MEMENTO Movie **1/2 Score**1/2
starring Guy Pearce
(cant be bothered writing the other cast)

Well, what can I say? I'd heard so many reports about this movie so I was looking forward to it a lot. Unfortunately it turned out to be a bit of a disappointment...I'm sure quite a few people will disagree with me though.

Firstly, when I rent a DVD movie and spend almost £4 of my hard earned money, I expect to see something a bit better than a glorified T.V. movie that I could watch on SKY...e.g I expect some wonderful characterisations or great effects/music... sets/imagery to satisfy my artistic eye.... different locations of the world and a feeling of location or some credence of reality. Also, I expect to see spectacle of some kind e.g. sweeping city-scape panoramas and a big supporting cast etc. Memento looked and felt too theatrical and the few locations very contrived in my opinion. O.K. so all of this was happening from Guy Pearce's perspective I know and we were piecing together his memories of his wife's brutal murder etc. My problem though was, I was less interested in solving this puzzle as I was to asking questions like "Who are these people? Were Guy Pearce and his wife happy together? (we never saw them together much..only brief flash-backs) How did he pay for his hotel bills? Didn't he have a job? Where is the "real" world amongst all this scenario? This was my biggest problem with what I felt about "Memento". Yes the concept was very clever, yes Guy Pearce was very good (not as good as in L.A. Confidential though) but why these days do people have to make a 2 hour movie based on only one idea/concept? One clever idea/gimmick does not a good movie make. I found after about 45 minutes I was thinking.."This is clever, but do I really care?" Unfortunately, the answer was a resounding "No!" I didn't get any sense of "location" in this movie. It was so busy being clever with its play with reality/time etc that I felt the characters were just too one dimensional. I didn't feel anything towards any of the characters...even Guy Pearce. The film had a real low budget/T.V. movie feel to it and there only seemed to be about six people in the whole film and about the same amount of locations. O.K. the camerawork, black-and-white photography was very arty-farty etc and looked quite good, but so what? Any episode of "The X-Files" looks like this. Basically, I kept saying to myself "What is the point of this movie? Can I really be bothered completing the Jigsaw?" Personally, if I cant relate or sympathise with on-screen characters and know a bit about them, then I lose interest quickly...life is too short! So, the clever gimmick of the narrative...building up a picture slowly of each character was in fact the films downfall in my eyes. I thought "Do I really care about the outcome?". One scene I did think was excellent though was when Natalie showed her true colours to Guy Pearce by abusing and hitting him, and we then witnessed him trying to find a pen to write down what had happened before he forgot the incident. Overall, a clever idea to a movie, but not a strong enough gimmick to keep over a 2 hour stretch. Also, low budget and small cast made the film better suited for T.V.!
Tonight, I'll be watching "Bicentennial Man". I've heard mixed reports about this movie but I noticed (while recording the isolated score) the film does at least look more "cinematic" and visual than a film like "Memento". It also had some gorgeous looking imagery of a futuristic world and a real sense of location just from the few scenes I viewed. Isn't this what films should be like? Escapism on a high level and an artist's eye view to fuel our imaginations and help us escape every day reality for a couple of hours. In my view, this is what the cinema is all about. Cant wait to watch "Bicentennial Man" tonight. Even Robin Williams looks better as a Robot than he does normal!) Gae

Memento is an inde film...what more is there to be said about budget and location besides that it was an inde film, that sums it all up. Also, you went in wanting the wrong things. Memento is the complete opposite of everything you listed, and meant to be so for good and ARTISTIC reasons. Real, unreal etc...Memento was meant to have an unreal feeling. A constant slip on reality in the locations and flashbacks.

If one goes for escapsim, to see lavish sets, costumes, all of that hullabaloo, skip a film like Memento.

I myself search for thought provoking and mind bending or emotionaly kicking films. Memento was different, mind bending if one was willing to put themselves into it...since it REQUIRES YOU TO BE IN IT as an active viewer instead of just one who sits back and lets the images flood the brain(escapism). Memento is a puzzle, go expecting a puzzle, meaning you should put some effort into it, and expect to in order to like it...if you are not a fan of films like that...do not see Memento. If you are a fan of a film that requires you to think for once, go for it.

I loved it.

**/****

This film is supposedly Hitch's personal favorite. The "ideas" behind the film, that of a killer being in a normal household, and the way in which some scenes are done, are fantastic, and even more considering it back when it was created. The film is not all that good though, but there are some truly great scenes. The best one being the Uncle's rant about how evil and horrid the world is...yet the people at the dinner table would not know...since they live in this nice little white & white town, blind from the evil...untill he comes.

Could have been a great film, is just good with some great moments instead. ROPE is still my favorite Hitchcock film.

***.5/****

I rented this on DVD and to my surprise I loved it. It is one of, if not the funniest animated films ever made. I hate Disney with a passion so I was not to excited to see this one even though the trailer looked different, more mature and realistic in it's humor and dialogue, but I laughed constantly. What made this film great was Kronk(I think I am spelling it right). That character was hillarious. I loved the series The Tick, and the humor was very similar in both The Tick and this film...some of the humor in the Evil Dead films, especially Army of Darkness was also present in Emperor's new Groove in some respects as well. The humor, and the lack of over the top messages and stupid songs, makes this film a classic in my mind and the best Disney film in many many many years. I found this film much funnier, maybe not a better film, but Kronk was much funnier than anything in the two Toy Storys I thought.

Never mind, all that pales in comparison to the terrifyingly realistic scenes of combat. No big recognisable city landmarks being blown to smithereens in far-off times either. These grey housing schemes are so much part of European existence that sometimes I felt I was watching a very frightening SF movie about war breaking out in Glasgow or something. But it wasn't SF: this happened, and watching the film is a harrowing experience which may leave you angry and sad at the same time.

Music is wisely kept to a minimum, though there's a song like Flashdance over the end credits. Maybe the lyrics were great.

HARRISON'S FLOWERS (France, 2000)

Directed by Elie Chouraqui
Screenplay by Elie Chouraqui, Didier LePecheur, Isabel Ellsen and Michael Katims
Photography by Nicola Pecorini
Music by Bruno Coulais

Anyway, my basic point is this. I just didn't happen to find Memento a great film, the same way that you obviously did. I do however respect other people's opinions and try not to patronise them the way I felt you've patronised me in your reply. If you disagree with a person's view of a movie, of course, thats your right...but please, before you start making assumptions and generalisations about a person just because their view doesn't match yours at least try to respect that they have their own viewpoint which may just be different to yours..based on age, environment etc etc People are different and their views of movies do change with age and circumstances!! You are currently a student and of course view films from a student perspective...I am a teacher and these days look to movies as a means of escapism from the routine of work. If I want to learn something though, I dont watch a movie but read a good book or study a music score. So please, just be a little more tactful maybe in future and think about where I'm coming from and not just YOUR perspective of things. Thats something else that changes as you grow too..you realise that the world doesn't revolve about just you and that everyone has a different perspective and approach on life. Now, I'm the one sounding patronising! I am however a very forgiving person and big enough to take a few criticisms here and there. I do agree with you that, yes, generally these days I do expect to be entertained while watching a movie (its an age thing!) Gone are the days where I had to sit through the most tedious of arty-farty, politically active movies and pretend I'm a better and clever person because I can see things that other "ordinary" folk cant see or understand! Thats just pretentiousness!!
Oh well, I'm off to watch that mindless drivel of a film "North by Northwest" that I just bought on DVD! Gae
P.S Thought "provoaking" is spelt "provoking" in the English language!

All The Pretty Horses. Way too long, and much of Cormac’s poetry and
themes are lost in the transference from novel to film, but that usually happens.
Particular scenes were interesting and tense, but the parts didn’t add up to a
solid whole. Nice main western theme, but I kept thinking, “Oh, what Elmer
Bernstein could have scored for all those pretty horses.”

Emperor’s New Groove.
Another fun fest from Disney. A lot of comments and humor were directed
towards adults, not just kids. I enjoyed this film, but it didn’t entertain me as
much as Mulan.

Gae, I applaud your comments on Memento and to Kross. After reading both
opinions on this film, I look forward to seeing it and making up my own mind.
Kross, I’ve noticed several times that you do tend to get “cross” when people
enjoy what you don’t like (I.E. Remember the Titans) or dislike what you favor.
I really think that some of us do get-grok-comprehend-discern-apprehend the finer
nuisances of art films and enjoy “thought-provoking” films as well as well-made escapist
films. (Many of us on the Board are quite well-educated, and our tastes are not
all in our mouths.) Plumbing the depths of an art film (understanding its message) isn’t
always a guarantee that one will like it. And that’s O.K. You like Rope better than
Shadow of a Doubt. I prefer Shadow and feel it’s superior to Rope, which to me
relies on a gimmick rather than substance. That’s my opinion, but I’d never argue
that your views are not valid nor worthwhile because they differ with mine. Nor
would I “imply” a lack of insight on your part because you didn’t agree with me. And I think it's pretty tough to not bring certain expectations to some movies. "Nuff" said.

