Drag Me To Hell (copied directly from IMDB)

Ok, I made a promise I would just watch the movie and not analyze the crap out of it, but lots of thoughts stream to my head. Here goes:

I haven't payed attention, I don't really know what most people like about it, but I think the aspect that seems to get discussed least of its dues is the aspect I loved the most: Christine Brown. She's simply one of the my all-time favorite characters.

I love that you can interpret that Christine is supposed to be an exemplar of someone destined to go to hell for all of the things she did. She is everything in the name of completely and utterly selfish. That payment extension she threw back in the old lady's face.... just to earn her promotion. It came right after her manager mentioned how the new guy was "more aggressive." It went to her head right away, if just so she can show off her best possible attempt at aggression. More aspects of her selfishness. Slaughters a cat, almost sends her co-worker to hell. And during the seance, in an attempt to save herself.... "it was my manager! it was my manager!"

I loved all of the Christine Brown character traits, she was probably a great chunk of the movie for me. And the fact that she seems to have a short fuse for anything that tests her patience. She blows her load in the face of a waiter, and anybody that slightly annoys her. "I have a lot on my mind, can we do this tomorrow?" I think Raimi has a slight and odd infatuation, or just a very obsessive dislike of hateful female characters. I think Christine Brown might be a criticism of real life female personalities he seems to take issues with. Maybe, just maybe.

And, one extra thing that DOESN'T drag the movie down..... is that her boyfriend wasn't a completely useless character. He seems to be the caring figure of Christine's well being. Like her blanket of security, and I think his character was specifically necessary when the audience feels the scent of sympathy for her. In other words, the audience roots for Christine, they don't want anything to happen to her, and her boyfriend's loyal care of her fiancee makes the audience feels secure for Christine's well being. I've seen movies where the beloved is nothing more than a reason for film's sake. This case, the audience feels a sense of safeness that Christine is safe, through the character traits of her boyfriend.

To nitpick, I'd say the only thing I didn't particularly like was the hallucinations. I think the film occasionally flaunts images of blood and guts. They aren't really that big of a deal, I don't really think they're really any use, still not that big of a deal, if maybe just to remind us every 10 minutes that the film is a horror film. Specifically speaking, the scenes where you have a supernatural figure pop up and deliver one line of dialogue "you will go to hell, you will go to hell."

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I didn't really care much for the film's continuity between sane world and supernatural world, it seems like a slightly off sync combination. But that's really a light quibble, the characters are perfect. The lead cannot be anymore fun to watch: character and performance.

Not to say the horror aspects aren't all fine, but I honestly think the characters are most of the fun. Horror films generally, two things: 1. designed so you barely notice the characters. Which isn't a bad thing, to say, if the film lets the genre aspects do all of the work. A horror film can survive as just the perfect horror form. 2) you have memorable characters balanced with all of the wall-to-wall insanity that accompanies the genre aspects.

Anyways, I wanted to see this again to make sure I haven't showered too much initial love for it, and I haven't. It got even better, and it's definitely something that will now make its nest in my DVD collection. It reminds me of From Dusk Till Dawn. Just that all out, zany indulgence, and this addictive arcade zone you want to live in. When the movie is over, "ah *beep*, reality" Like the feeling you get when you have to finally turn off your video game for the night.

Ok, I really really love this movie. Everything put together, of 2009 movies, it kept my attention the most, it was the most engaging movie I saw. Or maybe I'll be a smartass and say it's one of the only 4 movies of the year that even kept my attention. But that taken into account or not taken into account, this has a safe and permenant spot in my top 30 favorites of all time.

(500) Days of Summer.... (directly copied from imdb)

To guide everyone through my thought process BEFORE my going to see (500) Days of Summer, I was expecting a half-whimsical styled film featuring tons of either very fast flash-to-flash, all-in-an-instant editing similar to Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or a kinetic, music and motion creates feeling, style similiar to Marie Antoinette. Because... you can't expect a film like this to have been done completely still. But, the film hardly came close to outdoing or even matching the styles of either. The film's major setting is essentially the inside of an apartment. Except some scenes, I would say that if you didn't completely take in those scenes inside the apartment, the film falls flat, period. Which leads to my next point... about how the hundreds of shots of the couple inside their abode is really given no extra help from the camera, because the shots just really sat there and really didn't do much of anything in terms of being stylistically exciting.

Which is why Michel Gondry made Eternal Sunshine seem like a montage every single time during a less-than-100 percent-completely-exciting scene (like scenes in an apartment), because what if he doesn't make it appear like this quick spree of all-at-once combination of shots.... the film would hardly be the picture perfect, blast of montage images that has been implanted into everyone's minds. I find it hard to describe how I felt about the stylistic aspect of (500) Days of Summer... it just felt blegh and like a pretty feeble attempt at creating the perfect sensual delight. But don't be confused! Don't go in expecting a film where the camera completely zeroes in, because it's hardly that. Most of the shots are a minute to two minutes long, but then it moves on to the next sequence of events when it gets done with "one day of summer."

It took me a while before I finally got situated, and realized that it's less "sensual" and more "quirky." So my conversion from expectations to reality (as detailed in one of the scenes) was to be specific, kind of like how JGL felt when he stormed out of the room at the moment of Zooey's engagement. All of that is not really a bad thing, I’m just detailing how I felt and it took me a while before I played along and finally got used to it. The playhouse narrations does almost nothing, except maybe chime in once every 30 minutes with maybe two lines of extra enlightenment. That is really just hitting the surface, the gimmicks have absolutely no end. The clumsy jokes which find humor in the awkward moments of their relationship can be found in every turn and angle. There are just so many things that scream "awkward." I don't understand how the musical scene featuring JGL dancing on the streets with a set of other people and an animated little blue bird really helps to heighten any aspect of the film. Because other than make the film appear like a weird, completely different movie, everything about it just screamed "extraneous" out loud, and "distracting" even louder. In fact, at the very end when JGL finds himself his "Autumn," the only thing that I felt like expressing that was on the edge of my tongue was "har har har?" Because what really does the gimmick of telling us that his next girlfriend's name is Autumn supposed to do? Other than break the momentum of a pretty good confrontation scene between JGL and Zooey, it's just entirely a nuisance, especially when I was still lingering in the after effect of JGL and Zooey’s break-up right before that scene.

The reason I state this is that.... a few pretty funny jokes might be immediately funny, but the second time you see it, it's hard to chuckle as loud. Do I mind it? Of course I do, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. But then, on the other side of the coin, the second time I see it, I might mind it a little less because it would have been what I was expecting and could be easier to ignore. But, that being said, how funny was that scene of Zooey pretending to have not heard JGL's friend's exposition on JGL’s true feelings about Zooey? "Stalking, sorry….. starting."

In fact, the only scene (maybe a few scenes, come to think of it) in which I felt genuine affection toward the couple happened in a scene that didn't have in abundance any of the things I mentioned in the previous two paragraphs or any annoying indie music. It was the scene where JGL declares he needs some sort of "guarantee" that Zooey won't just wake up in the morning feeling differently. It is one of the best scenes in the film; JGL's vulnerability and Zooey's openness left genuine human emotions lingering around. The expectations/reality scene was also very effective, if for some of the same reasons. The more human moments between the characters I liked much more than the scenes of them screaming "penis, penis" on a park bench.

Zooey Deschanel's quiet fragility strikes a few similarities to her performance in All the Real Girls, but it's actually two pieces of something very-much-its-own. The appeal of Zooey's beautiful harmony is entirely her soft and fragile voice. Her mellow tranquility is the perfect companion to the quiet poetry of Gordon Green's All the Real Girls. Her slightly more "light" character here is shades of adorable, but different shades of human, and even more shades of vulnerable. Nobody else could have played this role. She is a built in archetype of the traits I mentioned and she should, in all seriousness, be typecast in this vein. I wouldn't speak of another actress in the same way, because I seriously can't. I wouldn't even describe any of my favorites in the same vein.

I am most certainly not trying to rebel against a popular Oscar Buzz favorite. Neither am I trying to sent anybody into a state of frenzy, (sorry Mitch) but these are my thoughts. It's a movie I expected to love, but I am neither disappointed nor do I care how popular this movie becomes. I can understand the appeal. A film that’s designed to be about a relationship's ups-and-downs is appealing to people in many ways than I can understand. Because the film reads off like a cinematic diary, a diary about a relationship, and lord knows, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind made it pretty obvious that people love movies like that.

In my very own opinion, but maybe influenced a little by my judgment of the final reaction of the people I saw this with, (who mainly responded to this film with all laughs and satisfaction), this movie is everything in the name of immediate. It does what it should do, it charms, it entertains, I don't know how much of an endlessly rewatchable favorite this could become, but as of this moment, even if I'm not a fan of Eternal Sunshine, it felt a lot better than this did. If I compare (500) Days of Summer to one of my favorites, it does not come close. I’m not suggesting that this film should be any specific film, but if you’re expecting the perfect vehicle of a bliss romance or the next “major” staple of a modern classic of this decade (Lost in Translation, Eternal Sunshine), or a sensual masterpiece, those statements would be in the name of hyperbole. What can you say? If it tries to be an immediately charming, cute-a-thon, it works. If it tries to go to the next level, it just falls short. I just don’t find it sensually sweeping enough, in my best opinion. It’s not a bad thing, but no one would say Bugsy is better than The Godfather.

If you don’t feel like reading of all that, well then….. I’ll say that I find this to be really good, but nothing more than just something coated with a handful of charm.

Children of Men (retrospective thinking)

This is a review indeed strictly for people to reply and argue to.



While Cuaron was attempting to create the perfect specimen of a science fiction movie, did he realize that a science fiction movie needed a good scientific background to push the story through? Where did he take his influences from? Did he acknowledge its inevitable comparison to other films of the science fiction genre which were much more efficient at stretching the imagination of science fiction, the science fiction movies whose stories inspire hundreds of genre variations, the ones that inspire cults and an entire cultural phenomenon? Granted that it can be argued that Cuaron was not trying to make "Star Wars" or "The Terminator," and that Children of Men was only science fiction because it had to be and that it can be acknowledged as something else entirely, I doubt I would be the only person to notice that the notion that the world is coming to an end due to the fact women are infertile is entirely half-baked. I'll explain myself further. I am not trying to imply that the premise that "women are infertile" is a silly science fiction premise, but that in terms of its use of a scientific background to compliment the story, that is about as deep as it gets. Because it doesn't go anywhere after that, we're stuck with the notion that "women are infertile" and uh... even in Batman Beyond: The Animated Series, the scientific background of every story is handled with pretty good sensibility to science fiction mythology, but instead we're reduced to Cuaron beating us over the head with notions of political instability in a future world, in addition to mass hysteria, and you have your science fiction bestseller, I assume. I'm not referring to the fact that the movie did not explain why "women were infertile," but that in order for the movie to serve its purpose, it would probably be something other than trying to wow us with its astute scientific imagination. I assume that by mass trailer advertising in the vein of "in the future, the apocalypse is near, women can no longer have babies, we are all going to die" is capable of attracting couple of millions to the cinema alone, are we to assume that when we actually go watch the movie, we're going to see something that the trailer did not already explain entirely?

