Just a quick announcement for those who haven't read the "Announcements" section in the main website - I've just create a forum. It's called the Star Reviews Forum (I know, not particularly inventive or original) and well, what can I say? It would be pretty awesome if you joined it.
I think it certainly has potential, and that if I manage to lure more people in - that sounds just wrong - it could turn into a very entertaining space in which people with similar interests will be able to discuss anything they want.
So there it goes. Enter the forum. Join it. And enjoy. :D (Oh, and if you know anyone who might like a forum, tell him/her of course!)
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Goosebumps and explosions
So, we are in the middle of 2009 - well, actually more than that, but I had planned to write this post earlier - and most audiences have had the chance to watch some of the most anticipated blockbusters on the big screen. Many of them have been... disappointing... but some of them have been surprisingly good too.
Now, as odd as it might sound, being a film lover, there is a particular sensation that a particularly good movie - or scene - might give me, and that pretty much tells me whether the film was any good for me or not. It's goosebumps. You know, regular goosebumps. If a scene literally gives me goosebumps, if it chills me, if it gives me that very particular sensation, then I know this is a movie that I will want to see many more times either in theatres or on DVD. This has happened to me with countless films - most of them special, some of them containing only special moments - and 2009 has not been an exception. So, in a manner of stating which movies have been "awesome" for me this year, I'm writing a list of all the "goosebump" moments I've had this year so far. Let's see. (Spoilers ahead.)
Goosebumps Moments 2009 (Midyear list)
Watchmen - The "origins of Dr. Manhattan" scene.
Simply put, Watchmen is a gorgeous motion picture in more than one sense. It's effectively acted - yes, even Malin Akerman wasn't that bad -, visually amazing and intellectually satisfying. There's practically no scene I didn't like, but the definite standout is the scene on Mars in which Dr. Manhattan tells the audience how he came to be. It's not only fantastically edited and rendered, it's also got somewhat of an emotional punch, and yes, it gave me goosebumps.
Star Trek - The prologue
I never was much of a Star Trek fan - as most of you might already know, I was always more of a Star Wars guy - but still I wanted to give the new movie a chance because the previous looked great. And boy, was I not disappointed. The film is both smart and thrilling; excellently acted and visually stimulating. But the prologue was definitely one of the scenes that worked better for me, not only because it works fantastically as an individual scene, but because it manages to introduce the world of Star Trek to newcomers in a very tense, exciting and emotional way.
Terminator Salvation - Helicopter crash
The film was good - not great - but if there was a scene that definitely made my arm hairs stand, it was the helicopter crash sequence. It was a very visceral kind of sequence, and it thrilled me not only because it was masterfully executed, but also because, having known the character of John Connor for four movies now, it wasn't hard to root for him, even if Christian Bale's performance wasn't very similar to the ones in the previous installments. Plus I've got a thing for long-take scenes. (Remember Children of Men?)
Up - the prologue
I just can't imagine any other movie accomplishing what Pixar's latest masterpiece did. This qualifies as a "goosebump scene" to me - even though it didn't literally gave me goosebumps - because it was so emotional, and because it had me on the verge of crying. As far as backstories go, this is as complex, realistic and touching as they come.
Knowing - airplane crash scene
Yes, another crash scene. Director Alex Proyas had proven before with films like Dark City, The Crow and the underrated I, Robot that he's a master of atmosphere, suspense and special effects, but with this particular scene in this particularly underrated movie, he also shows he definitely knows how to surprise his audience. Simply put, this sequence came out of nowhere; it was unexpected, and it left me - as well as the rest of the audience in the theatre - shaking and tense. The way he transmitted the horror of the situation and the way Nic Cage's character felt was incredible.
So that's that. These are my "goosebump scenes" of 2009 movies so far, and I'm pretty sure there are going to be a few more during the next couple of months. As you have noticed, I haven't included Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which should say a lot about the movie, considering it's got tons of explosions, action sequences and scenes which should have generated suspense.
