Cinematic Concerns

This is the seventy-fifth film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas.


THE GREAT SWIFTY
All right, National Treasure 2 kinda sucked.

ME
it does

ME
and i was watching that directly after P.S. I Love You

THE GREAT SWIFTY
And I enjoyed the first film.

ME
never saw the first one

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I thought the first film was waaaaay better than Da Vinci Code

ME
eh?

ME
why?

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Entertaining, less self-serious, the jokes actually worked, the action was really fun

THE GREAT SWIFTY
My expectations were low, so I enjoyed it.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
However, my expectations were low for National Treasure 2 as well, yet I ended up disappointed.

ME
how bad is it compared to this

THE GREAT SWIFTY
not disappointed, more like, underwhelmed.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
or indifferent.

ME
as in, how much more lamer are the jokes in this one compared to the first one

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I can't remember the first one that much, but the cringe-inducing jokes of part 2 made part 1 look like an Judd Apatow film.

ME
the thing that irks me though

ME
is that ppl actually enjoyed this shit

ME
in the cinema i was in - it started with that goofy cartoon, did you guys have it?

THE GREAT SWIFTY
No.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Shit.

ME
well, ppl were laughing at the lame goofy cartoon joke

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I never really liked Goofy much compared to Mickey or Donald.

ME
and to be honest, the whole disney thing is beginning to look disturbing, the sort of all-american, family tradition sort of feel it brings to it

ME
which definitely translates to national treasure 2 as well

ME
no blood, no violent scenes, no one swears

ME
a reviewer described it this way

THE GREAT SWIFTY
National Treasure 2 is meant to fuel on everyone's patriotism and nationalistic pride.

ME
bruckheimer films are formulaic becoz it works in a critic proof sort of way, and the formula is ...

THE GREAT SWIFTY
And it's tailor-made for the masses. A pure 'family' film.

ME
" old-fashioned entertainment with modern production values and underlying themes of patriotism and family loyalty"

THE GREAT SWIFTY
But I don't blame it purely on Disney. Disney DID bring us ENCHANTED, and that one's wonderful

ME
in other words, puke-inducing

ME
i guess

ME
but as i was watching this it hit me how different i am now - i am no longer that kid that can watch those action movies the way they did it in the 90s

ME
i NEED my action movies to be grittier, more accurate, less obvious plotholes, more intelligent

ME
in short, i NEED children of men or i am legend or the bourne trilogy

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Yup. I mean, towards the end of National Treasure 2, I kinda lost track of the plot

ME
i cannot stoop down to watch national treasure anymore ... they actually bore me

ME
seriously, it's hard to concentrate when throughout much of the film i'm just waiting for ed harris to die

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I mean, I was like, yeah, er, so, why did that lost page of the diary say that the Gates' ancestor was the mastermind of Lincoln's assassination

ME
oops, spoilers - not really, you dickwads, any idiot can see it 100 mins down the line

ME
... and how does finding the lost city prove thomas gates' innocence again? no idea, dont care

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Ed Harris's character suffers from script schizophrenia.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Am I supposed to hate him?

THE GREAT SWIFTY
gosh, yeah

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Feels like a decent bloke the whole time.

ME
i feel sorry for helen mirren

ME
every single time, you know ... best actress winners

ME
at least she wasnt BAD in this one ... just, out of place

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Well, at least it's just a small role.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Not Catwoman or Aeon Flux

ME
yup yup

ME
and jon voight ... well, at least his character makes more sense here than in transformers

ME
in fact, about accuracy, i couldnt help but notice in the beginning of the film

ME
the way the characters talk sound NOTHING like 19th century americans

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Shit, I forgot he was in Transformers.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Haha, yeah.

ME
i mean, c'mon

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I mean, I like these conspiracy theories and shit.

ME
it's like, the american public no longer cares about accuracy, all they want is family fun shit, no one swears

THE GREAT SWIFTY
It's the films' main appeal. (... along with Da Vinci Code)

ME
and they want the jokes to be so watered down

ME
the conspiracy theories here arent interesting at all, downright dull

THE GREAT SWIFTY
yeah, the Justin Bartha character is so... cringe-inducing

ME
... yeah

THE GREAT SWIFTY
and the Nic Cage - Diane Kruger love-hate relationship is so... sheesh

THE GREAT SWIFTY
can't they be like Julianne Moore - Clive Owen in Children of Men?

