Two more down, two more to go. I'm getting them done as quickly as I can. If you can catch some of these in your hometown, I suggest you do so. Also keep an eye out for them at your local video shop. Foreign films are good (sometimes). With that said:




Head On
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

At a psychiatric ward in Hamburg, Cahit meets Sibel, and his life will never be the same. She’s trying to convince Cahit to marry her, so that she can move out of her parents’ house and live life the way she wants to live it. That includes late nights of partying, anonymous sex with anyone but her husband, and not having to answer to anyone. In return, he gets his life cleaned up (as well as his apartment). The two seem like a very unlikely pair. Can these two swerve around each other’s lives and stay on the same road without colliding head on?

Stupid joke aside, this movie does take on some very interesting directions. Plenty of unexpected twists and turns await both of the main characters. Writer/director Faith Akin gives us a very gritty film that refuses to shy away from some very harsh moments. Blood and violence mean nothing. Sibel slits her arms as if it were an everyday thing. It comes so quickly and realistically that it jars the audience and makes us squirm. We are forced to face harsh scenarios that are treated in the appropriately uncomfortable manner. It’s tough to separate yourself from the screen.

The characters are very complex and tough to get a good read on them. They are just as confused and as clueless as we are. Birol Ünel (Cahit) and Sibel Kekilli (Sibel) do great jobs of handling some difficult, emotionally intense scenes. They embody the unpredictable nature of the characters as well as their desperation and defeat and odd bouts of optimism. Especially surprising is Kekilli, whose previous work has solely been pornographic. She shows she still knows how to get undressed, but can also take on a big, hard to swallow part (that’s not what I mean).

Not everything is handled as well as the acting and the script. I had slight problems with the structure. The time frames are a little sketchy at certain moments and it’s a little disorienting (although that could be a conscious decision). Also the film starts off with a brilliant motif using blinding lights, but that sort of fades away within the first fifteen minutes. It would have been nice to see that called back. There are also chapter separations with a band playing along a river shoreline and a woman singing cryptic, yet somewhat fitting lyrics. They seem out of place, because they are so cheery and optimistic and beautiful. It’s like comic relief mixed with Greek Chorus and to me is a little too awkward.

These are just nitpicky items of contention and fall to the wayside when considering the picture as a whole. It’s as fascinating as a tragic car wreck, which is appropriate, since the film starts with one. You can’t take your eyes off it, nor will you want to.


+++++++


The Waiting Room
Review by Jon Waterman

*

Ahmet is an extremely popular director who has won critical acclaim and a large fan base. He’s currently working on a film adaptation on Dostoyevsky’s “Crime and Punishment.” The script is probably ready, but the project seems to be missing something. Ahmet is in deadlock with himself and is on the verge of tossing the production completely, when he comes across a young man trying to rob his house. He lets him go, but later thinks that this could be the answer to his long, sulking nights. Now, in order to save the film and his mind, Ahmet must search the city to find this criminal (and convince him to act).

Writer/director Zeki Demirkubuz also plays Ahmet. Perhaps this was one too many tasks for him to take on this time around. The film just doesn’t do it for me. For one, I hated the main character. He’s a total jerk to everyone he comes in contact with. He’s completely self-serving and I don’t know how any audience member could possibly sympathize with him. Perhaps this is Zeki’s idea of a general commentary about filmmakers. Even so, that doesn’t make it any more entertaining or interesting. Because we don’t even want to like the guy we’re going to spend the length of the picture with, we don’t care about the film as a whole.

The movie is called “The Waiting Room” for a reason. You’ll be waiting for something to happen. For a long long time. There are many time consuming shots, which I would contend were included to get the film up to a normal feature length of 94 minutes. I can understand that it’s supposed to convey loneliness and despair and all that great, melodramatic stuff. But here’s the thing: It’s boring! Maybe if the cinematography was a little more interesting or even properly conveyed the thoughtfulness of Ahmet, it would be better. As it stands, there are a couple of unique shots and some slightly appealing lighting choices that get overshadowed (forgive the pun) by the tiresome wait. The last shot of the movie was so excruciatingly painful to watch, simply because it was obvious that it would be the closer, yet it refused to cut to black.

It’s supposed to be about making a movie, but it’s more about us making sense of Ahmet. That much I can respect. The rest, not so much. I’m trying to figure out the significance of “Crime and Punishment.” Having not read it doesn’t help. So far, I think it’s meant to convey the audience’s feelings by the time they walk out of the theater. This one drained me. Don’t wait around. Move on.

Two more reviews for ya. These are the not so great ones. Why so? Well...read on! Check back as I come closer to completing my coverage of the festival.



