Film review: Alive (1993)


No spoilers in this review. This is my third lifetime viewing of this film. I love survival in the wild stories, and to me this is one of the best. I think it demands to be seen on a big screen, or at least a large TV.

Based on an event in 1972, a south American rugby team crosses the Andies to play a game in Chile. But unexpected things occur. It's also a book by Piers Paul Read.

It strikes me as very realistic, the situation is desperate, the atmosphere is so cold that I found myself trembling and shivering along with the characters.

Some scenes are a little difficult to watch, not exactly what you’d call family entertainment, but borderline horror movie stuff. This is one of the reasons some people dislike this film or label it unpleasant based on a few scenes in the middle of the film.

The special effects at the beginning are very well-done for 1993, they didn’t have the advanced CGI technology that you use today. I noticed a number of these kind of films are B-films, but this is an A-film with a budget of $32 million.


It helps they are a group, they can keep each other active by giving moral support. Group mentality resembles the rugby team with a leader taking charge. Desperate situations like these really separate the strong from the weak, the men from the boys, the rational from irrational, and so on.

It stars one of my favourite actors Ethan Hawke, but none of the actors really dominate, it’s a group story with an ensemble cast.

You should really avoid reading lots of reviews before watching this film, most of them contain spoilers unfortunately. Once you’ve seen this movie, I doubt you will ever forget it, powerful and moving. The kind of story that stays with you. It gives you that first person experience, as if you are there with them in the snow trying to survive. As another reviewer writes: “the movie does a good job of raising the "What would you do?" issues”.

Readers, any thoughts ?

IMDB

Rottentomatoes

YouTube

Book review: A Confederacy of Dunces / John Kennedy Toole (1980)


Probably the funniest and most unusual novel I’ve ever come across. A light and entertaining read, and at times laugh-out-loud funny. People seem to either love or hate this book. To me it’s a modern classic. I guess anytime you have humour as a key ingredient, then the story will divide audiences.

Our hero is neurotic, anti-social, obese outsider Ignatius Reilly, he still at the age of 30 lives with his widowed mother. Ignatius is a well-educated wannabe writer, but unable to find a job due to his rudeness and attitude. The story is about his adventures in job hunting and holding on to employment, and the story is also about events that happen at a bar called Night of Joy, which the locals visit.

Ignatius is revolting, but pitiful enough that I cared about him. The author makes you hope that he will succeed in life in spite of his outrageous, but somewhat idealistic behaviour. Some may even identify with his mother's plight, as he really is a handful for her, with no idea how to get along with people. One of the jobs Ignatius attempts is as a file clerk at Levy Pants. Another job he tries is as a hot dog salesman. In both cases creating funny and awkward moments.



The humour is the best thing about this book, and I found myself looking forward to the next amusing situations. For example, one of the funnier moments is when a cop discovers the cream inside the doughnuts has already been sucked out by the greedy main character!

The real life story of John Kennedy Toole is a sad one. He was an English teacher who was never recognized or appreciated for his writing during his lifetime. Toole took his own life. But his mother fought for years trying to get his book published, and finally 11 years after his suicide did his book hit the stores.

The Pulitzer prize winning novel is considered an important work of modern Southern literature, the events take place mostly in New Orleans, so its also a description of the atmosphere in the South during the early 1960s. The black oppressed community are unhappy with the way they are treated, Ignatius is content with his rebellious outsider position, while the coloured character we get to know is looking for change. Having said this, you might think the novel is dated being written in the 60s, but I think it holds up surprisingly well and comes across as very fresh. This I think is mainly due to Toole's memorable use of language.

The author appears to make fun of the police force in a similar way that Alfred Hitchcock used to expose them as incompetent. But then again everyone seems to be given the full treatment and made a satirical joke of, which is part of the book’s charm.

I think eccentric people with a university degree who have had difficulty finding work might relate to the main character’s troubles. Especially in this time of financial crisis where there are cutbacks and fewer jobs to be had. Overweight people will probably also be able to identify with Ignatius’s compulsive eating, which he does to sooth his anxiety.

If you like this, I recommend the comics by Harvey Pekar, he also worked as a file clerk in the US, the humour and atmosphere is a little similar, I think. Ignatius’s bizarre behaviour can in my opinion also be compared to “Fear and loathing in Las Vegas” from the 70s. The hat Ignatius wears could be a reference to Holden Caufield’s in “The Catcher in the Rye”, and probably is also a symbol of rebellious behaviour, which Ignatius refuses to take off during a job interview. Other reviewers point out Ignatius is like a fat and intelligent version of Mr. Bean. He is like a cartoon character, but walking around in the real world.


The novel is 400 pages. I would highly recommend the first 200 pages. The remainder of the book had a few golden moments of humour, but I found it to be a little unnecessary. I felt like I had heard what he had to say in the first half of the book. I think the book deserves an unorthodox rating, I give it 9/10 for the first half, 5/10 for the last half. I guess if you add these up it makes a 7/10.