During the scene where pictures of Julianne Moore and Clive Owen are plastered over the fireplace with an emotional song playing in the background, and when the camera slides from one picture to the next depicting their long lost period of joy and grace when they had each other, when they were anarchists together, um..... is that an excuse for a perfect flashback moment? Do you really think that Bogart and Bergman would still have a job in Hollywood after the year 1942 if that can be so effectively accomplished? Basically all Cuaron is telling us from that scene, oh yes, the song helps, is that "Julie and Clivey fought baddies together not so long ago, when they were both young and naive, and they both had hate in their hearts for the government. Please, about the only purpose that that scene served was to tell us that "they used to be something special together." How is it that from one scene, we already know everything about these two characters? I'm going to assume that facets of Julianne's character profile that we didn't know about are more interesting than Clive's, because now knowing everything about Clive, I can safely say I can't imagine a more disinteresting character. To sum it up, the movie had no character development, none, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that.

I have a hard time understanding how Michael Caine made time in the trailer, because other than comedy relief, his wise mouth half-baked philosophical analyzing of global armageddon is the only reason for his existence at all. He does nothing except fill a few dialogue pages with his so unbelievably stereotypical character. I also do not know why in all Cuaron's movies, a totally unsettling death always happens in the end. Even though Y tu mama tambien is not a bad movie, I never was a fan of the ending, I thought that there was little reason for why Luisa had to die, ok maybe Cuaron was trying to imply that life is indeed beautiful, and that we should appreciate the miracle of life, but in Children of Men, Clive Owens' "hero must die" death just felt so entirely surreal. I was aware of the gun wound, but it just seemed awkward to me the way he dropped dead on the spot, like Cuaron was trying to imply something differently, like "his heart just gave out" or something. I'm aware that it was trying to be faithful to its source. I'm not really addressing the fact that he died as much as I am trying to understand the ambiguity of the last scene. I'll gladly lend an ear to anyone would thinks they know this.

Also, I fail to see really what was so impressive about that 10 minute tracking shot. I hope people notice that that shot felt so unnatural in co ordinance with the movie; like Owen had to go through a maze to reach his touchdown point and that the maze just happened to be there. It was a scene that Cuaron would have put in if it cost him his dear life. Why? Because it looks goddamn good, and profitable too. If it took 4 million for the destruction, 3 million for the tanks, 1 million to pay the extras, and 3 million of extra money in case they have to do it again, it only adds up to 11 million, which giving it 15 seconds in the trailer, it would've made the money back already within 20 minutes of the trailer's initial release. I suppose people are entranced by the way it looks like the "ultimate emotional montage of humanity," but at that moment, having not cared for a single character or have been amazed at its revolutionary science fiction, that scene was entirely useless to me. Clive Owen's heroics depicted so beautifully, his incredible dodging of grenades and gunfire, and him forcing his half-limping body across falling debris is all good.... it's trailer footage.

So, in conclusion, half baked politics, half baked science fiction, little character development makes for a good B movie, but 10 minutes of tanks shooting at Clive Owen as an excuse to depict "beautiful violence" does not cheer a song for humanity nor will it make me cry, otherwise Von Trier would've done that already with Dancer in the Dark. And I realize that because it looks mature and emotional, it will always have a good reputation, but just because it looks emotional does not make it so. There's not an easier movie to criticize, I can assure you.

2046, mon amour

"He didn't turn back. It's as if he boarded a very long train heading for the drowsy future through the unfathomable night."


Whether or not Wong took influence from German director Wim Wenders, this film bears the closest resemblance to Wender's Wings of Desire. Wong's slow motion, rapid editing, harmonious music, and his obsession with cinematography pulling the story is all reminescent of Wings, as well as the inserted fantasy element of the film. In 2046, Wong emphasizes an exotic beauty to his films, in his themes he portrays every theme like echoes of human thoughts and feelings. Like Wings, he purposely dramatizes his film with visual techniques, intended to exude emotions like echoes, so that the viewer will treat his films like visions of the mind, a constant blur of thoughts and images from the film, like flashes almost. Wong is probably the foremost director in that department. With 2046, he is deliberately anti-focus. While Kieslowski in Three Colors: Rouge focuses the camera so directly on the picturesque shot, the viewer interprets that shot like an aesthetic postcard, a shot that they will never forget. But when you visualize 2046, the shots occur as images occuring in motion, that pass by one after another, another reason why both Wenders and Wong uses such random music in their films, so that their music are not just random tunes, but are complimented by each passing image.

In Wings, the most memorable of shots is probably the scene where Ganz stands above the city with his wings spread out, the wings are purposely out of place as the object of attention, the thing that the viewers will remember the most. In 2046, the shot that I felt incredibly out of place (in a good way), is the scene where Tak is first introduced and the camera blurs. It is such an eye opening scene because of the use of color is a milkyish, blurry, distorted mix, and because the camera first focuses not on his face, but on the light bulb that lit his reflection, and then slowly moves to his face. In other words, it doesn't first focus on his face because Wong intends on giving the background more depth initially, and not the character. An opening shot can speak volumes, and in 2046, I felt that. It's a very subtle shot however, and probably won't be the one that viewers will remember the most, (which is obviously the train rail). Another shot in Wings which is particularly memorable is when the camera pans to above, and makes its way partially to where we can see the city from above. The black and white compliments the shot (in fact in the film I thought the color shots were completely wasted), by showing each building like distinguishable blocks separated from each other, and the black and white, and especially the enriched grey color, compliments a gothic, surreal, heavenly, quality to it. In 2046, Wong also attempts to enhance the experience by making his urban shots look surreal, and at the beginning, when you first set eyes on the fantasy neon city, you'll see the colors moving like streams of electricity, and the city appears to be built from strands of lines instead of solid, building concrete. However, the urban shot is not at all like the urban shots of Blade Runner at the beginning, where the geyser-like fire shoots up from above, that more or less is intended to denote the idea that the society is dystopic, decayed, and succumbed to hopelessness, (the geyser-fire is especially symbolic of this fact), but 2046's look is not exactly utopic in a sense, but rather intended to look more surreal, out of this world, and especially exotic, intriguing, and full of wonder. It can be said that it is meant to look kind of utopic, but it also has a dangerous, unpredictable quality of look to it that suggests that society is mechanical and robotic. (which is what 2046 was) If it's utopic, then it would look more optimistic. However, I think the main angle that Wong aiming for is to make the viewers look at the city with curiosity and wonder, like.... "what really is this society like?"

A common complaint I hear about this film is the reason why Chow initially seems so fond of Bai, yet rejects her almost as suddenly as he is infatuated with her. The complaint is that Wong just gave up on developing the relationship and went on to the next one to fulfill his desire to create an ensemble piece. But, if you contrast the relationship of Chow with Miss Wang, the daughter of the landlord Wang, and see that he fell in love with her and not Bai, you'll realize that Chow has more in common with Miss Wang than Bai and thus Wang easily penetrates his affections. To expand on this point, contrast Wang to Maggie Cheung's Su Li Zhen, the delicate, sensitive, and helpless creature that Chow fell in love with immediately. Wang reminds Chow of her, as those are the exact things he fell in love with, and even more evident of this fact is that Chow fell in love with Su Li Zhen way before she did just by observing her and learning about her suggests that he desires certain qualities in a woman, which is exactly how he fell in love with Wang. He falls in love with people through what he finds beautiful in that person and already makes up his mind, unlike some people who are known to actually meet a person and spend time with them or people who judge by physical looks. Bai more or less represents all the other women whom he regards as a one-night stand, but with a more endearing personality and a stronger will, but her existence is radiated by her sexual appeal and her lack of helplessness. She is sensitive, I'm not suggesting she isn't, however, as you'll see, she refuses to be pushed around by men, suggesting her strong-will, the polar opposite of helplessness. She can help herself. And even if Chow adores those qualities, which he obviously did because of his flirtacious nature, he never regarded them anymore as fun. Why did he never form a relationship from all the other women he sees? They're just fun, and in the film, he subtlety hints to Bai at his thinking that Bai is nothing more than what he finds in the prostitutes he picks up occasionally. During the scene where he pays her, like a prostitute, after them having their first sex together is where the scene turns heads. Other people have wrote more about this, but right there, I think Chow intentionally pulled himself out of that relationship, even if his affection for her was growing more and more and he could have possibly fell in love with her if he wanted. I think it was because he fears he'll get involved with a woman whom his vanity will never permit into his life because she is just too imperfect, she's a prostitute, and although nurturing strong qualities, Chow somewhat looks down upon people like that and thinks of her as a social inferior. He never once chanted at his loving her, but did nothing more than remind her of her cheapness by hurting her self-existence through his offering her money for sex. "Like a discount", is symbolic of the fact that she desires less money from him, when she reduced the amount he gave her to 10 dollars instead of 20, it was to hint to him that she cares for him and the extent to which she hopes he'll accept her. During the scene in which Chow takes Bai out for dinner years after their break-up, when Bai watched Chow pay the dinner in 10 dollar bills that Bai gave him was the final indication of what Chow really saw Bai as. In any case, I believe that segment to be the most complex and up for interpretation.

