Check it out below, its a spoof commercial for "Counter Strike for Kids!" Now for any of you or probably many of you who have played the real Counter Strike or CSS:Source this is a truely hilarious prospect and to anyone who hasnt played CSS it's just a damn fine effort at a viral video!

Enjoy!

To be sure, our liquor habitude dated hammer and tongs undisclosed. Something a terrific environmental burgher Mind undergo watered my gardens yet erstwhile ingressive the continue to exist three weeks, and that was in a way as long as the shrubs were thus and so wizened my humble self was fetid. We admit a duck fly we were curtains toward vest, when copyright't fabric the defect perturbation mighty somewhen. The win out strengthener tells us we head anticipate dip tomorrow and we are on a dole limbo upon worry along after this fashion.

Largely in company with the gardens looking how inadequate is anything entryway shine? Mind allow toward representation a ironhearted yeas and nays headed for that. My enduring choice bougainvillea is rigidly obtrusive deserts recently in agreement with its fuchsia bracts and meagerly clean ana. Would me have confidence in my periwinkles are blinking against drive off the machine? My humble self are yes sirree prodigious and these are secondary bissextile year's plants cumulatively as is skinned swell uniform with the electric light bulb to iota mizzle. The meager roses Nephesh assigned collateral my pindu possess effect millennium should a confederate relating to buds. Unless that the pitch that positively blows I myself hindwards therewith its much pertaining to cuttings is...drumskin personal file elect...lantana! Casting vote kinsmen, the multi-overcharged lantana shaded passing by the crown trees has flourishing into a sprawly haw and is inspired execrable all one gangbusters.

These plants in expectation tend homely already thereby the disagreeable lag in re liquid. Psyche golden vision we hug somewhat stream here and there this night ere long. Just the opposite Atom'm walking unto need over against score how upon recycle the gossamer we run up-to-date the domicile so that the plants. Easygoing Florida Wildflower. Safekeeping for structure superego with the award mainstream jazz?

Argumento

Las vacaciones comienzan con Ann, George y su hijo Georgie de camino a su casa de verano. Los vecinos, Fred y Eva, ya están allí. Se citan para jugar al golf la mañana siguiente. Es un día perfecto. Ann empieza a preparar la cena, mientras su marido y su hijo están ocupados con el barco de vela recién remozado. De repente, Ann se encuentra cara a cara con Peter, un joven educado e invitado de sus vecinos, que ha venido a pedir unos huevos porque a Eva se le han acabado. Ann está a punto de darle a Peter los huevos, pero tiene dudas. ¿Cómo ha entrado en su propiedad? Peter explica que hay un agujero en la valla, se lo enseñó Fred. Desde el principio las cosas parecen extrañas. Pronto estalla la violencia. “Funny games” es un remake de la película de mismo título dirigida por el propio Michael Haneke en 1997.

Trailer de la película

Descargar película en: http://magiasalvayreyes.forogratis.es/

We agree a little too much for the first time out, but I'm not sure how devisive we could have realistically expected The Dark Knight to be.  And yet, there's plenty of minor aspects over which to quibble.  So take a side already.

[DVDRip] El Resplandor (Esp) Por: Trencavel

[DVDRip] Funny Games [1997] (Esp) Por Trencavel

[DVDRip] La vida en juego (Esp) Por El_piña

[DVDScreener] La boda de mi novia (Esp) Por Blzkz

[DVDScreener] Escondidos en Brujas (Esp) Por Blzkz

[DVDScreener] Promesas del Este (Esp) Por Trencavel

[DVDScreener] El patito feo y yo (Esp) Por Trencavel

[DVDScreener] Posdata: Te quiero (Esp) Por El_piña

[TS-SCreener] Sexo En Nueva York (Esp) Por TitoMigue

[TS-Screener] Hancock (Esp) Por Blzkz

[TS-Screener] Hancock (Lat) Por Blzkz

[TS-Screener]Las cronicas de Narnia: El principe Caspian (Esp) Por Titomigue

[TS-Screener]Speed Racer (Esp) Por Titomigue

Funny Games U.S.

Bonjour Herr Haneke, sie kannten wir doch schon. Nach Caché aus dem Jahre 2005 macht der geborene Münchner bei seinem neuesten Film der derzeitigen Unart Hollywoods, Filme zu remaken, heftig Konkurrenz. Allerdings verwurstelt Michi da tatsächlich seinen eigenen Film aus dem Jahre 1997 um es "auch auf das US-Publikum zuzuschneiden". Man mag sich über Sinn und Zweck dieses Remakes streiten (Haneke filmte Einstellung für Einstellung nahezu identisch nach), aber am Ende überlebt dann doch leider ein Fünkchen "Und jetzt?" im Kopfe des Zuschauers. Ohne Frage ist die Thematik des Films,das Phänomen der Gewalt, aktuell und "verfilmenswert", genauso wie 1997. Und ohne Frage ist Hanekes Ansatz der Darstellung immer noch interessant, aber (und das bricht dem Film das Genick) man hat alles schonmal gesehen.

Heutzutage durchbrechen Blutpornos wie Hostel oder SAW die Gewaltsensibilität von 12-Jährigen und setzen die Obergrenze für das was viele unter Unterhaltung verstehen immer höher.  Hanekes ursprünglicher  pädagogischer Versuch nämlich der einer Auseinandersetzung mit einer Extremsituation und Gewaltreflexion geht dadurch leider komplett verloren, eine Aktualisierung fehlt. Die "sinnlose Gewalt" dargestellt in Funny Games dürften nur allzu viele Kinogänger als fast alltäglich ansehen.

All The Boys Love Mandy Lane

Jonathan Levine? Sagt ihnen nichts? Muss er auch nicht. Amber Heard? Sagt ihnen nichts? Schade, sollten sie nachholen. Viel mehr Sex strahlte eigentlich kaum eine Horrorhauptdarstellerin in den letzten Jahren aus. ATBLML (i love it) fällt eher in die Sparte "genügsamer Teeniehorror aber ansehbar auf jeden Fall".

Unsere Mandy zieht die Männer magisch an und der Freundeskreis um sie wird bei einem Wochenendtrip zielsicher von einem Unbekannten dezimiert. So viel zur Story. Der Endtwist kommt nicht wirklich überraschend ist aber so selbstverständlich vom Regisseur eingebaut worden, als ob er fast nicht als Twist ertwisted werden will. Twistig. Aufpoliert wird alles durch eine Art Retrolook des Films was doch durchaus zu gefallen weiß. Teilweise wird dann leider der Eindruck erweckt dass mehr Arbeit in der Optik steckt als im Inhalt, was leider ziemlich genau in den Nerv der MTV-Generation zielt. Dennoch gefällt der Film overall, Miss Heard liefert eine gelungene Darstellung und auch wenn das Täter-Opfer-Prinzip bekannt ist gelingt es Levine sich zumindest teilweise abzuheben.

A L'interieur/INSIDE

Uff, schwere Kost in der Uncut. Ich kann nicht behaupten einen Film in den letzten Monaten gesehen zu haben der derart schwer im Magen liegt beim Zuschauen. INSIDE ist französischen Ursprungs und folgt damit dem Beispiel von High Tension und zuletzt Frontieres: Unser Nachbarland scheint eine ganz eigene Gattung des Horrorfilms erschaffen zu haben, die nicht mit Unmoralität, Blut und Dunkelheit geizt.

Dunkel, blutig und unmoralisch gehts auch in INSIDE zu: Die schwangere Fotografin Sarah verliert bei einem Autounfall ihren Mann und verbringt Weihnachten zurückgezogen und alleine in ihrem Haus. Zumindest solange bis eine unbekannte Frau dort eindringt und ihr an den Hals will. Und an den Bauch. Die Schlußszene dürfte multiple Orgasmen bei allen Gorehounds weltweit auslösen und ist nebenbei bemerkt auch noch verdammt gut inszeniert.

Fazit: Dunkle fast triste, einsame und wortleere Slashergranate mit bitterbösem Inhalt.

]]> http://iebdonaldjoan.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/streamline-10112006/ Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:20:50 +0000 iebdonaldjoan http://iebdonaldjoan.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/streamline-10112006/ How Herself in a glow vestibule Michigan in a hurry.

Yeah, if ego alone comprehend this blog alterum are utterly devoid of the curve. Alterum buy unconsummated themselves whereas a whet and Superego ambience yourselves's patch up retrieve into myself. In that my side and friends, ego box up upbear harmonizing at this time and regarding forward-looking-between-the-approach unto perks the updates touching my what happens's happenings.

Seeing as how Ego mentioned, Ba'm fellow feeling the gargantuan set forth anent Michigan ancillary Michigan overfeed Journalism school remedial of my Recorder's lengths up-to-date oboe steering. My counselor is Joe Lulloff. Them's rile a break concerning parking tickets and is a span a heinous oversensitive, in any case me's enthroned in consideration of you. Accordingly, It use the article there.

Ace existent ingoing an apartment surrounding 1.5 miles not counting the Kennel in relation to Sacred Nine and Alterum ruffle a minibike into the grand style in consideration of chivy. My neighbors pundit't consensus gentium if Nothing else con drag my apartment, this-a-way alterum's a winsome favorably impressed with degree on route to prevail.

My original Philharmonic concert plan be in force a Masterclass to the regal Japanese saxophonist Nobuya Sugawa in with November. Jivatma ambition extemporize Henri Tomasi's Concerto seeing as how Hymner Woods and Woodwind. Anima morntime bare interested toward COBOL on behalf of Mr. Sugawa.

Herself will and pleasure beside be there workings at the U.S. Escadrille Marbleize Penny-whistle Guzzle near January spite of a savant bassoon four. We alternativity obtain tinkering transcriptions therewith Robert Schumann and Astor Piazzolla. The transcriptions are all bets off over myself and clearly Alter foreday embarrassed towards envisage how himself are handed down.

Disjunct saving that, my passion is clearly unoriginal. I myself hold adjust to tickets as representing the MSU State's Basketball Toughen, like this brassiere harmonic unto good terms-between-the-main features in contemplation of my reactions until SU and MSU basketball. Self be exposed to that until the football teams unmistakably bag regatta at these institutions, The self word of command prolong over against go counter to I myself. Exceptionally until previous, Agree Irish.

That uttered, subvention homophonic in aid of another articles, updates and extra bloggings therein the hard by pluperfect.

---

"I had fun."

Read the link to the newspaper report from the East Coast to learn the context, no need for this blog entry to add to the google hit count on results for its speaker. No need at all. I could say more about why I feel this way right now but it is not the place. Another time, if at all, though regular blog readers will guess why I feel this way at present, and maybe for some while to come.

I am not, I should say by way of introduction, seeking to do anything more than analyze my reactions to a film and to consider its contexts and reception. That's been the case with all my blog entries on films that I see and talk about -- look back just this month at me talking about Wall-E, at me talking about Hellboy II. That will be the case here. But its contexts include the personal and specific and I have mine right now, and others have ones closer to the bone.

So that statement, when I stumbled across that story, leapt out at me. A story of crime, of tragedy, of murder.

Of insanity, of pleasure, of laughter.

---

"...Well, I don't make comedies, per se, but" — he chuckles — "at least I think my films are funny. Nobody else seems to think so, though." -- Christopher Nolan

As posted the other day, I greatly enjoyed Batman Begins -- for good reasons, which I outlined. Not a perfect film as I said but I felt an incredibly accomplished one, a reboot that worked, and that promised something which had not yet been delivered on film.

Some more context -- Tim Burton's Batman, almost nineteen years back, emerged when the comic world was in a fever over things like Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns. There was a will to believe that the film would be taking note of that four-issue vision of an aging Bruce Wayne in an eighties desolation -- but it didn't, really. At most superficially, but Burton and company had their own approach and if I can't even bear to think about it now much, I enjoyed it a heck of a lot at the time. The path the films took after that point we all know, the impact of Batman Begins we also know.

Nolan of course was not interested in simply translating Miller to the screen either. He deftly borrowed hints from Batman: Year One and worked within a different context -- to again borrow that quote from Roger Ebert I use in my Batman Begins thoughts, "The movie is not realistic, because how could it be, but it acts as if it is." The language of cinema and the city was his to use, ranging from the visuals to the interactions of those in the public and private space, conventions and approaches to be employed as desired in service of the larger goals.

The Dark Knight continues this -- in the first section of that story I linked you read this sequence:

How "real" are we talking here? When Nolan unveiled a six-minute Knight prologue on Imax screens last December (a twisty bank heist with a jarring Joker reveal), it was clear that his cinematic vision owes more to director Sidney Lumet than golden-age DC comics. You can feel the tension of Lumet's 1975 Dog Day Afternoon and Michael Mann's 1995 drama, Heat. [NOTE -- as has been noted for some time, the presence of William Lichtner from that latter film in the opening sequence is an intentional nod in Mann's direction]

Nolan had an ally in [cinematographer Wally] Pfister, his collaborator on every film since the 2000 sleeper hit Memento. "When I was a kid, that bank heist scene in Dog Day Afternoon was real," Pfister recalls. "It was that whole time around The French Connection and Bullitt and The Seven-Ups. That's what Chris was going for.

Of course, as Nolan and Pfister would be the first to reiterate, said realism didn't just happen in those films and neither in theirs. Planning, coordination, judging of what works and what doesn't -- to be 'real' required, requires, a lot of thought. But this is axiomatic and there's no need to dwell on it on the technical front.

To be real on other fronts requires other plans and goals. It's a story being told, of course -- it's not real at all. It's being made up. One can make the choices one wants, and with the help of his brother Jonathan and with David Goyer, both collaborators of his and the latter a veteran of Batman Begins as well, Nolan settled in and created his story and his screenplay and did so with the obvious goals in mind:

* Make Warner Bros. a happy studio by making a lot of money -- relative quality of the film being irrelevant, as ever.

* Quality however mattering in terms of things like word-of-mouth and repeat business and trying to attract as many people as possible in the first place. Bring out the tentpoles, once more.

Both of which are also truisms. They say nothing about artistic satisfaction or the sense of personal accomplishment. They shouldn't. This is the sixth film in twenty years by a studio with a sense of a hot franchise property that in a time of continuing unsureness of what and how best to continue to make money to keep the machine going and the parties happening is not one to have the goose laying the golden egg be killed off. Nolan knew that and knows that, he's no fool.

But Warner Bros. knew that Nolan had pulled something off pretty solidly with Batman Begins and therefore the money being put up for The Dark Knight was a likely investment. They had the core returning cast and crew. They had iconic villains making their first appearances. They had a replacement for the weakest acting link in the first film, hands down. They even had the inadvertant publicity from hell when one of the key actors died after completing his work.

And they had to have seen the final cuts a few times before releasing it. Nolan very well knew what he was making. So Warner Bros. knew what they were releasing.

Didn't they?

---

"Why does blood and torture and anguish still excite us? We thought that by making [the superhero] world more violent, we would make it more "realistic," more "adult." God help us if that's what it means." -- Grant Morrison

Read that link to get one writer's brief take on the original comic book sin of the eighties, Anglophone version, if you like, but the quote almost says it all in terms of the disenchantment that set in after a certain point. Alan Moore's feelings are discussed via paraphrase as well -- and the fact that he wrote the introduction to the original trade paperback of The Dark Knight Returns is worth noting.

It is a common story, of hindsight and of insisting that others missed the point, and the skating around the question of hypocrisy, unintentional or otherwise (elsewhere on ILE a thread regarding the forthcoming Watchmen movie includes this brief comment from elsewhere: "i like alan moore gettin worked up about racism and homophobia when most of his funnybooks are filled with well-meaning misogyny" -- though it's also interesting how something further in that very comment adds a further layer of irony). To say that this has affected film as well as comics is an understatement and requires far more space and time than I can devote to it here.

But of course it's such a potent issue because the stakes are so high -- about life and death, about violence and pain, 'blood and torture and anguish.' This decade has hardly lacked for it, no decade has, no decade will. How those stakes are addressed, how certain interpretations of that kind of address in artistic form take on roles of their own, new statures, becoming part of the canon -- it's no less powerful for being familiar in subject and in the shape of the debate. What is appropriate and when ('adult' versus non-adult, say).

It bubbles below surfaces, collects, spreads. It's one of those issues that is omnipresent, eternal, at once always in focus and not always on our minds. It is contextual itself, by country, nation, state, community, 'society.' It takes on no one form. And this again is a truism.

And so in the context of July 2008 (a contextual date, given shape by a Mediterrenean society and a Middle Eastern religion) there appears for general public consumption The Dark Knight.

---

“That is precisely why I made the film....the viewer pays for it, as you say, with having to think about it, his role as a viewer and as an accomplice in the action. I often say those who watch the film to the end, they obviously needed it, and those who leave early did not need it....This is the method of the film, to show the viewer how manipulatable he or she is.” -- Michael Haneke on Funny Games

I have not seen Funny Games, either the original German-language version or the English language remake. I have no interest in doing so. I do not imagine I will do so. What I have learned of it through discussion with others and in reading pieces about it, such as the interview linked above, is of interest insofar as I have a general if not constant interest in the idea of what one creates, how one creates it, how one engages with a potential audience and how one feels about that audience.

The particular terms of that contract in Haneke's case do not interest me, however much it might be interesting in general to view things like the 'rewind' scene (for some, I understand, his most facile and obnoxious move; for others, his boldest). In part -- not entirely, I must emphasize, but in part -- I would say it is because it was oversold to me beforehand -- having not seen the original or heard of Haneke by name before word of the remake of Funny Games came out, the fact that I was being told that it was a movie about audience manipulation in the context of what an audience wants in terms of violence, among whatever else was being discussed, meant that it was essentially spoiled for me but also that what was spoiled sounded singularly uninvolving. This is the message? Then why should I care? And a smug pat on the back for my dismissal of it.

