Three of Hearts
Synopsis
This documentary follows seven years in the lives of a tri-nogomous group, Sam, Steven, and Samantha.
Observations
I watched this documentary twice before blogging it and I still don't feel like I'm ready to comment. If you want to watch a flick that will mess with what you think about family life, love, and relationships, this is it. Sam and Steven were together as a gay couple for several years before Sam suggested bringing a woman into the relationship. After a few failed attempts, Sam found Samantha, a Canadian transport of East Indian descent living in NYC. The three of them were in a relationship for a total of thirteen years and have two children together (one child biologically Steven's and one biologically Sam's). This convoluted bliss ends when Steven decides to leave the relationship.
The first time I watched Three of Hearts, I was devastated that the relationship ended. The second time I watched it, I saw why. Sam is the ultimate narcissist. He manipulates Steven and Samantha subtly. Sam uses Steven and Samantha to create a life he never had for himself when he was growing up. Sam talks at the end of the film about how to him, in his own way, this relationship made him feel more like part of society. Even though he was a gay male, he had a wife and children and got to 'play straight'. That may sound ludicrous at first, but really aren't most of us trying to fit in?
At one point a family friend that the threesome hired to help Steven extricate himself from the group says during a moment of conflict “I didn't create this family, you did.” Well, aren't we sanctimonious?? Isn't that a conveniently back-handed way of saying “I told you so. This type of relationship could never work.” But you know what, it does for no less than 13 years.
There is some criticism of the movie because it seems like there is much more footage from when the relationship was working then from when the relationship began to end and after. Though there were aspects that could have used the extra clarification, I think that this film does a spectacular job of making the viewer feel like the fourth member in the relationship, the voyeur.
I was blown away by the depth of genuine emotion that the filmmakers were able to elicit from all three people. I was really only left wondering how the filmmaker found such an interesting and complicated group.
Rating: 
Amazon's entry for Three of Hearts
~~
Saw II ~~ If Donnie Wahlberg looks this old, what does that say about me?? (NKOTB). Just barely shy of over the top, this gross out champ had just enough plot to absolve the guilt I felt for watching it.
Rating:
~~
House of Fury ~~ Hong Kong action cinema at its best. The characters speak an interesting hybrid of English and Chinese. Pretty much everyone can fight -- and does. Fun Friday night flick.
Rating:
Blog News!!
I'm instituting a new feature on my blog and I'm going to call it "Blink." Surprisingly enough, I don't have profound and heady things to say about every movie that I watch. So for those flicks that I watch and would like to rate but not necessarily expound upon, look for this symbol for a short description and rating.
Intimate Strangers
Synopsis
When a French woman with some serious marital issues mistakes a tax lawyer for a therapist, she embarks on a relationship that could prove to be therapeutic for both of them.
Observations
I didn't quite get this movie. The premise didn't seem that original, the acting was mediocre and the setting was boring. When Anna (Sandrine Bonnaire) enters a tax lawyer's office instead of a therapist's office, she begins to tell tax lawyer William Faber (Fabrice Luchini) her intimate martial problems. Basically, her husband has become recently crippled and he wants her to have sex with another man. Through Anna's “chats”, she slowly and subtlety seduces Faber, her demeanor becomes more and more risque and her clothing more and more revealing. She finds out early on that Faber is a tax lawyer and not a therapist, but continues to see him. Most of the movie I spent wondering “Are they gonna do it, or what?” When Anna's husband finds out she is seeing someone, the film develops a slightly Hitchcockian-sensibility that ultimately falls flat.
This movie is rated “R” for language, which though at times explicit, was never really titillating. Anna is a kind of fantasy to Faber. She shows up unexpectedly into his boring life and talks to him about sex. Though Anna never propositions Faber, the possibility hangs in the air. I found it intriguing that several times when Faber looked at Anna she was quite fuzzy; her features completely indistinct. Was this the director's way of trying to tell me that for Faber, Anna does not exist or have definition as a real person, only as fantasy? Could be, but I really didn't care.
The best reason to watch this movie is for the middle-age-meets-Risky-Business scene about mid-way through. Probably the funniest film moment I've seen in quite a while.
Rating: Amazon's entry for Intimate Strangers
Flightplan
Synopsis
Kyle, (an aircraft engineer played by Jodie Foster) is returning to the United States from Germany on a plane carrying her husband who died under mysterious circumstances. When she realizes that her six-year-old daughter, Julia is missing, Kyle will go to any lengths to find her before it could be too late.
Observations
Jodie – where are you?? I used to be such a huge supporter/fan of Jodie Foster. She made interesting film choices that helped question what it means to be a woman who was a survivor, not a victim – The Accused, Silence of the Lambs, Taxi Driver, hell, even Nell. But now somehow she has turned to making movies about saving little girls from big bad men (e.g. Panic Room). Jodie, you were supposed to be our fearless feminist heroine. The stalwart, savvy Clarissa Starling would have never run around Silence of the Lambs yelling men do “bad things to little girls.” She would have relied on her wits and resolve to solve the mystery and find her daughter, not panicky theatrics.
And by the way, what is it about Peter Sarsgaard that makes him so damn creepy? Boys Don’t Cry, The Skeleton Key, Garden State; over and over the guy’s just plan weird. But if you want to see Sargaard at his most disturbing, try The Center of the World. It’s a daring role for Sarsgaard that shouldn’t disappoint.
