Latest Tweets:
Yes, I am another aspiring filmmaker. My name is Raymond ar-two-do and I am a sophomore at UT pursuing a degree in Radio-Television-Film. Filmmaking drew me in because it's an entirely different universe, like literature, that has its own rules and ways of storytelling.
A lot of people will say there’s a lot of crappy movies out there, but I think there’s something always done right in a movie, and feel free to challenge me on this, but even the worst movie should get some recognition for the work that was put into it.
Nonetheless, I’m here typing away, not just watching some movies, but “learning.”
Wild Strawberries (1957)
Directed by Ingmar Bergman
Featuring: Victor Sjöström as Dr. Isak Borg
Inside the mind of a 78-year-old man who’s making his way towards the Lund Cathedral to receive an honorary degree, the misery of Isak Borg is dissected by a series of jumbled events.
Around this time, I realized my fondness for park benches. During the dream scene, I soon realized I had a fondness for bell tolls too. An eerie suspenseful feeling fills me up and makes my heart palpitate strangely. While viewing it the first time had me looking for refuge, seeing it again on my own time, I see what I missed completely the first time. No, it’s not that difficult to understand what’s all occurring; it was simply a screening at night following a long day of classes.
This second view makes me appreciate the film for many reasons. Among them, the film’s dream and reality ambiguity, the film’s first dream scene that awakens the nightmares we share with Dr. Borg, and especially, the dialogue. I love films with interesting stories. This film kept reminding me of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. The story of an old man, Dr. Borg here can also be referred to a miser, who must realize his unabashed characteristics, completely had me relating the two works, but then I got lost. I was lost in the film’s dialogue. It was butter. Sweet melted butter. It was crisp as well. Within the conversations between Dr. Borg and his daughter-in-law, who doesn’t think too highly of him and at the moment, not much of his son as well, he speaks and she counters with lines that speak on two levels. This is not a stranger to the rest of the film’s dialogue. Often, lines will be said, and they melt because they’re so real and true. They’re crisp because they echo on more than one level.
Thus, we realize that “the place where wild strawberries grow” may be the ground, or as I’d like to think, they lie in memories. They may be memories that haunt, or they may be memories that remind Dr. Borg of his great childhood moments. Nonetheless, when “there are no wild strawberries left” we can infer that Dr. Borg’s childhood isn’t the only thing that will make him smile. It’s the peace he’s found. It’s the approaching death. It’s the future’s birth. It’s the awaiting of all those from his memories that have passed. If nothing else, it’s the forgiveness and release of the approaching loneliness and a turn at the bend of the road Dr. Borg has traveled for so long.
The pacing of the film, I thought to be much slower than today’s films, but nonetheless, the film is something to be viewed by all. Don’t dream in the Hollywood films of today. View a film that doesn’t belittle the viewer to nothing. Acknowledge the outside of Hollywood’s boundaries to see something as complex as Wild Strawberries.
Rating: 8 out of 10
I know there is a great story here. I know there’s lives on the line, but I just can’t understand how I would personally be able to create as much suspense as Howard has in this film working with only the capacity of a space ship. It amazes me. However, in doing so, it allows you to work more on the relationships and less on the settings and all the other stuff people usually focus on and truly get to the feeling a film can take an audience into.
I tried to see what little things added to the suspense and found the plethora of things to show how vastly interconnected the craft of this film was: the score, the slow little problems building up from the big problem, the multitude of various people adding their own inputs all at once, one of the astronaut’s eye vision blurring during the CO2 levels. Of course, taking into account that this is based on a historical account that occurred and gathered our nation together also is a huge aspect of the film, but thinking purely on the film and not too much on the history, I felt the film recreate this “successful failure” NASA had in Ron Howard’s Apollo 13 (1995).
The joint effort of all of NASA, the struggles of the family with the media’s inattention and attention during crisis, all the mini-struggles that I comprehended but would not be able to regurgitate were intense. Well some may consider the explosin of the music with the parachutes a bit cheesy, it was an awesome way to put it all together. I think i got chills seeing the parachute open on the television screen.
Ten Word Summary: Three astronauts are abandoned in space while flying Moon-bound.
Thoughts After Watching: Ron Howard puts the viewer in this crisis and adventure, and is able to give us insight into this American event. The little ways he puts us in blow my mind.
