jonjosejamora Reviews

Dazed and Confused (1993)

(-_- ) zzZZzzZZ.... It's sad that it comes as a tired and uninspired FLICK from a good Director....

[1/10 · 23 October 2007]

It's bad enough that they ripped off a Led Zep song for the title, and what is worse is that the conversations are tired and boring. If you want to watch a "feel good" or funny movie, check out Clerks or the 40 year old Virgin. I guess that i am just warning you not to see such an overdone flick that really is not worth your time. On the OTHERHAND, if you liked this movie after watching it, good for you; frankly i did not see anything worth ranting about which explains my dread for this flick.

Just about the only excuse to watch this movie is if you are a fan of the following: Jason London, Matthew McConaughey, Milla Jovovich, Joey Lauren Adams, and Ben Affleck. I tried to like it since i am a fan of Joey Loren Adams. This is one of those early films for a lot of these rising stars.

I don't know what funny or interesting is according to this film. These are some of the events and themes featured that are supposed to be interesting: "Stoners" that emit a sense of pride as if they were some kind of elite. Fraternity style initiations with paddles, ketchup, and crappy "mean" acting (the initiations are not even believable; i mean who the hell runs around with a colored kiddie looking paddle?!). High school queer looking freshmen trying to be mature by talking about the "babes" of the campus. A football player struggling in terms of submitting to his coach or not (come on as if any hard working varsity players would think of quitting the team for pot sessions...). More of the stupid freshmen trying to fit in (character development for the least important....). With all of the little details that the film could do with out, the entire package just gives a sense of "i-am-running-out-of-ideas-about-where to-go-with-my-characters" kind of feel. I just don't know, the whole flick is trite and cliché that it's really nothing special.

Coming from the acclaimed Richard L. i am utterly disappointed. I know that this director can handle a simple and yet beautiful movie that excels due to the conversations of the characters as seen in "Before Sunset" (2004) and "Before Sunrise" (1995). I know that Before Sunset and the latter is of a totally different genre but its an example of how the dialogue can carry the movie and make it extraordinary. Dazed and Confused relies heavily on what it characters say, which is to say not much and not at all inspired.

Save yourself the time and pass on this one. I guess I also hate this a little bit too much since it has Ben Affleck in it (his acting never got better than this; so haha...). But hey, just to neutralize my last gripe, there is a film that i love with Ben A. directly and indirectly involved......... Yep its "Goodwill Hunting" (thanks to Ben A. for that one!).

Babel (I) (2006)

What can go wrong will go wrong....

[7/10 · 9 February 2007]

Babel is a movie of worst case scenarios. It's basically "what can go wrong will go wrong". What is astonishing though is that most of the occurrences seem very realistic. In the world today where so much is left to typical assumptions, events may seem as if they where something else. This is best portrayed by the Moroccan kids shooting at the tour bus, as if they were terrorists, a tragedy is portrayed through a misunderstanding. Common stereotypes are indeed dangerous and it is a simplification of matters based on nothing but bias. This same situation can be seen in our country (the Philippines); remember the political killings that had students and journalists viewed as rebels against the government. This film truly belongs to this age and its views on the people of this time; this is how i can say that it is believable.

The problem of communication is ever present as manifested by the various plots in the movie. Being in a foreign land grants a certain paranoia as you are indeed alien in the most technical sense, as well as in the cultural sense. Problems of crossing the border can of course be exaggerated as an individual's "race" is an immediate aspect in being branded as a suspect. An American couple in desperate need of medical services with the burden of trying to relate to Moroccan locals presents a "tourist nightmare". How far can an embassy go for you? That certainly is the question. An embassy can only do so much, as it is only a visitor (although permanent). And when the burden is passed on to it, to protect its locals, time will not stop and will surely go on. The word "Babel" in its literal meaning and sense, which means to confuse, is a problem that shows us that there are consequences in the world that are caused simply by miscommunication.

Preconceived notions are advantageous to some while disadvantageous to others. This film allows for three observations concerning a country's diplomacy and public image. These biases can of course make diplomacy hard to attain. A country "can" also promote the welfare of its locals, while even safeguarding security to the extremes, which at most times negatively, affects its foreigners. As a direct contrast, a country may endanger its own locals in protecting its public image that may promote diplomacy. Of course in a world of biases, especially against terrorists, there is a "need" for somebody to blame for a certain crime. This is all for the sake of the guise of false security.

On the brighter side, the directing was exemplary. This film features a non-linear narration similar to "The Pulp Fiction" and "Go". It's enjoyable as it allows you to "think" and piece together how the stories interconnect. Chronological arrangement may seem odd, but in the end it serves to make you watch it once more as if replay value were present. The trend of including issues of interracial nature has once again been put forward similar to the opening of "CRASH". These stories of course market to the world of today as a lot of these events are based on what the trends and events are. Of the plots, the "deaf-mute story" shows how great the director is. This reminds me of a classic exercise that film students do, that of making a short film with out the use of "dialogue". The objective of that exercise is to show how good a director can lead you into thinking what the characters are "thinking" or "putting you in their shoes". Now the directing was superb as the most dramatic portions of Chieko's part is not "dialogued", as in her writing to the police officer, but you know exactly what she is thinking.

To best explain what I think about the movie I will use the contribution of the sociologist Jean Baudrillard. This film was simply a "Hyper-reality" in that the events are an exaggeration of real. They are possible but in a way speculated although they are based on current events. In other words it is a fictional mirror of today's world. It may not exactly be true, but it presupposes some kind of explanation based on what has been observed.

Dragon Ball (1995–2003)

The series that simplifies and introduces anime.

[9/10 · 8 February 2007]

Dragon ball is the cartoon that pioneered the fame that anime enjoys today. "What FF7 did for Rpg's, DB does for anime". It showcases wacky characters that each develop over time. It is definitely for kids but, considering Japanese culture, some actions(e.g. young Goku touching/smelling "genitalia") may seem vulgar but of course in a comedic and innocent manner. This is as well, slapstick humor.... not in its finest... BUT IN ITS EXTREME FORM! (e.g. One of Goku's enemies, Ninja Murasaki, falls from the roof. Then.... the "poor" ninja lands ass-first on Goku's stretch stick, protruding from the ground. Talk about the worst anal probe ever! Thats how the guy loses. Hahahaha....)

The plot is built around an odd little boy that that is blessed with great strength and physical prowess. The general formula of the series is one of a "Boss saga" type. What i mean by this is that each "chapter" always begins with a new enemy boss introduced while it ends with the protagonist defeating that boss. Later on, in the series (DBZ), the origins of Goku is revealed. Dragon ball is centered on how Goku attains super hero status. By the latter parts of Dragon ball, Goku actually "grows up". A trademark as well of the show is the many memorable characters that it has. What is memorable?? This is simply: Ulong (the shape-shifting pig), Yamcha (the outcast that fights using his "Wolf fang fist"), Bulma (the main focus of "fan service"), Goku (the monkey boy), Lange (the schizophrenic sneezing babe).....

This is actually a good example of what anime generally is. All the peculiar humor that Japanese cartoons portray are nicely shown. From the sexual overtones, slapstick, stupidity, childishness, super deformed "chibi" and what not considering Jap-humor. Don't forget that this is a kiddie show. It is enjoyable though even for adults as the "oddities" (goku's old master, the ultimate "hentai" "perv" Tortoise Genie, in his eternal pursuit for sexy women.) are enough to keep you laughing.