American Gangster

(As you'd by now noticed, I've been watching a lot of movies)

Goodness, you think. A gangster movie so soon after The Departed? Yes, but so what? This is based on a true story, and as far as true stories go this is one of the more interesting, if it is anything like it was depicted in this movie.

Yes, lots of high profile names here. Ridley Scott directs Denzel and Russell, both of them in their element (although I would say that I prefer Crowe's performance in 3:10 to Yuma). Steven Zaillian writes the screenplay, and he sure is good at this (he wrote for Schindler's List and Gangs of New York as well).

While on one hand this movie retreads old stuff, the usual kind you see in genre(ish) movies like these, nevertheless it is original in its storytelling, and most certainly is compelling to the end.

Being the gangster movie that it is, Scott pulls no punches in its depiction of events. Some might say that this movie suggests that Frank Lucas (played by Denzel Washington), the drug lord, actually had accomplished something. Like being a black man that symbolized progress. No wonder Jay-Z is all so inspired to rap about him. Scary.

This movie was touted pre-release as Oscar material. And so it is, on any other day. While this is in one sense a by the book movie, nevertheless it still gets it right most of the time, to its credit. Nevertheless, as a reviewer remarked, it has left very little after taste. Perhaps because it's, in the end, nothing new.

Duh.

Here's a "Thank you, Captain Obvious" moment from the comments section at The Pirate Bay. (Someone commenting on The Kite Runner)

bone.111 at 2007-12-30 01:30 CET:

not in english

destructaball at 2008-01-02 21:09 CET:

Of course it isnt in english its a bloody afghan film


Laff.

Hangin' Out With Big G

A certain youth pastor screened a particular YS (Youth Specialties) video for all of us youth. You see, we watch videos and we need em' to be made by folks specializing in us because, well, we are a hard, special crowd to please.

So it's a vid called "Avoiding God" (if I'm not mistaken), showing two caucasians, one wearing a cap with the word GOD on it going about. As I could tell, it's a short clip filmed on a zero budget (being a no budget occasional "filmmaker" myself, I can tell) or at least, looks like one. But, ah, the moral of the story (which is the most important thing) is that well, God wants to hang out with us.

I have no qualms with that. But it is misleading, to say the least. It presents God as a scrawny, dorky dude (no offense to that actor) who, well, follows us desperately around, wanting our attention. Perhaps I ought not to take it so literally. But as I can attest, a large portion of the Youtube generation will.

You see, God while in a sense, does wish to fellowship with us (c.f. Genesis 2-4), it would be mistaken to present him as a person who, well, just wants to "hang out with us."

Ah, far from it. He is the Almighty God, as repeatedly emphasized in the OT. Moses wasn't even allowed to see his face. Some buddy, God is. He is beyond us, and we below him, to say the least. He is, most assuredly, not just another friendly guy who wants to yum cha with us. To treat him as such would be idolatry at best, blasphemy at worst.

But alas, if we have to descend to such levels to reach our youth, then woe indeed. What would be the better way, you may ask? Truth be told, I don't have much of an issue with instructional videos. Some people still do learn something, I would reckon. But if such videos are to be made, I would rather have us sit through DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" than be shown a video of a "God" that has been dumbed down.

Because if any youth with a cerebellum compares what he sees in that video to the God that he reads of in the Old Testament (and indeed, the New Testament as well) then most certainly he will see not the one same God, but two different ones.

"Who is like you, O LORD, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in glorious deeds, doing wonders?"

Atonement

Is this the time of the year for successful book adaptations? It seems so. Atonement, adapted from Ian McEwan's book of the same name, translates superbly onto the screen although one is left with the feeling that some of this stuff is, well, old.

Of course, you're gonna have to take any criticisms with its storyline back to the book itself, which is probably twice as acclaimed as the movie. But this movie may have its mushy, sentimental moments (read: cliched) but also its staggering, hard hitting ones. The ending is especially heart wrenching and one must thank the screenplay for not descending into soppiness.

But ah, is it a great movie. Not the best of 2007, of course (that title may very well be held by No Country for Old Men) but it's up there. I must also give mention to the striking score by Dario Marianelli, which serves to intensify individual moments brilliantly.

The two leads, Knightley and McAvoy seem underused; Saoirse Ronan as the young Briony Tallis, is exceptional in her role. Still most of the actors, as they say, deliver the goods.

Storywise, it proceeds remarkably well, it numerous gripping moments. The chronological transitions seem rather abrupt (althought that's just me) and the older Briony seems rather out of place. But maybe that's because she's older. Oh yes, and there's that remarkable tracking shot at Dunkirk, like "something out of the Bible" as a character remarks. Brilliantly filmed at beautiful locations, which all the more contrasts to how bleak the outcome is and how, (ironically) despite the title of the movie, there is no real atonement that takes place; Only a dream of what could have been.

No Country for Old Men

There are movies that entertain you, and there are movies that make you think. There are movies you just relax and watch, and there are movies that require you to sit back and figure it out and in so doing make you uncomfortable.

I will leave it to you to decide which category No Country for Old Men falls into, or whether it contains a mixture of both. It does entertain, yes, but if you watch this movie with that assumption in mind then prepare to be disappointed.

No, No Country opens with a string of still scenes of the Texas countryside (stylisticly Kubrick) with Tommy Lee Jones providing a narration that is as straightforward as it is nuanced. Music in this movie is virtually absent. Where it is present you don't even realize it. It does not rely on musical cues to enhance its emotion or increase the intensity.

Then we see Javier Bardem, "the ultimate badass" as described by Josh Brolin, who is being chased by the former after the latter finds some money from a drug deal gone wrong. It is interesting to see how the sheriffs, surveying its aftermath, discuss about it almost routinely. As if such things are commonplace.

Indeed, Jones is almost stoic in his role: he displays very little emotion, and yet at the same time providing the film its backbone of meaning (even though it borders on near nihilism). That this country is slowly slipping into God knows what.

If Jones provides the film's meditative moments then Bardem and Brolin provide its tense ones. Bardem plays Anton Chigurh, a hired psychopathic hitman, shows a man calmly horrifying and , with equally bizarre tools of the trade: a captive bolt pistol and a shotgun with a silencer (weird, yes) with an occasional handgun. Whenever he talks to someone, we start thinking whether he is going to kill that person or not.

And Josh Brolin is the war veteran who decides to abscond with the drug money, without seemingly thinking much of the consequences. Of course, there are the other characters, but these three are basically what the movie cares about. He on the run, evading the likes of Chigurh. Their cat and mouse games are the only sort of conventional entertainment this movie offers. But boy, are they most thrilling and intense.

Is it easy to see what the main point of this film is? Perhaps. Jones' thoughts and discussions provide a helpful guide to see where it is going: our slow descent into depravity. I haven't read McCarthy's novel on which this film is faithfully based (some scenes are, apparently, adapted word for word).

The Coen Brothers are rightly praised for making a movie with beautifully orchestrated scenes and grippingly tense moments. This film is most certainly no Hollywood action/thriller (although it could be tagged as that) movie with a mandatory climactic finale. No, this movie ends, like most of us, not with a bang but with a soft, reflective whisper.