bowlofsoul23's reviews
by bowlofsoul23
This page compiles all reviews bowlofsoul23 has written, sharing their detailed thoughts about movies, TV shows, and more.
14 reviews
Documentary content: Amazing man, amazing movement he started, amazing stories- most of them yet to be really told.
Celluloid treatment: Nike Ad. Sorry, ain't got nothing else to say about this but that you can say all you want about the dire circumstances in the favelas, but... if you attempt to support that claim with flashy and romanticized images and camera-work of that life, the humbleness necessary to show this life as an outsider filmmaker goes out the window. And with that goes the legitimacy of the narrative. Besides that, the time-space continuum in the film is all off, and I'm not necessarily against that in films as a tool, but here it serves only to confuse the viewer into wondering what was said when; thus leading me to the question: is this a documentary or a docudrama?
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
Celluloid treatment: Nike Ad. Sorry, ain't got nothing else to say about this but that you can say all you want about the dire circumstances in the favelas, but... if you attempt to support that claim with flashy and romanticized images and camera-work of that life, the humbleness necessary to show this life as an outsider filmmaker goes out the window. And with that goes the legitimacy of the narrative. Besides that, the time-space continuum in the film is all off, and I'm not necessarily against that in films as a tool, but here it serves only to confuse the viewer into wondering what was said when; thus leading me to the question: is this a documentary or a docudrama?
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
I have a general rule of thumb about movies from Africa- I will see anything that comes there. Sometimes I love what I see, I often feel ambiguous, but rarely do I hate. That's what you get when you watch movies based on geography. I just feel though, that I know so little about certain places in the world, I mean I can't even visualize what the majority of the non-Western world looks like, and films help fill that gap. This particular movie falls into the ambiguous category, a film with beautiful moments, whose parts don't add up to a cohesive whole. Humanism runs throughout however, and that seems to be a theme in African movies, and is something I love.
This particular movie revolves around two main characters: a soldier, no, a sergeant, as he fervently reminds us, named Manu, who lost a leg in the 26-year civil war. In addition to lacking a leg, he's out of a job and a home. He's desperate for a prosthetic leg, but remains proud throughout the whole demeaning process of pulling his life back together. There is also an adolescent boy (can't remember his name) who lives with his stern but loving grandmother, and dreams of the day his father will return home. He gets into trouble by stealing and getting into fights, but we know deep down he's a good kid. There is an assortment of stereotyped characters, the upper-crust beautiful woman who teaches the poor, the hooker with the heart of gold, dirty politicians, another upper-crust beautiful person, this time an asshole who profits off of his familial ties to find a secure job in the government, and so on. The plot starts to get complicated when Manu wakes up one morning on the street to find his leg stolen.
Unfortunately, the film falls into the trap of cliché and overwrought melodrama. There are, however, some scenes that stand out. The moon in the sky falling into the earth in the form of a basketball thus providing a nice segue into the next scene, or when the boy lifts the prosthetic leg he has stolen into the night sky so that it can point to where his father might be. Or when the teacher and Manu fall asleep outside of the hospital and she wakes up to find herself resting on his shoulder. The tender look between the two speaks a thousand words. The all-to-clean ending however, feels tacked on and certain societal issues could have been examined more deeply, but like I said, it's refreshing to see anything from Africa, particularly how everyday people live, eat, drink, hate, and love. And I can ALWAYS listen to Portuguese.
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
This particular movie revolves around two main characters: a soldier, no, a sergeant, as he fervently reminds us, named Manu, who lost a leg in the 26-year civil war. In addition to lacking a leg, he's out of a job and a home. He's desperate for a prosthetic leg, but remains proud throughout the whole demeaning process of pulling his life back together. There is also an adolescent boy (can't remember his name) who lives with his stern but loving grandmother, and dreams of the day his father will return home. He gets into trouble by stealing and getting into fights, but we know deep down he's a good kid. There is an assortment of stereotyped characters, the upper-crust beautiful woman who teaches the poor, the hooker with the heart of gold, dirty politicians, another upper-crust beautiful person, this time an asshole who profits off of his familial ties to find a secure job in the government, and so on. The plot starts to get complicated when Manu wakes up one morning on the street to find his leg stolen.
Unfortunately, the film falls into the trap of cliché and overwrought melodrama. There are, however, some scenes that stand out. The moon in the sky falling into the earth in the form of a basketball thus providing a nice segue into the next scene, or when the boy lifts the prosthetic leg he has stolen into the night sky so that it can point to where his father might be. Or when the teacher and Manu fall asleep outside of the hospital and she wakes up to find herself resting on his shoulder. The tender look between the two speaks a thousand words. The all-to-clean ending however, feels tacked on and certain societal issues could have been examined more deeply, but like I said, it's refreshing to see anything from Africa, particularly how everyday people live, eat, drink, hate, and love. And I can ALWAYS listen to Portuguese.
