Top Ten Movies: When Cultures Collide

Posted on June 29, 2010 by

Since the advent of time, story has been around. Story is about connecting others to history, to fellow man, to God. Story has the power to teach, to inspire, to tear down walls. Film does story in a way that reaches the masses and pulls from every walk of life. When one cannot communicate in written or spoken word because of a language barrier, a film can be shown and understanding can take place. Its power to bring people together comes with another: the power to divide. It’s a power that shouldn’t be taken lightly. Even the most seemingly innocent story has a power that runs deeper than strict entertainment, but a well told story can have a massive effect.

Here are ten films that tell great stories in an amazing way. They all have one thing in common: all of them tell stories about cultures colliding. This collision may not strictly be a positive one, but the collision teaches and starts to tell the other side of the story; the whole truth.


10. The Darjeeling Limited (2007 dir. Wes Anderson)

This is probably the weakest of Wes Anderson’s films, but it still has great set pieces and some individual scenes work extremely well. It’s a story about three brothers re-uniting to take a train across India to visit their mother. Because of the nature of the setting and the people they encounter, the brothers face their own demons and work out what they’ve needed to years after they should have.

9. The Namesake (2006 dir. Mira Nair)

Gogal, an Indian born in the United States, confronts his family history, his name and his true self after turning his back on the past for years. After a family tragedy takes place, Gogal looks back.

8. The Last King of Scotland (2006 dir. Kevin MacDonald)

Forrest Whitaker gives a stand out (Academy Award winning) performance as Idi Amin, the Ugandan dictator. The story is told through the eyes of an American doctor that gets plucked out of his job in a mission to become the dictator’s personal physician. James McAvoy proves he has potential to be one of the great actors.

7. Blood Diamond (2006 dir. Edward Zwick)

Set in Sierra Leone during a time of Civil War, the story revolves around people’s search for a huge pink diamond. Reconciliation, redemption and understanding is found by Archer through unexpected means. DiCaprio’s accent is a little off-putting, but once that is gotten over, the movie is thoroughly enjoyable.

6. L’auberge Espagnole (2002 dir. Cedric Klapisch)

Students from all over Europe move to Spain to study and end up sharing an apartment. Though from different cultures and speaking different languages, they are able to communicate in extraordinary ways.

5. Babel (2006 dir. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu)

As tragedy befalls a couple working out their marriage issues, a story unfolds about the complexities of life and the interconnectedness of all humanity. One gun unites four confusing and confounding situations.

4. The Visitor (2007 dir. Thomas McCarthy)
A lonely widower and college professor travels back to his New York apartment from his home in Connecticut only to find a Syrian musician and a street vendor from Senegal living in the apartment. After his initial shock, he lets them stay. As they all share an apartment together, the professor learns to live again. The Visitor includes beautiful performances and a moving story.

3. The New World (2005 dir. Terrence Malick)

A story that is familiar, but Malick breathes life into the story of John Smith and Pocahontas. Beautifully shot and paced. It’s a wonderful film.

2. The Mission (1986 dir. Roland Joffe)

In the 18th century, Spanish Jesuits build a mission in South America. This is the story of what happens when what you preach is put to the test.

1. In America (2003 dir. Jim Sheridan)

An Irish family illegally immigrates to the United States. It’s a story of struggle, of survival, of family, of community.

Share

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Why Movies Suck

Posted on June 28, 2010 by

It has been quite the disappointing start to 2010. The year is half over and the quality of film releases has been dismal at best. Why are movies getting worse? It’s a problem that stems from lack of pure leadership. It’s the same in any organization in the world – without a leader that has a singular vision the productivity and eventually the product will be scattershot. This is what is happening to the majority of movies being released today.

The studio system is scrambling for cash and they are doing all that they can to make money. Because they are primarily concerned with the investment and not about making great films, too many people have their hand in and have a say in what is being done. Without collaboration, films wouldn’t get made. But, collaboration is different than what is being done. The studio system is undermining the ability the director has to cast a vision for the film. The director is basically a pawn in a well-oiled focus-grouped machine that churns out the same crap week after week. If the director has the ability to lead, has the ability to instill the vision for the film to the crew and actors, has the ability to direct each aspect of the film, at least the film will be consistent. The problem with movies coming out today: they are SAFE. When a film fails now it’s because it is mediocre, not because it failed on a grand scale.

