K
Okay, I have a confession to make. I can't stand Ben Stiller. With the
exception of Mystery Men (and he was still playing an insanely
annoying character in that), I cannot bear to see any of his films. So I
was very uncertain about checking this one out. On the other hand, I
adore Edward Norton, and since he directed and stars in this, that was
enough to put it over the edge and into my viewing hands. And praise the
Lord!, because I found this movie incredibly funny and entertaining! Two
childhood friends gain a third; a young girl who befriends them but
eventually moves away, much to the sadness of all. Years later the two
friends have grown up to become, respectively, a Catholic priest and a
Rabbi. Working closely together, encouraging acceptance and interaction
between people of differing faiths, their friendship is put to the test
when their schooldays friend returns, a very grown up and sexy woman.
The overall story, I must confess, is just alright. But what makes this
film great are the comedic moments and scenes that are scattered
throughout - bits from their childhood, their adventures as they climb
the hierarchal ladders in their respective faiths, and the wild and
wonderful things they do to bring spirit, life, energy, and people back
into the church/synagogue. Those moments steal the show from the rest of
the somewhat predictable and lopsided love-triangle story. I still wish
there had been more Edward Norton and a little less Ben Stiller,
but hey, I bet it's tough to both direct and act in a movie, so I'll cut
him some slack.
Return to the Index
When I read the description of this movie, I was pretty
sure I didn't really want to see it. It just didn't sound like something
I would really enjoy. And I was right. I always find it interesting
though, because there are many movies that come out that I don't "enjoy"
persay, but which are nonetheless powerful or interesting or well made.
I always wonder then about such things. Is enjoyment the ruler by which
I should measure films? Is enjoyment the ruler by which most people
measure films, or is it something else?
Kekexilli is based on a true
story about the Tibetian Antelope that was being poached out of
existance for their pelts alone and how a volunteer group of people
formed a patrol in order to try to protect these animals. The story is
told mostly due to a reporter who joined up with the mountain patrol, as
it happened in real life, and his report back on the experience and what
happened changed everything. I'll tell you this much, it's a grim little
film that I personally found to be pretty depressing. It's the kind of
film where you really wonder why people do the things that they do. You
can understand more why the poachers do what they do than why the patrol
fight so hard, against such impossible odds and hardships, to protect
the antelope. And there is a bitterness to the fact that in trying to
stop criminals sometimes you have to do criminal things.
It's certainly
gripping and by turns intense as well as culturally interesting, but
it's not a film about blacks and whites, it's a film where all the
shades of gray exist in both the landscape and the people there. I found
certain aspects of it to be quite interesting and wonderful - especially
the part where it was clear that these men truly revered and cared for
these animals, even going so far as to collect their carcasses, burn
them in burial, and sing over them. You rarely see that kind of
reverence for animals, worthy of a funeral like a person. They say the
cinematography is great, and I suppose it is, but the landscape is so
dreadfully barren and hostile that there is little beauty to be found in
it.
Return to the Index
This was pretty good, but not amazing. Kind of tough to watch. A father
who abandoned his handicapped son at birth returns to take care of him
for awhile and take him to a special hospital in Berlin for care. The
child is severely disabled, with physical issues that have twisted his
body as well as mental ones. Despite this, however, he is a sweet person
- friendly and loving. The father finds that once he has met this
abandoned son he doesn't want to leave him, even though caring for him
will be a great trial emotionally and personally.
I was most fascinated
by Paolo, the son, who is clearly played by a disabled person with the
same issues, though most likely not to the same extent as the character.
It isn't acted, because the body contortions and wall-eyed nature of the
child could not be faked. But it did make me wonder about just how they
made this movie and how that part was created and played. A slice of
life film with no real beginning or ending. Interesting.
Return to the Index
This was a movie that I hadn't planned on seeing but then I thought,
"Well, heck, I'm here and it sounds like it might be pretty funny ...
why not?" Well, I wish I hadn't had that thought. It was one of those
movies that was incredibly inconsistent. At first I wasn't really into
it, but then it picked up the pace and got interesting and entertaining
and so I was enjoying it. And then it got annoying and stupid and I
wasn't enjoying it. And then it seemed to be getting better, but then it
got even worse. And the more I sat there the more I begin to ask myself,
"Should I leave? Should I leave?"
Sometimes, after you've made an
investment of time in something, you feel vaguely compelled to stay
through to the end, just to see how it will all pan out. Since it had
already had some very good points I kept thinking that perhaps it would
get better. But finally I decided that I had reached the point where I
wasn't enjoying it at all, and hadn't been for about 20 or 30 minutes,
and that I didn't really care how it ended or if it got better or not.
Blah. Not even worth trying to describe the plot really. Utterly random,
odd, annoying, tedious, and uneven. There was funny, but not enough, and
not consistent, and there was definitely way more annoying by the end
than funny. Le sigh.
Return to the Index
|