And that brings me to another thing: the movie itself. I know I have already reviewed the film, but I did so a mere hour - or so - after I had seen it, and I had terribly mixed feelings about it. Now, though, I think I have a clearer head, and therefore can say something: yes, the movie definitely entertained me, but it's awful. It isn't boring, and the special effects - as well as some performances - are good, but as a motion picture, it's horrible. You can't see anything during the action sequences, there are like 500 transformers - the majority of them looking almost the same - and most of the humour, while funny in a juvenile kind of way, is stupid and in some cases out-of-place. (Robot humping? Giant, metallic testicles? Come on, Michael Bay!)
But anyway, I guess I can't say anything different to what everybody has been saying. The thing that has surprised me, though, is the fact that the film has grossed $201 million in five days, a box office record second only to The Dark Knight's gross from last year. I mean, I can understand The Dark Knight's success - it was a fantastic movie - but why in the hell did Transformers earn so much cash? Being a mindless, plotless and loud mess of a film, I really can't see why it would deserve it. I have seen it once, I was diverted by it once, but I definitely don't plan to watch it again in theatres.
My only theory? I guess people really like the combination of over-the-top explosions, robots mindlessly beating the crap out of each other, and Megan Fox running in slow-motion. Unfortunately, that's not the kind of thing that gives me goosebumps, especially when it's all shot so incomprehensibly.
Now, as odd as it might sound, being a film lover, there is a particular sensation that a particularly good movie - or scene - might give me, and that pretty much tells me whether the film was any good for me or not. It's goosebumps. You know, regular goosebumps. If a scene literally gives me goosebumps, if it chills me, if it gives me that very particular sensation, then I know this is a movie that I will want to see many more times either in theatres or on DVD. This has happened to me with countless films - most of them special, some of them containing only special moments - and 2009 has not been an exception. So, in a manner of stating which movies have been "awesome" for me this year, I'm writing a list of all the "goosebump" moments I've had this year so far. Let's see. (Spoilers ahead.)
Goosebumps Moments 2009 (Midyear list)
Watchmen - The "origins of Dr. Manhattan" scene.
Simply put, Watchmen is a gorgeous motion picture in more than one sense. It's effectively acted - yes, even Malin Akerman wasn't that bad -, visually amazing and intellectually satisfying. There's practically no scene I didn't like, but the definite standout is the scene on Mars in which Dr. Manhattan tells the audience how he came to be. It's not only fantastically edited and rendered, it's also got somewhat of an emotional punch, and yes, it gave me goosebumps.
Star Trek - The prologue
I never was much of a Star Trek fan - as most of you might already know, I was always more of a Star Wars guy - but still I wanted to give the new movie a chance because the previous looked great. And boy, was I not disappointed. The film is both smart and thrilling; excellently acted and visually stimulating. But the prologue was definitely one of the scenes that worked better for me, not only because it works fantastically as an individual scene, but because it manages to introduce the world of Star Trek to newcomers in a very tense, exciting and emotional way.
Terminator Salvation - Helicopter crash
The film was good - not great - but if there was a scene that definitely made my arm hairs stand, it was the helicopter crash sequence. It was a very visceral kind of sequence, and it thrilled me not only because it was masterfully executed, but also because, having known the character of John Connor for four movies now, it wasn't hard to root for him, even if Christian Bale's performance wasn't very similar to the ones in the previous installments. Plus I've got a thing for long-take scenes. (Remember Children of Men?)
Up - the prologue
I just can't imagine any other movie accomplishing what Pixar's latest masterpiece did. This qualifies as a "goosebump scene" to me - even though it didn't literally gave me goosebumps - because it was so emotional, and because it had me on the verge of crying. As far as backstories go, this is as complex, realistic and touching as they come.
Knowing - airplane crash scene
Yes, another crash scene. Director Alex Proyas had proven before with films like Dark City, The Crow and the underrated I, Robot that he's a master of atmosphere, suspense and special effects, but with this particular scene in this particularly underrated movie, he also shows he definitely knows how to surprise his audience. Simply put, this sequence came out of nowhere; it was unexpected, and it left me - as well as the rest of the audience in the theatre - shaking and tense. The way he transmitted the horror of the situation and the way Nic Cage's character felt was incredible.