What do Jonah Hex, The A-Team, Killers, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Letters to Juliet, Just Wright, Iron Man 2, all have in common? STOP ME NOW!!! I could list every single major release of 2010 and all of them, with two exceptions, has been middling. The only two movies that are not mediocre is Toy Story 3 and  Shutter Island and that is because both Pixar and Martin Scorcese are concerned with putting out the best story possible and not just about grabbing as much cash as possible to get a return on their investment. These movies demonstrate what movie-goers will do: go see quality entertainment in droves.

What do these movies have in common? Avatar, Titanic, The Dark Knight, Star Wars, E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Jurassic Park, and The Passion of the Christ. All of these movies are incredibly successful financially and critically and they all have a visionary director that LEADS the film with a singular vision. James Cameron, Christopher Nolan, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson and Mel Gibson all were the master of what went on in every aspect of their film. Can big-budget Hollywood movies be like this? Yes!!!

The studio system needs to hire a director that has a vision and a direction for the film that is acceptable to the studio. Then let go. Give the director money and a strict budget and let them at it. Stop interfering with the creative process and let the director lead without constantly undermining his authority. When no one knows who is leading, no one is leading and when that happens, so does mediocrity. Studios need to protect their financial investment, but compromising leadership is not how it is done. Let leaders lead. It is better to fail on a grand scale with a singular vision than settle for mediocrity.

Share

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Iron Man 2

Posted on May 8, 2010 by

Iron Man 2 is set up to be a fun romp, but all joy is stripped from the movie that lost its voice somewhere between the end of the first movie and the production of this major disappointment. What made the first Iron Man movie successful was the emphasis on story combined with spectacular action and terrific acting. Iron Man 2 had a story, but it was void of any meaning at all – it was a means to an end, not the means itself.

The biggest problem that Iron Man 2 poses: it tries to be Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. That may be blasphemous to say, but it’s true. It’s not close to as bad as that second Transformers movie, but when the whole point of the movie is to get robots fighting, the audience can’t help but be reminded of that monstrosity. The whole brilliance of Iron Man as a social commentary on where this world is at is lost in the loud crash of metal on metal. The message is muddied, and because of that, so is the movie.

There is nothing wrong with a movie trying to be and succeeding at being a fun spectacle. The world needs fun spectacle, but when the humor happens because a man is so depressed, he works himself into a drunken stupor while wearing a suit that can literally kill anyone around him, there is no fun to be had. Iron Man 2 is fractured: it tries to be a serious movie with serious themes: depression, revenge, world peace, familial relationships, government control, and unrequited love, but on the other hand, it tries to just be a fun spectacle. That’s the problem: it doesn’t go far enough in either direction to have an impact on someone, so the audience is left with a shrug of the shoulders saying, “Well, at least it was entertaining.”

This can easily get into an essay about the movie audience’s penchant for mediocrity and the studio system’s quest to quench that thirst, but that’s better left to another time.

Jon Favreau may not be to blame for the movie’s fractured soul – with so much money riding on this, there had to be enough notes and changes by producers and studio heads that Favreau’s vision got lost. It’s too bad that he doesn’t have enough pull or say to right the ship; or that may be completely wrong and he does have enough pull and this fractured soul is his fault. The direction is a bit muddied and a more deft hand could have demonstrated a more distinct vision.

One thing Iron Man 2 has going for it: the actors. Robert Downy, Jr., Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle, Samuel L. Jackson, Gwyneth Paltrow and sometimes Scarlett Johansson are all fantastic actors. All of them have can carry their own films to great effect. (Each one of them has done so in the past) To have a big budget comic-book movie filled with prestigious actors is a treat, but they are all working with a confused vision and a pretty poor script. With all that firepower acting wise, you would think that they could lift the movie up from the doldrums, but it’s just not the case. It just goes to show how important script and story truly is. Without that, movies are dead, soulless creatures that limp through the screen in a fashion that makes the movie forgettable.