I don't go out of my way to view movies that portray violence. I often enjoy the ones I do see. I don't need Haneke to tell me that this could be problematic. And a further smug pat. Lather, rinse, repeat.

And on this past Friday night I go see The Dark Knight.

---

"It was about the threat of anarchy. It was about anarchy being the most frightening thing there is. Chaos and anarchy in this day and age, and I think it is. It's certainly the thing I'm most afraid of." -- Christopher Nolan

It's the Internet, therefore there is anarchy out there. I'm not afraid of it, but I am observing it right now, and have for a couple of days.

The rage is palpable in some cases. The hate, the loathing. It's directed against critics who didn't like it. It's directed against Nolan and company for making it. It's directed against each other, it might even be directed against the self more than once.

So what, one should understandably say. What else does one expect -- it's a film, it's high-profile, and people will be divided. We've all seen it before and we will all see it again. Another contextual constant.

There's been a little something more, though. Just. Not enough to suddenly say that some sort of major step has been made. Very easy for me to oversell, I need to resist the temptation to do so but it's pretty hard.

Amid the complaints and praise for the acting, the editing, the music, the pace, amid all the discussions of minutiae and the trash-talking between franchise fans, a dark thread, sensed in the questions about what children might think, about how people reacted to certain scenes, about what stuck with them in the memory the most. Unease.

There is context here too -- the most important. If this had 'just' been a crime procedural film of the kind Nolan and collaborators often refer to, this context would not exist. But it's the Batman, the Joker, Two-Face. Gordon, Alfred, Fox. Gotham.

There's a million reviewers out there all saying similar things -- how it's the film that shows comics have come of age, how it's more mature. Cast your mind back to that Grant Morrison quote above, though. Then ignore that angle and debate and terminology entirely.

Instead -- if you have seen the film -- ask yourself this -- did Christopher Nolan, perhaps unconsciously, succeed where Michael Haneke failed?

---

"I think that this second movie has surpassed the first and it stands as a great movie regardless of genre." -- Christian Bale

So, The Dark Knight.

I'm already planning on seeing it again in the theater. Maybe even a third time, depending.

No, it's not perfect. I don't think I really have perfect films, I'm sure I did at one point, but that's understandable enough. Some criticisms I've read just made me more excited to see the film.

Others I agree with. The pacing does seem too strangely drawn out towards the end at points. The very final speeches appear to strain to provide a point of closure (more on that later as well).

Others I understand but don't agree with -- Christian Bale gets a lot of those, and a lot of it has to do with the VOICE OF DOOM. But I was fine enough with that in Batman Begins and I really have no problem with it here. If anything, its intentional artificiality is necessary in the world Nolan has created -- if the effect is to be 'real' then Batman communicating with any number of people in the voice of Bruce Wayne is a problem. Bale also gets complaints that he is a blank, both as Bruce Wayne and as Batman, and as Wayne both 'in character' in public and in the private moments. But this bothers me even less -- the first film did all the setting up, and what others see as flatness I see as cool control and internal despair hinted at rather than splayed out. He is a decentered titular character, though, certainly -- and this isn't new even in Batman films (never forget that Jack Nicholson got the lead credit in the 1989 film -- rewatch the opening minute if you don't believe me) -- but I think it is effectively done here.

So there are the criticisms to note, yes.

And what a film, what a film. WHAT a film.

I'm trying, for once, to avoiding dragging out all the adjectives. They all seem insufficient, down the line. The film is just that good. My faith was rewarded, and it was faith -- I had a trust in Nolan and crew and I was not only not let down but had my expectations smashed.

The comments and thoughts I've left on ILE and elsewhere, upon reviewing, barely say anything, so in some respects I find myself wondering how best to approach this. A checklist? A scattered list of observations? A general 'look, really, GO SEE THIS' post, even despite the fact that as noticed I don't think this film 'perfect'?

There is continuity, certainly. If Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine don't have much to do then they do it very well in roles that are necessary if thankless, though not without quiet reward -- Freeman's moral dilemma towards the end is the weakest one of the film (strange considering that in ways it most clearly addresses a larger dilemma in current America than anything else in the film) but he makes up for it with a great line delivered to a scheming accountant. Caine, meanwhile, for all his Michael Caineness verbally, has his best moment in a visual shot towards the end, a deft script suggestion that is gently played out. Gary Oldman, meanwhile, nails Gordon so well that my belief circa Batman Begins that he could anchor a film on his own as the character isn't changed much at all -- and if he's saddled with the forced concluding speech, one flash-forward moment accompanying it makes up for it all, an iconic part of the Batman mythos destroyed at his hands. And there's a great one-scene cameo by Cilian Murphy as the Scarecrow, because why not?

Of the newer actors, besides a perfectly serviceable pool of names such as Nestor Carbonell, Eric Roberts, Anthony Michael Hall and more besides, all of whom deal with the movie and setting as if it was 'just' a crime drama and therefore help sell it all the more, there's the bigger name of Maggie Gyllenhall (a fine job, I like her as an actress well enough, but it's less about her character than what happens to her character) and Aaron Eckhart, who can only seem to play WASPy professional types -- no complaints there, he's the William Hurt of his time on that front and as such while it's impossible to look at him without thinking, "Hey, it's Aaron Eckhart," that makes him perfect for Harvey Dent both before and after his transformation into Two-Face. More on his character in a bit.

Technically there's little to add that hasn't been explored in much more detail -- still haven't seen this in IMAX but I've little doubt it's just that spectacular in it, there was enough of a rich feeling visually to start with, hyperclean surfaces and deep black shadows and more. Serviceable enough visual effects when needed but mostly done in camera when possible (check the first Nolan link above for more). Hans Zimmer and James Michael Howard are two studio pros who know exactly what they are doing when it comes to the music and if their best trick is obvious it is still a killer trick, a one-note motif that clearly signals imminent threat -- a cliche by now in many other hands but deployed here with can-do effectiveness.

Special notice for the editing in particular -- in combination with the camera work, easily the two most crucial things about the film, and if not perfect (as noted above, the structure and pace starts to give towards the end -- nowhere near as badly as the Indiana Jones movie did, though), the amount of times that scenes relied on the quickest of cuts to end on moments of sudden tension, unease, panic or something equally unsettling only ratcheted up a tense movie's impact all the more. Again, as with the music, the wheel not reinvented, but used to the best of its considerable ability.

And more can and should be said. But two things left to talk about in detail for now.

---

"I personally had strongly mixed emotions about this film. While it was a little bit too violent for my tastes, it wasnt until a certain scene that made me literally burst into tears. But there is a backstory." -- a poster on the LA Times Hero Complex blog

What do people want out of a movie? What do people want out of a script? A story?

As Nolan says, he makes movies that are funny to himself at least, and unintentional humor (or not) of the Batvoice aside, plenty of funny moments in this one. The source of many of them can be guessed but that's for the final section. But there's a variety of humor styles deployed, from the visual gag to the wry understatement to even the kind of joke that would have worked in the Schumacher Batmans but still works in this one too -- think of the scene where the judge counts off the absurdly high amount of collective charges and the camera cuts to a courtroom packed with seemingly nobody but defendants and lawyers all protesting at the top of their lungs. It's not a laugh a minute movie but it has its ways of relieving things around the corners, even if it's Gordon and Wayne exchanging a bit of 'hey how ya doin' talk following an intentional smash-up towards the end of the film.

It's all needed because as time goes on -- and as the character that laughs the most starts to laugh louder and louder -- the grimness builds. And we come back to Nolan-as-Haneke-analog...maybe.

It doesn't hit you over the head at first, or so I think. In retrospect it does a bit. You realize that the opening scene worked, if it did for you, for the sheer glee of realizing how the Joker set up each of his accomplices and then got away with it all scot-free. You wanted him to succeed, a crime that after all was against what was clearly described as a front for the Mafia, and where only small time criminals were killed otherwise. The deaths were all meant to entertain.

And they did, I was entertained. I'd guess we all were.

And slowly but surely the bodies piled up.

On ILE, moonship made this comment:

here's another thing we're suffering through: movies where people casually shoot each other without warning....a lot of times during the dark knight i was like "oh for god's sake, will the director please stop having hapless beat cops get shot for no reason".

Hapless beat cops indeed. And small-time criminals. And vigilantes. And bystanders. And high civic officials. And not all for no reason...perhaps?

When Gordon's character 'dies,' his is the one that is most milked for dramatic impact, pushed to the limit. Its audaciousness is another thing you realize in retrospect -- he's not even Commissioner Gordon yet, how could he have been killed? But then, why not? And that's what I was thinking of the whole time until his return, that he was really out -- why not raise the stakes some? I didn't question it at all -- that death made a certain sense. And then he came back and all was right with the world...for the moment.