I have been on a HITCHCOCK binge lately, and Vertigo caught my eye in the DVD section, so I picked it up and thought I may like it more this time.

VERTIGO
by Hitchcock of course
****/****

As I have said before, I am not a fan of Psycho or most of his well known films. I liked Vertigo, loved the amazingly shot sequences and landscapes, but only liked the film instead of loving it as I wish I had. The acting was above good as usual, and the score was a huge plus. The score to Vertigo was fantastic. It was a departure, at least in my mind, from most of his other films, since the score to Vertigo has a constant sadness/deep notes/serious tone even when things are lightened up in a musical sense. Since the film and score had amazing ATMOSPHERE, my favorite word, I loved the score and truly liked the film.

A beautiful film that looks and feels like a dream/painting. My second fav. Hitchcock film.

**.5/****

This film has a great character and some of the best shots by Hitchcock...yet I cannot really lik ethe film as a whole. This is how I feel of most of Hitch's films...great in parts but not great as a whole. There are some truly amazing shots, especially for being in B&W, in the end, and the shot through the glasses on the ground as a person is being killed. The film tends to drag too often and does not pay off. I respect this film for its technique...and the crazy obessive character has some amazing shots, especailly considering when this film was made...but as a whole...this film is just too much for too little. I could have cared less about any of the characters, or anything that happened to them...this is a major problem with Hitchcock. He may be a master of suspense...he proved me this in Rope, but he has yet to make me care about a character.

Actually, I did care about the people in Shadow of a Doubt...and now that I think about it...and reflect on that film which I watched a week or se ago, Shadow of a Doubt may be my second or third favorite since some of the scenes, especailly when the killer/uncle rants at the dinner table...are so amazing even to this day, that they are growing on me more and more while his others films seem to vanish.

My two favorite Hitchcock films so far, since I am going on a Hitchcock quest..seeing and re-watching as many as I can...

***/****

This film has some truly amazing aspects to it, yet the film as a whole, like most of Hitch's films, was rather boring. My theroy that Hitchcock is a great great master of technique, but not of great films still stands. It may be that I could care less if the true killer is found or not in a film, or that I do not like slashser esque films or ones about serial killers unless there is a deeper tone to the film, i.e. Shadow of a Doubt and Se7en were two films with killers that had deeper tones. Social commentary if you will.

Once again, there are some amazing shots and uses of the camera and editing. Once again I did not like the film though.

I actually gave this film **/**** but felt that there were too many amazing shots to be so low, so I gave it ***/**** just for technique.

Hitchock has yet to wow me except for in a few cases, in Rope, the color usage in Vertigo, and some moments in Shadow of a Doubt, and of course all of the beyond brillinat usage of TECHNIQUE in all of his films. Sadly, his films are rather dull beyond his technique though. The characters are always flat. The story is 95% the same in most of his films, in fact I feel like I have watched the same film over and over again in my "Hitchcock Binge/Quest."

I respect Hitcock with every bit of my aspiring director's heart...yet I do not like more than two of his films as films.

Directed by Julian Schnabel
Screenplay by Lazaro Lopez Carriles, Cunningham O'Keefe and Julian Scnabel, from the autobiography of Reinaldo Arenas
Photography by Xavier Perez Grobet and Guillermo Rosas
Music by Carter Burwell

Main Cast: Javier Bardem, Olivier Martinez, Andrea Di Stefano

The story of Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas, persecuted by the Castro regime for writing books AND being homosexual.

Surprise! A semi-independant semi-Art House movie which is actually critical of Fidel! So THAT'S how it got to the Oscars! But it's not really overtly political, in fact it seems to deliberately avoid being an overbearing tirade.

Quite visually poetic. I don't know if the grainy, impossibly sunny, Super-8 photography in some scenes was supposed to remind one of home movies of growing up, but that's what it reminded me of.

Very odd cameos from Sean Penn and Johnny Depp, in fact TWO very odd cameos from Johnny Depp. And one of his two very odd cameos is EXTREMELY odd. Is Depp a good actor? I don't know if all that mock-serious sucking in of cheeks and raising of eyebrows is right for EVERY part.