So that's that. These are my "goosebump scenes" of 2009 movies so far, and I'm pretty sure there are going to be a few more during the next couple of months. As you have noticed, I haven't included Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which should say a lot about the movie, considering it's got tons of explosions, action sequences and scenes which should have generated suspense.
And that brings me to another thing: the movie itself. I know I have already reviewed the film, but I did so a mere hour - or so - after I had seen it, and I had terribly mixed feelings about it. Now, though, I think I have a clearer head, and therefore can say something: yes, the movie definitely entertained me, but it's awful. It isn't boring, and the special effects - as well as some performances - are good, but as a motion picture, it's horrible. You can't see anything during the action sequences, there are like 500 transformers - the majority of them looking almost the same - and most of the humour, while funny in a juvenile kind of way, is stupid and in some cases out-of-place. (Robot humping? Giant, metallic testicles? Come on, Michael Bay!)
But anyway, I guess I can't say anything different to what everybody has been saying. The thing that has surprised me, though, is the fact that the film has grossed $201 million in five days, a box office record second only to The Dark Knight's gross from last year. I mean, I can understand The Dark Knight's success - it was a fantastic movie - but why in the hell did Transformers earn so much cash? Being a mindless, plotless and loud mess of a film, I really can't see why it would deserve it. I have seen it once, I was diverted by it once, but I definitely don't plan to watch it again in theatres.
My only theory? I guess people really like the combination of over-the-top explosions, robots mindlessly beating the crap out of each other, and Megan Fox running in slow-motion. Unfortunately, that's not the kind of thing that gives me goosebumps, especially when it's all shot so incomprehensibly.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Models, puppets and pixels
If there's an aspect of filmmaking I truly enjoy, it's the area of special effects. Granted, it's not that the only two movies I've managed to shot (plus the one music video I've done) contained plenty of visual and special effects shot, it's that I like how they look and what they convey when done right. On the other hand, I also like the fact that they've changed so much during the course of moviemaking history.
Films like Metropolis, for example, from 1927, contained revolutionary effects shots for its time. Now, of course, everything in there is date, but that doesn't mean it looks
dated. I guess that's the key difference between a well-crafted effects shot and a lazy kind of work. I know what I'm about to do is unfair, but bare with me. Consider, for example, the effects shots from Fritz Lang's aforementioned masterpiece, and those from a movie like Van Helsing. Don't take me wrong, I liked the latter (in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way), but although it makes use of today's latest computer technology, its effects look horribly cheesy and cartoony. On the other hand, everything in Metropolis, while obviously artificial, looks breathtaking and beautiful. That is the main difference right?
And why do
I say it was an unfair comparision? It's not only the fact that both films were released 80 years apart, it's also that they are completely different motion pictures that try to convey completely different things. Van Helsing's failure has to do, in part, I believe, with the fact that it tried to convey something that could never exist, and something that's supposed to be a living, breathing thing. On the other hand, Metropolis was supposed to look artificially crafted. The city, its industrial look conveyed something man-made, not something natural. Creating a city backdrop in a computer or with models is considerably easier than trying to create, say, a wolfman or a vampire monster. Maybe that's why, after more than 80 years, Metropolis' effects don't look dated, while Van Helsing's overreliance on CGI looked bad and cheesy the moment the film was released in theatres.
Now, if you've seen films like Star Wars or 2001, you might have realized that old school visual effects are all about matte paintings, models and image compositing. George Lucas' original space opera saga is the prime example of this. The "special editions" aside, none of these movies contained anything remotely computerized - everything, from aliens to alien worlds to spaceships was created with the use of models, paintings, costumes and masks. And maybe that's why it all looked so real - because everything on screen was actually in front of the camera. Everytime I watch any of those films, I know whether I'm seeing a painting, a model or a mask, but it doesn't take me out of the story; they don't detract from the experience because, although I know none of them are what they are supposed to be, at least I know they are real.
Films like Metropolis, for example, from 1927, contained revolutionary effects shots for its time. Now, of course, everything in there is date, but that doesn't mean it looks
dated. I guess that's the key difference between a well-crafted effects shot and a lazy kind of work. I know what I'm about to do is unfair, but bare with me. Consider, for example, the effects shots from Fritz Lang's aforementioned masterpiece, and those from a movie like Van Helsing. Don't take me wrong, I liked the latter (in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way), but although it makes use of today's latest computer technology, its effects look horribly cheesy and cartoony. On the other hand, everything in Metropolis, while obviously artificial, looks breathtaking and beautiful. That is the main difference right?And why do
I say it was an unfair comparision? It's not only the fact that both films were released 80 years apart, it's also that they are completely different motion pictures that try to convey completely different things. Van Helsing's failure has to do, in part, I believe, with the fact that it tried to convey something that could never exist, and something that's supposed to be a living, breathing thing. On the other hand, Metropolis was supposed to look artificially crafted. The city, its industrial look conveyed something man-made, not something natural. Creating a city backdrop in a computer or with models is considerably easier than trying to create, say, a wolfman or a vampire monster. Maybe that's why, after more than 80 years, Metropolis' effects don't look dated, while Van Helsing's overreliance on CGI looked bad and cheesy the moment the film was released in theatres.Now, if you've seen films like Star Wars or 2001, you might have realized that old school visual effects are all about matte paintings, models and image compositing. George Lucas' original space opera saga is the prime example of this. The "special editions" aside, none of these movies contained anything remotely computerized - everything, from aliens to alien worlds to spaceships was created with the use of models, paintings, costumes and masks. And maybe that's why it all looked so real - because everything on screen was actually in front of the camera. Everytime I watch any of those films, I know whether I'm seeing a painting, a model or a mask, but it doesn't take me out of the story; they don't detract from the experience because, although I know none of them are what they are supposed to be, at least I know they are real.
Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park changed all of this. Granted, models are still being used, but the revolution of CGI commenced with these two movies. Terminator 2 brought liquid simulation, and the Spielbe
rg's dinosaur flick provided with photo-realistic, chillingly believable dinosaurs. The thing is, none of the effects in these movies have dated because they didn't rely on one single technique. They are combined efforts. Although the majority of dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are computer generated, the filmmakers also employed a large quantity of animatronics, which mesh seemlessly with the CGI work. And the liquid version of Robert Patrick in T2 works because it meshes perfectly with the flesh-and-blood actor. There's no overreliance of anything. If anything can be said about CGI, is that it can be really effective when used correctly and in combination with other techniques, and that it's the 21st century's equivalent of models and matte paintings.
A lot of negatives can be said about CGI, but there's no denying that it's brought a lot of delightful vistas that couldn't have even been dreamed 30 years ago. Movies that have made good use of CGI? Jurassic Park, the Star Wars prequels, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the first Matrix movie, War of the Worlds, Transformers, Titanic and many more. The thing is, most of these movies - yes, even the Star Wars prequels - provided with awesome visual effects because they combined models, matte paintings and other techniques with CGI, instead of only using computers. I believe that's what a good visual movie requires - teamwork and a good combination of different techniques.
This year, apart from Terminator Salvation (which looks gritty from a visual standpoint) and Transformers 2 (which will probably provide with even more destruction and visual mayhem than its predecessor), we will have James Cameron's Avatar. He has promised he will revolutionize both digital technology in the use of visual effects, and 3D technology. Given his track record, I don't doubt he will. We'll just have to wait and see.
rg's dinosaur flick provided with photo-realistic, chillingly believable dinosaurs. The thing is, none of the effects in these movies have dated because they didn't rely on one single technique. They are combined efforts. Although the majority of dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are computer generated, the filmmakers also employed a large quantity of animatronics, which mesh seemlessly with the CGI work. And the liquid version of Robert Patrick in T2 works because it meshes perfectly with the flesh-and-blood actor. There's no overreliance of anything. If anything can be said about CGI, is that it can be really effective when used correctly and in combination with other techniques, and that it's the 21st century's equivalent of models and matte paintings.A lot of negatives can be said about CGI, but there's no denying that it's brought a lot of delightful vistas that couldn't have even been dreamed 30 years ago. Movies that have made good use of CGI? Jurassic Park, the Star Wars prequels, the Lord of the Rings trilogy, the first Matrix movie, War of the Worlds, Transformers, Titanic and many more. The thing is, most of these movies - yes, even the Star Wars prequels - provided with awesome visual effects because they combined models, matte paintings and other techniques with CGI, instead of only using computers. I believe that's what a good visual movie requires - teamwork and a good combination of different techniques.
