Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing - DVD Review

Different movies are important for different reasons, and documentaries are different from regular movies. A good documentary will inspire, show you the other side, lead you by the hand through an issue or event and hopefully do so with enough intelligence that when you come through the other side you can make up your own mind about the issue at hand. Thats how I feel anyway.

Shut Up and Sing (1996) is, at my most cynical, an excellent 90 minute commercial for their latest studio album, Taking The Long Way, which has since it's release gone 2x platinum.
But as someone who was never a fan of country music and therefore not bothered by the Chicks' controversy, at least in its earlier stages, I didn't go into this film as a staunch supporter of the band. The cause they represent in the film, freedom of speech, is important to me as a writer. The story of the Chicks was, well, another story.

This film was first and foremost edited so well! We zig-zag back and forth through time from the early days of lead singer Natalie Maines' comments about G.W. Bush at a 2003 concert in London, to the fallout a year and two later, to the writing, recording, and eventual touring in support of the album meant to redeem them in 2006.
What's good about having a great editor for your doc is that people remain interested enough in the subject matter to keep an open mind all the way through. Too often documentaries are filled with lulling moments of dull introspection and talking head revelations that ultimately contribute nothing to the project. What works so well here is that there is nothing extraneous about this project. Every moment we spend with the Chicks is used with purpose. Every candid clip advances the emotional agenda of what is for most people an emotional topic. The freedom to speak one's mind is taken for granted by too many people, myself included. I don't have spin doctors telling me the most effective way to phrase an insult so as to achieve the greatest injury to someone elses reputation. Politicians have such spin doctors, and so does big media.
In a war of honest discourse versus expensive propaganda, the money always seems to win.
But now let me give them their props.
Not only do they come off in the film as good, sweet, strong ladies with big ol' brains in their beautiful heads, but they come off as human. The way they stand together as an unquestionably united front and never just 'shut up and sing' is so inspiring and empowering for the everyday guy like me. It was their integrity and willingness to take risks in the face of such baffling opposition that made me appreciate them for what they went through. And I wanna thank them for it, cos they took a lot of shit.
And if to some the film is nothing more than a glorified commercial for their album, well, it's a great fucking album. If you don't agree with their politics you gotta agree with their talent.
But really; history has acquitted them anyway, so why should they worry?
DVD extras are sparse, but the film speaks for itself so I don't think any are necessary.
The film is The Dixie Chicks: Shut Up And Sing
The album is Taking The Long Way
Check em both out.

Cache (Hidden) - A DVD Review

After several minutes of reflection, and some degree of informed but mitigated confusion I'm left confidant in the belief that Hollywood could never have made this film. Imagine all the La-La-wood producer phone monkeys, and power-lunch-taking studio heads reading the comment cards from the test audiences culled from the corners of Hollywood and Vine with the promise of a thrilling tagline, and saying, "what we need is a punchier ending", or, "I get it, but will the audience get it". I shudder to think. No, this is a french film. By which I only mean it was made in France.

Written and directed by Michael Haneke,and released in 2005, it's the story of a husband and wife being terrorized by the delivery to their home of videotapes showing them being surveilled by an unknown cameraman.

This is a great character study first and foremost.
Prolific french actor Daniel Auteuil (Sade) is Georges Laurent, host of a literary panel discussion program on public television. He is arrogant and stoic, and handles his bizarre situation with all the staid restraint of a man clearly in denial of his past.
Crossover french legend Juliette Binoche (Chocolat, The English Patient) is his wife Anne, the strong, outspoken but deceptively helpless mother of a pubescent son, Pierrot played by young Lester Makedonsky.

The film begins as the couple reviews a videotape; the first of several which are anonymously delivered to their home. On it they see several hours of their front door being watched by an unblinking eye. As they leave for work earlier in the day their movements are filmed and when they return home, voila, a tape to show they've been watched. Why? Who would do such a thing? Clearly it must be a joke, until more tapes arrive from different locales, all showing locations and acts very personal to the principals and accompanied by notes depicting crude but frightening drawings which leave the couple baffled... mostly.

