FranksFilms

I’ve realized that the reason I can’t think of anything to write anymore is that I’ve run out of words. Or worse yet, I’ve overused the ones I had - There’s only so many times you can call a movie “quirky and funny” or say that the film maker “got it right” or that this is “the best movie of the year” - and get away with it. So, I’m in search for new words, but since the internet is one big world community, I’m asking you, the readers, to send me some new and interesting and “quirky” words that I can use in my next video recommendation. Simply click on the “Comments” link, at the bottom of this post, to leave your suggestions.

I suppose this happens to everybody at one time or another.

For reasons which i can’t explain, I seem to be in some kind of writing funk.  I can’t seem to come up with a single word to write ………….well - except these.  I think if I can get through this next article (coming soon), I’ll be OK.  So, be patient and I’ll get back into the swing of it in another week or so.  In the meantime, feel free to browse through the FranksFilms archive at past recommendations - good movies all around.

This week’s movie:

GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES

I’m writing this recommendation because I’m a firm believer in symmetry.

During my many years of studying Physics, I’ve developed a deep appreciation of symmetry in nature - of balance. I don’t believe much in God – but if I did, Physics would be his playbook, his Bible. Physics describes the rules that God himself follows right down to the atomic level. You want to know how he created the universe? Physics tells you. It describes the basic building blocks that form every rule and law of nature from the microscopic to the cosmological. For every particle there is an antiparticle. For every equation there is a symmetric (or antisymmetric) equation that link different phenomena. Balance is key. You eat a balanced diet for good physical health. You balance work and play for good mental health. For every action there is a reaction. For each heads there is a tails with equal probability. The only reason we tolerate evil is because we know there is also good to balance it. Wax on ………wax off.

What all this got to do with this week’s video recommendation? Nothing - except………..

A couple weeks ago I recommended the film Across the Universe. It was an upbeat movie, celebrating the joy of love and music and being alive. It was meant to make you feel good about yourself and say, “Life is great. All is right with the world! Koo-koo K’choo!”

GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES is the other side of the coin. It’s the anti-particle of a feel good movie. I wouldn’t necessarily call it a feel-bad movie - it just probably won’t pat you on the back of the hand and say ‘there there’ and make you feel good - and you’re not likely to say “All is right with the world.” by the time it’s over - because sometimes it’s not.

First, you may notice from the photo that it’s an animated film. “Oh! So it’s like, what? …..a cartoon?” Yes……..it is like what - a cartoon, but not like any you’ve ever seen. It is, without a doubt, one of the most emotionally devastating films, animated or otherwise, ever made. Film critic, Roger Ebert, in his review writes, ” Grave of the Fireflies is an emotional experience so powerful that it forces a rethinking of animation.” You can read his entire review here. Animation expert, Ernest Rister, compares it’s emotional impact to Schindler’s List (which was made some five years later), and wrote, “It is the most profoundly human animated film I’ve ever seen.”, and I imagine he’s seen quite a few.

The story is an adaptation of the novel “A Grave of Fireflies”, by Akiyuki Nosaka, and is based on his own experiences: A teenage boy and his very young sister find themselves orphaned and homeless near the end of World War II, when their town of Kobe, Japan is firebombed. Their subsequent tragic struggle for survival makes up the bulk of the film. I don’t think I’m giving anything away because the ending is shown in the very first scene – the rest is told in flashback. What follows is the most honest and realistic and heartbreaking story you’re ever likely to see. It’s not cute, or whimsical, or overly dramatic, or gimmicky – relief doesn’t magically arrive at the last minute – because, in real life, it rarely does.

The film was animated by Isao Takahata, who with longtime friend and collaborator, Hayao Miyazaki, founded Studio Ghibli of Japan. Studio Ghibli is responsible for many of the very best in animated features, such as My Neighbor Totoro, Princess Mononoke, and Spirited Away from FranksFilms past recommendations. Whereas Miyazaki deals in fancy and imagination, Takahata, instead, goes for the emotional punch in the gut.

“Geeeez, Frank. This sounds really depressing. Why would I want to watch such a downer of a movie and feel depressed all day?”

Because.

Because most of the time it’s not depressing at all. Because between the beginning where you find that the main characters have died, and the end where the main characters die, there are many moments of joy and beauty. Because there are moments of play and of many little victories. In fact, much of the film is funny and heartwarming. Even though you know the fate that awaits them, you want it not to be true, and I think this is largely what gives it such incredible poignancy – you try not to think that they will eventually die.

……..and because of balance. You can’t subsist totally on a diet of romantic comedies, or teenage comedies, or action adventure ….comedies. Balance says you must also see films like ‘Schindler’s List’, and GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES.

This is widely considered an anti-war movie. However, this message isn’t rammed down your throat. No one person or side is held up as responsible or maybe everybody is. War is no stroll through the fun house – unless that fun house is in an abandoned haunted theme park in a Stephen King novel. This is one very intense, emotional, joyous, sad, powerful, and beautiful film. I challenge any breathing, feeling person not to be moved by it. Is it a tear-jerker? Hell yes! So what? Don’t be such a baby!

Don’t be fooled by the fact that it’s an animated movie. This is a serious film, depicting serious events. The fact that its semi-auto-biographical makes it all the more compelling. If you’re looking for a movie to share with your small children, this might not be the one. There is no profanity, or adult situations (I don’t consider war to be an adult situation. War affects children no differently than adults.), but children have a deep-running sense of injustice, and the eventual fate of the main characters may haunt them for a long time to come (it may haunt you too, for that matter). However, it is an important enough film to be a ‘must see’ for teenagers and older. If you do watch with younger kids, watch it with them to talk them through it.  Quite often they’ll surprise you as what they can understand and deal with.

Now, if you’re teetering on the edge of deciding whether or not to see this film, I direct you to 10 different film critics – each with their own reactions. Feel free to follow the links to their reviews.

