Jalow547 Reviews

Kid Mon: Real Name Unknown (2016)

A pretty good movie

[7/10 · 17 June 2023]

It's pretty good. Nothing particularly original or groundbreaking, but different enough from most of your mainstream Hollywood fare. If you're a fan of modern Japanese dramas you'll probably enjoy this one. There are a few really great scenes. It's not a minute too long and the whole thing flows really well. I never got bored for a second while watching this.

The acting and directing are really great. I think we can expect more good things from this very talented director, who also wrote the film. The style and themes reminded me a lot of the works of Hirokazu Kore-eda, but here everything feels a little more subdued, and a little less emotional, which I suppose is less dramatic but perhaps also a closer representation of real life as we're used to seeing it.

The Wedding Planner (2001)

A terrible, stupid, nonsense movie

[4/10 · 21 November 2020]

I don't think even the biggest romantic comedy fans out there enjoyed this one. The writing is just so very sloppy and lazy that the film should never have been made. They thought they could get away with just putting together ever single stereotyped cliche from every other romantic comedy and people would flock to see it. Well I'm sure it worked. With these actors, I bet a lot of people went and saw it, and I'm sure it made money, but it sure was terrible.

It's full of terrible jokes and scenes that don't make any sense, bad characters and side plots, and poorly written dialogue. I gave it a whopping four stars out of ten instead of something less than that only because...wait, why DID I give it four whole stars? I don't know. I really don't. I guess I must be in a good mood or something, but I don't know why. After all, I just watched a truly terrible movie.

April Story (1998)

The Cutest Movie Ever

[7/10 · 11 November 2020]

April Story is about the cutest movie I can recall having seen. I don't mean that as a good thing, but it's not necessarily a bad thing either. It's just a nice cute little film where cute stuff happens. The ending especially is obnoxiously cute.

The Last Request (2019)

This is the worst movie I have ever seen

[1/10 · 18 September 2020]

When I say that this is the worst movie I have ever seen, I don't mean that in a vague, exaggerated way. I'm not using hyperbole to suggest that it is simply a very bad film. I mean that this film, The Last Request, is without a doubt the very worst of the thousands of films I have seen in my life.

Everything about it is very bad. The script, which is the best thing about it, is awful. It may have worked with a few rewrites, but it feels like they rushed through this to make a film as fast as they could. It's interesting, because during the credits we see that they actually had quite a bit of filmmaking gear on set, more than many low-budget productions, but they still managed to screw everything up.

If I could ask the filmmakers one question it would be whether they purposely made a bad film. There are many examples of films like this that are so ineptly made as to be entertaining, such as The Room and the films of Neil Breen. And people who see those films say that no one could make a film that bad if they tried. But I suppose it's possible, although unlikely, that these filmmakers set out to do just that. If so, bravo. They are geniuses.

But if not, this movie is baffling. It appears they made every wrong decision they could make. I understand that these guys wanted to make a movie and nothing was going to stop them, but it really feels like they rushed through it as quickly as they could. In addition to all the other problems with the movie, the filming and editing both feel very sloppy and lazy. It's as if they didn't even watch their final cut before releasing it. The ADR is the worst I've seen in my life. I don't feel bad for taking this position; they definitely could have made a better film if they'd put in a little more work and tried just a little harder, so they have no one to blame but themselves.

At the very least, you would hope that they would learn something from making this film. But the mistakes they made were so glaringly bad that, even if they'd never made a film before, they should have already known better just from living. And now it seems they've made a second feature and made nearly all the same mistakes again. I will say this, however: their new film 48 Hour Drinking Spree is a comedy. I have watched the first ten minutes of it and, while it still suffers from many of the same mistakes as this film, the jokes at least work half the time, and that's point of a comedy.

As for The Last Request, it is interesting due to the so very inept filmmaking that went into it. It is worth watching for that reason, if you're into that sort of thing. You probably won't learn from their mistakes though, unless you're a filmmaker who is also a toddler.

La Flor (2018)

Yes, it's pretty good

[8/10 · 19 June 2020]

I read about this movie in a film magazine and I was intrigued. It runs more than thirteen hours and takes the form of six separate films that play one after the other, with the only common thread being the four lead actresses, who appear as different characters in each of the segments. It sounded like it could be very pretentious and overly artistic and everything like that, but it also sounded interesting and different enough that I had to check it out.

It was a while before I was able to see it, and I found myself wondering about it. Why spend ten years making a film that is really six films? Why not release each film separately. But it turns out that really is the genius of it. The six films only work because they're combined. Four of them don't even have an ending. On their own, they're nothing special. So the director really succeeded in his attempt to try something new, to combine different story elements in this unique way. He created six episodes that play one after another, and he even appears in the film himself to introduce it at the beginning, then twice more between some of the segments. And it all works! People must have told him he was crazy, but he pulled it off.

What ends up happening for the viewer is that instead of watching six films, we really are watching one film about four women. These four women, the actresses who appear throughout, are in a way playing actresses, maybe playing themselves ever, who appear in different stories for our enjoyment. We don't end up caring if a story has no end, because at that point we're just excited to see where they will take us next. It really is very clever. The stories are enjoyable in themselves, but we only end up caring about them exactly as much as we should. That's a good thing. We don't care if someone dies, because we know everyone will return safe and sound in the next episode.