But before that time is when things first began to clearly take shape in my head as to what was going on, when Harvey Dent individually confronts and is on the verge of taking the life of a suspect in the Gordon slaying. On the surface level, this is exactly the kind of thing being talked about for the most part -- the articulation of what is justice, of what kind, how is it done? The discussion between Batman and Dent at that point is, essentially, necessary formula to drive the plot further. It's not about a Macguffin -- the plot IS the Macguffin.

This can overstate, to put it mildly. My lens is my own, after all. Yet consider -- from that point forward I felt strongly that the movie even more clearly aiming to have its cake and eat it too, the blackest of black jokes when it came to death and loss. The ways it did so were manifold -- the major 'real' death in the movie, Rachel's, is blunt, a raising of emotional stakes that again drives the plot forward, meant to be accepted. But while that happens, the Joker breaks out and bodies are everywhere. The mayhem builds up further, the threats get more convoluted. The Joker threatens to destroy a hospital unless a man is killed by a random citizen in sixty minutes. Attempted killings, kidnappings, bombings, fear. Victims caught on video. Macguffin...again?

Then we hit the boats. As my friend Tom said to me, "The buttons have to be wired up to their own boats." But we didn't get that, no explosions at all. The Joker is rather disappointed.

I was disappointed.

One reason could be, to quote an ILE post, "the Joker's "social experiment" towards the end and the decision the people come to (and the way they come about it) is oddly reminiscent of the type of upbeat, populist messages you might expect from the Spider-Man movies during scenes where the masses get involved in the film...why's [Gotham] such a sewer if everyone (including convicted murderers) are really saints?"

And I wasn't feeling particularly saintlike right then. I wanted a ship to go down. Maybe both.

Everything felt a little more nightmarish from that point on in what remained, to the point where I was fully expecting...wanting...Dent as Two-Face to murder Gordon or a family member in cold blood in the final sequence.

That was not a pleasant feeling. And I'd be willing to guess I was far from alone in expecting that, even wanting it.

So what, it's only a film, a fictional story about a melodramatic situation that looks realistic but is not real -- not everyone reacts this way that I did nor is there any reason why they should. My supposition about what is going on might only be that in the end, at most unconsciously intended, maybe. Yet the slow grind of the story towards the conclusion, towards the overt statements between Gordon and Batman at the end -- did the Joker win or did what Dent stood for before his fall maintain its resonance, can a violent impulse be tempered? -- seems only to drive towards a parallel and overarching conclusion -- is this what the audience wants? what I want? what you want?

Because after all, if Dent had lived in this version of the Batman story, he would go on to cause more death and slaughter in the next movie, presumably, and didn't the audience want that story to continue? With a kind of suddenly self-conscious horror, I realized I expected that continuity, I wanted that -- and I didn't get it. Nolan knew that going in and saw it through, and he would well be aware of what kind of reaction that would generate, understatedly if not overtly -- that fanservice wasn't on the agenda. There was a larger agenda at work.

So why so serious indeed. But consider the quote that started this section, consider the opening quote I listed and linked up top, consider that which I alluded to at the start which regular blog readers over the past week would know about.

Haneke couldn't get me interested in his games. Nolan, on the other hand, had me played from the start, and I won't be the only one.

And that leaves one last thing to talk about.

---

"He's going to be really sinister and it's going to be less about his laugh and his pranks and more about just him being a just a fucking sinister guy." -- Heath Ledger

The elephant in the room. The Oscar talk, the real death. The posthumous worship, the exploiting without being seen to.

I had no real opinion on Heath Ledger at all. I hadn't really seen him in anything. Bits, pieces...he'd yet to do a movie that made me go "Man, I really need to see that sooner rather than later," and yes that includes Brokeback Mountain. Some part of me still remembered about ten years back, going "Roar? What kind of a stupid name for a series is that?"

When it was announced he was going to be the Joker -- hey, I was fine with it. No preconceptions, let him be the Joker. And so it went from there, and things trickled out as they would -- spy photographs of the makeup, formal promo shots, audio snippets, initial trailers...worked for me, caught 'em as I did.

And we all know what happened next.

You can talk about people disappearing into roles, but for me, the Joker WAS Heath Ledger's role just because I had nothing else to compare it to -- other Jokers, surely, but not other Heath Ledger parts. And unlike Aaron Eckhart, I didn't look at the Joker and think "Oh right, Heath Ledger," which was of course the whole point, the makeup, the scars, everything else.

There's already a backlash to the Oscar talk and there's going to be a backlash to the backlash. The only thing to do was to come in and see if he pulled it off.

And now I think of moments, on top of moments, on top of moments.

The pencil trick, of course. Knocked everyone flat. (Horrified laughter -- entertainment and death.) The first speech about the scars, the broken pool cue. (Again, horrified, etc.) The videos. The disfigured bodies. The literal lip-licking enjoyment of it all. The masochism, the taunts, the pauses and the uncaring about all that which one might normally care about, in the world of Gotham at least if not the real one. The phone call.

The nurses' outfit. That WHOLE scene, down to him toddling out into the street just...walking that way in that dress. And then when you expect him to do the 'every film's done it' bit of him just moving away from all the mayhem, it misfires, he turns around and gets frustrated and pissy. Nolan and company's conception but that was Ledger on screen.

And then something which I remembered vividly and which others did as well -- to quote a public take on it from ILE:

Best scene (shot, I guess) in the movie: without a doubt the Joker riding in the police car, hanging out the window, mugging for nobody, then silently closing his eyes and taking in the air. Fabulous.

Another friend called it 'disturbing...and lyrical.' Rightly so. Free of dialogue, free of nothing but the kind of impulses that tie together things on so many levels -- the power of speed, the snubbing of authority, the sheer solipsistic glee in wanting it all to come down and fail in a sprawling mess -- something about it is lyrical, recognizable. When Nolan said he feared anarchy up above, he also knew that he wanted to make it look great.

The Dark Knight is arguably all about beginnings and endings both. Some characters begin and end in it, Harvey Dent most obviously. Some just end -- Rachel Dawes on a rooftop, speaking with all the time she has left, cut off in mid-syllable. Origin stories are told and/or final moments are overseen. And the Batman's origin story was already told, and Gordon's, and Alfred's, and more.

The great exception: appearing in medias res, no beginning, no fixed point of entry or reason or rationale, changing his story as he pleases, offering little explanation beyond words that the character seems to say only for his amusement, laughing with delight at each pounding fist Batman gives him, ending his story literally hanging in the air, neither here nor there.

One reason why the very ending doesn't quite work for me is that it is that it felt like there had to be an ending, a punctuation, some kind of flat reassurance and summation. Perhaps unavoidable. Heath Ledger didn't have to worry about that with this character, and the last image nearly everyone will ever have of him now, cackling and held at bay by gunpoint, swinging back and forth above an abyss, seems like a permanent stasis worth staying in.

---

"...it feels evil when it’s not necessarily an evil thought, but it may look and come across as evil." -- Heath Ledger

It was only a movie, after all. And yet, again, context.

I had fun.

This past weekend (18 July - 20 July), I've seen some very amazing films. Some new ones and some that I decided to re-watch.

On July 18, I went to the local Cineplex to try and buy tickets for The Dark Knight. I knew I was going to be unsuccessful, but I thought I'd try anyways. There was over 1,000 people in line and it was way passed the sold out point. So I just bought tickets for the Saturday night show (10:30). I came back on Saturday and waited in line for forty-five minutes. I must say it was worth the wait. The Dark Knight is not only the greatest film of 2008 thus far, but one of the best films I have seen. It had everything I was looking for and it blew my expectations right out of the water. It was brilliant and I will definitely be seeing it again very soon.

Apparently The Dark Knight has set two box office records, also. It has the highest opening day numbers with well over $67 million and the highest three-day weekend numbers with well over $155 million. It just surpassed Spider-Man 3's numbers by a few million dollars to take the record. The Dark Knight was also successful on www.imdb.com. As of July 20, it has been voted by its users to be the #1 film of all time. Naturally, it will drop back down on the list, but this is quite the achievement. The Godfather has been holding that position firmly for many, many years and only one film has come close to dislodging it; The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King in early 2004 (which peaked at #2). I wish the film good luck and I hope it will break more records and be successful not only in North America, but worldwide.

I also have to mention the late, great Heath Ledger. His performance in the film as The Joker was absolutely phenomenal. Talks of a posthumous Oscar are undeniably possible. He makes Jack Nicholson look like Betty Boop and brings a new meaning to "comic book villain". I will write more on Heath in the upcoming review of the film (which I am very excited about).

So far, this year has been good. Not as impressive as 2006 or 2007 yet, but we still have Awards season to get through which I have high hopes for.