1. Roger Ebert: Ebert’s my ‘go to’ reviewer when I’m looking for insight into what makes a film good. He speaks at length on GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES – watch the video here.
2. FranksFilms: Me. I’m my own ‘go to’ guy when I’m trying to decide whether or not I like a film. I liked GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES even though it made me feel sad. Refresh this page to read my review.
3. Gene Siskel: I know he’s dead but, through the magic of the internet, he can speak to us from the grave …………………………………………of the fireflies. You probably saw that coming.
4. John A. Nesbit: Reviewer for Old School Reviews. Cried like a baby for the entire second half.
5. Jürgen Fauth: Reviewer for ‘about.com’. Like it so much that decided maybe anime not so bad after all. Decided back after seeing Pokemon, the Movie.
6. New York Times: Gave such a great review that people went to the theater to see it in droves. The next day marked the Great Facial Tissue Shortage of 1988.
7. bdod5489: I have no idea who this is. But had trouble typing his review because keyboard kept getting salty wet.
8. Tasha Robinson: Reviewer for the A.V.Club. Didn’t want to like it because it risked looking like one of those anime nerd chicks – but couldn’t help herself. But, damnit! She ain’t watching no DragonballZ!
9. Jon Turner: Reviewer on the Studio Ghibli website. He may be more than a little biased – what do you think?
10. Aaron V.F. PICAR: I don’t know who this guy is either – but he has a great website dedicated to using GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES as a classroom teaching tool. If you are considering watching it with your children, this site provides guides and topics for discussion.

GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES is a serious film that seriously deserves serious consideration. I’m serious here!

Seriously - enjoy this film.

view trailer

This week’s movie:

ACROSS THE UNIVERSE

There are two kinds of people in the world….

People are always saying this – about all sorts of things. But if you think about it, it’s the most absurd generality – that is, it’s true about almost everything. Examples may include: “There are two kinds of people in the world ………”

• …those that put people into two categories, and those that don’t.”
• …those that like to carve dinosaurs out of baked potatoes, and those that don’t”
• …those with ears shaped like baked potatoes that are then cut in half then baked some more – maybe with a little pat of butter, and those with ears shape like potatoes that haven’t been baked at all.”
• …those who like to keep a baked potato on a string around their neck, and those that prefer to keep their baked potato ……..er ……….elsewhere.”

…and I haven’t even begun to explore the myriad possibilities of other types of baked vegetables. However, the saying only really has any meaning when it is used to make a distinction between groups of people that are approximately equal in number – like I’m about to do.

There are two groups of people in the world – those that “get” this week’s film, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, and those that don’t.

This does not imply anything bad about the people who don’t, although I’m pretty sure before I’m done I’ll end up saying something insulting about those idiots – but I won’t!. This is a really polarizing film. That is, the people who get it believe this movie is a brilliant and artistic celebration of everything we remember about the 1960’s, set to the music of The Beatles, joyous and uplifting ………..while those that don’t get it believe this film is just a pretentious bit of rubbish which blasphemes the music of The Beatles. There seems to be very little middle ground. Just to illustrate the point, the film scores 50% on the tomatometer. Click on the link to go to the tomatometer site and look at the reviews. All the reviews seem to cluster at one extreme or the other.

Now, obviously, I’m on the positive end. That is, I get it – otherwise I wouldn’t be recommending it here. The question is, which side are you on? What type of person are you? Will you love or hate this movie? I’ll try to give you enough information to decide whether you should risk watching it. You might say, why think about it at all? Why not just watch the movie and decide for myself? Because if you hate it – you will hate it so much that you’ll realize that you are capable of more hate than you ever thought possible and it will be a frightening revelation, the likes which no human should face, especially without a baked potato.

…..besides, you may never trust my judgment again.

So I am listing various reasons why you may either hate or love this film. Some of these are exactly the points that critics use to justify their assessments.

1. Do you like musicals? Some people hate them – I mean – hate them a lot! Hate them - like an Old Navy commercial. I, on the other hand, like musicals (not Old Navy commercials). ACROSS THE UNIVERSE is a musical.
2. “It’s just a string of music videos….” This is somewhat true. However, I think it’s appropriate that the story is told through music video-like sequences considering that it was The Beatles that pretty much invented the music video. At some point in their career, they stopped making public appearances. But they were still making records that had to be promoted and so they had to make some sort of appearance. So, they would be scheduled to “appear” on some TV show or another - but instead of performing live on the show, they would send along a film that they made of themselves doing crazy things while their new song played in the background ………in other words - a music video. The concept has since, er….., caught on. So, in the context of this movie, music videos are more of an homage or a nostalgic device than a gimmick.
3. It doesn’t have a conventional straightforward narrative. ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, although it does tell a story (the main characters’ journey through the 60’s), was intended instead to be an artistic showpiece for Beatles-era social and political comment. It’s not even intended to be a particularly accurate one - like an impressionist’s rendition of a decade, imparting ideas but blurring many of the details. The narrative, though not the main focus of the film, is not particularly hard to follow. It’s also not that important.
4. “It’s contrived. It seems fake, unrealistic!” (See #2 & #3 above) The film is intended to provide an impression of a decade as seen though the (sometimes psychedelic) lens of Beatles songs. All of the characters have names from the songs. There’s the main character, Jude; his best friend, Max, who looks honest enough but, who knows, he could have killed someone with a silver hammer; Max’s sister, and Jude’s love interest, Lucy; they rent a room from Sadie (and yes, she is indeed sexy) who is a Janis Joplin-like singer; a black Hendrix-esque guitarist named Jo-Jo; Prudence who likes girls but is afraid to admit it (although it’s painfully obvious to everyone around her) until she meets lovely Rita (who might be a meter maid - the film doesn’t get into that); and a host of others. There are lots of song references and many of these are tied into cultural references of that era. Like art, this is the paint used to make the picture. The film’s palette is made up of songs and images rather than plot elements.
5. “Why should I watch a bunch of actors sing Beatles songs? I’d rather just see The Beatles sing their own songs!” ………….yes. Good luck with that.
6. “The Beatles are turning in their graves ……..the dead ones, that is.” Actually, the remaining members (plus Yoko) viewed a screening of the film before its release and gave their approval.
7. “It’s no better than that awful movie, “Sgt. Peper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band - you know, the Peter Frampton / BeeGees thingy from the 70’s.” Dude ……are you freaking kidding me? Go back and watch that again ……..if you dare ……….and make that statement again ………if you dare!
8. “No plot.” People really harp on that “no plot” thing. It does have a plot: Jude, a British lad from Liverpool, comes to the states to search for his dad. He meets and befriends Max, and then his sister, Lucy, and falls in love. They go to the city and rent a room from Sadie, and meet Prudence (who comes in through the bathroom window) and Jo-Jo, the guitar player. Jo-Jo and Sadie hook up and form a band, Max gets drafted and goes to Nam, they ride on the Magic Bus and drink electric Kool-aid. The whole thing culminates with a rooftop public concert (just like The Beatles). Not a lot of plot, I agree - not as much plot as, for example, Family Plot, or The Plot Against Harry, or Plot 9 From Outer Space - but the plot is not as important here as being entertained.
9. DNA: An NOH attaches to one side of a carbon chain on an amino acid about two-thirds the way down the 11th chromosome. As a consequence, the images and sound from ACROSS THE UNIVERSE are directed to the right hemisphere of the brain where it stimulates the artistic centers, releasing copious amounts of dopamine, causing you to smile and tap your toes and say - everything is right with the world, and - what a great movie this is! ………However - if the NOH strand attaches to the opposite side (about a 50-50 chance) of the carbon chain on the amino acid about two-thirds down the length of the 11th chromosome, the information stream is directed instead to the left hemisphere of the brain where the logic centers look at it and say - what the *@@@! is this !###!? - this is a load of rubbish! - where’s my baked potato?
10. What side of the DNA is your NOH on? I don’t know if there’s a way to predict it. I’m not sure what the outward signs would be - but I’m prepared to conduct a scientific survey. Answering the following questions will give me a means to probe into your psyche at the NOH level: 1. Home fries or hash browns? 2. Do you take butter or sour cream with your baked potato? 3. Do you prefer baked Russets or Yukon golds? 4. Do you ever get the urge to pop a Mr. Potato-head into the microwave? 5. Eat the skin - or not? …………….if you answered “fruit bat” to any of these questions, you ………..well, you may not have understood the questions……

