The Innocents (1961)

Title: The Innocents (1961)

Director: Jack Clayton

Cast: Deborah Kerr, Martin Stephens, Pamela Fraklin, Clytie Jessop, Michael Redgrave

Review:

A rich man is looking for the perfect “Governess” (which is just a big word for a live-in Nanny) to take care of his two adopted kids, whom he has no time for. He is too busy conducting business trips and closing deals. He needs a Governess who will take care of the kids and not bother him about anything…ever! He soon finds the perfect Governess in Mrs. Giddens, the lady who ends up getting the job. Mrs. Giddens soon moves to the rich mans castle, where she will be living and taking care of the children. She is impressed at how beautiful and majestic the castle is. Apparently, things are looking up for Mrs. Giddens! She meets the children...who seem bright and cheerful, but are they what they seem? She soon discovers that there’s something not quite right about them. Why are they so damn smart? And why is the little boy hitting on her all the time?

I love it when I see a good film and it blows me out of the water, and I love it even more when said film is and old one. It let’s me know that no matter how many years have passed by, if a film is good, it will retain its original impact.  I love it when no matter how many years have gone by since a film was first made, when it’s good, there is just no denying it. Some films are simply forever good. The Innocents is one of these films. It’s one old school, eerie affair. I imagine that way back in 1961, audience members must have been spooked when they saw this one! The Innocents has an intensity to it and a decidedly serious vibe that many horror films from that era lacked. It’s one of those old school horror films where the wind blows in the middle of the night, where castles are filled with dark, shadowy hallways, the window curtains caress the night air…this is an old fashion horror film alright and such a damn good one! I personally compare it to Robert Wise’s wonderfully spooky The Haunting (1963) in terms of tone and atmosphere, but more on that later.

There are many scenes enshrouded in darkness on The Innoncents; the color palette is filled with sharp blacks and contrasting whites. The beautifully dark and gothic look of this film can be attributed in large part to Freddie Francis, the master cinematographer who lends his abilities on The Innocents. This is the man behind the  cinematography for many Hammer Horror films, he even directed some of them, like Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968), one of the most beautiful looking of the Hammer Dracula films. Freddie Francis’s cinematic magic worked great in color films, but he worked his magic on black and white films as well, The Innocents is a good example of that. The black and whites are as sharp as can be and used to maximum effect. When you watch this one, you feel as though you are being engulfed by darkness! It reminded me of a similar looking film that Freddie Francis directed called Nightmare (1964). By the way, Nightmare comes highly recommended as one of the better Psycho (1960) rip offs and same as The Innocents, Nightmare was a very dark looking black and white film, which consequently also starred an unreliable female protagonist.

Why is Mrs. Giddens, the female lead in The Innocents considered an unreliable protagonist? It’s because she’s the kind of protagonist that we don’t really trust, she doesn’t seem to be all there. In this way it reminded me yet again of Robert Wise’s The Haunting, but also of Roman Polanski’s Repulsion (1965) and Rosemary’s Baby (1968), both psychological thrillers in which the female protagonist looses it. Actually, now that I look at it, the horror films of the 60’s were all about unreliable female protagonists, I guess this had a lot to do with the success of  Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960). These are all films filled with females suffering from depression, paranoia and psychosis. The film protagonist in The Innocents fits nicely with these type of films because Mrs. Giddens seems like a competent lady; unfortunately, we are here to witness her crumble psychologically.

There’s various ways of looking at this picture, it’s a film open to interpretation. The Innocents is a very ambiguous horror film. Is it a ghost story or isn’t it? Is the house haunted? Are the kids possessed? Is Mrs. Giddens crazy? This is the kind of film where it’s never really clear exactly what is going on. Some will see this film one way, some will see it another. At the root of it all are the children, the titular “Innocents” who really aren’t as innocent as they should be at their age, which is really the spookiest part of this film. Little Miles and Flora speak and behave like adults! They kind of reminded me of the kids in Frank Herbert’s Dune novels, where a religious order of witches breed children who are born with the knowledge of their fore fathers, so they are born super intelligent, with all this knowledge about life. Children such as these are intimidating because normally of course, kids are innocent and naïve, when they aren’t, it totally freaks you out. On The Innocents there seems to be some sort of dark purpose behind these kids’ words and actions. This is a film about corrupted youth. It plays with the idea that a child’s mind is a clean slate and that whatever we put into their minds and hearts, that whatever experiences we put them through will influence immensely on who they become. Interesting note, Martin Stephens, the child actor who played Miles on The Innocents also played one of the leads in Village of the Damned (1960), another excellent film about evil little kids. 

What I liked the most about The Innocents was that feeling of not knowing exactly what’s going on. I loved how the film manages to keep us lulled in to the mystery behind the kids’ strange behavior. It is a very effective film in that sense. I personally consider The Innocents one of the best horror films ever made because really, the best type of horror film is the kind that suggests the horror; it suggests what is behind that curtain and leaves the rest to your imagination. Again, this is another similarity that TheHaunting shares with The Innocents and since The Haunting was filmed a couple of years after The Innocents, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that Robert Wise and crew where at least a bit influenced by The Innocents. In turn, I believe that The Innocents was Alejandro Amenobar’s blueprint for making The Others (2001). There is so much of The Innocents in that film! Last Halloween I did a blog post about 21 Haunted House Flicks, this one would have fit so perfectly well in there. It would have also fit nicely on my Evil Tots! MoviesWith Evil Little Kids in Them blog post. Final words? This is a true horror classic that every dignified horror fan should see. Everything about it is perfect, the suspense, the performances, the look of the film, the atmosphere. If you are disappointed with what is being passed as a horror film these days, then watch The Innocents; it’s the kind of film that will make you regain your faith in horror films.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Straw Dogs (1971)