The best thing about Iron Man 2 is the technology. Any geek that gets excited when Steve Jobs comes out in his black t-shirt to unveil the next Apple product will love the technology that Tony Stark has. It’s a marvel to watch and a joy to behold, but when computer effects are the best aspect of the movie, a problem is had.

Iron Man 2 is entertaining and gives the audience some loud, but fairly mundane action sequences. Other than that, the movie is pretty joyless and never spends the time to explore the deep and profound themes that it touches upon. The story is a means to an end. Hopefully filmmakers are taking note: when a story is a means to an end, the movie becomes lifeless in a way that makes the audience stop caring. Script and story is the most important thing. Without story, there is nothing.

Share

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Square

Posted on May 4, 2010 by

The Square, an Australian film directed by Nash Edgerton, is the complete opposite of Mother, the film reviewed yesterday, in the fact that it is ALL about the consequences of sins and actions. It’s an interesting double feature if you could pull it off.

The movie starts off under an overpass, in an old beat-up car. It’s the place Raymond and Carla could get away to, out of the way of the gaze of others, to consummate their affair. The affair has gone on long enough for Carla to get antsy. Raymond has been promising her that he will leave his wife for a few months now, but it’s always “not now”, “another month” and when Carla discovers a bag full of money her husband stashed away, a con is hatched to steal the money and run away. This con, in Carla’s eyes, does two things: 1. It gets Raymond to finally make a decision one way or another and 2. It gives them security to start a life together.

It’s a simple premise, but these actions they are willing to take to be together are not without consequence. The film takes these consequences to an almost absurd level. Just when the audience thinks it can’t get any worse, it does. There were audible laughs in the theater because people couldn’t believe how far they were actually going with this story.

It’s a theme that has been done many times before. The Square is all about what happens when one tries to cover up a sin. How far must one go to cover it up? When does it stop? This movie shows the audience outward consequences to sin. It’s really a mirror to what happens inside of us when sin is hidden. The sin destroys and manipulates the inside of someone until nothing is left but darkness. People can try all sorts of things to make sin look pretty and make it go away, but nothing can be done by humanity to make that sin hidden.

It’s a joy to be able to go to the theater and see a con movie and see people in the lead who are effective and believable in the role that aren’t typical movie stars. David Roberts and Claire van der Boom are both believable as every day people in their roles as Raymond and Carla. Even though the script goes a bit too far in portraying everything that goes wrong, Roberts and van der Boom’s actions are what’s expected. They never play it over the top and it could have easily gone that way.

The best part of this movie is the acting. The script goes for the absurd and that ended up being too much in the end – the emotional impact that the final scene should have had was diminished because of what had already happened previously. The direction is straight forward, but Nash Edgerton, a stunt coordinator, is someone to watch. He has the ability to craft a well-told story into an enjoyable viewing experience.

The Square is definitely worth seeing, but it doesn’t tell us much that we don’t already know and the power of the narrative is diminished because they threw in too much; so much so, that it becomes absurd, but it’s always a good reminder that there are consequences to everything we do, be it good or bad.

Share

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mother

Posted on May 3, 2010 by

Mother, Bong Joon-Ho’s terrific new Korean film, is not just an incredibly well made murder mystery, it’s also an examination of a mother’s obsession with her child and the lengths she will go to protect him.

Mother opens with a scene of joy, when Mother is dancing in an open field. The dancing is not only an open expression of joy, but is also tinged with the weight of a mother’s responsibilities and worry. It never seems to escape her. That scene demonstrates not only the joys of motherhood, but the curse as well. She is never fully free and that is evident in the next scene when she is watching her grown, but somewhat dimwitted son while cutting some natural medicine. She cuts her finger and he gets hit by a car. She’s not concerned at all for her bleeding finger, but for her son.