Julie Taymor directs. Before directing movies, she was an art director and choreographer, having spent a lot of time on Broadway. Her films have a unique visual quality from Frida to the film adaptation of Shakespeare’s Titus (a FranksFilms recommendation).

ACROSS THE UNIVERSE has a number of cameo appearances such as Joe Cocker, Bono, Eddie Izzard, Selma Hyjak (as the Bang-Bang-Shoot-Shoot nurse - all five of them in fact), and others.

Common Sense Media gives this film a PAUSE:14+ rating.

Enjoy ACROSS THE UNIVERSE with a baked potato

………..or popcorn is good too.

view trailer

No - I didn’t attend the Oscars this year - but I did watch them on TV. I’ve always been mildly interested in them, but this year is different. This is the first year in living memory that I’ve actually seen most of the nominated films - and ………can actually voice an opinion about them. So while I sit here and watch the broadcast with the laptop on my ……..well, lap - I can tell you when they made the right decision, and when they get it completely wrong - as usual.

First: The fashions. Whenever I watch the red carpet thingy before the show, I always think the same thought. The men all look the same (a tux is a tux - it’s black! That’s it!), but it seems that the women all strive, with every fiber of their being, to set themselves apart from everyone else, usually by wearing the most garish, outlandish, outfit imaginable. It’s unlikely that any gown worn tonight will ever - can ever - be worn again, without evoking degrees of ridicule. Then again, maybe that’s the point.

Predictions: Forget it! If I’m right, I let you know. If I’m wrong, I’ll just rant about what idiots the academy is.

The Awards:

Costume Designer: ? Does anyone ever pay attention to this one? Elizabeth, the Golden Age??? Are they crazy? This film can’t possibly win for costume desi… - Oh wait - yeah, OK.

Animated Feature: Ratatouille. Was there really any other choice? …..besides that ……..and that one?

Make-up: This, I assume is the stuff they put on your face - and not what they do after a fight. La vie en rose. OK, I did see it and yes, she did wear a lot of makeup. They made a beautiful actress look plain and old. Yay!

Visual Effects: It better be something cool - it better be something cool - something cool oh please oh please oh please oh - The Golden Compass? Oh crap! I didn’t see it. If you did, tell me - was it better than Pirates of the Carribean?

Art direction: What do these people do? Sweeney Todd. OK, I get it. They make everything look right.

Best Supporting Actor: There’s only one possible winner - and ……………………….YESSSSS! Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men - a bad ass - with a stupid haircut. The world does make sense.

Best Supporting Actress: Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton - long overdue - and she was great - but I really didn’t see that coming. My money was of Cate Blanchett. The voting must have been very close.

Adapted Screenplay (based on existing material): Fingers crossed …………YES. The Coen Brothers‘ No Country for Old Men. I am so smart.

Sound Editing & Mixing: I normally would care a whit about this, but I’ve recently been exposed to the sound editing process for film - it’s hard. The Bourne Ultimatum - Sure! Why not?

Best Actress: If Julie Christie doesn’t win, I’m never watching this show again. OK, maybe Marion Cotillard was good too in La Vie en Rose, but the Academy obviously didn’t see Julie Christie in Away From Her.

Foriegn Language Film: Who cares? I didn’t see any of the nominated films. The problem is that these movie don’t show here, and I won’t get a chance to see them until they come out on DVD and I can’t rent them. The Couterfeitters - As good a choice as any.

Best Song: This category always ticks me off because they all suck ………..except this year’s winner, “Falling Slowly” from Once, one of the single most uplifting moments in film this past year.

Cinematography: There Will be Blood which did a great job at capturing the desolate landscape of early America. My money would have been for Atonement, for the landing beach scene, but what do I know? I just saw all the nominated films ………well, half of them anyway.

Musical Score: Atonement. No, is wasn’t a musical - but it did have music. And what memorable music it was. You may remember such numbers as “Watching From the Window”, “Walking Through the Woods”, “Typing in My Diary”, and of course “Running Next to the Jeep”. I’m whistling that one right now.

Best Documentary: Taxi To The Dark Side - about torture. I knew that would win, torture is just so trendy these days.

Original Sceenplay: I kinda hope Diablo Cody wins for Juno. Her story is as great and dramatic and storybookish as her screenplay. ……..and yes - the ex-stripper wins. Now go out and see this movie!

Best Actor: There’s only one possible winner here - Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood was the most powerful crazy and psychotic portrayal of a obsessive crazy-person this year. If you haven’t seen this film, rent it when it’s released on DVD.

Best Director: Joel & Ethan Coen for No Country for Old Men, probably their best film since Fargo. These guys make the greatest movies of all time. If you’re a fan, you know what I mean. Check out their catalog of films here and hold a Coen Brothers festival in your own home.

Best Movie: I have my fingers crossed ………. YES - No Country For Old Men. It honestly was the best movie - and that’s saying a lot considering that all of the nominated movies were outstanding.

That’s it! At this point I could go into a long drawn out rant about all the great films that weren’t nominated, but it’s late and I’m going to bed. Now you can do what I usually do after the Oscars, fill out your “movies to rent” list, or add to your NetFlix queue. You really can’t go wrong with any of the winners (or even the nominees). Of course, that list should already be somewhat lengthy from my own recommendations from the FranksFilms site.

Good Night.

This week’s movie:
PANDORA’S BOX

I have a copy of Steven Jay Schneider’s book, “1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die”.

