Battle of the Blockbuster

In my beloved New York Times, Tarsem's The Fall was given ten lines, a mere one hundred words. That's because it's completely unmarketable and subscribes only to itself. It is pure sci-fi fantasy - the story is outlandish, as fairy tales usually are, it lacks a romance and, oddly, has no climax. I loved it.

The Fall is what I always wanted Pan's Labyrinth to be. I fawned all over the child actress Alexandria (Catinca Untaru), the interaction between her and Roy (Lee Pace) is positively enchanting, I loved the concept of the 'bandits' and it was able to recapture the fun of childhood tales that you can only find in Aesop's Fables or Hans Christian Anderson. This said, if you don't have an affinity for tall tales, you might not enjoy this movie. The cinematography is magical, alone it carried me through the film, and the colors are amazing, a slap in the face to those who control the look of a film through filters and CGI (don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that there aren't tricks involved, but this is not 300 or Stardust), but The Fall is a collection of cliches. I'm the kind of person who likes these cliches, and I think that there are many film viewers who will as well, but that doesn't make a movie for most. I think that people may be disappointed with this film, but we need to step back and marvel at how this movie came to fruition and how we might look at it in ten years. David Fincher and Spike Jones, who released and presented the film, are smart guys. Guys who we should be listening to.

Here's my main problem - this movie isn't perfect, but it got one paragraph in the New York Times, when Ironman and Indian Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull got full pages. Those movies aren't perfect either, but they have big stars and big directors. Apparently, even the NY Times has to cater to the drones. Okay, I'll be honest, I totally liked Ironman and I want to see Indiana Jones again since I feel like I missed a few things (I'll get back to you on that film later), but I don't understand how The Fall is any different than these two films besides the fact that it isn't considered a 'Blockbuster'. This means that a 'Blockbuster' isn't a type of film, it's a marketing tool. The Fall didn't get picked up because it was bad (this movie debuted in 2006), it didn't get picked up because somebody didn't think we would like it, i.e. spend money to see it. This creeps me out. This somebody is deciding that 'bad' movies shouldn't be seen (not distributing or marketing for them) while Drilbit Taylor and Made of Honor are given stamps of approval (by companies, not critics). Whatshisname reviewed The Fall in the NY Times, it never had a chance. What Happens in Vegas got a quarter of a page and was reviewed by Monohla Dargis. For Shame New York Times. Wanna see a summer blockbuster? Go see The Fall. At least it's pretty.

The Fall

Reprise

Reprise is a great date movie. It has a simple story, it's not too girly and it's just about an hour and a half. At times the subtitles don't match moving lips, in fact sometimes the dialogue doesn't match the scene at all, but this is one of the films most rewarding and cinematic attributes. Some scenes are so perfectly put together that they stand on their own as 'mini' films, a collection of moments that are romanticized on screen.

This is a story about middle class. Every critics has mentioned this, it's a major element in Reprise; the two title characters, Philip (Anders Danielsen Lie) and Erik ( a dreamy Espen Klouman-Hoiner) don't have much to worry about, creating drama out of thin air, something only a rich kid can do. It follows the two through their early twenties as they make grand attempts at becoming authors. Philip, whose book is immediately published, struggles with the concept of talent while simultaneously falling in love for the first time and the effects are intense, but all of that happens in flash back. By the time the movie starts he is already recovering from this stroke of genius. By all accounts Philip should be the more interesting character, but Erik outshines him with his awkward realism. His interaction with friends and sweethearts are confused (for him, not us) and the situations he finds himself in are hopelessly and cinematically romantic. The director Joachim Trier breaks this up by giving Philip the love interest, a touching interaction between him and Kari (Viktoria Winge) and one of the better ones I've seen on screen lately. As I said, this movie is dripping with romanticism in the same way The Squid and the Whale somehow made divorce seem like art.

I had been waiting to see this movie for a long time, and although I was pleased, I was expecting something a little more stripped down, honest. Reprise is 'honest' in it's approach to art, story telling, character, creation, but it is so stylized that the simplicity of it gets shoved aside too often. At a time when studios are reforming the idea of 'Independent Cinema', I wish that Reprise was more about two film lovers, filming a story, than impressing us with their ability to recreate Truffaut, Jeunet, and Goddard. Maybe because Joachim Trier is distantly related to Lars Von Trier he decided to run as far away from avant-garde as possible. It would be nice if he looked back someday soon.

Reprise