When the mother’s son, Do-joon, gets accused of murdering a local high school girl, the mother sets out on a journey of discovery to prove her son’s innocence. She knows that he couldn’t hurt a fly and the murder could never have been committed by her son.

The movie unfolds unexpectedly and beautifully and this journey that Bong Joon-Ho takes the audience on is a thrilling one. Films rarely, if ever, give a smart audience, an unexpected and powerful ride, but Mother succeeds in doing just that. The acting in this by both Kim Hye-ja (mother) and Won Bin (Do-joon) is phenomenal and it’s a joy to watch actors at the top of their game. The direction and cinematography is incredibly stunning.

Not only is this a powerful genre-defying thriller, it’s also a fascinating character study. The mother is obsessed with her son in ways that seem a bit unhealthy.  Yes, Do-joon is a bit slower than his counterparts mentally, but he is still a functioning man that knows more than he lets on. Even so, the mother has Do-joon sleep with her and has no intimacy boundaries with him. They know each other in an intimate way and act more like a married couple than a mother and grown son.

The film really sets out on a path that doesn’t regard consequences of actions or forgiveness with any weight. It’s about the act of forgetting that becomes a prominent fixture in the movie. The problem with forgetting is that the situation that is forgotten is never dealt with in a way that provides healing or reconciliation. Love and forgiveness can give people that, but obsession and forgetfulness can only lead to the fracturing of the whole person.

Bong Joon-Ho is also able to weave social commentary into what could have been just a very good genre movie. He has something to say about the way the police force do business after wrapping up cases with little evidence and investigation, about the prevalence of technology and both the downfalls and usefulness of it. He also has something to say about the degradation of girls in Korean society. That’s something that is prevalent starting at a young age and is incredibly sad that it’s propagated by the men and accepted by the women.

This is a movie that should be enjoyed not only for its basic plot structure and thriller sensibilities, but for the meaningful things it has to say about the obsession of mothers and the human society – what we are capable of and the question of what love actually is. It’s an amazing film that needs to be sought out. Bong Joon-Ho is one of the most exciting young filmmakers working today. Seek out both The Host and Memories of Murder, his previous efforts.

Share

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Posted on April 20, 2010 by

When you have a movie titled “Men Who Hate Women”, you pretty much know what you are in for, but the more ambiguous title of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo might just throw you off the scent. The original Swedish title is definitely more appropriate to the themes of the movie. It is a movie about men who hate women. There is no doubt about it. It’s a movie about the subjugation of women and the dominance of evil men. Throw in a forty-year-old mystery and an interesting and compelling movie is made.

The subject matter is dark in a way that few American movies dare to be (no wonder it’s not an American movie). But that darkness sheds a light on the problem and prominence of the destruction of the female psyche by brutal and evil men. There are many evil acts committed in this film that are not for the faint of heart, but the film is an incredible look at said evil in a way that will get the audience talking about themes and ideas that they otherwise wouldn’t.

The fact is, this is a well-made character driven mystery-thriller; a type of film that is a rarely made. Every character is fleshed out and their life is not one-note, nor insignificant to the story as a whole. It was almost so much so that every character could have been the focus of the movie and the meaning and impact would not have been lost.

The most intriguing character of the film is the girl with the dragon tattoo, Lisbeth Salander. She has been subjugated by men constantly throughout her life and has retaliated in ways other women in the same situation would not. She is a strong woman that has been destroyed on the inside. She doesn’t let anyone inside and has built up a strong exterior shell that shields her from most devastating hurts. It’s a sad and lonely life that she has created for herself, all out of necessity and it’s surprising and heartening when she finally lets her shell crack a bit. She’s the type of heroine that the audience can root for and empathize with. She’s a fascinating character study on her own while being essential to the plot.

Every character is important not only to the plot, but thematically as well. This is the rare movie that melds plot and theme seamlessly. It really shows the character and depravity of the human race. These depraved men have all been shown the way of evil by another and have fed into it all. They are men that need reconciliation and redemption, but it never comes. The evil that they commit on women are almost unredeemable – they commit horrors in the name of a cause that are bone-chilling; horrors that should never exist in the world. Unfortunately, they do exist. Can these horrors ever be atoned for?