Title: Straw Dogs (1971)

Director: Sam Peckinpah

Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Susan George, David Werner

Review:

As a warning, I’ll let you guys know that this review is more of an analysis of Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs, so if you don’t want to read any spoilers…your welcome to skip this review, otherwise, read on my friends because today we’ll be talking about Sam Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs! Peckinpah was known for making violent, sexually charged films that spoke about that animal/violent side that is dormant within most of us; and that was definitely the vibe that I felt while watching Straw Dogs, a film about mild mannered mathematician David Summer (Dustin Hoffman) and his beautiful wife Amy Summer (Susan George), who have just relocated to England to escape the violent political climate permeating in the United States during the early 70’s. I guess they figure things will be quieter in another country, far away from all the turmoil. And for a while, things seem fine. They are staying in a secluded house amongst mountains and green pastures. How can evil crawl up into this beautiful and seemingly peaceful landscape?

This is the premise for Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs a film regarded by many as the directors’ masterpiece. I haven’t seen Peckinpah’s entire repertoire, but Straw Dogs does feel like it could definitely be amongst his top films. It is a very powerful film, with some scenes that will definitely make some of you squirm. Some audience members were so shocked with this film that in test screenings, some actually got up and left half way through the film. They couldn’t take the violence and the sexual assaults that the film presented. At the time not many theatrically released films ventured this far into sex and violence, and so virgins to Peckinpah’s particular style of film, audiences reacted accordingly. The film was banned in some countries and edited down in others.

The scenes that shocked the most were the famous scenes where Susan George’s character gets raped and another scene in which Dustin Hoffman’s character goes nuts and smashes some dudes face to a bloody pulp. And though I’ve seen far more graphic films than Straw Dogs, this was one of the first to go as far and as graphic as it did. I mean off the top of my head I can mention Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible (2002) as a film that was obviously influenced by Straw Dogs, but decided to push the envelope a bit further by being even more graphic with its sex/rape scenes and its violence. But Straw Dogs did it first; it was one of the first to really shock people. So much so that some reviewers went as far as to accuse Peckinpah of being misogynistic, misanthropic and even fascist. But was he any of these things he was accused of because of making this film? Or was he simply exploring mans natural capacity for violence? Is the way women are portrayed on this film misogynistic?

In my book, Peckinpah was doing what he came to this world to do. He was a filmmaker commenting on human nature and he did it without any filters, without anything to hold him back, which in many cases means we’re in for an honest movie, one that tries to tell things the way they really are. Nothing that is portrayed in this film can be labeled as fake or unrealistic. Situations like these do happen in the world everyday. Peckinpah was simply exploring why events such as these occur; what is at the root of it all? This is why I don’t really attack Straw Dogs the way some people do. But hey, I’m not going to deny that Straw Dog’s rape scene was not an easy scene to watch. I felt Susan George’s ambiguity; she wanted to be with the first rapist because her husband was cold and harsh with her at times. He ignored her because of his obsession with math. But at the same time, she didn’t want to get raped, of course she didn’t, no woman would want such a thing. Plus, she knew she was married, and she loved her husband. That scene is amazing because of the incredible range of emotions that Susan George puts across through her performance. Her characters divided self shined through and through, praises to her and that scene. To the films credit, the rape scene isn’t even graphic in nature, most of the pain and anguish is transmitted through Susan George’s facial expressions, yet the scene still manages to shock, a testament to the way the film was directed and acted.  

In Straw Dogs, Amy Summer is the ultimate provocateur, she walks around town bra-less, with mini-skirts. She doesn’t mind flashing people every once in a while either. Does this mean that she is asking to be raped? Should the fact that a woman dresses and behaves in a sexually provocative manner give rapists and excuse to do what they do? These are the questions that Peckinpah asks with this film. This film is about rape, no doubt about that, but also, it asks the question of what makes a man a man? Does a man have to be tough? Does he have to treat women roughly? Or lovingly? Should every man have a capacity for violence in reserve, just in case he needs it? In the film, Dustin Hoffman’s character David Summer is a mild mannered man; a bookworm, a cerebral man, the furthest thing away from the macho type. But what happens when the mild mannered, peace loving man clashes with the alpha male? Will David have what it takes to stand up to these bullies? And how much will he stand before he actually takes a stand? David Summer is the kind of character (like most of us I guess) who avoids violent confrontations as much as possible. Yet the people he has to deal with are the complete opposite; they  solve everything through violence. In this town, if a man is denied a beer at the local bar for being too drunk, he breaks a couple of glasses until he finally gets it! What’s a peaceful individual like David going to do in such a violent environment? I guess Peckinpah is commenting on how no matter where you go, humanities violent nature will follow you.  Straw Dogs is the kind of film that makes you think about how you would react if you would ever face such a situation.