This year, apart from Terminator Salvation (which looks gritty from a visual standpoint) and Transformers 2 (which will probably provide with even more destruction and visual mayhem than its predecessor), we will have James Cameron's Avatar. He has promised he will revolutionize both digital technology in the use of visual effects, and 3D technology. Given his track record, I don't doubt he will. We'll just have to wait and see.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Guilty pleasures? Not necessarily.
Wow, it's been some time since I last wrote a blog entry. But you know, I've been busy - mainly promoting my film, Grey Shadows, here in Peru - we've already had two showings - and making the DVD, which will be officially released this week. And well, I've also got university - tons of work, a lot to read and less time to do - or write - anything related to this blog and the Star Reviews website.
But don't worry. Star Reviews will always be alive.
Anyway, this time I wanted to talk about something very specific: action flicks. Many people consider action flicks to be the man's equivalent of romantic comedies: frequently mediocre films that are nevertheless always enjoyed by almost every man who seems them. And why not? They are full of testosterone, macho behaviour and LOTS of violence. Action flicks aren't for sissies.
But why frequently mediocre? Why can't action flicks be actually good movies? Take Die Hard, for example. That's actually considered a really good movie, a classic among the action genre. And why? Well, action flicks can't be judged the same as other films. One doesn't expect deep characterization, thought-provoking themes or drama from these kinds of movies. Die Hard is a great motion picture because it provides with what all action movies should provide: tension, a lead character worth rooting for, exciting, creative and adrenalinic action sequences and lots (and I mean lots) of tension.
Basically, in order to be good, an action movies has to be tense, exciting and have a likeable protagonist with a personality. That's what Die Hard's got, and that's why it's a classic.
But that's not the only enjoyable kind of action flick. There's another kind, a type of movie that isn't appreciated by every action movie fan - only by some. It is the action movie that mocks itself without being a full comedy, the action film that's cheesy by nature, over-the-top, and completely lacking in tension, but that it's ridiculously entertaining - "ridiculously" being the key word - because everything's so damn exaggerated.
Take Commando, an 80s Schwarzenegger action film. I just love that movie because everything about it is so damn exaggerated. The one-liners ("let off some steam!"), the action scenes (Schwarzenegger lifting phone booths with people inside them), the explosions (the Governator exploding an entire military base with a couple of mini bombs), and the fact that John Matrix (awesome name!) is so damn invincible. This is why the movie lacks tension - because we know Schwarzy will never die, no matter how many enemies try to confront him, but it's also why it's so much fun: because it's over-the-top. Even the music is ridiculously good, and some scenes are played all for laughs.
This, of course, can have a negative effect when not done right. Not every cheesy action movie is like Commando. Take John Cena's (the WWE wrestler) action movies, The Marine and the other one that was released a couple of months ago in USA theatres. Those are really laughable action movies because they lack tension and excitement, but are also super-serious, and therefore cannot be enjoyed as camp. Additionally, unlike Arnie, Cena likes charisma, so what the audience is left with are films that take themselves too seriously, but that are cheesy as hell at the same time. If there's no sense of camp, but not excitement either, then how can said movies work?
If there's something that I'm sure of, is that action movies will never die. When done right, they're just too damn entertaining and fun (when they're done right), and no matter how much special effects and CGI advance, we'll always need charismatic heroes and real-life (meaning, not digital) explosions in order for them to work. Movies like Wanted are a perfect example of this: they're the action movies of the digital age, and although they look slicker and more sofisticated than the Stallone, Van Damme and Schwarzenneger flicks of the 80s, they're not particularly different: Wanted is as over-the-top, silly, unbelievable, exciting and fun as any of those old-school films.
As much as I like a good drama flick, a great comedy, a thought-provoking motion picture or a fantasy movie, I just can't get enough action movies. I'm one of those guys who actually like romantic comedies - I think this is pretty evident if you read my reviews -, but if you come to me and say something like "let's watch Commando" or "wanna go and see Die Hard"... what do you think I'll answer?