And the stories are very interesting. They're funny and they're tense and they're serious and they're sad. And there were countless moments and scenes that felt totally original, like nothing I'd ever seen in any film before. That is rare these days, yet this guy pulls it off again and again. The length may be a big turnoff for a lot of people, but think of it like a miniseries. You're not going to watch it all at once. The DVD is actually four DVDs, and each of those is divided into two acts, so there are 8 acts total. The first two acts line up with the first two episodes, while the third episode takes up the next three acts and the fourth episode takes up two more acts of its own. The final act consists of the final two episodes, which play more like short films. You'll watch it over 8 nights, or 4 nights, or however long it takes. Maybe you'll take a night off between episodes, and it'll be there waiting for you when you come back. It's a slow movie at times, but not tedious. It wasn't for me, anyway. It was very entertaining and I always looked forward to seeing what was next.

One thing I enjoyed was the fact that the stories were not rushed. I've seen films that were longer than they needed to be and some that were shorter. Here, the pacing is perfect. It's a long film, but not a slow film. It's slow at times, but only when it needs to be. The two longest segments also happened to be the two best. Both were very different, but they had a lot of flashbacks and wandering narratives that took as all over the place until we didn't know what to expect. But I will say that the film is very artistic in every way, both good and bad. There is a complete Kill Bill (volumes 1 and 2) in there, and a silent film that comes with nearly all the frustrations of a silent film, although it somehow still feels welcome when it arrives. It's not a perfect film, but it is a very fun experiment. The director, it seems, took a big risk in making it and he succeeded. He had a vision and he saw it through and now we have this wonderful film to enjoy. If more filmmakers would follow this example then we would have a bigger variety of films instead of the same old garbage year after year, sequel after sequel, every movie being exactly the same.

Axed (2012)

Severely flawed, but has some good bits

[4/10 · 10 December 2019]

I'll start by talking about everything wrong with the film. Most noticeably, the lighting decisions are terrible. The bulk of the action takes place in one day, and it looks as if they shot everything in sequence over the course of two days, so that by the time it's supposed to be early afternoon in the film it is clearly approaching dusk outside. Then five minutes later it's clearly morning again, and it slowly gets dark once more. Then during the nighttime scenes there are moments that were obviously shot in sunlight. It's distractingly bad. It looks like they tried to do day for night but didn't know how. Additionally, the film is very ugly in that it looks like it was shot on a very low quality camera that has a look not fitting for the tone of the movie.

The cameraman did a good job with what he had to dork with, however. There are some fun shots in here and the editing is well done. The acting is hit-or-miss, with one or two miscast characters, but some of it is very good. The actor who plays the father in particular did an amazing job. Some of the best I've seen and very believable and a fun performance. Bang up job!

The story, while nothing spectacular, is surprisingly realistic given the budget and style of film. I was expecting something rather corny, but this feels pretty real. I believe it may have been inspired by one or two true stories, based on similarities to things I've read about.

The sound is not great but nothing to complain about. It's much better than in some of the very low budget films I've seen. But the lighting is some of the worst I've seen. The ending is very good.

Footsteps (2006)

Interesting

[5/10 · 15 May 2019]

This film is noteworthy for being the directorial debut of Gareth Evans, best know for making the "Raid" films a few years after this. This film is something totally different.

It's a very low-budget crime film. It's very amateurish. The acting is pretty bad, with one notable exception. And the movie sounds terrible. The audio is very bad for the duration of the film, peaking all over the place and cutting in and out, which makes this very difficult and frustrating to watch. It's almost a chore for that reason. When sound is done well in a movie, it goes unnoticed by most. That's the goal. Here, however, it is all too noticeable and a constant distraction and hindrance. It makes the film feel like a rough cut, like it's unfinished.

It even feels like there are some scenes missing. I understand that they didn't want to spoon-feed us every answer here, but it feels like some stuff was unintentionally left out, as if they never got around to shooting it or just tired or ran out of time or money and gave up.

Apart from that, however, the story is actually decent. And the camerawork is fun. They really made the most out of their low-quality digital camera gear. The video editing is well-done as well. You can sort of see hints of things to come in this early film of his. Notably, the action and violence pretty well done compared to the more lacking dramatic moments, so it's no surprise Evans would go on to focus on more action-heavy films.

Additionally, the filmmakers made use of some pretty good locations for such a low budget film. They got creative when they had to, and it really pays off here. Overall, this film feels a bit like Christopher Nolan's "Following," except with really bad audio and not nearly as much of that low-budget charm.

Also worth mentioning are a few very fun, original parts that are like nothing I've seen anywhere else. Most of these take place during the film's climax, which is fun but still sounds just as bad as the rest of the film. There are three or four of these moments, and they're really wonderful, gritty, brutal and strange moments that almost make the whole experience worthwhile.

The film is highly flawed, but I think that its makers really learned something from it. I think it's thanks to this film that Evans was able to make a better film the next time around, and then an even better one after that. He's learned a lot and come a long way.

In Passing (2011)

I liked it

[7/10 · 27 March 2019]

When I first read about the Remodernist film movement I thought it was a little silly. While I agreed with much of it, I couldn't help but wonder why anyone should force another man's rules onto his or her own creative process in an attempt to make better films. And the whole thing just seemed a little arrogant at first, then extremely arrogant later on when I read the part where amateur filmmakers (for lack of a better word) called Stanley Kubrick a bad filmmaker (while later giving praise to Andrei Tarkovsky a.k.a. the Russian Kubrick). And then when I saw a couple of Remodernist short films my suspicions were confirmed. They were uninspired garbage by filmmakers who had nothing to say, no doubt hindered by these rules they placed on themselves in attempt to set themselves free.

And then I decided to watch In Passing. I didn't like it at first. A big part of the whole Remodernist thing is capturing the honest moments in life and allowing the mistakes to make it into the final cut. And the first twenty minutes of In Passing showed me that that meant letting the actors look awkwardly at the camera a bunch of times and to have very little dialogue. It felt like the filmmakers didn't know what the heck they were doing. Those aren't really bad things, but they're not inherently good either, and here they felt bad. At first.

