While this had an awful script, was badly shot, and just made me laugh out loud at some points (in terms of the production), nevertheless I found myself being swept away into the narrative. Because – yes, folks – the truth is stranger than fiction.
You could not make this shit up. It was insane! Although the trial was on TV all the time when I was a kid, I really paid no attention to it. I suppose that's partly because I'm not American, and also partly because at that age I felt like I had better things to be doing with my time. But seeing how it all unfurled in retrospect was mind-boggling.
How the hell did he get off?! It seems so obvious that he did it! The glove fit! People were talking about how the glove didn't fit – it did!! It was on his hand!! They showed pictures of him wearing the glove!! ARGH!!!!
What a brilliant film. From start to finish. Perfect.
I hadn't seen it in quite a while, but I remembered liking it a lot when I first saw it (although I was struggling to remember whether I saw it at the cinema or not).
Anyway, I'm not sure what to say about it, other than I was still blown away by how ambitious and innovative the production was – especially for its time. It hasn't aged badly at all, and in fact looks a hell of a lot better than most of the films that copy from it these days.
I really need to read the book now, because I don't think the whole corporate criticism message rang as true with me when I watched it as a teenager as it does now. Having worked for companies, seen that kind of life and known it better, I really identified with the rage of Tyler Durdan far more than I did in my teens. The script was flawless, and that makes me think I need to read the book.
There were so many wicked tracking shots, and at times I have no idea how they pulled them off – for example the scene where the camera moves amongst the wires of the bomb, or the part where the camera tracks around The Narrator's kitchen before it blows up. Incredible. I wonder if they were rendered digitally or not, I really couldn't say for sure. And that's testament to how good they are. David Fincher and his cinematographer are geniuses.
I honestly thought I was going to cry in the final scene (even though I knew it was coming this time) when they're standing hand-in-hand against the windows (perfect composition) and the buildings start to crumble in the windows to The Pixies' Where is my Mind?
I'm going to put a photo of it here just so we can appreciate how perfect that moment is:
It took me two sittings because I was just comfort watching something while trying to get over a hangover, and I don't know why, but I picked this film.
It's not a good film. It's not a bad film. But what surprised me when I looked into it is that it's by a director (Milos Forman) who's made some good films. To name a few: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Man on the Moon and Amadeus (which I've not seen, but heard good things about).
So I was a bit surprised to see how bad this film is in some respects. I'm not sure what it is exactly, maybe it was the pacing, or how predictable it all is? The scene where his wife dies and the classical music plays louder and louder was really devoid of any kind of real emotion. It's like the director was being so obvious about how he wanted me to feel, that I didn't want to let myself feel that. Over orchestration?
Courtney Love was absolutely terrible. I seriously don't know how she landed this role. Her acting was laughable in parts. Woody's was good. And then there was Edward Norton sneaking in there! Where the hell did he come from?! His performance was solid as ever, and I read afterwards that he just really wanted to make a film with Milos Forman. I can't help but think he picked the wrong one to be in...
The only good thing about this film was that it examined an important topic – that of freedom of speech and expression. The topic felt current: this idea that we might not like what people are saying at times, and we might not share the same opinions as each other, but what's important is have reasonable dialogue and mutual respect.
What an absolute mess. I'm sitting here reviewing it several days after watching it, and I think part of me wanted to give it some time before reviewing so I could let the rage die down a bit.
Argh. But now I'm remembering bits of it, and it's making my blood boil.
OK. First thing to say about this film is that the director is the worst. This film didn't know what the hell it was. Was it a character study of a boy growing up? Was it about the challenges of youth? Was it about bullying? Was it about coming to terms with sexuality? Was it a horror film? Was it about family drama? What the hell was it?! Oh, and alongside all this confusion, towards the end something absolutely terrible and inappropriate is thrown in (almost like an afterthought).
I found it insensitive, dull, stupid, and moronic.
There are SOOOO many scenes that contribute absolutely nothing to the film. Camera movement that does fuck all, scenes that don't go anywhere, represent nothing, and are just a plain waste of time. This is the kind of film where the director has essentially tried to trick the audience into getting some idea he knows what he's doing. I guarantee you he had no fucking idea. Art house films are supposed to DO something. They're not just supposed to be slow, dull and boring so that people think they're meaningful. Put some fucking meaning into the film – that'd be a goddam start.
I hated all the characters too, apart from the sister.
Fuck this film. 2/10
Ozu Yasujirō's last film from 1962, the English title being An Autumn Afternoon. The Japanese title sanma no aji means literally "the taste of pike". I can see why they changed the title so drastically in English, because I'm not even sure what the pike is referring to in the title. The only bit I can think of is when the character called The Gourd tries a bit of hamo (pike conger), and doesn't know what it is, but he knows how to write it in kanji.
I wonder now if it's a reference to the different choices that the two characters, Hirayama and The Gourd make regarding marrying off their daughters after becoming widowers. Perhaps the title is saying that even if they did make radically different choices, we all end up hitori bocchi (alone) in the end. Any decision a person makes in their life ultimately results in the same ending: dying alone. Even though sanma (pike) and hamo (pike conger) are different species, perhaps they both taste similar?
It was a beautiful film, very slow and graceful, about ordinary people doing the most ordinary things. But behind these mundane things we do in life, it always felt like there was something larger at play, and I suppose that's why Ozu is revered as one of the masters of Japanese cinema.
I love how he composed his shots, so carefully, with the camera never budging an inch. It looked to me like he used the same focal length lens for every single frame in the film. I loved how he composed characters in the frame – almost like a photograph, and just let them talk at this slow speed. I loved all the characters and how they developed, they all just seemed so real. The actress who played Michiko (Hirayama's daughter) was incredibly beautiful, and her kimono were lovely (great to see them in colour).
Despite the lighthearted way the film moves along (and it is very funny – I found myself chortling out loud at several points) I suppose it all comes back to the same ideas Ozu dealt with in Tokyo Story: growing old is about dying alone. I'm a bit sad writing this now. 8/10
An Afterthought: The plot of this story reminded me a lot of Kawabata Yasunari's novel The Sound of the Mountain, except it lacked the perversity of Kawabata's novel. I suppose the trope of marrying off a girl from a family is a major theme in Tanizaki Jun'ichiro's The Makioka Sisters as well.
Husband gets an anonymous letter telling him his wife is cheating on him with another man when he goes on fishing trips at night. Husband goes fishing, but heads home early to catch her at it. He not only catches them shagging, but then stabs his wife to death, before turning himself in (covered in blood, and still wearing his fishing gear) at the nearest police station.
8 years late he's released from prison, on parole and trying to start a new life (with his pet eel he got in prison). He opens up a barber shop, ignores most of the people in the small Chiba town, and talks to his eel instead.
Then he rescues a woman who has tried to commit suicide, and then a truckload more problems come along and bite him on the ass.
That's not the half of it though. What else? He hallucinates diving into his eel tank to fish out scraps of the letter written to him, he makes friends with a fisherman who tells him all about catching eels humanely, then there's the crazy guy who waits for UFOs outside his barbershop. Oh, and the weird dude (who acts a bit like an eel) who he may, or may not be hallucinating.
This film won an award at Cannes, and I've heard many good things about the director – Imamura Shohei – but it was a little on the crazy side for me. Not a bad watch though. 7/10
How many times have I seen this film? I have no idea.
But it's never a chore watching it again. I could watch it over and over. And it's not that I think it's a perfect film – there are some issues here and there. But it's nearly perfect.
My viewing companion asked me about whether this was another 80s film that promoted materialism (because I've ranted about other films that seem to do so). And yes, this film starts out looking like that, what with the Ferrari and the French restaurant.
But I think this film (like a lot of John Hughes films) goes deeper. As I was watching it, I felt like it contained almost Buddhist-like ideas. One of which was similar to the story Kumo no ito ("The Spider's Thread") by Akutagawa Ryūnosuke, a short story about a man climbing out of hell on a spider's thread. The thread holds him fine, and he's making his way up to heaven no problem. But then he looks down and sees a bunch of other people climbing onto the spider's thread. He worries that the thread will snap, and starts trying to shake the people off the thread. But it is that act which causes the thread to snap and for everyone to fall into hell.
A long digression, but I think this is one of the fundamental lessons this film teaches us. Do not focus on other people's morality, only focus on your own, and making yourself a better person. This is the hole that Ed Rooney falls into (as loveable a character as he is). He focuses too much on catching Ferris, and this is his undoing. Ferris's sister almost falls into the same trap, but is saved by finding love with the drug addict Charlie Sheen (Eeeek!).
I think the main reason this is such a good film is because Ferris really isn't the protagonist – Cameron Fry is. And so is Ed Rooney, and Ferris's sister. It's about so much more than following the clever Ferris on his adventures. It's at this point that I should say, I've heard the theory that Ferris and Cameron are the same person, but I will also state clearly: that theory is bullshit. I'm not going to waste time disproving it on the many levels it is wrong, but will just point out that both Ferris and Cameron are called out clearly and separately by the teacher at registration. That destroys that dumb theory instantly.
I still think this scene is one of the most important in the whole film:
My viewing partner suggested that this montage shows how Cameron might identify with the little girl in the painting, because he had such a sad home life. And I liked that idea a lot. I think it adds another dimension to one of the theories I always had about it: I've always thought that this montage shows us how Cameron (unlike Ferris and Sloane) cannot appreciate or enjoy life. As the camera zooms in on the painting, and cuts back to closeups on his eyes, I think we are being shown how Cameron views the world. He can't step back from the painting and enjoy it for the beautiful scene that it is. He looks closer and closer and sees only the pigments of colour that make up the scene, in which there is no intrinsic beauty. And that's the problem which Ferris helps him overcome. He learns to enjoy himself, to appreciate life without worrying about the little things.
I feel terrible reviewing this film, because Koreeda is my favourite contemporary Japanese director, but this was definitely the worst film I've seen by him.
I think I know what it lacked: conflict.
Everyone was too nice, and there was just nothing threatening the little utopia the four sisters lived in. It just lacked that threat of violence or danger that his other films have. I also found the musical score a bit dull.
But it was beautiful, like all of his films.
Just not one I can score highly. 6/10
It's so weird that this film slipped by me when it came out. Perhaps I was in Japan or something? Yeah, looking at the release date (2007), I would've missed this film, being firmly wrapped up in my own little life at the time.
But it's surprising I didn't hear anything about it – David Fincher film with some cracking actors in.
I really enjoyed the film, especially after watching a great analysis of David Fincher's work by a great YouTuber called Every Frame A Painting. I would thoroughly recommend his videos. The David Fincher one is here.
My only criticism of this film was that it was a tiny bit too long. 8/10
