Review XXXVII - Lincoln

Review XXXVII
Lincoln (2012)

The Golden Globes and Academy Awards are drawing closer and closer, and I've been looking up the films that have a high probability of being the contenders for "Best Picture", "Best Foreign Film", "Best Director", and all for the Oscars. This year's prediction for "Best Picture" (as well as "Best Actor in a Leading Role", among other nominations) for the Oscars is none other than Steven Spielberg's historical film Lincoln, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, and Tommy Lee Jones.

I might as well provide a bit of a history lesson again before I review the film. I don't know American history very well, so it did me some good to be informed before the film began. It explains it later on in the film, but regardless, here it is! During the 1850s, the United States was seeing a separation between the South and North due to the debate between the expansion of slavery. Seven Southern states (South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas) ended up forming their own sort-of union, the Confederate States of America, in 1861. This occurred shortly after republican Abraham Lincoln (who openly opposed the expansion of slavery) won the presidential election in 1860, but before his inauguration (before he was sworn in, you could say). The North (or the Union) and the South soon began a Civil War that same year in relation to slavery. The war lasted until 1865 when the Confederacy was finally defeated and slavery was abolished.

The film begins in 1865, soon after Abraham Lincoln (Daniel Day-Lewis) wins his second term in office. Abraham Lincoln is talking to two Black soldiers serving in the Civil War. While one of them aims to be friendly with the president, the other speaks out against the injustices that Blacks face, especially given the fact they are allowed to participate in the war amongst the whites. It is revealed that Abraham Lincoln is proposing to add the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This amendment is to abolish slavery. He believes if he can get this to pass, it will end the war. However, many states are proving to be a problem as they are sitting on the fence about the issue or simply opposing it. The film focuses on his journey to get the amendment into the constitution and to end the war.

Every time I ever discussed the abolishment of slavery in the United States with friends, they always told me Abraham Lincoln did it for his own benefit, not because he was actually against slavery. When the film began, I went in with this very idea, which ruined the beginning of the film for me. However, no one can say Abraham Lincoln's true reasons for ending slavery except for Lincoln himself, and he's been dead for almost a century and a half. For this reason, I decided to just enjoy the film instead of trying to take everything as historical fact, and I did. I can't really comment on the plot since it is a historical interpretation ("I hate how the war lasted four years. Only four? That doesn't make sense!"), but I can say that it was definitely interesting. Even if you are not American or even into history that much, the film is still interesting. It's well put together, and even though you know the end result, it still provides suspense. The story is also interesting and it was well portrayed.

I was really surprised by Abraham Lincoln at first. He's a soft-spoken man even though he appears to tower over most of the people he encounters. However, I thought Daniel Day-Lewis did a wonderful job. Lincoln is a great speaker, a man who is very caring, and struggling to make the country united once again while providing the Blacks of America what they have been asking for for ages. Daniel Day-Lewis delivers a spectacular performance as the 16th president of the United States, and it is easy to see why he has won two Oscars. Could he potentially win a third? Yes, definitely, though I still have other films to watch, heh... I thought David Strathairn did a wonderful job as William Seward, and Tommy Lee Jones was also phenomenal as Thaddeus Stevens. I definitely got many laughs out of him. Sally Field also delivered a great performance as Mary Todd Lincoln, Abraham Lincoln's wife. I would have liked to see more of her, but anyway, she portrayed a spunky woman, especially given the time period. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is also in the film (which is actually why I knew of it) as one of Abraham Lincoln's sons, not to mention John Hawkes and Jackie Earle Haley!

The film is not spectacular, but I can't say I didn't enjoy it, either. I give the film seven stars on ten. The film is an obvious choice for "Best Picture", and Daniel Day-Lewis gave a wonderful performance (as well as Tommy Lee Jones and David Strathairn). When I say obvious, I want you to know that it just seems like the type of film that would win. While I think Daniel Day-Lewis's performance will be remembered, the film can win "Best Picture" for 2012, but I'm not sure if it will be remembered as fondly in, say, fifty years time. A good film, but not a classic.

Also, I think the poster is beautiful.