Every once in a while I flip through it when I’m looking for a movie recommendation. I cross off the films I’ve already seen - one, to not repeat films that I already saw, and - two, to see how much longer I’ve got to live (assuming that the title implies that when I complete the list, I can safely - and finally - die). I’ve resisted renting PANDORA’S BOX for some time because I have somewhat an aversion to old silent movies. It was the very early days of film making and I feel they hadn’t quite got it right yet - they hadn’t quite figured out what to do with this new medium. The plots were flimsy, the acting was melodramatic - it’s as if they’d figured that the audience were so wowed by moving pictures that all you needed to do was put a picture up on the screen, and what happened up there didn’t much matter. Also, it’s rare to find a copy of a movie that’s still in watchable condition, having not aged gracefully over the past 80 or so years. But, as I’ve found in the past, there are exceptions to this rule.

PANDORA’S BOX, released in 1929, is that exception.

The Criterion Collection, which re-releases both early and modern classic films, does a pretty good job of restoring older movies. The DVD version currently available is bright and smooth and has several available audio soundtracks (you can chose among at least two symphonic scores, a jazz score, a kind of honky-tonk thing, piano accompaniment (likely close to what was actually presented in theaters that originally showed this film). The film now has a sort of modern look. If you follow the IMDB link above, you notice that the page has a German title. It’s a German film. “OMG Frank, not another foreign movie!” Yes it was made in Germany, but does that matter if it’s a silent film?

Now, I could say that first of all, this movie is an important view for anyone seriously interested in the history of film. I could also say that the movie is one of the first good examples of early German neo-realism – I wouldn’t say that – but I could – if I knew what that meant. I could even say that you should see it because it’s on Steven Jay Schneider’s “1001 Movies…”book. But, when you get right down to it, the reason that you absolutely must see this film, and you will absolutely love this film can be expressed in one single word – Louise Brooks. OK, so I guess that’s two words.

In Neil Gaiman’s novel “American Gods”, one character declares Louise Brooks to be “…the greatest American actress of all time”. I could argue against this – but not convincingly. She is, without a doubt, one of the most influential actresses of all time. The look she popularized in PANDORA’S BOX defined the term “flapper girl”. Her signature short bob haircut has come in and out of fashion every decade or so that she always, even in an 80 year old film, looks modern – not like an “old movie actress”. PANDORA’S BOX looks like it might have been made 10 years ago, not 80 …………..except for that silent film thing.

Louise Brooks is probably the greatest cultural influence that you may never have heard of. Liza Minnelli’s character in the film Cabaret is modeled after Louise Brooks, as is Melanie Griffith’s character in the film Something Wild, named Lulu – after Brooks’ character in PANDORA’S BOX. She was the inspiration for the comic strip Dixie Dugan, as well as Guido Crepax’s erotic comic Valentina. Other influences include Cyd Sharisse, Madonna, Dr. Who (the character, Romana, is based on Brooks), rock bands, and a number of present day fashion models.

Louise Brooks certainly has an appeal that can’t be denied. There is a smoldering sensuality about her that’s very subtle, and yet ultimately powerful. There really is no modern day equivalent of her. In PANDORA’S BOX, she plays Lulu, an innocent and free-spirited girl who lives under the auspices of men who fall for her. They can’t help themselves – she ……I don’t know …..does something with her eyes, I think – and they become insane with desire. She lets them, of course. She’s not a manipulator; there is no malice in her. When they tell her they love her, and she returns it – she means it. I’m not sure what it is about her – I think it’s maybe something she does with her eyes, but she exudes innocence. She may be a prostitute, but she’s an innocent one.

The story follows her downward spiral after an unfortunate incident in which a boyfriend, totally destroyed by jealousy for her, kills himself. There is a entourage of men who try to protect her – but they just want her too – kind of like There’s Something About Mary. I suppose this film could be called “There’s Something About Lulu – I Don’t Know ……Maybe It’s Something She Does With Her Eyes ……Or Something”.

So I’m giving silent films another chance, as should you. I do like some of them, and maybe I’ll discover more. But for your benefit, here is a list of my top 10 favorite silent movies in no particular order.

1. PANDORA’S BOX - of course I’m going to list this one - I mean, it’s got Louise Brooks in it - I mean ……. I don’t know ……I mean I think she does something with her eyes …….or something…….
2. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - One of the very first psychological thrillers creates an eerie ambiance that was well ahead of its time.
3. Modern Times - Charlie Chaplin’s last “Little Tramp” movie is not really silent, but the main characters act as if it were. Genius level funny.
4. Play Time - Jacques Tati’s masterpiece is visual and physical comedy on a grand scale. Not really a silent movie but, like “Modern Times”, it’s in the spirit of a silent movie.
5. L’Iceberg - Again, not technically a silent movie, but it might as well be. Very funny film with a lot of visual-based comedy. I think comedy is the only genre that can get away with that these days.
6. Silent Movie - The Mel Brooks comedy. It IS a silent movie - sort of by definition.
7. 2001: A Space Odyssey - Other than HAL, the computer, I don’t remember any dialog - do you?
8. The Number 23 - The Jim Carey Psycho-thriller. I know it’s technically not a silent movie ………but I watched it once with the sound off and ………………better.
9. The Wizard of Oz – I did the Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon thing with the sound off. I didn’t work for me – but I did like the Pink Floyd music …..so there was that …….
10. Evita – Not a silent movie …….but it ought to be!

PANDORA’S BOX scores 91% on the tomatometer.

Open it and enjoy.

view video

This week’s movie:

THE HOST

Ode to the monster movie:

I just saw an outstanding monster movie the other day called Cloverfield. It wasn’t like Frankenstein or Godzilla or any of the others I can remember from my childhood, and it will very likely change the nature of monster movies to come - a new benchmark - and when it comes out on video in a few months, I’ll have more to say about it then. But in the meantime, it reminded me of another great monster film I’d seen recently - this week’s movie, THE HOST.

I was really young when I saw my first “monster attacks the city” movie. It was Godzilla and I was about 8 years old. It was simultaneously thrilling and terrifying. And even though the logic side of my brain told me that it was just make-believe, I would still, for years since, always keep check on the horizon when I was outdoors – because you never know when a prehistoric creature in a rubber suit, created by atomic radiation, might decide to rampage through my town and my parents would probably have to buy a new car and thus wouldn’t be able to afford a new bicycle for yours truly – then I’d be stuck running beside my friends, trying like hell to keep up, thus getting so tired that I’d fall asleep early and thus wouldn’t be able to stay up late enough to watch the monster movies, shown on TV late at night. …………….could happen.

