of her husband and his lover. In quick fashion she sets about fixing everything wrong in the families life. This is a sweet black comedy the likes of which they don't make any more. A bit too low key and predictable to be truly great, this is an enjoyable romp for people who like poison in their coffee. Absolutely worth seeing in the right mood, you'll come away liking it, though maybe not loving it. Still it is so much fun to watch people actually act.

PROJECT GRIZZLY

The story of a man and his quest to build a grizzly proof suit.
People are strange. After surviving an encounter with a grizzly bear a guy named Troy decides he's going to build a suit to help him get up close to grizzly bears (Maybe if timothy treadwell had known this guy he wouldn't have become lunch). This is 70 minute film where not much happens Troy talks, we see suit tests and Troy takes the suit into the wilderness for a test run . Its very zen. Its also very funny at times. I don't know if its as great as Tarantino or Penn and Teller seem to think (they're quoted on the case) but its an interesting way to spend 72 minutes. Granted it flails about so that at times its hysterical and riveting while at at other times you just wish something would happen, but it remains interesting for t least that first viewing. If you get the chance and want to see a weird companion piece to Grizzly Man, give this a shot

Night Train to Terror

God and the Devil riding on the Galaxy Express 999 (no really, really) discuss the fate of various people while a really bad 1980's Loverboy rip off band dance and sing in another car. The music is so bad I almost turned it off right there, but I didn't. The bulk of the film is actually three stories. The first cut from an unfinished (though supposedly there are complete versions floating around) feature about a husband who kills his wife and then ends up in strange asylum where people are kidnapped and sold for body parts. It makes little sense. The second story is a version of the suicide club (and may have appeared elsewhere). The third film is a different edit of a film that actually was part of another movie. It concerns people looking to stop a seemingly ever young Nazi. Bad hair band aside, this is an okay movie, especially if you like good effects and monsters. The stop motion is clearly stop motion but it really looks cool. I liked the pieces more than the whole, but I did like it.

Infidel (2009)

Omid Djalili stars as Muslim who finds out that he was actually born Jewish. This creates an identity crisis that under normal circumstances would have been bad enough, but is compounded by the arrival of a radical cleric who is set to join his family.

Amusing comedy that I first saw as part of the Tribeca Film Festival On Demand service. This is a rather low key film with most of the jokes coming not from set ups and punchlines, rather from the interaction of the characters. This is not the raucous comedy of some of the recent big budget films, rather it's something smaller, a human sized comedy of regular people.

I like the film.

It made me laugh and chuckle and it distracted me for a couple of hours. However as you can tell from my lack of raging enthusiasm in either a good or bad direction is didn't make a huge impression on me, at least the first time I saw it. However in the years since then I've seen the film a couple more times and I find that I enjoy the film more with each screening. To be honest I still haven't put the film on by choice, however I find that each time I run across it on cable I stop and watch it.

Definitely worth seeing, it will amuse you, and I do look forward to seeing it again myself.

Find Me Guilty (2006)

This is the story of Giacomo "Jackie Dee" DiNorscio, who found himself facing charges under the various Federal conspiracy laws along with 21 other defendants and decided to defend himself. Jackie's lack of court room experience turns the whole trial on its head.

Sydney Lumet strikes again. Once more the master of cinema is stalking the halls of justice in order to tell us a very compelling legal story. Its a great story that's masterfully told (for the most part) and shows us what happens when a regular guy takes his own destiny in his hands.

Vin Diesel is excellent as DiNorscio. We care for him in ways we probably shouldn't and root for him even though we really do know he's not a nice guy. Equally as good as Diesel is Peter Dinklage who plays one of the attorneys who is at first annoyed by what DiNorscio does in court and then amazed as he realizes that he actually is scoring points with his unorthodox unschooled style. While these two stand out the rest of the cast is pretty much note perfect as well.

The movies one problem is that its too short. This is a movie that essentially compresses three years of events into two hours and a good deal of material is cut out. Don't get me wrong there is no problems following the course of events, nor is there any problem with becoming emotionally invested in what happens, the problem is that there are way too many characters, some of which, like the prosecutors, who are given the short end of the stick. In the case of the prosecutors I had the sense that there was more to them and what they went through. As it stands now they are simply a chorus that shows up from time to time to set something in motion, they aren't real characters. At other times I had no idea which defendant or witness they were talking about since I couldn't keep who was who straight. Its not fatal to the film, but you get the feeling that this should be an hour or two longer since the film seems to bleed off the screen and into a real place.

Definitely worth seeing, as pretty much any film that Sydney Lumet is worth seeing.