The basic plot and structure of the film is pretty ordinary, but the way the film develops character and theme around that plot is extraordinary. It’s amazing to see an uncompromised look at the baseness of humanity. There are evils committed and evil men who hate women, but this movie suggests that women don’t have to be defined by the cruel acts heaped on them; they can overcome and transcend them. These horrific acts will always be a part of them, but they aren’t who they are.

Share

Posted in Movie Reviews, Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

“Kick-Ass”: Morally Reprehensible or Satirical Fun?

Posted on April 19, 2010 by

Hit Girl

There has been a mini-outrage over the violence perpetrated by a eleven-year-old girl in the movie Kick-Ass. The outrage has not grown much outside of a couple prominent critics, but when Roger Ebert says something these days, people generally sit up and listen. Roger Ebert, in his review said,

“Will I seem hopelessly square if I find Kick-Ass morally reprehensible and will I appear to have missed the point? … This isn’t comic violence. These men, and many others in the film, are really stone-cold dead. And the 11-year-old apparently experiences no emotions about this. Many children that age would be, I dunno, affected somehow, don’t you think, after killing eight or 12 men who were trying to kill her? … Big Daddy and Mindy never have a chat about, you know, stuff like how when you kill people, they are really dead. This movie regards human beings like video-game targets. Kill one, and you score. They’re dead, you win. When kids in the age range of this movie’s home video audience are shooting one another every day in America, that kind of stops being funny.”

Yes, the movie is a satire and a lot of critics and movie patrons are digging the satirical elements. I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed the premise and think that the character Kick-Ass was inventive and original, but when Hit Girl and Big Daddy come on the scene, things turn dark quickly and the stone cold killing machine that is an eleven-year-old girl becomes a bit disturbing.

What then, is the difference between Kick-Ass and the revenge tale that is Kill Bill? Why is it okay that The Bride (Uma Thurman) goes on a killing spree of revenge and not okay for Hit Girl to do the same? Is it because Hit Girl is eleven or is it because Hit Girl was created, in essence, by her father? I think it is the latter. Hit Girl has been made into a knife-wielding sociopath only to help her father avenge the wrong done to him. The Bride in Kill Bill has made a conscious decision to get rid of a horrific man that destroyed her and her baby and that is different than a child doing what her dad says to do. Big Daddy is the morally reprehensible character in Kick-Ass. Hit Girl is following her daddy’s orders – the man that made her into what she has become. It shows the power of the parent – the power to influence on a greater scale than anything else. This movie hits the nail on the head when it comes to the ever-diminishing morality of this great country – parents. Big Daddy turned his parental power into an evil to further his own agenda; he said he loved his daughter, but his love for his revenge fantasy was more powerful than any love he ever had for his daughter.

I don’t find the non-consequence killing spree of an eleven-year-old girl as morally reprehensible as much as what her father did to her. He created a non-feeling killer that furthered his agenda with no care for how she will turn out and how she will impact the world around her. Are elements of this movie morally reprehensible? Yes – I put the fault squarely on Big Daddy.

So, is there any value in this movie whatsoever? I think there is. It shows the power that parents have over their own children and it serves as a wake up call to the parents these days. The parents of Kick-Ass, Hit Girl, and Red Mist are all responsible for how their children turned out. Kick-Ass’ dad: distant and aloof without much involvement in his child’s life. That’s how Kick-Ass was – he needed to reinvent himself to start to feel and become a valuable asset to the world around him. Hit Girl’s dad: hyper-involved to the point of destruction. He didn’t cultivate his child’s personality – he imprinted his on his child and she turned out to be a sociopath. Red Mist’s dad: a larger than life character that never let his son find himself, so the only person he wanted to be was his father. He wasn’t allowed to find any role models on his own, so his father became that. Parents have a great influence over their children and that influence should never be taken lightly.

Share

Posted in Movies | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment