Philmreview is moving...

This site is moving to Philmbuff.com. There you will find the same great reviews plus loads more for the "film fanatic" or aspiring filmmaker. Right now Philmbuff is in the process of construction so please be patient.

Thanks & I hope to see you there!

~ The Director

The Darjeeling Limited

The Darjeeling Limited - Trailer

Posted Jul 31, 2007

Three brothers re-forge family bonds on a train ride across the vibrant and sensual landscape of India, following the death of their father.

2007
Directed by: Wes Anderson

Cast:
Owen Wilson - Francis
Adrian Brody - Peter
Jason Schwartzman - Jack
Amara Karan - Rita
Bill Murray - The Businessman
Natalie Portman - Jack’s X-girlfriend


The Darjeeling Limited is in a nutshell, a roadtrip movie. Like all road trip movies it follows that there are passengers, there is a destination and everyone learns something valuable along the way. This time three brothers meet each other for a spiritual journey of sorts put together by the oldest; Francis(Owen Wilson), who assumes a motherly role over the other two - Jack, a womanizer played by Jason Schwartzman and the other, Peter, who is much of a mystery as he doesn’t divulge much in the way of character beyond the fact that his wife is going to give birth very soon. Francis has brought them all together to bond and see spiritual sites in India. They travel on the Darjeeling Limited (hence the name).
In the beginning all the brothers are mistrusting of each other. Along the journey the two young brothers go along with the older one’s dictating and incessant planning but eventually they turn on each other and a fight on the train ensues. They are promptly kicked off; dropped off in the middle of nowhere. Just when it seems like their spiritual journey has come to an end does it really truly begin.
To its credit the Darjeeling Limited does a good job of portraying the closeness and strain that is brotherhood. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to end. Just about the time when you feel the story should have ended there is a flashback and the story is catapulted into a different direction.
There are a few comedic moments and without this would make for a dry tale. In the beginning Bill Murray makes a guest appearance. He is passed up by Adrian Brody as they try to catch the train. I don’t know if this is symbolic but it sure seemed so to me. More symbolism is at the end when all the film’s characters are shown, each in a train compartment that alludes to their current place in life. It is a creative piece of work but one can’t help but wonder if the film is trying to hard to make its point.
2 ½ stars

Lars and the Real Girl

2007
Directed by: Craig Gillespie

Cast:
Ryan Gosling - Lars Lindstrum
Emily Mortimer - Karin
Paul Schneider - Gus
Kelli Garner - Margo

Seldom do you find a movie that deals with a taboo subject (a full-sized-toy-sex-doll) and also a mental illness so delicately and with such good taste as in Lars and the Real Girl. Lars lives alone and besides his co-workers and older brother, he has no on e close to him. That is until he orders his new girlfriend, Bianca. His brothers and wife are understandably shocked as is the rest of the town. However gradually, with the urging of the family doctor the family and the town learns to accept Lars and his “girlfriend.” Everyone joins in treating Bianca like she is real (she gets elected to the school board) and you can’t help wonder if the whole town is delusional as well.
It is doubtful that this story could have been told anywhere other than Hollywood. Throughout the story you are just waiting for his delusion to break or for a confrontation to occur where someone tells him that his girlfriend has more silicone than Pamela Anderson - but this never happens, nor does it need to.
The actors for their part play their roles well and with a genuineness that is believable. The cinematography is simple and to the point which is good since it fits well with this uncomplicated and unorthodox tale.
3 stars

The Andromeda Strain

1971
Directed by:
Robert Wise

Based on the novel by Michael Crichton

Cast:
Arthur Hill - Dr. Jeremy Stone
David Wayne - Dr. Charles Dutton
James Olson - Dr. Mark Hall
Kate Reid - Dr. Ruth Leavit


