404. Nattvardsgasterna/Winter Light (1963)

Running Time: 81 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Gunnar Bjornstrand, Ingrid Thulin, Max von Sydow, Gunnel Lindblom, Allan Edwall
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER V

The second part of Bergman's "Trilogy of Faith" is presented as the fifth chronological Ingmar Bergman entry in the book and is almost as good as the first part of the trilogy.

The story is told in 80 minutes time and takes place over the course of three hours on a snowy Sunday afternoon. We focus in on a small church and more specifically the pastor of the church, who gives a standard sermon to the six who are in attendance, feeding them the blood and body of Christ and then dismissing them from their weekly worship. The pastor is Tomas (Bjornstrand) and he no longer believes in God. As he enters his chambers, preparing himself for a 3:00pm service at another church and nursing a cold, he accepts several visitors. First up, there's Marta Lundberg (Thulin), Thomas's ex-mistress and someone who loves him very much. Marta has made it her life's mission to take care of Tomas and feels that her true purpose on Earth is to be his companion. Unfortunately for Marta, Tomas doesn't feel the same way. He strings her along well enough, but Tomas is forever bound to his dead wife, whom he pledges eternal love to. In fact, it was his wife's death that lead him to doubt the existence of God. Then, Tomas is visited by a couple, Jonas (von Sydow) and Karin (Lindblom). Jonas is beginning to contemplate suicide, as he developed a deep fear when he learned that the Chinese were experimenting with nuclear weapons. Suffice it to say that it's going to be a trying few hours for the pastor.

At about the halfway mark of "Winter Light" I made the decision that I didn't like it very much. In fact, I was even tinkering with the notion of giving it a score somewhere below a '3'. At that point, I was just so fed up with Bergman harping about the existence of God, or lack thereof. I have no problem with anyone who chooses not to believe in God. I don't force my religion upon other people and likewise, I don't like to have their lack of religion forced upon me. Some Christians claim that when you encounter a non-believer that it is your duty as a believer of Christ to spread His word. However, one of the most wretched things I ever witnessed was when I saw a Christian try to convince an atheist that God existed. Even though I believe in God and Christ, there just seems to be something really slimy about one man trying to force his views on another. I believe that every man has a mind of his own and every man has heard about the Bible and has heard, at least in vague description, the story of Jesus Christ. Therefore, every man can choose whether he/she wants to believe or not, on their own without being forced or convinced otherwise. What I'm trying to say, is that I'm sick of Bergman trying to tell me that we're alone in the universe. If that's what he believes, that's fine and if he feels the need to make a movie about it, that's fine too, but must we keep exploring this same idea?

Then I realized something. This story means more to believers than it should to non-believers. I mean, think about it - You have a pastor who is experiencing a crisis of faith. As a believer in God and Christ, that's a tragic story to me. If I were a non-believer, I might be struck with the notion of "Oh, well thankfully this pastor came to his senses and realized that there's no God". But as a believer I can feel sympathy for a clergyman who can't seem to find strength & comfort in Christ.

"Winter Light" is filled with poignant, meaningful moments. One that I noticed right away was immediately after the scene where Tomas rips into Marta, telling her what he really thinks of her and not holding anything back. One thing you can say for Bergman is that he really knew how to capture heartbreak and he really knew how to write hatred and anger. Anyway, after Tomas basically rips Marta's heart out of her chest, he walks to the door, turns around and invites her to come with him to church. It's a moment that says to me, despite what Tomas wants or believes, he's never going to change things. He'll continue being a pastor, preaching the word of God, even though he doesn't believe what he's preaching. Likewise, he'll string Marta along, accepting her cough syrup and crying on her shoulder, even though he doesn't love her. I mean, in simpler terms, the guy is an ultimate hypocrite and really, even though I say I have sympathy for this clergyman, I really shouldn't, because he's really a terrible person.

Anyway, the ultimate decision was positive for "Winter Light". It's my kind of movie really - small cast, small setting (for the most part the entire film takes place in the chambers of the church), dialogue driven and a movie that takes place wholly over a few hours. It's one that really threw me back and forth emotionally, as I went from resenting the story, to feeling deep sympathy for the main character and then losing all the sympathy, as quick as it came. Sven Nykvist may be my new favorite cinematographer, mostly because I didn't have a former favorite cinematographer. His use of natural light, as opposed to artificial light is intoxicating and really gives these films a more realistic sense. I'll stop rambling now.