I can’t say for sure why some of us are drawn to such movies. Maybe we have that sort of morbid curiosity that is fascinated by large scale destruction. Maybe we identify with the creature – “I want to knock down big buildings!” Maybe it’s the same compulsion that made you want to knock down your little brother’s tower of building blocks as you walk by – just because.

Years ago I watched a movie on TV (It may have been a “made for TV” movie) called Monstroid. During the opening credits they flashed the claim “Based on actual events.” You might think, “So what? Lots of films are based on true stories.” True enough – but this one was about a giant dinosaur that rises from the sea and terrorizes a coastal fishing village. Funny that I never read about that in the paper ………oh wait – maybe I did read about that once in the Weekly World News between the article about how Satan is a space alien and the latest exploits of the Bat Boy. Lately though, I’ve been disappointed with monster movies. For me, Godzilla was the biggest and baddest of them all. The second-rate copies that came after just didn’t cut it – like Mothra, and Gamera, and King Kong (please ignore, for the moment, that fact that King Kong was actually made some 20 years or so before Godzilla – I’m trying to make a point here.), but I watched them and loved them just the same. The problem is that I’ve grown up and they hadn’t. I hadn’t, until now found a film that was as thrilling and scary ……….and fun as the early classics to a young boy ……….as I said, until now. THE HOST is such a film. It has the right combination of scary monster, thrilling action, political satire, stress releasing comedy, mayhem, and uplifting heroics as they did when I was a boy. Finally, the monster movie has grown up.

This film has often been described as “Godzilla vs. Little Miss Sunshine”. This is true to an extent. It’s not as much about the monster as it is about the Park family. Three generations of the Park family live together in a trailer on the banks of the Han River in Seoul, South Korea (yes – it’s Korean – but the subtitles are easy to read and if you don’t want to read those, my copy of the DVD had an English-dubbed soundtrack – but gobs are lost in the translation – I recommend you brave through the subtitles ………….unless you’re Korean that is). They are a profoundly dysfunctional family but manage to pull together and support one another when the chips are down. In that way, it is similar to Little Miss Sunshine. The monster isn’t humongous, like Godzilla. It can’t knock down buildings and terrorize entire populations at the same time – but it is rather creepy nevertheless, and it can certainly terrorize a few dozen people at the same time at any rate.

THE HOST is funny without being a comedy. It’s scary without being gross and turning your stomach. It’s dramatic without being soppy. It’s a political satire without preaching, and it’s action packed without seeming unrealistic (except that there’s this monster). I’m hoping that this will spur a renewal of interest in making monster movies. I think it may already have started (reference again to the new film “Cloverfield”). I know that if I ever get the chance to make a film, I have lots of monster ideas – but I know that will never happen. So …..here are my monster movie ideas that will probably never see the light of day.

1. VORAX: Destroyer of Worlds! – Vorax, the most fearsome creature in the Andromeda Galaxy, travels throughout the galaxy destroying and devouring planets. When he is sucked through a wormhole and reappears in our own solar system, he sets his sights on the Earth. Our doom seems certain, causing panic worldwide – until it is discovered that, due to a miscalculation in scale, Vorax is actually half an inch tall.
2. TERROR FROM THE DEEP – In the future, the ocean is pristine. A century of human efforts have paid off and the ocean is once again clean. A monstrous sea creature, fed up with humans cleaning up his domain, rises up and attacks New York. He lumbers down street after street cleaning up the litter and the trash and the garbage, leaving sparkly clean streets in its wake – and bellowing “How do you like it? How do you like it?!!!!” Street cleaners and garbage collectors are suddenly out of work, tipping the already teetering unemployment scales into instability. The economy crashes sending the country into a deep depression. Mayhem, destruction, oh the terror, oh the terror…………from the deep.
3. SLUMMO: The Rude Clown!!! – A giant clown-like creature attacks the city making rude gestures and dropping its pants-like garment. Citizens are disgusted and evacuate the city in droves, but SLUMMO has his giant squirting flower-like object waiting for them.
4. PLANETRON: The Careful – Planetron, a giant prehistoric sea serpent, rises up to attack Tokyo – but he doesn’t do it all at once. The 300 ft. tall creature first does a walk-through, taking copious notes and occasionally taking out a huge tape measure to check building heights and widths etc. He’ll use this data to plan his attack at a later time so that he’ll know which buildings he is able to knock down for maximum terrifying effect.
5. The Return of PLANETRON – PLANETRON attacks Tokyo with maximum terrifying effect.
6. KLAXON: The Annoying – Klaxon, a giant space alien, is not very powerful, so it can’t really cause any actual damage itself, and it can’t really harm anyone ……directly – BUT – it’s really really loud and annoying. So much so that eventually the city sustains damage and mayhem as the military knocks down buildings in an effort to chase Klaxon away. Thousands are killed in the stampede to “get the hell out of Dodge”, much of it due to lack of communication as most people have their ears stuffed with cotton, or stones, or small animals – basically anything they can manage to shove in there just to shut Klaxon the hell up.
7. THE BEING OF UNKNOWN HORRORS - An earthquake opens a fissure releasing a giant creature. The populace is horrified but it doesn’t know why.
8. THE NO-NONSENSE BEAST – A humongous monster attacks an unsuspecting city. It stomps cars, knocks down buildings, gobbles up people by the boatload. It withstands every weapon the army and scientists throw at it. That’s it! The no-nonsense beast. What’s the hook, you ask? An all-orangutan cast.
9. THE MONSTER WHO WAS AFRAID OF OTHER MONSTERS – A large horrible creature, named TELEPHONOPHOBIA, rises from the deep. It attacks only small towns and suburbs. Why? It heard that loads of monsters were attacking the big cities like New York, Tokyo, London – and he owes most of them money. Thus he eschews the obvious target cities and turns up in places like Schenectady, Newport News, and Peoria – the “big monster in a little pond” philosophy.
10. THE MONSTER WHO DIDN’T SHOW UP – A 500 ft prehistoric sea serpent completely fails to rise from the sea, doesn’t bother to knock down buildings, totally neglects to terrorize innocent citizens, and generally blows off the chance to rampage through Manhattan – much to the chagrin of city officials who ordered the city to be evacuated and the military to be on hand for just such an occasion – and are now looking pretty foolish – and have sent their aides to look for “a Godzilla costume and a camcorder – and step on it if you don’t mind”. Oh the horror …….the horror.

THE HOST scores a 94% on the tomatometer.

Common Sense Media rates it PAUSE:15+

Play host to THE HOST this week and

Enjoy.

view trailer

This week’s movie:

PARIS JE T’AIME

I love this type of project!