But then something funny happened. I started to enjoy it. I usually watch movies that are a little different and I find them to be good for that very reason. But this felt different and bad until I got used to it. Everything sort of came together at about the thirty minute mark and I really got into it. There is a certain honesty and truth to these stories, so I guess the filmmakers really did accomplish something.

My favorite segments were "Debt," "Detritus," and "Almost," although all of the segments have their place in the film and work together nicely. They all make a point, even if that "point" is just a general feeling. And even when the film seemed slow or boring or overly strange before I got into it, I should mention that it always sounded great.

I still feel that the whole Remodernist thing is a bit silly and unnecessary, although maybe not as strongly as I felt before. But either way, no matter what my feelings are on that, I do know that this is a good movie.

Stanley Kubrick rules!

Stolen Kisses (1968)

Better than 400 Blows!

[8/10 · 28 November 2018]

A lot of people would probably get really mad at me for saying this, except for that probably no one will read this anyway, but I thought Stolen Kisses was even better than The 400 Blows. Hey, it's just my opinion.

Anyway, the thing that made this movie so good was that there were so many scenes that felt like nothing I'd ever seen before. It feels so fresh and original for that reason. Everything from the main character trying to get laid at exactly five o'clock cuz he told his buddies he would to running out of the room when he accidentally calls a woman "sir", this movie is pure fun. And the ending is great!

Still Walking (2008)

Wonderful

[8/10 · 13 November 2018]

Still Walking gives us a look into the lives of one ordinary Japanese family. The story takes place mostly in one day. It is not an ordinary day exactly, but one in which the family gathers together in remembrance. Gradually and naturally the backstory unfolds.

The way that the story is told is really what is so wonderful about it. I cannot think of any other film off the top of my head that tells this kind of a story so well. It seems so natural and the filmmakers make it look easy, but it's not.

The way the family interacts, the dialog, each character's little idiosyncrasies, it's all done perfectly and flawlessly. There a is a point near the beginning of the film where the matriarch tells a story of an interaction with her neighbors years earlier. The way the story is told and the other characters' reaction feel so real and lifelike.

Everything about the film feels like an ordinary family. Even though this family is in Japan, a country I've never visited, I felt connected to them while watching this. Everything was so relatable to the point that this could have been a real day in the life of a real family shot using hidden cameras.

The way the mother manipulated the daughter-in-law and dishes out underhanded compliments, the way they all tell boring stories that they've all heard a hundred times, the way the son is hesitant to leave his wife alone with his mother out of fear that she'll accidentally give away his little white lies that no one really even cares about but him...all of it feels just like real life, made even better by the wonderful acting from even the children.

And of course the camerawork is great. Everything is done extremely well here. I won't give away too much of the ending, which on its surface could be considered mundane, except to say that it is bittersweet and perfect.

Frownland (2007)

Just alright

[6/10 · 8 November 2018]

This is a film about a few New Yorkers who are struggling in life. It is actually very good at moments, but not great at others. The tone of the film is very uneven and unbalanced, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it feels unintentional here. At first we think maybe this is a comedy but we realize slowly that it is not.

The acting is actually very good. It feels strange at first until we realize that these are not the kinds of characters we normally see in films. But they exist in real life and here we get a chance too see them on the screen.

The writer and director of this movie stated that he was influenced by the highly acclaimed film Naked, and it is clearly evident here. In both films the characters speak fluently to each other about philosophy and their opinions on life. I felt like it actually felt more real in this one. It was better done. But it never felt completely real in either film, in my opinion. But maybe that's just because I don't encounter people who talk like that in real life. Maybe they're out there.

I like the camerawork a lot. The film felt a lot like Slackers at times, but maybe that's just because of the grainy 16mm look and the clothing the characters wore. The characters at times felt like they could have come from the world of that film, but at other times they felt like they belonged more in a John Cassavetes film.

It feels a bit like a Cassavetes film in several ways, particularly toward the end. The ending is very good and gritty and raw and not your typical Hollywood ending by any stretch. And while I feel like the story itself could have been revised and made better, the story as it was could not have been told any better.

You Were Never Really Here (2017)

Very well done

[8/10 · 7 October 2018]

I'm not normally a big fan of this type of movie. The trailer sort of reminded me of a hundred other movies like Taxi Driver, Taken, or Edge of Darkness. It's not that they're bad movies, but it all just seems really bland, like something we've all seen way too many times already. So I wasn't rushing out to see this one.

But I am a fan of Joaquin Phoenix; I think he's a good actor and fun to watch. So I gave it a chance, and I'm really glad I did. This movie was a lot different than the others I had mentioned before. The pacing and tone of the film were both perfect. And the story was fairly unpredictable, which is a good thing. There were moments in the film where I had no idea what would happen next. Even having seen the trailer several times (I feel that trailers far too often give away too much of the plot) I was in for a few surprises.

The violence was done tastefully and different (better, in my opinion) than most films. And there were at least two or three scenes that felt totally different than anything I remember seeing in any other film, which is rare. To top it off, the performances were great all throughout the film. It looked like Joaquin may have even hit the gym in preparation for this role.

The story was great; nothing felt over-explained and it all felt pretty real. It never got too corny or unbelievable. The music and camerawork were both very well done as well, and at less than an hour and a half it wasn't a bit too long.

Withdrawn (2017)

Not bad, save for one big flaw

[6/10 · 29 May 2018]

I just watched this movie and I kind of liked it. There were a lot of things about it that I liked a lot. That being said, this is exactly the type of movie that a lot of people will hate. I saw some reviews stating that the film was boring and didn't really go anywhere, which is true in a way. So if you're the type of person who needs lots of action or drama and a fast-paced story and doesn't enjoy interesting character development a slice-of-life type films, this probably isn't the movie for you.