Contrary to Bai's segment of allure and sexuality, the tone changes drastically during the segment where Miss Wang returns from the institution. The tone of the first segment, which is intended to be alluring and sexy, suddenly turns into a more sombre, dramatic mood. Take for instance, the shot of Faye Wong's back against a rose garden, like a CD cover, but the colors hint at 16th century Renaissance art, and the piano notes replace the latin music to compliment an even bleaker Bergman-esque tone. The piano keys fall delicately, hinting at the delicacy of the Wang's relationship with Chow. That segment is an idealized version of Chow's relationship with Cheung's Su Li Zhen. It's not exactly the same story, but it was the basis of his story 2046, or rather 2047. It is entirely evident that Chow thinks of Wang as Cheung's Su Li Zhen or has for the first time, found true love, since the break-up with Su Li Zhen (Cheung). When he mentioned that his summer with Miss Wang was the happiest he has ever been, it proves even more that there was a quality he found in Wang that he did not see in Bai, and the ability of a person (Wang) to change his life, and shift his life from the gambling, reckless, sex to the artistic minded, appreciative, and fragile was something he didn't even find in Su Li Zhen (Cheung). His relationship with Wang, prompted his artistic vision to the peak (eventually the creation of 2046). Ultimately, this segment, albeit turning out a more appreciative and mature Chow, ultimately serves to highlight the extent of his broken emotions. 2046 is a vessel to voice his melancholy and the voice of his self discovery. Through his relationship with Wang, he rediscovers himself. "A man like me has nothing but time. I need to find people to meet my needs," is referring to the way he regards life then and now, and something of which obviously something he would not use anymore, since, in this segment, he never brings home women anymore, spends his free time being a companion to Wang rather than indulging in his previous temporal pleasures. 2046, however, is not the vessel of optimism. "Where nothing changes," is Chow's desire that love will stay forever and will not be ephemeral as the "summer that didn't last." It is how he desires the world to be, 2046 is his outlet to reality, a portal of escape from the emptyness of life. There is a sense of optimism inserted, but at the same time, he is also describing a world that is so full of nothing, just like his life, an empty hourglass of nothingness. He suggests that reality is ultimately nothing, 2046 an alternate reality where life is even more full of nothingness; a robotic lifestyle of sex, temporal pleasures, and loveless relationships. 2046 is a product of him viewing reality as empty. If it is a sense of optimism, then why did Chow come back on the long train? It was the voice of his contempt of the world, 2046 is the period of his life during his relationship with Bai, the period of life which he gave up, and him coming back on the train is referring to him eventually sick of the world just as he is of his life of temporal pleasures. Other people have wrote that him coming back does indicate optimism in the sense that love is still possible, that the escape from a world where people venture into because they're sick of love and relationships, is the result of them wanting a life without love. Him coming back is an indication that people still desire love, made a mistake in coming to 2046, and however much love is the cloak of your miseries, love is still possible. Another interpretation states that 2046 is the period of his relationship with Bai that he wanted back because he has failed in love once again with Wang. When Wong describes 2046 as the world of temporal pleasures, it could be an outlet of Chow's experiences with Bai. So in essence, the blur between reality and 2046 is Chow's indecision of Wang and Bai. Him going to 2046 refers to his desire to be with Bai, and him coming back refers to his desire to be with Wang.

In the following meeting with Bai, Chow sifts through the remains of his life, now more misguided than ever, after just completing his book, probably will never see Wang ever again, and had a chance meeting with Bai for the first time in years. His meeting with Bai actually confuses him. I'm not sure if he still felt any flame from his relationship with her, but it seems that even if he did, she was not forward enough to tell him that she still loved him, so he never gave an answer. She hinted at her missing him, but the reason for her setting up the meeting was to seek help, so it probably made him feel that she has moved on with her life and regards him as nothing more than a companion. Either way, I still wasn't sure whether he ever wanted to get back with her, but the scene where he is suddenly shocked with the realization that "a second chance" was possible was when, I believe, he thought of Bai. And immediately after, she phoned him and we see her for the first time since the break-up, so obviously the "second chance" was referring to him. However, their meeting did not go that well, for a mix of reasons 1) Chow sees a new transformation in Bai and becomes overwhelmed, so the initial thought was that she was a completely different person 2) Chow might have thought she has moved on 3) Her objective was to seek financial help, the prime indication of his worthlessness 4) She was not brave enough to tell her she still wanted him 5) "Don't be like this..." indicated she cared for him, but he feared getting into a relationship and probably contemplated how far would their relationship last, even if it was to continue. Thus, him leaving to find the second Su Li-Zhen in Singapore was the point in which he felt overwhelmingly confused as well as alienated. It was also him trying to run away from his life, again alluding to 2046 when he wanted to run away to the future world as a method of recovering from his failed love affairs. The second Su Li-Zhen is a very strange character. In a way, she bares the closest resemblance to the original Su Li-Zhen, not quite as delicate as Wang, not near as showy as Bai, but very much the character who finds life almost as meaningless as Chow, probably had several failed love affairs, and has more in common with Chow than any girl he's ever met, short of the original Su Li-Zhen, which could be a possible suggestion as to why he so suddenly wanted to leave with her before even knowing her. In a way, Chow knows that they could never be due to her obvious past from which she knows she cannot escape. The "the second chance" might have also alluded to the second Su Li-Zhen, as at that point was when Chow decided to go to Singapore to find her (his efforts weren't successful). His not finding her is a sort of self-discovery for him, as he realizes now to move on and forget the past, things will never be the same, and start a new life. For instance, the final shots before the ending, where he walks humbly down the staircase and the manner of polite conversation in which he conducts with Bai, indicated that Chow is not anymore a broken-hearted individual, nor someone wishing to rekindle his love affairs, but of someone who had just underwent an enormous self-discovery. The shot of him walking away from Bai indicates the extent of his finally coming into his own notion of himself. "Now I know there's one thing I'll never lend to anyone," indicates that he has nothing more to lend, and that he is on a journey of self-virtue and discovery. However, the ending is ambiguous and this is not the only interpretation. The second interpretation is just that whoever he meets, he will never find someone like the original Su Li-Zhen. Wong has said that Chow's image of the first Su Li-Zhen was an ideal image, a product of subjectivity, and so he has the image of the original Su Li-Zhen as the infalliable true love, no other lover could ever match what the original Su Li-Zhen gave him.