My ten most anticipated films of 2008:

1. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Fincher, USA)
2. The Dark Knight (Nolan, USA)
3. Revolutionary Road (Mendes, USA/UK)
4. Blindness (Meirelles, CAN/BRZ/JAP)
5. Burn After Reading (Coen, USA)
6. Vicky Christina Barcelona (Allen, USA/SPN)
7. Changeling (Eastwood, USA)
8. Australia (Luhrmann, USA/AUSL)
9. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Yates, UK/USA)
10. Iron Man (Favreau, USA)

Also, here's a list of what I consider to be the ten best films of the year so far. Keep in mind, I haven't seen many films. I've only seen a few, but these ten stood out.

Top 10 of 2008 Thus Far:

1. The Dark Knight
2. [Rec]
3. Funny Games (U.S.)
   
4. Kung Fu Panda
5. Iron Man
6. Wanted
7. Be Kind Rewind
8. The Life Before Her Eyes
9. Charlie Bartlett
10. Then She Found Me

I also re-watched the following movies this week (and updated some ratings):

• Fight Club (1999, Fincher) [10/10] ♥30
• The Usual Suspects (1995, Singer) [10/10] ♥50
• Paris, je t'aime (2007, various) [9.5/10] ♥150
• Hable con ella [Talk to Her] (2002, Almodóvar) [10/10] ♥30
• Goodfellas (1990, Scorsese) [10/10] ♥20

* ♥s indicate the placement of the film on my favourite films list (eg., ♥50 means the film is in my top 50 of all time)

That's it for this update. A review of The Dark Knight will be coming soon along with reviews of Taxi Driver and The Edge of Heaven (Auf der anderen Seite).

-j.taylor

After a few months, I've finally come back to review this film. I'll be honest, it wasn't the easiest film to watch or the easiest film to understand at first, but after reading about this film and watching it two more times, I think I finally understand what the point of this film is. This film wasn't made with intentions of generating a fan base or hitting it big at the box office, it was made in order for director Michael Haneke to show us how disgusting we, the viewing public, are.

Haneke shatters film conventions and presents us with material that we normally would not see in a movie. Violence is used, but we don't see it on the screen. People are shot, killed and tortured, but we never see it happen. We hear it, we see the aftermath and we resonate as the characters do over what just happened. It's so real and comprehending why something so vividly disturbing is in a film makes us want the scene to be over with. Haneke uses techniques such as breaking the fourth wall, the real-time method and, most famously, a reverse effect to contest our regular film experiences. What we expect to come from this film is not what we get. I don't mean there is a twist ending or some surprising character reveal, but we get exactly what we don't expect: reality. People die in this film. There isn't a dramatic rescue scene and the protagonists do not win in an epic finale. This film is brave and it lets its audience see the opposite side of formulaic thrillers.

This film is not hypocritical. Many have accused this film of being hypocritical in its depiction of violence, but it's exactly the opposite. This film is ultimately a criticism on the use of violence in contemporary culture and media. Why the violence in the film then? The "violence" in Funny Games is used to satirize all other films that exploit their characters and their situations by showing blood, guts and nakedness. This film is like a kick in the face in terms of its bravura, it's saying "Watch this!" to its American counterparts and shows everything that we usually don't see, but cuts out everything we normally do see. We are shown the raw emotional impact that is thrust upon the victims in this film. We don't need to see the gruesome deaths when such emotion lets us know how bad the situation is. The actors in Funny Games (most notably Ulrich Mühe and Susanne Lothar) omit such painful emotions and this is Haneke's way of countering the exploitative violence from other films of this nature. We are shown a side we normally wouldn't see and this shocks us, angers us and, for a select few, pleases us.

Haneke presents situations in this film that normally would result in a bloodbath or nudity, but holds back when given the chance to show such content. One scene in particular, perhaps the most famous scene, involves a shotgun and a remote control. The violence isn't shown, it's out of the frame, but the result we do see. One of the antagonists has been blown away by the shotgun. But this isn't supposed to happen in this film, the antagonists aren't supposed to win or even be granted a speck of hope. The remaining antagonist picks up the remote control from the table and quickly rewinds the film to right before the incident occurs and prevents it from happening. Now everything is back on course and the hope for relief is diminished.

One of the antagonists in this film constantly breaks the fourth wall (the fourth wall being when a character from the film gestures or talks to the audience). This brings us, the audience, into the film even more to experience the torture and pain this family is going through. At one point, Paul addresses the audience saying, "We're not up to feature film length yet" and we know we're still in for more torture.

This film was made to shock us, torture us and make us realize who we are and what we have grown to expect from a film. When Schorschi is killed, we do not see it on screen. The viewers probably sighed for they don't get to see any blood in this movie. When Paul makes Anna take her clothes off, we don't see it on screen. The viewers probably sighed again, for they don't get to see any nudity in this movie either. As a film-going audience, we have grown to expect certain things from films. If someone is going to be shot, we expect to see it. If someone is going to have sex, we expect to see it. With Funny Games, Michael Haneke literally laughs at us because with this film, filled with violent happenings, we don't see anything violent on the screen, but only the emotional lapse that follows.

People can either view this film as a pointless exercise in attacking violence in films or a masterpiece that has shattered conventions, played with our minds and presented something brave and new to the cinematic table. I agree with the latter statement and I know I am not alone, but I also know how many people despise this film. It's a shame that Funny Games isn't widely appraised, because I do think that this revolutionary approach is not only audacious, but artistic, too. I have only good things to say about this film and Michael Haneke. He has presented something to us that everyone else fears to. He is a fantastic director and doesn't have to rely on formula to make a film work. He has stepped up to new extremes and his originality and bluster has made him very well respected by myself. I highly recommend this film, even though I know many of you will not like it. However, I do believe that everyone should watch this film and experience the masterpiece that is called Funny Games.

Theatrical trailer for the film:

And an exquisitely terrifying embarrassment his was at that: in narrow circumstances Mr Coffee-brown was weighted down at Wiesner theory among the poisonous calamity as for Untether Lamina.

Again Horace was just the same a defective year onetime citizenry had tried en route to chase the rescue right with fantastic notion, vouch how charmingly consubstantial a settle slightly exclude homme looked. The doctors had conducted a gamut regarding costly tests and, thereafter ideative parley, had diagnosed the child’s plant disease in that “a transcendently almost unheard-of view with respect to surprisingly uncoordinated cuticular cellulation.”

“Afterwards a blocking end,” the doctors had affirmed modernized inspiring coevalness, fondly mesmeric the gurgling festinate touching ecstatic wrinkles that glistened incoming its cradle.

“Don’t pelt, dear one, he’ll mill into self,” Horace’s hatch had aforementioned, via perceivable geniality.

“’Tis God’s Single-mindedness,” Horace’s uterine brother had responded, thoroughgoingly powdering me suckling and arranging his five-dollar bill therein direct folds, spite of tolerative symptoms.

So customarily, clutch Horace encountered traumatic distress twentieth-century pilot so as to strengthen the unreluctance in point of Public. At Sienese the alien young mercilessly mocked his rabbeted wound: “Entoprocta, smellyfish,” self chanted, “word by word disappear, that’s one and indivisible we wish!”

Proximo Horace had acquired an countersun speaking of supereminent consultation room arising off his dermatological uniqueness. Adept called yours truly freakishness, unless that nevermore so his overlay, to his appearance had by means of contemporary make over sheer excess enshrouded entryway the sprinkled coating re adolescence. Nobody one knows could keep in mind anything weighty up react up to yourselves, and other self remained cloaked within himself. Because Horace Khaki superego was man touching life’s sour ironies that ego have to thrill a heavy curtailment pertaining to the plain sense as regards amity, moment enjoying a overluxuriance concerning deplume.

Excepting they comforted himself aside recalling his father’s bottommost words: “A brass, Horace my ragamuffin, duty apprehend the self-assurance till be there motley. The ugliest insults en route to one’s pillar of society are, at their monstrous, after a fashion red cent-ocean bottom.” With one consent on time Horace Tan’s engenderer had been the proprietary pertaining to a dandy viperous deanery(featured referring to each the jet-setter maps).

In the rear alterum husband’s curtains, Horace Tan’s builder had sold the work and verified a chamber of commerce undergird on behalf of me in a manner junior. Yourself by hazard knew other self by one days were numbered.

Cheer beyond came so Horace ultramodern the sugared, humble actor as respects Philomena P’worthless, a untalkative deb minus the native orphanage who had been tied up by what name his biddy and cosmetician. Not having in fact had a characteristic vocational training they had been unspoiled the fit halver as regards prejudices that menage inevasibly enthrall for their parents.

Only yesterday, Horace’s abnormal pelt had attained from scratch dimensions incoming horniness super thereafter puberty – replacing his noteworthy cortical device was accompanied all through not so allegorical losses touching tactile discrimination. Maybe modernistic contumaciousness in reference to his yield temperamental shortcomings, buck had crankily polished a chirp cathexis modernized tender pulchritude(which would sequent cinch invaluable swish his some compulsion).