Arakimentari
Review by Jon Waterman

**

This documentary explores the world of Nobuyoshi Araki. He’s one of Japan’s most controversial, most prolific and most talented photographers. His work ranges from the uniquely beautiful to the uniquely perverse (and beautiful). Director Travis Klose follows Araki around for a little while and try to get into the mind of the eccentric genius. To fill in the gaps and get society’s take on him, he interviews critics, models and celebrities.

I wish there would have been more man on the street reactions rather than analysis from famous people. If he’s such a controversial figure, find out first hand from the people why that is. I would have loved to see interviews with his assistants and more of his colleagues. I think Klose is relying on the big names, like Bjork and Beat Takeshi to increase the popularity of the movie and give it name recognition rather than substance. It’s not that they don’t have anything to say, but I feel they were meant as attention getters. There are people out there who could have contributed more interesting things to say. Get people who are closer to him.

We get good insight into how and why he works, but not from the interviews. We get it from listening to Araki himself talk and from him taking photographs. We see how he works with his models and the unusual ways in which he works. He’s very frantic and fascinating to watch.

Klose and his cameraman, Brian Burgoyne, decide not to use a tripod for the majority of the picture – possibly to capture the frantic, fast-paced Araki in action a little easier, while still remaining relatively close to him. Yet, it leads to a more in-your-face technique, which lacks Araki’s sense of professionalism. The camera roams without proper exposure or purpose, and we catch it zooming and focusing way too often. It can be chalked up to poor editing and poor camerawork. Please, get a tripod. And use it.

The movie showcases the finished product more so than the process (which could be seen as a positive or a negative). It’s easy to see why he’s so popular and why he’s so controversial. His photographs range from provocative to forceful to passionate to simplistic to shocking to pornographic. Not all of them are great, but some are absolutely amazing. He truly does have a gift (and over 300 publications attached to his name).

The documentary isn’t the best, but it’s not the worst either. The camera definitely became annoying. The movie lacked a solid structure, but was still able to keep my interest. Araki is an interesting character and very much worthy of being the subject of this doc. I wish it had gone a little more in depth, but hey. DJ Krush’s music is good.


+++++++


November
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

All Yvonne wants is to go to America and visit her pen pal, who has a swimming pool in her back yard. Her parents can’t afford to give that gift to her, because money is tight. On top of that, marital problems are starting to become a problem. Something has to give. Marianne, the mother, breaks much more when she wins the lotto. The surge of money causes more strife than no money and the onset of winter looks like it’ll be awfully cold.

Now I understand that with newfound wealth there could be relationship problems, but the motivations of Marianne make little sense to me. She ends up buying her daughter a swimming pool (in a frigid November month), but for some reason can’t afford the plane ticket to the US. She freaks out about the car that her husband, Paul, buys. This is understandable, because he didn’t consult her, and she was the one who bought the ticket and won the money. Yet, she goes out and purchases plane tickets for herself to go a different foreign country. It’s fine to be conservative to a degree, but she was hypocritical. Her handling of the situation was stupid, frustrating and I wish it wasn’t the main cause of conflict. I didn’t get it.

Another problem I had with it is that the beginning gives away the end. Within the first five, ten minutes you find out that Yvonne freezes to death sleeping inside the empty swimming pool. In a small way, this is good, because then you see how incredibly dumb and pointless the mom’s decisions and “sacrifices” were, and it gives you a hindsight perspective. But, it’s also moronic, because I have no problem telling you what happens at the end, because it’s right there in the beginning. You end up waiting for the end. You find yourself guessing how much time is left in the movie and how many more plot points must occur before reaching the final resolution.

Maybe eventually first-time writer/director Luki Frieden (from Switzerland) will get better at storytelling. He also puts in a “Magnolia” sequence where the cast of characters sings along to a somber song that’s obviously not part of the scene. Not only is it a rip off, but it’s a bad one, because it’s out of nowhere and doesn’t fit the feel or the style of the rest of the picture. The relationships between some of the characters aren’t established well enough. How do they know each other? He also relies on the standard blue tint to insinuate the oncoming winter and emotional gloominess.

I guess I really don’t have much of anything positive to say. The dad looks like Robin Williams, if that means anything. The whole thing is just too trite for me.

Here starts week two of my Chicago International Film Festival coverage. I'll try to finish it all up within this next week or two. Keep on checking back. Hopefully, you won't be disappointed.



The Taste of Tea
Review by Jon Waterman

****

There’s no way I can do justice to the movie by going over the plot, but I’ll try anyway. Here goes: Sachiko is a tiny eight year-old girl who has a problem. There’s a gigantic doppelganger following her around. Her uncle suffered a similar problem when a bloody ghost haunted his vision. Based on his story, she feels the only way to get rid of this psychologically damaging duplicate her is to do a back flip over the horizontal bar.

