Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Attica

  1. You know what they say. Great minds...... No, it doesn't. It had so many great plays throughout. The ending was a big fumble, but luckily they had already scored plenty of points. i can see myself buying the Blu Ray and even just resting in front of their journey through the woods now and again.
  2. Oops. I guess I was a little too quick on the draw with linking to that!
  3. I don't expect a film like this could have come out of North American sensibilities. Even a film like DR. STRANGLELOVE has some wacky characters supporting the underlying serious themes, but it doesn't have some of the art house sensibilities found in REPENTANCE.
  4. Thank you. Yes it's quite the film. It says much but often in such a subversive way but also with some very interwoven ideas. It's also funny, inventive, surreal, and at times... just downright weird. I also own an import DVD. At the time it was all I could find.
  5. If this doesn't work for people, then I also nominate, the Bothersome Man (which might be hard to access), and Cats Don't Dance (a wonderful gem of an animated film which kind of fell between the cracks at the time).
  6. For September I nominate the Soviet Union film Repentance A quick snippet about the film "What might be lost to viewers today (and perhaps to this particular reviewer in 1990) is the extraordinary political significance of the film when it came out in the USSR. Released in 1984 on the eve of Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost reforms, the film reopened the Stalin question for the first time since Krushchev was removed from power in 1964. The dead mayor Aravidze is of course the Stalin figure, and the constant reappearance of his corpse is an entreaty to Soviet society (and more importantly, to Soviet leadership) to acknowledge and deal with the terrible legacy of Stalin's regime, under which tens of millions died due to farm collectivization and political purges. Moreover, the film's surreal and phantasmagorical style is an attempt to recreate the conditions of living under the Stalin regime (and to some extent, under the Brezhnev regime), which were indeed surreal and phantasmagorical. The film's message is simple: you cannot bury the past. And it is in the atmosphere of this principle during the late 1980s that the last remnants of the Soviet totalitarian system were dismantled. The USSR soon thereafter collapsed. - A trailer A couple of articles about the film. Some places where the film can supposedly be accessed (although I haven't checked them out).
  7. Attica