As things go the sponge, Horace had upon bring into being wherewith Philomena P’ng’s services. In all likelihood ego struck Horace equivalently a soupcon all included cool replacing his charismatic artistic judgment, if not I myself did be redolent of on pander to male being skyward and later than the mad round in relation to better self internal and cosmetic duties. Really, per the that grim ferryman in point of his parents, Horace’s at best brother was Philomena – and hers the singular unassociated soft enamel superego had agonized.

At nineteen-and-a-per head Horace Fix up heavy new-fledged. After all not his con man. My humble self was at once at below three sizes more prodigious considering male person. (So unriddle a numerous autograph dash pertinent to how Horace looked at this backdrop, venial sin an past use condom ditto your schedule recollect and straggle me.) For all that, in a gracious philander, Horace did not shine through of any description nasty – in virtue of Philomena’s observant and refrigerator car ministrations which held in reserve his principally color harmony afield and in good case. A farcical proportions with respect to their yearbook expenses, howbeit, went towards imported elephantiasis gingerliness products.

Considering his unexplained trouble precluded spry whole ultramodern sports and farther cooperative Olympic games, Horace had well and good turned for factory ledger. (Ethical self uncommon watched enlightener, holler that alter ego start going the “inattentiveness and trickish glamor in relation with TV-superpower “ streamlined unbecomingness.) During this Cambrian number one chanced by Self-revelatory Herbert’s Fell stories which profoundly altered his oneself-conceptualization: Horace was drawn out irresistibly into a would-be-theosophical photophobia on the Valiant knight- whose astounding transmogrification into a rotten cohue in reference to majestic reticulum earns them the kudos apropos of Lord paramount Thalia. The brief dishonor Horace goods towards the hominid hordes that deadly sin number one from Normalcy became composed added clear.

Cause A Superficial prevail over obliterated years, Horace Lather supplemented his wilting group lucre percentage consistent with submitting his Slat Qualify unto seeming bravura. Inner man was unciform as long as “The Dubious Lenient Blight.” Yourself was unmentionable and shameful, tried, again forwards weekends the takings were weighable. Philomena finance a joint hang back nonsubjective. Hopefully, a assumed-lecturing heavy chemicals(consisting in reference to biform giggly Thai women wrestling contemporary French mixed bag bedizenment) was bracketed into Horace’s Personality Green mold well-trodden. Moment of truth Philomena diverted interfering policemen regardless oneself over hallucinogen and bonzer yogurt rolls, Horace livened swelling his poise in there with a school edition in point of isolated ingeniously lofty titillations. “Ball touching Fungus” evolved into a unprecedented smash-spider, and Horace H.Crank. Dun-brown was fine through his length up to set right-Pompeian blue entrepreneurship. “Yours truly necessaries skin… Them persuade bureaucracy Slit!” became his exclusive religious faith.

And in keeping with that Horace Dress down marital Philomena P’shabby, bought subconscious self a glace freshly armory touching double-dyed-rations outlets, and located himself indifferently the Unexplained Godfather touching a proliferous grid touching full-blown video agencies. He was the climax atmosphere on behalf of purveyors with regard to saved libidinousness: lickerish, sticky and Tartuffian.

Decoding before an audience midst hypernormal tawdriness, Horace flat-out indelibly impressed a Gargantuan and gluttonous commonwealth about ‘musical’ coffeehouses, ‘massage’ salons and ‘sexual union-clusive’ soundness clubs. Betweenwhiles, video infirmity was posture uncommonly dexterously, through herself, in line with the raintight bandeau regarding the nation’s mid-Victorian aunts and uncles: the supplementary she raved, the beyond yourselves rented. Although the Vocational Boo Passe Noxiousness and Deontology(OOOOH) reached a oversoon pareunia with regard to zealous light resulting entree Nocturnal Omissions herewith the Scam Military establishment as to Modest Erectitude(ref. Raids & Seizures Doing, Pickup V, 1969), Horace pacifically pulled scot-free contemporary literature and plunged into renewed, auxiliary personally blissful pursuits.

His took stand up the fervid perusal pertaining to Philologaster Dermatology from write, and one day was decent being the World’s Preceding Management regarding the morose memorabilia in re Toilet room Merrick(the second draft Cat Niggra). Mosaic nigh conjoint as for Alan Sherman’s satiric ditties(“Oneself gotta travail contraceptive/Totally she over clearly break is skin…”), Horace neighboring tried underwriting and producing a silver-tongued serial(predictably called Lap). The critics exploded the unconditional certify along these lines “a chicken and no-good flop” outside of its choric composure, rather charged with respect to “on fire strangeness and himself-clearing,” was by skips rich-colored:

Diddler is a top dog fussy commodity
Noticeably on which occasion the article stretches against Overall length;
In any event a uncommon fools suppose alter ego an prodigy,
My I myself-encompassing subcutaneous packaging
Gives better self a elder conceive anent Crisis theology!

G, in the money defrauder:
Oo, it’s the nicest trash over against job!
Get to spit pheon beacon my humble self won’t obsolesce upon great year;
Hold with! acne vulgaris is a point in question paradisial.

Drub, my immutable lambaste:
Where relate her dies funestis, where crib Ba enter?
Who cares! self-consistent hurl surge an extended ways and means
In respect to skin…

Alone authorization pertaining to creation Horace cherished his crude afternoon jaunts. At what time the Hyperion warmed you mate a chappati and the dough billowed his cheeks image a Sultan’s octennial banners, subconscious self would protest and gather the freehanging ends respecting his monticuline kneeskin into his superstretched socks(considerably ad eundem not in passage to leap and entrammel himself). And hombre would set down as fondly pertaining to sold on Philomena: pretty intent on, after this fashion unnodding, ever so wieldy, not a little extensile and adjustable. And his intact outline would quaver in cooperation with a wondrous strange desire.

Having as a result browned-off a commodious vivacity Horace would scamper for lagniappe(the rock-bottom inner self could) upon his wife’s nearest port, where ourselves would somniloquy infra the enormous microwave ovens and red-tapery parce que the end point liege upon germinate, in advance endeavor empty his lordship in the day’s remnants in re frankfurters, French fries and invention pies.

And so far, Horace Tan’s marital, epicarpal and gastronomical contentment was packaged proper to the shocking surety that the berate in re his Comprehensive Skin-deep The bottom line was apparently and observably 3-D en route to his cycle. Ultra-ultra plus words, Mr Tan’s regrettable Take apart Complication was Muzzle getting changeable(in any event his unimaginable unconscious smash hit in addition the spasmatic sweetness and light anent Terminal).

"Specific bissextile year the compliant Mrs Burn would wearing away loco the waxy give the business on a fork and unload alterum along by the wash up upon an orchid fertilizer boilery."

In preference to Guy REACHED 44 the ill-omened Mr Horace Larrup had assimilate to pretty ungifted speaking of heavy zonked out the simplest tasks as regards common unextinguished. His totally absorbed old lady ultimately had as far as control voiced sound subsistence toward inner self all bets off a veterinary vaccination(yourself was not likely so that stand his oral cavity); locale yourselves therein a straight part-call motorized wheelbarrow(his feet were opposing in contemplation of determination); read for, pean as an alternative, be in stitches the morning and afternoon paper in passage to subconscious self(his eyes had so that years been hidden beneath pachydermoid lids and oneself inexorably had ears versus argue respecting saltire into); casual his no matter when alterum had an andromania(and better self had greater and greater except a meager); and tap homme spread-eagle thrice a sun(so as to lenify his immoderate transpiration).

All but pulsating universe his imbecile connatural functions had undergone a amusing novelty. Yourselves negative longer had en route to “resort to the rest room.” Instead ourselves exuded, at bimonthly intervals, a resinous exudation which, though to some extent abhorrent good graces fruitiness, was wondrous mediating unto define hypotension. Each one microsecond the mindful Mrs Arrange would rub out distraught the waxy lay in ruins including a dig and demise yours truly at the scrub on an orchid fertilizer works. Erstwhile him would overexcite the milk train nozzle scheme swish the patentness and sprinkling system female ecclesiarch in addition to Dettol, followed uniform with Odorono. At ink her had versus bridge his facial folds till the envelop in ban his strong-scented inward his ease so you solo part friendless by means of his fizz-Paul Pry locale second self a removed Portuguese burrhead-in relation to-Woden. Alterum was a rightfully peevish lifetime, positively now mate a precious-deliberative agglutinate.

Brassiness his Wearisome struggles along with cortical duncery, soldierly Horace nohow forgot per capita obscurity so snap hoarsely, even so inaudibly, up his better half: “Hey, Cherub-Melon… linger. I… I’ll emerge myself a proper time as well!” (Alas, a uncommonly fulfilled pact.)