See. I told you. I can assure you that the movie is much more fun and interesting than that horrible description I gave alludes to. Sachiko isn’t the only oddball in the family/cast of characters. They all have their quirks. The father is a hypnotist, a different uncle is a manga artist turned pop-singer, and the grandfather is the most eccentric of them all. You have to see it to understand it. Even some of the supporting characters have their moments, such as the baseball player down the river and the dressed up cartoon lovers on the train.

All of their stories seem disjointed, but eventually are weaved together beautifully and seamlessly. Writer/director Katsuhito Ishii (director of the amazing animation sequence in “Kill Bill Vol. 1”) tells great, entertaining stories, with impeccable comic timing. There’s no high drama or even contentious obstacles to overcome. It’s just a fun tale of a unique family dynamic. He also effectively uses flashbacks to support the emotions and the narratives of the characters. Ishii’s also not afraid of drawing out sequences and let them play out completely before cutting to the next one. Many of the scenes are slow moving, but far from boring. Some of this can be attributed to sheer intrigue, but you can also credit the visuals.

Cinematographer Kosuke Matushima (assistant camera operator for “Dreams” and “Ran”) paints stunning landscapes both outdoors and in. The entire movie looks beautiful and when completed shows a fantastic contrast in style from the beginning to the end. The computer effects are obvious, but don’t detract from the overall feel. They are supposed to be there and are supposed to look like fantasies come to life. They aren’t trying to replace reality, and that’s the key to their effectiveness.

Maya Banno plays the little girl Sachiko amazingly well. I never expect much of anything from child actors, and I believe it’s unfair to judge them with the same criteria as their older, most likely more experienced counterparts. For someone so young, she really understands the concept of apathy and also depression along with quiet inner anguish. She’s not the only one; the entire cast acts perfectly. A quick glance is all that’s needed to get into their head and know what they’re feeling or going through.

I don’t know how anyone couldn’t get won over by this movie. The grandfather alone (played by Tatsuya Gashuin) could carry the film with his craziness (and arguably does just that). It’s just as charming as “Amelie” (which also used computer effects very well) and “Kikujiro” which also centers around a lovable young kid. Complete with hilarious musical numbers, an amusing animation sequence, and eye-catching scenery and characters, you don’t want to miss this film.


+++++++


The Souvenirs of Mr. X
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

Director Arash T. Riahi finds and purchases a trunk full of Super-8 movies made by an unknown, uncredited filmmaker somewhere in his home country of Austria. Riahi decides that these amateur efforts need to be discussed with the man who made them. So, he goes out into the city on a hunt for Mr. X. On his journey, he runs across a community of old, amateur filmmakers, which he hopes will lead him closer to finding the mysterious man behind the celluloid.

The film starts off very strong. It has a nice premise of trying to locate this guy who made all these home movies and essentially make him out to be someone important. But, once he reaches the amateur filmmaking club, it becomes about telling their stories, rather than hunting for his own. There are very long stretches where Mr. X isn’t mentioned at all and it seems as if that was never really the point of the film. That would be fine if the title and opening fifteen minutes didn’t mislead the audience into thinking the film was about something its not. The whole main thread gets wrapped up too quickly at the end and left me disappointed.

The majority of the movie is spent following one specific filmmaker around, discussing film and showing his efforts at the Austrian national competitions. He is the main focus, especially after suffering the stroke. I wouldn’t have minded seeing the film be just about this group of seasoned amateurs. They can easily be a feature by themselves. The Mr. X story deserves nothing more than a short and to not be included here. It just ends up cheapening the rest of the movie. Because of this “side story”, Riahi glances over some fun characters. I’d say he spends too much time with the ones he does include. The sense of community was lacking and would have been great to see explored.

Riahi’s technique is good. He incorporates the Super-8 footage into the film. At some points it is used as a replacement and a contemporary audio track compliments the chosen visuals. Other times, it furthers the story or adds structure to the piece as a whole. Filmmaking is integral here. There is no attempt made to hide the equipment (such as the boom microphone or a second camera or the director – who stays behind the lens for the most part). It captures the curiosity and the learning aspect of movie making and of the club. I don’t think it fully represents the love of film. We understand it’s a passion for one or two of the people, but as a whole, it is not inspiring nor does it properly convey the emotions that these people have deep inside.

The movie isn’t all that bad. The music is fantastic. It’s somewhat charming and occasionally funny. Overall, though, it lacks a definitive focus and shouldn’t have pretended to be this other movie. I’m sure those guys at the film club will tell him the same thing so his future movies come out better.

Another day, another two reviews from the chicago film fest. Welcome to day three of my coverage. Today, I give you Around the Bend. At the screening I attended, Christopher Walken was there and really energized the crowd. He is strangely charismatic, and its easy to see why he's been in the business so long while working so steadily. Also, I give you Journey Into Bliss. The director attended and impressed me. He was hilarious and astute. His film is the craziest I've seen in years, but is still quite amazing. Keep checking back for continuing coverage. You know you want to.