David Bromberg: Unsung Treasure (2012) DOCNYC 2012

DOC NYC founder Thom Power, director Beth Toni Kruvant and David Bromberg

A portrait of the Artist as a nice guy, David Bromberg: Unsung Treasure is a wonderful film

A friendly look at the man who was twenty years too early in fusing various musical styles together (Bromberg plays whatever interests him) the film covers his life growing up in upstate New York, through Greenwich Village cafes, churches, session work on to stardom before giving it up to make violins (He’s one of the best know experts on the instrument in the world).

A film to make you smile from ear to ear, one can’t help but wonder how popular music today would have been different had Bromberg not disappeared from performing for 22 years. Would the sounds of today have been more eclectic?

My interest in the film was piqued during one of the days of press screenings for DOCNYC when several writers were standing around comparing notes about what we had seen that was good. This film came up as one of the small hidden treasures. It was said to be one of the best films screened so far and one of the unheralded gems of the festival. Having seen it I couldn't agree more.

One word of warning, if you are looking for detailed biographical look at the artist you’ll be disappointed. Details are missing, possible threads are mentioned and never followed (How exactly did he meet Bob Dylan and George Harrison?)

On the other hand if you want great music and an 75 minutes in the company of a nice funny guy (and who wouldn’t want that?) see this film.

(Apologizes to director Beth Toni Kruvant and Mr Bromberg for bolting past them when the credits rolled but such is the perils of the LIRR)

Here is a link to the post film Q&A which was shot by Chocko And this is his post film performance of Mr Bojangles.

All Photos are through the good graces of Chocko from Planet Chocko and occasionally here at Unseen.

Drivers Wanted (2012) and McB (2012) at DOCNYC 2012

Director Joshua Weinstein,  cab company owner Stan and producer Jean Tsien

Wonderful hour long look at cab drivers in New York City, focusing on the crew that works out of a garage located in Long Island City directly across the East River from the UN.

Covering several months in the life of the taxi garage this film follows the lives of Eric, a Chinese immigrant who takes a job to help pay the bills after his regular job cuts his hour, Stan, the owner of the company and Spider, a now 93 year old man who until three months ago was still driving a cab a couple of days a week. Following the rhythms and cycles of the garage the film focuses itself on Eric as he wanders in one day to get a job driving. We then follow along  as he learns to make money as a driver and his family copes with his long hours. We also watch as Stan tries to get more drivers and Spider hangs out and dispenses wisdom.

This is a great film. Its good time with good people who open up their lives and make it clear how difficult it is to drive a cab. After a couple of  days of trying to work out a review the best thing I can say is that I bought the DVD from the directors girlfriend after the screening.

Speaking of which after the screening there was a Q&A with the directors, Stan and the wife and Children of Eric. As Q&As go it was one of the best ones I’ve attended with Josh Weinstein seizing control from the moderator and asking questions of everyone on stage with him. Somewhere early on when one of the kids was asked what he thought of himself on a movie screen and he said he looked big, I was hooked and pretty much stopped taking notes and went with it. Mr C recorded some it and it can be found here.

This is a super little film that is getting a week long run at the Rerun Theater in Brooklyn starting November 30th.



Eric's family with director Joshua Weinstein outside the IFC Center



Prior to Drivers Wanted the festival screened the 30 minute film McB about a public school in Brooklyn that staged Macbeth with a cast made up of 3rd through 5th graders. It’s a good little film that shows what it takes to get a production such as this done with kids when many adults thought were too young to handle the complexity of the play. As is made clear kids can handle much heavier subjects than most adults realize.  A solid film worth tracking down.

McB director Jenni Morello

 Mr C has posted his thoughts on Drivers Wanted over at Planet Chocko and they can be found here. All photos are through the good graces of Mr C as well.

West of Memphis (2012) DOCNYC 2012

Another look at the miscarriage of justice regarding the West Memphis 3 brilliantly covers territory not covered by the Paradise Lost films and thus stakes out it's own unique place in the sun.

For those who don't know, and there were a few people at the DOCNYC screening Saturday who didn't know, the story of the West Memphis 3 is the railroading of Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, into prison for the murder of three children. Picked out because "they might be the type to do a ritual killing", the trio soon found themselves behind bars in the case of Baldwin and Misskelley for life, and the the case of Echols only long enough to be executed. Supporters from around the globe began to investigate, and using the police's own files, and new evidence, began to kick huge holes in the case against the three.

After laying out the basic story West of Memphis shifts focus to the efforts to get Echols, Baldwin and Misskelley free. This is the story of Echols wife Laurie and the various people around the country and the world who continued to trumpet that something was wrong. The supporters included Peter Jackson, who produced the movie, Eddie Vetter, Henry Rollins, Johnnie Depp and  tens of thousands of regular people who kept up the pressure.