This is the type of movie where we see a long, single take in which one character describes to another how to solve a Rubik's cube. It's the type of movie where the dialog is all realistic and probably improvised and yes, much of it could be described as boring. It's the type of dialog that makes you laugh, not because it's funny per se, but because it feels so very real, like a playback of a conversation you swear you had last week, word-for-word, but which you never see in movies.

This is the type of movie where, if I had the volume up too loud and my neighbors heard it, they wouldn't that think I was watching a movie, but that I was having a boring conversation with my boring friends. It's the type of movie where all the characters' names are the same as those of the actors playing them, because they're probably just playing themselves, more or less. But I like all that stuff.

I liked the story and I liked the dialog and I liked the camerawork and I liked the whole pacing of the film. I liked the length. At 73 minutes it was not too long. I always felt like more movies should be closer to that length. It seems like most of them always try to shoot for about an 85-minute-or-so minimum, even if it's not necessary.

The acting in this movie is sometimes good and sometimes pretty bad. There were a couple times when it felt like they should have done another take and tried to get it right. But the real problem with this movie was the lead actor, along with his character. He's annoying to watch. His face and his hair are unpleasant to look at. I understand that we're not necessarily supposed to sympathize with this guy or want to be his friend, but that guy just made the movie worse than it had to be. And his tiny shirts were terrible!

Swallowed (2016)

It's good!

[8/10 · 26 May 2018]

It seems like a lot of people rated this film poorly, but let me tell you: they are wrong! It's a very good film. It's fun and original. Great camerawork, not too long, and always entertaining. It is based on somebody's dream. The director, Lily Baldwin, plays the main character and does a knockout job in both roles. I knew nothing about this movie going in, and I didn't realize that the lead actress was also the director until more than halfway through the film when her character licks up milk off a countertop. I said to myself: "no actress would lick it up that way unless she was the director." And then the credits rolled and it turned out I was right.

Life of the Party (2005)

Strange and bad

[5/10 · 24 May 2018]

This movie starts out very slow and unengaging. I might have turned it off after fifteen minutes if not for the fact that I'd stuffed myself full of pizza delivery and was unable to move without causing myself extreme pain and discomfort. So I stuck it out.

One good thing about the film is that it's relatively short, under 90 minutes, although it couldn't end soon enough. Something I noticed was that the plotline seemed strangely paced, and I realized that it felt a lot like a French or even French-Canadian production. It had that kind of pacing, that kind of humor, and that kind of storyline. As a matter of fact, I get the feeling that if this had been filmed in Quebec and everything had been identical except for the actors being French-Canadian and speaking French, it would have been much better, or at least slightly better. The jokes would have been funnier for sure. I was actually a little surprised after I watched this to find out that it was not in fact a remake of a French-Canadian film, as I had predicted halfway through.

To be fair, the plot did recover somewhat and the ending wasn't as terrible as the start. But maybe that's just because I was glad for it to finally be over. I doubt I'll ever want to watch it again. If you want to watch it because it's got Ellen Pompeo listed above the title and you love Grey's Anatomy, don't get too excited. She's got a total of about five minutes of screen time. Seriously.

One good thing about the movie is the fact that the storyline is fairly unpredictable (especially if you go in knowing nothing about this film, not even having watched the trailer) while still being somewhat realistic and believable, even if it is boring at times. Much of the dialogue is uninteresting and sometimes stupid even, but there actually are a few fun scenes and even a good laugh or too. All that, especially the part about it being unpredictable and all, was what kept me from rating it a full star or two lower. But overall, it's a waste of time.

A Married Couple (1969)

Raw and real

[8/10 · 13 March 2018]

This is a documentary about a real life married couple. It's not the type of documentary where there are interviews or anything like that. It's just a camera crew filming these people and their lives, and their interactions and their struggles and their constant fighting with each other.

One could be forgiven for not realizing it's a documentary, because of the way the story is told. But it's so great that it doesn't feel like a crummy reality show either. It's wonderful. It's raw and it's real. Or is it? Maybe the filmmakers just said it was a documentary when in fact it was staged. It's possible, but not likely, because that would mean the subjects were acting, and acting is never this good.

I saw a bunch of films by John Cassavetes where the couple are fighting and critics loved it and talked about how raw and real it felt. And I felt that way too about those films, and I still do to an extent, but just when I felt it couldn't get anymore real than that, I saw A Married Couple. It just feels so much more raw and in-your-face because you know that this stuff really is happening just as you see it.

And the way the whole thing is put together to tell the story is just absolutely perfect. I don't think anyone could have done a better job with something like this. It's just great and really fun to watch. You really get involved in these people's lives, and they're so caught up in things they seem to forget the cameras are even there, never looking at them, fighting as if they're alone, and even walking around naked. The crew probably even filmed the couple having sex, but I guess they had to cut that scene for obvious reasons.

Bring Me the Head of Tim Horton (2015)

Guy Maddin has done it again!

[8/10 · 13 March 2018]

I've heard it said that there are only seven or eight stories, all retold in various forms. I was always skeptical of that notion, but with Bring Me the Head of Tim Horton, Guy Maddin proves the theory dead wrong, just like he's done countless times before. And this one is as original as they come!

Purported to be a behind the scenes look at the making of another film, Hyena Road, this is anything but. Sure, the filmmakers were no doubt shooting footage of the making of that film, but it is edited together and narrated in such a way that only Guy Maddin could get away with. It's fun and hilarious, much like his masterpiece My Winnipeg, though on a smaller scale and often times in different ways. It still has that old Guy Maddin flavor to it, but it's nonetheless a unique work that stand all on its own.