Unlike Antononi, who is well known for glorifying the Italian upper class, often portraying his characters as materialistics bored of the pomp and bombast of mansion-living, Wong is known to glorify the common man, but Wong stretches the alienation theme further by suggesting that time is the real enemy of loneliness. Wong is often known as a romantic director, but his themes of alienation are pervasive in nearly every one of his films, and in 2046, the theme has more traits of Wongish alienation than any one of his other films. Chow Mo-Wan is the most complex character he has ever created, he is the epitome of the every man, the nothing man, the artistic minded and anti-materialist individual who is shown to be the facade of a handsome, reckless, gambling loving gigolo. The defining characteristic of his character is his misguided lifestyle and lack of self-awareness. Wong expands of this idea of alienation by suggesting that time has yet to change him, because he was still the same as he was years ago, still with no grasp of a blueprint of life yet, until the ending. However, in each one of Wong's characters, he suggests that these individuals are all strong-willed, all "common men with souls." A reason why Wong's films are so appealing is because he dramaticizes these characters as the ideal images of the every man. I think another direction Wong is pointing at with Chow is that he wants to make the viewers grasp the reality of his character under his situations. Imagine a life of directionlessness, a constant searching of better ways to find a more successful life. How many hours does he spend under the lamp on his typewriter just staring into nothingness? It's the portrayal of the monotony of life, the full reality of life as uneventful, unangellic, and depressing, and time can only worsen the situation. No wonder after an hour, 10 hours, and 100 hours, the android still doesn't respond, and life in the process, is a victim of the same unchanging pace. The android with delayed reaction is symbolic of this fact, in that it is the striking image of time stopped, and it grows progressively more depressing as you watch how the characters are stuck in a world where time is essentially only the clock that ticks and something you watch as time slowly passes. Time is no longer something of a life process, but it is the true enemy of loneliness. The android with delayed reaction is the image of Wang that Chow creates, but it is also Chow's mirror image, the image of someone who does not take advantage of the virtue of time nor has a sense of time passing by. Chow has neither, but he is still able to realize that time does go by, and it is this fact that leads to his eventual realization that 2046 is just a world. The delayed reaction of the androids could possibly allude to the future in which everything is delayed and reactions happen slowly and robotically, basically the image of a society as robotic and soulless. In this sense, 2046 itself has no grasping of the sense of time, and is nothing more than an even more soulless version of Chow's world. Wong has also said that the android is the possible reflection of Chow, that Chow's life is full of delayed reactions, the inability to appreciate the good things in life until they are gone.

To constrast the aesthetics of In the Mood For Love with 2046, there are both near flawless, but the characteristics actually differ quite a bit. While the aesthetics of "Mood" can be compared to that of a light bulb popping and releasing, 2046's lush visuals hint at exotic, soap-operaish, melodrama. "Mood's" primary colors of forest red and black hints at bleak, European art, but it can also be defined as a truly wild, artistic show, but toned down, and reduced to streets and apartment complexes. The colors in Mood, however, are wildly aesthetic, primarily used to capture the feeling of the night. "Mood" is a spiritual love story, the inassessible arthouse film, so it cannot be compared to 2046's exotic, surreal, melodramatic tone. Wong lends his visual effects more soul than any overused CGI hollywood big budget film. The shots of the future were stunningly and awe-inspiringly beautiful. Wong is quick to reduce the monotony of the shots inside apartment complexes by blurring his background like a scannerly, fading image, by unpredictable camera angles, and by quickly editing his shots as to be reluctant to be blatantly detailed. For instance, the scene where Bai gives her boyfriend the ultimatum; we can't even properly make out her boyfriend's face, and only noticed that he was not Chow by a 3 second shot of him walking away from the room, but we found that out only by his body structure, his face is not even important. In 2046, Wong really got the best out of his entire art and visual effects department.

The music of 2046 cleverly mixes sultry latin dances, operas, and instrumental solos. The latin dances echoes the sexiness and nonchalance of the Hong Kong tuxedo-clad, playboy era. It is the portion of Chow's life that is fun, the portion of his life he dedicates to Bai. The operas compliment Wang's artistic-nimble mind and her delicate, pity-inducing life of helplessness and introversion. The most haunting piece of music is the harmonious tune playing during the scenes of the future, the almost tear-inducing (As Faye Wong states), level of longing and desire that that piece of music suggests is the music of heavens. It's the most lush and odd piece of music in the history of cinema. The music altogether is the perfect blend of sexiness, soap opera, oddness, longing, and pity.

The performances are uniformly excellent, the real revelation being Zhang Ziyi, venturing completely out of her element to squeeze the performance of a lifetime. The perfectly portrayed dance hostess blends a level of sarcasm, flirtation, dislikability, and emotional fervor. Her roles in the past were suited for mythical historical beauties and sweet, country-girlish charm, but her most irregular role proves to be her most endearing, in character, and unique performance of her career. Watching the film several times, I have yet to notice one expression off-key or badly timed. You can feel her throat lumping everytime Leung disappoints her. Leung is excellent, despicable, and playboyish, albeit not as strong as his performance in In the Mood For Love. The rest of the cast, especially Gong Li, all give solid performances in their minimal screentime.

2046 is the film of my imaginations, the cinematic ode to cinema, and the most gorgeous, complex, emotionally endearing, film that I have ever seen. Wong's soul is larger than the film itself and with this, he has truly made his mark in cinema as one of the most distinct and unique directors to ever live. To break the In the Mood For Love and 2046 comparison, I fully submit that 2046 is not only my more preferred film, but also Wong's best work to date. Rating: 10/10

Little Children (Spoilers)

The beginning was promising; the description of Haley’s character as a suburban menace was an intriguing foreshadowing of how his character can impact the suburban lifestyle later on. Right after, it moves into an idealistic suburban setting at the playground and the playful narrations about the characters’ nonchalant lifestyles created a Wes Anderson-esque, comic bookish mood, in which their sex lives and personalities are satirized with suburban humor.

The first 20, maybe 30 minutes aside, the rest of the film could be stated as some of the worst moments of my 2006 cinematic viewing experience. The characters soon turned into mere quirks and exaggerated sexual stereotypes. First of which is Winslet’s husband, which through his maybe three brief scenes in the film is nothing more than a piece of blatant humor and stereotype of the “horny middle-age, my-wife-won’t-have-sex-with-me” character. To say that the scene where he is caught masturbating is not funny is stating the painfully obvious, but the fact that the meaning of his character comes down to nothing more than “he’s horny” is the first sign of where the film is heading. Haley’s character could be stated similarly, in that the filmmaker needs to make it so unbelievably obvious that he is hated by the neighborhood. When he jumps into the pool, in a seemingly Jaws-like manner, and the entire community stares down on him like he would actually commit a crime in public is meaningless exposition, we know that the community hates him, flyers of him are posted everywhere, his house is vandalized, what’s the point in such a sequence? His character seems inserted as a quirk, a convict/child molester/sexual failure that is there to reflect on the failures of Wilson’s character, or of someone who is to be a neighborhood villain of some sort. In a way, his character feels extraneous.

In fact, the only supporting character actually believable is the underused Connelly. The “football” subplot, subjected to corny dreamy sequences of a community unity is hilarious to say the least, and is completely out of sync with the entire film. It’s a simplistic metaphor to highlight the extent of Wilson’s lack of an eventful life, much like Spacey’s cliché “red sports car” in American Beauty. Wilson’s fixation with skateboarders could be stated as the same, it’s nothing more than a cheap device to be interpreted as “I want to feel like a kid again.” Emmerich’s character, the most outrageous caricature in the entire film, is reduced to a mere cliché, in that the primary use for his character is simplified by his poking at turned to bullying turned to hatred turned to attempted murder of Haley, who after the completely outrageous accidental murdering of Haley’s mother, progressively turns a new leaf and “finds a conscience.” Little development is there on his character, except a superficial relationship to Wilson and his “Community of Concerned Parents” leadership.

The ending turns into a sort of pseudo-thriller and a ridiculous series of climaxes, a coincidental meeting of Winslet and Haley, a daughter that decided to run off to stare at some fireflies, and Haley and Emmerich’s glorious “let’s shake hands” conclusion. The most questionable of which is Winslet’s and Wilson’s compromise, in which they agreed, after confessing such a huge desire to be together, to run off together. What holds Wilson back is not his fear of abandoning his wife, rather his sudden urge to decide to go skateboarding; what is questionable is his burst of childhood passion at the most important moment of his life. Lol? And Winslet deciding that “crap he’s not worth it,” after that brief shock to the heart she received from her daughter does not make sense to me, it’s like Bullock falling down the stairs to find herself completely washed away of racism in Crash.

Haley was absolutely dull and passable, the only performances worth noting are Winslet, her solid, but non-award worthy "plain jane" act and the superior Demi Mooreish, "ideal housewive" portrait of Connelly.

What we’re reduced to in the film is simplistic characterization, blatant suburban stereotyping, dry sex humor, a Halloween-like ending, and a series of wax-polished symbolism, in the vein of two characteristics, the completely cinematically blatant (the “prom king” nonsense and the “Madame Bovary” references uttered simultaneously as Winslet and Wilson are having sex) and the cinematically corny and nonsensical (the kiss on the football field and little girl staring at the fireflies). 4/10

The Curse of the Golden Flower (1st thoughts)

With The Curse of the Golden Flower, Zhang Yimou has once again dived into his seemingly newfound love of martial arts epics and stories about the Chinese monarchy. However, while Hero and House of the Flying Daggers are more about rebellions against the crown, The Curse of the Golden Flower with its Ran-esque storytelling, address the theme of conflict within the monarch. Zhang is never one to subject you to long, bloated epics or unfocused pacing, but in any case, the same problems I held with House of Flying Daggers, abrupt endings and the outrageous climaxes, I still hold with this film. The first hour of the film is excellent, the slow build-up of the first 30 minutes of the film is complimented by the masked woman walking into the room. The sequences afterwards logically connects the relationship of the king toward the queen as well backstory about how he ascended the throne. In addition to setting up a web of intrigue that proceeded to follow, we are more aware of the characters after that sequence. The two elder sons, the servant girl and the mother were all potentially important characters.