Action flicks aren't Shakespeare. But they don't have to be bad movies either. If you don't believe me, watch a movie like The Marine back-to-back with Die Hard. There's a whole world of differences.
But don't worry. Star Reviews will always be alive.
Anyway, this time I wanted to talk about something very specific: action flicks. Many people consider action flicks to be the man's equivalent of romantic comedies: frequently mediocre films that are nevertheless always enjoyed by almost every man who seems them. And why not? They are full of testosterone, macho behaviour and LOTS of violence. Action flicks aren't for sissies.
But why frequently mediocre? Why can't action flicks be actually good movies? Take Die Hard, for example. That's actually considered a really good movie, a classic among the action genre. And why? Well, action flicks can't be judged the same as other films. One doesn't expect deep characterization, thought-provoking themes or drama from these kinds of movies. Die Hard is a great motion picture because it provides with what all action movies should provide: tension, a lead character worth rooting for, exciting, creative and adrenalinic action sequences and lots (and I mean lots) of tension.
Basically, in order to be good, an action movies has to be tense, exciting and have a likeable protagonist with a personality. That's what Die Hard's got, and that's why it's a classic.
But that's not the only enjoyable kind of action flick. There's another kind, a type of movie that isn't appreciated by every action movie fan - only by some. It is the action movie that mocks itself without being a full comedy, the action film that's cheesy by nature, over-the-top, and completely lacking in tension, but that it's ridiculously entertaining - "ridiculously" being the key word - because everything's so damn exaggerated.
Take Commando, an 80s Schwarzenegger action film. I just love that movie because everything about it is so damn exaggerated. The one-liners ("let off some steam!"), the action scenes (Schwarzenegger lifting phone booths with people inside them), the explosions (the Governator exploding an entire military base with a couple of mini bombs), and the fact that John Matrix (awesome name!) is so damn invincible. This is why the movie lacks tension - because we know Schwarzy will never die, no matter how many enemies try to confront him, but it's also why it's so much fun: because it's over-the-top. Even the music is ridiculously good, and some scenes are played all for laughs.
This, of course, can have a negative effect when not done right. Not every cheesy action movie is like Commando. Take John Cena's (the WWE wrestler) action movies, The Marine and the other one that was released a couple of months ago in USA theatres. Those are really laughable action movies because they lack tension and excitement, but are also super-serious, and therefore cannot be enjoyed as camp. Additionally, unlike Arnie, Cena likes charisma, so what the audience is left with are films that take themselves too seriously, but that are cheesy as hell at the same time. If there's no sense of camp, but not excitement either, then how can said movies work?
If there's something that I'm sure of, is that action movies will never die. When done right, they're just too damn entertaining and fun (when they're done right), and no matter how much special effects and CGI advance, we'll always need charismatic heroes and real-life (meaning, not digital) explosions in order for them to work. Movies like Wanted are a perfect example of this: they're the action movies of the digital age, and although they look slicker and more sofisticated than the Stallone, Van Damme and Schwarzenneger flicks of the 80s, they're not particularly different: Wanted is as over-the-top, silly, unbelievable, exciting and fun as any of those old-school films.
As much as I like a good drama flick, a great comedy, a thought-provoking motion picture or a fantasy movie, I just can't get enough action movies. I'm one of those guys who actually like romantic comedies - I think this is pretty evident if you read my reviews -, but if you come to me and say something like "let's watch Commando" or "wanna go and see Die Hard"... what do you think I'll answer?
Action flicks aren't Shakespeare. But they don't have to be bad movies either. If you don't believe me, watch a movie like The Marine back-to-back with Die Hard. There's a whole world of differences.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Am I in the minority?
The Milk of Sorrow. I actually wanted to watch that movie really bad. Why? Because even though I wasn't the biggest fan of Claudia Llosa's previous motion picture, Madeinusa, I thought she had potential, and that she definitely had some talent. I mean, Madeinusa looks really good, and although both that movie and Sorrow don't work very well in terms of narrative, they definitely have a lot to say about Peruvian culture and customs and, most importantly, its people. Plus, we all know (do we?) that Sorrow won the Golden Bear award of the Berlin Film Festival, a first for the Peruvian film industry.