Rating: 7 out of 10
Gavin Hood creates an intense film out of Athol Fugard’s novel in Tsotsi (2005). Tsotsi, or David, played by Presley Chweneyagae, runs a small gang. Full of brute force and recklessness, Tsotsi masks all that makes him vulnerable. It isn’t until Tsotsi finds himself in the film’s predicament that we see the complexities of Tsotsi unfold. At first, he’s a solitary man fighting for survival; then, the juxtaposition of the situation presents him with the challenge that makes him think about more than himself.
The quality of the film is marvelous. It feels real but it isn’t the typical grungy feel associated with criminal-based films. It looks cinematic and intense. The first victim within the movie says it all. The visuals are stunning and makes the gruesomeness come alive in fight scenes and the “feelings” of Tsotsi that are visualized with the different strokes of the camera (zoom, extremely long holds on different characters). The cinematographer, Lance Gewer, has milked it and I knew what Tsotsi was thinking and doing even when the camera wasn’t focused on him or through him.
The writing and dialogue felt impeccable. The strong dialogue between characters wasn’t too wordy with it’s multiple interpretations and double meanings: such as the words “decency” and “bleeding.” Even Tsotsi’s alias, which means “gang,” adds depth to his character and Tsotsi’s state of mind.
The characters were real people. Chweneyagae becomes this silent raging bull that I loathe, and throughout the movie I begin to admire. I don’t think many actors would have been able to pull this off but there’s an underlying intrigue into Tsotsi that Chweneyagae pulls off well. His facial visuals are tremendous. I wouldn’t want to be in front of him when he’s angry: had his eyes been daggers… When he finds himself in front of a nursing mother, you feel his anguish and a little something else. When the camera takes the place of his view, you encompass what is left unspoken. And the only reason you know is because of his face. Chweneyagae, you’re amazing. The hurt and anger mesh within each other inside, and Chweneyagae can show it all without saying a word. When his violent actions occur, you know it’s something more than just anger: he’s been running with it for a long time, as can be seen in one of the flashbacks.
Many other things can be said about this film. One interesting thing may be the oedipal complex, which would be interesting to analyze through his possible romance, his complexities between his mother and father, and how he names someone after him, David, almost living vicariously through him; however, for me I found the director’s other motives to be unique and beautiful. The HIV/AIDS billboard that appears in a few scenes speaks levels of the problems that encompass our world today. Even though we never know of Tsotsi’s mother’s death, it can be inferred that HIV/AIDS was the culprit.
One of the other things I loved about this film was that it didn’t aim to be overly complicated like many other films are today. This story is about one thing, which connects to many things that are in Tsotsi. It’s about a man’s need for change: a change of heart. All in all, the film is a great presentation of a story. I’d love to read the novel it’s adapted from and see how much change Hood made and formed into his own, such as the soundtrack and score that are beautiful and authenticate the film more so. Nonetheless, I applaud him for this masterpiece.
Ten Word Summary: Will Tsotsi undergo a change of heart? What is it?
Thoughts After Watching: I want to perfect the little things that can give depth to a scene. A slow zoom. An extremely long hold on a facial expression. It doesn’t feel awkward one bit; it feels like something is happening. Who knew these little things could have so much power?
Rating: 9 out of 10
Ever wondered what you would need for survival if you lived in an infested world full of zombies? In the mind of a young man, making a trip from his dorm in Austin, TX to his family someplace far away from there, we are taught the survival “rules.” Colombus, played by Jesse Eisenberg, has a bit of an obsessive compulsive disorder. The typical nerdy white guy with no game, finds himself amongst three other zombie survivors on his quest to see if his “family” is still alive. By Ruben Fleischer, Zombieland (2009) is a must-see zombie film for all movie-goers.
It’s funny, humorous, but beware of all the gruesome images. These are some nasty-looking zombies and some gruesome ways of killing them. Immediately, I was taken aback from Colombus’s point of view. The guy has a dorm in Austin. I have a dorm in Austin! It’s almost as if I was meant to see this zombie survival guide. But I digress. The film is amazing. It’s an interesting way to start the film, by presenting the rules, as well as an interesting take on the zombie subgenre films.
