Trying out Blogger's Hello program for image-hosting. I dunno... Isn't it *really* awkward and *really* weird to have to use an IM client to post images to your blog? I've complained about this in an earlier post, and I'm still annoyed. 
ARRUG! And there's no way to specify a title! And it puts that annoying Hello icon above in the post! Damn it.
EDIT: oops, okay, so you can tell Hello to not put that icon there. That's nice. Still annoyed at the non-title though.
I went to Blake's for the first time tonight. When presented with the opportunity, I figured I should at least go to Blake's once during my tenure at Berkeley. We went downstairs and listened to The Cheats playing. They weren't very good, and their music ranged from incredible loudness and messiness with all members masturbating on their instruments to quiet parts with a trembling guitar line once in a while. Yuck.
And why do you need to tip the bartender anyway? This guy gets an amazing amount of tip for doing nearly no work. I wish I were a bartender.
Wait, no I don't.
I'm so behind on my movie reviews, so here are short ones of the films I saw recently:
Closer (9/10) -- Everything about this film is nearly perfect. The performances were superb -- stunning, even, in the cases of Clive Owen and Natalie Portman, who exceeded herself in Garden State. The film shows four ruthless and selfish people in absurb love triangles. Interestingly, we never get to see them being happy. All we see are the beginning -- when one woos another away from someone else -- and the end -- when one leaves another. Both are the most painful parts of relationships in general, and we never see the supposedly happy things in the middle. Might as well -- this is a film not so much about relationships as it is about how we break them down, tear them up and abuse them to fulfill our absurd and desperate fear of loneliness. To that end, it serves up an amazing brew. The film was adapted from a play, and it shows. Characters spew hyper-intelligent lines at superhuman speed, and the way they talk is dazzling and frightening. Of course, this kind of stagey dialogue suits me just fine -- I'm not all that interested in reality anyway, as you may have gathered. The film basically moves from one fight/courtship scene to another, and boy are they spectacular! A fight between Clive Owen and Julia Roberts and a courtship between Clive Owen and Natalie Portman are two of the most breath-taking scenes all year long. Some take issues with there being no likeable characters. I would argue the point (I thought Natalie Portman's character was quite adorable), but it's true -- if you can't stand movies that don't have any character that you can like or relate to, Closer is not for you. Me? I'm just having too much fun watching them slash each other down in the most dazzling ways possible. There's love for ya.
A Very Long Engagement (9/10) -- Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Audrey Tautou -- director and actress of the adorable Amelie -- reunite in this beautiful film on one girl's search for his fiance, who was lost (and presumed dead) during his service in France for World War I. Yes, it's a war movie -- it's much heavier and less lyrical than Amelie, and Jeunet tones down his cinematic tricks to bring gravity to the subject matter. But the film is still one of the best-looking movies of the year, and the cinematography is just outstanding. Critics argue that it's too whimsical for the subject matter, and it may be, but we are not at all spared of some horrible and graphic war images. The plot is extremely complicated -- that it was adapted from an even more complex book guarantees this -- and sometimes difficult to follow. But even if you don't understand absolutely every detail in the first viewing, you'll still enjoy it at a more intuitive level. And, though it does have its light-hearted moments, it's the saddest movie of the year.
The Life Acquatic with Steve Zissou (8/10) -- This is, for me, the funniest movie of 2004. Coming from the quirky Wes Anderson, whose previous films -- Rushmore, The Royal Tennanbaums -- earned nothing but smiles from me, I expected little more than a few chuckles. But from the first scene, I was laughing like a mad man. It may be just me -- there were several moments when I was the only one laughing in the theater -- but Bill Murray gives such a funny and awkward performance that I feel like laughing every time he's on screen. Anderson also shows off a bit in a spectacular, emotionally-heated scene toward the end that is at once shocking and breath-taking. Great stuff.
Bad Education (8/10) -- Pedro Almodovar -- America's favorite Spanish director, last year nominated for Talk to Her -- has made a sumptuous film here. The plot is complicated and interesting, and the way he juggles multiple timelines and varying degrees of reality is brilliant. No plot details are necessary -- you should just watch it. I've never seen a Almodovar film, and I am very impressed. Once interesting note, though -- it is rated NC-17. WHY? For the record, as far as I can remember, this film has absolutely NO NUDITY. There are plenty of sex scenes -- the film is notorious for it -- but none of them show any private body parts. The only thing that this film differs from other, more explicit, R-rated films, is that the sex scenes are between two men. Is this reason enough to push it to NC-17? If there are other reasons, I'd love to know. Otherwise, this is completely ludicrous.