I was moved by the film.

After dispensing the basic facts that sent the 3 to prison, which is the films weakest part, the film grabs you and drags you along. Because the filmmakers were closely involved in that portion of the story the film gives us details that are nowhere else. We are inside the efforts to get the guys out in a way that the Paradise Lost films couldn't be. The film also manges to really go after the person who is now held to be the prime suspect in the killings, Terry Hobbs, the stepfather of one of the dead boys.

This is a great movie and it's two and a half hours sped by.

When the film opens in December you really should make an effort to see the film, if nothing else it may spur you to see that real justice is done.

After the screening Damien Echols, his wife Laurie, Henry Rollins and Amy Berg, the director appeared, for a Q&A.

I asked the first question which was where are the other guys now? Jason Baldwin in is Washington working toward his law degree in the hope of being able to practice law and free people like himself.  Sadly Jessie MissKelley has become reclusive and has hidden himself away in his home afraid that some one will come along and give the police reason to lock him away again.

Damien said that the film is an attempt for the 3 to control their story. He also said that with all the bad that has happened to him a great deal of good has come along including meeting his wife and people like Henry Rollins.

Henry said that when he heard what had happened and he got angry and then took action to help. It was pointed out that his steady stream of benefits helped to fund the ability to pay for things like DNA testing.

Right now the case is judicially dead and it's up to Damien, Jesse and Jason to work toward exoneration since they are technically still guilty which will effect Jason's ability to practice law.

Damien mentioned that there is a lawsuit where they are trying to get 200 pages of documents from the FBI and the WEst Memphis police which no one has ever seen. Since the case is done, they don't see the need to release it. And since the case is done no one wants to look into the fact that blood was found in Terry Hobbs's (the man now suspected of the killings) old truck or home. Also no one wants to look into Hobbs's ties to the prosecutors in the case , not the fact that Hobbs's nephew is now saying he did it.

I'm hoping the Q&A turns up since I know it was filmed, if so I will post a link.

Benchwarmers (2006)

Critically reviled, but making money at the box office this little movie made made up headlines when it was announced that it would not be screened for critics, only to have a critic be invited to an advance screening.

This is the story of three adult loser who take on a series of little league teams to prove that nerds can be cool.

You know coming from Happy Madison productions (Adam Sandler's company) this is probably going to be low brow- and it is with tons of scatological jokes for the lowest common denominator. Its really a base movie...its also strangely a movie that's not as vile as you think it should be. It is at times very funny.It also gives Rob Schnieder and David Spade a chance to prove they can do more than the same old shtick.

However its not a good movie. Its almost a good movie. The problem with this film is that they went for too much silly. Spade's hair, some of the behavior- Jon Heder's constant booger eating for example and the need to twist things to the gross make this movie go from what could have been a genuinely funny and heartwarming movie to an occasionally funny missed opportunity. There are great portions of this that work (which are the reason I'm recommending the film), and would have probably worked better had they played it straighter. Granted the idea at the center- adults beating kids on the baseball field - is a bit bizarre, but I think that if they had just set it ten degrees from normal like say Dodgeball- then this would have been a classic of stupid heart warming cinema. (Now it's a solidly okay one)

I liked a good deal of it. I disliked the fact it didn't come together better. Its worth a shot on cable or a rental. Though be warned if you don't like the other Happy Madison films stay away.

A non-review of Wonder Women: The Untold Stories of American Superheroines (2012) — DOCNYC 2012

The history and influence of super heroine Wonder Woman in comics, movies and real life.

I'm really not one to be able to review the film. This look at the influence of the longest lasting female superhero really wasn't my cup of tea. Part of the problem is that the film is too short at 62 minutes to quite link up everything that it wants to do. The other problem is the film is so firmly entrenched in a feminist perspective that looking at it objectively is rather hard to do.  Somewhere in the second half when the film discusses how many female heroes tend to die and they show sequences from one of X-Men films, I kind of bowed out. The trouble being that it was clear that way they were viewing it only really works from a certain perspective that requires the dismissal factors (and history) that don't fit. It was then that I realized that much of the film was like that and I couldn't accept the narrow view point.

Yes the film does layout the history of strong women nicely, but for me much of the film requires point of view I neither have, nor wholly accept (owing to what it leaves out).

If you are looking for a history of strong women characters see the film when it plays Tuesday at DOCNYC or you can wait for it to run on PBS when it plays as part of Independent Lens in April.

(I will say that the film does get deeply moving at the end when various women talk about their heroes.)

