Paranoid Park

The new film from Gus Van Sant is similar in form and execution to his last few pictures (Elephant, Last Days) but differs enough to make it stand on its own. I'm frankly still not sure what to make of it, but one thing's for sure: it's better than Last Days (which was a tedious bore) and not as good as Elephant (Van Sant's masterpiece). If you can live with the reality of that assessment, and can put up with a few flaws in the film itself, you'll find an interesting little movie with a couple moments of brilliance.
First we'll talk about the kind of movie this is. It's similar to the last few Van Sant movies, in that there's not much dialogue, the movie is short, he films in lots of single takes - with a very distinctive color palette, and he's not afraid to use stylized slow-motion. In a single word: ARTY. I happen to really love his style. There's simply nothing like it out there today. And for some reason, it seems to work the best when he's telling a story about teenagers. Van Sant may have stumbled upon the filmic equivalent of adolescence. (And a side note: Just think how versatile Van Sant is - seeing these movies, you would never think this is the same guy who made Good Will Hunting and Drugstore Cowboy... Great movies, but just completely different).
There are a couple of great sequences in this film: One of them harkens back to Elephant - a kid walks down the hallway at his school, and slowly, 24 frames-per-second is ramped down to 120 fps, and we're treated to beautiful, graceful slow motion. The thing that separates it from its predecessor? The inclusion of Elliott Smith's "The White Lady Loves You More". Great song, great shot, great moment.

The other is one of those "overcome with grief" shower scenes. The main character - overcome with grief, of course - gets in the shower and freaks out. This movie thankfully puts a new spin on that. First, it's all in slow motion, so the falling water looks beautiful. Second, all of the emotion is given through the sound mix. There's the music, mixed with crazy noises, mixed with other noises, with a layer of bird noises on top... It works. Somehow, it works.
The biggest flaw the film has is its use of unprofessional actors. Elephant seemed to do this better... I don't know if it was the choice of actors, or if the many bravura Steadicam shots served to mask the acting, but it's really noticeable here. Many single takes on a single actor here - some that go on for a minute or so, and we can see the gears turning in their heads as these young kids try to remember lines. It reminded me of the kind of performances I would get out of people in my movies in high school. It's strange and hard to explain. But in a weird way, it kind of works. It brings a realism to the picture that helps it in the long run.
There's hardly any plot and the little that is there is told out of order. Not a complaint from me but merely an observation. Regardless, the movie can drag at times. Like all his recent movies, it focuses on the little things, with little regard to the big picture. Sometimes, this turns out great (Elephant). Other times, it's maddeningly dull (Last Days). It's really hit-and-miss with this sort of experimental picture. If Van Sant can figure out how to combine his new style with a plot-centric screenplay, it will be amazing.
Regardless of what I liked or didn't like about Paranoid Park, the fact remains that I won't be getting it out of my head any time soon. And these days, that's a feat in itself.

Always thought this was funny...
Paul answering the question: "Do you think Punch-Drunk Love will win an Oscar?"

Well, no Oscar for Paul... again. Better luck next time, I suppose. It's great that Paul's longtime cinematographer Robert Elswitt got one, though.
(Did anyone else think that the Coens were pretty smug in accepting their awards? Damn, I mean, I like them, but they really came off as assholes. "Well, I guess I don't really have much to say after the last one".... Jesus.)

A (brief) word on the Oscars, and my list of The Best Films of the Year

Well folks, it's that time of year again...

