von Trier's "AntiChrist" made me say "What the f**k?", but in the end left me asking "Whats the point?" (3.25/5)

Last May, Lars von Trier's film "AntiChrist" opened up in Cannes to a mixed reaction...of sorts. This really should come to no surprise considering that von Trier has been a controversial figure throughout his career, as his films have always conjured up some discussion about the subject matter at hand or von Trier himself. In regards to "AntiChrist", well it was business as usual for von Trier. Some people applauded "AntiChrist" for its audacity, others hated it and booed it for its vicious third act. Obviously any film that could divide a group of film auteurs and critics alike is certainly one that needs to be seen, at least in my mind.

"AntiChrist" tells the story of a couple referred to 'He' and 'She', played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourgh,whose child has recently passed away. Things are complicated based on the notion that their child fell to his death through an open window while 'He' and 'She' were having sex. With 'She' feeling some form of responsibility, 'She' begins to toil between grief and anxiety. With 'He' being a psychiatrist, 'He' attempts to work his wife through her grief. His attempts to cure his wife begins with psychobabble exercises, but this eventually leads to them to their cabin , aptly named Eden, where 'She' has strong memories regarding her now deceased son. While in Eden, 'He' and 'She' encounter many issues between themselves and the natural elements that surround Eden. I don't want to say they encounter paranormal activity, but in a way they experience other worldly events. Now, the first half of the film is tremendous. Von Trier sets up a rather complex premise with great ease. Through the great acting of his two leads and creating barren, desolate shots, von Trier creates an atmosphere that is both inviting and harrowing in its quietness. Hell, aside from the opening five minutes where von Trier laughably shows 'He' and 'She' having sex in slow motion while their child falls to his death, I'd say the film has one of the most effective setups I've seen in a film all year.

Yet, for as great as the first hour or so is, "AntiChrist" is just as bad in the second half. Granted, the film possesses some interesting theories and ideas as it pertains to religious symbols, sexual urges, and the treatment of women during witch hunts, but it all never comes together. Instead of creating a film that can be explained in many ways (i.e. Synecdoche, New York), von Trier has created a film that makes me question him more than the film and characters. For example, on some level I can't help but question whether or not von Trier himself is misogynistic. I of course would never go to great lengths to say he possesses such a perspective completely, but the last half of the film suggests he doesn't get along with women to some degree. This is most notable in the fact that the last act works on the notion that all women are naturally evil and the downfall of man. But the most troubling aspect about the film regards the last twenty minutes where it seems von Trier has to rely on shock instead of his writing abilities.

With his film already spiralling out of control von Trier attempts to create a lasting effect through genital mutilation and the uncontrollable sexual urges of 'She'. Such scenes specifically revolve around 'She' cutting off her clitoris with a pair of rusty scissors, 'She' masturbating an unconscious 'He', causing him to ejaculate blood, and 'She' randomly running outside and masturbating in a stretch of grass. Obviously seeing such things on screen for a film that in many respects had no gore or over the top moments up to that point, is jarring. Yet, once the initial shock wears off the question becomes what was the point behind these needlessly explicit scenes? In all honesty there really wasn't any point, and this once again makes me question von Trier. Did he think his story really couldn't grasp the audience without it? It was these pointless acts of violent indulgence that really made me not care for the film and really turned a great, atmospheric thriller into a cheap knockoff.

All that was laid out in the first half of the film was wasted. The whole setup, the fearless and tremendous performances from Gainsbourg and Dafoe, the hauntingly beautiful cinematography, and most of all my interest, were thrown to the wayside in favor of modern day horror tactics. In the end, it doesn't seem like von Trier was interested in making a statement about life, death, etc. anymore than he wanted to stir up controversy. What a damn shame...

Haneke's "The White Ribbon" fails to give us answers and is all the better for it (4.25/5)

Let me start off by saying that I'm not a huge Michael Haneke fan. I don't hate him by any means, after all, many of his films (like Cache and Funny Games) raise a lot of thought provoking questions, yet at times I feel Haneke gets bogged down in his own fascination with the mundane. Such an indulgence often makes his films a slow, agonizing burn as many of their scenes go on for far too long, reducing any form of tension Haneke has established throughout. Yet, as I try to do with any movie, I checked my preconceived notions and bias at the door, and treated the film as its own entity. As I finished watching Haneke's newest venture, "The White Ribbon", winner of the Palme d'Or, I couldn't help but feel some form of elation. Finally, I found a film by Haneke that I truly didn't hate or see as a missed opportunity.