Rating: Amazon's entry for Flightplan
The Return
Synopsis
Two Russian brothers come home one day to find their father sleeping in their mother’s bed – the father who’d been gone for twelve years. When the father takes the boys on a fishing trip, what should be a heartwarming family reunion takes an ominous turn.
Observations
Everything in this movie has a gray cast to it. The Russian landscape deserves an acting credit – the rain, the water, the mountains all added to the menacing atmosphere created by the return of the father. I reveled in the slow and seductive pace of this film – enough to keep me intrigued, confused and questioning everything I thought I understood.
The children in this film are amazing – these young actors put The Sixth Senses’ Haley Joel Osment to shame. I wonder if it isn’t something about Russia, the poverty; the climate -- something that fosters great art. The children are young and old at the same time. The dialogue they are given is stellar. This is the directing debut of Russian director Andrei Zvyagintsev, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see an Oscar contender for best foreign film from him in the next few years. The performance he was able to draw from the children is amazing.
Like a great existential novel by Camus or Kafka, everything in this film almost fits together, but not quite. There is much controversy online as to the meaning of some of the more symbolic and perplexing parts of the movie. Where was the father? What is his motivation for returning? What’s in the box? While these questions begin an important dialogue, it would be a disservice to the film to not appreciate it for what it is – a beautifully filmed and acted directorial triumph. Очень хорошо, Андрей Петрович! (Very good, Andrei Zvyagintsev)
As a side note, the older of the two brothers in the film, Andrey (Vladimir Garin) drowned shortly after the film was released. What a loss.
Rating: Amazon's entry for The Return
Chiseen
Synopsis
Coming to us straight from MTV Asia, this is a Jackass style show filmed in a series of short skits. Public humiliation, pain, and a bunch of other random and sometimes disturbing scenes make up this hour and a half of boorish comedy.
Observations
When I first sat down to watch this, I was under the delusion that perhaps the key to understanding a foreign culture is to see its comedy. What makes Asian people laugh? Is it different that what makes Americans laugh? Then I realized that this show was pretty much Jackass in Asia multiplied by weird. For example, there’s a guy in a white wife-beater with fake blood on it, a pair of white boxers and a gimp mask running all over various public places with and without his hands being handcuffed. This was funny once, maybe twice, but 10 times in less than 40 minutes?
Oddly enough, the people on Chiseen (which, according to the sleeve, means crazy in Chinese) are mostly Hong Kong actors who were raised in the US. So, Chiseen is really just another American export. If you do decide to watch this, keep an eye on the giant guy who looks like an American football player; he is funny fairly consistently. And keep an eye out for alternate Big Wheel uses. But if you’re in the mood for quality skit comedy, try Mr. Show instead.
Rating: Amazon's entry for Chiseen
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Synopsis
Based on the book Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron , this documentary is a collection of interviews, internal corporate communications, and voice over narrative detailing what Enron was and what went horribly wrong.
Observations
I really appreciate a film that doesn’t dumb it’s content down to the lowest common denominator. But the filmmakers of this documentary assume that I know certain fundamental concepts (energy trading, futures, etc.) without explaining them. Because I didn’t have a solid understanding of these concepts at the start of the movie, I was confused on and off through most of the film. Someone with a background in trading or finance would probably not have felt the way I did.
The film overall was well done with interesting clips from Enron corporate functions, taped conversations, and interviews with former employees. The narration was through without being too heavy-handed.
If you don’t understand what happened during the California Energy Crisis of 2000 & 2001, this movie provides a comprehensive tutorial on what happened.
The movie makes a brief attempt to address the possibility that Lay, Skilling and/or Fastow may be evil. That type of moral discussion was not appropriate for this movie and didn’t fit with its straightforward traditional documentary format.
Rating: Amazon's entry for Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room
Paradise Now
Synopsis
Two young Palestinians living on the West Bank are called upon to fulfill their destiny as suicide bombers. Taking place over approximately a 48 hour period, the film shows the men grappling with their decision within personal, social and religious contexts.
Observations
“Death is better than inferiority.” “A life without dignity is worthless.” These are two of the many truisms espoused by the Palestinian men (Said and Khaled) chosen to carry out a suicide mission.
The actors were pretty much expressionless throughout the entire film, which could be because they were excellent actors depicting the seriousness of their position or horrible actors who were unable to convey the intense emotions that would be associated with a suicide mission. I was unconvinced even that the two men were life-long friends, as there is no back story to support their intense connection. Why are these men making this choice? There's little above rhetoric to substantiate their desire to be suicide bombers.
The movie did a good job at the end showing the differences between the occupied feeling of the West Bank and the relative prosperity of the rest of Israel. But it was too little too late as this comparison should have come earlier in the movie to establish context.
My favorite part of the movie, and the only part I found even vaguely thought provoking, was the discussion about Israel being the occupier and the victim. This movie was nominated for an Academy Award for best foreign film in 2005. I wonder if it is because of the ambiguity that we feel about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that makes us hesitant to be too critical of movies like this. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank is some of the most controversial and interesting history going on right now. Given such complex topical and historical fodder, it's a disgrace this movie was so completely unremarkable.
Rating: Amazon's entry for Paradise Now
