The Return

As the poster says, this film is reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky's works. It differs in one huge respect, in that the first 3 minutes of the film contain more talking than in a 4 hour Tarkovsky film. Which means that this film is more accessible to the general public than anything Tarkovsky put out. (Brilliant filmmaker that he was, natch, his films are never easy to comprehend, or stay awake during.) This is Andrei Zvyagintsev's first film, and it is surprisingly masterful for a first-time director. The father of two boys returns after many years away and they go on a vacation together to a remote island. He is clearly "of the military" and treats his sons as he would treat soldiers, something that obviously doesn't work after so many years away. Of course there's a tragedy, and of course I'm not going to tell you what it is, because you should see the film. For the acting, for the cinematography and for the Tarkovsky-like enigmatic stillness. The boys are excellent actors, one more of a brown-noser, the other more of a punk. Your affections for either switch constantly throughout the movie, a testament to the quality of their acting. The cinematography is all about long shots, mostly of the landscape, whether that's endless miles of Russian farmland or endless miles of ocean. Most of these sequences (if you can call them sequences when most of them are single shots) are as near silent as possible, reminiscent of Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring. Plot is certainly not as important as the general feeling you get as you watch and interpret, and there are any number of interpretations you can make. As the film unwinds, it becomes more and more mysterious -- Where did the father come from? What is his job? Why is he taking the boys with him on a vacation that isn't a vacation? The silent cinematography is a big part of that mystery. And the ending shots (which are suggestive of The 400 Blows) leave you wondering, which completes the film's ambience.

original title: Vozvrashcheniye
year: 2003
length: 105 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0376968/combined

Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself

A friend of mine has a pet peeve, which is being manipulated in films. He abhors knowing that his emotions are being played with while he's being entertained. I've been secretly amused by this (what film doesn't manipulate your emotions to some degree?) but when I watched this film, I was right there in his shoes. It starts off quite nicely -- British-ly clever, darkly comic, definitely offbeat. Wilbur tries to commit suicide on a regular basis and his brother consistently bails him out at the last minute. You learn about some of the motivation for this behavior, and it seems as if the film will delve into an exploration of the reasons behind Wilbur's guilt feelings and his inability to start a loving relationship. And then, blammo! He falls for his brother's new wife. And something horribly tragic happens to his brother. So, you're contentedly watching this macabre film and it turns into a heavy-duty drama, but without any of the underpinnings of real drama. Instead of reflection on these incredible plot twists, you are treated to scenes between brother and wife that are so sexually charged they leave the sparse number of reflective scenes in the dust. And you wonder what happened to the comedy. Why are the filmmakers making such an effort to merely titillate (a kind word for manipulate)? Result being one very unbelievable film with one very lame ending. I didn't dislike the actors (you'll at least recognize the wife as one of the girlfriends of Bridget Jones), and the male lead is certainly working towards becoming the Scottish equivalent of Colin Farrell (whether that's good or bad is up to you), but they didn't save the picture for me. It ultimately made no sense.

year: 2002
length: 109 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0329767/combined

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring

The title of this film tells the plot -- the cycle of the seasons mirrors the cycle of life. Growth, wisdom and renewal are all integral elements. A young boy apprenticed to a monk living in a temple on a lake grows up exploring the far reaches of the lake and its environs, being typically innocent and cruel. His master is wise and otherworldly (for instance, how does he get the boat back to the temple so he can follow the boy around?), and guides the boy through his "spring," "summer" and "fall" seasons, and the subsequent heartbreak and tragedy that befall him. The parables and lessons the teacher provides are wryly amusing -- while the boy as a young man must laboriously carve out a sutra on the floor of the temple, the teacher has used the tip of a cat's tail as a brush to paint the sutra on the floor. This isn't the only time scenes are both funny and gravely serious at the same time. (Although the one very unfunny scene that occurs at the end of "fall" is one I'm still trying to comprehend fully.) Throughout this slow, but never plodding, film you view the temple in all its guises through all the seasons, and never once tire of watching it. It is the focal point of the film, an emblem of the cycle of birth, life and re-birth. While it is unchanging, it hosts the changes that occur, even as those changes become what has happened before. The film is a lovely fable, one that gives you enough time to ponder your own life, how it fits into the world, and what will come after you are gone.

original title: Bom Yeoreum Gaeul Gyeoul Geurigo Bom
year: 2003
length: 103 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0374546/combined