RATING: 7/10 I enjoyed "Through a Glass Darkly" more actually, but '6.5' just seemed to low for this one, so I knocked it to a '7'. I really wish they would have included "The Silence" in THE BOOK, because I'm really curious to see the last installment of the trilogy.

MOVIES WATCHED: 409
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 592

NOTE: I realize that I'm smack-dab in the middle of "Bergman Week", but I'm afraid the time has come for a much needed hiatus. It's just that I worked REALLY hard to get to my short-term goal of "401 movies watched", that I really burnt myself out. Had I not been hyping "Bergman Week" for months prior, I would've definitely taken the break as soon as my most recent TOP 20 was made. However, I thought I'd try to, at least, get through "Bergman Week" and then I could take a break. Well, I don't think I'm gonna' make it kids. I want to give my full attention and abilities to every film contained in THE BOOK and I just can't do that right now, because I really just need to step away from the journey for a little bit. I don't want to pass a false judgement of anything, especially movies as important as the upcoming Bergman offerings. So, with all that being said, I am officially announcing my hiatus from the blog. Please be aware that this is only a hiatus and those usually never last more than two or three months. I WILL BE BACK, I PROMISE. I may be back in a month, I may be back in three, but I will definitely be back and when I get back, I'll continue with the "Bergman Week" festivities. In the meantime, I think you have enough reading material to keep you occupied. Don't hesitate to continue leaving comments, as I check the blog dashboard every day and read all comments. Thanks to my followers, you guys rock! I'll see 'ya soon.

January 26, 2012 10:51pm

Read More

378. Sasom i en spegel/Through a Glass Darkly (1961)

Running Time: 90 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Harriet Andersson, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Max von Sydow, Lars Passgard
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER IV

FINALLY! Finally "Bergman Week" produces something that I get to praise, instead of complain about, as "Through a Glass Darkly" doesn't quite hit a home run, but does hit a nice fly ball into center field.

The film has a cast of four and four only and the main character is Karin (Andersson), whom we learn has just been released from the hospital and later learn that she is being treated for an incurable, mental illness. Her husband is Martin (von Sydow), a doctor himself and a great husband to boot, caring for Karin and wanting nothing but the best for her. Karin's father is David (Bjornstrand), a novelist and a pessimist, who, despite his love for his family, will put his work before their well being. Lastly, there's Minus (Passgard), Karin's brother. The thing Minus wants most of all is attention from his father. We get the sense early on that Minus may be going through some issues of his own, but his troubles are being ignored due to Karin's troubles. In fact, Karin is really the only one who wants the best for Minus, taking an interest in his studies and conversing with him regularly. The film tells of a day in the life of these four family members, as Karin struggles to keep her grip on reality and the rest of the family go through struggles of their own.

SPOILER ALERT!

"Through a Glass Darkly" is the first part of Bergman's "Trilogy of Faith" and having that knowledge prior to viewing this film, I went into it expecting Bergman to beat me over the head with yet another film, where he artistically expressed his inability to find God. While "Through a Glass Darkly" may have themes of a religious nature, there's much more to it than that and I was able to enjoy it strictly from a character study standpoint. The characters that Ingmar Bergman presents to us here are ripe for the picking, meaning you can really pick them apart and make a lot of assumptions about them based on their actions and words in this ninety minute feature. While we never really get the full details of Karin's illness, it is obviously one of a mental nature, as Harriet Andersson puts on an acting showcase portraying the descent of Karin. Speaking of her illness, I'm no doctor or anything, but are there really mental illness's that are fatal? Also, while I'm proposing questions, what happened in the wrecked ship between Karin and Minus? Did they have sex? I mean, that's what I understood to have happened, but am I way off base? And what about David - was he meant to symbolize Christ in someway? I only say this because there are two poignant moments in the film where this thought could be true. The first is when David goes to get his tobacco and breaks down crying, standing in front of a window with his arms outstretched (ie. Christ on the cross). The second comes with the final words of the film, when David finally has a talk with Minus and Minus, astounded that his father has given him some time, says "Father spoke to me". What did those words mean - "Father spoke to me". Bergman may be an atheist, but it seems like he really wants to believe in something.

