Akira`s Dreams


Akira Kurosawa, the man whose movies inspired the creation of the Star Wars series and influenced the minds of many directors, his dreams.

Firstly, do not expect to see something simple. Engage your symbolic view on life, turn on your metaphor-detecting-sense, switch off that down to earth, realistic, straight-forward outlook on life. This movie is to be seen and felt and learnt from (at least in my point of view).

Much emphasis is placed on colors, garments, and landscape, it is a very visual movie, a beautiful movie.
Some connecting threads between the different dreams but what each person takes away from the movie probably differs (dream interpretation is never universal) but human-nature intervention seems to be a common theme.

By the seventh dream I have to admit that I was practically dreaming... some less patient souls may find the movie too slow or even boring...

Enjoy


Qatsi 2 of 3


Powaqqatsi
The second filmingo of the qatsi trilogy.
No longer is the cinematography sketchy, this one was made in the late 80`s and has the touch of Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas (it says presented by those two guys but I am not sure what exactly their participation was... anyway).
The shots manage to capture more of the essence of the moment (in my opinion) than those of Koyaanisqatsi and, just when you are getting slightly bored in a scene some dramatically vivid and touching imagery appears!
This time the theme is not imbalance between man and nature (even though you do feel that to some degree), instead it is focused on humans and their beauty... The camera pans slowly across the young, dirty, faces of indian children; then it pauses on a homeless man sitting still in the midsts of a turbulent city; and off it goes to an overhead shot of a temple in Kathmandu...
What does all this try to tell the viewer? F#@$ all. Nada. Niente. Once again, just as in Koyaanisqatsi, each one takes away what he wants. Disgust of the low level of life some "choose" to live in or perhaps how meaningless we all are to think we are so meaningfull or perhaps... looking forward to knowing others` views.
Once again Philip Glass is the music man (and he seems to have calmed down slightly, playing less trippy music), Godfrey Reggio is the man with the vision, and Ron Fricke... where is Ron? Must have been booted from this one (more on Ron to come with future filmingo installments).

In sum, I recommend it.
Use it to woo a pretty girl at home or to fall asleep or for whatever reason but everyone has something to learn (in terms of feelings evoked) from watching this filmingo.

Brown Bunny

The second film of Vincent Gallo jumped to the first pages of the entertainment
sections of every newspaper in the world after being showed at the <> Cannes Festival. The reason? Well
the reason was una mamada (in mexican slang this makes perfect sense, believe it
or not), ya know, a bj, a close talk to the microphone, a slurpee lubee to the tubee. Yep. It is explicit and it is not fake, so if you are going to make faces make them now.

The movie of course, having the normal theatrical length, has more in it than
the infamous shot. Let's see: it is about this guy, Vincent Gallo, who loves dressing in brown
and has a strange interest for bunnies. Nah, let me rephrase, because
that actually sounded interesting. It is about this
weirdo who races in motorcycle all over the country, traveling from one race
to another in his van, sleeping in cheapo motels (alone) and having therefore a very shitty life. No, not enough. Again: it is about Gallo making a too long story about himself, with images (close ups mostly) of himself pretending being (supposedly) himself in a really sad situation, and so he hits the road alone. Oh, and he is very very sad about a girl.

Wait, it gets better: his character is supposed to be so attractive (I am guessing that was his point) that he does not need to really talk to a woman to make her fall in love with him inmediately. We see how he can convince a girl of leaving home to escape with him with not much more than a "hello" and a "please go with me", and we also see how he can make a hot woman on her late forties to have foreplay with him by only sitting next to her. The significance of this is to show the audience how lucky he is with women but how he does not care because he only loves the one who broke up with him, the one called Brandy and who is interpreted by the beautiful Chloe Sevigny -a real life ex-girlfriend-.

Yep, that in 1 hour and 45 minutes of mostly silent takes of Vincent Gallo driving, Vincent Gallo driving, Vincent Gallo taking his motorcycle here and there, Vincent Gallo driving again, and oh, yes, Vincent Gallo driving and not saying much. I guess as an experiment it is interesting, because the audiences can make their own interpretation of what is going on, and make the movie as good or as bad as they want. Well, I made a very bad one, sorry. In my interpretation the idea is good, the sad guy who lost the girl and wanders the world, not caring much about anything else than the pain of the lost love, but the cinematography is so amateurish and boring, that the whole idea gets lost in time and space very soon, until you realize that you are tired, your ass is numb, and you really want to leave the theater (as many did in the Cannes presentation) and go home and watch something more significant, like the Anna Nicole Show, or some commercials.

Then, when you think it won't get any better and you prepare to stand up and give the finger to the autheur, the movie gets to its climax with the appearance of pretty Chloe for the one and only semi-coherent dialogue of the film: Why did you leave me if I still love you? Can I kiss you? No, you are a whore and I am mad at you. But I love you, though I am a helpless crack smoker. Yeah? well, I don't care, I am mad. Ok, then let's have sex. No, why don't I humiliate you first? Ok, that sounds sooo romantic. Slurp Slurp Slurp. Hey this shot is taken behind a glass, we can see the reflectors. Slurp Slurp Slurp. Now I am going to say really bad things to you because you can not answer with a mouth full, Ok? Mmmhmm Slurp slurp slurp. Oh, yeah, ahh, I am done. Now explain me why did you cheat on me and let's make it the worst storyline in years. Ok, fine. Blah Blah. Well, that's it. The end.

Yep, I guess this says to a bunch of rich druggy kids who love motorcycles and pretend to
be artists, that they can still make a lot of money even with the three or four classes they took
at that expensive film school in those mornings when they were not passed out or hungover. To the rest of the world it only says that explicit sex scenes can make it through censorship if
the movie is controversial enough. Oh, and also that porn is still not an art form, so don't get any ideas yet.

Qatsi 1 of 3


Koyaanisqatsi is the name of the first filmingo of the qatsi trilogy.
Nowhere in this blog does it say that the movies have to be recent and this particular movie was created between 1975 and 1982. I will be posting comments on the other parts as well as a special movie which follows these.
Koyaanisqatsi is the vision of Godfrey Reggio but only made possible with the talents of Philip Glass and Ron Fricke (more on him to come).
The movie has no actors and no plot thus limiting itself to presenting the viewer with impressive imagery of both natural and human origin. To some point you feel as if the director had the intention of exposing the flaws in human behaviour yet, as he himself says, each one takes away from the movie what he wants.
The word Koyaanisqatsi comes from the Hopi language and means something akin to: "life out of balance". Reggio chose this term since he is a firm believer that our language has long lost touch with our society and he wanted a word without other connotations.
Despite this movie being somewhat old, something which you notice in the quality of the filming as well as in the clothing of the humans, its message, its essence, is unspoiled. The natural scenery is as impressive as always and the human influence likewise, the music is timeless...
This is an IRE production, a "company" created in the 70`s to open the eyes of society... I cannot say if it had much success.

Finder's Fee

Es ésta la típica película que uno nunca vería si no se la recomiendan. Cierto es que la presencia tras la cámara de Jeff Probs, presentador del reality show americano Survivor, no augura, a priori, un buen resultado. Nada más lejos de la realidad, el producto final es bueno y digno de ser visionado.

El argumento es de lo más sencillo y se resume en dos encuentros: el de una billetera por parte de uno de los protagonistas y el de unos amigos con el fin de jugar al poker. El caso es que el encuentro de ambos encuentros, valga la redundancia, desencadena una trama no del todo agradable para los personajes. Gira la historia pues entorno a cuatro amigos y al desconocido dueño de la billetera encarnado por James Earl Jones, al que seguro recordarán por haberlo visto pasear junto a Kevin Costner a lo largo y ancho de un campo de baseball nacido de la nada. Le sonarán también, al más avispado, un policía que aparece por allí (Robert Foster), y que aparecía fugazmente también interpretando a un agente de la ley en Mulholland Drive, y uno de los amigos, el caradura de todo buen grupo que se precie, del protagonista (Matthew Lillard), famoso últimamente por ser el compañero de fatigas de un can.

Llegados a este punto estoy en disposición de decir que esta película merece ser visionada pese a no contar con grandes reclamos. No, más allá de la trama que plantea y como la plantea. Qué haría usted si se encontrara una billetera con un ticket de lotería premiado en su interior? Película de personajes cuya historia dura el tiempo que dura el metraje y que no es ni corta ni larga, sino todo lo contrario. De verdad, hágase un favor a usted y a su conciencia, y disfrute de esta obra.

Yo la vería con los amigos, después de jugar una de esas partidas de poker semanales que contentan a unos y entristecen, o sea, joden, a otros. Recomendarla, la recomendaría a todo aquel que robó un chicle en el supermercado cuando era joven; si aún no lo ha hecho, todavía está a tiempo antes de verla...

Starsky & Hutch

Magnífico intento por entrar a las listas de "peor película de todos los tiempos". Lástima que aún ese premio sería exagerado para una cinta cuyos mejores adeptos están en las cuatro o cinco chicas en bikini que aparecen por ahí de pasada en la pantalla.

Todd Phillips, creador de las superinfladas "Old School" y "Road Trip" intenta recrear el ambiente de la famosa serie televisiva de los 70's de la forma mas apegada posible, incluyendo
la supuesta química entre los dos protagonistas. El resultado es una sugerente amistad homosexual que supera incluso a la de Frodo y Sam en la trilogía de "Lord of the Rings". Lo que no entendió Phillips es que el estilito de las series de parejas de policías y ladrones pasó de moda hace 30 años por razones que aún son válidas para un público evolucionado en su capacidad de atención, y que por tanto vuelven a esta cinta insulsa, pretensiosa y francamente aburrida. Esto por lo visto es bueno en Hollywood ya que ahora este director se encargará de recrear al famoso Hombre de los Seis Millones de Dólares con todo y el "titititititit".

Mi esperanza era que master pothead Snoop Dog le diera nueva vida al personaje de Huggy Bear, pero su papel es mas bien el de una especie de pseudo-padrote (que nunca sale con muchachas) buena onda y filosófico, y que honestamente no cae muy bien. Vea esta película mientras come huevos revueltos y un filete a la plancha y le auguro una visita a la sala de emergencias con un fuerte problema hepático. Mucho cuidado.

Disponible en DVD, que incluye escenas cortadas. No quiero ni imaginármelas.