ME
but hey, nice casting bruce greenwood - reprising kennedy from thirteen days, perhaps? haha

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Yeah, that one, I like.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Hell, the short moment between Bruce Greenwood's prez and Gates may have been the highlight of the film.

ME
plotwise, though, kidnapping the president - what?

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Should've let that last longer

ME
first of all, it is NOT that outrageous ... what's outrageous is that it isnt outrageous enough

THE GREAT SWIFTY
had him following them throughout the rest of the adventure

ME
after all the fuss the other characters made

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Yeah

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I saw it with my friend, Hui Jing, who is also a film student

THE GREAT SWIFTY
She was yawning after they reached the library of congress

ME
haha

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I lasted until when they entered the city of gold.

ME
it didnt help that the music was not exciting

THE GREAT SWIFTY
in Mount Rushmore

THE GREAT SWIFTY
seriously, I don't think I can remember much after they entered the place

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I was dozing off.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I snapped awake only at... um, I dunno, maybe the Helen Mirren-Jon Voight reconciliation shit

ME
well, i didnt doze off, but john powell's music from P.S. I Love You kept playing in my head through this film

ME
and i was thinking, i want to see P.S. I Love You again ...

ME
which is really bad for national treasure - action scenes cant hold my attention

ME
the car chase sequence in london just made me think, hmm, i want to see what Bourne does in a london car chase scene

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Yeah, they  were bland.

ME
and how much did this film cost?

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Dunno, 100+?

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Kept under wraps.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I ain't looking forward to National Treasure 3.

ME
yeah ... pg 47

ME
was the plot to this movie hinted in the first movie?

THE GREAT SWIFTY
If I were in US, I would rather watch WALK HARD or SWEENEY TODD.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
Nope, I don't think so.

ME
... actually, i gave sweeney todd a skip for now ... could have seen that, but i needed entertainment

ME
havent had entertainment in so long

ME
never thought i'd be so bored with entertainment

THE GREAT SWIFTY
But I remembered part 1 had an open-ended endng.

THE GREAT SWIFTY
like "we have another quest" or something like that

ME
they need to stop making these movies ... but what irks me so much is that ppl WANT to watch these movies

ME
... that's not open ended

ME
that's just how such action adventure movies end

THE GREAT SWIFTY
I mean, leaving it open for a sequel.

ME
well, but of course

How Good I Think The Film Is: 4.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 4/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 15 mins

This is the third film I saw at the Mann Chinese 6 theatres.

Many months ago, I had a great idea for a screenplay. It was to be about a man who wakes up by a stream naked with a plastic sealed bag tied to his wrist containing clothes and other equipment, who later finds out that other than he and a woman he finds quite by chance, there is no one left on Earth. They walk into a city - probably Manhattan - and discover that the roads and pavements have all been ripped up by grass and foliage and trees; animals roam the city, forming their own territories; most equipment and utilities (like cars for example) are in such a state of disrepair that none are functioning anymore; and some buildings and bridges have toppled while other remain standing. Later they discover that they have been sent 200 years into the future from the past - a natural disaster, which could be Yellowstone erupting or a bird flu epidemic, has wiped out the human population. This idea was inspired by an article I read from the compilation book The Best American Science Writing 2006 titled "Earth Without People" by Alan Weisman, which describes exactly that - a hypothetical description of Earth 200 years from now if people had just completely vanished in a day.

A couple of weeks later, the trailer to I Am Legend is released.

The biggest irony wasn't that, though. It's the fact that I was going to call my story I Am Adam.

Damn.

Now, as you know, I Am Legend isn't just about the last man on Earth - it is also about hyper-aggressive vampires, which puts this in the horror thriller category.

It also happens to be, thanks to the efforts of the filmmakers, a good drama. Before the film was released, the trades were plastered with For Your Consideration ads for Will Smith as a Best Actor nominee, and people were scoffing at that. After watching the film, I do think he is a strong enough contender. But only if the awards possess no memory and aren't so hung up about trying to nominate Daniel Day-Lewis every single bloody time for his serious, methodical work.