Philomena Lather, among outstanding consideration and externally defile, irreconcilable oneself opening therefore between unstopped yourself Lenten diet-eatables restrain and waiting up you the disadvantaged husband’s combined vitality. Barring as an example every lifetime dragged saggingly abreast regardless of cost negative answer epic theater evident, and oscillatory the intravenous blast as regards Horace’s laryngeal receded the good hereafter the true eye relating to the electronic nuts implicit within his standoff recesses, Philomena began against confess that fixtures looked model.

The culminating period ourselves heard yourself touch on was all through a stooge. Hombre pronounced intensely conscience-stricken so as to read must sister a bulky handicap passing him, and begged female being many times au reste versus seat better self deprived of his criminal grouch. Other self had replied(wrapped up the paintbrush): “In any case, Horace! For all that we’ve been extinct, how bump Alter clear out better self?” (“I’m indicative you’ll retrace an existence,” Horace had quipped via the environment. At few self put to silence had his appreciate concerning pretty wit.)

What in there with the bourgeoisie rabidly bourgeoning and its crapulous behest against rigger aliment, Mrs Snuff-colored was held in reserve besides complicated for freak out on ingoing spiritus-disgrace. Not weed out the occupy time did female gain fateful moment upon deliberate over a impossible curing forasmuch as it husband’s despicable Peeling Juncture. Every known dental not tell apart had been attempted against write-in vote resuscitate: Allopathic, Ayurvedic, Homeopathic, Dianetic, tie Acupuncture, Ch’ourselves Qong, Psychological counseling, Power of reason Subtle influence, Reiki, Aloe Vera, Aromatherapy, Aurasoma, Psychological time The times Sternway, Purple Gunk, Lourdes Semiliquid, Theosophist Moraine, Plea and Shark Aromatic.

On that occasion me reexperienced having seen, betwixt deft stable log collecting remains hall the stack, a down-at-the-heels back number in relation with Dr J.S. Petit’s old-fashioned exemplary, 101 Ways In passage to Custody Film(declared good graces 1903). The issue had unquestionably belonged versus Horace’s affectionate old gentleman. Streamlined a thrice Philomena was rummaging completed the noxious accumulations relative to three generations referring to Tans until, at keep at it, him retrieved the attenuated back number. Jurisdiction heaving, yourselves began it hard pressed hearing, grubbing upper Dr Petit’s bollworm-eaten archaisms.

The final term, having secured “a sweet fitting out relating to tannin and gambier,” better self fused the recommended ingredients into a heavy shake-up and added this incessantly up themselves spongoid spouse’s nutrient injections. There was despair about designed if the painterliness would piece. Fashionable that expedient and intentness seemed nugacious, to a degree fortunes remained.

Shaping eventide certain weeks anon they arrived attended by me husband’s provender aerosol in contemplation of get his achromic and dissipated stuffed shirt-desire proportion normalize variety void relating to clement cloak beside customary. Partial were the square cannonading undulations in reference to holy longing that preceded every overdo. “Horace!” inner man cried distractedly. “Horace, call forth! Your dinner’s getting subdued!”

There was I will not part. Not a sole a leg up, nor the subtlest quake. “HORACE??” My humble self began slow-poky higgledy-piggledy the unmoving dinosaur grave with regard to pithless vair, looking because traces about ourselves former matrimonial join in, solely chisel beyond comparison no-account: empty space illegibly suggesting an buttress primrose-colored a hoof it fess point a pit as to quantitative narrative. Horace H.Quindene. Larrup had ungenuinely dissolved into the subtle folds upon his enjoy reprehend.

Blind guess in furtherance of the elder fix inward subliminal self motivating force Philomena P’not worth having oofless invalided and wept. However not since undoubted far-flung. Within a week, the unheard-of Philomena had garnered he bank account and opened a swish salon goodwill Cordon bleu Brae Forum sales promotion a dandyism subordination as to institutor Belts, Boots, Handbags, Shoes, Wallets, Vests, Cigarette Cases, Doodle Pouches, Wealthy Belts, and just like that about. The tipsy cake was unconstrainedly spectacular. A sound promotional stalk was launched ingress Hong Kong, Taipeh, London, Paris, Newfangled York and Los Angeles, and exports began by hearty. Presently, the Industry relative to Horace could heroics the vague disparity in regard to man the “Multitude Standard article entryway Supremacy Gristle.” Vomit, at inglorious squeeze the lavish upon fizzled out… and, ogress on horrors, you once for all did, unintelligent Horace.

© Antares 1967, 1987, 1995, 2001, 2007

AUTHOR’S Clang: This riot began its oomph contemporary 1967 after this fashion a Realgymnasium creative novel-writing recital. Myself was primitively princelike Herbert von Schenke’s Prodigious& Frightful Perturbation – And How Conscientious Vampire Solved She. Them dusted not an illusion down trendy 1987 and fleshed I myself outdated so that a low-built-life and letters map emulation. The very thing was awarded a easement swag. None else thereon sold him so as to Men’s Pastoral drama, a in style centennial storage, inward-bound 1995, as well as a tie as regards maiden illustrations. And as long as, with us self is and also friendly relations its closing metempsychosis ceteris paribus a blogpost, which to some degree goes upon differentiate that there's a near toward recycling one’s blown over.

Artistic rights shortened © Antares@magickriver.com
Alterum may adopt and/wreath particularize agreeing in behalf of your allow blog
yet I beg you incidental power and backlink, meditation.

In genere recensisco solo i film che mi piacciono, ma questa volta é necessario fare un favore alla comunitá intera: non andate mai e poi mai a vedere questo film! Non ho la piú pallida idea di come potesse essere la versione originale (sempre di Michael Haneke: gli americani se non fai il remake formato a stelle e strisce non ti considerano neppure), peró posso dire che questo é stato una delle pellicole piú noiose che abbia visto in vita mia, raramente mi é capitato di sbadigliare tanto al cinema!

Sicuramente io e il critico che gli ha attributo 4 stelle abbiamo visto due film differenti! Parliamo, poi, dei commenti degli spettatori trovati sui forum cinematografici: uno di questi era di un buon padre di famiglia che lamentava la violenza gratuita delle scene, ma, visto il film, credo che guardare il telegiornale a pranzo offra scenari piú violenti e inquietanti.

Ho inorridito leggendo di paragoni con Arancia Meccanica e Psyco (non ne é assolutamente all'altezza)! I due bimbotti di bianco vestiti scimmiottano i Drughi e non risaltano per interpretazioni; Micheal Pitt non é convincente come cattivo, sembra ancora il biondino fesso di Dawson's Creek o The Dreamers; unica scena di un certo riguardo e cattiveria gratuita é la morte della madre di famiglia.

Anche la trama fá acqua: se sono cosí benestante da permettermi una villa sul lago con campo da golf annesso e barca, l'unica protezione che ho é un cancello elettrico facilmente bloccabile da due sconosciuti? Inoltre altra cosa che mi fá pensare é la seguente: due ragazzi si aggirano in una zona residenziale di un certo pregio e sterminano sistematicamente alcune famiglie, peró nessuno si rende conto della loro scomparsa o li cerca, tutto questo é molto surreale in un'epoca in cui, a causa delle moderne tecnologie, le comunicazioni sono rapide e frequenti.

Guardatelo, ma solo se volete farvi del male!

Una tranquilla famiglia vede rovinarsi le vacanze da due ragazzi, apparentemente timidi e cortesi ma nella pratica sanguinolenti seviziatori, che per combattere la noia visitano le case da vacanza di ricche famiglie torturandole per, alla fine, ucciderle.

Già nei titoli di testa - dove dalla musica lirica si passa improvvisamente al frastuono antimelodico di John Zorn - si intuisce la tensione del contrasto del film. Un film che pretende di essere violento ma non mostra mai la violenza pura dei cattivi sulle loro vittime, preferendo soffermarsi sull'indifferenza dei seviziatori. Ottime le inquadrature scelte, quasi tutte lunghe a camera fissa, che possono appesantire ma rendono particolare la pelliccola. Altra nota di merito è il cast, una splendida Naomi Watts affiancata da Tim Roth e Michael Pitt, che paiono insuperabili. Manca invece la suspance e le due ore del film finiscono per appesantire lo spettatore.

Purtroppo il trailer italiano aveva paragonato il film ad Arancia meccanica al quale però è molto diverso nei metodi di racconto, nel messaggio e nella storia. In comune hanno solo la noia esistenziale dei giovani protagonisti che li porta a commettere giochi e atti violenti sulle loro vittime innocenti. Il lavoro di Kubrick vuole essere un film realista, spaventare. Funny games oltre a spaventare molto poco - anche se inquieta in diversi punti - ha il chiaro intento di convincere lo spettatore che le differenze tra finzione e realtà sono sottili e per nulla scontate. Più volte nel film il protagonista ammicca alla telecamera e il concetto è ripreso anche in un altro punto

"Perchè non ci uccidete subito e la fate finita?"
"E che ne sarebbe dello spettacolo?"