However, the gigantic climax felt way too overstrenous of a screenwriting process. The servant girl and the mother, whether or not they were related hardly mattered to the plot, and that the servant girl rushed out of the palace at the discovery of her brother is an overdone dramatic sequence, especially since it is by coincidence that the monarch seems to have relations with both yet the mother and the servant girl are related. They seemed to be completely different characters at the beginning, and it is a bit unbelievable that the person that the elder son is having an affair with is the daughter of the "masked woman." And their characters being removed so fast is a questionable move and only hurts the plot development, they could have been essential characters at the end instead of just plot devices. The younger son murdering the elder son is completely meaningless, and served more to create needless drama. The younger son clearly held no vendetta toward the elder son previously and him killing his brother just like that when the film is completely focused on the other story seems like way too contrived of a climax and completely unnecessary. It felt like The Departed, which the characters just drop dead one by one.

However, the look of the film is quite exquisite, Gong Li's jewerly plastered robe and Chow's golden armor compliments the look of the period extraordinarily, the opening scene of the horseback warriors riding into the palace sets up a Kurosawaian mood, and the scenes over the cliffs are particularly imaginative.

I would say that it is inferior to Riding Alone For Thousands of Miles and Hero, but superior to House of Flying Daggers and is currently my fourth favorite film of the year. It was about where I had intended it to be, actually a bit better than what I had originally thought. 8/10

Children of Men - Brief, concise descriptions (Spoilers)

It is not a philosophical film, rather an uplifting humanistic drama, a dystopian fiction depiction, it's tender and drab at the same time, and reinforces that humanity indeed has a future. The plot moves at a uniformly steady pace, following characters as they venture in and out of danger, encounters betrayal within its own community, and loses a leader. The first ten minutes and the scenes with Michael Caine aside, the film... scarcely ever dull and spiritually uplifting, is tremendously well written and incisive. The cast is excellent; a snarky, trenchcoat-wearing Clive Owen, an arm-crossing Julianne Moore, and Claire-Hope Ashitey all give solid performances. The last 20 minutes are the film's highlight, when Owen guides Kee through the debris, the deteriorating buildings crumbling, and the smoke-laden warfare ensues within their very eyes, the film catches a type of a aesthetic poetry through the multiple grey and dark blue color schemes. As Owen approaches the fog-ridden sea of nothingness, the film concludes with the notion that humanity indeed has a future....

8/10. Just edges The Departed for my 4th favorite film of the year.

Dreamgirls (1st thoughts)

For those who are expecting anything more than a "rise-to-stardom" tale beginning with characters who are seemingly in their utopia of good fortune at first, then slowly hits a downside after their personal lives collapse.... don't bother watching this. While the film never thinks of itself anymore than than average, the flaws are still apparent, and it is far from Best Picture quality. It does not even surpass similar films such as Walk the Line or Chicago. The former has a strong central relationship which lifts the film's more trite moments into a nice melodrama while the latter just seems to have a stronger narrative flow.

The first act of Dreamgirls is the girls at their beginning, singing and auditioning, and begging. The characters dynamics and motives could not be anymore definable. Since Foxx's character resembles the classic "talent scout" character who sees something special in these girls. It already establishes its predictability right away, as certainly the audience knows that Foxx will recruit them right away, test them out, and thus begins their rise at stardom. The imagery are flashing light bulbs, more expensive merchandise, and images of billboard charts. Apart from that, the first act could not be anymore dull. We understand the characters' sense of purpose (they all want to be stars), but nothing is said about their backgrounds, their qualms about stardom, or anything that can give them more depth. They seem to all just run excited over their luck at the same time excessive imagery describing their newfound success flashes over and over again. That is just a classic case of one-dimensionality. It is simply just a cliche.

The second act presents basically the same thing apart from one major conflict. That conflict is the breaking point in mood of the film; while the first is optimism, the second begins the disagreeing nature of forming a singing duo. The motive of Foxx of intentionally stripping Hudson of her stardom is prompted by nothing more his envy, spite, and dislike of her. Nothing more is said, she throws a tantrum of jealousy, and makes a triumpant exit. The third act is by far the messiest. Three stories seem to run at once, at a back and forth pace. It all seems to highlight the one major theme of the film, "we rise and we fall"... since the "fortunate characters" in the second act now hold antithetical lifestyles; again the themes are as deep as "we're bored of stardom," "we're all washed out", or "we make a comeback." That is exactly the case between Beyonce, Hudson, and Murphy's characters after the major conflict of Hudson leaving the band. However, Beyonce's character becoming more sensitive, more aware of herself seems to be a defining moment of her true character, her knowledge that she abandoned Effie, her career a possible fluke, and the discomfort of her all-too-perfect-world is well done and a great moment in the film. However, Effie's character is again easily definable, she now works as a single mom, and nothing much else is highlighted other than she now found out the truth behind her departure from the band.

On the performance side, while at the beginning, I felt that both Jen-Hud and Beyonce held back their voice and created sort of mute performances, especially of Beyonce playing the "sparkling girl," she improves and gives a solid portrayal in the latter act by a more mature front, she sinks into a sort of comfort zone when she is able to give a sensitive side to her character, such as: long glances, scoffing, and a quiet demeanor. I really liked her in the film. However, Jen-Hud grows progressively worse and turns a prissy, frowning, loud-voiced performance.

The final verdict is that the film is ok, at about the level of The Queen, but I certainly cannot deem this movie without flaws considering the lack of dimensionality in the characters and excessive imagery and song use used everytime to highlight what someone feels. I like the songs, but some of the moments are rather obvious. 6/10