Sunday Nightcap 11/11/12

As DOC NYC, the NYC Horror Film Festival and BAM Puppet in film series all wind down I’m hoping that much of the craziness here at Unseen will wind down as well. As you’ve no doubt seen we’ve been providing you with a steady diet of the films that have been on the New York Festival circuit. It’s been a killer proposition since there are too many films and too few of us (indeed my efforts to enlist correspondents outside of those in the sidebar have result in non-reports on the Gold Coast Film Festival they saw films, liked them, but have been unable to write anything on them)

As the festival season and the year begin to come to a close I’m going to make a couple of quick announcements.

First despite my best efforts to try and have timely coverage of films currently in theaters, I’m going to not be as active in my pursuit of stuff. Yes I’ll report on anything I see that I think you should know about and I’ll still be reporting on stuff where press screenings match my schedule but I can’t be as actively pursuing stuff as I have in the last few months. The problem is I work a day job and I can’t be running into Manhattan to see much of the stuff being tossed my way, my schedule won’t allow it.

Instead I’m going to try and concentrate Unseen’s efforts on the film festivals that play in and around New York. I think this is our strength since with few exceptions there aren’t as many outlets who wade into a festival and really look at the films that are playing. If you look at festivals such as Tribeca, The New York Film Festival, New York Asian Film Festival, New York Asian Film Festival, New York International Children’s Film Festival, Japan Cuts and Korean American Film Festival New York you’ll see that we reported on well over three quarters of the films screened. With other festivals, like DOC NYC or Rendezvous with French Cinema or some of the others you’ll see we made a good dent in the number of titles. When we can concentrate our efforts into a short period of time we do best. I also think it works more toward keeping with our mandate of highlighting films people are not aware of.

Do look for coverage of Lincoln Center’s Romanian film series as well as their Spanish film series as well as several other series that will be appearing over the next few weeks.

Next I wanted to say is that once the New Year comes look for the semi-carefully planned weeks and weekends to become less and less frequent. Yes I’m preparing reviews for your entertainment, but I’m finding it harder and harder to group things together. I had tentative plans into February but other than the odd week here and there I was finding I was stuck with parts of weeks and not complete ones. Find I’m constantly moving things around to cover holes. I have solid plans into the first week of January and I have Chinese New Year penciled in but other than that I have reviews but no groupings.

I've also noticed that I've reviewed a good number films as capsule reviews but no one really has paid them any mind, so starting in January I'm going to start breaking the collected posts apart and reposting them as bonus reviews. I'm doing this because there are some really good films locked in those posts and no one is noticing them.

So much for the state of things onward and upward...

I know that Chocko wrote up Shepard and Dark on Tuesday but I just wanted to slip in couple of quick words on the film of my own (which is all I can put together concerning the great film)

In the two plus weeks since I saw the film it, like the Tomi Ungerer film, has not left me. The film and it’s portrait of a long standing friendship has haunted me. Never have I seen a film show so clearly the ebb and flow of a relationship. It’s one of the best films on friendship I’ve ever seen, and it’s one of the most important ones as well.

The film is also a cautionary tale about the dangers of looking back too long and too hard. Its clear from how events play out that some people should not look back at the way things were via say letters but instead live in the present with misremembered memories.

I don’t know what the status of the film is past the DOC NYC festival, I seem to recall hearing that the film may still not have a distributor, so it’s vital that you get to the IFC Center tomorrow and see the film when it plays in the afternoon.

See the film.


Links

Partir

U900 Thriller

From  ESPN's E:60 The story of a little boy with progeria who just wants to play baseball

The trailer for Wong Kar Wai's Grandmasters

.Sing Me the Songs That Say I Love You: A Concert for Kate McGarrigle (2012) DOC NYC 2012

Sing Me the Songs... is an amazing soundtrack album containing stunning covers of Kate McGarrigle songs... it's also a terribly dull movie that only springs to cinematic life fleetingly.

I have to state very clearly I have no qualms about the music. The performances and the music are first rate and if the soundtrack is released I will gladly buy it. The trouble for me is that this is a very boring film cinematically.

Documenting the memorial concert staged by McGarrigle's children, Rufus and Martha Wainwright,the film is maudlin remembrance of the noted singer songwriter. As someone who only knew a few of the songs it's like watching a bunch of friends grieve for a family that was put together by people who knew and loved the films subject but can't manage to make it mean anything who didn't know her. The inside nature of the film is only intensified by the frequent additions of old photographs over the concert footage. I got no sense of McGarrigle or why her death was any sort of loss except to her family and friends.(This is like a personal shrine thrown open to the public with no explanation)

It doesn't help that many of the performances are filmed in simply point and shoot style. Yes I know the abilty to shoot at NYC's Town Hall can be daunting, on the other hand I've attended several concerts that were filmed there and they looked more exciting than this.

