My First Amazon Prime Review: 3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy (2015)

I’ve been contemplating changing the name and the focus of this blog so that I can include other streaming options. Currently, besides Netflix, I only subscribe to Amazon Prime. Hulu seems to be more for TV series viewing, and their selection of movies seems to be largely the same as Prime’s. If anyone has Hulu, I’d be interested in hearing if my impression is wrong. But I think two streaming services are good for now.

The pros of Amazon Prime:

  • Free shipping: This has nothing to do with movies of course, but if buy a lot from Amazon anyways, I question why you wouldn’t just sign up for this service. It pays for itself in just a few months in our household.
  • Movies that disappear from Netflix often end up here. They also have the option to buy or rent movies, so if you’ve cut the cord, you might like having that option.

Cons:

  • I have yet to have enough interest in their TV Shows to watch one (although there are some that seem interesting, there aren’t any that I felt compelled to watch right away, like Netflix’s Stranger Things and Making a MurdererThat may change soon, if I ever get some free time.
  • At least on my Blu Ray player, which is how I access the service, the way they organize their categories is sub-standard compared to Netflix, and makes the service seem more limited than it is. Amazon really seems to make sure that you know that you can watch Interstellar  for free, as it shows up in several “recommended” categories. But Obvious Childwhich IS a Prime title, shows up nowhere, not even in the comedy category. You have to search for it specifically by its title, which I did a week ago only because I remember it was on Prime months ago and I never got around to watching it. That’s why if you use Prime, I suggest making use of the Watch List, so that if you see something that interests you, it’s not lost forever if you forget about. But then the watchlist makes it clear that just like Netflix, titles are removed from Prime (such as Under the Skin and A Royal Affairboth of which I wanted to watch but now you have to buy or rent)
  • At the current moment, Amazon Prime has a weak selection of documentaries, which led us to watch the Documentary Short 3801 Lancaster: American Tragedy

3801

Viewers are sure to be engrossed by this documentary detailing the horrific case of one Dr. Gosnell. The documentary does an excellent job of keeping you in suspense during the first half of the film, methodically doling out details to keep you wondering what exactly made this abortion clinic stand out from others. Quite early on, the filmmaker speaks with Dr. Gosnell on the phone, and he explains who he is, and why, despite his Christian beliefs, he believes his actions are defensible based on his interpretation of the bible.

As we learn more about what Dr. Gosnell actually did, we find there is a huge disconnect between what he was accused of and what he felt was permissible as a “Christian” to do when it comes to terminating a pregnancy. The documentary’s huge first failing is to not ask him about these contradictions. SPOILER: It would seem obvious if you manage to talk to him on the phone, you would ask him what medical necessity required him to keep the feet of fetuses/babies in jars. And that’s just the most obvious question they could have asked him.

The other huge problem with this film made me question the motive for this film. The end of the film expands the scope to include gross misconduct at a Planned Parenthood in Delaware. While at first I was willing to go with this direction, it became problematic. They interview several nurses who worked at this Planned Parenthood, who say they are pro-choice. Fine. Perhaps the filmmaker’s point was that refusing to oversee abortion clinics can lead to problems even at a well established and funded facility such as Planned Parenthood, and not just a gross “hole in the wall” abortion clinic such as Gosnell’s. But the actions at this Planned Parenthood, while despicable, do not come close to the actions of the psychotic butcher at 3801 Lancaster. It also creates somewhat of a false equivalency, as if all abortion clinics are just looking to cut corners and do as many abortions as quickly as possible. And then it mentions how Planned Parenthood is fighting legislation that would force them to have the same standards as a hospital in states such as Virginia and Texas, as if the whole organization was trying to shirk their responsibilities as a provider of medical services. Anyone who does a cursory investigation into the Texas legislation will find that there is much more to the legislation than just keeping the clinic sanitary. (I believe there was an informative 60 Minutes piece about this law). The law is so restrictive that you couldn’t possibly operate a clinic outside of a hospital setting (and guess what, you can’t perform abortions at a hospital in Texas). To misrepresent the Texas legislation in this manner makes one question the filmmaker’s intent. If you want to make a pro-life film, that’s fine. Just be honest and upfront about the film you’re making.

If you want a lighter-hearted look at this issue, check out Obvious Childwhich I recommend. Or, if you want to really make the most of your Prime membership, and don’t like anything the least bit controversial, check out Happy Gilmore.

