Film Dilettante

Very interesting film. Absolutely untraditional, but so fun to watch.

It mixes together the images Bob Dylan was, could be, thought he was and the public thought he was. The story flows from one Dylan to another and back, one becomes a dream for the next. Different actors playing different faces of the same multifaceted personality. Different cinematic styles are also applied. It's almost stream of consciousness kind of cinema, although, each story alone is quite concise and clear.

Two images - Arthur and Jude (Ben Whishaw and Cate Blanchett) carry out the most explanatory, first hand, intellectual roles. They are shot in black and white and close to documentary. Jack (Christian Bale) is also mostly black and white, he's a folk singer incarnation of Dylan and as for his part - it is a documentary. These images are the closest to the public perception of the person. Blanchett's part is the central piece of the film, everything revolves around it. She is the best look-alike. It's a quintessential Dylan, the visual, carved into Western culture's matter. It's actually amazing how the characters that are the most distant from real Dylan bear less visual resemblance to him. It's like common features are dissolved in the secondary and farther reflections of the original. Dylan-idea breaks into multiple shadows-images, less and less resembling the real man, but still bearing his stamp.

Heath Ledger's part - about an actor, playing Dylan in the feature film - portrays the family side of the star. Does that suggest that Dylan was also acting when he took a role of a family man? Could be. Anyway, it's worth seeing just for Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays the troubled wife and is always a pleasure to watch.

Marcus Carl Franklin and Richard Gere chip in as in some sense opposite but, looking deeper, in the end, very much connected personages of a runaway black teenager (and aspiring folk singer) Woody and Billy the Kid.

To summarize: a wonderful piece of cinema, albeit wonderfully weird. Cate Blanchett really impresses with her interpretation. 4/4.

Another good debut, although a bit soporific. Egyptian police band gets lost in Israeli remote.

The film has some very good moments and some it could live without. And who was the first to think that plaintive folk songs over the long shots of deserted landscape are poetic? I always wonder.

The actors make up for the director's uncertainties, though. I heard Sasson Gabai, who plays the main part, is of the most famous actors in Israel. The movie heavily relies on body language and, specifically, mimics. It does not delve into differences and tries to find common places, being thoroughly apolitical.

The director confessed that the film is a complete fantasy. Indeed, this situation could hardly happen in today's Middle East. Anyway, it just seems that one could develop that story into much livelier movie. However, that would diminish its chances to be nominated for Oscar from Israel, because the elite loves melancholy. It's very appealing melancholy at times, though. 3.5/4. I liked another Israeli movie - The Secrets (Ha Sodot) - more.

Son of Rambow is based on a funny idea - kids shooting First Blood spin-off - but it never really lifts up.

I had  problems with the director's previous, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but, at least, it was based on a hilarious book and Martin Freeman was perfectly cast.

Maybe, the kids can't pull it off. There is not one truly sympathetic character in the film.

Maybe, I could not connect to the dramatic side of the story, which overemphasizes some moments, but just glides over the other. Some jokes are too dark to really appreciate the storytelling in the way we do with other British comedies, like Billy Elliot or The Full Monty. The film strives to stand in line with these movies, but it looks like it's just not talented enough to match up.

It also tries to say many things at a time, but hardly succeeds in any. Even the final cut of the kids' movie is not very exciting.

Maybe, I missed something, but I think the idea was not implemented to its full potential. It's a pity the director and the producer were much funnier during the Q&A session that the movie itself during the screening. 2.5/3.

It's time to pick up and finish my TIFF 2007 notes. I haven't reviewed yet some of the best movies from what I saw. But, first, about the last one - Dai Nipponjin. Hitoshi Matsumoto is the director. I exchanged my ticket to Kitano for that one (I've read that's what Cannes festival also did).

It's hard for me to rate this movie as a whole. Some parts of it I enjoyed and some just seemed ridiculous.

It's a mocumentary about an ordinary guy Daisato, who, despite working as a superhero named "The Big Japanese", lives quite a pitiful life. The character is played by Matsumoto himself.

The way Daisato presents himself in the documentary is funny and interesting. The camera follows him during his everyday routine, tracks his relationships with the relatives and society, tells about the history of the profession (I especially enjoyed B&W "newsreels" about Daisato's predecessor). His fights with monsters are shown eventually (his alter-ego also looking not very presentable and old-fashioned), and they also happen to be a subject of a late night TV-show. Daisato looks philosophically at his current situation, although we feel a big disappointment, unhappiness and depression inside.

Matsumoto is fun to watch. His his self-restrained poise, his way of speaking, his Kermit-the-frog mimics are very appealing.  The loneliness and vulnerability of the character is very well highlighted by a beautiful tune. Superhero fights are for the lovers of the low-budget, cartoonish/clay monsters. Although, it's still quite amusing.

What disappointed me greatly was the ending. It tries to make a point, but, IMHO, it just ruins the film altogether, and makes all the previous build-up pointless. The movie implodes at a pop.

But for the die-hard aficionados, as I read, it doesn't look that way. They enjoyed the ending - for them it bore a significance.

So, I admit, I'm not a pro in the genre, but at the beginning it looked like the film appealed to a wider audience, being not just a fan fair. I give it 2.5/4, for the sympathetic main character.

Very well shot period piece from the director Gillian Armstrong, neatly edited, with solid actor work, intriguing story and heartfelt classical soundtrack.

An interesting take on Houdini's personality, the controversy in his attitude to all things psychic, the thoughts and ideas that pre-occupied him in the last period of his life, after the death of his mother. Because the film is mostly fictional story, involving very recognizable historical figure, it somehow reminded me of last year's Copying Beethoven. The obvious title, if desired so, can be interpreted in different ways.

Guy Pearce is in great form, both acting and physical (it took him 5 months to get into it), as Houdini, Catherine Zeta-Jones is solid as con psychic Mary. I especially enjoyed the work of young Saoirse Ronan as Benji, Mary's daughter and, actually, the storyteller (she also stars in  highly praised Atonement), and Timothy Spall as Mr. Sugarman, Houdini's manager.

Obsessed with the desire to disprove the existence of psychic abilities (but also, non-admittedly, to overcome some personal emotions) Houdini announces, that, whoever performs certain psychic act under scrupulous scientific observation, will receive $10000. He embarks on the world tour. In Edinburgh, psychic Mary, desperately in need of money, takes the challenge. But soon other emotions play into action, some new details about the contest are revealed and it doesn't go as planned for both of them. In the end both receive something different than what they were asking for, I'd say they receive more. Some clotted soul streams are cleared and emotional wounds find their cure.

The film doesn't end, however, when it could, and adds couple more scenes that close the story with a bang, but leave the  psychic question open, so it's up to the viewer to decide if any paranormal activity was ever involved in the story. But, regardless, sometimes we feel that there is a deep subconscious link between ones, caring for each other, and this kind of chemistry is for sure present in the movie.

The movie can be also watched from a different angle, if we accept that the daughter is the protagonist. Indeed, she is the one who tells the story.

Overall, the film is very nice piece of cinema, and I would give it 4/4.