Announcement

I have received several emails complaining about the frequency in which this blog was updated. It was quite a shocker really, since i DONT gave my private email address freely (in order to keep those spams and junks away). So, i bid my thanks and my deepest apology to all of you who (i was still surprised really) had paid attention to this blog and to a puny, so-so, and uninformative reviews that i had written in the last couple of years.

Well, actually, i was about to shut this blog. By next month (May 20th is my word, but alas, never trust datelines given by a software developer. Especially when such deadlines weren't quite that important and advantageous :)), i hope i had an URL address ready, new layouts (that's for sure), new contents, and most important of all, i hope that i had several contributors to write as well, so you wouldn't have to bear to read my pretentious one-sided reviews anymore.

See you soon. Thank you and my apologies.

March 2006 Experience (part 1)

This March, i had a precious chance to broaden my horizon by watching movies that either has become a classic, or came from once legendary directors. Pardon my language, but i had the very first intercourse with Alfred Hitchcock's, Ingmar Bergman's, and David Lynch's. All, in this early two weeks part of the month. This, gonna be a long post. Well, here's what you going to expect from this (series-of) post. By the way it was ordered by the time i've seen the film: North Country (2005), Rear Window (1954), Psycho (1960), A History of Violence (2005), All About Eve (1950), The Seventh Seal (1957), and Mulholland Drive (2001).

1. North Country (2005)
Cast: Charlize Theron, Frances McDormand, Sissy Spacek, Sean Bean
Directed by: Niki Caro
My Rating: *** / ****

Another one of those 'inspired' by the true-event film (not to be confused with based on real-event), North Country portrayed the life of Josey Aimes, a female mine-worker who (again, in this film) the first female worker to ever sue the company where she worked regarding of the harsh-treatment she and her female co-worker received from her male co-workers.

When i read about the premise prior to the film, i had briefly placed myself on a neutral position. And i was very much believe that those won't change even after i've seen the film. Because, naturally the mine was a place where you do dirty stuffs, required more muscle, and within harsh environment where most would be attributed it to the male world. So, i think it's sufficient to say that the idea of a female mine-worker recieving harsh-treatment from her male co-worker was - in my opinion - appropriate on such environment. Further, if i was told to point a finger, I would blame the girl for her job-choice. As if there wasn't any job (with less harsh environment, that is) left out there.

Alas, Niki Caro, being a woman herself, spends a big portion of the movie to deal intimately with Josey's life. More than enough for us to fall in love to her, to sympathize with her conditions, and ultimately to stands in line behind her when she stood for her right. And that's why this film works. However, at the cost of jumbled narrative at the end. For it seems that the movie-makers had just realised that the running-time for this film had exceeded two hours mark and they hurriedly put the conclusions to fit in. But, i'd say again, that the film works. Much thanks to superb performance by Charlize Theron, she was so beautiful, by the way, and Frances McDormand whose previous performance in Fargo made her effort to put an accent at her speech in this film like a walk in the park.

2. Rear Window (1954)
Cast: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey, Thelma Ritter
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
My Rating: **** / ****

My first Hitchcock's flick. Long story short, if a film made in all its humbleness, simple in execution, but, could provide thrilling entertainment, then that film was either really good, or has been made by superb film director, mastering in thriller. Well, "Rear Window" is both. The entire film was shot in and from one location only. Which is in our main cast's apartement looking through the apartement's Rear Window to the neighboring apartments where the event which was the main interest of this film took place. And, if that wasn't enough, all of the sound in this film is diegetic, which means that all the music, speech, and other sounds all come from within the world of the film.

L.B Jeffries was a photographer. He had been forced to stay at the apartment with one footin in a cast that temporarily put him out of any outdoor activities. So what does he do then? he eye-ing his neighbors through the window of his apartment. Sounds simple? it is. But believe me, it drags you. It sucked you in to Jeff's POV, up to a point where you share his curiousity, believes to his illusion, well, want to believe would be more appropriate, and subsequently turns his experience into ours. As the film progresses, several other characters interact with Jeff. They were either agreed with Jeff, or contradict him, or reminded him (and us) that eavesdropping (or the sort) was naturally moral-wise bad. And therefore, he (Jeff, as with us as well) was a bad person.

But who needs morality when you've got your curiosity? As they say, curiousity kills the cat. And this kitten here should be ashamed that he (guided with Jeff's binocular) chose to ignore the lady whose about to killed herself with a lethal dose of some sleeping-pills over the truth. Over his curious-ness. Alas, this kitten knew the fact, knew that he should be ashamed by doing that, way after the movie hits the gutter.

3. Psycho (1960)
Cast: Anthony Perkins, Janeth Leigh, Vera Miles, John Gavin, Martin Balsam
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
My Rating: *** / ****

I've got a little-problem with the title that even though i've wrote it several times already, i still can't manage to get to write it correctly in the first try. I've always wrote it Phsyco, Physco, or some other before i opened an internet window to see how does "Psycho" spelled correctly. Ah well.