I haven’t seen many zombie movies, on the fact that they’re all the same… boring, overly gruesome, with cheesy plots… and whatnot. This one however, is a diamond in the mine. Ruben Fleischer has envisioned an Earth tormented by zombies, and in doing so has created four distinctive characters. Sure the relationship construction isn’t at its best, but the dialogue is humorous, as are the situations: one character has an infatuation with twinkies. It’s an interesting take on the typical zombie film which makes the film all the more unique. As for the typical zombie goer, “it’s just what the doctor ordered” with plenty of butt-kicking and zombie-killing and mayhem every few moments, and for the non-zombie-goer, “and then some.” Emma Stone, now popular for her role in Easy A, gives her character a bad-ass persona while also adding some romance into this gruesome film.
Jesse Eisenberg, now known for Social Network, plays off an almost-typical Michael Cera character with Michael Cera’s goals and characteristics. Abigail Breslin brings her kindness and amazing acting. Woody Harrelson brings in a complexity of a tough-bad-ass with a small loss-of-family backstory. Sounds a bit like a few mashed up movies in one, but I feel Zombieland has taken the zombie film to a whole new level. I’d like to thank my friend Ashlee for recommending it, and am interested in seeing other Fleischer films.
Ten Word Summary: This is not your typical zombie movie. Watch it now!
Thoughts After Watching: Wow, my whole perception of the boring zombie film has been shattered.
Rating: 9 out of 10
I don’t know if I’d be able to list all my favorite movies. It’d be too hard for me; however, I thought via-Facebook, I’d ask some of my friends what their favorite movies were, and lo and behold, they responded with no bit of shyness. Here’s some of what they said:
All Disney Movies (2x)
(500) Days of Summer (2x)
A Beautiful Mind
A Clockwork Orange
A documentary about your life
Across the Universe
All the Harry Potter Movies
American Psycho
Anything by Jean-Luc Godard
Artificial Intelligence
Beauty and the Beast
Bella
Burn after Reading
Deathproof
Despicable Me
Dr. Strangelove
Eyes Wide Shut
Fight Club
Forrest Gump
Fox and the Hound (2x)
Gladiator
Gone with the Wind
Goodnight & Goodluck
Happy Feet
His Girl Friday
Howl’s Moving Castle
Hunchback of Notre Dame
Inglorious Bastards (2x)
Into the Wild
Lost In Translation
Love Actually
Mean Girls
Meet the Robinsons
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (2x)
Minority Report
My Short Little Movie About Mexicans (“What Work Is”)
Nacho Libre
Notes on a Scandal
Pirate Radio
Ratatouille (2x)
Remember Me
Rent
Requiem for a Dream
Runaway Jury
Running Scared
Space Jam
Spirited Away
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas
The Count of Monte Cristo
The Dark Knight
The Devil Wears Prada (2x)
The Devil’s Advocate
The Hangover
The Nightmare Before Christmas
The Princess and the Frog
The Royal Tenanbaums (2x)
The Sandlot
Transformers
Up (4x)
V for Vendetta (2x)
Vicky, Cristina, Barcelona
Zombieland (2009) by Ruben Fleischer
What a list. Sadly, I haven’t seen ‘em all; however, the ones I have seen, I can see why they made people’s favorite movies list. Thanks to all my friends, and it looks like I have some more movies to watch!
It’s the Crash of its time. The film is an interesting little thing, yet there isn’t enough interest to keep my interest in watching it. John Sayles’s The Brother From Another Planet (1984) questions the communications within different races in society, at times showcasing the bonds between two different racialized groups with similar social classes and at times the prejudices associated with different shades of color and physical appearances. Making it even more interesting, the film surrounds itself with a fleeing alien who finds himself temporarily in Harlem. As the intergalactic hunters come searching for The Brother, played by Joe Merton, the society of an urban area in the 80’s is explored.
Interestingly enough, even an alien from outer space immigrates through Ellis Island. The question rises, why couldn’t he have come in through the Mexican/US border? Or through Canada? Many times, being American inevitably means how “white” are you. The southern border isn’t acknowledged as legal immigration but illegal immigration. The northern border is hardly ever acknowledged. People often forget that colonialism was a form of immigration. When we think of legal immigration to the US, we always associate it with Ellis Island, which suggests that the model immigrants are of European descent. Even this film that tries to make racism strange can’t escape the Ellis Island paradigm, having this alien enter through Ellis Island (from a Race and Ethnicity lecture by Alexander Cho).