Robert Wise of The Sound of Music renown has set his sights on science fiction in this adaptation of a popular novel to the silver-screen. As in both instances an alien entity threatens life on earth and a select group must disarm it at the expense of great personal risk. This time a seemingly harmless satellite has crashed to earth in the remote New Mexico Desert. A military team is sent to retrieve the item which is currently (and remarkably unscathed) near a very small quiet town. But the town is abnormally too quiet - even for the dead of night. Before the team knows what has hit them all radio contact is lost and they are presumed dead. A flyby later confirms that the entire town has literally stopped in its tracks. People are lying around everywhere like it is the morning after New Years. But no signs of celebration are to be found.
A select team of scientists and a doctor is called in. “Wildfire” has been declared which is what we learn to be code for a potentially dangerous bio-hazardous situation posed by an unknown or alien biological agent. This picture was made during the time of the first lunar landings so contamination from a possibly alien and even totally unstoppable pathogen from space or the moon was a real concern. It is much like our modern fear of terrorists using biological weapons.
In any case, the team is called to a secret installation in the Nevada desert built specifically for containing and studying such hostile alien germs. There are rumors that this secret base was built for the possible use and development of alien germs to be used in bio-warfare - though unfortunately this isn’t expounded upon in the movie.
In addition to the satellite the only two survivors of the towns catastrophe are brought to the base to study why they survived. The rest of the movie entails trying to figure out what the “andromeda strain” is.
The Andromeda Strain is a movie that is heavy on set and a little short on story. Through our tour of the facility, which follows the team’s sanitization process we learn more about the base than the actual characters who seem shallow and stereotyped. This unfortunately is what happens when too many novels are put into screen adaptations. Don’t get me wrong, the set is important - and this one is masterfully created but in this case the characters are sacrificed for the plot. This film unfortunately falls like so many from the habit of overemphasizing special effects and set for story. Spiderman III (though not based on a novel) is an example of this but other movies like the Harry Potter series seem to do a good job of balancing both.

2 stars

Breathless

1960

Directed by Jean-Luc Godard

Michael - Jean-Paul Belmondo
Patricia - Jean Seberg

From the very beginning we find out that Breathless isn’t your ordinary film. To start out with the picture opens up close-ups on the main character. There is no sound to begin with and even later it is only gradually introduced. In addition the actor talks directly to the camera and throughout the film there are jump-cuts (visibly cut action) at places (during dialogue) when jump cuts are most noticeable. It is a well known unwritten rule that there aren’t supposed to be any discernable jump cuts in a film at all.
All things considered, starting out watching Breathless one might think that this film was put together by a novice. Though this is Godard’s first feature film, it is not a novice act at all in that it was all done very deliberately. In order to break away and revitalize the stagnant French film industry Godard and a group of other French filmmakers took it upon themselves to create films in a whole new way; with improvised dialogue, handheld cameras and deconstructed narratives. This movement was termed The French New Wave or “La Nouvelle Vague” and it gained an audience around the world.
Like many “New Wave” movies Breathless concerns itself with modern life and in particular with the lives of two young parisians: Patricia, a young woman who sells the New York Herald-Tribune and Michael, an opportunistic player and thief running from the law.
They may both be young and (questionably) in love with each other but they are different in important ways. Patricia is attracted to the risky and carefree lifestyle that Michael embodies yet underneath it she has aspirations of her own. Michael doesn’t have any discernable aspirations, besides going to Italy, presumably to run from the Law. He pressures her to join him in a style in which I can only compare to Marlon Brando. This scene takes up a good portion of the movie, and though being a tad overdrawn, it gives us time to see both characters as they truly are.
The questions in the viewers mind are: 1) is Patricia truly in Love with Michael & 2) Will she turn him in? We know that Michael is morally corrupt but it is Patricia’s moral ambiguity that keeps us watching.
I must admit that Breathless has a different feel to it than any other movie I have watched. With its own seemingly happenchance editing it could have been a disastrous movie yet its themes of love and morality keep it afloat. I would recommend Breathless to anyone who wants a “breath” of fresh air; to know that all films don’t have to follow a Hollywood-cookie cutter format and be successful.
3 stars

Becket

1964
Directed By: Peter Glenville

Cast:

Peter O'Toole - King Henry II
Richard Burton - Thomas a Becket
John Gelgud - King Louis VII of France


