Impressions from TIFF: The Disappearance of Alice Creed

Links: TIFF site, IMDB

Two men kidnap a girl. That's pretty much all I can say about the plot without giving away the various twists. What I found interesting about this film was that the three main characters are the only people in the whole movie. Also, almost the entire story takes place within 2 rooms
in an apartment, and everything develops from the dialogue and interaction between the characters and the performances, which were great. In that sense, it's kind of like a play. On the other hand, it's shot with some stylish cinematography, which gives it sufficient "movie-ness" that you might not even notice how small the scope is. (Some people in the audience actually chuckled when the credits rolled and they realized that there were only 3 people in it.)

Excellent acting, great script, great style, and some very cool and unexpected twists. My favourite of the festival so far.

4 out of 5

Impressions from TIFF: Harry Brown

Links: TIFF site, IMDB

Michael Caine plays Harry Brown, a retired widower living in a bad neighbourhood overrun by drug gangs. And then his friend gets hurt. And then he starts killing gang members. And then the cops get involved. That's what I felt like when I was watching this movie... it was just a sequence of plot events. I never got a sense of the characters' motivations and justifications for their actions. The characters were only there to move the plot along, and I didn't care about them at all.

For example, there's one scene where the police detective (played by Emily Mortimer) suddenly goes from being confused about the situation to being completely convinced that she's solved the case, all based on what I think was a very vague piece of evidence. Up to that point, she was portrayed as a fair and thoughtful detective, but then abruptly jumps to a conclusion, only because that's what was needed for the movie to set up its climax.

Overall, it was a disappointment. That being said, there are some moments of suspense that did work well, e.g., the scene where Harry goes to buy a gun from some nasty people. And Michael Caine delivers my favourite one-liner from the festival so far. After a shootout with a bad guy, he stands victoriously over his injured opponent and says: "You failed to maintain your weapon, son." Brilliant.

2 out of 5

Impressions from TIFF: The Most Dangerous Man in America

Links: TIFF site, IMDB

I attended a press & industry screening of this documentary. (My volunteer reward vouchers give access to these insider screenings that are not available to the public--a very nice perk. As an aside, P&I screenings are a completely different experience compared to public screenings. Everybody is there to work, not necessarily to "enjoy" the film, so it's totally lacking in energy. For example, Suck was also a press screening, and I heard maybe two people laughing. I'm
sure that there would have been a much bigger reaction at a public show.)

The film is about Daniel Ellsberg, a government official who, during the Vietnam War, leaked some top secret Pentagon documents (the "Pentagon Papers") that proved that the war was based on government lies. Americans probably know the history of the event, but ignorant Canadian that I am, I was not familiar with it. So on one level, I enjoyed the movie as a history lesson. But what really drove the film for me was Ellsberg's personality. (He narrates the film and is seen throughout in the typical talking head interviews.) When he speaks, you can tell that
he's absolutely committed to doing the right thing. More than that, he followed his words with actions--actions that put his own freedom at risk. I have great respect for this, and I think that he is a true hero.

On the negative side, I thought they overdid the portrayal of Nixon as a bad, bad man. The repeated use of sound clips of Nixon saying vulgar and awful things almost came off as unintentionally funny because it was so on the nose. (E.g. someone in an interview would say something like, "Surely, the government would not do XYZ." Then it would cut to a tape of Nixon saying "By God, we better goddamn do XYZ to those sons of bitches.") I would have preferred a little more subtlety. Minor criticisms aside, this was a very fascinating doc.

3.5 out of 5

Impressions from TIFF: Suck

Links: TIFF site, IMDB

I didn't watch this with 100% attentiveness because I was working as an usher/anti-piracy cop for the screening. (It really sucks watching a movie standing up and facing sideways.) But I did get enough of it to form an opinion. The movie is a comedy about a rock band where one of the members becomes a vampire.

I liked some parts, and I would have been laughing out loud had I not been wearing my professional volunteer mask. There is a scene--a flashback sequence involving Malcolm McDowell's character, which incorporates footage of a young McDowell from some old movie--that was really well done. Ultimately though, the jokes were hit and miss, because it was kind of cheesy, goofy humour which doesn't always work for me. But I can see this becoming a "cult favourite" type of film with a good fanbase. Oh, and it's Canadian.

2.5 out of 5

Impressions from TIFF

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to work as a volunteer for the Toronto International Film Festival. I'm going to be posting some impressions of the films that I've seen so far, with more to come.

The New York Times copied my post

A while ago, I posted an item about the word "Darwinism" and how I thought it had some bad connotations. This week, there was a column in the New York Times called "Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live" (free registration required). It has a similar theme but obviously more professionally written and better researched. In particular, one paragraph echoes some of the ideas in my original post.

Science has marched on. But evolution can seem uniquely stuck on its founder. We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism. "Darwinism" implies an ideology adhering to one man’s dictates, like Marxism. And "isms" (capitalism, Catholicism, racism) are not science. "Darwinism" implies that biological scientists "believe in" Darwin’s "theory." It’s as if, since 1860, scientists have just ditto-headed Darwin rather than challenging and testing his ideas, or adding vast new knowledge.

Needless to say, I agree. I have no further comment on the matter. I only wanted to bask in self-congratulation. Thank you.

Lifestyles of the Fake Rich

Got the statement from my corporate credit card. It made me feel good.



ONE BILLION DOLLARS...

Of course I'd get fired and probably shot if I used it, but it's nice to know it's there in case of emergency. Emergency luxury yacht purchases, that is...