Journey Into Bliss
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Normally, this would be where I quickly summarize the plot of the movie within a short paragraph. I don’t know if I can really do that here. There is no real plot to this movie. If I were to describe it, I suppose I could say, “King Knuffi wants Eva. Eva is Gustav’s wife. Eva is held prisoner and Gustav must get her back with the help of his ship’s crew – a bunch of animals.” However, that doesn’t do the film much justice and of course more happens than that. The purpose of it all isn’t exactly always known.

Where do I start? Writer/director Wenzel Storch has definitely made a name for himself as one of the most outrageous directors, not only in Germany but also in the world. This is the ultimate in contemporary surrealist storytelling. It doesn’t start off that way. In fact, it lures you into the world of the absurd by opening the film with an animation sequence leading into a live-action storybook to provide the backstory. It’s immediately funny and the dialogue is such that you don’t quite know what you’re getting yourself into. While the dialogue stays crazy, the visual element catches up.

Like I mentioned, live animals run Gustav’s ship. A bear is the first mate (and my favorite character). They all talk and are all understood by humans and other species of animals. The sets, costumes, props and everything are elaborately created. It’s visually stunning and overwhelming. What do you look at? What do you focus on? Just try to soak it all in, from the snail boat to the regal palace. The fish-eye lens that’s consistently used warps the whole thing even more.

The movie looks rushed together in that it makes little sense and the props are so randomly constructed. However, there is a lot of care and time invested in this madness. The camerawork is very nice (although sometimes lacks a smooth flow) and not only shows off the brilliant, eye-popping set pieces but also the landscape surrounding them. There are some beautiful shots of the adjacent forest.

Since it is so bizarre, not everything will make total sense or seem incredibly motivated. For instance, a lot of people pee on things and other people. It’s actually surprisingly funny, even though it is also lame. The sound effects and dubbed dialogue work the same way. It’s easy to tolerate all the wacky stuff like exploding people and a rabbit assimilating with inanimate objects it has sex with to become a time machine (one of a couple sequences that remind me of “Meet the Feebles”), because it doesn’t take itself seriously. The narrator has a fantastic voice and attitude and keeps the atmosphere light.

If you know that surrealism isn’t your thing, then obviously skip this movie. If you’re into trying new things or want a good, trippy flick I don’t think you can do much better than this. It’s not for everyone, but it’s a lot of fun and entertaining and I loved it.


++++++


Around the Bend
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Jason has been living happily with his son Zach, his grandfather Henry, and their live-in nurse. Sure, Henry and Jason argue every once in a while, but it’s only because Jason is adverse to the gigantic adventures Henry wishes he could still go on (and plans for anyway). One day, out of the blue, Jason’s father Turner shows up on their doorstep. Having just been released from prison and not being around to raise him, Jason is extremely wary and confrontational. When Henry dies, he plans one last adventure they must adhere to. One where the demons from the past come out in attempt to bring the family together in a way that just may be impossible.

The film starts off a little slow, but once it reaches its top speed, it stays there. That’s not to say it’s fast paced, but rather the interactions get to be more important and the story continually progresses and fleshes itself out. Writer Jordan Roberts (in his directorial debut) makes the ultimate dramedy. There are some heartfelt, emotionally charged scenes, but at the same time it comes right at you with a hearty comical moment. This film is funnier than most straight comedies you’ll see, while still having a poignant, touching core. It doesn’t pretend to be one genre or the other, but rather both at the same time. It can switch back and forth like a switch, without losing any of the impact. In general, I think that’s more representative of real life. Even during depressing circumstances, there can be incidents that make us laugh. Roberts captures this better than I have seen before.

As a director, Roberts doesn’t offer anything quite so new. He does a great job with the actors. He has an amazing cast to start with anyway. Josh Lucas as Jason, Michael Caine as Henry and Christopher Walken as Turner. There’s also this little boy named Jonah Bobo who plays Zach. He’s given some of the best lines and he knows how to deliver them. I think Roberts relies a little too much on the kid’s cuteness in a “Jerry Maguire” type way, but he is a good young actor nonetheless. The camerawork isn’t the best, but it serves its function and provides us with the standard fare.

Road trip movies are tough. Self-discovery movies are tough. They usually turn out overly clichéd and tend to beat the emotions into the audience’s head. This movie, however, is interesting. You want to see what happens on the pseudo-treasure hunt as they go from KFC to KFC (Henry’s favorite restaurant). You know at each stop something new will come out and they’ll deal with it on the way to the next secret. You want to know the answers to the questions, and, just like in life, some are left unrevealed. It’s a fun, sincere film complete with genuine and charming characters. Unlike “Without a Paddle” this is an adventure you want to go on.

