Reviews: 5.20.08

Rivers and Tides: Andy Goldsworthy Working With Time
Last October I was blown away by the beauty of Director Thomas Riedelsheimer's portrait of deaf percussionist Glennie Evelyn in Touch the Sound.
It was only after I was about ten minutes into Rivers and Tides that I realized I was watching another Riedelshiemer piece--his style is distinct and unmistakeable. I've never seen another director use visual symbolism and metaphor like he does--and in unscripted documentaries nonetheless. In Rivers and Tides we see Riedelsheimer's unique penchant for visual storytelling paired perfectly with an examination of earth artist Andy Goldsworthy's creative genius.
I've always been facinated by Andy Goldsworthy's work and have often wondered what his working methods and creative processes were like, and Rivers and Tides gave a satisfyingly unique insight into Goldsworthy's M.O.
This film, like Touch the Sound, was a meditation on one invidual's relationship with their art form and captured well the sometimes elusive language of Goldsworthy's artistic expressions.
But like any meditation, this one requires a good amount of patience and concentration to fully appreciate.
Definitely recommended if you are a fan of Goldsworthy, but check out Touch the Sound first if you're just in the mood for a good documentary--it is without doubt, the better of the two Riedelsheimer pieces.

Here's a short clip from the film:



V for Vendetta
This one came out while I was on my mission and I've heard nothing but raves about how good it was. To be honest, I was a bit disappointed after all that hype.
But there were a lot of things I did like about the film. I thought Natalie Portman gave a strong showing in a demanding role--I was not blown away by any means and there were times when I just couldn't believe her character, but I think a lot of that was mediocre scripting.
John Hurt was an excellent Facist Chancellor--perfect role for him.
Production value and Art Direction were wonderful and provided a rich backdrop for the story.
The action scenes were very well choreographed and masterfully captured. I loved the way that the graphic novel influence was really emphasized in everything from the angle choices to the colors and framing.
I liked the message of the movie: That people must take responsibility for their systems of government. That ideas can be bulletproof and that a system has only as much power as it's people give it.
What I did not love was the way in which this message was delivered. It felt like fighting fire with fire. The film was an anti-propaganda propaganda piece.
I felt at many times manipulated or backed into a corner so that I could be force fed a plot twist. (the whole situation with Evey and the prison is a perfect example of this) I think the characters of the story had great potential, but in the end came out nearly as flat as the comic book pages they were printed on--no real growth, very little nuance, less than believable choices and motivations. I don't know whether to attribute this deficiency to a poorly written graphic novel on which the film was based, or to a mediocre adaptation from book to screen.
In any case, I didn't believe a lot of the things that the characters did or understand why they did them. The whole thing could have been so much less didactic.
In the end, I liked it, but wish that the writer and director had trusted their audience more to come to intelligent conclusions on their own, instead of force feeding them a pre-packaged product.


Rocket Science
Roger Ebert gave this film three and a half stars. The packaging promised that the film was in the tradition of Wes Anderson's Rushmore. For the most part, I trust Roger Ebert and I love Rushmore, so how could I go wrong?
Or so I thought. While I can see why this film garnered high praise from many critics and a Best Director award at Sundance, Writer/Director Jeffrey Blitz will not be the next Wes Anderson, and here's why:
As far as individual scenes go, this was a brilliantly written film. The dialogue was smart, witty and beautifully fitted to the wonderful characters portrayed by a well cast ensemble. There were plenty of laugh out loud moments and poignant realizations.
So why did this film turn out to be utterly mediocre? For one simple reason: Jeffrey Blitz has no knack for storytelling. I was sorely disappointed by the way the characters were handled and the situations resolved. And this was super frustrating because I really did like the characters and the individual scenes--but the overarching storyline was a kick in the groin.
Some stories are worth telling and some are not. The stories that are worth telling are told over and over again and survive the test of time while those that are not will inevitably perish regardless of how beautifully they are filmed or how true to life the dialogue is.
This story ended up being about how frustrating life is and how few things are ever truly resolved; about how in spite of lots of hard work and immense efforts, sometimes people can't achieve their goals. It was about the inability to communicate and the inability to learn. And while many of those statements are often true in real life, those aren't the kind of stories that I enjoy hearing--again, not because there isn't truth in them, but because the values and lessons in those stories aren't values that I share.
BUT if you don't mind open-ended stories and disappointing outcomes, you will in all seriousness enjoy this film and I would recommend it to you. It's worth watching just to enjoy the brilliantly written dialogue and fine acting if you are interested.
It's just not my cup of tea.