Thomas a Becket, the second most powerful man in England is not even of Royal Blood - in a time when what lineage you came from meant what status you held. On the contrary he was a Saxon - a group that was defeated by the Normans when they invaded England. At the time of the plots setting a generation has past but there is still hatred and distrust of both groups by each other. Becket wasn't just an "ordinary" Saxon, however, he was the kings friend and most trusted advisor. Beket was smart, cunning and wise where King Henry II, played by Peter O' Toole is little more than an overgrown winey adolescent. I hope this is the description of the character becasuse O' Toole plays this part so well. We know that he knows that he is king and we fear that is all he knows.
Becket is so trusted by the king that he is given the official seal of England. He does his job well, almost too well and King Henry - seeing that there is no one else that he can trust, or at the very least think like him, makes Beket the Archbishop of Canturbury with the idea that the church will now be on his side. Beket is many things but if there is one thing he is not, he is not somebody's man. He is a persuer of truth and most of all honor - what honor had been up that point had come in the form of serving his "prince." This had left him empty though and now entrusted with serving a greater cause - that being God's - he throws everything he has into this new role. It seems though one can serve only God or Country and not both.
Richard Burton plays his role a little stiffly. There isn't much show of emotion. Though that may be in keeping with character I thought that it was still a little overdone. On the other hand there must be some balance to cantakerous King Henry. Besides a few seens, the acting isn't too theatrical that it becomes burdensome.
What is central to grasp though is not so much the acting but the relationship between the title characters of Beket and King Henry. Like two sides of the same coin they opperate like a well oiled machine when working together. When they are opposed the country divides itself. Both are freinds but both also see that they have higher obligations - one to God and the other to Country. They are thrust into their roles by forces which they have no control over and if they had lived as any other class we would expect that they could grow old together being the best of freinds. The film does the best job of shedding light on this conflict.
2 1/2 stars

The Life and Times of Andy Warhol

1991
Directed by: Chuck Workman

Perhaps there is no artist more ambiguous than Andy Warhol. It was not just that he was ambigous as a person - he seldom spoke about his art and he would only do so if directly confronted, even then it was vague - his art says almost nothing about the painter behind it unlike other works. Most of his works don't have a single discernable brushstroke unlike say VanGogh where every stroke is defined and an entity in itself. The subject matter also doesn't reflect him - it reflects the pop culture of the time; Campbell Soup Cans and Marilyn Monroe. So in painting a picture of Andy Warhol (excuse the pun) the focus must be more on the people he colloraborated with. The Life & Times of Andy Warhol does a good job of this. In this documentary you won't find critiques of his work. What you will find is views and opinions on Warhol expressed by the people he came into contact with.
The film itself tries to be sort of "popsy" itself with pop songs in the background and a quick and sometimes chatoic tempo. This is not to say there isn't any order however. The film progresses chronologically from Warhol's humble beginnings growing up in Pittsburg to his time in New York City - where he spent the rest of his life. And could we imagine Warhol living anywhere else? The high fashion and endless barage of new products influenced him immensly. His earliest jobs were of illustrating for fashion publications. His goal however always had been to be an artist - so he just painted what he found, common objects, like soup cans. Unbeknowest to him he was painting in a trend that would later be called pop art amongst such artists as Lichtenstein, Rosencrants & Jasper Johns.
Soon his work catapulted him into the spotlight and he frequently enjoyed hanging around celebrities that frequented NYC clubs. If there was a party going on Warhol was there.
Besides screenprinting his famous Marilyns & Elvis's he also worked in Film - specifically experimental film. People seemed to interst him most and many of these films contain minutes of people just staring at the camera or interactions between two people. It was at this time that he created "the factory" where most of his art was produced. He was always surrounded by an eclectic mix of people who I think just drew themselves naturally to him. He wasn't conventional and neither were they. In the documentary you hear fisthand from this eclectic mix (the ones who didn't die prematurely anyway) and you realize that Warhol was just as different if not more so than they were. He may have been aloof to outsiders but to those who knew him he had a fun personality.
I'ld definnitly recommend this film to anyone curious about the man behind the work. I know we've all seen them. You may not learn why he painted them but really I don't think he knew. Whatever the reason, he captured the mood of America in the 60's like few had and will forever remain a cultural icon.
2 stars