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
"La terra e dura qui." Ingrid Bergman is a powerhouse in this film (perhaps out of love and devotion to the director), but she still can't match the power of the menacing volcano on this remote island off the coast of Italy. Bergman plays a prisoner of war with a checkered past stuck in a women's camp, who marries a Strombolian in order to provide herself with the security she needs. Trouble awaits her, and the first sign we get of that is when she starts to complain of being cold on the boat that is taking her to her new life. What she finds is not up to her high Continental standards, and her attitudes towards the locals and the place itself diminish her already low stature as an outsider. It is less the people however, than the general character of the place that turns her off. The volcano, unnamed by the villagers, always awaits in the background, and setting itself becomes one of the main characters (thus the importance of the title), a force to be reckoned with, much like her character.
Although this film is not noir in any way, and Rossellini himself would probably turn in his grave for hearing me say this, Bergman's character certainly does not hesitate in using her female "wiles" to get what she wants and needs. She survived a world war on what we take are wits and flexible morals, so she will also make it through this and I love her for it.
She even attempts to seduce the local priest by cooing "I knew you were the only person who could help me." Having that attempt fail, she tries with the village lighthouse keeper seen at right, and I don't even have to explain the power of her touch. As she asks for help to escape from the village, she softly touches his foot with hers, and creates an unbelievably palpable feeling of erotic energy, something unheard of in mainstream movies today. I know, that's such a cliché, but it's true.
Anyway, I won't discuss the ending, which angered me as a modern woman (even Bergman didn't seem to be buying it), but I will say that the film impressed me with its use of setting comprising plot, character, mise-en-scene, and theme. The film IS setting. It's also worth it just to see the non-actors performing a yearly tuna fishing ritual that dates back to the Phoenecians. Rossellini films are never just stories, they are historical documents. And I love him for that.
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
Although this film is not noir in any way, and Rossellini himself would probably turn in his grave for hearing me say this, Bergman's character certainly does not hesitate in using her female "wiles" to get what she wants and needs. She survived a world war on what we take are wits and flexible morals, so she will also make it through this and I love her for it.
She even attempts to seduce the local priest by cooing "I knew you were the only person who could help me." Having that attempt fail, she tries with the village lighthouse keeper seen at right, and I don't even have to explain the power of her touch. As she asks for help to escape from the village, she softly touches his foot with hers, and creates an unbelievably palpable feeling of erotic energy, something unheard of in mainstream movies today. I know, that's such a cliché, but it's true.
Anyway, I won't discuss the ending, which angered me as a modern woman (even Bergman didn't seem to be buying it), but I will say that the film impressed me with its use of setting comprising plot, character, mise-en-scene, and theme. The film IS setting. It's also worth it just to see the non-actors performing a yearly tuna fishing ritual that dates back to the Phoenecians. Rossellini films are never just stories, they are historical documents. And I love him for that.
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
Before specifically talking about the film, I just have to ponder the following question: Why do all films that take place in the 70s feel so 70s? Considering the fact that this movie was made in 1971, one must conclude that Roeg was a trend-setter. For my personal tastes, he went a little overboard with the freeze frames, jump cutting, radical though hardly subtle politics, and juxtaposition of jarring images. Aboriginal tearing into meat, Australian white butcher cutting meat in a sanitized setting, back to the Aboriginal, back to the butcher, and back again to the Aboriginal. And what's with all the scenes involving decomposing bodies? Yes, savage innocence, evil imperialists, death, nature vs. industrialization, corruption of a purer way of life, we see all these themes, but it would have been preferable to see it without being visually and aurally clubbed over the head like the poor animals in the outback are.
Disregarding that aspect, I quite liked the story of two white children, one very young, the other pubescent (and lingeringly shot), who get stuck in the Outback after their patriarchal and borderline psycho father is blown up. They then struggle to make it in the wild, and come upon an Aboriginal boy who is on a "walkabout", or a rite of passage journey that boys that age traditionally undertake in order to prove their worthiness as a man. This of course, becomes their walkabout, and they too become "wild" and free. Eventually, they make it back to "civilization", the first sign of this being a beautiful shot of the girl (whose name we never know- thus making it even more symbolic), coming into a clearing and gliding her hand over a man-made fence while walking backwards. What could be more symbolic of the Western values of property and ownership than a fence? She is ecstatic to be near an environment she holds dear, but her younger and more adaptable brother is less so, and the Aboriginal boy is even less so, which leads to tragic consequences.
The movie feels dated, not only in terms of camera-work but also thematically. It's no longer the job of white people to romanticize "savage" peoples, but rather to allow peoples to define themselves. Perhaps Roeg, in some small way, recognized this, thus choosing to have the Aboriginal boy speak his language and not provide us with subtitles. We could never understand totally, though we can sympathize.