Hints are dropped throughout about a motive for the stalking, from possible infidelity to repressed sexual longing, to good ol' fashioned revenge, but what's most compelling is the immediacy of guilt when one is confronted with what could be perceived as evidence. Evidence of what? Thats the rub. Is someone guilty of something? And if so, what? And if not, why feel guilty? But we do.
I think it's automatic, for me anyway, to feel guilty when confronted before even knowing what the charge is. Confrontation is scary, and now-a-days can convict even without base. Once people hear you're accused you may as well have done the crime.
What's interesting about this film is figuring who, if anyone, is guilty of something, and if they are, what is it they're guilty of?

Which brings me back to my initial assertion that this could never be a 'Hollywood' film. This isn't about resolution. And it's not about motivation. To me it's about how pervasive information has become. If you wanna know anything you turn on the news or look at the web. Someone somewhere is watching you, and wants to tell your story whether you're complicit in the telling or not. There are no laws against voyeurism anymore; not practical ones anyway. There's nothing you can do to stop someone videotaping you and letting everyone you know sneak a peek. But I digress...

Technically this is a cool, minimalist approach to the thriller genre. The amazing acting and super-tight editing move an otherwise quiet film along at a pace that allows reflection along with shock. Tension is built but not milked, and drama is felt but not dwelled upon to the point of becoming maudlin.

For me personally, I think about relationships and how much you know about the people closest to you, whether its the teenage son making you feel hated (but not really), or the lover you've grown comfortable with (too comfortable).

See this film without expectations. Don't ask it to entertain or thrill you; just watch it and enjoy it, and when it's over tell me what you thought. I loved it.
Not in a 'jumping outta my seat' kinda way, but in a 'film can be a great teacher' kinda way.
Does that make sense?

Superman Returns - A Review and other stuff

First things first: Superman Returns is a kick-ass movie! The special effects are amazing, the story is barely acceptable, and the acting is just fine. Brandon Routh is fucking HOT! I challenge any gay man or straight woman not to fuck him, given a chance.
-okay-

On to my day.
I woke up the way I nomally do; worrying about how I'm gonna pay whatever bill is making my phone ring.
Today I'm paying my bills. Thank you Bernice Grant. For now. No, she isn't dead. When she is you'll know. You'll hear my creditors cheering.
But tomorrow you won't hear my phone ringing.
And I'll slink back into whatever pit I crawled out of.

Alles gut.

gute nacht.

Karla -A Review-

Okay I realize the last two weren't very articulate but I was starting to get frustrated with the crap I was seeing. But this time I have a few more words.

I just watched Karla, a thriller based on the case of the so-called Ken and Barbie Killers Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka. Paul was revealed to be the Scarborough Rapist, having raped and terrorized countless young women, and along with Karla raped and murdered at least three teenage girls, one of whom was Karla's younger sister Tammy.
The case was brutal and disturbing not least because the rapes themselves were videotaped and shown to the jury during trial. Official word is that the videotapes have since been destroyed, but author Stephen Williams' compelling book Invisible Darkness contains several passages describing the contents of the videos which landed him in hot water with the authorities.
And then there's the extra creep factor of the crimes having been committed in a small, friendly town just south of Toronto and within earshot of the tourist-heavy Niagara Falls.