Lovely & Amazing

I have this theory that women and men view film differently. This is my theory: men need to have a complete story arc, a story that begins and ends, while women can handle a plot that is simply a series of vignettes. At least I used to have that theory back in my younger, more naive days. It does go some way towards explaining the style of this film, however. Written and directed by Nicole Holofcener, it is a film by and for women. The focus is on three daughters and how they are similar to their mother, even though one is adopted. You learn about their lives and their insecurities. Actually, the entire film seems to be about insecurity. That, and anger. Which are two big parts of women's lives, and for that the film is commendable. It just isn't that interesting, and at times frankly it's implausible. (Really, being arrested for statutory rape due to a call from the boy's mother? Yeah, that's going to happen.) Even the ending is faintly ridiculous -- the insecure daughter who frets about her beauty gets her face damaged, but then won't show it to her new lover. If she'd grown at all in the film, it would be to make it possible for her to finally do this and not worry about it. The irony of the casting in this film is that the most compelling actor on screen is a man. Jake Gyllenhaal is Mr. Charismatic. Is it just because I'm a girl? I doubt it -- charisma speaks to anyone, since it has nothing to do with the words being spoken, but instead with all the non-verbal cues. Wanna see him in something that uses every ounce of that special talent? Watch Donnie Darko.

year: 2001
length: 89 min.
rating: 2.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0258273/combined

The Grapes of Wrath

But then there's John Ford. Who can turn any film into a social diatribe, and make it entertaining and informational as well. (Say what, you say? See my review of What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?) So, classic film is not all silly and overblown, of course not. I've never read Steinbeck's book, so I don't know how this film compares. (In general, I like reading books after watching films of books. The other way around doesn't work for me; for that reason, I won't watch Seabiscuit or The Cider House Rules.) The film is such a polished production, I'm not sure it would matter much in this case. Henry Fonda is once again perfect, this time as an ex-con traveling back to his Dust bowl-era family in Oklahoma, only to find them kicked off their land and in the process of moving the whole family to California. It is as apt a depiction of the lives of farmers, migrant workers, and the poor today as it was in 1940. Although there may be additional factors at work today, the plight of those who depend on rich landowners is as close to the same as to make no never mind. Ford's characters talk about workers' rights nearly non-stop throughout the picture, which sounds as if it could be too much like your college-level American history class, but this is not at all the case. Mostly because of the excellent acting -- Fonda and Jane Darwell and John Carradine (yes, the father of David Carradine) and, well, everyone really. I rank this film up there with Sullivan's Travels, another must-see Depression-era film. If you ever see these double-billed at your local art film theater, drop everything and go.

year: 1940
length: 128 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032551/combined

What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?

Gosh, I really think I'm getting dumber. There must be a reason I watch all these classic old films and they leave me feeling I missed something crucial. (I could name at least a dozen other classic film reviews here that have sent readers around the bend.) There's nothing wrong with the two lead actresses in this film -- well, let me rephrase that. Bette Davis is superb, as always, as the frumpy, psychotic, definitely-not-60s-housewife-material sister. Joan Crawford is fine, but her over-developed sense of melodrama became embarrassing to watch. She's the "good" sister, the "good" actress-of-yore, the one we're supposed to root for. And you can't not empathize with her to some extent, as Davis does all sorts of horrible things to Crawford in the course of the film. (Yuck, rats. Yuck.) And if the dénouement is not exactly surprising, still, you end up feeling that Crawford was being too much of a weakling scaredy-pants by not telling her sister earlier (I kept wanting to shake her out of fear and into anger). I am only sometimes of the mindset that watching a film that has excellent performances even if the story plods along, goes on too long, or is poorly produced is worth it. Too often, it's simply irritating that I'm not watching a complete picture. (So, as much as I'd like to see, say, Colin Firth in all of his films, I just know I'll hate 3/4 of them for the reasons above.) Davis is much more compelling (because the film is better) in All About Eve, so rent that instead of this one. And that weird young man who gets roped into becoming Davis' accompanist -- that's the evil King Tut from the old Batman TV series, believe it or not.

year: 1962
length: 134 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056687/combined

House of Sand and Fog

I was struck by a comment made by the director, Vadim Perelman, about this film and watching tragic film in general: "if you can grieve vicariously, it helps you with your own grief." While that might not be news to those who majored in psychology in school, it was eye-opening to me. It goes a long way to explaining why we "enjoy" watching tragic film -- perhaps "recognize" and "empathize" are better descriptive words. And this film is a perfect example, reminiscent of Shakespearan tragedy in the destruction of all of its characters, and laden with emotion and passion. The story is anchored by Jennifer Connelly and Sir Ben Kingsley, both of whom should have been nominated for their portrayals (Kingsley was, as was Shohreh Aghdashloo, also well-deserved ). Connelly plays a depressed woman who hasn't read her mail in so long that her eviction from her house comes as a complete surprise. Kingsley, playing an Iranian immigrant, snaps up the house as an investment in his plan to live by the sea again. Once again, the film is reminiscent of Shakespeare in that everyone makes multiple stupid mistakes that lead them towards the tragic ending. And while you can easily recognize the foreshadowing, and have more than an inkling how it will end, that doesn't make it any less powerful when it happens. I'm very glad I didn't see this film in the theater, as I wouldn't have wanted to be weeping around a bunch of strangers. Perelman's writing and direction effortlessly take us into more and more desperate moments until that final scene in the house, of which I'll say nothing in order not to ruin it for others. While others may not have as strong a reaction as I did, and may be put off by the intense tragic nature of the film, I still strongly recommend it. If for no other reason than for Perelman's comment above.