The House of Flying Daggers (7/10) -- For those who thought Hero was visually spectacular but emotionally hollow, this film is director Zhang Yimou's response. It has (thankfully!) fewer fight scenes, and none as dazzling as the leaves fight in Hero, but it actually has a real plot now, and one filled with real characters. Yes, it still feels pretty hollow, and I still don't really care much about the characters, but at least I'm not bored. And the beautiful fight scenes -- especially the one in a bamboo forest -- certainly elevate it above your typical martial arts film. Now that Zhang Yimou has gotten all these cool-fight ideas out of his system in Hero, he was finally able to craft a better film that's more than a rack on which to hang his fight scenes. It's unfortunate that he's not making another wuxia film -- at least not yet -- because next time, he might actually focus on the characters.
Finding Neverland (6/10) -- It's fine Hollywood yarn. Johnny Depp was fine, and Kate Winslet was fine. The plot was fine (if not a little trite) and the direction was fine. But it's sugary and a tad manipulative towards the end, and in general just not all that spectacular. There is very little magic as James Mathew Berrie writes his masterpiece, Peter Pan, compared moments from other literary films like Shakespeare in Love or The Hours. And Berrie's "boundless imagination" could've been presented with a little more imagination. But still, there's nothing terribly wrong with it. It's fine.
Yes it's been a month, who cares?
The Oscar nominations are in!
Inclusions that made me ecstatic:
This film is as fine as the wine that its characters obsess over -- smooth, effortless, and with a haunting after taste that keeps you up at night.
Of course, I don't know anything about wine, but what a movie! The fourth film from American directory Alexander Payne, who also made Election and About Schmidt, is more restrained, more subtle and more mature than his previous outings. It definitely borrows more in tone from About Schmidt (slow, dreamy countryside) than Election (bitter, vicious suburbanite) and doesn't quite reach the sheer joy of Election, still my favorite Payne film. But this is not a film that is eager to show off its cleverness as Election was. There are no crazy camera movements or fancy cinematic tricks screaming for attention. The characters just talk on and on, and the things that they say aren't even particularly clever or witty.
But boy, do you fall in love with the characters! In a kind of chamberplay-on-the-road, all four actors and actresses turn in wonderful performances, and there is a beautiful, dreamy conversation late at night between the main character and his love interest on the subject of wine and life that may knock you out cold and break your heart.
Of course, Payne hasn't completely gone soft. There is a scene here that is as surprising and vulgar as the famous bathtub scene in About Schmidt and most of Election. You'll know it when you see it, and you'll think twice about entering strangers' houses after watching this.
In any case, this is not a film that aggressively tries to impress you. But its characters stay with you, and scenes from the film age slowly. Plus, I vote the main character as the most me-character I've seen on film all year. This is a great movie, but its greatness won't come till you've let it sit and ripen for a few days.
Very disappointing. I came out of Collateral eager to see what Jamie Foxx would do with a weightier role. And while Foxx was fine, the movie was not.
Ray makes the most fatal mistake of all biopics -- instead of telling stories about the man and the legend, it merely lays out a chronology. The film starts off promisingly with effective flashback scenes hinting at a haunting past. However, after the half-way point, everything that's on screen only serves to bring about another newspaper headline. The characters don't stay on screen for more than three minutes anymore; instead, we are presented with flash presentations of different events in Ray Charles' life. Very quickly, I lost all identification with any of the characters, and was begging for the history lessons to stop. The movie culminates with a final, imaginary scene that resolves Ray's ghosts from the past. This scene is unnecessarily uplifting, offensively cheesy and only emphasizes how phony the whole movie rings.
Jamie Foxx was fine and believable as Ray Charles. But he was never given many scenes of much emotional weight that holds for more than five minutes, and therefore, never evolves from mere caricature to character. I much prefer him in Collateral.
In any case, god I hope this film doesn't make it into the Oscars. Jamie Foxx can get his Best Actor nod, but do not waste a slot in Best Picture.
So I was a little disappointed. Just a little. Garden State is quirky. But like most freshmen films -- it is written and directed by first-timer Zaff Braff -- it is too impressed by its quirkiness.
It's odd, really. Many films seem to think that if they're hip and stylish, they can get away with being mushy, as if their quirkiness buy them credits toward sentimentality. Most of Spielberg films fall into this catagory, as did I Heart Huckabees. Garden State is not overly sentimental, but all the existential and relational angst that it has juggled for 90 minutes fall too neatly in place in the last ten minutes. And, throughout the ending scenes, the film is a relentless point-making machine, settling scores and offering axiomatic nuggets of life wisdom with scary and pretentious efficiency.
I forgive it -- up to this point, the film has been honest, sharp and observant. Zaff Braff, of the Scrubs fame, is endlessly watchable. His comatose demeanor and dry delivery are a pleasure to behold, and his script is filled with cool characters. Natalie Portman also turns in a sympathetic and charming performance that is hard not to adore, and provides a worthy spirit to the film's weighty center. And there were scenes of simple brilliance, such as the opening scene or the knight-in-kitchen scene. Most of the time, it is an incredible first feature, and shows a lot of promise.