    An Apology

    I don't remember any such conversation either, and I suspect i wasn't involved in it. If I was I also hope I didn't act inappropriately. Anyhow, Justin, thanks for your apology and all is cool with me.
  8. The film also really had a nostalgia factor, so it makes sense that it was placed in an earlier time. Cell phones would have taken away from that factor for me. As it was, the film really brought back memories of sitting in front of Disney playing on TV, on a Sunday night. It had the magic, adventure, emotions and general gentle touch that I remember from Disney past. It was a film that harkened back to a different era in several ways, and had elements of storytelling which I think are missing in a lot of present day films. Which fits in with the question on another thread. Is the film medium in a slump? One of the things I really liked was the intentionality of how sensitively the film dealt with some of its heavier themes. It was tragic enough to bring out the emotions, but not so much so that it would have been too heavy for children. There were a few places where it could have gone a little darker than it did and I found myself thinking "please don't go there". And it didn't. Yet it never felt that it was too light or avoiding certain things. The way it handled it's subject matter was really well balanced.
  9. Welcome. Even though the film goes strange at the end, it at first seems like there is some conceptual link in the fact that the old man loses his memories. But then I came to see that this doesn't actually link up as well as they had intended.
  10. Justin said - "villain is old man, old man loses his memories of his villainous deeds, villagers tell him a different life story than the one he really had, I'm honestly loving that. This idea that our identities are in some way wrapped up in what we did, but the power of new stories to redefine us. I know it seems cheap, but there's also hope there," SPOILERS But that's not how it was as I saw it. Here's my version. "Villain is a powerful majestic being who was at least in part the cause of his daughter's suffering and demise, and who turned his other two daughters to evil. This in a story that puts emphasis on having correct memories, putting incorrect memories or confused and befuddled memories as being a bad thing, even a sign of a curse. This powerful, majestic being comes out of that place to become a befuddled man, whereby he never learns any lesson whatsoever about how wrong and destructive his behaviour was. This when his very own daughters, whom he surely played a part in corrupting, die terrible deaths without one iota of a chance of redemption. Thus there's not one inch of justice on several levels. The befuddled old man doesn't even have the understanding of being forgiven (and actually never said he was sorry in order to be), or the understanding that he received mercy, or grace. Instead his is given incorrect memories which serve to block any such understanding, by a child who is basically lying to an adult in front of other adults who accept this. And this from a refusal to let the villain die in a film which treats dying as not actually being all that terrible of a thing, because memories live on. Yet now the villain doesn't even have memories. He's actually been robbed. Robbed of redemption, of the understanding of mercy and grace that could have been his to know, and robbed of the memories (again which the film places a great emphasis on) of his children, or at least the one who had turned to the good.
  11. I still prefer the theatres. We have a VIP theatre nearby where a guy can have something to eat and a beer or wine while watching the film. I like to pop in there from time to time. I was recently horrified that Sausage Party was playing at the VIP and not Kubo and the Two Strings. Nearby we also have a small mall which has a nice bookstore with a restaurant, and a good new movie theatre. My wife and I sometimes like to spend some time in the bookstore before and after a film. It's a good vibe.
  12. Yeah, the three strands was a fine idea, so far as that goes.
  13. Spoiler Warnings. You have been warned...... I hate to say it, but I also saw some flaws in the first 90 minutes (especially in how it handled the monkey - some of her choices didn't make a lot of sense, even after being supposedly explained). I still really enjoyed the film though. It looked fantastic. Some of the shots and scenes were just so impacting. The "return" at the end was so completely confusing and unfitting. But even another thing to consider. Why is it that the main villain gets redeemed and the sisters don't? How redemptive is that aspect of the film then? But really, the final encounter with the main villain was just great, until the snake bit, that didn't quite seem to fit for me. Then after that..... it went strange. The whole business about the memories of past relatives would have been nice if it had have been done right. Namely if they had have taken away the prayer part (which was easily the most spiritually problematic) and just worked the memory aspect into the story in some way from the start. Of course the main villain's memory issues should never have been in this story, no way, no how, but I can see that the other two could have been worked in there fine enough. Yes, absolutely. What he was doing with his music was wonderful. Such a beautiful piece of music played lovingly, and also playfully. It all had such a delicate touch. Yet at times could also be so powerful. One of the flaws for me through most of the film was the "American" humour and banter that was throughout. I wouldn't call it grating, but at times it seemed to be foisting a different cultural sensibility where it wasn't needed or appropriate, and in this taking away from some of the profound aspects of the story. Some humour, sure, but they seemed to be borrowing from a Hollywood template a bit. I wasn't sure how to read that. Which was part of the problem. It all became so confusing. I think the film might have been saying that he had been there before, and that the older villagers remembered. But then what if the little kid? It's strange though, it's supposed to be redemptive, but it never really came across that way. It just seemed to come across as a powerful being losing his "power and majesty" and becoming befuddled. Yeah, that's another part that doesn't fit. He would obviously needed to have had those children while he was still human. But if so, and if he was originally part of the village, then why didn't anyone recognize Kubo's mother? Mind you, the film does seem to suggest that she remembers the village from before. Yeah, I was looking for that as well.
  14. Not I. I especially enjoyed the interior of their home at the start. It's such a different era. Can you imagine the kerfuffle if animals had have been hurt or killed in this film, and rightly so.
  15. I've never seen the earlier film, or read the book. So I have nothing to really compare this to in those regards. Just got back from an advanced screening (thanks to one Peter T Chattaway ), and I thought that it was fine (again without film or book to compare it with). It had some good themes and handled them well, at least for the story that I had seen in this film. The first thing I noticed was that I absolutely loved the locations. Both inside and out. I also thought that the battle at sea was very well done. It really brought me into the horror of what they were involved in. The hopelessness of their situation. The lack of human value in some people's eyes. The chariot race also brought home to me the lack of regard for human life and dignity, but also the lack of concern for the animals. This and other similar scenes were pretty disturbing for me, but I don't think that was really all that bad of a thing at the end of the day, because it all fits in conceptually with Christ's alternative message, and the hope that is found there.
  16. Right. I'd think that it has to do with high hopes that this film would rise out of the slog on the level that a film like Guardians of the Galaxy did, and then just being let down because it doesn't.
  17. Possible mild Spoilers. I think one of the points is that they aren't really as bad as they are thought to be. One of the criticisms against the film is that Deadshot needs to keep reminding us that they are bad, but I think that the 3 or so times he says that is with sarcasm. The "bad guys" were probably more "good" than Amanda Waller. FWIW. I had a higher view of this film than those bad reviews. It did have a few confusing points (what exactly shot down that helicopter, and if it was the army, then why), but I think it's biggest problem was that the scenes in the demolished city extended too long, with some of the same old, same old. It need something to freshen it up a little there. Yeah. It should have been more bonkers. I liked him. He was both sufficiently creepy and utterly nuts. The film didn't give us enough reason to believe that the pre-insanity version of Harley would have fallen for him though. He was too crazy and repulsive at every moment for any such plot point to be believable. Oh, she was great. That's one of the reasons I went to see the film despite the bad reviews. He performance, even in the trailers, was one of the main selling points for me.
  18. Attica