Welcome to day two of my post-Chicago film fest coverage. Scroll on down to check out all the many film reviews to come. Today I bring you Summer in the Golden Valley from Bosnia-Herzegovina and Tarnation from the crazy ol' USA. Be sure to check out Joe's review of Tarnation while you're at it, as well. Enjoy.



Tarnation
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Jonathan Caouette has had an unnecessarily complex life. His mother, when she was a child, fell off the roof and became temporarily paralyzed. Her parents felt it was psychosomatic and sent her to an institution to receive shock treatments for years on end. Later it was found that she had no mental instability before the treatments, however now she does. That’s just scratching the surface of it all. As a result, Jonathan has a lot of issues to deal with and no good way to do so. He ends up institutionalized as well. He tries to find escape wherever he can, usually through disturbing acting or artistic performance pieces.

This documentary is told chronologically through pre-existing photos and home movies as well as brand new footage created specifically to finish the project. There’s a definitive progression from still photographs to Super-8 to low quality video to higher quality video. The progression in technology mirrors the progression of instability in his mother’s condition and also his progression in dealing with the life he was handed.

This movie revels in its usage of video. He uses plenty of video effects to manipulate and multiply the images on the screen. Normally this technique would seem very amateurish and clichéd. However, even though this is Jonathan’s first feature, the effects actually represent something. The psychedelic, mashing and expanding of the images effectively symbolize the past and present mental states. Caouette shoots a lot of material. He keeps the camera running for many things that seem inappropriate or pointless. It’s precisely these moments that turn out to be the most fascinating. He’s trying to capture his entire life. Of course, he can’t accomplish this feat and several points that are deemed less important are glanced over quickly.

Despite this, the story is effectively told through text. What makes this unusual is that he could have easily recorded it himself, since it is his life. What the text accomplishes is a way to separate the filmmaker from the film. It’s no longer a first person tale, but rather a third person account of this messed up family. He turns himself into a character in a show. Once again, it works. Jonathan is a character and always has been. When you look at the young childhood footage of him acting in a dark room alone in front of the camera, it’s very telling. This kid is very intelligent, a good actor, but he knows a level of darkness that he shouldn’t. In fact, he’s such a good actor, that it’s too tough at times to tell if and when he is. The camera is always on, he knows when it’s on and he faces it most of the time. That has to affect your responses and reactions to what’s going on around you. He is a character and doesn’t hide it.

This is what makes “Tarnation” so incredibly fascinating. It’s a train wreck. It’s a car crash. It could be one of many, many families across the country. It’s so incredibly personal and heartbreaking that it’s tough to watch, but even tougher to stop. It makes you question whether or not it should have an audience or if it should just be played in Caouette’s VCR at home to continue the healing process. You haven’t seen another documentary quite like this and you may not again for a long time.


++++++


Summer in the Golden Valley
Review by Jon Waterman

***1/2

Fikret is a typically disillusioned teenager living in Sarajevo. His neighborhood consists of war-torn down buildings, crooked cops and pathetic old men telling tale tales of sexual encounters to the schoolyard youth. It’s no wonder his main escape is glue-sniffing. Suddenly, things take a turn for the worse, as his father dies leaving behind a massive debt to a stranger. In order to renew the honor of his family, Fikret must find a way to come up with the money. He decides to work with the cops in a staged kidnapping by taking in the victim and holding her until the time comes. Nothing could go wrong here, right?

This film grabs you instantly. The first shot brings us face to face with this dopey looking wannabe rapper. Who else would wear a Wu-Tang lanyard? Right away, you know his character and know that it’s impossible to take him seriously. The great cinematography (by Slobodan Trninic) continues throughout. He works with writer/director Srdjan Vuletic to show the despair of the city without making it seem to incredibly dark and dingy or, more importantly, unlivable. What’s left is a run-down landscape that has this underlying poetic beauty that’s invisible to its residents, embodied by this quote by Fikret describing the jet that flies after sundown, “The plane shines when we are in darkness, because it’s filled with happy people.”

The movie doesn’t just look nice; it’s also interesting and funny. Fikret’s friends work well as humorous supporting characters, which don’t need much depth to make it through the picture. The kidnapped girl is the most intriguing person in the movie. To start, she seems like she’s just out to take advantage of the dumb people holding her hostage, but as the film progresses, her motivations are virtually unknown. You have to watch her like a hawk to attempt to get an accurate read. Fikret isn’t just a dumb kid either. He has this untapped depth that he shows glimpses of on the rooftops looking at the jets and while in the abandoned zoo. He’s not just any other disillusioned teen; he has reasoning and proof to back it all up.