It is a relentless and uncompromising story that never falls into cliches, thanks to the great choices made by director Francis Lawrence (continuing the filmmaking trend that I shall affiliate myself with, that of shakycams, not telling the audience everything, not bothering to explain why, playing it cold and heartless) aided by an excellent script by Mark Protosevich and Akiva Goldsman. It allows its protagonist to get hurt at unexpected moments, forces him to make terrible choices, doesn't always let him win, and actually allows Will Smith the opportunity to emote, and he does so very, very effectively.


There were also a lot of suspenseful moments, and Lawrence milks them all with all he's got - leaving wide open spaces on the framing of the scene, peppered with longer than average takes (staying on the scene without cutting away, making each cut that much more filled with anticipation), and letting those scenes play out fully, which, I just realised having watch this film, isn't the case with so many films nowadays. And still the film manages to find time to contain lots and lots of action sequences.

The visual effects here are seamless. I would say it is more impressive than Transformers, but that might be unfair as Transformers is a whole lot more complicated - so let me say that it is a lot more awe-inspiring than Transformers. The desolate cityscape - the sort of dream project I would like to do some day. This movie will probably be, for the longest time, the most expensive one featuring just one character.

I was a little bit surprised to see that Dash Mihok was playing the Alpha Male - he's a rather big sized guy whereas the Alpha Male vampire is clearly skinny. Also, an uncredited (and also surprisingly skinnier) Emma Thompson in the opening scene of the film. It was only after the film that I realised what a feat she pulled off in her brief cameo - she had convinced me, the audience, that in the world of the story, she had found the cure to cancer, in all utter seriousness.

The only thing that bothered me is that, just like in Lust, Caution, the protagonist makes a decisive choice in the end that makes no sense to the audience. At least in Lust, Caution, the whole film leading up to that moment is about explaining that choice. Here, it never quite makes sense.

How Good I Think It Is: 8.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 8/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 35 mins
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Actor (Will Smith), Best Visual Effects

This is the seventy-third film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas.

To those who haven't seen it, you'll be more perceptible to my advice than the fanatics who love the book or idiots who want to watch a fantasy movie, any fantasy movie.

Here's the review.

Don't bother.

Is it me or are we getting too much Freddie Highmore?

Fantasy films are a tired category. Hollywood, you can stop now. Well, after you lose more money on The Spiderwick Chronicles and Inkheart, that is. Go away.

This is the second film I saw at the Sherman Oaks Arclight Cinemas.

I typed out an extensive review, which then got eaten up by the Internet.

Since then, I MSN-ed with a friend of mine, Mark Tan (director of the soon-to-be-released Jarum Halus), and now my thoughts about the film has shifted again, as it has been doing in the 48 hours since I saw the film.

Now, Atonement is a film that I've been waiting for a year. That in itself loads a great deal of unfair pressure on the film to perform, and I have to admit that films that I've been anticipating for up to a year in advance in the past have had mixed results. The earliest such instance was the film Deep Impact, and I still haven't quite figured out whether I liked the film or thought it not good enough. This year, The Bourne Ultimatum surpassed my expectations, and certainly did not disappoint in any manner. Elizabeth: The Golden Age fared less well.

Atonement, however, in this first (but almost certainly not last) viewing, was content to skirt up and down and around the line of expectation.


Why have I been anticipating this film? First of all, director Joe Wright, who totally surprised me with his rendition of Pride & Prejudice. Mark was saying to me that his version of Pride & Prejudice was kind of a McDonald's version of the story as told in the book and thought the film unsubtle - I, having never read the book, was completely mesmerised by the forceful nature of the characterisations of mannerisms, behaviours, gestures and so on of the characters in the film (I will always remember Matthew Macfadyen's hand quivering from the touch of Keira Knightley's hand, a gesture that says so much with so little), the occasional uses of filmic metaphors (Keira Knightley perched at the edge of a windswept cliff, Keira Knightley looking into the mirror in a quiet room as day turns into night around her), forceful delivery of dialogue, the quick pace with which the characters walk when they are emotional (their pacing mirrors their emotional states), surprising uses of pan and zoom-ins in a period drama (highly unusual), right down to the decision to stay on Matthew Macfadyen as he walks towards Keira Knightley in the end as the music, at first hesitant, gradually and then triumphantly soars to a jubilant and emotional crescendo as what Lizzie and the audience desires to be true happens before their eyes.