    Blood Father

    This looks like it's going to be a mishmash of influences by Gibson's previous films. Variety‘s critic Owen Gleiberman said of Gibson in his review of the film: “A grimy little pulp action thriller gives him the chance to show that he’s still got it.”
  19. So, I'm a little late to the party but I managed to finally catch this a few days ago. I concur with the view that the characters and plot are hard to follow in places. For me the scene that best encapsulates how this film is handled is when Tetsuya leaves that elderly fellow only to have him call out desperately for Tetsuya to return. So Tetsuya returns and the film cuts to the elderly guy talking on the phone to someone else.... completely ignoring Tetsuya. This when there was absolutely no possible way that he could have been on the phone in time. It ignores typical film logic on several levels. But that's the thing about this film, it constantly and gleefully ignores typical "rules" in so many ways, so much so that it kind of disarms any grievance against this, and a guy is left just resting in the film for what it is and enjoying what it has to offer. For good or ill, there's nothing I've seen out there that is quite like this film.
  20. I'd think that It's dedicated to important films. I'm not sure that all of their releases are what i would consider to be "good" films. It's also releasing "Carnival of Souls." I love that film and I think that it is an important film. It does many things very well and has had wide influence. But is it a "good" film? Not so sure about that. It most certainly is not "good" in comparison to The Decalogue.
  21. Sure. That wasn't the main questions the film brought up with me though, probably because I just don't know as much about those aspects. I guess I had no way to gauge how much more interested in exploring those questions the film would be than other questions, because I didn't know how prominent those questions are. I do have some understanding of how prominent the other questions the film had raised in me are.
  22. You could be on to something here, at least to some extent. FWIW, I'm not a complete pacifist (like some of my Mennonite friends.) I do think that there are times when we have to fight, but I also have a nagging suspicion that I might be wrong about that. I just really don't know if we can, or at least if I could have, walked out of that film not considered the moral implications and possibilities with some of the actions in the film. One action of note being in the scene in the church, with the belt (hopefully that isn't giving too much away.) That just brought home to me the question of "how far do you go", and i can't imagine that the filmmakers didn't intend for that question, or at least reallse that some people would have asked that question about a Christian character. And this when it was knowingly released in the middle of the American election process. I agree with this caveat. It's a silly argument. As if a bunch of people with semi automatic weapons could defend themselves against the current military like as happened in those times....... I also lean towards the Conservative (at least of the Canadian variety), but I could never agree with some of the views of guns in the States. But anyhooo... that's probably overstretching how much I should dive in to that. But again, this film helped me to better understand some of those views. I think we also should consider that a film like this works in different ways than a written article, or even a documentary. It's storytelling, which I would think is more directly the language of the heart (there is of course still some logic in it and some heart in the others.) What happened in that film certainly is not relevant to much of the current gun debate climate for the reasons mentioned above, but that doesn't take away from what it can speak to the heart which likely isn't as directly distinguishing the issue while watching the film. What the heart "sees" is a bunch of freedom fighters using their guns to defend what is right, and it will then apply that to modern times unless something else brings the person to further considerations. So in that sense it can "speak" into the issue even if it doesn't correctly speak into the issue. If that makes sense. It really did help me to understand some of the current thinking on the issue because it helped me to understand some of where they were coming from (again some of the roots.) But that doesn't necessarily mean that their thinking is correct. But really, I suspect that this is also touching on film's strengths and weaknesses compared to other forms of communication. Maybe this also argues for film critics having good written pieces about film. Sure. They are not necessarily the same. But again that doesn't mean that the film can't "speak" into the issue, even as if they were. If the film touches a person's heart with the idea of "ra ra Republican they fight for freedom", that person could walk out of the theatre influenced by that belief unless there is something which adjusts their thinking. Again, it's the language of the heart. - I really expect that many filmmakers understand some of these concepts and make films from this understanding, and therefore it wouldn't surprise me if they view this film as speaking into the current climate to at least some degree, even if the actual historical climate can't be fully compared to the current climate. For example. We watch some movie about historical Rome and their battles, or we watch a movie about Braveheart fighting for freedoms in Scotland, and we apply those actions to our current climate when they probably have less in common with current conditions than this movie. It's kind of like reading the Biblical David and Goliath story and applying that story to a current view of taking down corporate creed (or whatever our "giants" might be.) If that all makes sense.
  • Create New...