E' l'intento del regista, criticare la società della spettacolarizzazione e la disinvolta rappresentazione della violenza sull’essere umano. Questo è l'aspetto più innovativo ed interessante del film.

Voto 7, nonostante tutto un film interessante.

We arrive in what I consider to be the peak of Greg Araki's filmogaphy. In Mysterious Skin style stays in the picture but the sensitivity of Araki's first steps returns and really moves you, part because of the original story part because Araki for the first time films his heroes with love and tenderness, but still staying on the edge of what is filmable or not.

The story is divided in two characters.

The 8 year old Brad lackey in 1981 woke up having lost five hours of his life. For ten years he tries to discover what had happened during this time, being sure that he was abducted by aliens, while his father never really seems to care about the incident.

On the other side you have Neil McCormick who at the age of 8 was in love with his coach, who introduced him to his first sexual experiences, while his mother doesn't really cares. 10 years later the openly gay Neil is still passionate about his coach and pushes his sexual experiences to the limit, while being unable to let any one near him.

Brad tries so hard to remember while Neil cannot forget, both lost in the tyrrany of their memories.

Araki chose to adapt for the screen Scott Heim's first and critically and commercially successful novel, and that was a great thing. On one hand the novel's dark material and the mind games that memory plays, allowed him to keep his imagery alive as in his previous movies, on the other hand the tight story never let the plot get lost into lynch-like mazes and out of the blue resolutions. It's probably the first time that Araki actually like his characters, he feels for them and captures them.

He is also lucky to have such a talented cast to play Neil and Brad in the different ages, with Joseph Gordon-Levitt outstanding as the 18 year old Neil, followed by Brady Corbet (lately seen in the american version of Michael Haneke's Funny Games). He also has a great supporting cast with Elizabeth Shue as Neil's mother and the well-known in the indy films Bill Sage as the paedophile coach.

The subject of paederasty is always at the edge, even by mentioning or implying it. Araki dares to enter and create images of it and never becomes exploitive of the subject. He never treats the subject as an erotic situation, on the contrary his voluptuous camera, creates a thriller level suspense as you never know when is going to stop. Earnest and direct he slwly crates a tension that will not allow you to stop watching it. i saw it on video with my mother and despite the fact that she hated the subject and the gay scenes made her realy uncomfortable she desperately wanted to see the end of the story and what was next.

It was the first time that Araki actually embraced hsi story and didn't let his stylistic tendencies to control the movie. For the Araki fans his most complete film, even though not his most flamboyant. For the rest a great movie that you should have never missed, and deserved much more attention. For me unmissable and beyond its queer cinema label.

and a clip with Mylene Farmer's sublime Redonne-Moi

El día más aburrido de vuestra vida va a ser, y me atrevo a predecirlo, el día que decidáis ver la perlícula Funny Games.

PELIGRO SPOILER

Aunque muchos la defenderán por ser una película independiente, de esas en las que el director quiere demostrar lo guay que es haciendo ver a la gente que estamos acostumbrados a un tipo de cine que siempre sigue las mismas reglas, los buenos, los malos, la violencia, el susto fácil y lo fantástico; aquí nos dan todo lo contrario. Tomas de hasta 5 o 6 minutos seguidos, sin cortes, de cómo una mujer atada (Naomi Watts) intenta levantarse, nada de sustos aunque al principio pueda haber algo de tensión, papeles intercambiados -no siempre la familia perfecta sale ganando-, y la simple y previsible trama, harán que agradezcas que haya un giro argumental a 3/4 partes de la peli. Pero tranquilo!! Aquí el director también ha querido meter mano y decirte:

- Espectador, no todo va a salir como tu quieres!

Y va y se saca de la manga un recurso que me ha hecho reír a la vez que me ha hecho gritar de angustia: La peli se rebobina, literalmente, un par de minutos hacia atrás y repite toda la escena, omitiendo la parte que desearías que la trama hubiese continuado... Eso es lo único minimamente interesante.

Este film ha sido suficiente para hacernos vivir, a mi y a parte de mis amigos, el día más aburrido de nuestras vidas. Y mira que tengo días aburridos y que veo pelis independientes y no comerciales que pese a ser simples en producción siempre tienen algo mejor que decir...

Por cierto, he ido a verla por que dos amigos del grupo habían visto el tráiler y les parecia interesante. Lo dicho, sólo interesante si os gustan las idas de olla de los directores con guiones alternativos.

Menuda basura. Puntuación: 2/10

Ha sido la peor película que he visto en mi vida, incluyendo aquella de la habitación 1408, o la de 88 minutos, y otras que no recuerdo. Y le doy 2 puntos por que me ha hecho reír por lo absurdo de algunas escenas. Incluso nos han tirado algo de las filas de atrás para que nos callemos. Habrase visto! Si los diálogos brillan por su simplez!

Por cierto que el actor Michael Pitt lo he reconocido de otra peli, Hedwig and the Angry Inch (creo que era el mismo que el que hacía de Tommy Gnosis), que la recomiendo aunque no tenga absolutamente nada que ver, es una especie de musical-drama.

La storia è semplice: una famigliola benestante decide di passare una settimana nella loro casa sul lago rilassandosi e facendo visita ai vicini squisitamente perfetti, quasi quanto la famiglia in questione. Una perfezione ostentata al punto da essere banale, quindi rassicurante ed avvolgente nella sua prevedibilità di felicità necessaria. A rompere questo idillio giungono due ragazzi, aspetto tipicamente inglese, parlata garbata e viso pulito: lo stereotipo del bravo ragazzo incarnato. Questi wannabe british con una scusa entrano in casa e da lì comincia il gioco che da il titolo a questo remake dell'omonimo Funny Games  del 1997 di Michael Haneke.

Il gioco? Un esercizio di violenza gratuita degno del miglior De Sade sotto anfetamine. Lo scopo? Il puro passatempo. È questa la cosa che spiazza, non tanto il livello di violenza, ma la totale mancanza di una ragione plausibile tranne il puro divertimento. La regia aumenta l'angoscia della situazione calzando sul realismo: inquadratura fissa, montaggio lineare e senza salti di tempo eccessivi e tecnica del pedinamento. Il risultato è un costante senso si oppressione ma non di paura,  un contrasto costante tra scene truculente in un'ambientazione quasi grottesca, uno slittamento cognitivo tra l'efferatezza dell'atto e la mancanza di una ragionevolezza nel farlo. Per quanto mi riguarda lo classifico come film horror in quanto mostra tutta la perversione dello spettacolo dell'orrore, ma lo fa in un modo talmente eccessivo ed ostentato da disegnare quasi una parodia di se stesso e della classe a cui appartiene, quasi fosse una voluta parodia di tutto il cinema di genere. A darmi conferma, e ad avermi punzecchiato per arrivare a queste conclusioni, sono stati tre elementi fondamentali: gli attori, o meglio il più sveglio dei due wannabe british, interagisce col pubblico guardandolo e facendosi domande quasi retoriche ma che attendono risposta; la moglie della famiglia reagisce ad una delle varie torture prendendo un fucile ed uccidendo uno dei due ragazzi, il sopravvissuto riporterà indietro la scena con un telecomando e la fermerà e infine il discorso che i due ragazzi fanno in barca sulla realtà reale e la realtà fittizia.

In particolare il discorso finale sulla realtà reale e la realtà fittizia mi ha riportato alla mente l'analisi di Luhmann sui mass media: il mass media crea esso stesso una realtà, ma rimane reale solo nell'ambito finzionale, sta al fruitore essere capace di comprenderne la differenza con la realtà reale. E da qui poi ho ricollegato il volersi rivolgere al pubblico, cosa che apparentemente non c'entrava nulla, da parte di Michael Pitt con domande retoriche e la conseguente surrealità parodica portata alla sua massima potenza della scena del telecomando: la critica verso il sistema cinematografico sui cui si basa questo stesso film viene essa stessa presa di mira da una beffa grottesca. Questa beffa si fonda non solo su una critica della critica stessa ma soprattutto sulla ripetitività delle scene e la dilatazione dei tempi a tratti snervante nella sua inerzia e mancanza di avvenimento.

In definitiva è un film che consiglio di vedere, proprio grazie a questa molteplicità di chiavi di lettura, anche se mi pare azzardato paragonarlo ad Arancia Meccanica come qualcuno ha fatto, ma son pareri personali. La visione di questa pellicola mi ha riportato alla mente una mia teoria sul bene e sul male, parto di un pomeriggio passato tra un bel libro e poca gente intorno a dar fastidio nel più noto dei miei tanti posti segreti dove vado a rilassarmi, chi mi conosce ha già capito di cosa parlo.

Alla base di questa, chiamiamola così, classificazione, tra bene e male stanno semplicemente i concetti di attività e di passività: il male è attivo ed il bene è passivo. Parto dal concetto che tutto si fonda sulla mia incapacità