Probably not a book I would suggest reading in one or two sittings, instead the kind of novel you might pick up now and again and read a chapter from.

I like this book for the humour and bizarre characters, Ignatius, Ignatius’s pen friend Myrna Minkoff from college, and old-timer Mrs Trixie to me are highlights.

One of the great comedies in fiction. Like nothing I’ve ever read before, highly original. Is Ignatius Reilly a genius or a madman? ( :

The title refers to a quote from Jonathan Swift: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Songs for your iPod

Superstition - Steve Wonder



...

Possession - Sarah McLachlan



...

Hands Around My Throat - Death In Vegas

Film review: The Social Network (2010)


No spoilers in my review. I think this being among the most anticipated releases of 2010 says a lot about what a weak year it’s been in theaters. Fincher’s film definitely is visually stylish, which you would expect, he doesn't hold back with his trademark darkness and greenish colours. And it’s certainly a film that lingers in my mind the next day, as I’m writing this review. But if this had been a strong year, say like 1999, I don't think this film would win many awards.

Its very much a “zeitgeist” movie trying to capture the times, and of course, it’s trying to appeal to the 500 million facebook users all over the world, much like Fincher attempted to latch onto the 90s generation with Fight Club (1999). I’m not sure people without a facebook account would care to watch The Social Network. And perhaps older people I think would struggle to identify with the youthful cast.

I thought the film gave a good depiction of the power of money and desire for recognition, but maybe it repeated this too many times, and I thought I had got the point after a while regarding the athlete’s feelings.

I’d have preferred that the film instead had focused more on the pros and cons of facebook itself. What is friendship? What does it do to you to have a bunch of so-called friends online? Has facebook changed the way we perceive the term friend, and if so, in a good or a bad way? And so on, and so on. The movie does this a little bit, facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s girlfriend issues for example, but we never really get to know why he cares about her in the first place, which I see as a flaw.

Seriousfilm on the other hand likes the fact that "Fincher and Sorkin nimbly avoid getting bogged down in the minutiae of Facebook, instead aiming their story squarely at timeless themes of loyalty, power, class, wealth, temptation, and genius". I guess if that is what you wanted to see, then it’s a great movie.

Its been brought to my attention that the filmmakers took liberties for instance with the relationship aspects and doctored this to make us care more about Zuckerberg the movie character than Zuckerberg the real life person. So don’t expect the story to follow 100% the true life story of the events.

The soundtrack is good, mixing a suitably fast-paced electronic score, and a song about Zuckerberg's alienation:





The story is well-directed by Fincher, told with suspense, and with many flashbacks, but it didn’t make me want to discuss the film afterwards in the same way Fight Club did. The social network in my opinion didn’t leave many things to interpret other than the final scene. To be honest, I didn’t really care who had been disloyal to whom, which is also left unsaid.


I guess the factual story about the founders of facebook could easily have been a documentary (and may already have been so). I’m still wondering why they elected to make it as a movie, and I think money is the motivation. So in that way the filmmakers mirror the movies characters. Maybe Fincher could relate to the notion of a man divided between money and friendship, and wanting to be recognized for his talent? What is more important for an artist, creating something important, or nurturing your friends? This is one of the few questions the film raises I found quite interesting. As seriousfilm puts it: “the film asks if you have to be an asshole to get great things done or if doing great things is just a convenient excuse for someone who was an asshole already”.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed being along for the ride, it moves at a fast pace, so I was never bored, and it’s good entertainment. But the film is too commercial and devoid of risk-taking to be truly groundbreaking. It’s too eager to please a wide audience, and unfortunately, however impressive and dense some reviewers are saying the script is, dare I say it, to me at least, it’s essentially a dumbed-down movie, which is a pity.

I hope one day I’ll get to see something which delves more into the psychology of facebook, and less into the legal battle of its ownership. Really, why should we care which of these dudes owns facebook? It’s a credit to what a good director Fincher is, that he actually makes us give a damn.

A captivating story, better than your average film. I think Fincher succeeded in what he tried to achieve with this film, but unfortunately it was something else about facebook, I was looking for. 7.5/10

Readers, any thoughts?


Further reading:

IMDB

Rottentomatoes

Reviews by others from LAMB

Facebook Co-Founder Speaks Publicly, What I Learned From Watching “The Social Network”

Songs for your iPod

Unison – Bjork

(My favourite track from her 2001 album Vespertine)


bjork UnIsOn

falling water bead | Myspace Video


...
All Your Sisters - Mazzy Star

(Beautiful acoustic/dream pop song)



...

Ripple - Grateful Dead

(To me this is the best song from their 1970 album "American beauty" . Notice the similar artwork to the 1999 movie?)

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails