Caché

Like 2007's Atonement, Michael Haneke's Caché (2005) is about dealing with guilt. As in Atonement, the lead character of Caché carries the burden of someone who's childhood actions have carried ramifications beyond their comprehension at the time.

Georges Laurent (Daniel Auteuil) chats up authors in his literature talk show. One day, he receives a mysterious videotape from a person whom he presumes to be one of his fans. The film starts off with this tape, which consists of a single shot of his home's facade. This tape sets up the pattern for the rest of the film - the film is shot on HD video, many shots are long takes, the camera seldom moves, and there is no score. As Laurent continues to receive these mysterious tapes, the viewer is never sure when he or she is watching the film or a tape within the film. The viewer feels like a voyeur - he or she the one spying on someone else's life. The film has a disorienting feel, and one is never sure how much or how little time has passed.

Don't expect all loose ends to be wrapped up. The film isn't really about the mystery of the tapes or the wife's questionable fidelity. Like many thrillers, it is not these outside forces that are important - instead, the film is about Laurent's psyche as manifested in these outside forces. Although sometimes the Hollywood film viewer in me longed for a little more closure, the film kept me on edge and defied many thriller clichés. I don't want to give anything away, so I won't say exactly how. I highly recommend this film - but not for a party.

The Water Horse: Legend of the Deep

I am going to review everything I watch. I am determined to not just review things I like, so I am sorry to say that my first review will be of the Water Horse: Legend of the Deep (2007).

I had the unfortunate experience of catching this film on an airplane. Most of the bad movies I have seen have been on airplanes. It is hard to say whether it is the film that is actually bad or the experience of sitting thousands of miles in the sky and turning your head in an uncomfortable position to view a tiny screen where you view a film in *shudder* full screen. I'll admit to being a widescreen snob, or more specifically in keeping the aspect ratio when viewing something. Of course, many TV shows, made for TV movies, and some films (i.e. many classics and a few recent films like Elephant (2003)) are in full screen format and should be viewed as such to keep the original composition of the shot intact.

I doubt that widescreen and a real movie theater would've saved the Water Horse. I came to the film with an open mind, due to my soft spot for all things Scottish. This is one of the most cliche movies I have seen in a long time. It is the classic boy-meets-animal, boy-befriends-animal, boy-sets-animal-free story. Set during WWII in a quaint Scottish village on the shores of Loch Ness, this film contains cheesy Scottish accents all round - the actors sound less like they're acting, and more like they're focusing on getting their just-Scottish-enough-but-still-understandable-to-Americans accent right for the sorry, faux-Scot dialogue. The boy's widowed mother (of course) falls in love with a scrappy handyman instead of the army captain - from their first rather unchemically charged interaction, a cheesy love theme pervades the air.

The film's score is an interesting pastiche of Scottish traditional and your usual film score, but often this sounds a little forced - the music has the feel of not all being from the same film, and some pieces seem generally out of place.

Most importantly, I was in no way invested in the Loch Ness monster based character that the boy befriends. The monster made off-putting noises that were akin to to the offspring of the unholy union of Jar Jar Binks and a cat. I can see how the monster is pretty cool once it gets bigger, especially for kids. It gets impressively frightening.

The bottom line:
If you have kids, they will probably have a lot of fun watching this movie - I probably would've liked it when I was a kid. If you are a twenty-something with no kids like me, you are probably not the intended audience for this film. If it catches you unawares on your plane flight, save some of your time and take a nap instead.

Why am I doing this?

I guess the most appropriate answer to that question is, "I have nothing better to do". I already have a livejournal, but usually my friends just want to know what I'm up to - they don't want to be inundated by a review a day (no matter how much good it might do some of them).

I don't believe in ratings - they frustrate me. So I won't be rating anything. I will try to draw on my freshly minted liberal arts degree to hold an open-ended discussion about those topics I know best - film and music (and, more rarely, books and other printed material - I am a slow and careful reader and get through fewer of these). Also, I will more rarely review art shows, usually photography - I am not an art history buff, but I am an amateur photographer with an understanding of photography.

I won't be reviewing only new material - only material which is new to me. I will include classics, based on the assumption that I could maybe write something new about them, as I have a viewpoint unique to the present and to myself.

Also, I am interested in a career in arts writing and I need some practice. Feedback is welcome.

I will try to get my first two reviews up today.