It’s difficult not to like at least some of this movie. Composed of 18 short films, averaging 8 minutes each, it’s like a collection of picture postcards from your trip to Paris. Each film is written and directed by a different team of film-makers, and shot in a different section of the city.

These aren’t hacks either. The 18 teams represent some of the best film-making talent from around the world. This includes the likes of

• Gus Van Sant (Finding Forrester, Good Will Hunting, My Own Private Idaho);
• Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer)
• Walter Salles (The Motorcycle Diaries, Central Station)
• Alexander Payne (Sideways, About Schmidt)
• Ethan and Joel Coen (No Country for Old Men, Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou?)
• Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban)
• Richard LaGravenese (Freedom Writers, P.S. I Love You)
• Wes Craven (A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, Red Eye)
• Isabel Coixet (The Secret Life of Words)
• Sylvain Chomet (The Triplets of Belleville)
• Emmanuel Benbihy (Bend It Like Beckham, Bride & Prejudice)

And actors too! Some actors even American audiences may recognizable:

• Marianne Faithfull
• Steve Buscemi
• Miranda Richardson
• Juliette Binoche
• Willem Dafoe
• Nick Nolte
• Maggie Gyllenhaal
• Fanny Ardant
• Bob Hoskins
• Elijah Wood
• Emily Mortimer
• Rufus Sewell
• Natalie Portman
• Gérard Depardieu
• Ben Gazzara
• Gena Rowlands

…..and many others.

This movie is like your favorite book of short stories or poems – an anthology. Each one conveys a complete thought – short and concise. The stories may be thought of as independent snapshots of Paris, but they may also intersect in unexpected ways. The overall theme is to show some aspect of love with the city as a backdrop. Each takes place in a different neighborhood. Some are in English, some are in French, some are in Spanish, others are in various other languages, and at least one is in Mime (yes – those mimes!). You can’t go wrong here. If there’s a particular segment that you don’t like, not to worry. It’ll be over and on to the next one in just a few minutes. And if there’s a particular segment that you like so much that you want more – well then – it’s good to want, isn’t it?

If it all sounds too confusing – it’s not. The transition between segments is well delineated with titles. Besides, the film-making styles are so different, the transitions would be well defined even without the titles. The segments also span well defined film genres. Some are dramatic, some are funny, others are romantic, still others are mysterious – or thrilling – or scary – or whimsical. I really think there’s a high probability of finding something you like here.

So now you’re maybe considering renting this film, you may be asking yourself, “With all those film-makers and all that talent, why haven’t I ever heard of this movie?” The answer to that is sadly, someone in an office has decided that you shouldn’t hear about this movie. The truth is that this film was immensely popular in most of the rest of the world - but here in the US, these things are decided by accountants. These are people who predict what you will pay money to go see and weigh that against the cost of advertising. If they don’t advertise, people won’t know to go see it and the guy who own the multiplex cinema in your town isn’t going to show it. This film was released to very few independent theaters, usually only in large cities. The guy who decided that you wouldn’t like PARIS JE T’AIME doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Look at what’s playing at your local cineplex right now. PARIS JE T’AIME is a better film than nearly everything you might find there. Now I wouldn’t suggest that good movie don’t play in your town - some do - but very many of the best films, the most interesting films, never make there. They’ve been excluded by committee. Luckily, PARIS JE T’AIME is now available on video and you can watch it at home.

If you think I’m being cynical, as an exercise, I took a survey of the movies playing at the multiplex in my town. It has 10 screens so it just fits into my top 10 list. These are the movies that accountants have decided that you would like better than PARIS JE T’AIME. In comparison, PARIS JE T’AIME scores an 84% on the tomatometer.

1. In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (tomatometer: 3% - not a typo, that’s three percent) “Another lame copy of every crappy sword-and-sorcery epic ever made. ……badly written and edited.”
2. First Sunday (tomatometer: 16%) A pair of bumbling petty criminals ………. “A cringe-inducing, cinematic tribute to the Golden Age of Minstrelsy!”
3. One Missed Call (2008) (tomatometer: zero%) An English language remake of a bad Asian horror flick of the same name. “As annoying as a busy signal.”
4. The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep (tomatometer: 74%) A cutesy family film that kids will love – but not much here for adults.
5. National Treasure: Book of Secrets (tomatometer: 33%) Like National Treasure I, but not as good – and that’s saying a lot. “This just might be the silliest movie ever to feature three Academy Award winners.”
6. P.S. I Love You (tomatometer: 21%) Romantic comedy ……at least in theory. “This is a movie that will leave you stunned and stupefied from beginning to end, if you don’t head for the exits first.” “A low point in the tear-stained history of sappy, shallow chick drivel.”
7. Charlie Wilson’s War (tomatometer: 82%) True-ish story of the CIA covert war in Afghanistan. I haven’t seen it yet – but you can’t go wrong with Tom Hanks.
8. Alvin and the Chipmunks (tomatometer: 24%) This is too easy. “Arguably the most irritating novelty act in record history gets a CGI-updating…and the result is pretty annoying itself.”
9. I Am Legend (tomatometer: 67%) “Good performance by Will Smith, but it’s basically a rehash of 28 Days Later.”
10. The Bucket List (tomatometer: 40%) Two terminally ill men escape from a cancer ward and head off on a road trip with a wish list of to-dos before they die. “…….further proof that even our most critically lauded thespians are eminently capable of churning out garbage.”

You know what I think? I think we should hire some new accountants.  I wouldn’t trust these to balance my checkbook.

PARIS JE T’AIME
Enjoy.

view trailer

****** Best of 2007 ******

This is the third year for my “Best Of” year-end review. It’s been a pretty good year for films – a good crop this year. Counting them up, I saw a total of 180 films in 2007. There’s usually more – I must be slacking off. A lot of people ask me where I get the time to watch so many movies. It’s easy, really. All you need to do is replace watching crap on TV with movies. There’s lots of good stuff on DVD and ON-DEMAND and even on VHS if you’re still living in the 80’s.

Like I said, it was a good year for movies and it was difficult to choose between the best – but I’ll make a stab at it. If I wait until a week from now and think about it some more, my list might be a little different. So here goes.

FISRT: the disclaimers.