Despite the fact that this film is readily available online, I put off watching it for quite some time, as the description of it didn't interest me and also because I had been bored by some of Maddin's other shorts that I'd seen in the past, although I still consider him to be one of my favorite filmmakers. But once I started it I loved it. It was so much better than I could have imagined. It never got boring and it never had the chance. It's only half an hour long, so there's really no reason not to watch it. I only wish I had put of watching it for even longer, so that I could go and watch it for the first time!

Kaptn Oskar (2013)

Just alright

[6/10 · 8 February 2018]

This movie wasn't as good as I'd hoped, but still it was not terrible. It feels just like a typical low-budget romance film about two people in their twenties that we've seen a hundred times before. It's nothing new and nothing special, really.

It's the type of film where a young man and woman go through the ups and downs of their relationship over the course of a few months while trying to navigate through their lives and their insignificant troubles and misplaced angst. It's the type of film where the climax consists of the main characters going on a camping trip, and to answer your next question: yes, there is a ukulele which makes an appearance at one point.

It's the type of film in which not much happens, which isn't always a bad thing, but sometimes it can be. It's the type of film that someone would probably enjoy only if they had very recently experienced very similar relationship problems. And I hadn't, so I didn't.

It actually plays out just like a collection of scenes featuring these two main characters. The order of the scenes doesn't always matter, and it often feels like they were placed in that order somewhat arbitrarily. The scenes are most definitely not in chronological order all the time, and it's difficult to tell when flashbacks occur, but it doesn't really matter either way. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but again, this film really has nothing great to offer.

For some reason, almost every scene includes exactly one odd jump cut, which feels accidental at first, then awkward for a while, before finally feeling appropriate, once we've gotten used to it. But if you pause the film to go take a dump, for example, or to make tea, then the jump cuts will feel weird again when you return.

A couple things I should add are that the acting seems good and realistic and also the two main actors aren't beautiful people, which is nice. I like it when they put regular-looking people in movies, because it feels more like real life. The main actress is only mildly attractive and feels like a real person with real problems, and the main actor is downright goofy-looking, if you ask me. But that doesn't mean they should make a movie about them. But at the same time I feel like: hey it was worth a try!

One more thing I should add is that it feels quite a lot like many American films I've seen, but it's not an American film. It's German. So that's something kinda unique about it. Not exactly what I expected. I guess the director, who also wrote and starred in the film, was probably inspired by a lot of American films that are like this and wanted to make one of his own (or two or three, looking at his other credits). Maybe it was semiautobiographical, who knows! German people fall in love too, don't they?

I don't know if there are a lot of other German films that are like this one, but this is the first one I've seen. It felt more like an American film than the German films I have seen, with two major exceptions: 1) the characters all speak in German; and 2) the main character often wears this ridiculous, loose-fitting shirt with a floral pattern that you would never see on a man in America, and certainly not a man with a girlfriend.

Daddy Longlegs (2009)

Brilliant!

[8/10 · 7 February 2018]

I'd seen several short films by the Safdie brothers who made this movie as well as the their features The Pleasure of Being Robbed and Good Time. I liked all of them, but I didn't necessarily love them. But I figured that this one would at least be worth watching, and boy was I right! From the very beginning it's wildly intriguing and entertaining, and it just keeps getting better. It feels so very real and very raw.

In a lot of way it feels just like a John Cassavetes film, which is definitely a good thing. And it doesn't feel like someone set out to try to make a film in that style, but more like they just tried to make this raw, realistic portrayal of a very interesting character, and that was how it turned out. Almost like the Cassman did it himself!

And the lead role, played by Ronald Bronstein, was seriously great and fun to watch. That guy should be in more stuff. He was perfect for the part and I'm guessing that it was probably written for him. It was honestly one of the very best performances I have seen in the last ten years. And it never lets up.

Watch this movie if you can. You won't be disappointed. But if you somehow do end up being disappointed, maybe go check out something with Chris Pratt in it instead; that may be more your speed.

The Tribe (2014)

Not as good as I'd hoped, but the ending rocks!

[6/10 · 6 November 2017]

I had read about this film and wanted to see it, so I was happy to find it streaming on Netflix. The story takes place at a Ukrainian school for the deaf, and what I didn't realize until watching was that aside from a few mumbles, gasps, and background chatter, the characters speak only in Ukrainian sign language, without the use of subtitles, translations, or narration. There's not even any music, for crying out loud (although we do hear all the other sounds of the world though, doors closing and footsteps and things, the absence of which I think would have felt pretty strange).

But honestly, none of that bothered me. Not having to read subtitles let me enjoy the film in a different way. Even if you understand sign language, I didn't feel like the filmmakers went out of their way to focus on the signing. Often it took place in the distance, or the character's back would be turned or at a funny angel. There are a few scenes where it's hard to tell what they're talking about, but overall I never felt like I was missing much. The relative silence added to the experience, and I even found myself at time subconsciously thinking that I was unable to hear, kinda like when I watched The Invention of Lying on an airplane and thought that I too, like the characters in that film, was unable to tell a lie. But that was the only good thing about that movie, if you can even call it a good thing.

So, back to The Tribe. Unless you understand Ukrainian sign language, the characters' exact word choice is anyone's best guess, but the story is simple enough and told in such a way that it's easy enough to follow based on context, body language, and the things we see happening. I think it is anyway, unless I got the story totally wrong! But hey, it made enough sense to me! I may have been confused at times, but always felt like I was meant to be, like that was part of the story and the filmmakers' intention.

