#46 We just watched this on Netflix streaming: After the Wedding
The Film: After the Wedding
The Danish people make some pretty good movies, especially Susan Bier. She just won the best foreign film Oscar for her latest movie (I haven’t seen it) and she actually might be what overly academic cinemaphiles call an “auteur”.
What’s funny is her movies might have trouble with the common American because they’re artistic, tender, low-budget, and often patient with their execution. I smirked at the comment on Wikipedia that her work is rejected in Denmark as being too commercial…right.
I only believe such a statement because their greatest export right now is Lars Von Trier, who is out of his mind. After the Wedding is surprisingly complex: A man travels from India to his home country to raise money for his orphanage and is invited to a wedding for unclear reasons. When he gets there he discovers that the mother of the bride is his ex-lover who left India and married a rich business man and, as they say, shit hits the fan.
Why to watch it: It is complex, but satisfying on a human level
Movies about martial affairs and death can be a bit melodramatic. Maybe if this was made in the USA I would consider it in this way? Maybe I’m pompous? Regardless, this movie is able to come off as very humanistic and passionate about human beings. No one is perfect. No one is really bad. Everyone is just trying to survive.
Mads Mikkelsen is also a ridiculously good actor — he needs to be more famous. He reminds me of Michael Shannon. Yes, he was in Casino Royale, but he was a cartoon character in that and deserves a really good American role. Wedding gave him a lot of chances to be hammy (as shown by his hammy co-star Rolf Lassgård). But unlike Rolf, Mikkelsen’s face can say a thousand words with his face. He’s got that really “handsome-but-fucking-crazy” thing going on.
Pay attention to this: Bier’s camera work
Her camera seems to be very “face obsessed” and, like all of her previous films, she still seems to be tainted by the Dogma 95 movement (a movement I think is rather ludicrous).
The movie is shot on video and looks like it, which annoys me, but it looks good enough. Moreover, she uses abrupt Gordardesque editing to great effect — cutting for the purpose of adding to the scene emotionally and not just for style.
Also, with faces like Mikkelsen, Stine Fischer Christensen (shown above), and Sidse Babett Knudsen, it makes sense that much of movie would take place in close ups.
One of the better stunts ever performed by a film's lead actor.
I thought that District B13 was actually called “District 13″, but mistaken as “B13″? On Netflix, as I see it right now, it is listed as “B13″. But regardless of that brain diarrhea, let’s talk Distrcti B13. In my opinion, (check the dictionary fanboys, the word exists) B13 is by far Luc Besson’s best movie.
It is a kind of a masterpiece. Why do I champion Luc Besson so much? Easy, because his movies are fucking awesome and, best of all, short. Yes, Besson didn’t director this movie, but he’s got his little fingers in dozens of great action movies from the past decade.
B13 is a simple story of rebellion in a post-apocalyptic France. The two main characters are trying to fight corruption and the leveling of their section of the city. Despite your Francophobia, French ghettos are really fucking dangerous. See the great French film Hate (La Haine) for further information.
Why to watch it: The parkour (obviously)
Has another movie ever been such a vehicle for showcasing parkour outside of a documentary. The lead actor, David Belle, helped invent the sport/art/skill. Parkour is the art of having spatial awareness and running through space – I think.
Parkour is cool. Any kid loves it and B13 contains some of the best sequences ever put on camera. This includes Belle jumping building to building with no assistance, Jackie Chan-style. Belle would go on to be a consultant on the dismal Prince of Persia and his partner in creating Parkour, Sebastien Foucan, appears as Mollaka in the beginning (and best) sequence of Casino Royale.
Why can't the bamf be in more movies?
Pay attention to this: The difference between French action movies and American action movies
I’m not saying one is better than the other, I’m saying they’re different. America’s style is that of cutting forty times during a single punch. The French love choreographed fights and real-time special effects (my favorite). While Hong Kong loves wired-up, flying, crazy shit. The French stuntman and lead actor, Cyril Raffaelli, steals the show, showing Americans and the Asians how a real action star fights. The only guy I might enjoy more is Tony Jaa and last time I checked he was a monk. Unless things have changed?
I was fascinated with Christopher Nolan after I saw Momento. After that he went on to become the most important and financially successfuly director of his generation, however, he began with a modest little film-noir movie called Following.
I somehow got my hands on a bootleg years ago in college and was surprised at really how modest the movie ended up being. This movie has no budget to speak of. It even used the aspects of film-noir to stylistically swing black and white film – which is a cheaper stock.
Despite its budgetary constraints, the movie ends up being pretty damn good. The movie is crime drama about a man who follows people for ideas for his new book, however, he ends up getting wrapped up in crime and with a devilishly clever criminal.
Why to watch it: To see Nolan forming his famous narrative style.
You can tell in this film that Nolan was bound for greatness and not just because of his visual style, but because of his ability to build a story out of an unusual, jarring narrative.
The most obvious example is, of course, Memento, but the narrative structure can even be seen in Batman Begins and certainly Inception.