Certainly the film plays to many of Haneke's previous work, more specifically capturing the human state during violent or tumultuous times. "The White Ribbon" follows the citizens of a German village pre World War I, as they try to comprehend a string of mysterious events that plague the place they call home. Some of the events have potential faces placed to them, but many of them are acts of ritualistic violence whose perpetrators go unknown. As demonstrated in his film "Cache", Haneke is a writer who can lead the viewer in many directions by establishing angles and motives between his characters. With such an ability Haneke is always able to leave the viewer with the burden of determining who did what and why. Obviously since "The White Ribbon" has a cavalcade of characters within the village, the viewer is left with the ominous task of determining who should be damned, but it's all the better for this as it actively engages the viewer to look back in order to determine what will never be an easy answer. So, in many respects, Haneke places us in the framework of a neighborhood not much different than our very own where will we point our fingers in every other direction given the proper event and chance.

Aside from this "whodunit" aspect, Haneke's film also works on another level. More specifically, it depicts the rise of fascism and the birth of those who served under the Third Reich during World War II. Through the violent and at times demeaning acts of their parents, many of the village's children yield to subordination like dogs sitting at their masters request, revealing a characteristic that many could argue was prominent during Hitler's reign as his Nazi soldiers proudly submitted to their Fuhrer's desire. Not only does this particular layer add a bit of historical context for "The White Ribbon", but demonstrates the influence one's society or even personal contacts can have on a person's behavior. Whether it's through paranoia, religion, or actual facts, the actions of today will be the repercussions of tomorrow.

But, for as thought provoking and engaging as "The White Ribbon" is, I feel the film falls short of perfect. In some regards, the villager's response to the acts of violence surrounding them seems underwhelming. There are certainly moments where villagers question the heinous acts, but never do they push the envelope or become too inquisitive about the events. This is especially disappointing considering some of the characters Haneke has developed would go on a witch hunt, or in the very least investigate, the mysterious events. Accompanying this lack of urgency in the village, to no surprise, the film also has many dead spots where Haneke indulges a bit. Certainly said indulgences are kept to a minimum, but at times they create a few boring minutes that took me out of the experience.

And in all honesty, "The White Ribbon" was an experience I never thought I would get with a Michael Haneke film. It's a beautifully shot film that challenges the viewer to determine the guilty and the innocent, as it creates an environment full of rich symbolism and ideas that need to be considered from many differing view points. After all, things like belief, guilt, meaning, etc. can be drastically altered when examined through the perspective of another.

Ten Most Important Films of the Decade (Part Three of Three)

Finally, I'm ready to conclude my epic list. With six films down, it's time to reveal the final four films of my list. Also, along with my final four I will list a few honorable mentions because the final decision was pretty tough. Nonetheless, here is part three:

Borat: Released in 2006, Sacha Baron Cohen's "Borat" became in my mind the pinnacle of film comedy. It was edgy, smart, repulsive, and ultimately a film that had frenetic laugh, after frenetic laugh. Yet, the key pieces to "Borat" were the unsuspecting interviewees and Sacha Baron Cohen. By using real interview subjects, Cohen was able to capture authentic reactions that would not only make the audience laugh, but also mumble in disgust, depending on what kind of immoral bile spilled out. In many respects it's like a natural observation and with that, you also capture the unpredictability of human interaction. Certainly Baron Cohen coaxed many interviewees into behaving badly, but his ability to draw out a range of reaction and emotions allowed for almost a novel and unpredictable feel to the film. Obviously there have been comedies that had "mockumentary" narratives, but never had a comedy gone to the streets and desired to create a documentary (in some ways) based off of a farce. Finally, this brings me to Cohen himself, who creates a character that is not only naive and foolish ,but one that's very endearing, thus allowing 'Borat' to become something bigger than a caricature. And that's what I can say about "Borat"; it became a comedy film that went above and beyond what is typically expected. In many ways it redefined the concept of not only a comedy, but also in some ways a documentary. Using real people as the bait, "Borat" was able to expose a nation full of racial, sexual, and religious bias at the expense of our laughs. Of course we all know there is a seedy underbelly of America, but it was jarring to see it play out on the screen in the given context. Furthermore, it was just as shocking to see Sacha Baron Cohen push his character to an unbelievable height.

Clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYYoGnFpahQ

Children of Men: If you want to watch a film that is extremely harrowing, but uplifting then you'll find few better than "Children of Men". Directed by Alfonso Cuaron, "Children of Men" takes place in a not so distant future where humans can no longer reproduce. With the world being infertile and many political factions establishing, the world is falling apart and its gotten to the point that many people worship the young. Yet, amongst the chaos a seed of hope is found in a young woman who, through some miracle or work of science, is pregnant. From this comes the tale of a man who risks everything to protect a woman and her baby, as well as the future of mankind. The story itself is extremely gripping and taut, yet from an aesthetic and direction standpoint, "Children of Men" is well executed. With the use of handheld cameras, director Alfonso Cuaron immerses us in a world on the brink of extinction, which only propels us further into the drama that unfolds. Furthermore, Cuaron and his production team create a world, when compared to other films in the sci-fi genre, that is relatively stripped down and organic. This not only allows for a heightened sense of 'realism', but allows for the production pieces to compliment the story, not drown it out. Of course, the most important factor that makes "Children of Men" a film to be seen is its story. It has twists, it has action, it has moments of triumph and failure, and most of all it has a heart that continuously beats throughout. Very few films, let alone a sci-fi film, can develop a story that can work on many different levels. When it's all said and done, the film has astounding production pieces that immerses the viewer in the decay society sees itself in. Along with amazing cinematography and tremendous direction by Cuaron, "Children of Men" is one of the few films that can deliver a message about society without beating it to death. Oh and it also doesn't hurt when the cast is full of extremely good actors.

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NikEQy1XxDE

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly: One of the most honest and beautiful films I've seen in my life. "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly" is a piece of work that not only defies convention, but is poetry in motion. Adapted from the memoir with the same name, "The Diving Bell..." tells the story of Jean Dominique Bauby, the former editor of French Elle who had a stroke and subsequently was paralyzed from the neck down (aside from his left eye). This particular condition is known as "locked-in syndrome", where the patient can actively think, but can't speak nor move most of their extremities. Having no true form of communication, Bauby learned to communicate through the use of blinking his left eye and through this method, he wrote his memoir. The story itself is extremely powerful, and really needs no expansion but what pays off in dividends is how the story is told. First off, a lot of credit must be given to Julian Schnabel, who spits in the face of convention and creates a film that is almost entirely shot from the character's point of view ( I'd say about 60% of the film is in first person). This is unprecedented considering that very few films have attempted to deliver such a perspective. Yet, Schnabel's instincts pay off as he puts us in the shoes of Jean Dominique Bauby, allowing us to feel the claustrophobia Bauby himself felt as his body became a prison. Secondly, screenwriter Ronald Harwood deserves some kudos as well simply because his screenplay dares not to make Bauby into a saint. In both flashbacks (which isn't shot in first person) and Bauby's 'locked in' state, Harwood creates a character that is very uplifting, but one that is also fragmented and full of guilt. Of course we never truly come to dislike Bauby, but we don't come to love him on cheap sympathy points either. He is simply human. From this, an undeniable connection is made between the character and the audience, which makes the staggering last moments of Bauby's life beautiful, inspirational, and poetic. In the hands of Hollywood, this film would've been simple fodder dripped in sentimentality, but thanks to Schnabel and company, the film is a reflection on not only Bauby, but the potential of our own lives as well.

Trailer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=G69Zh7YIg8c
Clip:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrOB-E1lVBQ

Brokeback Mountain: With the success of "Brokeback Mountain", you'll see more films exploring the boundaries of love and the limits ( or lack thereof) it possesses. Now, have there been many other films that tackled a gay love story before? Yes, but none have really struck a chord as much as "Brokeback Mountain" nor has any handled the topic with such grace. Filled with complex and terrific performances from Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal, "Brokeback Mountain" is a film that in many ways made homosexual relationships acceptable in mainstream film. This could be chalked up to the great screenplay, but Ang Lee and his actors deserve much of the credit as they make the film full of tenderness and sincerity. Never does the film feel like a gimmick; it's always a living, breathing ode to love. Whether it's the connection of Ledger and Gyllenhaal's characters or the true love and detail Lee shows for his characters, "Brokeback" is always full of love and life. Of course, the film deftly details the many stigmas associated with homosexuality, but at its core, "Brokeback" is just like any love story as it details the many jubilations and downfalls that would come between any couple. So in many ways, "Brokeback" is universal in its language. It's something we all could connect to in some fashion, regardless of our own notions and when a film can do that, it's truly a special piece of work. After all, love is love.
Trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wug0aUcTJDE


Honorable Mentions:

4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days:I've seen a lot of foreign films from this decade, but what makes "4 Months" such a startling piece of work is that it is invested in creating drama from the small, quiet moments. There are no big scenes, or over plotted twists, instead it’s simply a film that details a friendship that is being pushed to the limits and the moral complications that arise from it. It’s gritty, well acted, and most of all possesses a sickening power.
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFeUS7hQq3k

Lost in Translation: A film that in many respects has become the blueprint for a lot of indie films. It’s quirky, small and full of idiosyncrasies. But the film sets itself apart with a deadpan performance from Bill Murray who elevates the already terrific material. The film adequately captures the communication breakdown many face in a foreign land, but more importantly it captures the communication breakdown that can occur between two people. With it being more so about friendship and connection than about love, the film has a broad appeal that most people can identify with.
Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNn-2CTXzAw

City of God: The precursor to "Slumdog Millionaire", "City..." details the lives that reside in the slums of Rio di Janeiro. Full with a cast of colorful characters, director Fernando Meirelles captures many different vantage points, and ultimately creates a vibrant look at slum politics and living. Scary, funny, and always poignant, "City of God" is an exciting piece of film making.

Trailer:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioUE_5wpg_E

"G.I. Joe" is as dumb as they come...but it's quite entertaining (3.25/5)

During my freshman year at St.Cloud State, there were a lot of small moments I enjoyed. One of those small moments was the chance to peer review papers. In that first year, one of my general classes was writing intensive, so every other week I was getting the chance to read over someone else's paper. Obviously it was not only a great learning tool for the author of a paper, but also for the reader. Yet, aside from that politically correct setup, there was also another aspect that I enjoyed about peer reviews: the horribly bad papers. At times nothing bored me more than a paper written perfectly with correct MLA citations. What entertained me the most though was the papers that read like they were copied and pasted from a Wikipedia page that was edited by a monkey. Certainly they were a pain in the ass to mold into one comprehensive piece of work, but there was an idiotic, unrestrained charm to them. Taking this notion into consideration may help in understanding as to why I enjoyed "G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra" as much as I did. It was so dumb and so inconsistent that about halfway through I turned my brain off and just enjoyed the craziness as it unrolled.

I'll be perfectly honest, it didn't take me long to start rolling my eyes. Actually, right after the opening sequence, which lays a back story that rivals the depth of Transformers 2 (*end sarcasm*), I had no faith in seeing a great and stimulating action film. But, something funny happened...I started to laugh. From the over the top introduction of the "Joes" and their enemies, to the excruciatingly bad special effects, I really couldn't stop laughing or giggling about the littlest things. My god, I felt like a child watching a cartoon after a massive sugar rush. I must admit, that no matter how shallow the film ultimately was, it bolstered some impressively choreographed action sequences, especially one that contained a thrill ride through the streets of Paris. So, if you're an adrenaline junky, "G.I. Joe" is a film that will help you get your fix. Yet as fun as it was to watch things go "boom", the film is seriously deprived of any intelligence in both its own understanding of the world it resides in, as well as its character construction.

The previous notion should come as no surprise, but I feel Sommers and his screenwriters do something rather insulting: take their core audience to be morons. Such an insult is quite prominent in scenes that deliver "back stories" to some of the characters. Instead of simply insinuating through dialogue and character interaction, Sommers and company deliver flash back scenes that reiterate details that we already know. For instance, Sommers establishes that the character of 'Duke' has had a previous relationship with Ana (aka the Baroness). Sommers and his screenwriters initially show this through relatively scant dialogue, but instead of moving on, they make sure we catch their "hints" and pummel us over the head with a flashback that makes the relationships seem forced. Unfortunately, this happens quite a bit throughout the film between a few characters and is rather damning. It's almost as if Sommers and the screenwriters are saying "I don't think they'll get it unless we show them explicitly through a flashback; we'll give them visual proof such a relationship existed!" This lack of respect coupled with some of the dumbest character reasoning I've seen this year, makes the characters seem over the top. Obviously these characters can't be taken too seriously, but at the same time it makes them rather annoying and one dimensional, which contradicts the point of even having a back story in the first place.

Also, much like the shit storm known as "Transformers 2", there was a world logic that was non-existent in the film. I could draw up a list for you, but in all honesty, I'd rather not waste my time on that. Instead I'll let this review see its way out. Much like some of those papers I read back at St.Cloud, "G.I. Joe" is a frustrating mess, at least from a coherence level. Yet within the mess there is something kind of endearing and enjoyable to be had, as it attempts to toss ridiculous thread after thread at you; trying to make something work.