Some (even Peckinpah himself) have called David Summer the villain of the film not because of how violently he reacts, but because of his unwillingness to do something about the situation that presents itself. He fails to take action. The idea behind David being the villain is that everything that happens to him is his fault because he didn’t have the guts to stand up to the rapists when he first had the chance. That his cowardice and naïveté made everything else happen, that he brought it all onto himself, which I agree with. This is a story of a man who learns that things need to be dealt with before they get out of hand. At the same time, I sympathize with David because he is a peaceful guy who’d be happiest educating himself and learning new things, not smashing peoples faces up. During the whole film he is portrayed as a character that is afraid of any type of confrontation. His  reason for moving to England was to get away from all the violence and rebellion going on in the U.S.; in fact, it is mentioned that David didn’t even have the guts to form a part of the revolutionary movement, this is a fact that his wife Amy never liked about him.  But hey, can you really blame a guy for wanting to be peaceful? I guess the films big question is what is a peaceful man to do in a violent world? What’s a peaceful man to do when his life, or that of his family is threatened? Some might say that Peckinpah’s answer is “grow some fucking balls and kick the living shit out of anyone who messes with you”, I say it's deal with things before they get out of proportion. Deal with things when they first show their ugly face. David Summer is definitely a character that cannot be described in terms of good or bad, of black and white, there are definitely a lot of grey areas with David Summer. He essentially became that which he hated the most. But then again, this isn’t a black and white world we live in either. What was he supposed to do? Stand back and let those men kill him and rape his wife? Was his violence justified? I kind of lean towards hell yes it was; but you my dear reader can be the judge there.

Straw Dogs is a moving film, I can’t tell you how much I got into it. It’s the kind of film that makes you scream “Do It!” to the screen. It is beautifully shot and acted. To me, it's a great revenge film that I wish I had included in my  "Top 16 Revengiest Films Ever Made" post I did a while back; though some argue that this isnt a revenge film, I argue that it is, because he is avenging the violence thats being brought onto his household, he just executes his revenge at a lightning fast pace. I finally had the chance to catch up with this classic, and of course, Im glad I did. Straw Dogs gives us one of Dustin Hoffman's best performances. He portrays the quiet bookworm effectively; a worm that eventually turns and kicks some ass. In the end, Straw Dogs talks about how we are all capable of incredible amounts of violence, if we are pushed far enough. It speaks about the hypocrisy in society. One scene has all the pivotal characters going together to church for a social event and even the rapists are there, sharing with the rest of society in a “sacred place” when in fact they are the lowest of the low. Hypocrisy is further explored when the rapists attempt to kill a rapist, when in fact they are rapists themselves. These characters makes you think these evil men were only out to kill, maim and destroy just for the sake of it, not because they have a reason for it like David Summer did, after all, David was simply protecting his home, cant blame a guy for that.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Peckinpah and Hoffman talk it out

Melancholia (2011)

Title: Melancholia (2011)

Director: Lars Von Trier

Cast: Kirsten Dunst, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kiefer Sutherland, John Hurt, Alexander Skarsgard, Stellan Skarsgard, Udo Kier

Review:

Director Lars Von Trier’s films always have this acid, depressive, sad outlook on life. Ever seen Antichrist (2009)? If you haven’t seen it yet, let me tell you, it’s an overdose of sadness and despair. I mean look at Von Trier’s latest film: Melancholia; the title says it all actually. The word melancholia refers to a form of abnormal sadness, sadness so deep that it can become a form of insanity. And Melancholia is just that; two hours of pure unadulterated sadness, and that’s fine by me because when you really stop to think about it, how sad is life on this planet? How truly sad are the conditions under which our society lives in? I mean, yes, many things can cause us happiness, many moments can bring us joy, but when we look at the big picture, when we look at how the world is being run, it is a sad, depressive state of affairs.

In Melancholia we meet two sisters: Justine and Claire. Justine has just gotten married and she is on her way to her wedding reception. On the surface, she seems happy, the way every bride should be. At first it seems that nothing can destroy the happiness between the happy couple. But as the evening progresses, it becomes quite evident that Justine isn’t happy at all, in fact she is the opposite, depressed beyond belief. Will she be able to go through with this night? With the responsibilities expected of her after marriage? What is really bringing Justine down so much? Claire, Justine’s older sister is trying to keep Justine’s emotions under control, but it seems nothing can control Justine’s gloom and doom. At the same time, a giant planet called Melancholia is headed straight towards us, and apparently will completely obliterate Planet Earth. Will Melancholia destroy us, or will it pass us by?

So yeah, I was blown away by this movie, yeah its constant sadness can be a bit overwhelming at times, but I have to admit there’s a meaning behind the sadness, a reason for it. And when we analyze the root of the sadness, it is completely merited. Let’s see, greed is swallowing humanity whole, children die of hunger every day. There is such a thing as child slavery in our modern world. Most of us think we aren’t slaves, that slavery is something of the past, but is it? The masses are being lied to, and really, when we get down to it, how much of what we hold to be true, really isn’t? How many people live under the assumption that everything they’ve been taught is true, when in fact it isn’t? How unfair and selfish are governments? How selfish are the rich and powerful? How much more could humanity be doing to improve life on this planet so that everyone can be happy? Why must one class rule over the other? Why can’t we all just live happily in this world? Why do we give such importance to trivial things that don’t really matter? How sad is it that we are being programmed to consume by the media? How much of what we see and read on the news is a lie? I mean…so many things can make it sad to live on this planet. The ideas that this film transmits are very true, in general, things on this planet can make anyone extremely sad. Melancholia really explores the idea that when we “wake up”, that when we get to know how this world is really being run, when we truly open our eyes and see how things really are, the truth of it all can make you bitter and sad.