First off, it would be great to see There Will Be Blood win Best Picture, but it looks like No Country for Old Men is a lock in that category. It was sort of strange to see Juno nominated for so many things, but I liked the movie, so it was a welcome surprise. All in all, there were so many great movies this year that no matter who takes home the awards, they're basically deserved.
The nominations were pretty much what we expected to see, but there were a few surprises:

• NOTHING for Zodiac! Damn, that sucks. I was worried that the Academy would forget about it (it was released in March) and that's exactly what happened. So, since that's probably what I would've liked to see take Best Pic, I'll root for Blood instead.
• Lars and the Real Girl nominated for Best Screenplay! Wow, I was really surprised. I thought it would be a little too "out there" for the voters. That's awesome.
• Only ONE song nominated from Once? And THREE from Enchanted? WTF?
• Into the Wild's score being declared inelegible because it's "too song-based" - and then it doesn't get a song nomination. That's just stupid.
• Best Supporting Actor nomination for Casey Affleck! That's nice to see. He was excellent in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, so it's well deserved.
• Only ONE nomination for Gone Baby Gone (Supporting Actress)
• Ruby Dee nominated for Supporting Actress (American Gangster). This just came out of nowhere. This definitely reeks of trying to honor her for a lifetime of work, instead of the performance.
• A Best DIRECTOR nomination for Paul Thomas Anderson! Wow, I'm surprised. He usually only gets one for screenplay (which he also got a nod for).
• It's great to see Cate Blanchett nominated for I'm Not There, even if the movie didn't get anything else.

So, regardless of everything else, let's just hope PTA finally wins for something. This year he has two chances (director and screenplay). Fingers crossed...

-------------------------------------------------

The Best Films of the Year 2007 (in order):

This is a mostly-complete list... there's about 4 major films I have yet to see, but that's about it.

1. Zodiac
2. Margot at the Wedding
3. Once
4. The Darjeeling Limited
5. I'm Not There
6. Lars and the Real Girl
7. Juno
8. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
9. There Will Be Blood
10. Gone Baby Gone
11. Wristcutters: A Love Story
12. Cassandra's Dream
13. Into the Wild
14. Rescue Dawn
15. Waitress
16. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
17. Superbad
18. 2 Days in Paris
19. No Country for Old Men
20. Knocked Up
21. The TV Set
22. Sicko
23. My Best Friend
24. I'm Reed Fish
25. The Mist
26. Eastern Promises
27. In the Shadow of the Moon
28. We Own the Night
29. The Lookout
30. The Bucket List
31. 28 Weeks Later...
32. Charlie Wilson's War
33. Hot Fuzz

Atonement

Probably one of the worst Best Picture nominees in recent history. At once both overbearing and underwritten, the film has some serious problems, not the least of which is the pacing. Now, I never read the book, but if the film is any indication, the novel must have a paper-thin plot, because the movie sure does. Now, this may be fine for a book, where things can be endlessly examined through the words and thoughts of the characters, and thus fleshing out the narrative. Unfortunately, the picture is a full two hours long, and it certainly feels like it. Hell, it feels closer to three. A full 20 minutes – maybe even a half hour – could have been removed from this picture with little-to-no detriment to the narrative. In fact – just for argument’s sake – this would have been a great subject for a 30 minute short, with narration (something that the film sorely lacks) helping to speed along the exposition that is so tediously laid out in the finished film. Things draaaaaaaaag on in this movie. The picture creeps ever so slowly along – apparently without any consideration of the audience – with no better example than a pointless six-minute Steadicam shot that occurs mid-way through the film. Instead of using this time to properly introduce us to some of the characters we will be spending the second half of the film with, the director uses this chance to show us a flashy camera move, which, while it is a great shot, gives us nothing in the way of character or plot.
Hey, listen… I like films that aren’t exactly plot driven, too. I’m a big fan of Terrence Malick. But this fuckin’ Joe Wright guy gives us nothing to latch on to. A film needs to be driven by something. People forget that Malick’s films, while usually without much plot, are driven along by narration. Without that, you just have a collection of images. There’s no narration here. And we can skip past the plot, which I’ve said before is not much of anything. So now we have the characters and the dialogue. Many great films have been made which really don’t have anything of consequence going on, but which are worth watching because of the characterization and dialogue. Sadly, neither shows up in this movie. After the first 20 minutes, there’s barely an important word spoken (and remember, there’s no narration) until the end. And don’t even get me started on the characters. The roles are either so underwritten that the cast can’t do much with them, or the characters themselves are so cold that there’s no way to identify with them. I really couldn’t care less about the romance in the movie, because we have no idea who these two people are. No character traits, distinguishing characteristics or even one little fucking monologue. Do they think we can read the character’s mind and see into their past? No, that’s why dialogue and exposition come into play. And how do they expect the romantic chemistry to work? Sexual tension is created by the clash of two different characters’ personalities. When neither character has a personality, it’s a little difficult.
I could go off on how pretentious the music is (the sound of a typewriter “click-clacking” is one of the main undercurrents and motifs of the musical score, even when there’s no typewriter in the sequence – I’m not kidding) and how pompous the editing is (Really? Two hours of this?) but I’ll save you from my bitching.
I know I just slammed this movie, but it actually is well-made. The camera-work is nice and precise, and the photography is beautiful. But the bad outweighs the good on this one, unfortunately. I wanted to review this before the Oscars, so if it happens to win, people wouldn’t think it was some sort of post-awards reaction to it beating something else. I can honestly say that I went into this movie with an open mind, and I came out of it wondering if all the awards groups saw the same movie as me, and if they could explain to me why the hell this mess is nominated for 7 Academy Awards.