Review XXXVI - Amour

Review XXXVI
Amour (2012)

I am not new to the works of Michael Haneke. I've watched his 2001 film, La pianiste, or the The Piano Teacher, for its English release.The Piano Teacher won the Grand Prize at the 2001 Cannes festival.I've heard of Funny Games (the original and the remake) and Das weiße Band, Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte, or, as it is known in English-speaking countries, The White Ribbon. The White Ribbon won the Palme d'Or for best film at the Cannes festival and the Golden Globes award for best foreign film in 2009 and was nominated for Best Foreign Film that year at the Oscars. Obviously this man has a talent for telling a story. In 2012, he won the Palme d'Or again for his latest film, Amour, or Love, in English. Since it is quite possible it might make the final list for the Academy Awards best foreign film as Austria's entry, I decided to check it out.

Firemen break into an apartment and discover a dead woman laying in a bed with flowers in her hands and surrounding her in a taped up room. The next scene cuts to a man playing a piano concert and being congratulated by the same woman who was found in the apartment. This woman is Anne Laurent (Emmanuelle Riva who is married to Georges Laurent (Jean-Louis Trintignant). The two are eighty-something year old retired piano teachers. The two have an musically aspiring daughter, Eva (Isabelle Huppert), and they lead a quiet life in Paris. One day Anne suddenly goes silent and unresponsive while eating breakfast with Georges. Concerned, Georges brings her to the doctor where it is found she has a blocked carotid artery (found in the neck). However, the surgery goes wrong and Anne becomes paralysed on her right side and no longer able to walk properly. Anne makes Georges promise not to bring her to the hospital again. The situation gets worse when Anne suffers from a stroke, and while Georges strains to keep his promise, his own mental well-being is strained as well.

Apparently the film is based on a personal story Michael Haneke experienced in his family. I actually went through a similar predicament recently in a somewhat similar fashion to this. I have to praise the completely realistic depiction it had on the worsening condition of Anne and the stress it has on the family. It definitely made me choke up at times, one for being reminded of what happened with me, but also just because you feel so much for the characters. The plot is depressing, but if a film can capture such a stressful and negative situation in such a way, it definitely deserves a watch and praise.

Emmanuelle Riva did a wonderful job. She shows an aggressive side of wanting to keep a certain level of independence even in her failing state. When she's very sick, she makes, again, a very realistic performance. Jean-Louis Trintignant also shows this mentality of wanting to be independent and show care for his wife even when having to face the difficulties he is forced to encounter. He loves his wife but taking on such a responsibility is extremely hard, especially given he is not in the prime of his life. I thought it was a bit strange that he seemed to lack emotion in certain situations, specifically anger, but when I discussed it with someone, they told me some people just hide their emotions like that. I'm not sure if maybe it was just me, but sometimes his acting seemed lacking when dealing with people telling him what to do. However, he expressed it well in other situations, so maybe I'm just crazy.

The film was a bit peculiar at some points with symbolism really taking over, but Michael Haneke seems to have that in his films. Anyway, it's not a negative element, just an observation. I'd give the film eight stars on ten. The lack of emotion, even if it was intentional, seemed off to me. The ambiguity was also a bit strange at times, but the story itself was very well portrayed most of the time. Some scenes were extremely touching and heart wretching (sniffle). While I think it is a film one should watch, it isn't something to casually watch on a Sunday. This film really asks for your attention and investment, and I say make sure you give it that.

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XXXV - Django Unchained

Review XXXV
Django Unchained (2012)

Happy new year to everyone! I decided to start out 2013 by watching a Quentin Tarantino film, and it was his latest theatrical release, Django Unchained. The film stars Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Kerry Washington, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Samuel L. Jackson, among others.

The film begins with a scene of a group of black slaves being forced to walk in chains across the country. While being transported by their owners, the Speck brothers (James Remar and James Russo), they are stopped by a man who appears to be a dentist, the German Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz). He asks the slaves which one worked for the Brittle brothers previously. Django (Jamie Foxx) is that man, and after quite a persuasive argument with the Speck brothers (cough), Dr. Schultz buys Django. Dr. Schultz reveals himself to be a bounty hunter (he hadn't practised dentristry in five years) and explains there is a bounty on the Brittle brothers, but as he does not know what they look like, he is in need of Django's help. Django agrees, and a partnership is formed. However, Djanhgo's main goal is to find the man who bought his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). This turns out to be Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a plantation owner and Mandingo enthusiast, and Django will stop at nothing to retrieve his wife back.

The first thing I want to talk about, no, need to talk about, is the soundtrack. If there's one thing Quentin Tarantino can do right in his movies (and, in my opinion, he does many "right" things, but anyway), it would be the music he chooses. The film is a Western, and music from several Spaghetti Westerns are taken, but there also some R&B and hip pop, which may sound inappropriate, but it worked well in this film. The film was enjoyable even just for the music. It worked well with each scene, and while it was jarring to just cut off the wonderful music after a scene was done (slight exaggeration) which seemed to happen often, it was superb.

Now for the film itself. I thought the story was interesting. It takes on a different light on the slave trade that occurred in the United States, similar to that of how Inglourious Basterds took World War II in a different light in relation to the Jews. Obviously there still exists some more realistic elements to the film (e.g. the language used and violence the blacks endured), but this is Quentin Tarantino's depiction of it, in a sense. It's definitely original, but what more can we expect from this director? If you've seen any Quentin Tarantino movie, you know he takes the B-movie element of originality and brought it into the mainstream media with near perfect success. I'm over-praising, sorry. The story is a love story, but the main theme is slave exploitation. It's always present, it's always there, but with a twist. How many times have I said "twist" and "light" in this paragraph? Too many. It's a Western, so it has violence in it, obviously, and let's just add the fact that it is a Quentin Tarantino movie, so while there is gore, it's overdone to make it comical. The film also had its taste of black (ahhh, pun intended!) and dark humour, which makes you laugh, despite the seriousness of the situation. I love dark humour, and this film had just the right amount.

The acting. Well, I don't really think I need to go in detail. Look for yourself - Jamie Foxx (won an Oscar), Christoph Waltz (won an Oscar, and he's Austrian - yes, I am totally of Austrian/German/Lithuanian descent partly), Leonardo DiCaprio (nominated for an Oscar three times), and Samuel L. Jackson (nominated for an Oscar). Hell, throw away the Oscar and other awards bit, and I'm sure you can name them in multiple films you enjoyed. These people can act, thus it's only expected that they would do wonderfully in their roles. They did. Jamie Foxx is a strong character who is haunted by the memory of his wife and forced to succumb to the segregated and racist Southern peoples and laws. Christoph Waltz plays a sympathetic and apathetic man who doesn't care about the colour of your skin, but, rather, cares about the justice he sees fit. Leonardo DiCaprio comes off, to me, as slightly caring towards the black population, but that slight care only goes to the exceptional - the one in 10 000. Truly a passionate play. Samuel L. Jackson is, well, a jerk, but he plays him well. He's in a good place in his life and will never give it up. He reminded me a bit of Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks. Not to the extreme of hating the blacks and praying to be white, but still speaking down to them. The other actors who took on the roles of being racist Southerns (like Don Johnson, for example) did a great job as well. Kerry Washington, well, it's hard to praise considering she wasn't a protagonist in the film - more of an objective, and please, I did not mean that offensively. Still, she nonetheless proved a good actress in the intense scenes she was in. She also spoke German wonderfully!

I wrote a lot more than I normally do. Sorry about that... I'd give the film eight point two stars on ten. The plot was great, though the film did feel like it was dragging near the end. It could have been wrapped up earlier on, but the ending itself was still good - typical Quentin Tarantino, but I suppose that alone could tell you whether or not this film is for you.

Review XXXIV - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Review XXXIV
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

As I mentioned in my Dead Alive/Braindead review, I've only watched the first Lord of the Rings film. Though I have the series, I never got around to reading it, and I tried reading the Hobbit a while back, but I was too young, I believe, to fully understand it, so I gave up after chapter one. Of course, all this didn't stop me from watching the newest installment to the Lord of Rings franchine, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, starring Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman (I do not watch Sherlock, but I know of the obsession) as Gandalf and Bilbo Baggins, respectively. I can't compare it to the novel, nor even to the other films that follow in the series (except the first), so my opinions will be based purely on the film alone.