But the acting didn't quite cut it. I don't think any of these were professional actors, since their main requirement would have been fluency in sign language, and it really showed, despite there being no spoken dialog. They walk strangely and unnaturally, as if uncomfortable on camera, and too often stare off awkwardly in order to avoid looking at the camera. In one scene, three of the main character push their way through a crowd, but the exrtas in the scene all but ignore the annoyance, staring awkwardly straight ahead or at the ground. And one fight scene toward the start of the film almost ruined it for me. It was too clearly choreographed and looked as though the characters were dancing. Fortunately, the best bit of acting comes from our lead character, who was well-cast with his perpetually blank expression.

There are a few pretty explicit sex scenes, which didn't bother me except for the fact that, in the filmmakers' attempt to show as much as possible, it becomes pretty obvious that the sex is simulated, and the scenes are unconvincing and ineffective.

I'm typically a fan of European film with long takes, such as the ones in this film, but too often here we see doors being left open for the cameraman to enter when they would normally be closed in real life. Sometimes it's excusable, but at one point a character who is being chased on foot stops to hold the door open for the cameraman behind him. Another time, an apartment door is left open to the world while illegal activity is conducted just inside, and multiple doors throughout the film are left open to the cold outside.

This movie wasn't terrible, but the flaws, which were sometimes laughable, were too numerous to ignore. But there were a few things I loved about this film. I very much enjoyed the camera-work in general: long takes following the characters through various environments, down hills and through trees, jumping between characters. One particular scene shows separate actions occurring simultaneously in two different rooms, both visible in the same shot from the outside through adjacent windows. It was well-done and clever, but never felt gimmicky. I love stuff like that.

And I'm glad that, despite the terrible fight scene I was forced to endure, I still gave this movie a chance and stuck around to the end, because the last scene is very very good. It's one of the best endings I can remember seeing in a while. It's very effective, well-acted, well-shot, and all around well done from a technical standpoint.

Overall, I didn't love The Tribe, but I recommend it for for the ending, if for no other reason.

The Big Sick (2017)

Showalter does it again!

[7/10 · 6 November 2017]

I didn't know much about this movie before watching it. I'd seen the cover and I'd heard it was good, and that was about it. It didn't look like something I'd normally enjoy, but I knew Michael Showalter had directed it and I'm a fan of his previous work, and also my girlfriend wanted to watch it so I said okay.

I was expecting another dumb comedy, like The Baxter or Stella, which would have been okay because I love that stuff when I'm in the right mood. But unlike his previous works, I came to learn that Showalter didn't have much, if any, to do with the writing process for The Big Sick, and it was something different entirely.

It feels much more real, being based on a true story as I would later learn. Showalter really branched out here and showed his skill as a director and storyteller. The film is heartfelt and engaging, never sappy or overly sentimental, although it may make you just a tag misty-eyed from time to time. It's never predictable but always feels very real. The characters are compelling and likable, though flawed just as we all are in real life, and they're funny, but only ever in a very real way. The laughs feel real, the cringes feel real, and the whole story feels real.

Bravo, Michael Showalter. You've done it again!

Donald Cried (2016)

The best film I've seen in a while

[8/10 · 22 August 2017]

I hadn't seen the trailer for this one or read much about it, so I didn't really know what to expect when I turned the movie on, and I was very pleasantly surprised. Despite the obviously low budget, the acting is extremely good. I might even say it's some of the best I've seen, which is very rare and something that's hardly ever seen in movies with such low budgets.

The story is about two high school friends who meet up again twenty years later. One has moved away and moved on with his life and the other is still a child. They reconnect after one of the friend returns home following the death of a relative, kind of like in Garden State. As a matter of fact, the guy who plays the Zach Braff character in this film even looks a lot like Braff. The guy who plays the Peter Sarsgaard character is much less cool than Sarsgaard but much more interesting. Like in Garden State, the two go on a day-long adventure around town together, but the similarities stop there.

After watching this movie, I read a couple other reviews online and was surprised to find out that many people disliked it. Someone said it felt like the filmmakers were trying to make a movie like one of Adam McKay's, but failed because it wasn't funny enough. I don't know how they came up with that comparison, but Adam McKay is known for his dumb comedies, and this is something much more than that. Although very funny (even hysterical) at times, it doesn't go after cheap laughs or laugh-out-loud ridiculousness. It goes for authenticity, and it definitely succeeds in that realm. No matter what anyone went into this film expecting, it becomes pretty obvious in the first five or ten minutes that it is not just another dumb comedy. Not by a long shot.

Another reviewer blamed the low-key nature of the film on the small budget. I don't think he knew what he was talking about. The only thing I can think of is that these viewers are of below average intelligence and just don't understand life. They certainly don't understand this film, and perhaps find it hard to believe that these types of characters can exist in the real world. But they can, and they do. I've met many of them. And I found myself identifying and sympathizing with both of the two main characters at different points throughout the film.

But I guess for some, they think these guys would be better off in a dumb comedy with little substance and big dumb jokes that really aren't that funny anyway. I guess if you fall into that category I would recommend you watch a different film such as Mr. Woodcock or Homegrown, both starring Billy Bob Thornton, rather than this one. You may find those more to your liking.

The characters, and particularly the title character Donald, who is played by the film's director, are very complex and well-written. Their odd behavior would feel over-the-top and ridiculous and fake, except that the filmmakers somehow found that perfect sweet spot where instead they feel totally real. They're not the kinds of characters you normally see in movies, but they're then kind of people who exist in real life, with all their strange quirks and awkwardness. They feel almost like characters out of a John Cassavetes film.