Many considered this flick as Hitchcock's magnum opus. While i cant say whether i agree or not, considering that i've only seen two of many Hitchcock's filmography, i could savely say that i agree that this film was more than enough to give you thrills throughout its film-length. And if someone say that this film was the best thriller film ever made, i wouldn't dare to argue him about it.

When the film was released for the first time, Alfred Hitchcock warn the audiences that they should not share the mystery, the twist on its end to another who hadn't seen the film. Understandable. I mean, most of the people i've met would agree that if you knew Bruce Willis' character was dead for the entire film of "The Sixth Sense" before watching the movie itself, you wouldn't had that much fun comparing to those who hadn't known the truth behind the film. In fact, you wouldn't had fun at all.

On the other hand, i was one of those rare-type-movie-guy who doesn't care shit about spoilers. And so, yeah, before i had the chance to see this film, i've read the script, and know very well the truth behind the mystery. But that doesn't keep the surprise-factor alien from my universe. Not just once, i've shocked twice. I was pretty much sure, that you who have seen the films would agree that this film was shocking indeed, at least (especially) on the two points i fore-mentioned.

Other than that, the films was surrounded by not-too-shabby cast. But the ultimate cast was the one who played Norman Bates. That guy's grin on the end of the film, creeps me out. And while he looks like an O.K man, a kind-hearted man, you would agree that his seclusion and detachment from the outside world were very visible that if you really met him in the real world, you would distanced yourself as well.

Jarhead (2005)

United States, 2005
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Peter Sarsgaard, Brian Geraghty, Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper
Director: Sam Mendes
My Rating: *** / ****

I was one of those kids who in his youth was mesmerized with John Rambo. I mean, who wouldn't anyway? I think that it is safe to say that every kids of '80s would at least catch a glimpse on who is Rambo regardless if he has already seen the film or not. I was one of those who hasn't seen the film but had enough feed on Rambo. Enough that sometimes, i'm re-enacting his actions. A muscular guy with a huge machine gun, taking down a whole army of Vietnamese all by himself, fight for a righteous act, wicked looking combat knife, and of course, that red bandanna. But then again, when i really had the chance to see the film in question (part II, not part I) years later, i decided to dislike it, entirely.

Now, aside from that, since that moment i had a solid concept inside my head about a war movie. That every war movie is different, yet every war movie is the same. Ow, wait, that sounds exactly like the voiceover at the end of this film, Jarhead, which i was about to write.

Over the years, as i grow older, and digested more movies than it's allowed, i learnt of an anti-war movie which is a film that instead of putting the weight on its deliverance upon patriotism-issues (which was a turn-off for me, since i was often at odds against the protagonist's patriotism. Take "Pearl Harbor", or "Black Hawk Down" for an instance), it often, if not always put the word war before a question mark. Such as, "why war?". Take "Full Metal Jacket", or "Appocalypse Now" as an example. Okay, you may disagree with my analogy. But that's how i viewed the anti-war film.

"Jarhead" was undoubtedly was those among the anti-war films. It told about the Gulf war, the first Gulf war, by the way, when Iraqi soldiers tried to "re-capture" Kuwait. But, of course, it didn't justified the war, or taking side. It viewed and told the war from a perspective of a "Jarhead" (which is a jargon that branded to the Marine Corps). A young soldier, Anthony Swofford (Gyllenhaal) who had undergone a harsh basic training only to be sent to the desert with almost nothing to do. Swofford and his fellow-mates must wait for a war that it turns out, never come to the tip of their rifles. And during those wait, their 'personal-war' begun.

Well, unlike most other anti-war film that i've seen, this film doesn't questioned the need of war, nor deal with the soldier's humane perspective in killing others. This film is simply dealt with the soldier who had been trained to kill, trained to love their rifle, trained to make their rifle into the part of their body, trained to believe that they were there to serve their country only to find that their training had been taking its toll more than they could give. "At least, let him kill the man", someone said. And that's how one could summarized Jarhead in short words. Their in-ability to kill, not their guilty-conciussness after the kill that led them questioned the war.

On the other side of coin, this film was like any other war film that i've seen because there were almost no variety to the characters. We see the same kind drill-instructor, we see the same kind mind-insane team-mate, we see the same kind of lead actor, and we see the very same kind leader (who also gave personal speech that was delivered by any other war films only with different style). But, if anything, though it's a little bit too long for me.. (at some point, i wondered if i should turn off the film and sleep instead), i enjoyed Jarhead with its absence of patriotism-issue that could make me slap myself on the temple. I enjoyed the handy camerawork and cinematography (though, what do you expect from desert environment? green mountains?). And, had to admit, even though i never liked Jake Gyllenhaal, i dig him in this film. And this film was among the top 10 of my best-of-2005 films list.

Well, not much of a review, but hope it helps.

Intermezzo

It's been a month, i know. But, check out this blog.

http://www.cinematical.com

This blog had a LOT of gimmicks and tidbits about movies and current gossips.

New Job, Old Faces

Title.