Occasionally the film springs magically to life when the music and the cinema come together such as Jimmy Fallon (yes really) goofs around,  Justin Vivian Bond singing the song that gives the film its title, the final song McGarrigle wrote (which closed the first half of the concert), several songs with Emmylou Harris and  a few others. Mostly though the film isn't a film it's just static footage.

I suspect that this was never really meant to be seen on a huge cinema screen. I say this because in watching some clips on You Tube I noticed that you don't notice that during many of the songs the singers are reading the lyrics off teleprompters.  I have no problem with people doing this since artists do it all the time, the problem is that seeing them on a big screen larger than life you're sudden aware of what they are looking at, which you're not in a concert hall.

My advice is skip the film and look for a soundtrack recording for you Ipod.

Building Babel (2012) DOC NYC 2012

A look at Shaif El-Gamal and his attempt to build Park51a Muslim community center two blocks from the World Trade Center site.

Billed as a portrait of the so called “Ground Zero Mosque” this is really a look at El-Gamal an American Muslim who is trying to build a genuine  community center that just happens to have  a prayer room for Muslims. The films follows him from 2010 to late 2011 or early 2012 and follows as he weathers the storm from places like Fox News who attack his efforts to open a dialog and mean while end up as a Today Show Person of the Year, while strain grows in his marriage.

El-Gamal seems to be a nice guy. Despite charges from the far right, he seems to have be a hard working guy who rose from a waiter to become a player in the New York real estate market. Despite Fox’s efforts to paint the rise as the result of some evil plot, it would seem that it’s simply the result of hard work. He was born to a Catholic mother and an Egyptian Muslim father. After a few wild years he calmed down, met his Christian wife and began to raise a family. As portrayed here El-Gamal's only sin in trying to build the community center is not understanding how some people would feel about it. To him New York is a place where everyone of all faiths and walks of life get together (he is a member of his local Jewish community center)

I’m torn about this film. As a simple look at  El-Gamal, ,this is a nice deflation of his portrait as an evil man. However as a film with any real facts the film is a draft away from being great.

We watch as he prays, spends times with his family and is pulled in several directions at once as he tries to realize a project close to his heart. We see things happen but we really never get details as to who people are or what it happening.

I was about 15 or 20 minutes into this hour long film when I suddenly was struck that the film wasn’t telling me much of anything. Yes I was getting to know Sharif El-Gamal but outside of a sense of the man, I didn’t know much. Yes at the start they told us a little about the controversy but until the end and they began sum everything up we’re mostly adrift as to details other than an occasional title as to the date. I wanted to know a bit more as to who people are and what is going on. For example the appearance of an imam amidst a throng of news people seems to happen in a vacuum. Who is he? Why was he there? Why is there so much controversy? Also lost are the details of key people outside of the El-Gamal family for example who are some of his partners in the project?

You’ll forgive me for saying this this has the feel of a film that needs a fresh set of eyes. It’s a film that has been made by a director who is much too close to his subject. It’s clear that David Osit knows his subject backwards and forwards, the trouble is we in the audience don’t, with the result we felt a bit adrift. It needs to be tweaked. It’s so damn close to being great I can almost see it, but right now the lack of detail makes this a 15 minute piece on Shaif El-Gamal stretched to 58 minutes.

It screened yesterday at DOC NYC and again Thursday the 15th at 1PM at the IFC Center.

Greenwich Village: the Music That Defined a Generation (2012) DOCNYC 2012

Mr C tried to get a ticket to see this film but was told that the film was sold out. Considering that at least half the people in the theater knew the producer or were connected to the film it's not surprising. Then again  it helped provide the film with a favorable response, which sadly I can't give it.

The film is supposed to be a look at Greenwich Village in Manhattan and the music scene that developed there after the Second World War and gave birth to people Like Bob Dylan, Kris Kristofferson, Peter Paul and Mary and others. In reality it's some incredible music clips interspersed with talking heads from a large swath of people who were there from the 50's through the 70's, none of it organized in any sort of way that tells you anything meaningful except as a random story.

Who put this together? More importantly who allowed it to be released?

The only thing I can think is that everyone connected to the film is so close to it that they couldn't see that there is no sense of place -The Village is some place around Washington Square Park but you know nothing else. There is no sense of time- The film goes from the Civil Rights Movement to VietNam and then snaps back to cover the black lists in Th mid 1950's. Memories and feelings bombard you in a random fashion to the point little of it means anything unless you lived through it, and even then I would be hard pressed to say it added up to much of anything.