year: 2003
length: 126 min.
rating: 4.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315983/combined

Dogville

A brave friend and I went to see this film together. Just as it started, we turned and said "Good luck" to each other. And we meant it. Lars von Trier films are notoriously difficult on the nerves. While he will do almost anything to make you squirm (those final scenes of Dancer in the Dark are etched on my retinas), he does provide entertainment (and yet Bjork dances and sings!). At least I could say that about his previous films. There is nothing whatsoever uplifting about this film. In fact, it genuinely seems to be a giant middle finger to the U.S. of A. And weirdly, that will only be obvious after you see the credits. The story itself is played out on a large soundstage with demarcations on the floor showing you where the houses and streets are supposed to be. Grace (the name itself a sad irony), played sweetly and innocently by Nicole Kidman, happens into town but is wanted by the police. The townsfolk agree to hide her, and begin to care for her, but they get too invested and the ugly cracks in their characters start to show. Everything is revealed and called into question: weakness, shame, betrayal, choice, reason, arrogance, even prostitution, and especially slavery. It's a flaying of human personalities, set up so logically that you recognize and accept it all. My main quibble is that the film is too long -- while I understand that you need to see how the community attitude changes towards Grace, I'm pretty darn sure I didn't need to give up 3 hours of my life to understand von Trier's philosophy. Whether this world view is valid would involve a completely other kind of review. Let's just say that while some Americans will agree wholeheartedly with his take on socialism (and therefore most Americans should see it to be equally enlightened), the rest of what he seems to be saying about America (and Americans) is hogwash. If, in fact, he's pointing a finger at the world in general, that's a bit more palatable. But then -- what's the deal with those end credits?

year: 2003
length: 177 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0276919/combined

Earth

I'm deeply conflicted. On one side, this film is important because it shows what happened when Britain left the subcontinent, dividing its peoples up into various countries (i.e., India, Pakistan). How strange it was for people who lived peaceably with their neighbors -- whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Parsee -- to suddenly be confronted with such rage and terror. It's something Deepa Mehta conveys with both emotion and restraint, and it's chilling. On the other side, I realize that the Indian peoples were not necessarily so brotherly to begin with, and that what is portrayed in the film -- a band of friends of mixed faiths struggling to understand and deal with the situation -- was something unique. So, in some sense, this isn't a true story of Mehta's land. However, the ending is so shocking that I gasped aloud (even though in retrospect I suppose I could have seen it coming). And this is pulled off by none other than the great Aamir Khan, whom I've lauded several times before. Be skeptical while watching, but don't discount it completely. If nothing else, the film provides a glimpse into the why of friction and tension that exists in that area today.

year: 1988
length: 110 min.
rating: 3.0
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0150433/combined

Field of Dreams

I suspected that when I watched this film on television with my relatives a month ago, all the really good parts had been excised to make it fit the time slot. James Earl Jones' speech about baseball at the end is missing, as well as several of the in-the-Volkswagen-bus discussions (leaving you wondering what the real problem was with Kevin Costner's character and his estranged, now deceased, dad). They left in all of Amy Madigan's scenes, as Costner's hip and spunky wife, which is the only part of the movie I take umbrage at. You'd think I'd be thrilled by a fully-fleshed out female role, but she unfortunately distracts from the best acting Costner's ever achieved. In the (way too long) documentary accompanying the film on DVD, he explains (with the egotism he's so famous for) that people assume he's a natural at what he does, while in fact he works very hard at making everything look natural. Well, whatever he did here, it worked. He's acting the "normal" guy, one who would never hear voices and believe them, and it helps us as viewers believe the story -- a man is told to build a baseball field in the middle of his corn, which leads him everywhere in search of the reasons for having done it. But the film isn't really about baseball or farming, it's about following your dreams (no matter how out there they may be). It's kinda sappy, and the last shot will bring a lump to the throat of the most curmudgeonly, but it works hard for that sappiness and it pulls it off.

year: 1989
length: 107 min.
rating: 3.5
IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/combined