Well, as those who have already read my review know, I didn't like the movie. Not that the movie is horrible, it just disappointed me. It's visually beautiful, technically brilliant, and full of ideas, but I don't think it works very well as a piece of narrative. So why did it win the Golden Bear award?
I believe it all has to do with perspectives.
As a Peruvian, I'm very well used to all things Peruvian. Which only makes sense. After all, people in Europe may be appalled (or surprised) at the sight of an enormous shanty town in the middle of a mountain (think the opening scene of the Hulk movie, only in a smaller scale), but we're really used to it. Our capital city, Lima, is surrounded by shanty towns, and although there are "nice" areas in the city, there's also a lot of poverty to be found. About 50% of Peru is poor, actually, (or was it a different figure? can't remember), so it should be of no surprise.
My point is? The film was given the Golden Bear award not because it's a particularly magnificent motion picture, but because its subject matter made an impact on the members of the jury. After all, it's Germany we're talking about. They saw the shanty towns, the poverty, the trauma that the terrorists (and sometimes the military too) made on women of few resources, and they were shocked. I guess it's not the kind of movie people in Europe regularly see (I can't say this is a fact; never been to Germany, or Europe, for that matter), so when they saw in the film a reality so different from theirs, people that have customs so different from theirs and traumas caused by things they would never imagine, as well as consequences that may seem horrible to them but are, unfortunately, commonplace in these shantytowns, they were undoubtedly affected.
The Milk of Sorrow is no masterpiece. But it's got a lot to say - and it provides with a compelling (yet flawed) view of the lives of poor Peruvian people - so I guess, to an extent, it deserved the award. But only to an extent.
That leads me, of course, to another matter. I don't consider myself a professional reviewer - although it would be nice if it'd happen sometime - but what I have notice here in Lima is that professional Peruvian reviewers seem to love art films. Now, don't get me wrong, I love art movies as much as any other - "serious" - movie fan, but the problem these guys have has to do with discrimination. (I believe I mentioned something to this effect in my review, right? Hope I'm not becoming redundant.) Basically, they love art movies and hate more commercial fare. They seem to believe all Hollywood pictures are mindless, money-grabbing pieces of crap, and artistic movies are made with love, care and are of the highest quality.
I guess this is true to a certain extent. Of all the films Hollywood provide with every year, about 60% of them are disappointing or bad, 20% are mediocre, and about 20% are really, really good or memorable. Of course, this depends on the year one's talking about - some years are stronger in cinematic quality than others. This could be used to justify these guys' points of view, but I disagree with something: not all art movies are amazing, and The Milk of Sorrow is a good example. It's not braindead, I'll give you that - it's full of ideas and themes. But it's also pretentious. It's deliberatedly slow - for no reason? -, it's soulless - almost impossible for me to idenfity with any of its characters - and it bores its audience. Critics may have loved it, but no one in the movie theatre I went to seemed to be having any fun - adults and teenagers alike.
So what do I say? Quality is everywhere (again, I think I said this in my review too), not only in art films. Last year, we had amazing commercial movies like The Dark Knight, Iron Man and Slumdog Millionaire. (Yes, I actually wouldn't consider Danny Boyle's Oscar winner an independent production.) And of all of last year's pictures, one of my favorites, In Bruges, was an independent, Irish production.
Quality can be found everywhere. That's precisely why one shouldn't limit oneself to watching only one kind of movie. Watching different kinds of films - commercial ones, indies, latin american, asian, north-american, european - is an enriching experience because it allows people to experience different kinds of perspectives, and to discover cinematic gems that, quite probably, haven't been watched by too many people.
That's all I have to say: that to watch movies is not to watch only a particular kind of cinema. By the way, welcome to my newly-created blog, and hope you have enjoyed my first entry. As you should already know, everything I write in here is my opinion and my opinion only, so don't feel bad - or angry - if you disagree. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope you'll comment in here and contribute with interesting reading material.
Welcome to the official Star Reviews blog. Hope you'll have a good time,
Sebastian Zavala
Click here to read my Milk of Sorrow review.