There, I've just done a mini-review declaring my love for Pride & Prejudice. What that also does is to make the point that I am very much excited with Mr Wright's work from that point onwards.


Now, second point - it is a period drama. Period dramas spell box office death in the Hollywood film industry - it is an industry-wide belief that the average person doesn't like English period dramas. (Atonement is produced by my favourite production company, Working Title Films, which is based in the UK. Due to Working Title's phenomenal success in the past decade, Universal Studios, in which Working Title is based in the US, pretty much lets them do what they want without too much interference.) There are many who absolutely hated the fact that The English Patient and Shakespeare In Love won, and contend that those films aren't well remembered today. I, on the other hand, love them, generally, and would love to do one of my own in the (distant) future. (If Ang Lee can do it, I can too!)

Point three, the trailer is one of the best of the year. Coupled with the use of appropriately affecting music - which turned out to be excerpts of the film's score - the trailer reveals that Joe Wright's directing style comes across strongly through the images (the most vivid example of that is the shot of Keira Knightley rising out of the waters of the fountain, which is filmed with the camera moving up and stopping very abruptly along with her and then staying on her), while delivering an emotional pull that all but guarantees that I will be in the cineplexes for this film by the opening day at the latest.

So what do I think of the film?

I exited the cinema not quite believing that I wasn't able to decide whether I like the film or not, the only sure thing being that my desire to like the film is stronger than my actual feeling of liking it.


The first problem was that I wasn't prepared for the structure of the film. Now, I haven't read the book - I generally prefer NOT to read books of adapted films until after, if at all. That makes more sense. I did hear that the book was considered unfilmable. And this is why - the film follows the structure of the book rather faithfully, as far as I can gather. There isn't a three-act structure - though if you are a film student and want to argue that ALL films have three-act structures, look deep enough and you can find one, of course. Instead, the film is split halfway through - the first half concerns itself entirely of the events that transpired one hot summer's afternoon and evening in an English country estate, shown through multiple points of view and as thorough as befits Joe Wright's style of constantly exploring those tiny details and gestures that surround a scene; the second half consists of events that happened half a decade later during the Second World War, where we see our three protagonists live their now very different lives as a consequence of that summer's incident. And then it ends with an epilogue - which would have been more surprising had the trailer not announce it outright.

(Notice that such films tend to have long trailers that spell out quite a lot of its plots and exposes its best scenes, which seems like a desperate attempt to entice the indifferent American audience to come see it in the cinemas. I'm not convinced that works at all, and moreover, such trailers really are detrimental to the experience of watching the film properly. It certainly didn't help Elizabeth: The Golden Age, which would have benefited from having its key scenes, in particular that of a screaming Cate Blanchett in one of the best dialogue delivery of her career, be a surprise for the audience.)


Now, the structure in itself isn't a major problem. The dissonance of the themes is. While the primary theme is spelled out by the title and brought to fruition by the epilogue, there are a few other themes - the question of class, for example - that seem to be there but doesn't quite fully enter the picture, and never does mesh. I guess, another way to put it is that I felt like there were some scenes that, while they impact the main character's actions, were too subtle, too much in the sidelines that they didn't deserve their fully fleshed-out scenes. Perhaps people who love the film love that the film was 'subtle', a praise that I think is sometimes overly lavished on certain films without knowing exactly what subtlety means or why subtlely matters. And then it is also perhaps that they bear strong significance to those who have read the novel, but much less so for me.

Ultimately, I actually wished they had dismantled the structure of the book, and craft a straightforward, linear plot out of the story - I suspect the tragedy of the separated lovers would have come across far more strongly for me. As it is now, I understood the tragedy, understood how the title relates to it, knew what I was supposed to feel, but I never felt it. It feels like one is presented a dish, an elaborately prepared and visibly delicious one, but one is never allowed to taste it.

Do I like the film? The performances were good all around, as can be expected from British actors. Keira Knightley has less of a chance to shine here compared to Pride & Prejudice, but she is still compelling - her character, as is now widely reported, is a bit unlikable to begin with, and that definitely comes across. James McAvoy, however, properly deserves a Best Actor nomination for his portrayal of the good natured Robbie. Three different actors portray Briony Tallis, and interestingly they are given the same hairstyles to ensure instant recognition on the audiences part - just to point out a technique in filmmaking to those not in on the business.


