Two review for the price of one. Here's a couple movies some of you haven't had an opportunity to see. However if you do get the chance, I'd highly recommend it. I was lucky enough to catch a screening of City of God with introduction and a Q and A session with executive producer Elisa Tolomelli. As if the film itself wasn't great enough, hearing about the resources used to pull it off just boggled my mind even more. I'll be back later on with a trio of bloody flicks. Kill Bill Volume 1, House of the Dead and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake.



The Triplets of Belleville
Review by Jon Waterman

****

When a young boy can't seem to find happiness in life, his mother tries everything she can. Neither a train set nor a puppy can cheer the little guy up. They both find happiness in the form of a bicycle. As the years go on, the young boy grows to be a professional cyclist with his mother as the coach. During the Tour de France, however, he's kidnapped. Now his mom must find some way to get him back.

For those unfamiliar with the film, I should mention that it is animated. Also, it's a French film with no translation (at least not when I saw it). However, no translation is needed, because there's minimal dialogue and the characters communicate through body language and small noises.

The animation looks great. For the most part, it's all traditional two-dimensional (meaning without the use of computers) stuff. For some of the more complex aspects, though, computers were used such as swooping camera movements and some of the scenery. Although computers composed some of the elements, the drawings were all based on the same style as the characters. It's becoming increasingly rare to see a feature length 2-D project, let alone one that shows as much care for detail and works as well as "Triplets" does.

Writer/Director Sylvain Chomet created a wonderful film. With such little dialogue, much depends on the strength of the characters to hold your attention. I was interested from the start. Each person, no matter how small the role, has some unique quirk to look for. Some may prefer the mousy mechanic, or the mother with her persuasive whistle. In my opinion, the dog steals the show. He's not portrayed as anything unusal. He reacts just as a dog would in most situation. He runs around in circles, he begs for food and he barks at trains...a lot.

Aiding the ecclectic characters is a story that keeps you glued to your seat. It's not that the mystery of the kidnapping is necessarily award worthy, but you never know where it's going to go. Chomet seemingly sacrifices structure for humor at times, however, all the loose ends are tied and the randomness is forced to make sense. By the end, you'll be surprised it doesn't keep going and you'll wish it did.

Most likely, "The Triplets of Belleville" won't be playing in your town. I can only hope that it hits video shelves at some point so that everyone has an opportunity to see this great animated movie. In the land of Pixar and Dreamworks Animations, Triplets is at least three times better.


++++++++++


City of God
Review by Jon Waterman

****

In the 1960s, all Rocket wants is to be able to escape his hometown. Teenage hoodlums (including his older brother) run the streets. Thievery is seen as the only way to get money and thus get out of the destitute hellhole in which they live. In the 1970s, all Rocket wants is to be able to escape his hometown. Teenage and pre-teen hoodlums run the streets. Thievery and drugs are the best way to make a living and guns guard the territories previously established.

This is a gang film like no other. Based on historical events, "City of God" tells the story of how this Brasilian town transformed so quickly from a place where kids stole some money every once in a while to a place full of drug trafficking and full out gang wars.

No one in this cast of thousands had previous acting experience. The trick here is to find kids that resemble their real life counterparts in each stage of life, and then get them to give a good performance. It couldn't have been easy, but it was accomplished flawlessly. I can't think of a single character that didn't show amazing range or didn't convey their emotions in a subtle manner. To think that so many child actors could do their jobs correctly is astounding on it’s own. To think that they had never done this before adds more awe.

The screenplay, written by Br?ulio Mantovani, could easily be seen as pretentious. It flows in a very postmodern fashion. It flashes back between the time periods. It starts one story then finishes it later after a few more stories have been told. The structure of the film reads very much like a novel. (And it is based on a novel by Paulo Lins.) The narration combines well with the natural dialogue and scene skipping. It leaves you in your seat, because you want to know more. At the same time, though, it lets you know what else you can expect to see before the end of the film.

The visual style is intriguing as well. In the hot locales, the scenes are given a very warm look. The frames are overpowered by deep oranges and yellows. Only towards the end does that start to change and for good reason. The look and feel of the images differ depending on the decade that's shown. The film looks as if it was bought in the 60s and 70s and used recently to make the movie (an effect that "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind" seemed to want to capture but couldn't). Also, within this classic film look are very contemporary camera moves and effects. They use the gimmicky "Matrix" revolving shot technique here. It's not used for parody and the cameras are not aided by computer support. The lack of fluidity in the gimmick shots mixed with the overall impression given off by the film almost makes their use of the effect unique. At the very least, it's well done. In all the cinematography by César Charlone looks astonishing.

Directors Fernando Meirelles and K?tia Lund give us a film full of incredible acting, a compelling script and beautiful visuals. What more could you ask for? See this movie as soon as you can.

I know I've been gone for a while. Until this job pays something, sometimes it has to sit on the back burner. Don't worry, though. I still have movies to review. Unfortunately, it'll get tougher to crank them out until things start to slow down in November. Keep coming back and I'll have reviews for festival favorite The Triplets of Belleville as well as the uber-bloody Kill Bill Volume 1 and The House of the Dead.