The film Karla is told in a series of flashbacks by Karla, (Laura Prepon) as she is evaluated for possible parole by her psychiatrist, Dr. Arnold (Patrick Bauchau). Written and directed by Joel Bender we learn how Karla met, fell in love with and finally married the man whom even before they were engaged she was aware was a rapist. Paul Bernardo (Misha Collins) is depicted as a soulless Sociopath, prone to violent mood-swings and manipulation. As played by Collins Bernard is convincing if a little wimpy for someone so violent. He rarely raises his voice, even while trying to convince his victims to participate in the most heinous acts. I don't know if Collins was going for a Hannibal Lecter-esque characterization, but Lecter is fiction; Bernardo is a real man. And Collins, though he does a good job here, is no Anthony Hopkins.
Karla as played by Prepon is 1-part psychopath, 1-part victim. Ultimately though Bender seems to favour Homolka's version of events for his story. Sure, she drugged, raped and killed her baby sister, and she was present for the kidnapping, torture, murder and disposal of at least two others, but it was Paul's fault. She only played along. If it was good enough for the courts, it seems good enough for Bender.
There's one significant difference however. When Karla was busy convincing the Crown she was as much a victim of Bernardo as the others, noone knew about the videotapes which detailed her considerable -and according to several jurors, enthusiastic- involvement. Bender had the luxury of knowing this and still chose to write his script painting Homolka with a very broad, sympathetic brush. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's only Prepon's layered and subtle performance that saves this from being an R-rated movie of the week. Barely. But she gets her props.

All in all I'd say I was mostly fascinated by this, but I think thats owed considerably to the fact that this happened in my own backyard, and also to the timing of the film's release which coincided with the real Homolka's release from prison.
If you're into true crime I'd give this one a chance, but I think it's specialized 'appeal' would explain it's extremely limited release more than would it's actual quality.

Look for it on DVD in early April, 2007.

Capsule Review -The Woods-

It sucks.

Capsule Review - Lady In The Water-

It sucked.

Pan's Labyrinth - A Review

So I saw Pan's Labyrinth, and I was telling my cousin about it and she asked if I wrote a review on my blog, and I realized I hadn't.
So here it is.
I went in to this film with no preconceived ideas based on all the rave reviews. And yes, the reviewers are raving. Oscar is buzzing from the foreign language office and I know they hear it down the hall. It's gonna win. You heard it here.
This is a beautiful fairy tale about a girl being seperated from her mother and trying to cope with her step-father, and ultimately choosing to... well, thats up to you. Does she succumb to her reality or does she live her fantasy?
Ofelia's mother is pregnant and about to deliver any second, and Ofelia is a confused girl. The two travel to an outpost in northern Spain during the 1944 post-civil war to meet Ofelia's mother's new husband, the Captain Vidal, who is trying to rid the country of the militia. To call Vidal evil is to call Hitler a pot-stirrer. He is the quintessential bad guy, as portrayed by Sergi Lopez, renowned Spanish actor.
Ofelia, by the way, is played by 11-year old Ivana Baquero, who brings to mind Amelie's Audrey Taotau in her engaging charm. You love her right away.
But anyway...
The film itself is a fairy tale, in every sense of the word. The story is simple, the conceit is straightforward and the moral is delivered.
What sets this fairy tale apart is that its rendered in film form, and not only is it entertaining but as straightforward as the story is you never know whats gonna happen next. And all the fantastic elements are rendered in such a way as to be plausible in context.
Ofelia loves her mother, hates her step-father, and lives in a fantasy world to escape the horrors (enacted graphically!) of her life.
When I say her real life is graphic I shouldn't parenthesise, cos it's a pretty major aspect of the film. Her real life is horrible. The captain is abusive to Ofelia and her mother. Seriously, you have no idea.
Ofelia's fantasy life involves a quest; complete three tasks and claim immortality; so says Pan, otherwordly creature of the labyrinth.
Oh yeah, the labyrinth. It rests just outside the grounds of the captain's estate. Overgrown and ignored, it waits to be discovered by the princess of the underworld. Guess who?
What I like about this film is it's ambiguous ending. I won't give it away, but twists of modern thrillers be damned! This story delivers an honest ending and makes you think. (the horror!)
Highlights include: the blind monster with eyeballs in his hands, sewing up the injury, who is the white-haired woman, and the mandrake root.
Don't focus on these things, just enjoy them.
The one question you should ask yourself after seeing this film is; am I an idealist or a cynic?
You'll know why after you see it.
Oh yeah, my advice is SEE IT!!!