IMDB Rating for 3801 Lancaster: 5 out of 10

Advertisements

And you thought your Thanksgiving Dinner was bad… The Invitation (2016)

invitation

So you just spent your holiday dodging conversations with family members that are Trump supporters, or maybe you went down that dark road of arguing over whether a fact is a fact or not. Or maybe Adele saved the day for you. In any case, I can’t imagine your dinner being any worse than the dinner party featured in The Invitation (2016).

I know this is not exactly the newest release on Netflix. But the fact that Netflix has this is a major coup. We (my wife and I) couldn’t quite make it to see this in the theater when it was here in February. Like many films that we want to see, it was only in the theater for a week, surely replaced by some garbage like Baby Geniuses 2 or its equivalent. Note to theater owners: people older than 17 have a life and they often have to plan to see a movie. If said movie is gone, these people will not necessarily go see whatever is there.

Anyhow, when this came on Netflix a few months ago, we watched it and were floored by how good it was. It was the best thing we’d seen on Netflix since The Babadook (2014), and it was a similar type of movie, one that director Karyn Kusama describes as “emotional horror” in this excellent and insightful interview.

Fast forward to a few weeks ago. I was answering one of those Craigslist ads looking for people to be on a panel. I had done these before. One time about 2 weeks before it came out, we gave our opinions on about 10 different trailers for Anchorman 2. This was probably going to be for something similar, as it asked me what my favorite film of the year was. Wow, I had a hard time answering that at first, because I thought of things I had seen in the theater. Although I had seen some pretty decent films in the theater ( Midnight Special, for example), there was nothing I was blown away by. Then I remembered seeing The Invitation, and that it was by far the best movie I had seen this year. Despite all the promising looking films coming out before the end of this year, I suspect it will remain my favorite. (Moonlight is great, but not quite complete for me. Haven’t seen many other Oscar contenders yet).

Please read the interview with Emily Gaudette. Although Kusama has done some mediocre films, she really understands and appreciates film as an art. It shows in this film from the first scene, when the protagonist, Will (Logan Marshall-Green), comes across a dying animal in the road on the way to the dinner party. Without telling us anything specific about the plot of the film, it tells us everything we need to know about the emotional landscape of the film. This will be a dark, ugly night where death will have to be confronted.

Will is going to a dinner party hosted by his ex-wife and her new, somewhat odd in an “off” way boyfriend played by Game of Thrones alum Michiel Huisman. Some of their mutual friends are there as well, and it’s clear that it’s been some time since they’ve seen Will. It’s also clear that he and his wife share an emotional trauma. It’s this emotional trauma that grounds the “horror” in the film, and makes it so believable.

I had no problem very early on guessing where this film was going. People have criticized this film for being slow, perhaps for that reason. They may also find it slow because some people equate horror with slasher films and cheap scares like something jump out at you in the dark. If that’s you, The Invitation is probably not for you. But despite my knowing exactly where I thought the film was going (and I ended up being right), I was thoroughly engaged in the film, and cared about what happened to the people whose lives were obviously in danger.

What makes this film brilliant, in my opinion, is that even though you think you know where it’s going, you still are seeing the action somewhat through the viewpoint of Will. And Will is damaged enough so that as the film progresses, you actually start to doubt your conclusions, much like Will does. It’s this tension that keeps you on edge, and makes the ultimate outcome that much more horrifying. It’s the same kind of tension and paranoia that makes Rosemary’s Baby the best horror film ever (in my opinion).

I’ve also heard some complaining about the very, very end, after the action at the dinner party is resolved, and there is an indication of how the events we’ve seen relate to the world outside. I loved this ending, and given the setting of being in the hills above Los Angeles, it makes perfect sense. But of course I can’t discuss that too much without giving it away for people who haven’t seen it.

I highly recommend The Invitation.

Netflix Rating: 5 out of 5

IMDB rating: 10 out of 10

Foxy Knoxy Rox Docs!

160910091838-amanda-knox-doc-netflix-780x439

My apologies for such an awful title for this post. But if you’ve seen Amanda Knox (2016) on Netflix, which a lot of people probably have, it fits right in with all the ludicrous tabloid coverage of her trial. We finally got around to watching this last night. It’s a solid doc that follows the format of The Fog of War (2003), where the principals just tell their story, and there is no narration (just occasionally a question asked offscreen). Actually, it even seems like they might have used the same set for the interviews.