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
Disregarding that aspect, I quite liked the story of two white children, one very young, the other pubescent (and lingeringly shot), who get stuck in the Outback after their patriarchal and borderline psycho father is blown up. They then struggle to make it in the wild, and come upon an Aboriginal boy who is on a "walkabout", or a rite of passage journey that boys that age traditionally undertake in order to prove their worthiness as a man. This of course, becomes their walkabout, and they too become "wild" and free. Eventually, they make it back to "civilization", the first sign of this being a beautiful shot of the girl (whose name we never know- thus making it even more symbolic), coming into a clearing and gliding her hand over a man-made fence while walking backwards. What could be more symbolic of the Western values of property and ownership than a fence? She is ecstatic to be near an environment she holds dear, but her younger and more adaptable brother is less so, and the Aboriginal boy is even less so, which leads to tragic consequences.
The movie feels dated, not only in terms of camera-work but also thematically. It's no longer the job of white people to romanticize "savage" peoples, but rather to allow peoples to define themselves. Perhaps Roeg, in some small way, recognized this, thus choosing to have the Aboriginal boy speak his language and not provide us with subtitles. We could never understand totally, though we can sympathize.
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
Sorry, I couldn't think of a wittier title than that. I would definitely recommend that Werner Herzog place Alan Smithee as the writer, producer, director, and whatever else he can get away with for this crappy film. Seeing as he roughly churns out a film a year, it's understandable. No director is perfect. Look at Francis Ford Coppola, or Terrence Malick. "Wild Blue", therefore, plays like a watery bowel movement of Grizzly Man. Called a "science fiction fantasy" this movie pairs images of astronauts eating, drinking, sleeping, working (with plenty of sexy leg shots) on a space station with a loony talking about an ancient race of aliens that came and settled the Earth, thereby attempting to create a world replete with a Senate, a White House, a monument to Andromeda, and- a shopping mall. That's right, a shopping mall, with Greek columns, in Podunkville, USA.
The film starts out interestingly enough, with footage of modern human inventions such as airplanes, paralleled with a talking head. In this case, the loony tune mentioned above. This dude, sporting a ponytail an undiagnosed personality disorder, claims that he came with the first group of aliens. At least, that's what I think he's talking about. While rambling on about how nobody listened to him about the truth, I couldn't help feeling a sense of solidarity with the masses for the first time in a long time.
Then Herzog starts to really lose it. The spacecraft with crew travel to a new planet after a disease starts to spread on Earth, looking for a new place to call home. What follows are lots of shots of a frozen planet, which looks more like underwater Antarctica. I guess Herzog's trying to point fingers at the emptiness of American, or capitalist, life and an over-reliance on technology. Actually, I don't really know and don't really care. I would much rather watch an I-Max movie about deep space, or the Arctic Circle. Something with a narrative arc.
I know this man once ate a shoe when he lost a bet, and I'm starting to wonder if he's got an uncontrollable gambling addiction. First a shoe, then a movie, who knows what else he will have to do when he loses? I just hope he stops openly mocking his subjects.
In the end, my friend and I couldn't take it and left. I rarely walk out of a film. I've walked out of two films in my life, Magnolia and the obscure Le Bassin De John Wayne (The Hips of John Wayne) , for very disparate reasons. At least I saw my cousin and hung out with her for a while afterwards. That was definitely worth it. She's got a production company. I have a crazy-a$$ idea, can I make a movie?
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
The film starts out interestingly enough, with footage of modern human inventions such as airplanes, paralleled with a talking head. In this case, the loony tune mentioned above. This dude, sporting a ponytail an undiagnosed personality disorder, claims that he came with the first group of aliens. At least, that's what I think he's talking about. While rambling on about how nobody listened to him about the truth, I couldn't help feeling a sense of solidarity with the masses for the first time in a long time.
Then Herzog starts to really lose it. The spacecraft with crew travel to a new planet after a disease starts to spread on Earth, looking for a new place to call home. What follows are lots of shots of a frozen planet, which looks more like underwater Antarctica. I guess Herzog's trying to point fingers at the emptiness of American, or capitalist, life and an over-reliance on technology. Actually, I don't really know and don't really care. I would much rather watch an I-Max movie about deep space, or the Arctic Circle. Something with a narrative arc.
I know this man once ate a shoe when he lost a bet, and I'm starting to wonder if he's got an uncontrollable gambling addiction. First a shoe, then a movie, who knows what else he will have to do when he loses? I just hope he stops openly mocking his subjects.
In the end, my friend and I couldn't take it and left. I rarely walk out of a film. I've walked out of two films in my life, Magnolia and the obscure Le Bassin De John Wayne (The Hips of John Wayne) , for very disparate reasons. At least I saw my cousin and hung out with her for a while afterwards. That was definitely worth it. She's got a production company. I have a crazy-a$$ idea, can I make a movie?
cococravescinema.blogspot.com