This film sends a big “fuck you” to all the bullshit; and excuse my French, but this is exactly what the film does. This is exactly what Von Trier is saying. The film does this by using marriage as a starting point to analyze humanity and the things we choose to give importance to. In the film, during Justine’s wedding reception, when everyone has to say something nice to the Bride and Groom, Justine’s mother stands up and says “I don’t believe in marriage, so enjoy it while it lasts, which won’t be long”, which is a brutally honest comment on marriage. Why do you need to sign a piece of paper to be in love with someone? Do you really need to go through this whole legal process to bind your life to another especially when it’s supposed to be “forever”? I’ve always thought marriage can be a huge farce because most of the time, five years later, people can’t stand each other. I've always thought that life is so mutable, so ever changing that committing to something "forever" is really saying a lie. Most of the time what happens is that couples get bored with each other. So then they have kids and complicate the inevitable break up that will come anyways. I’ve recorded a couple of weddings (something I do on the side) and every time they get to the part where they promise themselves forever, I think “yeah right”. I mean, yeah it’s a beautiful thought to be able to live through life with the same person forever, and kudos to those who achieve it and are truly happy, but it’s almost a fairy tale like idea, and fairytales are far from reality. The reality is that most couples will end up getting divorced in less than five years. And what about all the rituals you go through during the actual marriage? At one point, Justine’s mother gets away from the reception and when someone tries to find her she tells them to “fuck off with your stupid traditions!” What the film is trying to say is that it’s all insignificant and pointless when we take in consideration the issues that should really matter in life; the bigger issues that we should all be aiming to improve on collectively, instead of worrying about old traditions and trivial things that really don’t matter in the end.

The question the film asks is, would it matter if humanity was suddenly obliterated from existence? Doesn’t humanities evil warrant its destruction? I’m a realist when it comes to things of this nature. I know how evil man can be. I know how evil man is being right now as I type this, but I choose to be hopeful. I choose to be of the ones who holds on to the idea that humanity will one day get past all these age old hang ups and mature. That one day, after all these lessons we’ve learned through the ages, that we will all want the best for all of us. That greed will one day dissipate, that we will find a way for all of us to be happy on this huge spaceship called earth. Wishful thinking? I hope not, because if these ideas are all just wishful thinking, if humanity will stay stuck in a never ending circle of evil, then I will have to be just as sad and melancholic as Kirsten Dunst’s character on this film. Her sadness reaches such lengths that she cant even move her legs to walk, it is so powerful that even her favorite food tastes bad. Her sadness totally engulfs her; melancholic is the perfect way to describe her. Justine, her sister, is the opposite. She tries to see everything in a positive way. She tries to help her sister, aiding her through her despair. I thought it was interesting how both sisters represented different ways of seeing the world. Justine sees things for what they are, and Claire represents the more idealistic way of looking at things, which isn’t always the most realistic way of seeing things.

The cast is a superb one; I was amazed at how much talent was up there on the screen. Kirsten Dunst looks absolutely stunning on this film. I think most guys out there will agree after seeing this film that Kirsten Dunst has one of the most amazing bodies in Hollywood, a true beauty. Her performance bares all, it is a very vulnerable and sincere performance, I loved it. Deep down inside she hates humanity and everything it has come to represent. She feels a greater connection with the universe, which she loves to gaze at, and nature. At one point she simply chooses to sit naked in the middle of the forest and look at the stars. The symbolisms being that she wants to disconnect from everything and just be totally free. Charlote Gainsbourg, who can now be considered a Von Trier regular (she also starred in Von Trier’s Antichrist) plays the idealist, the polar opposite of Justine. In many ways, she’s the kind of person who wants to turn a blind eye to the way things really are and chooses to see things in an idealistic, albeit unrealistic way. Though the are sisters and care for each other, they are really very different people. Kiefer Sutherland also plays the idealist. I was glad to see him in a film that is actually good; and not in crap like Mirrors (2008). John Hurt plays Justine’s father, a playful and happy man who laughs at life and enjoys not taking things too seriously, which I felt a connection with. Udo Kier made me laugh as the wedding planner, a small role, yet Kier is one of the few “funny” things about the film. All in all, an amazing cast.    

      

Some might find this film to be a bit difficult to sit through because of its constant sadness, but hey, what can you expect from a film called Melancholia or for that matter,  a film from director Lars Von Trier? True, the film is filled with gloom and doom, but Von Trier balances it all out with gorgeous visuals, beautiful cinematography and settings. I also enjoyed the fact that even though this is a film about “the end of the world” so to speak, it focuses on a more personal story. If this film had been directed by say Michael Bay, it would have been all about meteorites destroying buildings and cars exploding and chaos on the city streets, but on Von Trier’s hands, this film is about a rich family who lives in an isolated mansion, far away from the masses. The last moments of this film are truly gripping, and the film has one of the best endings I’ve ever seen on any movie, truly gripping. You’ll feel that you got front row sits to the end of the world! Kudos to Von Trier, that ending left me gasping. This film would have certainly been on my “Best of 2011” list had I seen it when I wrote the list, but alas, I saw it after. Still, just make believe I put it on there because it truly was one of the best of the year. 

Rating: 5 out of 5

The Fall (2006)

Title: The Fall (2006)

Director: Tarsem Singh

Cast: Lee Pace, Catinca Untaru

Review:

So I take it you guys have noticed how big a Tarsem fan I am, but what can I say? His films are so beautiful to look at I just can’t help myself. Actually, I’m kind of angry at myself for not having seen The Fall before, when the film was first released way back in 2006. I guess the film didn’t get much of a promotional push upon its initial release, and quite honestly, I cant imagine why! This movie has so many redeeming qualities! There are so many good things about it! It seems to me like the only way The Fall gets the recognition it deserves is by word of mouth. Sooooo, let me be another one of those reviewers to spread the love around: The Fall is an amazing movie! It is without a doubt in my mind Tarsem’s best film to date. I recently had a chance to watch and enjoy Tarsem’s Immortals which I loved and was impressed by, but after having seen The Fall I can safely say that it’s the best film in Tarsem’s repertoire. Why? Read on my friends…read on.