• These are not necessarily movies that came out in 2007; they are just movies that I saw in 2007.
• I am not saying that these are the absolute best movies; they are just ones that I liked the best.
• If you see a movie here that I didn’t feature on my site, it’s probably in my “waiting to be recommended” list.
• I haven’t seen every movie - so if I don’t mention your favorite movie in this list, it probably just means that I haven’t seen it yet……………………………. or that I hated it!.
• I realize that every other critic does a TOP-10 list, but really, 5 is hard enough, so I quit at 5. Plus some special prizes - just like in Cannes (I’ve never actually been to Cannes, but I’d like to. People, please send money so that I can afford to go to Cannes this year.).
• For the most part, I’m avoiding the wide release movies. Everybody already knows about these. So, if you loved Pirates of the Caribbean, and wonder why it’s not on my list – that’s why.
• The order of the films is not very significant. The “goodness” level of all these movies is very close. The movies below were ranked by awarding “Frank Points” to each one. After the rating process, The Frank Points were tallied up and the films placed in the proper order. The criteria for which Frank Points are awarded, is confidential and is only known to Frank - sorry.
• That’s it!

SECOND: the movies.

1. CHILDREN OF MEN: (English) The world is slowly dying from despair when women everywhere can no longer bear children. Hope arrives in the form of a young woman who is about to give birth to the first child in more than 18 years. Fast paced and suspenseful storytelling will keep you on the edge of your seat. This film has a lot to say about the nature of the human psyche, while at the same time, entertaining you.
2. ONCE: (English) Totally emotionally satisfying love story about the magic of making music. It’s sweet, has a great soundtrack and was the audience favorite at the Sundance Film Festival last year. It didn’t get the promotion it deserved and didn’t play in the multiplexes, but now out on video, is enjoying a word of mouth campaign.
3. THE LIVES OF OTHERS: (German) Tense, gripping Cold War drama about an East German surveillance expert who slowly realizes he’s spying on a loyal popular writer for all the wrong reasons. Both men are called to question their ideals. Won the Oscar for best foreign language film.
4. PERFUME: THE STORY OF A MURDERER: (English) Gorgeously filmed story of a man born (Paris: 17-18 century) with a highly acute sense of smell , but with no scent of his own, creates the greatest perfumes in France. The story takes a dark turn as he searches for the ultimate scent.
5. PAN’S LABYRINTH: (Spanish) During WWII, a young girl escapes the brutality of fascist Spain by retreating into an eerie fantasy world. The contrasts and parallels between that world and real one form the basis of the film. Very violent but also beautiful and fascinating. Won the Oscar for art direction.

THIRD: The extras.

TIED FOR 6^th PLACE: (no particular order)
LA BELLE NOISEUSE: (French) Enthralling story about what it takes to capture the soul of a person on canvas.

PARIS JE T’AIME: (French & English) A collection of 5-10 minute short films, about the city of Paris and love. Each film is by a different film-maker, and with different actors, and takes place in a different neighborhood of the city. Fun to watch.

BLACK BOOK: (Dutch & German) There were several WWII movies this year, but none were as much fun nor as exciting as this guilty pleasure. As a plus: it’s a true story.

LITTLE CHILDREN: (English) Well written and acted drama about married couples whose lives intersect on the playgrounds and streets of their small town in unexpected ways.

HALF NELSON: (English) Acting tour-de-force about a good young teacher in an inner city high school who is addicted to drugs.

VOLVER: (Spanish) After her death, a woman returns to her home town to resolve the difficulties with her daughters she couldn’t during life. Great performance by Penelope Cruz.

FUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR:
BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN: Offensive and funny. Often you can’t watch but again, you can’t look away.

Runner up: HOT FUZZ: The guys that brought you Shaun of the Dead are at it again. They are cops in a small town trying to uncover a cover up.

FAMILY MOVIE OF THE YEAR
RATATOUILLE: It seems these days that Pixar can do no wrong. Yet, even among their hits, this one’s a home run. A rat in Paris, dreams of becoming a chef.

Runner up: HOWL’S MOVING CASTLE: A young girl, cursed by a witch and turned into an old crone, finds refuge in Howl’s castle, which, by the way, walks around on four legs. Another masterpiece from Studio Ghibli and Hayao Miyazaki.

DARK MOVIE OF THE YEAR
TIDELAND: Holy crap! This movie is so dark (and I’m not referring to the lighting) that you often actually fear for the young actress playing the lead role. It’s a great movie, but definitely not for everyone.

Runner up: CRASH (1996): Not the 2004 Oscar winner! This is the 1996 David Cronenberg film about a group of people who seek sensual fulfillment through crashing their automobiles. I did say this was the “dark” category.

SCI-FI/FANTASY MOVIE OF THE YEAR
THE HOST: (Korean) A good old-fashioned monster movie like you thought they didn’t make any more. The slickest, coolest, funnest creature feature in many a year.

Runner up: 28 DAYS LATER I know practically everybody has seen this film, but I didn’t get around to it until this past year. This somewhat different take on the zombie genre has spawn many a copycat, including I Am Legend (now in theaters).

STRANGEST DAMN MOVIE OF THE YEAR
INLAND EMPIRE: Strange in the conventional sense, but business as usual in the David Lynch sense. An actress (Laura Dern) takes a wrong turn and is drawn into a nightmarish Dystopian world.

Runner up: WEEK END: (French) A couple take a weekend drive into the countryside and into the twilight zone of endless traffic jams and pile-ups in this off-beat surreal comedy.

OVER-THE-TOP MOVIE OF THE YEAR;
PLANET TERROR: This movie is just jam-packed chock full of goofy insane action. There isn’t a single frame not filled with something outrageous to look at.

Runner up: ATTACK THE GAS STATION: (Korean) Slick action comedy about a group of bored street youths who rob a gas station. The next night, because they’re bored and can’t think of anything else to do, they decide to rob it again. This one’s a classic.

DOCUMENTARY OF THE YEAR
THE UP DOCUMENTARIES: Perhaps the greatest social experiment ever captured on film. A group of 7 year old schoolchildren are interviewed about a wide range of personal and social issues. Every 7 years the same group is re-interviewed. The progression of views and of the stages of life are spotlighted.

Runner up: INCIDENT AT LOCH NESS: Is it a mockumentary? It’s not clear even after viewing. This film chronicles film-maker and documentarian, Werner Herzog, who travels to Scotland to film a documentary about the legend of the Loch Ness Monster. Tongue-in-cheek humor abounds.

BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE YEAR
THE NUMBER 23: I really really wanted to like this movie. It wasn’t the worst film of the year, I just expected much more. Silly me.

WORST MOVIE OF THE YEAR:
GRAY MATTERS: You’ve probably never heard of this movie. That’s okay! I saw it and it looked like just the sort fun romantic comedy I was looking for. It was truly wretched. Too bad – I really like Heather Graham.