I'll keep this short tonight. For the film goer who likes religion with their movies, you can go into this one and probably pick it apart and find a lot of religious pieces. If you're like me and you don't like mixing the two, then there's still PLENTY of reasons to check this one out. Incredible performances, Sven Nykvist's cinematography (you can really tell that this is Nykvist's first feature with Bergman from THE BOOK, as it looks head & shoulders better than the previous Bergman entries), the gripping dialogue, the intense atmosphere and the characters.

RATING: 7/10 Hey, I hope this is the turning point, because I'd really like to leave "Bergman Week" with a positive opinion of Ingmar. Next up: "Winter Light".

MOVIES WATCHED: 408
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 593

January 25, 2012 6:18pm

Read More

469. Wavelength (1967)

Running Time: 43 minutes
Directed By: Michael Snow
Written By: Michael Snow
Main Cast: Hollis Frampton, Joyce Wieland, Amy Yadrin, Lyne Grossman, Maoto Nakagawa

Note: More than likely, this will be the last non "Bergman Week" review that I present, until "Bergman Week" is concluded. Once "Bergman Week" is finished up, I'll more than likely be going on hiatus. As always, if I do make the final decision to take a hiatus, I'll put a post up announcing it.

IT CAME FROM YOUTUBE

With some time to kill last night, I took to YouTube to check on the availability of some of the movies that I've been unable to find from THE BOOK. I actually managed to find a few dozen of them and this one looked so intriguing to me that I decided to watch it right away.

"Wavelength" is a short, experimental film, that only runs about forty-five minutes. In it, a camera is affixed in a permanent location and as the film progresses it slowly zooms into a photo on a wall. When the film starts the photo is on the other side of the room, but by the end we're so close that the photo takes up the entire frame. Throughout the forty-five minutes, a few people wander in and out of the frame, including two ladies who turn on the radio, listen to The Beatles' "Strawberry Fields Forever" and then leave. At another point, a man stumbles in and falls on the floor. Approximately ten minutes later, a woman enters, sees the man and calls the police, declaring that the man seems to be dead. Also throughout the film, Michael Snow experiments with the picture and audio, giving us a plethora of different colors and effects on the picture and piercing our ears with the sine wave of the soundtrack, taking it from it's lowest to highest note.

Having my expectations for experimental films at the lowest that they could possibly be and going in not really expecting much out of another one, I really enjoyed this. It's kind of hard to target what it was I actually enjoyed about it, but the entire film gave off a high intrigue factor. Watching "Wavelength" was like looking at a Jackson Pollock painting and seeing a world of possibility. While there really wasn't much substance to it, there was something almost haunting about being in this big room, with no one else around, only the silence and the decibel levels of the soundtrack to keep us company. That piercing whine as the film progressed only served to heighten the intensity, as I slowly started to realize that we were getting closer and closer to this one photograph on the wall.

There's apparently a theory that the photo (which is a picture of waves) is supposed to represent an alternate reality. I don't know about all that and really, whether that's a fact or a theory, wouldn't serve to raise or lower my opinion of this picture. This is an experimental film that I certainly condone and one that, I think, really served it's purpose. There's so much to see and so much to take away from this movie, when you dig deep, however, on the surface it doesn't seem like much. Beware that MANY people complain about the film being boring, as it is really just a camera slowly zooming in on one spot for the majority of the time. However, if you're a "glass half full" kind of person, I think you'll be able to take away a lot from this film. Kudos to Michael Snow for cracking my hesitancy on experimental cinema.

RATING: 7.5/10 On an experimental scale, this would probably be a '10/10', but on an overall scale, considering everything, I think a '7.5' is suitable.

MOVIES WATCHED: 407
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 594

January 24, 2012 5:23pm

Read More

318. Smultronstallet/Wild Strawberries (1957)

Running Time: 91 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Victor Sjostrom, Ingrid Thulin, Bibi Andersson, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Jullan Kindahl
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER III

This is probably the most disappointed I've been since I've started this journey. In short, I didn't much care for "Wild Strawberries", but the disappointment really kicks in when I realize Ingmar Bergman is now 0-3...and I had such high hopes for him.

The film centers around Isak Borg (Sjostrom), a 76-year-old, retired physician. The film is also narrated by Isak and as the picture begins he is preparing himself to go to Lund, to accept an honorary award. At last minute, Isak's daughter-in-law Marianne (Thulin) asks if she can accompany him and he accepts. Isak and Marianne then pack into an automobile and begin the long drive to Lund University. At first, their car ride doesn't go to well, as Isak brings up some serious issues and Marianne basically tells Isak that she doesn't like him very much and never has. During the entire time, Isak is entranced in deep reflection about his own past life and the mistakes and missteps he made. On a detour of their route, Isak and Marianne stop off at the home where Isak spent his summer's as a boy. There Isak reflects on his youth and remembers his cousin Sara (Andersson), a girl whom he was in love with. When he snaps back to reality, he meets a present day girl named Sara, who is joined by two boys and needs a ride to Italy. Isak agrees to take them as far as Lund. Later, Isak makes a second detour, at his elderly mother's house and again does some reflecting. Eventually, the group pile back into the car and continue their trip to Lund. During most of the ride, Isak sleeps and dreams bizarre things that give him insight into his own character.

It's not that "Wild Strawberries" was terrible, it's just that in the big picture it wasn't nearly as good as I thought it would be. I REALLY wanted to like this picture. I've heard Woody Allen talk about this film many times, citing it as one of his personal favorites and even upon reading a brief synopsis of the plot, it sounded like something that I could really take to. You know, I think there's just far too much pressure on the wannabe film buff to like certain movies, "Wild Strawberries" being a glaring example. Throughout this entire picture I just kept thinking, in the back of my head - almost subconsciously - that I NEEDED to like this film. In the end, I didn't. But why?

My main problem with "Wild Strawberries" is the execution. On the surface, the film is actually quite a good idea. It's a very simple structure of a man going through a day where he's starting to examine his own character, the way he's lived his life and the key moments that shaped him in his current, 76-year-old, state. My connection to this film was really severed when Bergman started incorporating flashbacks. I was really with it, especially when Isak and Marianne started their car ride and the great back and forth dialogue between the two, the quiet, very real responses from Sjostrom. Then they take the detour and we get a flashback to Isak's childhood, as he reflects on a memory that he wasn't even a part of (so how could he reflect on it?), involving his cousin Sara. Had Bergman, in some way, been able to get across the idea that Isak was going through a period of self examination, without the use of flashbacks, I think I would have taken to the film a lot better. Even the dream sequences weren't terrible, but again, I'd have rather heard, through the narration possibly, of Isak's memories.

Also, the film just wasn't that poignant to me. There's never any great realization from Isak, at least that I saw. We hear about Isak's faults through the narration and flashbacks, but we never see the man that Marianne speaks of, the cold, callous man that she tells him he can be. All we ever really see is an elderly, timid gentlemen and therefore in the end, when Isak has his little talk with Evald, it's really of no importance. I don't know - all I DO KNOW is that I just didn't take to the film and I was really looking forward to it. It's just not a film that served it's purpose on me, as well as it obviously has on others.

RATING: 5.5/10 Like I said, not terrible, but nothing I'd bother writing home about. There are still seven Bergman films remaining, but honestly, I'm starting to lose hope that a truly great one is going to come along. Next up: "Through a Glass Darkly".

MOVIES WATCHED: 406
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 595

January 21, 2012 6:47pm

Read More

974. Kill BIll: Volume One (2003)

Running Time: 111 minutes
Directed By: Quentin Tarantino
Written By: Quentin Tarantino, Uma Thurman
Main Cast: Uma Thurman, Lucy Liu, Sonny Chiba, Vivica A. Fox, Julie Dreyfus
Click here to view the trailer

REVENGE IS A DISH BEST SERVED COLD

Tonight it was a short march to the "DVD room" for my next review, a personal favorite of mine - "Kill Bill". In this case, it's "Kill Bill: Volume One" and I have to wonder why THE BOOK didn't just mash the two volumes of the "Kill Bill" story together into one entry.

Eleven years after Quentin Tarantino introduced us to Mr. White and Mr. Pink, he introduced us to The Bride a.k.a. Black Mamba (Thurman). Though her real name is hidden from us until the second volume, what we do know about The Bride is that on her wedding day, moments before she was to be married, the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad (with their leader Bill) gunned down and murdered nine people that were on hand for the ceremony - they should have made it ten! Though they thought they murdered her and despite the bullet Bill fired into her brain, The Bride didn't cease to be. Instead, she lay comatose in a hospital bed for four years, probably dreaming about the revenge that she'd serve her attackers. When she wakes up, she "takes out" a hospital orderly, steals his truck (the "Pussy Wagon") and gets to work, coldly serving her dish of revenge on the five members of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. In "Volume One" The Bride takes out Vernita Green a.k.a. Copperhead (Fox) quite easily and the rest of the film is mainly focused on The Bride's travel to Tokyo and preparation for her grand fight with O-Ren Ishii a.k.a. Cottonmouth (Liu).

I can remember working at a video store when this film was released on DVD. At the time, I considered Quentin Tarantino my favorite director, however, like now, I rarely got to the theater, even to check out the movies that I most anticipated. I can remember waiting patiently, like a child wait's for Christmas morning, for "Kill Bill" to be released on DVD and I remember the day when it finally was. When I finally got to watch it, it was worth the wait and then some. In fact, I liked it so much that I actually made it to the theater for "Volume Two". However, through the years as I re-watched the film on multiple occasions, I realized that each time it would get less and less appealing. Well, tonight I watched the film for the umpteenth time and I can say that the appeal has returned. My tastes have changed drastically since the days when I worked at the video store and waited patiently for "Kill Bill". Now, I wait patiently for the new Woody Allen film each year and while I did make it to the theater for "Inglorious Basterds", I didn't much care for it and have yet to see it again, or even purchase it. In the words of Bob Dylan, "The times they are a-changin".

Anyway, enough rambling. Why do I like "Kill Bill" and more specifically, why do I like "Kill Bill: Volume One"? Well what's not to like, really? For all intents and purposes this film is flawless. It gets it's point across, uses it's time perfectly and never, NEVER drags. You know, you can gather your most keen-eyed film snobs and they'll fill a college ruled notebook with all the references, samplings and "ripoffs" that Tarantino uses in this movie and then they'll chastise him for it. I've never been one for caring about someone sampling someone else's work, as long as it's not blatant and as long as it serves their story too and they use it respectfully. Tarantino borrowed from and paid homage to several different genres here, including wuxia films, spaghetti westerns and blaxploitation films and he meshes it all together in grand fashion. He samples the scores of Ennio Morricone and Bernard Herrmann, while mixing in pieces of country tunes, Gheorghe Zamfir virtuoso's and music by "The 5, 6, 7, 8's". In fact, the music is so perfect here that even a blind man would have to acknowledge the greatness of this picture.

Tarantino is no longer my favorite director, through no fault of his own, but it's hard to deny him. He's one of the few director's still making movies that allows me to have continued faith in the future of American cinema. You can say what you want about the guy, but he makes his brand of picture. Is he a self-indulgent filmmaker? YES! He throws conventional rules out the window, paying no mind to certain details, such as telling a film in linear fashion. In "Kill Bill", Tarantino tells the story in all different parts and it only adds to our laundry list of questions, but makes it that much more enjoyable when we finally start piecing things together. Let's also take for instance the back story of O-Ren Ishii, which Tarantino tells using a Japanese anime sequence - a perfect fit in this unconventional film. The bottom line is that when you look at "Kill Bill" it's hard to believe it came out of 21st Century Hollywood, because it looks so damn good and certainly sticks out like a sore thumb - a good sore thumb.

On the poster for "Slacker" there was a quote that read something like, "this film is a twelve course meal composed entirely of desserts". I don't know if that pertains to "Slacker" or not, but it fits "Kill Bill" perfectly. Every other frame is a visual smorgasbord for the eyes. There are a lot of EXCELLENT films in history, that still make us sludge through a lot of dull to get to the payoff. In "Kill Bill" we work toward a payoff, but Tarantino makes it a hell of a lot of fun just getting there. Tarantino makes us savor every frame of his picture, never allowing us to think ahead to the inevitable ultimate clash.

RATING: 10/10 Well did you expect anything less? I reviewed "Reservoir Dogs" approximately 200 movies ago. Do you think I can wait another 200 before I do "Pulp Fiction"? We'll see.

MOVIES WATCHED: 405
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 596

January 21, 2012 3:49am

Read More

316. Det sjunde inseglet/The Seventh Seal (1957)

Running Time: 96 minutes
Directed By: Ingmar Bergman
Written By: Ingmar Bergman, from the play Tramalning by Ingmar Bergman
Main Cast: Max von Sydow, Bengt Ekerot, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Nils Poppe, Bibi Andersson
Click here to view the trailer

BERGMAN WEEK: CHAPTER II

As I mentioned in the "Smiles of a Summer Night" review, I had seen "The Seventh Seal" once before and I wasn't crazy about it. Well, I'm here to announce that when it comes to "The Seventh Seal", I'm still sane.

The plot of "The Seventh Seal" can be summed up in a sentence: A knight (von Sydow) searches for the meaning of life & death and the existence of God, all the while playing a game of chess with Death himself. There's more to it than that, but really that's the main idea behind this film. The knight is Antonius Block, who has just spent ten years fighting in the Crusades and is returning home, through a plague ridden land, sometime in the 13th Century. He is accompanied by his squire Jons (Bjornstrand), a man who is certain that there is no God and that man is all alone in the universe. Antonius isn't sure about all that - he wants to believe in something, he wants to have faith in God, but simply can't bring himself to believe. Meanwhile, there's also a troupe of traveling actors, which include Jof (Poppe), his wife Mia (Andersson) and their infant son. Jof is a carefree type, happy to be alive and thankful for his family. Jof is also prone to visions - visions that Mia discredits almost as soon as he announces them. The visions are usually of a religious nature, as when Jof sees the virgin Mary. Eventually Antonius and Jons meet up with Jof and his family and together the group travel together through this land, where the future seems uncertain.

My dislike for "The Seventh Seal", I'm sure, can be chalked up to a conflict of personal taste. There's absolutely nothing about it that appeals to me. Take, for starters, the setting and basic layout of the picture. You have a knight and his squire traveling together in the 13th Century. I almost always hate films that are set this far back. Sure, it's just me being close-minded and stubborn, but I can never get into films that deal with knights and the such. So you'll say, "Well that's just the basic blueprint of the story, there's MUCH more to it than that!" - and you'd be right. Beyond that we take a closer look at the meaning of life, death, whether or not God exists and similar themes. Again, these are ideas that I have no interest in. Bergman cites in the introduction to this movie (on the Criterion Collection DVD) that he was always afraid of dying and that fact was one of the driving forces behind this picture. I don't think about death that much, myself. I'm not afraid to die, nor do I really care to know the meaning of life - I'm not that deep of a thinker.

I'll give Bergman a little credit for this picture, in the form of two notes: 1) He kept it short. Before I even saw this movie, years ago, and I had simply heard about it's premise, I would have bet money that it would have been an epic three plus hour event. That's not the case. The film is just slightly over ninety minutes and that's a credit to Bergman. Honestly, I think he knew that any longer and he'd be really getting into a more boring territory, so kudos to him for wrapping it up quickly. 2) Despite the basic ideas of the film and the setting that I griped about above, Bergman actually does give us a fairly mediocre story (I mean that as a compliment). It's not a movie where I played the part of the clock watcher, but one where I could watch the story unfold and then form my sour opinion at the conclusion. Actually, the film uses it's time nicely, never really dragging or boring the audience, but rather, presents us with characters that are interesting enough and a story that isn't terrible.