It’s a great, tragic story of a city and a person both struggling to find themselves. It has plenty of laughs, a lot of heart and some interesting, yet possibly predictable twists and turns. The music is good and appropriate, but the cues are too abrupt sometimes. The movie has a little bit of everything, from comedy to romance to action to drama to suspense and it’s all balanced well. “Summer in the Golden Valley” is a diamond in the rough.

Here comes my coverage of the Chicago International Film Festival. I packed this weekend's schedule with seven more films. So, in addition to those listed a couple posts down, you can expect full write-ups on The Taste of Tea, November, Arakimentari, Waiting Room, Head On, Shouf Shouf Habibi!, and Adam and Eve (Still). I'll be trying to get caught up as quickly as possible. To start things off, here's my look at I Like to Work (Mobbing)....They get better. Honest.



I Like to Work (Mobbing)
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

Single mother Anna works for a company that recently underwent a merger. The new bosses, like many in Italy, have a history of being harsh with their employees in order to test company loyalty. Her position with the company keeps changing day by day to see how much she can tolerate. In increasingly subtle and sometimes far from subtle ways, they force Anna to choose between work and her pre-teen daughter Morgana. What can Anna do to save her job as well as her daughter’s love?

Here in the United States, this scenario doesn’t sound that familiar, but in Italy there are numerous similar cases from which the story was formed. Director Francesca Comencini also wrote the script for this frustrating drama about difficult decisions. It’s frustrating in part because with the hardships Anna goes through there is attempt at confrontation or argument, and we the audience would like to think we’d handle the situation better, yet still understand why she didn’t. It’s also frustrating, because the film is lacking in certain key areas.

Most importantly, there is a lack of intensity. The build up exists, but doesn’t snowball the way it should. The internal struggle becomes clear from the start and never escalates. The consequences don’t seem all too dire. As a result, the level of sympathy for Anna (played by Nicoletta Braschi – known more as Roberto Benigni’s wife) is reduced. Perhaps if she were more vocal, in either of her environments (work and home), the injustice would be more recognizable and relatable. The mother/daughter relationship didn’t do it for me, either. They love each other. That comes across, but the dynamic between them was never established enough for us to recognize its impending destruction. The same goes with Anna’s relationship with her coworkers. In fact, the only crystal clear relationship is that of boss and subordinate employee.

Despite the shortcomings in the script, the camerawork is solid. The sense of isolation and desperation comes across in every shot. The myriad shots of long, empty corridors emphasize the loneliness. The close-ups punch in on the emotional drive and defeat. Even those shots with other people, Anna steals the spotlight, as the rest of the actors almost seem like props. What I didn’t like was the standard blue tint to indicate the melancholy atmosphere and the shakiness of the camera seems unmotivated at times, especially near the beginning.

The ending was as quick as a snap of the fingers and just as resonating. The film may have more of an impact in Italy, where the problems Anna goes through are more commonplace, but I just can’t relate. Even if I could, it’s not necessarily a new story or even an overly interesting one.

Before I get to the Chicago Film Fest reviews, here's a quick look at the documentary version of Party Monster, my review of the narrative is also available. Tomorrow, I'm off for the second weekend of the festival and will be back with plenty more to write about.


Party Monster (1998)
Review by Jon Waterman

*1/2

Michael Alig is a Club Kid. He supports himself by partying. Back in the late 1980s, many people made a living through being paid to show up in elaborate costumes and project their elitist image on various parties. Alig was king and master promoter of the New York scene. He revived downtown when celebrity appearances were waning. His ego got inflated and he felt invincible. He took all sorts of drugs and constantly lived the party lifestyle to the fullest. One night, he took things too far and killed drug dealer/club kid Angel, cut up his body, put it in a box and threw it in the ocean. What motivated him to do this? Was it actually just an extension or progression of the club kid way of life?

Directors Fenton Bailey and Randy Barbato are out to discover just that. They interview all the living key players and a few supporting people to get inside the mind of not only Alig, but also the entire community they created. What drew them in to this environment to begin with were the glamour and the fame and the respect and the money they got for doing virtually nothing. All they had to do was have fun and drink. The further they went into the scene the less glamorous they became. The drugs took their toll and the stakes needed constant raising in order to keep par. The parties continued to become more and more grotesque and off the wall as the hallucinogenic drugs took a stronger hold. The build up is interesting and quite clear, almost to a point where it’s not a shock that Alig committed the crime.

This is a low-budget effort. The lighting and video quality represent the small cost, but do well for what they are. They use colorful backgrounds and appropriate scenery for the interviews. Where the true fascination lies is within all the video footage and how huge these people were. It’s astounding to see the stuff they got away with and the lengths they were willing to go. I didn’t find myself caring for Angel. They sensationalized his murder through harsh text and looming, dark music. They failed to put a human side to him. We don’t learn anything about him that makes us necessarily care that this specific drug dealer is dead.