This week’s movie:

ONCE

Perfect!

It has occurred to me that, of late, my recommendations have been getting – shall we say – wordy. That is, long. I sometimes have a tendency, when I can’t think of what to write, to start off in an arbitrary direction (like now) and approach it from another angle. It also occurs to me that a lot of you don’t have time to waste and so, are not reading my post. I understand – you mainly want just enough information to decide whether or not this is a film you want to watch. So, I’ve decided to get this part over right at the beginning and let you go on with your day – and for anyone that wants to stay, I tell you WHY you should watch this film.

VERDICT: Yes! You should definitely see this film! You will love it! You will adore it! It will make you feel all warm inside and make you want to call your best friend that you haven’t seen since high school. Go out and rent it or buy it today! It’s one of the best movies of the year (2007 not 2008)!

Of course, if I didn’t think you should see it, I wouldn’t be writing about it here – after all, this is not a movie “review” site, it’s a movie “recommendation” site. You should see this film because it does four things really well.

Many of you may not know this about me, but I’m a part-time musician. I’ve been one for a long time. There was a time, back in college when I was seriously considering going full-time and making a go at it. I chickened out – it’s tough trying to make a living playing music and I opted for the easier route. I have a very nice house in New Hampshire. I suspect that if I had chosen to make my living playing music, I would instead be living in a refrigerator box behind Wal-Mart.

I had exposure to music at a fairly early age, thanks to music lessons that my parents gave me, and although I never really took to the accordion, I used it as a gateway drug to more serious instruments like the guitar, piano, organ, etc – and I have been playing music ever since. Why? Because once you do it, like a drug, you get addicted to it – you want more, I know this first hand. I also know that there are times, when you get people together to play music, whether you’re playing for yourselves or in a performance, when magic happens! It may happen for just a second or for a whole performance and it might not happen often – but it does happen. It’s when everything comes together in an unexpected way – where the result is greater than the sum of its parts and it’s like falling and you want to capture that feeling and bottle it – but you can’t. You want it again and again and so you keep playing. Every musician knows what I’m talking about – that’s why you do it. It’s not for the money – there are easier ways to make more money!

The first thing this movie, ONCE, does is a better job than any film I’ve ever seen at recreating that exact moment when that magic happens. It’s not easy to do, but they were able to do it because the actors portraying the musicians performing the music – are the actual musicians who wrote, performed, and recorded the music. The magic isn’t recreated for the film, it filmed while happening. The two main characters, we never know their names (they’re know just as “guy” and “girl” in the credits), are played by Glen Hansard (guitarist/singer for the Irish band “The Frames”), and Markéta Irglová (a Czech composer and musician). They’ve recently recorded an album of music together titled “The Swell Season” – 5 of these songs are featured in the movie.

The second thing this movie does very well is capture that exact moment when two people fall in love – every scary, exciting, heart-breaking moment of it. We see it happening before our eyes and we want to screw ourselves right into this picture and give somebody a nudge or something – for truly, no two people were made for each other more than these two. Alas, things are never that easy. Besides being a film about the making of music, it is one of the most romantic movies of the year.

The third thing this movie does really well is to show the process of creating music. This is not an overly dramatized version of the process. We see how they teach each other the songs, bargain a rate for studio time, recruit other musicians for a band… You never doubt for a second that real music is made in exactly this way – it is.

The fourth thing this movie does very well is dispel the idea that good movies require huge budgets, recognizable faces, and months of shooting. This is where Hollywood generally goes wrong. You’ve got nothing if you don’t start with a great story. Filmed in 17 days for less than $150-thousand, this movie took my breath away. This film was obviously a labor of love and not of money – still I hope the film makes a go-jillion dollars for their efforts. It hasn’t yet – so far it has netted less than $10 million – still pretty good for the original investment. Now if I can get all of you to rent or buy it …….

Here are 10 more reasons to see ONCE:

1. This movie made me want to call up me mates from my original band (some whom I haven’t seen in years) and get together for another go.
2. Your jaded heart, covered from life with scar tissue, will feel new and vulnerable once again.
3. It’ll make you want to be a better person. It sounds funny but it’s true – perhaps for no other reason than to deserve the kind of chance at a life story that these characters have.
4. Real love expressed through music. It’s not a new concept – but where has it been lately?
5. It’s a musical. If you hate musicals – it’s not that kind of musical. It’s a musical in the sense that it features musicians playing music under circumstances where they normally would. That is, people don’t spontaneously break out into song and dance in the middle of the street with an orchestra in the background. This is closer to The Commitments (BTW: Glen Hansard was also in The Commitments), but really, this is a new kind of musical – one I hope to see more of.
6. They say only love can break your heart – love and this movie!
7. After seeing this film you’ll want to make contact, touch somebody. Perhaps you’ll call up some old friends and meet in a bar somewhere and talk about the old days when life seemed simpler and the future held so much promise, and maybe you’ll play some tunes on the jukebox and have some frosty ones, and maybe soon the old days won’t seem so far away, and maybe the future really isn’t immoveable, like you thought, and maybe, just maybe, you realize that anything is possible and that you’ve got another shot at it after all.
8. Never underestimate the power of a great song to reach inside of you and ……..well, do just about anything. The right song, at the right time, with the right people – it’s a powerfully emotional experience. No wonder so many people are talking about this film.
9. Why do I seem to be pulling out all the stops to get you to see this movie? I really liked the film. It has universal appeal and I think you will like it too.
10. Markéta Irglová – she had me at “hello”.

Age Appropriateness: A lot of people tell me that they have children and can only watch movies appropriate for the whole family. I understand this and so will start to include, in this section, what you need to make that evaluation.

For some god-unknown reason, the MPAA has rated this film R (for language). This is the sort of thing that convinces me that they’re “a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.” If I find out that the R rating has prevented any teenager from seeing this film, I will make it my personal vendetta to hunt them down and make them pay.

There is a somewhat better service called Common Sense Media that takes into account both positive and negative aspects of the film and weighs this against the “kind” of child you have. They’ve rated this film ON 13+. This means that it is highly recommended for children 13 and older, maybe appropriate for younger children depending on …… The only negative aspect comes from the matter-of-fact use of profanity – not a lot of it, just natural for the environment (it is after all a realistic depiction of a place and time) – so if your child can deal with that, any age could be appropriate.

ONCE scores a 98% on the tomatometer. Obviously, one critic was in a bad mood that day. Many many film critics love love this movie. You can read Roger Ebert’s review here. You can read Michael Phillip’s review here.

ONCE is not enough.

Enjoy.

view trailer