Speaking of acting, this is without a doubt Javier Bardem's film. He's absolutely brilliant in the main role, subtly suggesting his, erm, condition, with just a trace of limp wrists, wiggly walks and fluttering eyelashes. And very small swimming trunks. And I don't want any hate mail from all you butch gays out there who think I may be under the impresseion that some homosexual men can be a bit effeminite sometimes. Anyway, Javier Bardem is so good as Arenas that only afterwards do you realise that the film itself perhaps wasn't that great.

In the run up to the Oscars, the Spanish papers were full of the support Bardem was getting from some people in Hollywood. One story was about a party thrown in his honour, which included such well-known Bardem supporters as "actor Jack Nicholson y compositor Jerry Goldsmith." Pity he didn't win. Hope the party was good anyway.

Directed by George Lucas
Screenplay by George Lucas
Photography by Ron Eveslage and Jan D'Alquen
Main Cast: Richard Dreyfuss, Ronny Howard, Paul Le Mat, Charles Martin Smith, Cindy Williams, Candy Clark

One long night in the lives of four young men about to embark on a new stage of life.

Now that I'm old, I didn't enjoy this as much as when I was young. And I've never been American, though I don't know how much that really matters. Anyway, I identify with Animal House better, though my youthful days weren't exactly like that either.

And, my God, what time does to people!

Absolutely impeccable use of music. It's not dramatic underscore, but it's not completely "source" either, falling somewhere in between. I liked the way the odd line of a song would suddenly surface in a moment of screen silence to make an ironic comment ("Hello baby!", growled out when one of the characters is discovered hot-wiring a car is a choice example).

First, to Joan, I loved Emperor's New Groove more than I expected to, but, like you, I enjoyed Mulan much more.

Gae said: "...something else changes as you grow, you realize the world doesn't revolve around you."

Uh, it doesn't? Uh-oh, when did that happen?

As per Vertigo, the original book by the two French authors, proceeds as you want Gae, with the second girl's identity as the first girl being held until the very end (when Flaviers, or whatever his name is, discovers the truth, he strangles the girl to make sure she stays dead this time). And in that order it didn't work for me somehow. I kind of assumed the second girl had to be the first or else there was no connection between the two parts, they'd be just two different stories.

As a fan of both "arty-farty" cinema and Hollywood entertainment, I tend to know what I'm in for when I enter the theater and prime myself accordingly. I can appreciate Gae's desire for spectacle and escapism (and not think she's a numbskull).

Memento isn't the kind of film that she gets into now, or if she's still receptive to this type of film, this particular one didn't deliver for her.

I can only add that film styles are very diverse and any number of things can work. I love Godard (for the most part), but I have a good friend who thinks he's just a boring pretentious amateur. To the average guy I see at the supermarket, Godard isn't going to say or mean much.

From time to time, I consider the idea of making a film or video myself. But when I think about the things I could film and look at my friends or the people I see in town, I realize that they just want to laugh or get involved in a story, not go on the personal theme park inside my head. Since I'd be a rookie at trying to film a real story for people, that movies on TV and at the theater already do a much better job than I could, I've never followed through. Nevertheless, I've seen films made by people who do think the world revolves around them or that the audience is secondary/subordinate to their vision that have been just great.

Silencio Roto (Spain, 2001)

Directed by Montxo Armendariz
Screenplay by Montxo Armendariz
Photography by Guillermo Navarro
Music by Pascal Gaigne
Main Cast: Lucia Jimenez, Juan Diego Botto, Mercedes Sampietro

In 1944, a young woman returns to the town in Northern Spain where she was born. There she falls in love with the local smithy, but the problem is that for him, and half the village, the Civil War never really ended.

Rebecca
*/****

Anyway, about a year ago I rented it to show my daughters. They were rather
bored, and I admit to being a little let down too, so I understand your
critique. My growth and changes have diminished this film in my eyes. (Yikes,
I’m getting old. ) Still, I was there, so it holds special memories for me.

Seen this week:

RUSH HOUR, an astonishingly challenging and nihilistic portrayal of two father-haunted men of different nations and cultures, thrown together by the strangest of happenstances and compelled by forces larger than themselves to learn to work together, and struggle against the frequently crushing weight of their own personal agonies, and of the larger world itself, a cruel and uncaring place sodden with consequence, misery and cruelty. It's Ingmar Bergman with explosions, the kind of "action" movie Antonioni never dared to make, and which makes even the bleakest of Kurosawa's work look like a romp in a sandbox.

