So going into this I knew who Tom Ford was, and for anyone who doesn't he's a fashion designer and icon. This is his first film, and for that he did a very good job. The film is visually stunning, and of course it would be; everyone is dressed so refined and well groomed. The film is meticulous. The sets, the colouring, the old cars and perfect hair. I actually had no idea this was at all about homosexuality. The sad thing is, I never think a movie needs to be 'about' homosexuality in order to discuss it, it should rather just be a means to tell a story. You may argue that it was in this case, but I have to disagree. I feel the film did things that only queer cinema can, and in that process it makes the film about being gay rather than the love story you're supposed to be involved in. I could go into a handful of examples I pulled from the film but I'd rather not; simply see it yourself. It's not something for people who have short attention spans, as many of the shots are long and without much 'happening.' Still, a good first effort.
7.5/10
Film#118 - White Chicks, 2004, dir. Keenan Ivory Wayans
As much as this may be a terrible movie, it made me laugh until it hurt more than once. The premise is insane, and is executed poorly. There should have been a much better reason WHY these men had to dress as white women, and even how they got it done. But other than that, and of course a lot of cheesy dialogue, bad acting and nothing special cinematically, this movie is hilarious at times. The Wayans brothers have some great comedic timing and the contrast of black men acting like white 'chicks' is both hilarious and in some sense offering an overt depiction of racial differences, for good or bad.
As much as this may be a terrible movie, it made me laugh until it hurt more than once. The premise is insane, and is executed poorly. There should have been a much better reason WHY these men had to dress as white women, and even how they got it done. But other than that, and of course a lot of cheesy dialogue, bad acting and nothing special cinematically, this movie is hilarious at times. The Wayans brothers have some great comedic timing and the contrast of black men acting like white 'chicks' is both hilarious and in some sense offering an overt depiction of racial differences, for good or bad.
6.5/10
Film#119 - Funny Games, 2007, dir. Michael Haneke
This made me anxious literally from the opening credits. It, as other things, is literally insane. As this is far more unknown than the other films this week, I'll give a little plot rundown. Naomi Watts and husband Tim Roth, along with their young son, go off to their vacation home. they are clearly wealthy, and soon after they arrive some friends of their neighbours come to ask for some eggs. Well, they don't really want eggs, but more so to torture and kill the entire family. You get the point 15 minutes in, but it's not going to let up for a long time. It really gets brutal at times, completely unrelenting. There isn't much graphic violence on screen, and it isn't even necessary. The film builds suspense and horror in, oddly, a beautiful way that on one hand tries to be reminiscent of what horror/thriller's used to be, but at the same time this film is a direct criticism of what I would say to be Western horror and violence. At several times, the lead torturer played by Michael Pitt (who if you've ever seen you should know is both intensely creepy as well as provocative and a fantastic actor) directly acknowledges the audience, breaking the fourth wall and playing with your expectations of what's to come. As with any torture film, there are ups and downs, times you think the protagonists will triumph and at others feel hopeless. This film knows the way it works and tells it to your face; Pitt asks the audience questions, suggests the results, describes the feelings you should be having. As a slight spoiler alert, at one point in the film the tables are finally turned on the tormentors as Naomi Watts manages to shoot and kill one of them; this is common in the genre, obviously. Pitt's character immediately starts looking for the television remote, and in a literal sense rewinds the scene in order to change the plot of the film. I'm sorry to be pretentious, but this film is postmodern; selfreferential and suggestive that film is formulaic. It says that everything has been done to try and push the boundaries and it's gotten to a perverse level, and acknowledges the audience as simply seeking the same story over and over. This is a bit different, and if you can handle a two hour nightmare, go for it.
This made me anxious literally from the opening credits. It, as other things, is literally insane. As this is far more unknown than the other films this week, I'll give a little plot rundown. Naomi Watts and husband Tim Roth, along with their young son, go off to their vacation home. they are clearly wealthy, and soon after they arrive some friends of their neighbours come to ask for some eggs. Well, they don't really want eggs, but more so to torture and kill the entire family. You get the point 15 minutes in, but it's not going to let up for a long time. It really gets brutal at times, completely unrelenting. There isn't much graphic violence on screen, and it isn't even necessary. The film builds suspense and horror in, oddly, a beautiful way that on one hand tries to be reminiscent of what horror/thriller's used to be, but at the same time this film is a direct criticism of what I would say to be Western horror and violence. At several times, the lead torturer played by Michael Pitt (who if you've ever seen you should know is both intensely creepy as well as provocative and a fantastic actor) directly acknowledges the audience, breaking the fourth wall and playing with your expectations of what's to come. As with any torture film, there are ups and downs, times you think the protagonists will triumph and at others feel hopeless. This film knows the way it works and tells it to your face; Pitt asks the audience questions, suggests the results, describes the feelings you should be having. As a slight spoiler alert, at one point in the film the tables are finally turned on the tormentors as Naomi Watts manages to shoot and kill one of them; this is common in the genre, obviously. Pitt's character immediately starts looking for the television remote, and in a literal sense rewinds the scene in order to change the plot of the film. I'm sorry to be pretentious, but this film is postmodern; selfreferential and suggestive that film is formulaic. It says that everything has been done to try and push the boundaries and it's gotten to a perverse level, and acknowledges the audience as simply seeking the same story over and over. This is a bit different, and if you can handle a two hour nightmare, go for it.
8.5/10
Film#120 - Say Anything, 1989, dir. Cameron Crowe
I've got to say, I can't help but draw connections between this and Crowe's other films, namely Almost Famous and Fast Times At Ridgemont High. They're all coming of age films, dabbling in as many teenage issues as possible. While I adore Almost Famous, I can't say the same for this. I didn't feel the chemistry between the leading cast. For a love story, it felt censored and scripted, and not at all 'lovey.' John Mahoney, a.k.a. Martin Crane from Frasier, is pretty great in this. His character seems the most developed and at times I loved him, at others I hated him but overall he just made sense. The famous scene with John Cusack standing outside holding the boombox over his head, well, it completely let me down. It was so anticlimactic, nothing happened. The song wasn't even epic. I liked what the film had to say in some sense, but it just wasn't up to par.
I've got to say, I can't help but draw connections between this and Crowe's other films, namely Almost Famous and Fast Times At Ridgemont High. They're all coming of age films, dabbling in as many teenage issues as possible. While I adore Almost Famous, I can't say the same for this. I didn't feel the chemistry between the leading cast. For a love story, it felt censored and scripted, and not at all 'lovey.' John Mahoney, a.k.a. Martin Crane from Frasier, is pretty great in this. His character seems the most developed and at times I loved him, at others I hated him but overall he just made sense. The famous scene with John Cusack standing outside holding the boombox over his head, well, it completely let me down. It was so anticlimactic, nothing happened. The song wasn't even epic. I liked what the film had to say in some sense, but it just wasn't up to par.
6/10
Film#121 - Toy Story, 1995, dir. John Lasseter
Well, this is pretty self-explanatory. It's good. It's super short though (81 minutes, what a joke). The animation was of course breakthrough back then, but now it surprisingly seemed a little dated. More so than I expected. The people in the film look so goofy it's hilarious. The Soundtrack might be the best part of this for me, it's just so classic and memorable. Also, I thoroughly enjoyed this after so many years because I pick up on so many more things now, os many little nuances and easter eggs they put in for people in the know, like the Binford tool box and the Megadork poster. But the film, sorry to say, isn't mindblowing.
8/10