This is a five minute segment on a TV history stretched to 90 minutes... no it's fragments of a real documentary waiting to be put together. The pieces are all good there is nothing to connect them. My idea scribbled into my notes would have been to take the late great radio DJ Pete Fornatele who appears in the film and have him do the narration and link everything. (The Susan Sarandon reading of Suze Rotolo's autobiography doesn't work and diffuses things further)

My over riding thought when watching the film was simply to pull the film apart and try to figure out how I would have done it.

I would skip it unless you are of the time or until the unlikely event of a re-edit comes along.

Two asides

The film when screened had technical problems with the digital projection and the screening was stopped for a while. During the break one of the producers regaled the crowd with stories- would someone please make a movie about this man because he was absolutely entertaining.

IMDB lists the running time of the film as 121 minutes. The version screened at DOC NYC was about 90 minutes. If there is a longer cut of the film with an additional 30 mintes it's entirely possible that the film will play better. If that is the case I reserve the right to re-review the film.

First thoughts on A Girl And A Gun (2012) DOCNYC 2012

I'm glad director Cathryne Czubek said I didn't have to hold my review of her film, because you'll want to try and get tickets for the film which World Premieres tomorrow night at the IFC Center (It screens again Wednesday)

A Girl and A Gun is a look at women and guns in American society. Using the stories of several women, some who have guns for protection, others who like to shoot and adding in commentary by academics the film paints a broad, yet very complex portrait of guns and women. Its a film that strives to present all sides of the issue, something is best seen in the victims advocate working to end gun violence who's daughter was crippled by a drive by shooting and who now carries a gun herself. There are no easy answers, nor easy questions.

My over riding thought while watching the film, for what I hope was just the first time, was this is too complex an issue for a 75 minute movie. Give director Czubek credit for covering as much as she did in as short an amount of time, she manages to get your mind going in all sorts of directions at once. Rarely have any 75 minutes in a cinema felt so much like a several course meal. Everything that needs to be here and more is in the finished film. However at the same time it's clear that Czubek has so much material here and such a handle on it that I'm pretty sure this film could easily run three times as long without feeling bloated or lessened (and considering that over 500 hours of footage was shot I'd like to think it's possible that a longer version could see the light of day).

I think that one of the reasons the film works as well as it does is that what seems to be just a film about women and guns morphs very quickly into a look at the whole question of people and guns. Yes, the film is squarely focused on guns and women, but almost everything that they say in talking about guns applies to men as well, with the exception of having pink rifles marketed to them. The whole question of guns in society is perhaps best viewed through a prism other than a masculine one since it allows for us to step back and get a better view of what we are talking about.

I really like this film a great deal. It has got my mind going six ways to Sunday. I had paused writing this film up to write an email to Cathryne Czubek to not only tell her how much I liked the film but to also ask her some quick questions. I never sent the email because I'm finding that while the film has no easy answers, its raising many not so easy questions. I'm serious, I was taking notes for the review and scribbling questions for a possible interview, when I simply stopped writing and just started watching. I had no way to simply express what wanted to know or say, I just had to take it all in and hope for a second viewing down the road. If you want to know why I'm not going into details on the film it's because I simply have to process it...and because the little stories that make up the film are hard to explain simply.

If you want a film that will do more than wash over you see this film. If you want to be forced to think about things see this film. If you just want to see a damn good film see A Girl And A Gun

The film screens tomorrow at the IFC Center and I've read it's sold out. There is a second screening Wednesday the 14th also at the IFC Center, which I think is not sold out so go get tickets

Artifact (2012) DOC NYC 2012

I've never seen a record company not screw an artist. Screwing the artist is in the business model- an attorney for 30 Seconds to Mars

There were two Opening Night films at DOC NYC this year. One was Venus and Serena, which I had no interest in . The other was Artifact, the story of Jared Leto's band 30 Seconds From Mars making their third album--- or would have been had they not been hit with a 30 million dollar lawsuit from EMI just as they went into the studio. Instead what we get is a film record of the band trying to create as their record company tries to litigate them into compliance with their wishes.

Before seeing the film I had no idea what 30 Seconds to Mars was, I did know who Jared Leto is and I was curious about the battle for artist rights so I bit the bullet and bought a ticket for the film (but not the gala) completely blindly.

Standing on the line to get in I realized I was in the minority. Everyone knew who the band was, even to the extent of flying in for the American premiere.

After introductory remarks by the founders and programmers for the festival, Jared Leto went on stage to talk about the making of the film and how it was a hard fought process.

Hard fought is an understatement.

