About Chocolate Parfaits

The Last King of Scotland

The new year begun and They shoot pictures, don’t they? have finally released their new versions of the best 1000 films of all times and the best 250 films of the 21st century. As every year, I would look at these lists, marking off the number I have seen, slowly seeing it grow. It is in these kinds of moments that I stumble upon so many films I have loved in the past, even if they might not be in my top 30. Truth to be told, I am not even sure if I want to see all those movies figuring in these lists, but along with Criterion’s releases, every year’s Academy Award candidates and Roger Ebert’s greatest films (I often do not agree with his contemporary movie tastes, but his look-back at film history is pretty awesome, with “Woman in the Dunes” and “Make way for tomorrow” and such), these lists play quite an important role in my film consumption. I love seeing these highly acclaimed films, while trying to keep an open mind about other films.

“The last king of Scotland” definitely is amongst these ‘other films’. When I think of films like “Avatar” or “The Hurt Locker” (representatives of a mediocre Oscar year except for the animated nominees, if you ask me), I am wondering why this film has not garnered any more acclaim. It might be a relatively typical “white man in Africa” kind of story, but what kind of Africa! The film is rather accurate with history, and Forest Whitaker is breathtaking. I don’t think I have seen him ever since “Ghost Dog”, but I knew he was awesome. His portrait as creepy dictator is absolutely haunting, and it is largely thanks to him that the movie attains its immense creepiness. I don’t think I have been scared watching a film like this for a long time. It’s just that the atmosphere of danger is literally everywhere.

Certainly the film had its gory parts, but even though they had their effect, I think the film also did a good job at portraying the militarism of the country, and its crazy “king”. The movie was suspenseful throughout its entire story, and I have finally satisfied my desire to see it ever since I saw the trailer many, many years ago in a theater. I’m pretty sure I was watching a rom-com back then. Though it might also have been “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones”.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

There is a possibility that Fincher will continue directing the movies for book 2 and 3 for Stieg Larsson’s trilogy. If that happens, I will cry. It’s not that I think Fincher is a bad choice for them, a certain continuity in style would actually be very good for those movies. I’d rather say that Fincher is too good for that. He has always been very good at doing something different every time, and it would be a shame if he spent over 3 years on practically the same thing. I am just that curious about something new, even if it is something lukewarm as “Benjamin Button”.

Maybe Fincher is not a “good director”. But there is no doubt for me that he is the trendiest one of all of them. He took my heart by a storm with “Fight Club”, and with “The Social Network”, he practically made the film of the year, if not of the decade. (If you consider 2005 to 2015 as a decade, then “The Social Network” is arguably the film of the decade.) There is a very good reason why I have practically every one of his films (except for “Alien 3”), and that is the incredible impact he makes on me – perhaps the strongest amongst all modern Hollywood filmmakers.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” has a lovely story and a somewhat sad, yet pleasant ending. I think it is not that much more than an enjoyable story, and certainly less meaningful than “The Social Network”, but it was extraordinarily enjoyable. Even the silly motorcycle chasing scenes were fun to see, and the film kept me straight in my seat throughout its entire running time.

Considering that the film is merely a good-looking, well-written crime story, I wouldn’t normally rave about it as much. What makes the film stand out and become to a serious contender to my beloved Social Network was – of course – its main character. Lisbeth is such a great character, words cannot describe her. Ironically enough, she fueled some odd fashion trend (I heard H&M’s dragon tattoo collection sold out immediately), but apart from that, she is pretty much what a modern woman would look up to these days. Deeply hurt, yet warm-hearted and immensely strong, she takes her problems into her own hands and, by the way, saves other people’s lives on the way. She chooses who she sleeps with, and does so without playing games. When she tattooed “I am a rapist pig” onto that guy’s body, I went all “Oh yeah!” I wish I could be like that. Roony ‘the Girlfriend’ Mara is doing an awesome job at it too, as the entire world of critics would probably agree with.

This film is probably is probably no “Social Network”, but I think it’s a must-watch, and if it’s just for its great main character.