Anyways, as this news story unfolded, I casually followed itbut never really learned about the details until viewing this documentary. I just remembered something not adding up about the supposed story of her being a sex-crazed killer. This film, compared to the epic length Making a Murderer (2015) feels like True Crime Cliff Notes. Yet unlike almost every episode of Dateline, I didn’t have any lingering or unanswered questions, excluding the usual “How could anyone believe that?” or “How could they be so careless?” etc. I felt I understood basically what happened, when it happened, how it happened, etc. You know, the basics of reporting.

The basics of reporting seemed to escape Nick Pisa, the British journalist who comes across as much as a villain (to me) as does the lead prosecutor, Giulano Mignini, whose wild fantasies created this nightmare for Knox and her Italian boyfriend (of just 5 days!) Raffaele Sollecito. Anyone who has watched Making a Murderer or similar true crime/innocent man falsely convicted docs or dramas should expect a villainous lead prosecutor. But really, if you call yourself a “journalist,” and invoke the names of Woodward and Bernstein early on in this film, you should do more than just regurgitate whatever the prosecution feeds you,  and then printing it as the unvarnished truth. Even a non-journalist should have had questions about why Knox would want to kill a roommate she’s lived with for only 2 weeks (I’ve had bad roommates before, but come on), or why a boyfriend of only 5 days would be so willing to murder for her. But Pisa and the media get a pass, because according to Pisa, if he didn’t print it, then someone else would get “the scoop.” But I still don’t understand how printing allegations made by prosecutors means you have to present it as truth. It’s called critical thinking, Pisa. Anyhow, he’s a tool. And for those who think this is a British tabloid problem, news in the US (and probably everywhere) works the same way. Prosecutors call up a reporter, feed them their version of what happened, and it goes to print. “Journalist” has a story without having to leave his desk.

As I was writing this, I’m reading a lot of anti-Knox threads on IMDB. Also, there are complaints about this being one-sided. Well, yeah, it’s called Amanda Knox after all. But also, if half of your movie is spent letting the lead prosecutor explain himself, is it one-sided? I just don’t understand how people think these days. I guess if you watched Making a Murderer (2015) and still thought he was guilty, don’t watch this. Sure, both Steve Avery and Amanda Knox behaved in an odd manner, but that isn’t evidence in and of itself. If you already know everything about this case, this probably won’t break new ground for you (You’ll probably feel like I did with The Beatles: Eight Days A Week). I wish it had explored more about Amanda Knox, both past and present, but I got the sense that despite being interviewed for the film, she values her privacy.

For what it does in just 90 minutes, I give it the following ratings:

Netflix: 4 stars (out of 5)

IMDB: 7 out of 10

Review: The Act of Killing (2012): Pure Torture

Image

Let me just cut straight to my opinion of this film: I hated it. I will make it my mission to see it destroyed, and all its critical acclaim go the way of The Birth of a Nation‘s.

The Act of Killing (2012)  is the fifth and final entry of my reviews of the 2013 Oscar Nominated Documentaries. Given all the rapturous acclaim for this film, I was expecting it to contend for my top pick up to this point: The SquareThe premise seemed insane and unbelievable, or as one IMDB reviewer put it, “it needs to be seen to be believed.” True, but that doesn’t make this a good film. The idea of allowing mass-murderers to re-enact their crimes seemed too surreal and interesting to fail, yet it does. Werner Herzog and Errol Morris are producers for this film, and if either of them had tackled this subject matter, then it could have been the film I imagined it would be, or the film that critics think they saw. But Joshua Oppenheimer is a hack, offering the viewer nothing but indulgence and wallowing in other people’s depravity, and making us feel complicit in their crime. If that’s how the viewer should feel in watching this, then of course you have to question how Oppenheimer can sincerely believe “There’s no good guys, there’s no bad guys, there’s just people.” [1]

Bullshit!

Oppenheimer must not have even watched his own film, and must be blinded by his “contact with Anwar (the centerpiece of the film and one of the murderers), with whom he’s grown close” [1] Either that or he’s a hipster, trying to maintain an ironic distance from the horrific implications of his film.