I missed a bit of the beginning of the film, but it starts off with Bilbo, a hobbit, as an older man (Ian Holm) telling Frodo (Elijah Wood) a story about the journey that changed him. This journey cuts to Bilbo as a young man (Martin Freeman) smoking on a bench in front of his house. Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), a wizard, approaches him and asks him if he'd like to participate in a journey. Bilbo automatically refuses and thinks this will be the end of the affair. Quite the opposite - that night, thirteen dwarves (the leader being Thorin - played by Richard Armitage) appear at his doorstep and ask him to be the burglar on their journey to reclaim Lonely Mountain, their home before it was taken from them by a dragon. Reluctant at first, Bilbo eventually agrees to help them, and so begins his unexpected journey.

I saw the film in 3D, but I'll tell you now that the three-dimensional effects were not extraordinary. I'd say skip out on it - it doesn't make it that exciting. However, the scenery was very beautiful - whether it be the made up villages or just the mountains and fields of New Zealand. Aesthetically, it was extremely appealing. I enjoyed just watching it for how beautifully it was put together.

The plot itself I thought was interesting. I mean, J. R. R. Tolkien's books are pretty well known, at least in the English speaking areas, so even if you never saw any of the films, you know that the point of the Lord of the Rings was to destroy the "ring to rule them all." The first film for the Hobbit is the prequel to the series so, though it is about the dwarves reclaiming their home land, it also shows the evil that was lurking prior to the events of the ring and its discovery of the masses. Anyway, the main plot itself is interesting. It's one of heroism and adventure, and if you love fantasy (and, most likely consequently, read the Hobbit), then you'll love it. I heard complaints that there were a lot of scenes that could have been taken out of the film because they weren't necessary for the main plot, and considering the film was ten minutes short of three hours, it would have been appreciated. I personally didn't feel the film was that long while I watched it, and I enjoyed every scene. Sure, some parts could have been shortened, but I don't know, I think it was still really enjoyable. It added to the authenticity of the film to the novel. However, yes, I can agree that the film could have been shortened for its cinematic release. The bit with Radagast the Brown was unnecessary, but I still enjoyed it, even if it was a short-lived part of the film. The acting was also really good - I especially enjoyed Martin Freeman's perfomance. Everyone played their part very well.

My friend also told me that they apparently mentioned the titles of the chapters every time a new one began. I can't confirm this, but if you're looking for an easter egg, this could potentially be one.

Overall, I really enjoyed the film. I'd give it eight point five stars on ten. It could have been cut in length, and some parts were a bit peculiar being there given they are never followed up on. Nonetheless, I totally bought into it. Again, I can't compare it to the novel, but I really enjoyed the first film, and since I got to see it in theatres, I found I appreciated this one even more. Definitely worth a watch if you enjoy fantasy and amazingly gorgeous visuals!

Review XXXIII - Christmas Horror Double Feature

Review XXXIII
Christmas Horror Double Feature

Nothing represents the holidays better than a horror film commemorating the violent depiction of Christmas! Today I'll present you with two films I thought might be worth a watch this year. We'll see if, however, they deserve an annual watching...

--

Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984)

We shall start with our first film, Charles E. Sellier Jr.'s Silent Night, Deadly Night, released in 1984 which spawned quite a few sequels (even if some really did stray away from the original plot) and a lot of controversy when it was released.

It's Christmas Eve and five-year-old Billy Chapman (Jonathan Best) is on his way to visit his mentally unstable grandfather (Will Hare) who is currently in a mental hospital. He's excited for Santa to come and deliver his presents, and, while his mother warns him he must go to bed on time to make sure Santa does come, his spirits aren't too dampered... Until his grandfather warns him, in secret, that Santa will punish him severely if he is naughty and proceeds to laugh maniacally. Billy's spirit takes even more abuse when a man dressed as Father Christmas murders his parents in cold blood as the family heads back to their home. Nothing to worry about, right? That is what the head nun, Mother Superior, is convinced of three years later when she forces the orphaned eight-year-old Billy (Danny Wagner), who is staying in her orphanage, to be severely punished for being frightened of Santa. Skip ahead ten years and Billy (Robert Brian Wilson) seems to be well off - good-looking, strong, and obviously charming - until the Christmas season rolls around... Now he's going to take matters into his own hands and punish all who have been naughty.