However, when it's all said and done, this just isn't my movie. I just DO NOT (and probably never will) understand the appeal of it. I see the artistic element, the photography is sublime and the ideas are well thought out. Unfortunately, they're not ideas that I share or ones that I am as interested in pondering, as Bergman apparently was. The film doesn't bore me, it's simply one that I do not GET and if I don't GET IT, I can't condone it.

RATING: 4/10 Well, I tried to be as fair as I could, but that's about as good as it gets for "The Seventh Seal". Bergman has eight pictures left, but as of now I'd say he's 0-2. Next up: "Wild Strawberries".

MOVIES WATCHED: 404
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 597

January 20, 2012 8:01pm

Read More

839. SLACKER (1991)

Running Time: 100 minutes
Directed By: Richard Linklater
Written By: Richard Linklater
Main Cast: Richard Linklater, Kim Krizan, Marc James, Stella Weir, John Slate

Note: I wanted to make a few notes, before I begin my actual post. 1) I forgot to mention it yesterday, but "Smiles of a Summer Night" was my 500th post on this blog - yet another cool milestone to bask in. 2) I've mentioned it a few other times before, but wanted to give anyone who may be reading this book or anyone who may be interested in buying a copy of the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book, a head's up. The running times are almost always wrong! They're usually only off by a few minutes, but still, 90% of the time they're not accurate. 3) I've downgraded my Netflix back to "2 movies out at a time" and so "Bergman Week" will probably be interrupted quite frequently by movies that are currently streaming or movies that I own. And now, on with the show.

A SLICE OF 90s AMERICAN LIFE

This leaves the streaming portion of Netflix in a few days, so I figured why not give it a look and avert adding it to my "At Home" queue. I watched it last night and avoided writing the review immediately because A) I was dead tired and B) I needed some time to think about it.

I say this a lot nowadays, but to relay the plot of this movie to you would be next to impossible, so I'll try to sum up the entire movie in a short paragraph. The film is Richard Linklater's first and is set in Austin, TX. The film follows dozens of twenty-somethings through a twenty-four hour day, as they talk about a wide range of topics, including JFK assassination conspiracies, alternate realities and Madonna's pap smear. The film begins with Linklater himself getting into the back of a taxicab and relaying a dream he had to the driver. He rambles on and on for a solid seven minutes about dreams, alternate realities and how every path on the yellow brick road in "The Wizard of Oz" is it's own movie. Some time later, he exits the cab, crosses the paths of another character and then we follow that particular character for five minutes or so, never to see Linklater again.

The most notable thing I took away with this movie is how well it captured 90s America. I was born in 1984, so I'm not quite part of Generation X. However, I am right on the outskirts of it and saw how teens and twenty-somethings acted in the early 90s. I'm not sure of the statistics, but you get the sense that the 90s is when a lot of things that used to be unheard of, started to become normal. Kids began dropping out of college at a higher rate, we started sleeping until noon and 1pm and we really lost a lot of our ambition. This film really captured that and really shows what it was like to be a college age person, living in America, in the early 1990s. Long haired men, donning jeans and logo t-shirts, of which about 50% were a part of a garage band. You had this influx of thinkers, who really had nowhere to take their thoughts, and would sit around in coffee houses and spout ideas. Such as people who thought they had all the answers on the JFK assassination and how much of a conspiracy was going on in Dallas, despite the fact that they weren't living then.

I could understand anyone saying they didn't like this film, because it's not an easy movie to like. In fact, I wasn't even sure if I liked it at first. But as I spent the day whirling it around and around my head, I realized that it must have left some kind of impression on me, because I couldn't stop thinking about it. The dialogue, while sometimes nonsensical, is actually really good and it's shouldn't be a surprise that this was Kevin Smith's inspiration for making "Clerks". There were moments during this film where I couldn't help but think, "This is so stupid", but then five minutes later I'd be mentally praising it for being so clever. It's an odd one to get a read on, even from my own perspective, but I think it's one that will work for the right audience.

RATING: 7/10 For the record, I do think that that Linklater's later efforts, "Before Sunrise" and "Before Sunset" would have been more suitable candidates for this "must see" text. However, as it is, this is Linklater's only film in THE BOOK.

MOVIES WATCHED: 403
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 598

January 19, 2012 5:43pm

Read More