Archive for Biography

At a glance this movie looks like a documentary, but when you get to watch the whole of it you will realize that you cannot say easily that it is like other documentaries, or if it is a documentary at all. This film is a collage of different found footage that is arranged in a manner that takes the viewer on a journey through time to the place where the filmmaker Terence Davies lived, Liverpool.

Watching the movie is like taking a boat ride on the river of thoughts and remembrances of Davies. You’ll feel his love-hate relationship with the place that molded him into who he is now. The film is good in its own way, but if you are not quick at aligning your point of view to someone else’s (and in this, it’s Davies’), you’ll probably be bored, if not annoyed, with the film.

The music is one of the film’s strong points. Davies surely has an ear for music (as a filmmaker should have), but I could not agree with him in saying that the Beatles is  “one of the worst blights to ever strike the face of music”.

The film is more about Terence Davies than about Liverpool, though he may say that it’s about Liverpool. The film is about how he loves and hates the place and that particular point in time when he was younger. In this film you also can feel his anger, especially his anger about organized religion. He even declared himself a born again pagan and blames religion for the joyless youth that he got. This film is Davies’ declaration of who he is and what he’s been through. Liverpool just happened to be there when he was there, just happened to be a part of his life that he now uses to paint a picture of himself.

Overall, the film is well-crafted, and I easily can give it an 8 out of 10.

You will know that an actor is very good at his craft when you forget about him while watching his movie. In the movie Milk, Sean Penn made me forget about Sean Penn and introduced me to Harvey Milk. I knew nothing about Harvey Bernard Milk and gave not a thought about gay activism until this movie. If Harvey Milk’s character was really like how Sean Penn portrayed him in this movie, then I can say that that was the very reason why he succeeded in becoming the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California. And to think that that was during the 70s.

The movie is about a man’s rather graceful struggle to find his place in a community that is both judgmental and unfair. To show this in the movie without telling it, it takes the genius of a Gus Van Sant and the artistry of a Harris Savides. To bring us to the time and into the life of Harvey Milk, Van Sant and Savides shot many parts of the film on the actual streets in San Francisco where Harvey Milk had walked and lived much of his life as an openly gay man in a society that was not really sure about how to react to his sexuality. The way they seamlessly blended documentary footage into this film gives it more power in bringing us into that particular time.

But let us not limit the credit for the beauty of this film to just Penn, Sant, and Savides; the whole cast did perfectly well in this film. Emile Hirsch, with his impeccable acting, deserves an award here. And who could miss Josh Brolin’s presence here? The wonder of it all is how the cast and the director made the complicated story of Milk’s life come alive to us in a very clear manner in this movie. This is a must see film.

Is the world ready for a George W. Bush biopic? What’s more, does the world need a George W. Bush biopic? Oliver Stone seems to think so…because he is making one. Josh Brolin has been cast in the title role. My question is this: what does it say about our current president that he isn’t yet out of office and there is already a biopic in the works?

This biopic is not the first to be released while the subject is still alive. The Queen is still alive to comment on Helen Mirren’s performance in The Queen.

When news of the film was first released to the public many people thought it was an April Fool’s joke. It wasn’t until the news broke that actors have been attached and production had started that it became apparent: this is no joke. There will be a biopic on George W. Bush.

W (the title of the movie) could be released as early as this October—weeks before the general presidential election. You have to wonder just how a movie that is rumored to show the president’s nearly fatal pretzel inhalation will play that close to an election—while the subject is still in office. People already are accusing Stone of trying to influence the election and take away from the Republican agenda.

According to an article on the Entertainment Weekly website, Stone promises that the film will be a “fair, true portrait of the man” He insists that what while he might not think much of Bush’s presidency, he is intrigued by the story of the man and his administration.

What do you think? Is this a story that needs to be told—and if so, should it be told now? Or, might it be better to hold off for a while considering the current political climate?

Hotel Rwanda is a stunning film. It is based on the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, a hero for the Tutsis of Rwanda. It is difficult to review a film that has real events. The director cannot do much to change the beginning, middle, or ending; history only happened one way. I applaud the director for his successful attempt to bring recognition to the genocide in Rwanda.

In order to understand the film, you must know a basic history of Rwanda. A few hundred years ago, the Tutsis and the Hutus were the groups that made up Rwanda. The Tutsis were the minority but held better jobs and power over the Hutus. In the early 1900s, Rwanda was annexed to Belgium. Belgium decided to give everybody in Rwanda identification cards. These cards distinguished the citizens of Rwanda as either Hutu or Tutsi. The truth was that the process for the selection was quite arbitrary. One would not really be able to tell if someone was Hutu or Tutsi just by looking at them. The Hutus, who ended up being the majority, overthrew the leading Tutsis on their way towards independence from Belgium. A civil war ensued.

The Interhamwe, a Hutu militia, created a plan to systematically wipe out all of the Tutsis. They called the Tutsis cockroaches, and tried to convince all of the Hutus that the Tutsis had no right to live. This is where Hotel Rwanda comes into play. Paul Rusesabagina is a Hutu hotel manager. When he hears of what is happening, he knows he must protect his wife and children –all Tutsis. They end up moving into the hotel where Paul works, but they are not alone. Paul is a trusted Hutu, and the Tutsi community flocks for refuge at his hotel.

It becomes Paul’s personal responsibility to provide safety for his new hotel guests. He must fight against all odds to keep the Interhamwe from destroying everyone. His story is heroic and unique. If you have not seen this movie yet, I say it is a Must-See. The movie is an intense thrill. It’s hard to keep reminding yourself that it portrays events that were real.