The acting from eighteen-year-old Billy (Robert Wilson) was also really bland. It starts off with him looking charming, but he soon comes off as just an asshole. I had no feeling for him whatsoever - he just seemed so wooden. However, I thought five-year-old Billy and eight-year-old Billy were really good. Isn't it usually the opposite? Aren't the child actors usually worse than the adult ones? Anyway, the other acting was decent enough, but adult Billy... I guess I can't necessarily complain about his acting as much as the writer must have just wanted to take away all emotion from him, as well as dialogue.

I was pretty disappointed with the film for one real reason - it's not really about Santa being evil, but just about a person who goes insane. Billy watched the absolutely appalling event of his parents' murder and then was beaten and petrified into thinking if he questioned Santa, he would be punished severely. This is just the tale of a kid who had a rotten childhood and who ended up becoming mentally unstable. I just found it pretty dissatisfying because the Christmas element isn't even necessary for the film. Take it away and Billy could just be a killer who believes people should be punished. I mean, punishment is what is emphasised, right? You don't need Santa Clause to deliver punishment. Look at Jack the Ripper or Peter Sutcliffe, a.k.a. the Yorkshire Ripper - they murdered prostitutes because they believed they had to be punished. This film takes this and just slaps on Christmas - my guess is to ensure people would watch it at least once a year.

I can see why it was controversial at the time, and, given the shooting in Connecticut that happened recently as well as other spree killings that happen pretty frequently, could definitely turn people off. Still, the killings themselves aren't anything too gruesome or spectacular. Actually, I take that back - Billy has super human strength at times. Spoiler: at one point, he takes a woman and impales her into the antlers of a deer mounted on the wall, and no blood sprays everywhere. Sigh... If you're going to make it unrealistic, at least go crazy with it. Not to mention he often kills people that shouldn't even be punished and leaves ones that should be alive. This film had such random killings, not to mention few were done very Christmasy. Nope, I'm not letting that Christmas theme go.

I really complained about this one, didn't I? As much as I thought it was dumb, I wasn't really that bored watching it. I'd give if seven stars on ten - losing most of its points for its lack of Christmas being involved in the plot. I think the film would have been better without the idea of Santa in it, or if it had been incorporated better into the film. Still, it's a horror film, so what did I really expect?

Pirate Bay torrent

--

Santa's Slay (2005)

I suppose David Steiman's Santa's Slay is a bit of a cheap shot in relation to it being referred to as a "horror" film since it's most of a comedy, but hey, I call the shots around here! Let's check it out.

You know a film will be special when it opens to Fran Drescher putting a turkey on the table for her family who include Chris Kattan, Rebecca Gayheart, and James Caan! The dinner is interrupted when Santa (Bill Goldberg) comes down the chimney - and no, he isn't bearing gifts, he's bearing murder! Cut to Nicholas Yuleson (Douglas Smith) and Mary Mackenzie (Emilie de Ravin) receiving gifts from their boss, Mr. Green (Saul Rubinek), a Jewish deli shop owner. Nicholas is our protagonist, and he's known for being the grandson of a crazy old man (Robert Culp). However, his grandfather reveals the truth about Santa to him, finding out Santa has been under-contract to deliver gifts to children for Christmas for the last one thousand years after losing a bet to an angel. However, he is actually the antichrist and now that the contract is over, he's eager to kill everyone. It's up to Nick, his grandfather, and his love interest, Mary, to save Hell Township (no, they are not in Norway) and the whole world from Santa.

Where Silent Night, Deadly Night failed, Santa's Slay succeeded - it used the aspect of Christmas perfectly. The film is about Santa being a crazy demon and he actually kills people festivally. It's all done with a comic undertone, which I really liked. I'm biased in that I find horror movies take themselves too seriously sometimes and just throw out the idea of being scary and instead aim to be shockers, like in the case of Silent Night, Deadly Night. This film decided to just make itself gorey and have the underlying demon idea (thus horror), but it brought in comedy as well (dark/black humour). This, to me, is the perfect mix for a Christmas horror film.

