7/10
The first Pedro Costa movie I'd seen, and it was definitely a challenge. Not so much in its subject matter or figuring out what's going on, but just in the rigid distance that Costa puts between the characters and his audience. I admired it more than I enjoyed it, but I'm definitely intrigued enough to pursue the rest of his filmography.
4/10
I saw this as part of the ongoing Latin American Film Festival in Montreal, and apparently it was a huge hit in its native Columbia when it came out a couple of years ago. The story centers around Marlon, who emigrates from Columbia to New York with his ultra-sexpot, temptress girlfriend Reina, with (her) promises of a better life and the glory and wonder of America, and so on. Marlon is far more reluctant. Of course the New York Marlon finds is considerably harsher than the one on the scenic posters in the Paraiso Travel "underground immigration office" in Columbia, especially when he gets seperated almost immediately from Reina. The film cuts between the couple's rough and dangerous journey to New York (a journey many real immigrants no doubt have made), and Marlon's struggles to survive all the while searching for Reina.
I thought there were a lot of things wrong with this movie - while Marlon and Reina's journey is a hard one, Marlon's arrival in New York goes about as smoothly as any homeless non-English-speaker's ever has - he spends exactly one night on the streets before he's taken in by the kindly wife of the owner of a Columbian restaurant, he finds work first doing hard labour and eventually in the restaurant, he's given places to sleep for free (none of which are ideal but certainly better than the streets), and he even meets another gorgeous girl as Reina finally starts to become a distant memory. It also doesn't hurt that Marlon looks like he walked onto the screen straight from a modelling gig - he may indeed be the most attractive homeless man in cinema history. This makes Marlon a difficult character to sympathize with, especially after he blows off or displays almost outright ingratitude for these opportunities that other immigrants would no doubt kill for. Add to that the fact that the story doesn't really bring anything new, the emotion is generally flat for the entire film, and everything plays out entirely as one would expect virtually from the get-go, and I didn't find a whole lot to enjoy here (but a lot to write about, I suppose).
7/10
For a Luis Bunuel movie that I didn't know a whole lot about going in, I was surprised at how straightforward it was. Catherine Deneuve plays a high society woman who on the surface seems to have it all, except she can't bring herself to be physically intimate with her husband - but she repeatedly fantasizes about being sexually used, abused, debased...to the point of working for a "classy" whorehouse in the afternoon while her husband is at work (hence being given the alias Belle de Jour). Once she is able to live out her fantasies, ironically, she is drawn closer to her husband, but of course, tragedy is a step away. This is adapted from a novel which may explain why it isn't quite as off the rails as the Bunuel I've seen, but it does deal with themes that seem to be up his alley. Deneuve is fine but I thought Pierre Clementi stole the show as the jealous gangster who falls for Belle de Jour. I can only imagine how the rape/S&M/abuse fantasies (from an upper-class woman, no less) went overi n 1967.
9/10
I put off watching this for so long because, having read so much about it, its style, etc, I knew I'd end up loving it...the point where I almost felt like I'd already seen it. But I hadn't, so I watched it, and I indeed loved it. Subpar DVD transfer aside, this is an extraordinarily beautiful, very original, and brutally sad movie. A lot of so-called "slow cinema" tends to make for a viewing experience that, while it's enjoyable, is not usually something you want to repeat any time soon...but I feel like I could watch this movie again tomorrow and be excited for it all over again.
6/10
"Nothing happens" in much of the BBS films but even less so here. Jack Nicholson and Bruce Dern play a couple of brothers, Nicholson the younger, straight-laced, depressed one and Dern the older, scheming extrovert. Ellen Burstyn and Julia Anne Robinson are the women in the middle. Dern summons Nicholson to Atlantic City where he's hatching a doomed plan to develop real estate on an island in Hawaii. The film is bookended by a couple of great, sad monologues by Nicholson and it's always watchable due to the acting of the leads, but it's just not terribly interesting. I did find it nailed the curious dynamic between all brothers close in age quite well, and the ending threw me for a bit of a loop. And it had Scatman Crothers! But that wasn't quite enough to get me too excited about it at any point.
6/10
Jodorowsky's first film, still weird as anything though. Loosely put, the film follows a couple of lovers in a tumultuous relationship who embark on a journey towards the possibly nonexistent town of Tar, in search of perfection. It's kind of an extremely warped road movie, with one review I saw describing the landscapes as "bombed-out Fellini sets" which seems apt...I think I need more time to mull over it but it was certainly interesting.
Jodorowsky presented each of the films and, at 82 years old, has an impressive amount of intensity. He told some interesting stores, particularly about how he couldn't get Fando y Lis or El Topo made by any of the Mexican production companies except one that produced short films...so he was told to divide each movie into four parts so they could be released as four consecutive short films, which explains why both have four acts. And when introducing Fando y Lis, he had a particularly great line: "I hope you understand this movie, because I never could".
He also mentioned that the long-rumoured Son of El Topo movie is in the works, and apparently he's financing it out of his own pocket, but like any Jodorowsky project, who knows if it'll ever come to fruition...
8/10
I liked this probably a lot more than I should have. Made in 1989 and more straightforward (though that's not saying much) than Jodorowsky's classic stuff, Santa Sangre plays almost like his take on a Dario Argento giallo. And like Argento's movies, Santa Sangre's failings are similar - spotty acting, corny dialogue, unintentionally funny special effects, etc. But the core of the movie is so earnest, so honest, and so foolishly charming that it won me over. Although my friend hated it and would have walked out if he went alone, so that gives an idea of the dividing power it has...