It’s offbeat humor brings a little interest every now and then but it doesn’t make up for the mute protagonist. The soundtrack is a quirky feature of the film, however all in all, the film falls flat. It raises some interesting racial tensions between various characters, including some comedic situations where two caucasian men find themselves “lost” in Harlem. (As well as giving the alien chasers, intergalactic hunters, some funky characteristics in a very ridiculous fight scene and chase scene.) Yet, if I had to recommend the film, I wouldn’t. It does make for a great analysis on race and is a quirky little thing that may entertain a select few.
Ten Word Summary: A black alien finds himself in racial predicaments via Harlem.
The Aftershock: A bit bland, but it does help raise the idea of racism in society and how it’s a tricky little concoction we’re all tied into.
Rating: 3 out of 10
Gamer (2009) by Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor
What’s with all these battle-to-a-death movies, using humans as part of a larger reality TV show or game or contest? What does this say about our society? Well, that will remain a question my mind dawdles over while studying for my next test. However, does anyone else see this trend? Gamer (2009), directed by Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, follows this interesting sub-genre that has been continuing to grow.
Gerard Butler is a convict, named Kable, but who is playing Kable? Prison inmates are used a players of an interactive game that is unleashed to the public, titled Slayers. In a battle against each other, the prison inmates who survive the no-doubt intense action scenes that are to encompass the film, will be set free. Kable must find a way to survive, which means Simon (Logan Lermen), the player behind Kable, must find a way to survive thirty-two battles. Will Simon treat Kable like a game, or help him reach freedom?
Opening up, the film showcases its strengths throughout the film: a plethora of film angles, wonderful sound design, and a beautiful use of cool colors. The mood, set to just the right music with just the right pictures, is a happy marriage of the darkness of our non-stop, ever-increasing technology. Immediately we’re catapulted into the battlefield, action hurled at us at every corner of the screen at every possible angle. This is the perfect use of action-packed with an interesting use of sound effects and interesting editing.The combat mode of the film has grungy feel with its shaky camera, multiple angles, and multitude of things occurring. A missile is shot and whizzes from your right ear to the left.
The film not only holds its own through its use of sound and images, but its concept is what will separate it from those other films about “a fight to the finish.” The concept of interactive gaming in the “near” future is marvelous, playing on the game of Sims and various shooting games played online. The game play and whatnot is masterfully thought out.
Ken Castle, this on-top-of-the-world guy, creates a game entitled “Society.” Similar to the game The Sims, “Society” allows people to make a living by being controlled by players of the game. If you think Facebook and Myspace was a way of creating a projected image, try actually controlling a human as a character of a game. That’s where the blur between right and wrong begins to settle in the mind.
The filmmakers develop a stark contrast between “Society” and society. “Society” is a world of adultery and is viewed with color and funk; meanwhile, society is in shades of black and grey. Inmates are dressed in white, perhaps hinting that while they are convicts, they are also the victims within the game of “Slayers.” Kable even touches white sand, another innocent victim within the game.
The game is justified within the film by the government and by the fact that the humans actually dying in the game are convicts; however, is people playing real humans, killing real humans, okay? A reporter in the movie confronts the morality, played by Kyra Sedgwick. However, the morality is fuddled by the reporter’s intentions of finding a story. Inevitably, the film itself asks the question: is it right to play violent games?
The film is a warning. People enjoy violent games. One character even says its human instinct! While that may be true, society knows violence is wrong; so why do people play them? (To release our violent instincts). Sure, but where’s the limit? Will we realize using humans for a violent game as wrong when we cross that path? Or will we justify it by saying they’re just convicts? Interestingly enough, gamers buy into this game, as well as society: Slayers is broadcasted around the world.
Humanz Brother, played by Ludacris, further questions the game’s morality and really assesses its validity as entertainment. Find out to see what happens with this. All I have to say is, the cinematography and style of the film speaks levels. The way society is depicted as glamorizing the violence, using sad music to accompany one long stream of action, and the game players as “nasty” weird obsessors by distorting their images immorality appears.
While questioning the morality of violence as entertainment, it also manages to create society in a web of corruption and techno-orientalism. The US looks a tad bit more “Asian” and society has adapted foul language into its common dialect between the public sphere and the media. The latter is a satircal look at where our society is heading.
However, more concentrated, the film looks to see if Kable’s personal loves are enough to get him through the game. Becoming the closest player/convict to ever pass all thirty-two levels, the whole world awaits to see if he succeeds or fails.
The film stands as imaginative, create, and wonderful. Unique, it separates itself from others in this type of film. However, the ending proves to be a flaw in dialogue and story writing. The last ten minutes are the worst: with not a great resolution nor explanation to the hierarchy of the corrupted “thing.” On top of that, after listening to the commentary, what I believed to be a film about questioning morality was just this cool idea created by Neveldine and Taylor. Nothing more but stuff they would think would be cool. I’m trying to ignore that fact and believe that this film questions violence as entertainment, even as I watch this film full of violence because I do think the film does just that. Using the inmates as players, is killing real people for gameplay okay? How far are we from doing this with the surgence of online shooting games? Showcasing the scavenge nature of the reporter, the gamer, and the owner of the company, it questions what society is like, while also questioning where we are in terms of reaching this level of immorality. If none of that, it creates an interesting way of interactive gameplay building on The Sims and shooting games of today.
On a side note, I’d love to play a bad guy in a movie. The bad guy, whoever he might be, does a great job. However, Amber Valleta tops the acting in this film. Also, on a note about design, special effects, this movie does a stupendous job.
Ten Word Summary: Kable tries to escape jail through letting Simon control him?
The Aftershock: Good enough to watch all the special features on the DVD. Good enough to spark my imagination. Good enough for you to rent and watch.
Rating: 7 out of 10
Personal Note: Red camera was used. One of the first feature films to use them. Connection to the last film I watched? Yes, Peter Soderbergh (along with Peter Jackson) were all among the first feature filmmakers to use the Red camera.
Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) by Steven Soderbergh
From death and sex to sex and lies. Bridging on over to Steven Soderbergh’s Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989) is definitely going from a low to a high. Everest-achieving, mountains-that-touch-clouds-high. Wait, mountains that pass clouds. Strangely enough, this film that has so much to do with sex, has a sophisticated way of presenting it.
The opening, fast-paced driving, music, road. Is it life? Is it… sex? It’s definitely an introduction that quickens the intro yet inserts the viewer into a world of questions. Who is who? How does everyone connect? This film’s whole way of presenting information, characters, relations screams MAGNIFICENCE. So, as a warning, I apologize for praising this film, before I begin doing so. As a side note, I’m not going to give too much away because I feel the best part is definitely having everything unravel.
So what better way to have the viewer asking questions then introducing several people without showing them interact with each other, and in the film’s first presence of wit, having an interesting conversation between Ann (Andie MacDowell) and her therapist that interplays playfulness with thoughtfulness. The dialogue is beautifully written. It’s realistic, it’s playful, but it is also thought-provoking and interconnected with the storyline.
Watch the film for yourself to see the various interpretations of sex and lies because the contradictions and juxtapositions are endless and create dynamic upon dynamic (Look out for who really is a liar and who is said to be a liar and for what reasons). One person’s interpretation and another person’s acceptance is one’s hypocrisy and another’s realization (One character doesn’t care much about sex but what about adultery?).
Soderbergh’s film tells the story of four individuals. Ann and John (Peter Gallagher), married, yet haven’t had sex in awhile. Is this typical? Well, it seems not. Ann has unconscious suspicions that there’s a reason she’s grown more weird about being touched by John, on top of her interesting admittance that she doesn’t really care much for sex. She suspects lies. However, preoccupying herself with an interesting situation that John has created, she meets an old friend of John who comes into town, Graham (James Spader), a man who has an interest in interviewing women about their sex life. Without giving too much away, the interconnections of the characters, and the character development is MAGNIFICENT, and how Laura San Giacomo’s character Cynthia, who is Ann’s sister, plays into all this is wickedly harsh and intense. (Look at how she is presented throughout the film: reverse zooms, upside down, etc.) When things start lining up, the complexity of sex and lies grows. What is marriage? How does sex have anything to do with it? Is it just for security? (Notice how society and marriage used to be more about finding security to nowaday’s idea of finding love.)
Interestingly enough, the characters have each their own quirks. Each has a wit about them, thanks no doubt to the witty construction of their characterization and their beliefs. But presentation is beautiful. The omniscient music isn’t overbearing yet it’s telling. Listen to the fog of smoke that is the score and you’ll know something is coming. The fade to black during one scene and the presentation of filmed footage of Graham’s is beautiful; it strays slightly from the linear storytelling of the movie, yet doesn’t complicate understanding. You anticipate what will happen next. You sort of know: when an “earring” goes missing, and a f-bomb is used… it’s only a matter of time.