Robert Culp's acting is really lacking sometimes, but his lines made me laugh regardless. In fact, the film had some really funny lines. It doesn't rely on really lame jokes (though they do exist), and instead exploits on the outright greed most people have. I also thought it was awesome seeing so many cameos from famous actors; e.g. the pastor in the film is Dave Thomas. While I suppose it does date the film a bit since some of the actors/actresses are no longer popular, because the film came out in 2005, it totally fits with my generation and older ones as well.

I won't analyse the film too much because it's meant to be taken as a joke, so I'll just give my rating - eight stars. It's a high rating, but it gave me what I wanted: a killer Santa and spirit-of-Christmas deaths. I didn't expect much, but it satisfied me with that and threw in hilarity. It's no masterpiece, that's for sure, but if you're looking for a short, funny yet horrific Christmas film, check out Santa's Slay. Merry Christmas everyone, and to those who don't celebrate, at least you're getting time off from work/school!

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XXXII - Withnail & I

Review XXXII
Withnail & I (1987)

I received Bruce Robinson's Withnail and I as a Christmas gift last year after having been obsessed with it for ages. I've decided to make watching this film around the holidays a tradition (we'll see how long that lasts). The film stars Richard E. Grant (first thought is Spice World and Warlock - sorry), Paul McGann (the Eighth Doctor), Richard Griffiths (the Harry Potter franchise), and Ralph Brown. It has become a cult classic over the years, but does it really deserve its status? Let's find it!

The film opens to a man smoking, revealing the date to be 1969. Meet the "& I" character of the story (now often referred to as Marwood), played by Paul McGann, a neurotic and pretty crazy down-on-his-luck unemployed actor. Thankfully he has his good friend Withnail (Richard E. Grant), another down-on-his-luck unemployed actor who has a continuous craving for booze, to accompany him in the misery that is their lives. The two decide to escape the city life by bribing Monty (Richard Griffiths), Withnail's queer (in different ways) uncle, in order to stay in his cottage in the country. Things go astray quickly, but as long as the two have the finest wines known to humanity, they should make it out alive.

The first thing I will comment on is its amazing soundtrack. The first scene where Marwood smokes becomes hauntingly beautiful with the addition of the song A Whiter Shade of Pale performed live by King Curtis. Not to mention there does include Jimi Hendrix's version of All Along the Watchtower, his own song Voodoo Child, and The Beatles While My Guitar Gently Weeps. A little tidbit - this is one of the few films to actually include a Beatles song as the surviving members don't often allow their own version of their songs to be in films. The reason it was allowed in this film? George Harrison was a producer and allowed for it to be played. The other songs included are interesting too, but those were the ones that stuck out the most for me as they were the ones I recognised.

I've always been fascinated with the stories of people's lives, even if they are fictional. Films like these, ones just portraying the chaotic events of an individual and how they survived - I find I really enjoy. I feel it seems really biased for me to just judge the plot thus, but personally, I thought this was a really interesting film. Pain is ubiquitous, and it's interesting to see how each person can take it through the use of cinematography. The film also portrays a world I have never experienced - the sixties, for one, and it being in Britain is another. I get to experience life through one individual's anecdote while watching this film, and it's well done. It's well written, humourous, but not excluding the bittersweet end that will always appear eventually.

The acting was well done as well. I have only one complaint, and I've never been sure if this was just ignored or what. At the end of the film (don't worry, I am not going to reveal anything), Marwood at one point is reading a letter while Withnail laughs. It's obvious Paul McGann is supressing laughter, and while later he does actually laugh, I was never sure if this was deliberate or not... It seems odd that he would be laughing, but then again, given the circumstance, it's quite possible he would laugh. I have no personal experience so I wouldn't know. Anyway, besides that one scene where I've always wondered, the acting was great. Richard E. Grant and Paul McGann do great jobs, and Richard Griffiths really steals the show with his portrayal as Monty.