KIDDING! As most of you know, RUSH HOUR is just a simple, lightweight buddy movie, and the only reason I avoided it in theaters was that I wasn't certain I could stand to be cooped up in a theater that long with Chris Tucker, who I'd found hilarious in small doses (e.g. THE FIFTH ELEMENT, which he all but stole), but wasn't sure he could carry a picture and remain tolerable. He CAN though ... this is much more his movie than Jackie Chan's, and the feel of the picture is fortunately loose and comfortable, never belaboring the already outlandish nature of their pairing, and somehow rising well above the script, which is objectively VERY bad, playing at times like an unused draft of RED HEAT (it wouldn't surprise me if this was originally written for Schwarzenegger; I'm sure Chan had nothing to do with developing it, since none of his usual collaborators are on board.)

Jackie Chan displays a rare maturity in this role, rarely able to resort to his usual reflexive mugging for the camera, and gracefully leaving a majority of the laugh moments to Chris Tucker, who really does wonders with a barely written role. The real and obvious chemistry between the two of them goes a long way -- a chemistry, for example, I found missing in Chan's subsequent, sufficiently amiable but thoroughly unmemorable, SHANGHAI NOON. The fine actor Tom Wilkinson is wasted in a caricatured villain role, but Tzi Ma, in a rare piece of sympathetic casting, makes more of his worried-father role than the script actually suggests. Elizabeth Pena, an actress usually wasted, has some good moments, as does Philip Baker Hall as the caustic police chief. And the young actress playing the kidnapped little girl is hilarious, and we really should have seen more of her.

Technical credits are decent but unremarkable given the caliber of talent involved, including cinematographer Adam Greenberg, editor Mark Helfrich, and composer Lalo Schifrin. Grammy nomination or not, I wasn't that impressed with Schifrin's score, sort of self-conscious to my ear, which is sadly typical of a lot of his film work these past couple of decades, e.g. the dismal THE DEAD POOL. I don't blame him for not taking RUSH HOUR very seriously, and yet I think a more straightforward, less overtly comical score would have helped the picture more. Kudos to director Brett Ratner however, for fighting for Schifrin in the first place (the studio absolutely did not want him on this job).

Joan, I think you're more or less agreeing with me about American Graffiti. That's right, there was more to it than a simple nostalgia trip (you talk about the universal ideas of having to make choices as a youth). That's why I think it's "good". But as the nostalgia trip was the other half (or more) of the film, then I still think that you'd have to be American and George Lucas' age to really "get it". But I think you said that.

All the Pretty Horses
Directed by Billy Bob
***.5/****

Maybe, someday Billy Bob will release his diector's cut if this film and it will be a masterpiece. Untill then it is just a great film. I expected a stupid love story with a pretty girl and horses but it was anything but. I love 3rd person films like this where there always is something looming over the characters, music, lines, that usually being the moral or theme but in this case it was just great. I wish this was 4 hours long, and Billy Bob released his director's cut of it since anythign under 3 and it would not be full enough.

Film ***.5/****
Score**********/****

Directed by Sam Raimi
Screenplay by Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Epperson
Photography by Jamie Anderson
Music by Christopher Young
Main Cast: Cate Blanchett, Giovanni Ribisi, Keanu Reeves, Greg Kinnear, Hilary Swank

A young widowed mother with second sight gets mixed up in murder.

Well, I thought that there were far too many dead ends and red herrings in this. There are so many strands to the story that sometimes you wonder what the main plot is. But, you know, I think it's really about "coming to terms with the past". There are some extremely well-done scenes along the way, and a few effectively-orchestrated sledgehammer shocks, but for me it could have all been focussed better.

**/****

I really, really, really wanted to love this film but all I can say is that it was good at times. I had more fun laughing at how the kids in the theater were not laughing and on the things that flew over their heads.

It is okay but I would only say this is a good rental. Although the computer animation is good, it is nothing overly amazing and it does not save the film. Shrek is a cool character but I just did not care enough about anything to care about anything. Donkey(Murphy) was actually funny at times but nothing to rave about. Shrek(Myers) was far funnier than Donkey for he was more mature.

This was really funny at times, but nothing much as a whole. A great rental though.

*.5/****

***.5/****