But then, occasionally, it makes hard and difficult turns toward the conventional. The father-son relationship is handled with a wave of the hand -- how typical for a non-psychiatrist to show more insight into life than a psychiatrist! And several of the "poignant" scenes feel like Natalie Portman trying to squeeze tears from our eyes. Plus, we would all be better off with fewer scenes of people shouting into an abyss. Still, Garden State is an entertaining ride through teenage angst. And, in his next feature, if Zaff Braff can steer clear of the mind-numbing medication of canned sentimentality, then, well, we might all start to feel something.
Ah, I just realized the character flaw that defines me. I take too close to heart the saying that "the higher you climb, the harder you fall". And I'm so afraid of a fall that I hardly attempt a climb at all. So there I am, sitting half a mountain up, going to classes, doing homework, working late nights, with no intention of reaching much higher, but content that I'm not any place worse. Sure, it's nice to have no illusions, but I've also become utterly predictable and stagnant. Certainly I can achieve nothing greater in my life than what I can recover from in its failure. And that's boring.
And now I'm starting to be dissatisfied with my contentment...
David O. Russel walks a dangerous line between the quirky and the ridiculous in his latest film, I Heart Huckabees. Oddly enough, this is not where the flaws of the film lie -- I Heart Huckabees is bizarre, surprising and challenging without losing all senses. I do have a high tolerance for absurdity -- being a fan of Mulholland Drive -- but I never found this film to be as disconnected and unpenetrable as critics have.
No, the problem actually lies in the struggle between the quirky and the banal. Quirkiness is usually used by directors to disguise true feelings and philosophical musings that would otherwise be sentimental. And though Huckabees has its share of brilliant quirkiness -- a dinner scene comes immediately to mind -- it also deeps into convenient banality, as in a career-killing meeting scene. It is frustrating to see a film with as awesome a concept as "existential detectives" to move into these easy, sentimental scenes, and I just had to shake my head and dock a few points.
Still, it is a fun and funny film. Highly recommended.
Best of 2004:
=============
I was lucky enough to attend a preview of Pixar's Next Big Thing, "The Incredibles". And boy, it's going to be hard going through this blog without using the word "incredible" and looking smug, but I'll try. In fact, I already failed.
In any case, WOW. This is, BY FAR, the MOST adult Pixar film to date. It is rated PG for cartoon violence, and sure, there's that, but that's not the adult part. Characters spew lines that I never thought would appear in a Pixar film. For example, Bob the father (ala Mr. Incredible), on a 4th grade graduation ceremony: "It's not a graduation! He's just passing from 4th grade to 5th grade! Why do we look for every possible chance to celebrate mediocrity?"
My jaw really dropped at this. This is so amazingly cynical, biting and incisive that you expect it from the mouth of, say, Woody Allen, but not a Pixar-animated father figure! Immediately, I knew this was going to be a very different film from the standard Pixar fare.
And it is. The Incredibles, as Monsters Inc., is bursting at the seams with imagination. There are breathtaking scenes that rival the sheer joy of creativity in the door-hanger scene in Monsters Inc. And the action scenes look absolutely stunning. But what really sets it apart is the amount of darkness in the material, from the truly dysfunctional family (instead of the standard I'm-an-orphan fare) to the issues of arrogance, neglect and death.
The director is Brad Bird, the mastermind behind "The Iron Giant", one of the finest animated films to come out of America. That movie, as The Incredibles, is funny, but in a different way from other Pixar films. The Incredibles has fewer zingers that almost entirely carried Finding Nemo, but it does have more situational comedy. Recall the robot-hand-in-the-house scene from The Iron Giant, and you get the idea.
Better still -- like The Iron Giant, The Incredibles is touching without being mushy. It is poignant, and it deals with the big issues, but without the usual preachiness. In fact, The Incredibles is probably the most morally-ambiguous Pixar film to date. Most of the characters have real flaws -- I don't mean just laziness or insecurity. There's a genuinely dark side to many of the characters, and good and evil is no longer so clear-cut. I really loved that as well.
Graphically, it looks amazing. The Incredibles features the best-looking computer-generated water effects to date. Sure, Finding Nemo has some of that, but it is mostly underwater, and as we know, the hard part is in modeling the water surface. The Incredibles has multiple scenes of characters in water -- and, even more amazing -- things splashing into water with stunning realism. The human characters are still not perfect -- Dash, in particular, looks very plastic for some reason -- but they're not expected to be.
I can go on and on about the complicated story, the sharp dialogue or the creative action sequences, but work is calling me. Suffice it to say that The Incredibles is the best Pixar film to date, and, as it stands right now, the best film of the year.
For fun, I'm listing my ranking of Pixar films:
Top Pixar Films:
================