The Fall tells the story of a Alexandria, a little girl who is secluded in a hospital in L.A. recovering from a broken arm. Alexandria ends up befriending another patient in the hospital, a young actor by the name of Roy Walker. Roy is trying to recover from a bad back, you see, he is a stunt man for the movies and his latest stunt (jumping off a moving train and onto a horse) went horribly wrong, and so he hurt his back so badly he is now paraplegic and bed ridden. Good thing Alexandria is here to lighten up his day! They meet by happenstance, yet they develop a deep and profound friendship. To entertain Alexandria, Roy begins telling her a series of stories that he makes up as he goes along, sadly, even though he enjoys Alexandria’s company, Roy wants nothing more than to end his life. He feels he is half the man he was and he doesn’t want to live like this. Will he do it? Or will Alexandria save Roy’s soul?

To me Tarsem Singh is one of the great fantasy directors of our time. He reminds me of other directors entirely devoted to fantasy like Terry Gilliam for example, who I am absolutely sure has influenced Tarsem in one way or another. In fact, while watching The Fall, it reminded of one of Terry Gilliam’s fantasy masterpieces: The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988). Let’s mention the similarities shall we? The main character is a little girl, she escapes into a fantasy land where the good guys each have a special ability, one is a scientist, one is an explosives expert, one is a bandit…and so forth. In fact, the five characters that Alexandria meets in her fantasy world are like superheroes in many ways, same as the good guys in Adventures of Baron Munchausen and same as in that movie, the little girl is trying to save an older mans soul, and older man who becomes a father figure to her. Though The Fall is reportedly inspired by a Bulgarian film called Yo Ho Ho (1981), I would say that Gilliam’s film was also highly influential here.

But don’t go on thinking The Fall is simply a rip off of any other film because in many, many ways, The Fall is actually a very unique film unlike anything you will ever see.

One of the most interesting aspects of this film is the way in which it was made. Tarsem funded most of this film himself so he could make it his way, which makes The Fall a film totally void of studio intervention. This is Tarsem doing exactly the kind of film that he wants to make. That’s right my friends, this isn’t just any old film, this is a special film. How special you ask? Well, for example, The Fall was filmed in 18 different countries! But you wouldn’t know it by watching the film, because it all looks like it’s part of a cohesive universe that exists in little Alexandria’s head. The way in which The Fall was made reminded me of the way German director Werner Herzog makes his films. A lot of Herzog’s films are shot in such outlandish locations that one could easily mistake them for some fantasy world, or alien planet, when in fact Herzog makes his films right here on Planet Earth. It’s just that he knows how to exploit exotic locations to the max. The same thing can be said about Tarsem’s The Fall, the exotic locations chosen whisk us away to Alexandria and Roy’s fantasy world.

Tarsem’s films are often times accused of being style over substance, which is a fair assessment. It’s true, Tarsem loves conjuring up beautiful visuals and it’s true that he sometimes does this at the expense of story and character development, in some ways Immortals is a good example of that. But this was not the case with The Fall a film that kept me engaged, and a lot of that had to do with Catinca Untaru’s performance. Catican Untaru is the young actress who plays Alexandria. She’s such a cute little girl, so lovable, so innocent. She conveys the innocence of childhood to perfection. I hadn’t fallen in love with a young actresses’ performance so much since I saw Amelie (2001). I am wondering why she hasn’t been used in films again? The friendship that Roy and Alexandria develop during the course of the film feels so genuine and true. Roy is an adult who is depressed with his life; Alexandria is there to remind him how beautiful life can be. In many ways she functions like Roy’s guardian angel, coming to “save his soul”. The film took me by surprise because by its third half, the film had me in an emotional turmoil! I was sad…then seconds later I was happy, then seconds later I am devastated again! I’m not at liberty to say if a couple of my tears escaped or not, I’ll just say that heart strings where pulled; and the last director to do that to me with one of his films was Fellini with his Nights of Cabiria (1957). Very few directors manage to actually make a film that truly stirs my emotions, but dammit, Tarsem did it with The Fall. And speaking of Tarsem, if you want to see him direct the hell out of this film, watch the dvd extras where you can see how this amazing film came to be. On it you can see how passionate Tarsem is when he directs. You can actually see him squeeze tears from the little actress for some of the more emotional scenes, making a movie this movie was one big emotional journey for this young actress and I salute her for pulling it off. 

Like many of Terry Gilliam’s films, Tarsem’s films are highly influenced by art. This is something that I also talked a bit about in my review for Tarsem’s The Cell (2000). The Fall is no different. This one has a little bit of Dahli in it. You know how Dahli made these paintings that look one way from up close and totally different when you look at them from afar? Tarsem pulls this off in The Fall with some of its images. In fact, the poster for The Fall was inspired by Dahli’s “Face of Mae West Which May Be Used as an Apartment” So we have a film with lots of artistic influences in it, which of course explains why it’s so rich visually. Not only that, but The Fall also manages to pay its respects to older films, and to stunt men and woman who risked their lives in the past to entertain us. In this way it reminded me of films like Scorcese’s Hugo (2011), films that pay homage to all those filmmakers from the past.   