Laying out how EMI tried to screw over Leto and his band the film is a cautionary tale for anyone who wants to make it big in the music industry. If you think you're going to hit pay dirt and live the high life, forget it, all the deals are stacked against you and even if you think you've made millions you're probably going to owe the record company twice that. Sadly things are even worse now with the record company wanting you to sign over a piece of everything like merchandising and tour revenue in god awful 360 deals. A great many people are interviewed who tell us flat out its a rigged game.

At the same time the film is a portrait of a rock group making a record and we watch as the new album comes together. Its a wonderful thing to see since we get to know the members of the band and hear how their music comes together. (I'm going to pick up the album soon)

As a film it's very good. Its a troubling look at how creativity is strangled and slowly killed by degrees by big business. Its a wonderful look at what a band goes through to make an album. Its also a look at how one deals when one has an insane lawsuit thrown at them. But thats the trouble with the film is it's really three  films put together, two are great, one is good.

The great ones are the band makes an album film and the primer on recording industry. The good one is the band gets sued story. Yes I know the law suit is the backbone of the film, but at the same time about an hour into the film I was growing very tired of Jared Leto saying the same things over and over again about the law suit. Not a great deal happens other than they try to make a deal - or rather their attorneys do and they weigh in by saying "what do do? Lets fight".

On the other hand the band pulling the album together story and the whole explanation of the record industry  is so good one kind of wishes both had their own two hour films to really stretch out. Actually the history of record company rip offs is so good that anyone ever thinking about recording an album should see this film before they sign any contract. Anyone who signs a contract after seeing this should be locked away for their own good.

Over all the film is a really good one, one that approaches true greatness in the final moments when talk about how how having five million people hear what you do means you've touched five million lives.The cut that follows, placing us on stage with the band as the audience goes crazy is one of the most transcendent moments of the year.Why make music? Why fight the record company? For the chance to make people go happily crazy for a moment or two...

The film is definitely worth seeing when the film gets a release down the road (the DOC NYC screenings are done). Its a film I look forward to seeing several more times down the road because not only does the music touch my heart, the weird notions of raping our artists has made me think.

A must see for anyone who does anything in the arts.

Sweet Dreams (2012) DOC NYC 2012

This is the story of Ingoma Nshya, the first women's drumming troupe in Rwanda. The reason they are the first is that until Odile “Kiki” Katese put the group together no man thought that a woman could carry a drum. The group was formed in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide and is made up of women from both sides of the civil war. The film follows the group as they play and seek to open an ice cream shop with the help of two women from Brooklyn.

I’m not going to lie, I want to take the heads of Rob and Lisa Fruchtman, the two directors of the film, and smash them together. They have all of these wonderful segments and they have assembled them in a manner that is all over the place. Watching the film I was loving the music, the drumming and the women. My heart was breaking with their stories, but how they are put together drained almost all of my interest to the point that by about 30 minutes in I was zoning out.

This should have been a great film, this should have been one of the best films of the year (damn it the pieces are there), instead it’s just a good movie.

Why do I think this should have been a great film?

First off there is the music. Both the women drumming and the incidental music is amazing. Watching the women drum is to witness joy, Its marvelous to see such happiness that has come from such sadness.

Then we have the stories of the women. Heart breaking stories of the terrible things that happened during one of humanities darkest hour. For my money this is one of the most touching accounts of the tragedy that you’ll ever see. It not only puts a human face on what happens, but makes you feel it’s the story of a friend.

Lastly we have the story of the women trying to make money by opening an ice cream shop in their home town. It’s such a seemingly improbable story it can’t help but pull you in and drag you along.

These are three great threads that should work marvelously together but then don’t. I blame the directors who clearly know their subject so well that they don’t realize that we on the outside looking in don’t know it as well as they do.

The film starts with the drumming and it’s great. We get a little bit about the group but we don’t a lot before we’re dropped into the story of one of the women which goes on briefly before we’re dropped into the story of the ice cream for a little bit before we’re moved onto the next thing and the next thing. While admire that the filmmakers belief that we in the audience can pick things up on the fly, I have to question when they don’t give us a context to what is happening. For example we get the story of the women and the drumming, or some of it …or a piece of it… before we get the story of Kiki meeting the two women from Brooklyn… where did they meet? In Brooklyn? What was Kiki doing in Brooklyn? What was she doing to meet them? Don’t know it’s just “we met Kiki and she said she wanted to talk to us. We thought it was about importing coffee instead she was asking us about ice cream” Where did this come from? Why is this important? I don’t know.

I can accept things just being thrown at us at the start but there are times here where I had the feeling as if I was coming into a conversation in the middle. I frequently felt as though I either missed something, even as it had just started, which wasn’t possible when the film is only minutes old.