I'd give the film eight stars on ten. It's interesting if you enjoy just listening to a short story in someone's life, and the actors in the film really give you a feel for each character. I'd recommend it to anyone willing to give this quirky film a try any time of the year.

More holiday spirited films to come! (Hopefully!)

Pirate Bay torrent

Review XXXI - Global Metal

Review XXXI
Global Metal (2008)

If there's one thing I've really enjoyed about my post secondary education, it would be that I have been exposed to a lot of cultures I never really knew about. I've always been fascinated with different ethnicities, and I hope, one day, to travel abroad to experience them first hand. However, for now, I take it in by listening to people talk about themselves, watching films (as you guys can clearly see), and listening to different music, among other things. Music can really capture a place, whether it be its beauty or its ideas, and I've learned that restricting myself to one particular genre of music is really just a shame. You miss out on so much and your close minded views don't even benefit you because you only make people groan when you yell out that such-and-such a band is the only good thing out there. I've been trying to get to know the more obscure bands of different countries lately, especially ones I don't really know about, and so I decided to sit down to (finally) watch Sam Dunn's and Scot McFadyen's documentary Global Metal. I watched Metal: A Headbanger's Journey maybe two years after it came out, definitely before Global Metal was made, and I thought it was a really great documentary that got a great view on metal by interviewing people in the metal scene. Did Global Metal do as great a job? Let us dive in and find out!

The title of the film is pretty self-explanatory - the film brings us around the world to discover different metal scenes in areas you wouldn't have guessed actually had a metal scene. While I do listen to Sepultura and Angra from Brasil, and the occasional random metal band from Japan, I was really intrigued when they delved into India, Indonesia, Israel (wow), even Saudi Arabia and Iran. I mean, it seems a bit ludicrous and naive to imagine that absolutely no one from Israel listens to metal, but it's not something I would have ever associated Israel with, nor Saudi Arabia and Iran, that's for sure. But that's the point of the documentary - to show that metal doesn't just exist in North America (Canada and the United States especially) and Europe, but in Asia and the Middle East too.

The film, again, was presented in the form of interviews to present the information, whether it be with well known musicians like Marty Friedman and Lars Ulrich or simply fans of the genre. I really liked this format in A Headbanger's Journey, and I really liked it here. Who knows more about the phenomena of metal in a said country than a fan from that country? Who can speak of the experiences of playing a show for the first time in Indonesia than the band itself? This format makes it a lot more personal, and the people spoke intellectually, at least for the most part, and so I really enjoyed listening to their stories.

The film didn't go into any African countries (though one man from Egypt was spoken to), and I thought that was a bit of a shame. However, I can only name one occasion when someone mentioned hearing about a man from somewhere in Africa who was in a metal band. I don't even know their name or remember much about it at all. I can only assume, without doing a google search, that most of Africa, and I'm talking about more developped countries like South Africa here, doesn't have a big enough growing metal scene. If you have an answer, I'd be happy to hear it.

Global Metal allowed the viewer to see metal's ubiquitousness. While in some it is still small in certain places, it still exists and is growing, even if a country discourages it. I honestly found it inspiring when they interviewed a man from Indonesia when he talked about going to a Metallica show in 1993 (hopefully I remember the date correctly) and being pushed around by officers. I remember scowling because I was talked to sternly at my first metal show when I was twelve... It seems like these people were just rebelling for going to listen to a band - and metal concerts were banned after that concert. It's pretty crazy when you come from a country where you take your freedom of expression and speech for granted.

Personally, I thought this was a great documentary. It was about music, more specifically metal, and it discussed culture in relation to that, bringing two things I love together. I'd give the film eight point four stars on ten, though I don't see it as a documentary everyone can watch. I mean, being a metal fan who's pretty open to different styles of music generally, I was able to appreciate the film with what it delivered. However, if you find metal absolutely repulsive, I wouldn't be able to recommend the film, unless you absolutely love anthropological studies and can overlook the metal aspect. Anyway, if you enjoy metal, I highly recommend it. If you enjoy learning about humanity, I'd recommend it too. It's a well put together film, and honestly one of the best documentaries I've ever seen. [/praise]