Pi

For “Requiem for a Dream”, I have looked at Aronofsky’s films with a certain amount of suspicion. Ever since “The Wrestler”, I am convinced that he can make some great movies which are more than style over substance. “Pi” is somewhere in between, and more than anything else, it’s a first movie – simple concept, very good cinematography, low number of characters. Parts of it feel like a film student’s diploma movie, where you show off what you can do with a small budget. For such a film, I thought “Pi” was great and clearly shows the potential which now led to “The Wrestler” and “Black Swan”.

The only thing that seriously annoyed me in the film was the math talk. It’s just downright… bullshit, and I found it painful and almost infuriating to watch. For most people who do this math stuff, there is no deeper meaning to it – it’s just fun, or it’s just a job, okay? The hacker or the mathematician who turned crazy and schizophrenic, that is so last century and so outdated now.

The film has a quite straightforward story, and mostly focuses on its main character and how he slowly descends into craziness. It’s interesting both in terms of the depiction of craziness, amusing to see the outdated hacker romanticism, and finally it’s worth it for Aronofsky’s poignant style. Apart from that, it’s a largely a film for film buffs, not that this is a bad thing.

Night on the Galactic Railroad

I am still 7 films short of Shii’s all-time favorite list, though I managed to get this down from 14 during last year. (You are probably doing worse on my list, aren’t you, Shii? :D) “Night on the Galactic Railroad” mostly is here because of that. I have the film lying around for ever and ever, but since anthropomorphic cats always scare me a little bit (especially when they walk on two legs), I have never quite wanted to see the film.

All in all, the movie is completely different from what I have expected. The end is so sad! Oh my God, it’s perhaps the saddest ending ever? (Apart from “Make way for tomorrow”) It did not make me cry, but that doesn’t mean very much. I think the film is sad because whenever I think back of the film, I think of its ending and how Campanella is perhaps the most lovely character of all times – it’s almost cathartic.

I am not sure if I see the point of the rest of the film though. It certainly is a lovely story, but so immensely slow-paced it is almost painful. I think that the film has a lot of creative and beautiful fantastic elements in it, especially the characters they meet on the road. Most of all, I liked how these encounters are brief yet meaningful in some sense, almost like “Le Petit Prince” (which I hated as a child for its immense sadness).

Just like “Le Petit Prince”, I think that “Night on the Galactic Railroad” is not a children’s movie, nor do I find the book suitable for children. I mean, there is a character who let two children die so that they can meet God? Come on! If I had read this story as a little child, my heart would have broken, no joke. Before learning what irony is, I don’t think children are very good at dealing with sadness – even if it’s fiction. Maybe it’s even worse in fiction, because real life ultimately isn’t all that sad for a little child.

Anyways, I love that the film is practically about the meaning of death, but I also thought that it failed at delivering any deeper meaning. At the same time, it’s a wonderfully creative adaptation of a most likely well-written story, which touched me and made me wish that I could board on such a train when the time comes.

My Own Private Idaho

I have seen quite a few Gus van Sant’s films, exactly 7 out of 14 of the feature films he has made until today. Starting from “Mala Noche”, his first, all the way up to “Milk”, one of his most recent endeavors, I’d say I have a good picture of his career, starting with the very rough simple gay stories to more subtly gay mainstream films to biopics about a gay politician. His insertion of a scene of “Tosca” will probably his most memorable contribution to my film enjoyment, yet at the same time, I have pretty much liked all his films despite or maybe rather because of the gayness. But from all I have seen, “My Own Private Idaho” stands out.

First of all, I have never seen anything with River Phoenix before. Of course he is infamous for dying a young death and that probably made him immortal – one of the biggest ironies of being famous, I suppose. But apart from that I had absolutely no idea he was just that good. How can a young kid who probably has seen nothing in life be such a good actor? Maybe the drugs did it; they created the misery that brought out this incredible character in him. Thinking about it, I wonder if Rooney Mara is also going to turn crazy.

The other pleasant aspect is to see Keanu Reeves actually being a great actor. He might have been heavily overshadowed by Mr. Phoenix there, just like Brad Pitt is practically overshadowed by his co-stars in any given film he has ever acted in (unlike Leo <3 who stands for himself), but this film proves that Keanu is more than a pretty face. And what a pretty face! Back in the day when everybody saw “The Matrix” he has never striked me as so attractive.

It’s not that the rest of the film is bad – it is very far from that. It’s just that if I had the film before I told other people to watch it, I would have been much more careful about it. I mean, hey… the film is a mix out of an unrequited gay love story which doesn’t really make much sense, another story that doesn’t exactly come to a conclusion (we haven’t actually learned anything about Mike’s mother nor much about Scott’s family), a street hustler who randomly falls asleep and finally, Shakespeare?

Note: Another bonus, yay Grace Zabriskie! I never imagined to see her in a movie again, she is just such a strange character?

I know that this is one of Shii’s favorite films and 6451 explicitly said that he liked it (he made me feel so guilty for giving him that movie without watching it! like catholically guilty you know). In consequence, my expectations for this film were extraordinarily high. In some sense it was fulfilled, because this film might just as well be Gus van Sant’s masterpiece in terms of storytelling and directing, but on the other hand, it also left me trailing in metaphorical ether… as if I was figuratively floating in an empty universe of thoughts and ideas. Perhaps he could have taken these three ideas – a street hustler who randomly falls asleep, a rich Shakespearean boy who decides to go back to the “good ways” and a lost boy looking for his mother – in order to fleshed them out and made three movies out of it. But the way it is right now, I thought the film was really strange and I probably failed to see its point.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

Oh wow. It took me years to finish watching this movie (although this is nothing compared to the Decalogue which I have partially rewatched and am still thinking of very often, or Inland Empire which is another film I cannot get myself to see in its entirety), but “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” is just particularly painful. For the first hour or so, probably the most boring movie I have ever seen in my life, except for Kevin Spacey’s lovely display of arrogance and John Cusack’s oblivious character. If this is the movie about Savannah, or even the South, then it tells you a novel about how soporific it must be.

Okay, maybe the South is not exciting, and maybe it is funny to make in-breed jokes about them (just thinking about it makes me want to laugh, though I have personal reasons for that), but there is a charm to this place which I have visited several times, and it’s not that people are eccentric and strange, but that they are – most of all – very welcoming.

Amazingly enough, the second half of this way too dragged out film was surprisingly better. I wouldn’t necessarily say that I care for what happened, or what the truth really was – because whatever turned out at the end did not warrant a 2+ hour film nor somebody spending their whole life following them and writing a bestseller out of it. What made the second part bearable was the simple fact that the happenings at least pointed towards something – the resolution to the film, that is. I thought it gave the film a rather interesting end and a twist that has been there all the time. I also like how that twist ended up being indeed on the verge between good and evil. But that highly praised first part of the film, especially its strange characters and whatnot, is probably much better in the forms of a book, where such things can be detailed out and actually feel alive. Instead we are served a lukewarm, pointless not-really-love story and encounter a bunch of characters who, except for Lady Chablis, do absolutely nothing in the film.

I wish Savannah – or any other city in the world – had a better film to represent them, and I am glad to get it over with. This film is largely a waste of time, unless you have some explicable reason to watch it. (A strange fascination for Kevin Spacey perhaps? I couldn’t fault you on that.)

That Lady in Ermine

The statement “this is a Lubitsch” does not necessarily mean that it’s a good film. Despite my undeniable love for Lubitsch, who would easily be my favorite director if all his films were like “The Shop around the Corner”, I did not actually like all of his films. “Die Bergkatze” was amusing but rather silly, “Die Ehe im Kreise” is a little bland, and this film is in a similar warm-hearted style like “Heaven can wait” but worse. I do not know what it is (the choices of colors and costumes perhaps?) but Lubitsch in color always looks so strangely dated. Black and white definitely suits him better.

I don’t think anybody ever mentions this film apart from the fact that it was Lubitsch’s last, and I am not surprised. Despite the fact that two great directors worked on this, the master himself and Preminger (who is pretty amazing as well), the silly plot doesn’t quite allow a great direction anyways. It feels like just anybody could have turned this into an acceptable film, and that is basically what “That Lady in Ermine” is – acceptable. It’s a musical (that’s a minus), but it also has a few funny scenes (despite the negative-sounding quantifier “a few” that is a plus). The film definitely picks up when the story turned into a full-blown, triangle story. I especially enjoyed the dream sequence in which Angelina turns all manly and does her little leg dance.

Hollywood likes its silly stories, and the same are worked over and over again. While nowadays, people are into producing bad sequels, back in the day you just made the same film again. On the one hand, we have “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” and “Orpheus” and the like, classics which are reinterpreted over and over, but on the other hand, something like this silly operetta story is being remade again and again as well, first as a silent film, then as a 1930’s talkie and then by Lubitsch. The other two are lost, but from the synopsis it seems that the countess ends up with the count at the end of the original story.

Maybe, when Lubitsch grew older, he kept parts of his boyishness, yet at the same time his sense of esthetics turned into the one of an old man. The style of the film is beautiful (Angelina’s white/golden dress is dashing) but oh wow it’s so painfully cliché.

Sylvia Scarlett

With “Bringing Up Baby”, “Holiday”, “The Philadelphia Story” and this film, I think I have seen all Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant cooperations, making them my most watched couple of their time. And boy they are great together. When Gorp recommended “Sylvia Scarlett” almost a year ago, he never said it was going to be with Cary Grant. Well, that is not surprising. The whole story was not supposed to be about her and Grant’s character, and you can still see how Cary Grant wasn’t as developed as an actor at the time. Their chemistry is okayish at best, very different from “Bringing Up Baby” and “Holiday”.

In fact, just like Gorp said, the highlight of the film is definitely Katharine Hepburn’s cross-dressing, and she is indeed even more fierce than she was in “Bringing Up Baby”. It’s probably her best role yet, and this boyishness suits her perfectly. Just for that, the film was worth seeing.

On second thought, however, the film was not all that special. Its silly singing-and-dancing scenes were very reminiscent of “Holiday” – it seems like the film lives in its own little bubble in which characters can break into laughter and jest at all times, and entertain the audience purely by doing so. Of course the film is lovely, but it is strangely lacking the Lubitsch or Schnitzler smarts in its dialogue. The characters are a lot of fun, but quite one-dimensional and dumb, mostly either purely good or purely bad, leaving no identification potential whatsoever.

As a Katharine Hepburn and Cary Grant fan, the film was an obvious must-see, and it did not disappoint. In general, however, I think “Bringing Up Baby” was still their best film together.

Nashville

When I go to a city, I have a tendency to want to see films about it. In fact, this is why I finally watched “Walk the Line”. Where “Mystery Train” is the perfect Memphis film, I expected “Nashville” to be the Nashville film, and that expectation did not disappoint. After touring the city and learning about country music in the fairly well done Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville, I felt sufficiently prepared for the film (apart from the fact that I thought the museum was surprisingly well-designed and popular, it also is the only way to visit the historical RCA Studio B).

It was very helpful to learn about the music genre itself before seeing this film, because the movie has a LOT of country music in it. Among the almost 3 hours of the film, perhaps 1 is entirely dedicated to some music performances, one more ridiculous than the other. Luckily there were also a few good songs and some characters who actually could sing.

Altman is probably most famous for his black comedies. Yet if one considers that my favorite Altman film is the comparably less funny “Gosford Park”, which I prefer over “MASH”, “Short Cuts” or “A Wedding”, I was not too surprised that I didn’t quite find this film very funny either. It is more an amusing film than it is a funny film, which is expected as all black comedies are not laughing out loud funny. Since such black comedies also never have any likable characters (well, if they have a likable character, he or she must suffer or die), the enjoyment from such films must come out of something else. I can’t put my finger on what it is, and in a similar vein, I don’t know why I thought “Nashville”, this strange and slightly confusing amalgam of characters and events, was actually enjoyable. Perhaps it is the characters, of which the racist ‘yellow fever’ BBC lady was probably my favorite. Or it’s the perfectly constructed end, where no questions were answered, but it brought all the characters together in a tumultuous scene.

For some reason, “Nashville” was wildly popular and perhaps it still is. At least Roger Ebert included it in his selection of “Greatest Movies” a few years back. I can definitely see where the sheer love for the film is coming from, but somehow I still find it rather dated.