Alig’s interview is too short. He’s such an intriguing character that he should have been utilized more. Bailey and Barbato refuse to delve deep within his personality to really give the documentary a much-needed pop. Also, if they have interviews then they shouldn’t need any text explaining the backstory. The subjects should be able to relate that information to the cameras. There is true potential in the story, even without the murder subplot (and it is basically a subplot). It’s just not realized to its fullest potential. This party is over.

Hey all. Well, I'm back from the first weekend of the Chicago International Film Festival. I saw a lot and hopefully I'll be going back up for more this Friday. Reviews you can look for include: I Like to Work (Mobbing), Tarnation, Around the Bend, Journey Into Bliss and The Souvenirs of Mr. X. Some were great. Some weren't all that great. Keep checking back and I'll let you know what to catch if and when they hit your town.

Just like I promised, I'm back with a couple more reviews. Tomorrow I head up to Chicago for the film fest. I'll be back with many movies to write about, hopefully all good. Check on back.



The Fog of War
Review by Jon Waterman

****

Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara sits down to discuss his tenure with documentary director Errol Morris. McNamara describes the various lessons he’s learned about business and war during the tense times in which he presided. Being a key player in the Cuban missile crisis and the majority of the Vietnam War and part of the Cold War, he’s worked with many different leaders around the world and domestically. He’s learned his lessons and willing to take credit for the bad and the good.

McNamara gives us great insight into how he dealt with the problems of the day. He speaks in a very intelligent, concise and logical manner. You can tell he’s learned a lot over the years and through the harrowing experiences he helped manage. What is amazing is his willingness to talk so candidly about what could be perceived as sensitive material. He clues us in on just how close of a call the missile crisis truly was and even on how the Vietnam War might have been prevented. This once controversial official talks succinctly and honestly, in order to aide the populous’ understanding of the complexity of politics and the importance of applying historical lessons learned.

In addition to the fascinating content of the interview, Morris has a very distinct style to his films. The most obvious aspect is the subjects look directly into the camera. Not only does it connect more personally to the audience, but also you get a better sense of their internal character and emotions. It’s easier to read their eyes and body language, since it’s more conversational. Another welcomed standard of his are the great supporting visuals. Morris is not content to shoot just the interview. He uses archival footage and audio recordings to increase the credibility of McNamara’s claims. He also works with great cinematographers Robert Chappell and Peter Donahue to produce supporting visuals that either reenact moments or place the ideals in metaphorical context. We also get a typically hokey, yet surprisingly appropriate score – this time by Phillip Glass. The result is a characteristic Errol Morris film that is enthralling, informative and assuredly his own.

It struck me to see this man whose will and determination had to be so strong and rigid, sitting down and looking directly into the camera. He appeared fragile and beaten. We’re taught to respect our elders and learn from their wisdom, but how many of us actually take the time to do so? In his face and his responses there’s almost a desperation coming out for someone to listen and take advantage of his many tense experiences. For most of us watching the film, we won’t get much chance to apply these lessons to better our nation, but at least we can look for elected officials that embody these qualities.


++++++++


The Weather Underground
Review by Jon Waterman

***

In the 1960s, as the Vietnam War raged on with no end in sight, people who had never doubted their government began to. Protests became increasingly common and popular. They were mad at the leaders that sent their peers and their relatives off to what they perceived to be a senseless, un-winnable war. Small groups began to form. Amongst these groups were the Students for a Democratic Society, an organization so large that it produced offshoots. One called themselves The Weathermen, a radical thinking handful of college age students who wanted to do more. They wanted to influence the government not by protesting and talking, but by retaliating against them for the crimes against society the government was committing. All injustices would be rectified in some manner. This is their story.

The film presents a lot of information right off the bat. It bombards you with continual facts that should be absorbed in order to fully understand the background or to piece everything together contextually. Eventually it slows down to tell the chronological story behind this American terrorist group, but sometimes slips into overload mode. I feel sorry for any kids watching this at school trying to take notes. And despite the meticulous detailing of events, after 1975, it just trails off into nothingness. The group still existed into the 1980s, yet little is said of this period. It’s not even glanced over. It’s less than a flash in the pan.

The movie does a good job of putting in perspective the group’s feelings and motivations without excusing them. There were specific events that they were responding to with their bombs and damaging attacks, and it could very easily be argued that the government was in the wrong. Nowhere in the film does it pretend like the attacks were truly deserved, but rather it states that the group thought so at the time. The filmmakers create a nice unconscious effect of The Weathermen’s lack of understanding through the use of blank space, film leader and flash frames. It shows that the puzzle is incomplete even to them. The puzzle will always be incomplete.