Lost In Translation
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Famous actor, Bob Harris, is doing what many American actors before him have done. He’s traveling to Japan to shoot a commercial. On this extraordinarily lonely journey, Bob finds solace in another American. Charlotte came over with her photographer husband and is experiencing similar culture shock and social deprivation. Together they may just beat the blues.

Writer/Director Sofia Coppola really made it easy to understand why these two hated being in such a different country. First, there’s the language barrier. Being thrown into an environment where people don’t know your native tongue or, if they do, they speak with a heavy accent would be very frustrating. I felt the humor that went along with this was pretty cheap, obvious and bland. Otherwise, as a story device it worked. Also there’s the technology. Everything is made for people of that society and not visitors. The sterile domestic devices become foreign and unusual and make for Jetson-ish moments.

We are overrun with the Tokyo cityscape. The abundance of skyscrapers and neon signs flood the frame whenever possible. A subtle blue tint takes effect. The lack of warm colors makes it harder to identify any location as inviting or comfortable. Add to this, the fact that when alone, the character’s faces are kept darker than the view of the city behind them and you get great conscious cinematography creating this sense of despair. The interesting visual style sometimes makes up for the overly long scenes. Yes, the slow pace of the film works to increase the disdain felt towards Tokyo, but at some point, you have to think of keeping the audience involved.

Bill Murray (Bob) and Scarlett Johansson (Charlotte) also make the film interesting. Murray gives his best performance since “Rushmore.” I seriously doubt anyone can deny his ability to act by now. Johansson plays someone pretty similar to the girl she played in “Ghost World.” This time around, though, she has more charisma and emotional depth. These two seemed to really work well off of each other. Some of the dialogue appeared to be improvised. If it wasn’t, then even more power to them for acting that much more naturally.

There were points in the film where it felt like the timeline was off. The two characters are off on their own sulking and doing whatever, but the look on their faces don’t seem to match the mood that preceded it. There are so many cut-away shots involving just one character, that it’s easy to just drop them anywhere in the film. Those scenes very well could have been written in a particular order, but at times seemed like they were randomly placed.

The film is incredibly charming. The relationship between Bob and Charlotte is an intriguing one. Watching it develop from complete strangers to incredibly close friends put a smile on my face. I thoroughly enjoyed watching the pureness of their togetherness. It’s cute. It’s funny. It’s heartwarming and emotional. It’s a great film. Cheesy reviewer tagline time: “Go get lost.” -- Jon, filmbrats.com

Hey all. I'm back. Check this out. A new review. I'll have Lost in Translation coming to you soon and after that I'll review a movie few have heard of but many should see. Check back for that. Enjoy.



Underworld
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

Vampires vs. Werewolves: what more do you need to know?

Well, for starters, the Werewolves are called “Lycans.” That’s really easy to figure out. Also, you have to have a pre-existing knowledge of what kills both of these nearly immortal creatures. They don’t spell it out for the newbies. Also you should know to not go see it.

The movie has some decent cinematography. The shot composition and the lighting work well together. Nearly all of the action is descript and easy to follow. However, even though, the film looks good, it has some problems, too. The entire film is tinted blue. Not only is this an overly used convention, but it’s a bad choice. What would be so bad about letting some natural colors come in every once in a while. I’d openly welcome some variation on the tinting to acknowledge different locations. The lycans can have one color scheme and the vampires get another and the outside world gets a third. Makes perfect sense to me. Then when they all converge, it could get all crazy like with the palette and it may be pretty interesting. But no. Plain blue tint all the time.

The CG creatures look horrible. They fumble around the screen awkwardly and staggeringly. Are we supposed to be afraid of these incredibly fake werewolves? They weren’t the only fake things on screen, though. The actors just pulled me out of this movie completely. During the film, I found I wanted more action sequences. Anything to bring some interest back. Just as long as they don’t bog the fights down with the choppy animated creations.

Also, the story didn’t really matter or always make a whole lot of sense. They resurrect this lord vampire to get advice about the war. But then they make a big deal about it, because it wasn’t his turn to be woken up and he was woken too early. They never really say what will really happen as a result of this. They only say that it wasn’t his time yet. Why not save us all some time and wake the other dude up instead. Or better yet, keep this one and just say he was woken early to help them with the situation. Don’t put back story in if you can’t back the story up.

Lastly, the music was horrible. Instead of explaining plot, they would blast the music to sort of escape the questions characters ask. Also, the dramatic stinging musical cues were not laughable, but almost surely stolen from somewhere else.

The whole thing just screamed “B-Movie” to me. The horrible effects, the abysmal acting and the wretched music. But hey, they used a blue tint, so they must know what they’re doing, right?

Alright. I finished the reviews for the final two flicks in the El Mariachi Trilogy. I only have two more to write and hopefully they'll be posted either later tonight or early next week. I'm away this weekend on a mini-vacation. I hope you enjoy yours as well.