I wish this movie wasn’t finished. I wish that someone could be brought in and given the the pieces so they could reassemble then into something that connects all it together the way that it should be connected .

To be honest I had no interest in seeing this film. I didn’t care about it, but then the opportunity came to see it so I did. When the film started I I was thinking how could I not have wanted to see this wonderful film and then it started to clunk from thing to thing. My heart broke because I thought I had stumbled on something wonderful instead of just fragments.

Is this a bad film?

No. It’s a good film but it’s frustrating in that it despite the wonderful pieces it’s just not as great as it should have been.

It plays Sunday November 11 and Tuesday the 13th at the IFC Center

Dust Up: In (Some) Theaters and on DVD

The never-boring Dust Up, which recently enjoyed a one-week run at Brooklyn’s reRun Theater via Tugg (the crowd-sourced version of on-demand), is out on home video on November 13. My recommendation, if you’re a fan of B-movies and exploitation flicks, is simply this: catch it. It’s quite possibly my favorite new entry in those categories for 2012.

The DVD label that's releasing Dust Up, Breaking Glass Pictures, has for some time been championing the kind of offbeat, often ultra-indie productions that play festivals here and there, and then can all-too-easily vanish without a trace. The quality of those releases can be hit or miss, as you might imagine, but I never regret checking them out, and with writer-director Ward Roberts Breaking Glass has an undeniable talent to unleash upon the viewing public.

Deftly mixing dimestore noir and sun-fried Western to serve up a demented pastiche of action movies, Roberts tells a simple tale with familiar tropes but does it so engagingly that you’ll be reminded of why you gravitate to those elements in the first place. And this is not as easy as it sounds. Let’s consider the basic narrative material: a stoic, one-eyed recluse battles a drug-dealing bar owner in the desert, tries to protect the cutest baby in recent movie memory, and trades deadpan one-liners with his “Native American” buddy. As you may have already surmised, there’s certainly the possibility that the end product here could have been a dismal, ‘90s-style, sub-sub Tarantinoesque effort filled with cloying irony, forced banter, and self-conscious “shocks.” And while, yes, there’s certainly some self-awareness in the script—how can one produce an exploitation flick in this decade of this century with the same straight-ahead approach as forty years ago?—Roberts clearly takes his cinema aesthetics seriously. The result is a highly entertaining gore-spangled romp that recalls Russ Meyers as well as early Sam Raimi and early Coen Brothers but never seems beholden to them. In this effort, it should be noted, Roberts is ably assisted by the wonderful cinematography of Shannon Hourigan, who renders all the colors hyper-vibrant but never garish, and by Kirkpatrick Thomas’s consistently fun score.

I’ve seen the film referred to as “Amber Benson’s Dust Up,” which is natural given the name recognition of the former Buffy star, but this does little to showcase what is arguably its chief strength: the remarkably winning job done by its entire cast. There’s not a bad performance in sight, and even in the minor roles, where one senses that friends, crew members and non-professional actors may have joined in the high jinks, there’s never a false note. Benson and Aaron Gaffey turn in very solid work as the leads, which includes impressively handling the range in shifts in mood and tone that the story throws their way. But what really makes the film for me are the terrific jobs by Jeremiah W. Birkett, Devin Barry, and Travis Betz—all three of them hilarious and memorable. And since at least one of this trio seems to appear in nearly every scene, Dust Up kept a smile on my face for pretty much for the duration of its runtime.

Men at Lunch (2012) DOCNYC 2012

A look into the mystery of an iconic photograph (see above) which looks at not only the photograph but at New York City in history and the at the time the photo was taken.

The photo was taken in September 1932 during the construction of Rockefeller Center.It was shot by an "unknown" news photographer, however in recent years there has been some evidence that a Charles Ebbets took the picture.

While we may know who took the picture we may not know who is in it. In researching the film it was discovered that there are other photos in the Rock Center archive taken on the same day that reveal the name of at least two of the men. Research, in unexpected places, reveals the names of a few more.

This is a very good look at the photograph and it's place in history. Its a picture that has touched millions of people and is hung in almost as many homes. What I like about the film is that while its very much of a place and of a time it speaks to a larger audience. This is the story of the immigrants to America, its the story of New York, it's the story of  us.

What I also like is that the film has a plethora of images old and new that shows the passage of time. Thanks to the careful selection of image we are both then and now. Its a film that connects us to our past as few films ever manage to do.

Sue me I'm a sucker for really good films on New York, and this is a really good film.

The film plays Saturday the 10th at 730 at SVA and Wednesday the 14th at the IFC Center.

(Mr C shares his thoughts over at Planet Chocko which can be found here.)