Dahli’s “Face of Mae West Which May Be Used as an Apartment”, which influenced the poster for The Fall

In conclusion, this is in my opinion Tarsem’s best film. You know how some of the best directors in the world have made films that are completely ignored upon their first release, and it’s only years later that people discover them and give them the respect they deserve? I think this will happen with The Fall. It’s an amazing film that failed to connect with audiences or fire up the box office when it was first released to the world. Hopefully, as time goes by people will finally discover this amazing film and give it the credit that it is due. It has many similarities with films like The Wizard of Oz (1939), Labyrinth (1986), Mirrormask (2005) and Pans Labyrinth (2006), films about a little girl escaping her harsh reality by going into a fantasy world in her mind. Do yourself a favor and check out this beautiful and emotional film by one of the finest fantasy directors working today.

Rating: 5 out of 5

The Best Films of 2011 According to The Film Connoisseur

Now that 2011 is over and done with I’ve gone over some of the films that I’ve watched through the year and came up with this top, fifteen best. This is the cream of the crop of 2011 according to The Film Connoisseur! Keep in mind that this list is made up of films that I’ve actually watched; sadly I didn’t get to watch all the films that I wanted to.

For example, I’ve yet to watch the following films: Gore Verbinski’s Rango, Lars Von Trier’s Melancholia, Steven Soderbergh’s Contagion, David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo all of which sound amazing. I’m sure a couple of these would’ve made it on to my list had I seen them. I also missed Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris…*sigh* so many movies, so little time. I’ll eventually get to them, which means you, my dear reader will eventually get to read reviews for them as well.   

Hope you’ll get an idea of what films to see next time you go to the cinema (go watch Hugo now!) or on your next trip to the video club. So, without further ado, I leave you with The Film Connoisseur’s top films of 2011!

Title: Attack the Block

Director: Joe Cornish

Synopsis: Attack the Block is all about a group of hoodlums who suddenly find themselves face to face with an alien invasion! They have to learn to work as a team and care about others in order to survive. Why do the deadly aliens follow them everywhere they go?

What I liked about it: This is a very simple film that is also lots of fun. It’s basic premise is that of a group of kids trying to survive the alien invasion, but what I liked most about it where the characters; a lively bunch of teenagers who played out like the potty mouth version of The Goonies (1985) or Explorers (1985). These aren’t exactly squeaky clean teenagers, in fact, they are the complete opposite of that, yet they still manage to come off as likable. Another cool thing about the film were the alien creatures; they have a really original looking design to them, I hadnt seen creatures like these before. Another thing I really enjoyed about the film was how much it felt like a film from the 80’s, with a bunch of teenagers going on an adventure, which leads me to the next film on our list that paid tribute to the 80s...  

Title: Super 8  

Director: J.J. Abrahams

Synopsis: A group of teens are filming their own DIY (that’s Do It Yourself for those not in the know) zombie film. While filming a scene that takes place at a train station, the train crashes right before their eyes and their camera! As a result of this crash, the military over takes their town searching for something that was lost in the train crash. What is it?

What I Liked About It: Again, same as with Attack the Block, it’s the chemistry between the main characters that works wonders for the film. The children are all very likable and funny. The film was also J.J. Abrahams homage to Spielberg films, this is probably the main reason why the film felt like at times a lot like Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T. The Extraterrestrial (1982).

Title: Hanna

Director: Joe Wright

Synopsis: Hanna is a young girl who lives out in the woods with her dad. Her dad has raised her in a technology free environment, teaching her to survive in the world on her own. She’s good with hand to hand combat, with guns, and she’s a great hunter. Here’s a girl who won’t die of hunger if she gets lost in the woods one day. But what happens when Hanna wants to venture to the outside world filled with cars, pollution, evil people and technology? Will she be able to adapt? And why is the government after Hanna?

What I Liked About It: I liked many things about this film, number one; I loved how Joe Wright’s stylish visuals and the music by the Chemical Bros. matched to perfection. This is one of those movies in which every cut, every camera movement perfectly synchronizes with the images we see. I also enjoyed the films subversive nature, how it urges younger generations to wake up from the stupor, disconnect from technology,  take control of their lives and stand up to the evil. Hanna represents what young people should be like in this cruel new world we live in, where the powers that be want nothing more than to control our every breath and movement. In this film, Hanna is fighting for her right to freedom, something that should be a priority in all our lives. 

Title: Limitless

Director: Neil Burger

Synopsis: Eddie Morras is a writer who for all intents and purposes is you’re a-typical looser, a fuck up of gargantuan proportions. He wants write the great American novel but he is so disorganized and out of it, that he gets nowhere. Fortunately, he stumbles upon a friend of his that presents him with a new designer drug called NZT. This drug allows humans to use 100% of their brain as opposed to the 10% that we normally use. Suddenly Eddie writes his masterpiece in no time flat! He has acute understanding of the money market, his brain moves so fast that he soon rises to the top of the financial world! But, does the drug have any secondary effects? Can Eddie make it to the top on his own, without NZT to help him out?

What I Liked About It: My favorite thing about this movie was how it presents us with the idea that if we focus, and get our thoughts straight, we can accomplish anything. I liked the idea of the looser suddenly getting a laser sharp brain and achieving more than he’d ever achieved before. It’s something we all hope we can accomplish. On the other hand, the film also criticizes drug abuse, and explores the after effects of abusing them. The films stylish visuals and direction pulled me in as well.