The music is very forceful here, incorporating not just the widely reported tapping sounds of the typewriter, but also absorbing certain sound effects from the scenes into its melody. On that note, the sound design is very purposeful and intense - they made sure you heard the buzzing bee, which serves both to remind the audience about the summer's day being hot, and also to lead to a plot point. The editing style is one that lets the scenes stay on its languid pace, before suddenly jerking away, either to replay the scene from a different point of view or to the next one. When it replays a scene, it never does announce it, and it is a full two minutes into it before it dawns on the audience what they are seeing. I could almost hear the hypothetical Hollywood exec scribbling notes on the order of, 'you can't do that, it confuses the audience'. Fuck them.

In terms of cinematography, many interesting choices are made - particularly in the slightly faded out colours of the first half that really does invoke the airy atmosphere in those country houses - but the one that will set critics talking and film students salivating is one particular shot that emulates something Martin Scorsese would do. I do not know the point of that shot - it doesn't seem to add anything to the scene, which is all about the atmosphere and the environment that envelopes the characters, which could have been conveyed just as well with more conventional means. Still, Oscar being as shallow as it is, is bound to nominate the film for that category purely because of that shot. I guess you could say it is poetic. I thought it distracting.

I think the part I like most about the film, is the way it spends its first hour in that country house. Having lived in rural England, I have experienced what it's like to be in a quiet large house, and that is how it is like as portrayed in the film - it is boring in an opulent manner, people at opposite ends of the house feel distant or you can't hear them at all, you hear the breeze or the insects or the birds outside, the way the light shines into the rooms creating a very particular feel (be it gloomy or romantic).


One more reason why Joe Wright is perfect for the film is because of his interest in endings. I've read of interviews where he talked quite a lot about happy endings versus unhappy ones (and he talks about it in the director's commentary as well, I think), and certainly the epilogue of the film is very much about that. More specifically, it demonstrates strongly the fact that we who create fiction allow happy endings, but life and reality which determines our fate often and randomly assigns tragic or unwanted consequences in our lives.

And by the way, I caught that Anthony Minghella moment at the end of the film - was slightly distracting, but kinda appropriate. Also distracting is the casting of the French actor Jérémie Renier in a brief role - Renier is, next to Romain Duris, one of the best young French actors of this generation.

Do I like the film? I guess I still haven't decided. Maybe the next time I see it I will.

How Good I Think The Film Is: 8/10
How Much I Liked It: 7.5/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 15 mins
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (James McAvoy), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing, Best Costume Design, Best Sound

PS - An interview with director Joe Wright.

This is the seventy-second film I saw at the Hollywood Arclight Cinemas.

I've heard a lot about the film - been hearing about it since Telluride, when I missed out on a chance to see the film. The reviews seem to unanimously praise the 'smart' script and 'smart' dialogue (going on and on about it without ever explaining why), while praising Ellen Page's performance. That last one was a 'duh' - she wasn't even nominated for an Oscar for her precociously brilliant performance in Hard Candy and now the slow buggers talk about her as if she was a discovery.

The other thing I think about in regards to the film is the interesting casting of Jason Bateman along with Michael Cera and Jennifer Garner. There you get a pair from Arrested Development, and another pair from The Kingdom. And interesting that JK Simmons is in it - look at The Golden Compass review.

So, carrying all this hype into the film, it is bound to disappoint somewhat. Yet another example of a film that isn't bad, but not furiously impressive either, which is bogged down by hype. The dialogue is witty and all, but it isn't enough. But at least it is witty - most films have lousy dialogue. Most being over 90%. Even serious films like Rendition. But I do not think the film deserves Best Original Screenplay nominations the way some who are screaming their lungs out for that to happen think.

The actors are all well casted. I won't go into superlatives here, but I don't see anyone else playing the character the way Ellen Page did; Michael Cera simply possesses a cringeworthy gesture in the way he pops Tic-Tacs into his mouth; Allison Janney is Allison Janney, Jason Bateman is Jason Bateman; Jennifer Garner imbues her character with much sympathy.

How Good I Think The Film Is: 7.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 7/10
At What Point Did I First Looked At My Watch: 1 min

This is the first film I saw at the Sherman Oaks Arclight Cinemas (new).