I unfortunately have to review this film, develop an opinion of it, and decipher the filmmaker’s intentions by seeking sources outside the film, because we are given virtually no context for what we see in the film. The film begins with a quote from Voltaire: “It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets”. We then see what seems to be a structure for an abandoned amusement park that is in the shape of a giant fish. Cut to a waterfall where Anwar, the “conscience” of the film, and Herman, the grotesque pig of a man that is dressed in garish drag, are motioning as if they are sirens luring ships to the shore. They are surrounded by ornately costumed dancers. But there is no music, just a director shouting directions. We will come back to this scene towards the end of the film, but when the director shouts “Cut” you see the young dancers stretching to get their coats- they are uncomfortable and cold. The fantasy quickly gives way to reality. We then are given the only historical context to the film: “In 1965, the Indonesian Government was overthrown by the military. Anybody opposed to the military dictatorship could be accused of being a communist: union members, landless farmers, intellectuals, and the ethnic Chinese. In less than a year, and with the direct aid of western governments, over one million ‘communists’ were murdered. The army used paramilitaries and gangsters to carry out the killings. These men have been in power, and persecuted their opponents- ever since.” The film then goes on to give their film its current context, which is where they claim to do things that the film won’t end up doing: “When we met the killers, they proudly told us stories about what they did. To understand why, we asked them to create scenes about the killings in whatever way they wished. The film follows that process, and documents its consequences.”

Not really, Oppenheimer. If you were to truly have documented the consequences of their actions, you would have at least partially stuck with your original intentions for the film, as chronicled in The Australian: “When the filmmaker tried to explore the truth about what happened in 1965 through the experiences of survivors in the plantation belt outside Medan, the capital of North Sumatra, he found: ‘They were too scared to say what had happened to them because the killers were living all around them.’ Police threatened the filmmakers with arrest, while plantation bosses and civic leaders regularly found ways to interrupt shooting. Eventually, the survivors asked Oppenheimer: ‘Why don’t you film the killers?’ Suddenly, ‘all the doors flew open.’ Whereas his original subjects had feared reprisals, the men who’d helped bathe Indonesia in blood were eager to talk about their achievements.” 

And we are treated to their boasting for 2 hours, while the victims and their suffering become an abstraction, and even a source of amusement. Herman, the fat pig of a paramilitary leader, enlists locals to help recreate scenes of terror and kidnapping in the streets. It’s a spectacle to everyone involved, with laughter and joy taken in the recreating of their own country men’s misery. “They burned our house down!” Herman says, mocking and mimicking the families of victims, while people in the street laugh and laugh. They calmly recount how they strangled “communists” using wire. Anwar tap dances on the same roof where he supposedly killed thousands. We meet a newspaperman, who occupied the same building that they killed people in, who claims to be ignorant of what was happening under their shared roof. The Pancasila paramilitary group to which they belonged still thrives, and essentially rules the streets. We see their rallies, which seem stuck in a time warp, as they rail against communists, and claim that the origin of the word “gangster” is “free man” over and over again. In case you thought they were just violent, we are treated to their leader playing golf and making disgusting comments about the female caddie’s genitalia. So we learn they are sexist too. Anwar, Herman, and others begin recreating interrogation scenes quite convincingly, but in a very movie-like exaggerated manner.

Given very little context for what is happening, things become very confusing at times. When we are introduced to Anwar’s neighbor, who tells a story of how his relatives were killed, I didn’t know if that was part of the movie they were making or not. Some of the recreations have a nightmarish quality to them, that frankly felt like what a self-indulgent director would do given an unlimited budget. But we never get a sense of how the film they think they are making comes together, or how the “scenes” relate to the historical context we are not given.

We eventually also learn that the killings may have been a cover for the genocide of the Chinese population of Indonesia. When Herman runs for office, we learn that the populace can be bribed for their vote, and he who bribes the best will win the election. Herman loses, and we lose respect for the general populace of Indonesia for seemingly accepting and participating in the corruption that they are essentially victims of. We get to see the members of the paramilitary shake down business owners for protection money, so some sympathy may remain.

Everything I mentioned up to this point happens in the first half of the film. At the hour and 15 minute mark, we got antsy, wondering how much longer this indulgence in depravity could last. I have to admit that I stopped watching at that point, and watched the last 45 minutes just today, a week or so later. Despite several scenes highlighting the natural beauty of Indonesia, the whole country seems like a place to never visit. Oppenheimer treats the viewer to repeatedly observing the actions of people who are the opposite of self-aware at best, and the worst of humanity at worst, without challenging them in any way, shape, or form. I can imagine Herzog taking the same material, and giving it shape and form, and purpose. I can imagine the director of The Devil Came on Horseback or even The Square allowing these people to have their say, but placing their actions in the context of the misery and strife they create. With The Devil Came on Horseback, it was clear what the benefit of the film was. No one would have heard about the suffering in Darfur without it.

And to those who might say that I missed the point of this film, I would point them to Errol Morris’ own The Fog of War, which essentially is a long sustained interview with a “villain” who may have also been to some a mass murderer. The implications, context, and consequences of one man’s actions are clear, even if what we do about it is not. But we inherently as Americans should have wrestled with what we saw because we understood its context and significance. And for what it’s worth, we see a man genuinely wrestle with his conscience, in an understated but genuine way, quite the opposite of the showiness of Anwar’s coming to terms with his actions. So then what is the point of this film? What was the point of going on for 2 hours, letting these people take joy in recreating their own murderous crimes? What are we supposed to learn? What are we supposed to do?

I must quote the following from Jennifer Merin, who quotes her colleague, who also sums up my feelings about the film: “During a post-screening conversation I had with BBC Commissioning Editor Nick Fraser, he commented. ‘It’s as though a documentary filmmaker went down to Argentina, found some ex-Nazis and gave them some money to make a film about how much fun they’d had killing Jews during the Holocaust. Everyone would be horrified. But in this case, it’s about Indonesia. People don’t know as much about it, so they don’t take exception in the same way.’ Insightful and pithy, as always, Fraser’s take on the film and the general response to it just about sums up my own” (2).

But Oppenheimer has the nerve to say the message of his film is “there’s just people.” No, there are people who murder and get away with it, and boast and revel in it. But allowing them to revel in it, without ever really questioning them during the whole process, should leave Oppenheimer with a dirty feeling. Sorry, Oppenheimer, Anwar does not truly come to terms with his actions. A few minutes of hacking up phlegm, or wretching, or whatever he does, does not even begin to count as contrition. If Hitler had come to terms with his actions by getting a little sick, would that mean anything to anyone?

Even better than that, put Hitler in place of Anwar in the penultimate scene of the film. Remember the waterfall fantasy scene at the beginning of the movie? We return to that scene, this time to the tune of “Born Free” (there they go again with the whole “free man” thing) where Anwar is a god like figure, Herman is a grotesque drag queen, and beautiful dancers surround them. Insert two downtrodden dirty people who have wire around their neck, which should immediately for the viewer place these as two of Anwar’s victims. They remove the wire from their neck, and thank Anwar for “sending them to heaven.”

Grotesque. Indulgent. Complicit. Depraved.

Anyone watching this film should read the following, which calls into question the veracity of the claims of the participants in this film:

BFI Review

Also, read the few negative reviews I could find for other reasons to not praise this film:

About.com Review

Filmracket Review 

So that leaves us with the Oscar Documentary Challenge, that I should have finished a month ago. The good news is that 20 Feet From Stardom is now on streaming! So you can decide for yourself on how to rank all five documentaries nominated by the Academy. For me, the order from best to worst would be:

1. The Square

2. 20 Feet from Stardom

3. Dirty Wars

4. Cutie and the Boxer

5. The Act of Killing

Methinks that Blackfish could have been a nomination. I will have to watch that soon.

My IMDB Rating of The Act of Killing: 1 out of 10

My Netflix Rating: 1 out of 5

References:

1) APPLEBAUM, STEPHEN (13 April 2013) Indonesia’s killing fields revisited in Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary. The Australian

2) MERIN, JENNIFER (2013) The Act of Killing- Movie Review- 2013. About.com

Review of Act of Valor (2012), leaving Netflix April 3

 Image

 

Act of Valor (2012) sold itself as “an unprecedented blend of real-life heroism and original filmmaking.” This blend comes from using real Navy SEALs to star as themselves, with some scenes featuring Hollywood actors portraying terrorists or CIA agents (the only actor I recognized was Roselyn Sanchez). This seems like a cool idea to pitch to movie producers eager to tap into underserved movie audiences. You are part of that audience if you are looking for flattering portrayals of American Military (aka “patriotic”), you believe we are the best country in the history of the world, and you like your film to have an uncomplicated (aka trite) message (aka propaganda) confirming that we are the best country in the world with the best military.

I won’t be able to say much original about this movie that you couldn’t read more or less on Rotten Tomatoes. First of all, although it may have been unprecedented to use Navy SEALs, it wasn’t necessarily wise. If you want an unprecedented look at our military at war, find yourself a copy of Restrepo (2010). The SEALs are quite capable of acting their way through the action scenes, yet they are given way too much exposition in this film. It is the worst acting in film history (ok, maybe not the worst), and really just made me think that a porno was going to break out at any second. I appreciate the commitment to the concept of using the real people, but at some point someone should have thrown in a real actor to carry some of the scenes that are full of wooden soldiers delivering wooden dialogue, woodenly.

As for the action scenes, many people have praised them as being the positive aspect of the film. The scene where they extract a CIA agent from a terrorist jungle outpost is well done, and exciting on some level. But it also seems to be inspired by video games like Call of Duty more than any other films. You will have traditional action scenes, which are well done and orchestrated, broken up by the camera switching to the viewpoint of a SEAL, much like a first person shooter. Also, you get an aerial view of the river boats that are part of the rescue operation that is directly above the action. It’s shot in a way that reminds me of Age of Empires or other real-time strategy games from the past. It makes sense that Act of Valor received a Movie: Action nomination for the Teen Choice awards. The first action scene also is the best. Unfortunately the last action scene, where the SEALs are deployed just south of the Mexican border to stop terrorists entering the country, is underwhelming, full of cliches (such as one man sacrificing himself to save the lives of his fellow soldiers), and for a film touting its realism, feels a bit false, as if it belongs to an ’80’s action flick.

The plot is fairly standard. The recovered CIA agent found information that helps the SEAL team track a group of Chechen-backed terrorists who are scheming to enter the United States and blow themselves up using vests with undetectable explosives. Actual actors help you keep interest in a storyline that at times ventures into being good enough to be the basis for a season of 24. But seeing that 24 alone had dealt with similar material to varying degrees of effectiveness for 9 seasons, I needed a bit more from the movie. For example, having identifiable characters with charisma would have been a start. Every single SEAL in this movie (with the exception of the token non-Caucasians) just seems like some guy you would see at an OC beach.

I prefer the realism of fictional movies, such as Black Hawk Down, The Hurt Locker, Jar Head, even Saving Private Ryan, over this film. Using “real” people doesn’t make for a more realistic, visceral experience for the viewer. Especially when you have nothing new or interesting to say. Catch the movie if you are a fan of military action; otherwise, skip it. It will be leaving streaming tomorrow at any rate.

My IMDB rating: 5 out of 10

My Netflix rating: 2 out of 5

 

 

The Netflix Oscar Documentary Challenge

I’m not the first blogger to catch this, but I’ll blog away. Netflix has four out of the five documentaries nominated for the Oscars available for streaming. I am committing to watching these four before Oscar night on March 2nd.

Image

 

I’ve heard great things about The Act of Killing and the seriousness of the subject matter makes it a strong contender for the prize. Lacking a documentary about THE Holocaust, which usually means an automatic victory in the documentary category (unless a film is up against another Holocaust doc), a film about genocide would seem to be the closest thing we have this year. The synopsis on IMDB just sounds insane: “A documentary that challenges former Indonesian death squad leaders to reenact their real-life mass-killings in whichever cinematic genres they wish, including classic Hollywood crime scenarios and lavish musical numbers.”

Image

I’ve mentioned this Netflix exclusive before. The Square draws its name from the site of the unrest in Cairo, Egypt. The documentary could be a contender because it’s topical and current, and quite possibly relevant and relatable than the others in the category. The IMDB synopsis: “A group of Egyptian revolutionaries battle leaders and regimes, risking their lives to build a new society of conscience.” I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it should be interesting.

Image

 

I had never heard of this one before the nominations had come out. The IMDB synopsis: “This candid New York love story explores the chaotic 40-year marriage of famed boxing painter Ushio Shinohara and his wife, Noriko. Anxious to shed her role as her overbearing husband’s assistant, Noriko finds an identity of her own.” Well, I’m not sold on this one. It could very well be interesting, but if I don’t appreciate their art, or find it all pretentious, this one might be tedious. I don’t see this one winning, but I’m keeping an open mind about it.

Image

This is also not a title I’ve heard of, but the director, Rick Rowley, has a familiar face. Dirty Wars also deals with the Middle East and terrorism: “Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill is pulled into an unexpected journey as he chases down the hidden truth behind America’s expanding covert wars..” 

AVAILABLE ON DVD FROM NETFLIX:

Image

The one documentary that I have seen is only available on DVD from Netflix. 20 Feet From Stardom shines the light on the singers in the background who have the most amazing voices, have recorded some of the greatest moments in rock and pop history (The Rolling Stones’ Gimme Shelter, for example), and have been criminally ignored and practically stolen from by the music industry. “Backup singers live in a world that lies just beyond the spotlight. Their voices bring harmony to the biggest bands in popular music, but we’ve had no idea who these singers are or what lives they lead, until now.” A well done documentary, but will the subject matter be “important” enough for the Academy? It was definitely a crowd pleaser when I saw it in the theater.

My IMDB Rating: 8/10

My Netflix rating: 4/5

So I have enough time to watch the other four documentaries over the next 5 weeks, and post the reviews here. I’ll have my winner before March 2. Right now of course, 20 Feet From Stardom is in first place!

The Baader Meinhof Complex until 12/8

Image

The latest movie in my queue to disappear from streaming is The Baader Meinhof Complex (2008) which is the story of a German Terrorist Group from the 1970’s. I saw this movie in the theater, and while it was entertaining in parts, it was kind of a mess, and went on too long (150 minutes when it could have been two). If you check out the IMDB page for this title, the review that is currently featured pretty much sums up my opinion of the film as well. I find stories of terrorism before 9/11 to be inherently fascinating, but this movie had too many points in it where the action dragged or my interest waned for me to wholeheartedly recommend it.

My IMDB Rating: 6 out of 10 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765432/?ref_=nv_sr_1

My Netflix rating: 3 out of 5

(A)sexual or How a title completely disappears from Netflix

MV5BMjI0MjgyMDc4Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTgyMTg3OA@@._V1_SY317_CR5,0,214,317_

So my last post about the disappearing titles excluded a fourth subsequent discovery, a 2011 documentary called (A)sexual. I watch it right before the deadline, and now while I’m looking for it on Netflix, it’s as if it never existed. It reminds of that awful movie with Julianne Moore (The Forgotten) where everybody forgets they had children because of something something something.

Back to the movie, which you can find on IMDB still (try my link below or try searching for David Jay, the main subject, typing (A)sexual stumps the IMDB search as well). This is a documentary about people who have no sexual attraction, called Asexuals. I had seen the Montel Williams episode years ago with David Jay (yes, I’ve spent too much of my life watching bad tv) so I was aware of this population of people. My viewing partner (aka my wife) was not. Although the documentary was interesting, it felt more like an intro to the subject for both of us, and left us with unanswered questions. Is anyone further exploring the supposed link between autism and asexuality? for example. This documentary is only an hour and 15 minutes, so any in-depth discussion might still its thunder a bit. The aforementioned David Jay is a main focus of this film, and over the course of the documentary goes through a realization that both I, my wife, and the always entertaining Dan Savage, who was interviewed in the documentary, found troubling. Is it fair for an asexual to have a relationship with a sexual being? Dan and I also were bothered a bit by asexuals positioning themselves as a movement/group that seeks to fall under the LGBT banner. (Savage humorously calls the resulting LGBTA an “alphabet soup”). I completely understand their need to raise awareness, but I don’t think they have gone thru the same struggle as homosexuals for acceptance. It doesn’t seem that the consequences of asexuality extend beyond social awkwardness or being misunderstood. Maybe they still have a struggle ahead of them in that sense, because even the LGBT community has trouble understanding it at this point. I guess that is the main problem with the documentary- it makes you aware of asexuality in an entertaining way, but does it really help you understand it? Do you really know what makes these people tick? For the most part, no. And since Netflix has made this title disappear like a child in a bad sci fi movie, you may never find out for yourself.

The Asexuality website if you want to learn more: http://www.asexuality.org/home/

My IMDB rating: 6 out of 10 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1811293/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1a

My Netflix rating : 3 out of 5