Title: 13 Assassins  

Director: Takashi Miike

Synopsis: 13 Samurais gather to bring down an evil politician that is slowly rising to power. Will they allow him to become Shogun so that he can rule over the land with his murderous mentality? Or will they take matters into their own hands and stop him?

What I Liked About It: It seems that every other Samurai film ever made is about toppling over an evil government, and 13 Assassins is no exception. This is a theme that  never seems to go away, apparently people are never happy with their governments. Apparently, they have always abused and stolen from their people. The film takes the evil ruler and places him face to face with a representative of the people, and tells him exactly what he is doing wrong. It’s the kind of film where a worthy representative of the people takes a stand against the evil by organizing a revolution. The final scene is an hour long battle between the Samurais and the evil government. Who will win at the end of the day? And will it all have been worth it? 

Title: Shaolin  

Director: Benny Chan

Synopsis: The Monks of the Shaolin temple suddenly find their way of life threatened when an evil war lord decides to make them pay for helping the enemy. This war lord is your basic tyrannical douche bag. But what happens when the evil war lord suddenly finds himself without power? When he suddenly finds that it is he who needs the help of the Shaolin Monks? Will this evil warlord ever learn humility and love for his fellow man? 

What I Liked About It: I’ve always loved films about the mystical Shaolin Temple. The 36^th Chamber of Shaolin (1978) and it’s sequels are some of my favorite Kung Fu movies. The idea about a mystical temple where you can lead a beautiful clean life, learn about love and humility and at the same time train yourself to protect your way of life with KUNG FU always caught my imagination. This was a very expensive Chinese movie that broke all kinds of box office records in China and Japan. The money spent on the film is on the screen, they built a whole temple just to make this film! As an added bonus, Jackie Chan appears in the film as a cook who mixes his cooking techniques with Kung Fu! But the coolest aspect of the film is how grand it is, and the kung fu action is nothing short of spectacular. I also enjoyed the fact that the evil politician has a change of heart…something I wish would happen more often in the world.  

Title: Captain America: The First Avenger  

Director: Joe Johnston  

Synopsis: Steve Rogers is a skinny kid with a lot of heart, his biggest dream is to be able to join the U.S. Military so he can defend his country. Unfortunately, he is so skinny that he is continuously picked on and made fun of. He’s even rejected by the military for being so thin. But kids got a lot of heart, which is why he is chosen for a top secret military experiment that turns him into the super strong, ultra muscular, Captain America! Now he doesn’t only have super strength, he’s also a nice guy! As soon as he is transformed, he immediately gets involved in the war, and fights for the United States of America against the Red Skull, a power hungry mad man looking to destroy the world.  

What I Liked About It: At times Captain America: The First Avenger felt like part of an ad campaign paid by the U.S. Military, and this is really the only aspect of the film that I didn’t like, because I despise the idea of killing other human beings over political ideologies, as far as I’m concerned, we’re all in this planet together, and we’re all brothers. But aside from the films “Go Army!” mentality and nauseating nationalism, the film also happens to be a great superhero film, with some awesome action set pieces and special effects. So if you can ignore the fanatical nationalism, you should be able to enjoy a fine superhero film.  

Title: Rise of the Planet of the Apes   

Director: Rupert Wyatt

Synopsis: Caesar is a test lab chimpanzee who is being treated with an experimental drug which makes him smarter. Caesar becomes domesticated and learns to read and write. Unfortunately, he ends up being incarcerated with other test lab chimpanzees’ because he is considered a danger to society. But Caesar isnt just any old monkey, this monkeys got a brain on him and he aims to use it! Soon, Caesar begins to organize all the chimps and orchestrates an escape. Can he organize the other chimps in order to escape their prison? Will they ever be truly free? 

What I Liked About It: I liked this movie because it speaks about a lot of things that are happening in the world today. For example, the attack on education. The powers that be in many countries do not want their people getting smarter, they want people dumb, so they can do whatever they want with them. Therefore education is being made difficult to get for the underprivileged. It’s as if the people have gotten too smart for their own good, so the powers that be take that away from them by making skyrocketing tuition prices to ridiculous heights.  It’s getting to the point where only the rich can get themselves educated, it’s either that or start your life out with a huge ass loan on your back, take your pick. This film addresses these issues through Caesar, a chimpanzee who gets incarcerated for being too smart.  Though his superiors refer to him as a “damn dirty ape”, he knows he is much more than that. In the film, Caesar gets tortured and mistreated by his superiors when he acts independently or stands up for himself, same as some powerful governments do with their people when they start to speak up. The symbolisms are quite clear on this film, this film speaks about standing up for our true freedom and fighting for a better world! It is no surprise that the films tagline is “Evolution becomes Revolution!” To Caesar’s credit, he doesn’t give up in spite of the abuse! He actually teaches his fellow chimps to get smarter; he organizes them, arms them and then leads them to the revolution! 

 

Title: Immortals

Director: Tarsem  Singh

Synopsis: Evil King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) wants to wake up “The Titans” so they can bring havoc and destruction to the world, in revenge for the death of his family and the fact that the gods never did anything to save them. Good thing Theseus is ready to fight him! Will the gods intervene and stop Hyperion? Or will humanity have to learn to sort out their own dirty laundry?

Why I Liked It: I liked it because of director Tarsem Singh’s strong visuals; I mean I personally couldn’t take my eyes off of the screen the whole time. The 3-D was rather excellent in my book, and the action and effects where well executed. Immortals isn’t a deep film per se, a lot of the enjoyment comes from simply taking in the visuals. Immortals is a good example of style over substance, but so be it, I love stylish visuals and indulging in them from time to time! To me, this film felt like what that cheesy Clash of the Titans remake should have been more like.

Title: The Adventures of Tin Tin

Director: Steven Spielberg

Synopsis: Tin Tin must try and find four scrolls that will lead the way to a secret sunken treasure. This treasure belongs to the Haddock family, and the last member of the Haddock family should get it, unfortunately, he is an absent minded drunkard. At the same time, this evil douche bag called Sakharine whose family has always been at war with the Haddock family also wants the scrolls and he’ll stop at nothing to get them! So of course, a race across the world ensues to see who finds the treasure first! 

Why I Liked It: The excellent animation feels so vivid and real that I think this film has set new standards for realism in computer animation. It gets kind of scary when you think of the things that they can do nowadays in computers. I also loved this film because it is everything that Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) should have been; it was non stop spectacular action from beginning to end. It’s as if Spielberg wanted to compensate for that awful Indiana Jones picture with Tin Tin, and if you ask me, he achieved it. This movie goes from one amazing action packed sequence to the next. The only negative point for me is that it plays out a lot like Spielberg’s own Raiders of the Lost  Ark (1981), but that’s about as negative as I can get about it. 

  

Title: The Skin I Live

Director: Pedro Almodovar

Synopsis: In this one, we meet Dr. Robert Ledgard, a plastic surgeon who is attempting to create the perfect skin. You see he is performing a series of experiments that are considered illegal by the scientific community; but he goes ahead with them because he has his own agenda behind his experiments, like revenge!

What I Liked About It: I loved this one because it felt as if Almodovar was directing a horror movie at times. We got the mad scientist, the spooky dungeon…the illegal experiments. The Skin I Live In had many of the elements you’d find in a Frankenstein or a Re-Animator film, but with that special Almodovar touch. This film is filled with twists upon twists upon twists, plus, Almodovar’s lush beautiful visuals don’t hurt the retinas either. It’s a pleasure seeing Almodovar cranking out great film after great film, the guy hasn’t disappointed me yet.

Title: Drive

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn

Synopsis: A stunt driver moonlights as a driver for criminals and he is the best at what he does. He is punctual, focused and one hell of a driver! He falls for his next door neighbor, a beautiful humble blonde, with a son. Unfortunately, this beautiful neighbor is involved with a man who’s just gotten out of jail and his past crimes are now threatening his family. Will the driver get involved and help them out? 

Why I Liked It: Drive thrives in its simplicity. It’s a movie whose main character is the strong silent type, he doesn’t say much, but he gets things done. It’s as if the film was commenting, through its main character on how actions are more important than words. What I really liked about Drive was the way the story is told. Refn chooses not to drown the movie with explanations and a lot of dialog; instead, he chooses to tell his story through visuals and emotions, emotions that come to us through the actors’ facial expressions and eyes. The awesome soundtrack makes everything all the more pleasurable to watch. One of my favorites of the year no doubt; this is my friends is a film that oozes lots and lots of cool.

Title: Tree of Life

Director: Terrence Malick

Synopsis: Sean Penn plays Jack, an aging man who is living his adult life in the middle of the suffocating big bad city. The buildings, the glass, the iron and the cement he lives amongst makes him yearn and remember those simpler days when he was a child, living with his family in the country. The film is all about Jack remembering how life was with his parents, and all the things he loved and hated about growing up. We follow Jack from birth, to childhood, to adulthood, it’s one of those films that spans a life time.  

What I Liked About It: This film was so powerful, it really got to me. It says so much with so few words. Rather, the film speaks in emotions, and visual poetry. Tree of Life comments on so many truths and addresses so many relevant themes that I left the theater truly impacted. Malick captures some moments that feel so genuine, that they could only come from real life experiences. You’ll truly remember what it was to be a child. It’s one of these films that encompasses so much, it’s like watching a poet speak about all that he knows about life and the world he lives in. To me these are the best kind of films, the ones that truly say something about those really meaningful themes we usually don’t have the answers to. Themes that range from God, to death, to the afterlife…to the universe. If you like your movies with a heavy dose of emotion and philosophy or films that address themes and ideas that few other films would, then look no further. 

Title: Hugo  

Director: Martin Scorcese

Synopsis: Hugo is an orphan child who lives behind the clocks of a train station in France. No one knows that he’s been living there for years. Apparently as long as the giant clocks in the train station work, nobody cares. When not fixing the clocks, Hugo works feverishly to bring back to life a toy robot that his dead father was working on before he died, he seems to think the robot will give him a message from his dead father. Will he ever find the key that will make the toy robot work like it should? Will he ever discover the true mystery behind the automaton?  

What I Liked About It: I loved this movie, and it is my number one pick for 2011 because it reminded me why I love movies. Same as The Adventures of Tin Tin, this is a film that has a lot of magic and wonderment to it. It seems that only the old directors, the master filmmakers truly know what it means to infuse a film with magic; with that sense of mystery and excitement. Scorcese has truly carved a masterpiece with Hugo; it is a beautiful film to look at filled with amazing colors and vistas. The 3-D was astounding on Hugo, this is a film meant to be enjoyed on 3-D! This is Scorcese squeezing 3-D for all its worth, and doing it well! On top of that, it is also a film that expresses true love for books and films. At times, you’ll feel like Scorcese is giving you a film history lesson. Scorcese also explores why films are “our great escape”. To me this film was the perfect Christmas gift from a master storyteller.

Well, that’s it boys and girls, the best of 2011 according to The Film Connoisseur, hope you liked the list and find it useful!