In the end, after the chaos has erupted, … and the rains came. A chance of rain? I think so. Cleansing what occurs at the end, giving a rebirth, a catharsis, one character says, “I think it’s gonna rain.” The other replies, “it is raining.” A perfect symbolic natural ending, a new beginning, yet the two characters paired up seems too “perfect fairy tale,” and would have been better, in my opinion, had the main character become an independent individual, at least for the time being.
All I have to say is, I am eager to hear the commentary, to see what I may not have noticed that the director constructed, as well as what he says about the film’s process. Definitely watch this movie. I purposely left a lot of holes in this review BECAUSE I don’t want to give away too much. So go, find out! Watch the film, and dear Mr. Soderbergh, I’ll be searching for your films at my local library. On the meantime, dear mom and dad, I found a new movie for my film wish list. :D
Ten Word Summary: Suspicion grows into Ann. Is it speculation? What’s Cynthia doing?
The Aftershock: So good, it’s commentary worth listening to.
Rating: 10 out of 10
Personal Note: Informative commentary worth listening to again.
Kissed (1996) by Lynne Stopkewich
Like Sandra Larson, I too have “always been fascinated by death.” No I’m not some creeper behind a laptop! The thematic power of death captivates me because it forces us to think and question: What happens after our life? Is there something more? Is this really it? Scary, terrifying, weird, unanswered. Accidentally receiving this DVD when requesting another at the library, I immediately fell into intrigue. The synopsis on the back of the DVD cover is excellence. Sadly, the intrigue dwindled to dissatisfaction.
Starring Molly Parker as Sandra Larson, Lynne Stopkewich’s Kissed explains a woman’s fascination with death, however, it lacks in its persuasion of making us understand Larson. Larson is a woman who feels the need to have sex with dead people. Because the story is not convincing, as a viewer, I can’t sympathize with Parker’s character and her actions, even with the hopeful cinematography that wants to beautify her deeds. It’s weird. I may be “fascinated by death” but the intimacy Larson takes this “fascination” to, with “the feel of it, the smell of it, and the stillness,” is creepy and the film doesn’t alleviate its creepiness. But the story must go on, and it does…
Larson finds herself in college studying embalming, a career choice made in heaven or something like that. There she finds Matt (Peter Outeridge), the love interest, and things get weird and the romance is NOT romantic and the relationship isn’t well developed within the film. Matt becomes infatuated and obsessed, and Sandra lets him into her mind. He truly loves Sandra, but Sandra’s mind is enthralled in death and its victims. While Matt is definitely not the protagonist in this movie, his actions captivate me more than Sandra’s and at the film’s end, I wish there was more depth to him because since the film lacked aiding the viewer’s understanding of Sandra, the infatuation Matt has for her becomes more interesting. If I could ask for something, I’d ask for an entrance to Matt’s mind. Why does he fall in love?
It’s a little out there. She’s truly in touch with death, like naked and all, to a part where she has blood on her neck from squeezing a dead bird. The film just doesn’t do anything to make her strangeness have meaning. Yet I continued watching, hoping to solve this consistent image of white light. Death, not dark, but beautiful as perhaps Sandra would see it. Her ritual shephards the dead in their last moment. She savors their remaining energy and pushes them, physically and spiritually. This white light, the energy, is the closest she comes to “crossing over” without dying. Call this ritual sex addiction and we have a tabloid.
Had the film been able to really go into the mechanics of Sandra’s mind, perhaps my vision of the film would have been clearer. But let’s not build a mountain of what ifs. The film ends in a beautiful image, fading to white. There, Sandra and a corpse, two faces in halves that make a whole, rest, a connection of bodies and light and for a second out of the whole film, I feel the energy. If only slightly. A beautiful spiritual advisor … or a psycho? Besides that last shot, Parker’s voice narrating the film is silky smooth and slow. It adds beauty in many parts of the film that lack it. She speaks with emotion and what she says is poetic and indelible. When her voice syncs with real time in the movie, it’s sparking. I’m usually a fan of movies concerning death, love, and afterlife. They’re usually poetic and wonderful and dreamy, but this one was flat, like the flatline of an EKG machine. These bits (narration and ending shot) help spark life into the film yet in the end, the film fails in explaining her emotions and reasonings, therefore the label sticks: This girl is “crazy.”
Ten Word Summary: Sandra has sex with the dead and Matt is jealous.
The Aftershock: What did I just watch?
Rating: 2 out of 10