“The Weather Underground” is a great thinking movie. It’s a great discussion movie. You see what drew some of these people in and what motivated them to such actions. Their thoughts and perspectives on the time period and what they did then and now are nicely contrasted without being shoved in your face. It provides a fascinating and surprisingly timely look at a segment of historical significance that has been greatly overlooked.

Sorry about the long absence. It should be the last one for a while. For the next two weekends, I'm off to the chicago international film festival, so I'll be back and writing furiously to keep you all up to date on the great movies hitting the circuit. For now, here's my reviews for Mr. 3000 and Control Room. Before I leave on Friday, I hope to get a few more documentaries reviewed, including those Fog of War and Weather Underground reviews I promised oh so long ago. Check back often. It'll be worth it.



Control Room
Review by Jon Waterman

***

“Control Room” tells the story of Al Jazeera, the Arabian satellite news network. It chronicles the war between the United States and Iraq, from beginning to shortly after the take down of the Saddam statue, from their perspective. If follows the newsroom workers and journalists in their effort to provide a non-mainstream view of the world’s events.

Sure, the film is about Al Jazeera, because the central cast of participants comes from that network. However, it’s more accurately a commentary on news media in general. The channel has been harshly criticized in the United States for being overly biased and manipulative. The film shows how the American media circuit perpetuates this on the other end of the spectrum. The Al Jazeera reporters ask the hard questions and we hear the dizzying amount of spin put into the answer. The movie does a good job of not only showing the skepticism in the US Government and their responses, but also explaining why they are skeptical. Key subject Hassan Ibrahim is very eloquent and outspoken, while being honest and for the most part objective.

We aren’t just exposed to the Al Jazeera network. We see shots of reporters from the States and how they handle similar issues. It gives the audience a great look at the varying tactics and focus points that various media outlets use. The bias of Al Jazeera doesn’t really show its face here, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. The movie does a good job of showing how anyone is biased and how no group can escape subjectivity – including the movie itself. It does an especially good job of pointing out certain hypocrisies in the government officials’ sound bites.

It also uses on US spokesman to further explain the multi-faceted situation presented. Through his interviews (both with the filmmakers and the various news outlets), Josh Rushing promotes understanding and thoughtfulness. His personal viewpoints on the war and coverage of it change. He works as a guide to the complexity of it all.

The movie is effective in covering and criticizing media and exposing its flaws, but ultimately doesn’t offer much of anything new to the table. The concept and perception of propagandizing news isn’t unusual and in fact seems to be relatively widely accepted. If anything, it puts a good face on the Al Jazeera people and puts them in a positive light. Hopefully, it’ll act as a catalyst for discussion and for acceptance and respect of others, even if their viewpoints differ.


+++++


Mr. 3000
Review by Jon Waterman

1/2 star

Stan Ross was one of the greatest hitters alive. His whole goal in life was to reach the hall of fame, and he knew that reaching the milestone of 3000 hits would guarantee his spot there. Once he accomplished that plateau, he retired, leaving his team in the lurch. Fast forward to nine years later on the eve of the hall of fame induction, it’s discovered that Stan is actually three measly hits shy of the 3000 hits that he’s built his franchise on. Now, to prove he’s not a huge joke, he’s going to make a comeback and rejoin the team he left behind and get those last three hits. Piece of cake, right?

Remember the good old days of baseball comedies? You don’t have to go back too far to find some funny stuff. Look at “Major League,” “A League of Their Own,” “The Sandlot,” “Rookie of the Year,” and even “Mr. Baseball.” This film does not stack up to even “Little Big League.” Simply put, it didn’t make me laugh. It made me bored. It made me tired. It made me wish I had my money in my wallet. It made me wonder how and why it got made. It did not make me laugh.

Bernie Mac (Stan Ross) is a funny guy…when he’s doing stand-up. Give him a role and scripted lines that he didn’t write and he can’t make them any better. It wasn’t just that the dialogue was so bad. They also wrote things that made no sense or really came to any fruition. There’s a guy in a wiener outfit for the Brewers’ famous hot dog race who heckles Ross in mundane, obvious ways. He really serves no purpose. The side plot of the film is to get the Brewers to third place. But they don’t say of what. If they mean the division, then it’d be pointless, because that wouldn’t get them into the playoffs. If they mean the whole conference (National League), then that’s another story, but since there are three division winners and a wild card that get into the playoffs, getting third would really mean winning the division. No matter what, it’s stupid and the movie suffers greatly because of it (for reasons I can’t really divulge here for spoiler avoidance reasons).

The premise was weak to begin with, but hey it’s a baseball movie. How deep does it have to be? Not very. The problem is that nothing really makes sense, nor does it make effective jokes. There are some nice looking commercial parodies and non-parody shots, but the fun just never gets off the bench. The film strikes out with the audience looking, mouths agape.