Well, as those who have already read my review know, I didn't like the movie. Not that the movie is horrible, it just disappointed me. It's visually beautiful, technically brilliant, and full of ideas, but I don't think it works very well as a piece of narrative. So why did it win the Golden Bear award?
I believe it all has to do with perspectives.
As a Peruvian, I'm very well used to all things Peruvian. Which only makes sense. After all, people in Europe may be appalled (or surprised) at the sight of an enormous shanty town in the middle of a mountain (think the opening scene of the Hulk movie, only in a smaller scale), but we're really used to it. Our capital city, Lima, is surrounded by shanty towns, and although there are "nice" areas in the city, there's also a lot of poverty to be found. About 50% of Peru is poor, actually, (or was it a different figure? can't remember), so it should be of no surprise.
My point is? The film was given the Golden Bear award not because it's a particularly magnificent motion picture, but because its subject matter made an impact on the members of the jury. After all, it's Germany we're talking about. They saw the shanty towns, the poverty, the trauma that the terrorists (and sometimes the military too) made on women of few resources, and they were shocked. I guess it's not the kind of movie people in Europe regularly see (I can't say this is a fact; never been to Germany, or Europe, for that matter), so when they saw in the film a reality so different from theirs, people that have customs so different from theirs and traumas caused by things they would never imagine, as well as consequences that may seem horrible to them but are, unfortunately, commonplace in these shantytowns, they were undoubtedly affected.
The Milk of Sorrow is no masterpiece. But it's got a lot to say - and it provides with a compelling (yet flawed) view of the lives of poor Peruvian people - so I guess, to an extent, it deserved the award. But only to an extent.
That leads me, of course, to another matter. I don't consider myself a professional reviewer - although it would be nice if it'd happen sometime - but what I have notice here in Lima is that professional Peruvian reviewers seem to love art films. Now, don't get me wrong, I love art movies as much as any other - "serious" - movie fan, but the problem these guys have has to do with discrimination. (I believe I mentioned something to this effect in my review, right? Hope I'm not becoming redundant.) Basically, they love art movies and hate more commercial fare. They seem to believe all Hollywood pictures are mindless, money-grabbing pieces of crap, and artistic movies are made with love, care and are of the highest quality.
I guess this is true to a certain extent. Of all the films Hollywood provide with every year, about 60% of them are disappointing or bad, 20% are mediocre, and about 20% are really, really good or memorable. Of course, this depends on the year one's talking about - some years are stronger in cinematic quality than others. This could be used to justify these guys' points of view, but I disagree with something: not all art movies are amazing, and The Milk of Sorrow is a good example. It's not braindead, I'll give you that - it's full of ideas and themes. But it's also pretentious. It's deliberatedly slow - for no reason? -, it's soulless - almost impossible for me to idenfity with any of its characters - and it bores its audience. Critics may have loved it, but no one in the movie theatre I went to seemed to be having any fun - adults and teenagers alike.
So what do I say? Quality is everywhere (again, I think I said this in my review too), not only in art films. Last year, we had amazing commercial movies like The Dark Knight, Iron Man and Slumdog Millionaire. (Yes, I actually wouldn't consider Danny Boyle's Oscar winner an independent production.) And of all of last year's pictures, one of my favorites, In Bruges, was an independent, Irish production.
Quality can be found everywhere. That's precisely why one shouldn't limit oneself to watching only one kind of movie. Watching different kinds of films - commercial ones, indies, latin american, asian, north-american, european - is an enriching experience because it allows people to experience different kinds of perspectives, and to discover cinematic gems that, quite probably, haven't been watched by too many people.
That's all I have to say: that to watch movies is not to watch only a particular kind of cinema. By the way, welcome to my newly-created blog, and hope you have enjoyed my first entry. As you should already know, everything I write in here is my opinion and my opinion only, so don't feel bad - or angry - if you disagree. Whether you agree or disagree, I hope you'll comment in here and contribute with interesting reading material.
Welcome to the official Star Reviews blog. Hope you'll have a good time,
Sebastian Zavala
Click here to read my Milk of Sorrow review.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