The story also feels very real. Everything about it feels real as we spend time with the characters and learn about their lives. There are a lot of questions that don't get answered, and often the characters say so much by not saying anything at all. The story is sentimental and has a moral to it, but it doesn't try to trick the viewer at any point (at least I don't think it does!), which I like. It tells its story and its message by showing us a couple of days in the life of real, ordinary people.

So often characters in films are two dimensional, and that's how we see a lot of people in real life, too. You never really know someone. They keep their secrets to themselves. But this film shows us the lives of two real, complex people, which can help teach us something about those around us and blah blah blah.

The story here unfolds naturally and realistically, but it's never predictable. It is in no way contrived and it feels totally raw and authentic. If ever there was a perfect example of filmmakers doing the best they could with what little they had to work with, this is it.

It's the type of story that many of us could easily see happening in our own lives, and which we'd forget about it in two days as we get caught up in the next thing, being only mildly significant but totally relevant. But here, captured on film, it somehow seems profound and completely unforgettable. Although, to be fair, I did just watch it today, so it's possible that I'll forget the whole thing in two days as well. But I have a feeling it will stick with me for at least a little longer than that.

So no big laughs, no big story, but that's what is good about it. It's a story about people. You don't love them and you sometimes hate them, but you feel for them. Oh yeah, I should also say that even the minor characters, like the boss at the bowling alley, were really well done and fun to watch.

Anyway, I enjoyed this movie very much for a lot of reasons and I very much look forward to seeing what these filmmakers come up with next. This was their first feature film and they knocked it out of the park so I bet they can come up with something even better next time! Hopefully they don't screw it up.

The War of the Roses (1989)

The best of its kind

[7/10 · 12 May 2017]

The premise is simple enough: a moderately wealthy couple—whose last name is Rose—decides to get divorced after many years of marriage. But neither of them wants to give up their house, and both remain living in it, getting on each other's nerves as they deliberately and maliciously annoy and attack each other, each in an attempt to get the other to give up and leave.

It's exactly the sort of film I don't normally enjoy, where two equally detestable parties go back and forth trying to one up each other with ridiculous shenanigans that are rarely funny and never make up for the ninety minutes of wasted time. It reminds me of dumb comedy films like Duplex—which pits neighbor against neighbor—and Are We There Yet?, in which Ice Cube goes up against his new girlfriend's mischievous kids. These sorts of films aren't typically my cup of tea, but it wasn't my turn to pick the movie, so I just sat back and watched.

And then a funny thing occurred. Almost immediately, I got drawn into the story. That wasn't supposed to happen, but it did, and I was pleasantly surprised. I normally don't even care for Danny DeVito as a director, probably due to the fact that he made the awful Duplex, which I mentioned earlier. I mean, I did enjoy Matilda, but that was a family movie that I watched as a kid. War of the Roses was something else entirely, and despite my efforts, I couldn't help but enjoying it.

It tells the story in a different way than others of its kind. Things unfold naturally and totally believably. Sure, some of the stunts that the characters pull reach the same levels of ridiculousness as in those other films that I didn't like, but here we get the impression that it's done for the sake of the story, rather than for just another cheap laugh. Instead of yawning, I was wide sitting wide-eyed on the edge of my seat. It's not just funny; it's also very real and poignant, especially considering the fact that most of us know someone who's had a really tough divorce and it's easy to see how things could go just as bad as they do in War of the Roses.

And, unlike most of these kinds of movies and apart from my expectations, we actually end up caring about the characters, despite their overabundance of flaws. They're both selfish idiots, which makes the story so much better, but they're still believable and very well acted. From moment to moment we find ourselves siding with each one. Neither of them could be called true protagonists, as they constantly antagonize each other, but there's a balance of both deserved animosity and loathsomeness between them that is very well done. They got good actors to play these roles, and they play them so well that we almost don't notice that it could have been much worse in the hands of anyone else.

The whole story is told by Danny DeVito, who plays a divorce attorney who is telling it as a warning to a prospective client who never says a word during the entire film. And the ending is great. I won't spoil it, but trust me, it's a good one. This definitely isn't the best film I've seen, but it's certainly the best of its kind, and makes me reconsider my attitude toward this type of film. I just thought the whole idea was bad, but it turns out that it's often just done very poorly.

The Waterboy (1998)

Forrest Gump meets Gilbert Grape

[6/10 · 5 May 2017]

The Waterboy is a dumb comedy that plays like a cross between Forrest Gump and What's Eating Gilbert Grape, seasoned with Adam Sandler's inimitable silliness. Like Forrest Gump, it's about a "slow" southern man whose athletic potential is one day noticed by a college football coach who goes on to recruit him for the team. Like Gilbert Grape, it's about a young man who is trapped in his family home taking care of his overweight mother, played here by the lovely and iconic Kathy Bates.

The plot for The Waterboy is decidedly silly, and that's by design. But it's no sillier than a typical Hollywood film; the only difference here is that the filmmakers were aware of the absurdity, and that's what is good about it. Everybody's in on the joke. It's about a young man, played by Adam Sandler, who is a dedicated waterboy, serving the players of a college football team for years and without any thanks. He endures much torment from the team members and coach, who constantly ridicule him, and one day he is fired. The coach for the opposing team—played by Henry Winkler in his finest and most hilarious role—recruits him first as a waterboy and then as a linebacker, despite his mother's wishes.

He has an extraordinary ability to tackle opponents, due to the anger that has built up within him from years of verbal abuse. But he can only tackle them if he is mad at them, so he imagines the faces of his tormentors on the players of the opposing team. At first he imagines the evil head coach of the team who fired him, then later the players who bullied him, and eventually his own overbearing mother.