I was half excited about this ever since I found myself admiring Marc Forster's craft from watching Stranger Than Fiction. Marc Forster, who broke out with Monster's Ball and also directed Finding Neverland and Stay, will soon be directing Bond 22.

The book itself I don't know much about, nor the writer. I was interested in seeing Khalid Abdalla playing the lead role - the unknown actor formerly played the lead terrorist in United 93.

The film was introduced to us as being one that is daring in what it is trying to achieve - a film that is almost entirely subtitled, spoken mostly in Dari I believe, and challenging in its material. If you don't already know it, I'll spoil it for you - a kid gets raped. The scene is by no means graphic - none of that Monster's Ball stuff - but it has created a lifetime change for all the kid actors involved. Before the film could be released, precautions had to be taken by the studio to whisk the kids out of Afghanistan into a Middle East country to prevent them from being ostracised (assassinated?) for taking part in a scene involving the ultimate sexual perversion. Or so I heard.

The film itself is quite literary, which isn't surprising, in that there isn't a proper three-act structure to what happens, more like a flow of events as narrated to the audience. For the most part it is a drama about the friendship between two boys, then it is something else, then it is something more (intermittently) thrilling, then it ends with something else. They are loosely linked, but not in a conventional way.

There isn't much more to say about it except that it is well made. Performances are excellent all around - particularly the kid actors who portray Amir and Hassan (one a conflicted rich man's son, the other a loyal but simple servant boy), and Homayoun Ershadi who portrays the father. Ershadi's character has similar arcs with that of Irrfan Khan's character in The Namesake, and he plays the role with much dignity and imbues it with a strong sense of the character's one love in his life - his son. Apparently, in another life Ershadi's a successful architect.

The music is appropriate for the film, and the opening theme is particularly forceful, but not particularly memorable, as it is composed by Alberto Iglesias (The Constant Gardener), whose style comes across very strongly, though of course with Afghan instruments. The special effects are fake enough that the kite tournament is slightly distracting. The emotional scenes didn't really have a strong impact, though they weren't bad.

Landscapes are wonderful. Mostly filmed in Xinjiang (a few of the extras look Uyghur to me). Again, I really want to go there.

A good film. That's it.

How Good I Think The Film Is: 7.5/10
How Much I Liked It: 7.5/10
Oscar Noms That It Deserves: Best Supporting Actor (Homayoun Ershadi), Best Film Editing

I thought I'd collect what I think are the ten most important/high-inducing scenes to come out in movies from the year 2006. A year overdue, but what the heck.

In no particular order.



Chesapeake Bay Bridge Ambush
(Mission: Impossible 3)


Dark Phoenix's Tragedy
(X-Men: The Last Stand)

Sheba Confronts Barbara
(Notes On A Scandal)


Boogie Wonderland Mass Dance Sequence
(Happy Feet)

Mumble Jumps Off The Cliff
(Happy Feet)


Bond Gets Tortured
(Casino Royale)


The Passengers Attempt To Take Over The Flight
(United 93)

The Car Sequence [Long Take]
(Children Of Men)


End Battle [Long Tracking Shot]
(Children Of Men)


Barbossa's Reveal
(Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest)

Here are some short videos - proper term documentary short subjects, specifically of the kind that uses graphic animation to illuminate and illustrate its points of view, and, as evidenced here, almost always used on a political idea.


WHAT BARRY SAYS

I've been searching for this for so long! Saw it some time ago - can't remember exactly where - and always thought the graphics looked cool, thus making the points it's trying to make so much more interesting. Talks about the PNAC.


SHOCK DOCTRINE

Directed by no less than Alfonso Cuarón's son Jonás Cuarón and produced by Alfonso Cuarón and Naomi Klein (who authored the book on which this piece is based, it talks about 'disaster capitalism' and the 'shock doctrine' as defined by Naomi Klein. She most famously wrote No Logo. The piece makes a huge accusation against Milton Friedman, who has always seemed like an old, frail though authoritative figure in the world of economics before this came along. Interesting. Click here to read more about the collaboration between the Cuaróns and Klein.


THE KINGDOM - OPENING SEQUENCE

The opening to the excellent and matured film (but thought by the masses to be shallow and stereotypical - useless dumbasses): The Kingdom. The highlight of the film, to me, has always been the opening. Very interesting way to guide the audience into the world of the story, as well as grounding it in some form of realism.