Once Upon a Time in Mexico
Review by Jon Waterman

**

He’s back for a third time. El Mariachi is brought out of some sort of retirement or something to battle yet another drug lord. This time the CIA is involved and so is the president. They’re all entangled in some web-like thingy of stuff.

You really won’t hear me say this much, but honestly, the plot sort of bogged down the movie. With all the political intrigue and whatnot that was involved, I sort of got lost in terms of what direction the film was trying to take. There got to be so many characters each with their own main story line and they just weren’t put together efficiently. Also, I guess I just expected there to be a lot more substance to the Mariachi character and his storyline. He was a backburner character this time around. Instead we’re focusing on Johnny Depp for most of the film.

On the one hand, this is a bad move. The film franchise has been built around the Mariachi and his extremely cool gun-toting ways. One would expect this trend should continue and let us see him plow through several dozen baddies. On the other hand, this move helps the film a lot. Mariachi’s new friends include Enrique Iglesias (thankfully doesn’t talk much) and some other uninteresting dude. Depp is one of the best actors around and proves it once again here. Director Robert Rodriguez wisely chose to put a great performance in the forefront and let it take over. I wouldn’t have minded the political thriller/espionage angle of the film so much if everyone else was as good as Depp and if it were written more clearly and less sporadically.

Rodriguez isn’t only the director. He also wrote, co-produced, edited, production designed, performed as cinematographer, operated the camera himself and wrote original music for the film. As far as I’m concerned, he’s the only true auteur still working in the Hollywood system. Anyone can appreciate that. However, sometimes this can be a bad thing. If you are the one in control of every aspect of a film, you can be overwhelmed with your vision and you won’t have a separate editor telling you what could work better. You won’t have a cinematographer to say, “well, what if we tried it like this.” I’m not trying to discount his work, but an open mind is a wonderful thing and I hope his was during the shoot.

Lastly, I want to talk about the use of digital video. Rodriguez is a huge proponent for digital. Anyone that knows me or reads me regularly can easily tell that I’m pretty much against digital in virtually every form. When editing, it’s a humungous help, but when shooting or trying special effects, I prefer more tangible means. The movie (forget I used the word “film” in this review) looks really good. Digital is slowly getting closer to 35mm quality. Robert knows what he wants from lighting and composition. He still maintains his fluid style and provides us with incredible visuals. But there are times when it just looks bad. The whites are extremely overblown and any time large flames appear I cringed.

So…speaking on overall terms. The action sequences were too far and few between. Depp rocked the house and stole the show, but that’s because he was on the screen most of the time. The story let a heck of a lot to be desired. And Robert Rodriguez still knows how to make a visually interesting movie (although he should shoot on film). Definitely not as good as the first two, but still somewhat fun.

+++++++++++

Desperado
Review by Jon Waterman

***

El Mariachi is back again. This time he’s out to exact revenge on a different drug lord in Mexico. He won’t rest until this man is out of commission or until he himself is dead.

The story of this sequel parallels the original in a few ways. There’s a bar shooting, a girl that is involved with the bad guy, romance with said girl, a bunch more shootings and the ending situation. I guess if something isn’t broken…. But, hey, it is a new drug lord this time. We just don’t exactly know why he’s after this one. El is out there taking down underlings left and right, but what exactly did this “Bucho” do to him? Apparently, the guitar gun slinger is taking the war on drugs too personally. It takes forever to find out what the reason behind it is and, to be honest, it just seems like a cop out. Also, the story is lessened overall with worthless filler material. We get a good story and a good joke out of Steve Buscemi and Quentin Tarantino respectively, but they don’t add anything besides length. This could be an incredible 30-minute short. The first film had a purpose in ever scene. This was just screen time for buddies.

The acting wasn’t even good. Quentin you expect that from but Steve can give more than that. The acting in a Robert Rodriguez film is never outstanding, though. Banderas and his supporting cast ham it up and turn this movie into more of a typical “shoot ‘em up” action flick you’d see go direct to video.

What keeps it from that path is Robert’s directing. Yes, the slow motion is overused at times. How many times do we really need to see that arm draw a line of blood on the wall anyway? Sure some of the action is exaggerated – for instance having people fly in the air while getting shot. The rest of the action sequences prevent this all from being hokey. There’s still obviously a sense of professionalism there. The use of lighting and composition adds a lot to the mindless explosions and gun fights.

My main complaint is that Carlos Gallardo is no longer El Mariachi. He has been given a bit part, even though it’s a good and fun part. A part of me would almost prefer he not be in it if he’s not the lead. Either way. As much as I complain about the film, I still enjoyed it. Sure, it is a conventional action film, but it’s put together well and it’s a lot of fun to watch.

Hey everyone. School work has been a little overwhelming. Somehow I was able to escape to watch Lost in Translation this weekend. However, I don't have any more reviews ready for you to read quite yet. I'll be able to post later in the week when classes slow down a little. Thanks for the patience.
-- Jon