Change Your Image
stobin31
Reviews
Zero (1997)
artsy-fartsy crap
OK...well, I'd have to say that the only previous reviewer of this film has either got to be joking or is an over-educated idiot who's reading WAY too much into this mess. True to its title, "Zero" shows about zero directorial accomplishment or talent for a first feature. Trust me, now that I've seen this, I won't be seeking out the other films by this so-called underground favorite, Fotopoulos.
The film is comprised of 2 hours and 22 minutes (yeah, that's right) of a bad actor doing one of two things: either poorly attempting improvisation, or poorly performing a handful of poorly written scenes, with the same musical clip playing over long montages of a naked woman's breasts, a burnt man's face, and a few other props. Got it? Because, that's the movie. Bad actor fumbles through bad scene (always talking about how he needs a woman while looking at pornography), then cut to 5-10 minutes of film-school-level experimentation, then back to the bad actor for another boring monologue. Back and forth, back and forth.
The cinematography is serviceable at best, with most of it either locked off or hand-held in a typical, first-year, film student sort of way, complete with bumpy pans, focus issues, hair in the gate, and under-exposures. The editing is nonexistent. There's enough material here for a 10 minute short, yet it runs as long as Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining." I still can't believe I made it through the entire thing. By the end I was furious, and not because the films was "provoking me." No, I was mad at myself for wasting most of a Friday night with such a pretentious load of bull. I kept waiting it out, giving the film the benefit of doubt in hopes it would somehow come around and surprise me. Truly, I don't think I could have made it another minute, when suddenly (typically) the film just STOPS. Of course it does! Since there's no storyline, purpose or thought driving anything, how on earth could there be any form of a satisfactory end? Oxymoron.
This is nothing more than an endurance test for people (like me) who take films seriously. "Eraserhead" and "Frownland" come straight to mind as challenging underground films that drive some "crazy." But those films are intelligent, with solid acting and very strong film-making skills apparent (and both are under 2 hours). This film, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. I really see nothing here in terms of any talent or vision on anyone's part.
Kissing on the Mouth (2005)
A bad, bad movie
What a time we live in when someone like this Joe Swan-whatever the hell is considered a good filmmaker...or even a filmmaker at all! Where are the new crop of filmmakers with brains AND talent??? We need them bad, and to hell with mumblecore!
This movie is about nothing, just as the characters in the film stand for nothing. It's this horrible, so-called Gen Y, that is full of bored idiots, some of which declare themselves filmmakers with out bothering to learn anything about the craft before shooting. Well, Orson Welles was a filmmaker. John Huston was a filmmaker. Fellini was a filmmaker. Dreyer was a filmmaker, etc. Current films like these show just how stupid young, so-called "filmmakers" can be when they believe going out with no script, no direction, no thought, no legit "camerawork" (everything shot horribly on DV), no craft of editing, no nothing, stands for "rebellious" or "advanced" film-making. Nope, it's called ignorance and laziness or just pure masturbation of cinema (and there actually is an in-your-face "jack-off shot," so be ready).
Look at the early films of any accomplished "indie" filmmaker: Linklatter, Morris, Allen, Lynch, Hartley, Jarmusch, Jost, Lee, or Herzog...none made anything as tedious and aimless as this, yet Swan-whatever the hell, is still going to SXSW every year and hailed as some kind of gutsy, new talent. It's crap! I can't imagine anyone liking this, and everything else this so-called filmmaker has done (all seen by me) is just as bad (the newer stuff clearly made to appeal to a more mainstream audience, one of the sitcom calling). Steer clear, unless you're a friend or family member of those involved...on second thought, if you're a family member or friend you'd probably be embarrassed to see a family member or friend in such compromising situations...
Utter garbage. This isn't art. This is the ultimate opposite of it.
If I Had a Hammer (1999)
a wonderful, unseen film
It is a down right shame that this, easily the best film by it's notoriously outspoken director, has still not found a means of distribution (outside of being up in 13 parts on you tube...not an ideal way to enjoy it's beautiful production value).
What I enjoy so much about this film is how different it is, both technically and aesthetically from the regular indie style most are accustomed to. There's no improvisation in a Becker film and while that's worked for some (Cassavetes, Jost, Leigh, etc.) most of the time it can come dangerously close to falling flat for an audience. Becker works like a poor man's Billy Wilder, filling his films with doses of humor, believable dialog, high production standards and perfectly structured scripts. This film, a not so sly jab at the dumbing down of art/music/film (entertainment in general) is a joy, shot on gorgeous 35mm with a wonderful cast of unknowns (probably the big reason for it's non-secured distribution status). It may not be a work of genius, but it's at least saying something. What was the last thing on the mind of Tarantino or Rodriguez?
Well worth the effort of seeking out.
Slow Moves (1984)
Little-seen gem from Jon Jost
This, an early feature from American maverick, Jon Jost, is one of his ultra-rare gems. At his best Jost is a regional filmmaker. His most intimate stories, like the writings of Ramond Carver, focus on the blue-collar inhabitance of the contemporary American West. SLOW MOVES falls into this category.
The story opens as two down-on-their luck misfits, Julie and Jeff meet in the middle of the Golden Gate Bridge. Unbekonwsnst to Jeff, Julie has come to the bridge to commit suicide. Jeff, a big honest, slight dope of a guy, straight out of the Navy, makes Julie laugh and soon the two become an item. Some time later Jeff moves in with Julie. Out of work and guzzling beer, Jeff argues with an irritated Julie. The two break up briefly, before reconciling and taking a quick trip to the mountains. Their little jaunt is fun and passionate, ending on a sudden, bitter note that comes as a real shock.
Unbelievably, this film was shot in only 5 days, with the two leading actors only meeting in real life just before the first scene was shot. This is true indie cinema, not a false example of something made for several million bucks with movie stars in the cast and distribution already in place (a la "Little Miss Sunshine").
Unfortunately, only 3 or 4 of Jost's films are currently available on DVD. One has to spend some real effort to find copies of his work, but they're out there (like with Facets in Chicago, or from Jost himself via his web site).