Cassandra's Dream

Another year, another Woody Allen film. Fortunately for us, Woody seems to be getting better and better lately...
Wow, what a great movie. The story is this: Two brothers (Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell) with money trouble ask for help from their rich uncle (Tom Wilkinson). The uncle agrees, on one condition: the brothers must kill a man who plans to testify against him.
It's the most suspenseful thing Woody's ever done. He ratchets up the tension to almost unbearable levels, and then has the balls to pull the camera away and not show the actual killing. It truly is a great movie, certainly on par with Match Point, although this is a different sort of film, with characters that are perhaps a bit more...moral. It's a must-see, both for fans of Woody Allen and people who just want to see a good, classically-minded suspense picture.
If this movie was made by a new director who was making his first film, we'd be calling him the next Hitchcock. Because it's from Woody, it's merely a good film from an old master... because it's not Annie Hall. Well, not everything can be.
(And P.S. - this is proof that Colin Farrell can act. And Tom Wilkinson should have gotten a Supporting Actor nod for this instead of Michael Clayton - he's menacing in a way he's never been before. Well, enough of my rambling. Just go see it.)

Charlie Bartlett and Delirious

Just a quick note:
Using another video site for the video (seen below)... dunno how long it will stay up and if/when it will be taken down. So see it while you can.

Charlie Bartlett
Not your average teen movie. Manages to avoid most of the traps of the genre, while also putting a new spin on the ones it can't avoid. It's great to see Robert Downey, Jr. in this, but the real surprise is Anton Yelchin (who's been in other stuff, but I've honestly never seen him before) - he's great. Great presence, great personality, great performance. All in all, pretty good little flick. Tries too hard sometimes to make a "statement" about the youth of today, but it's definitely worth a watch.

Delirious
The new film from Tom DiCillo (Living in Oblivion). A film about fame, jealousy, and most of all, friendship. Steve Buscemi and Michael Pitt star, and they're both incredibly good. In fact, it's one of Buscemi's best performances. The dialogue (one of DiCillo's strengths) is very good, and the movie eventually becomes both touching and insightful. The satire (making fun of "reality tv" - oh, so witty!) often falls flat, but it's a minor complaint since it doesn't take up much screen time. In the end, it's not perfect, but it's a worthy companion piece to DiCillo's Living in Oblivion. It would probably make a great double feature. Good movie - even great in parts - and I strongly recommend it.
Note: Video is NSFW - contains strong language.

2nd HV20 test

Roy Scheider
1932-2008

First test with the Canon HV20