Pay attention to this: The way Nolan sidesteps his budgetary constrictions to make a movie.
The best way to gauge a filmmakers talent is the way she or he is able to make a pretty good movie with not much money. Even for low-budget, Following is cheap.
Nolan uses camera techniques, a b/w film stock, street locations, and, most of all, a really unqiue, odd story structure. This makes the movie watchable. A lesser filmmaker, with similar resources, would have made complete shit.
Lastly, don’t expect the best movie you’ve ever seen. The movie feels long, even at like seventy or eighty minutes. The acting also isn’t fantastic because they couldn’t really afford to do multiple takes. First features of great directors are always fun to watch, this is one of the better ones.
-Collin
By Collin, on April 7th, 2011
#36 We just watched this on Netflix streaming: Spinal Tap
The Film: Spinal Tap
Spinal Tap is actually I don’t love. I’m one of the few people who think it is just good. I don’t think it is the best comedy of all time, which many claim it to be. Again, I think it is just good. It inspired my favorite show of all time, The Office, with Gervais saying he was directly influenced by Tap. This movie is a must-see for anyone who wants to know what has influenced moder television so mcuh
Why to watch it: It popularized a technique
It sort-of invented a genre. I say sort-of because the style had never really been used like Spinal Tap used it. It was genius that Reiner picked up the camera and actually shot it full-on like he was making a documentary. These days you can’t turn on the TV without seeing this technique, but trust me, it was really unusual at the time.
The technique has really been exhausted and the ironic, quiet satire is a staple of modern, American television. This is mostly due to the success of the American office. I’m not complain, because it is a step away from copy-cats of Seinfeld. But still, the comedy wasn’t as ground breaking from my perspective as it would have been when the film was first released.
Pay attention to this: Dialing it to 11.
Okay, so this scene actually might be one of the funniest ever. It really is that good. The most ironic thing is that it really doesn’t have anything to do with Christopher Guest’s performance (I know it does) but Reiner really steals the show in this scene. I’ve since seen actually amps that go to 11 and somehow it just typifies that type of person. The dude who wants to be just that much more badass. Moreover, the part where Guest tells Reiner not to look at his guiatar is absoutlely ridiculous.
My problem with the whole thing is I never grew up with hair bands. They’re obviously ludicrous, but that seemed so obvious to me. I never took them seriously or was around people who did, so the movie is a little less effective on me. Perhaps a Jam Band-type movie would really hit home with me. Anyone who wants that idea – it is yours.
-Collin
By Collin, on March 29th, 2011
#35 We just watched this on Netflix streaming: Gojira
The Film: Gojira
Of all the movies Gojira reminds me of one just sticks in my mind and won’t leave: The movie First Blood. The two films have nothing to do with each other in terms of plot, but both are tragic warnings about the dangers of war and both were turned into franchises of shameless destruction and violence. Don’t get me wrong, Godzilla flicks and Rambo flicks are awesome. It is just funny Godzilla was such a powerful statement against weapons of mass destruction, but you could watch a more modern Godzilla flick and never know.
The actual movie is what you expect: Godzilla shows up and starts fucking up Tokyo. However, what you might not expect is the moral dilemma introduced toward the end of the movie. Do you save the cities of Japan or introduce a new weapon of mass destruction to the world? The film takes a position on the use of the Atom bombs only a decade earlier.
Why to watch it: It is the first fucking Godzilla movie!
Aside from all the morality jargon, it is just plain cool to see the first Godzilla movie. You might not like it, but I did. The special effects are cheesy at times, especially when you can clearly tell that Godzilla is a dude in a suit. The special effects though, overall, are pretty decent. They’re dated, but still effective. I was engaged in the story, but the characters are never fleshed out and you never care about them, but that really isn’t the point of the movie.
Pay attention to this: The film’s arguments against weapons of mass destruction.
Gojira is a not so subtle in regards to its criticisms of weapons of mass destruction. Particularly America’s use of the Atom bomb on many cities. It is easy to draw parallels between Godzilla’s destruction on Tokyo and the destruction that America did when they dropped two Atom bombs on heavily populated cities. These scenes with Godzilla are way too long and are often way too silly and fake, but I think they work.
Moreover, the discussions whether or not to use the new weapon to kill Godzilla seem like real fears that stemmed from the use of these weapons. They are intriguing ideas during a time of global uncertainty in regards to what America did. It’s cool. And man, hearing that Godzilla scream for the first time is so cool.
Of all the movies Gojira reminds me of one just sticks in my mind and won’t leave: The movie First Blood. The two films have nothing to do with each other in terms of plot, but both are tragic warnings about the dangers of war and both were turned into franchises of shameless destruction and violence. Don’t get me wrong, Godzilla flicks and Rambo flicks are awesome. It is just funny Godzilla was such a powerful statement against weapons of mass destruction, but you could watch a more modern Godzilla flick and never know.
Recent Comments