Like most of Sandler's comedies, the story is of course stitched together with tons of jokes, which are sometimes corny, sometimes hilarious, always ridiculous, and very often extremely quotable. This is perhaps the most quotable of Adam Sandler's films, and for that reason it is one of the most memorable. I watched it once or twice the year it came out and never saw it again until eighteen and a half years later, but I still remembered so many of the lines.

My favorite is when the waterboy's coach tells him, right before a play, "Water sucks. Gatorade is better." He tells him to use the anger that he feels in hearing that statement on the field to tackle opponents. It's a simple line, and seems like a corny joke at first, but it's actually on of cinema's most hilarious lines for so many reasons.

It's hilarious because up until then, the waterboy had been using his deep-seated anger to bring out his rage on the field. But then we see him do just as well based on an insult that his own kindhearted coach mutters to him moments before he steps onto the field, despite the fact that the waterboy himself must know he doesn't really mean it, and in an instant comically trivializing all of the waterboy's abuse that had been built up until that point. It's hilarious that someone would be so personally offended by such a claim about water. And it's hilarious because we all know that water doesn't suck, as it's necessary for survival. The levels of humor are so subtle that one could easily miss them, but they're there. It almost makes me wonder if perhaps ever the writers didn't pick up on them.

Sliding Doors (1998)

Fairly forgettable, but at least the acting is decent

[5/10 · 5 May 2017]

I first found out about Sliding Doors when I heard it mentioned on the director's commentary from Run Lola Run, which of course is my fifth favorite movie of all time. I looked up the plot summary online and was intrigued. I wondered why I hadn't heard of this film earlier. Then I watched it, and within the first few scenes I realized why I had never heard of it. Simply put, it's not very good. But you know me; once I start something, I always try to finish it.

Also, my girlfriend and I were fighting at the time that I watched this and she was mad at me in the other room, so I didn't want to move from my spot on the couch. I guess I could have put something else on, but maybe I felt I deserved to be tortured for a little while for upsetting my sweetheart, although I still maintain that she was probably just as much to blame as I was for whatever we were fighting about, which I can no longer remember. In any case, I watched it all the way to the end, including the credits because sometimes there's a skit afterward.

The film is about a year in the life of an Englishwoman, played by an American actress, who gets fired from her job and takes the train home. Or does she? We see two possibilities of what could happen in her life depending on whether she catches the train on time or misses it by just an instant. It shows us two different outcomes of a seemingly trivial daily occurrence, something we never get the chance to see firsthand in real life, although we can imagine all we want.

This premise of exploring alternate paths of fate seems fairly unique, but it's not totally original. We've seen it done before in 1987's Blind Chance, and infinitely better in the aforementioned Run Lola Run. But here the filmmakers could have had so much more fun with it. The plot is weak, despite the interesting premise. It feels like a typical, boring, forgettable romantic comedy and we almost forget about the whole double vision aspect. It feels like the writers wrote one draft and called it good enough and didn't try to make it any better. But it could have been so much better.

This feels like the type of low budget, quickly-made British film that you'd find packaged along with five others you never heard of—all of them just as forgettable and of equally below-average quality—on a "UK Cinema" DVD for $4.99. Because that's the only way to market them on home video because none of them would sell individually. And even if you do end up buying the lot, you'll never end up getting around to watching more than two or three of them, and those only when you're in the mood for a "so bad it's good" laugh on a rainy Friday night, and always with the assistance of alcohol.

In Sliding Doors the dialogue feels cheap and corny. Everyone speaks in phony, hackneyed expressions. All the characters talk more or less the same, with Gwyneth Paltrow delivering lines that seem more suited for John Hannah's character, but the writers probably stopped caring. The one saving grace is the acting. It's not the best acting I've seen, but it's not bad, especially considering the film's other shortcomings and bland pacing. That's another thing: the pacing. The film always moves at a consistently medium pace, which just feels so boring and not quite right.

But back to the thing I was saying about the acting. The rest of the film is so bad that the acting actually seems really good in comparison, despite the fact that it is probably just average. It makes the film watchable and kept me from giving it a lower score. John Hannah—in one of the few roles in which I've seen him portray a leading man—almost makes us believe that he's just a quirky character who actually talks that way, rather than just a victim of bad writing.

And the perpetually annoying Jeanne Tripplehorn appears here in the role she was born to play. I didn't like her in The Firm and I didn't like her in Waterworld. And I didn't like her in Sliding Doors, but for the first time I feel she was cast appropriately. In the aforementioned films I felt like the filmmakers made a casting mistake or maybe their first choice had to drop out. But in Sliding Doors we weren't supposed to like her. I don't think. It's hard to tell, but I think she's supposed to be an annoying pest of a mistress as well as a villainous type, comparable to Cruella De Vil and infinitely dumpable by her browbeaten boyfriend. And she knocks it out of the park! Man, she was obnoxious in this movie!

And who would date her, you ask? Must be some loser of a boyfriend, right? Yes, he is, played quite well here by John Lynch, whose character is a bit of loser who cheats on Paltrow with Tripplehorn. He would be the bad guy if we didn't feel so sorry for him. He's a victim too. And yet we still believe that this pathetic fellow could potentially be with both of these women because, well let's face it, Paltrow isn't much of a catch either. Lynch's character is one we've seen many times before, but rarely quite so well as here, despite the poor dialogue and story structure. Lynch does a great job at making the character believable—like a real person you might know in real life—and I feel the filmmakers lucked out with him.

I'm rapidly approaching my word limit, so I gotta go, but I will say that after getting out all my thoughts on Sliding Doors, I've decided that maybe I liked it a bit better than I originally thought. Maybe.