Reviews

I saw this film at a film festival and wasn't impressed by it at all. I found it very manipulative and sensationalist. Everything just seemed so black and white in this film: the parents were horrible people and the kids were angels. That's not the way life is! There are some grey areas. I'm sure the parents had some redeeming qualities and the kids had some flaws but I was hard pressed to find them. I just felt I was being manipulated by the filmmaker into believing how horrible parents are in Lebanon because this is the sensationalist news right now! Save your money and go see SHOPLIFTERS instead if you want to see a balanced portrait of a real family.

IMO the reason this was one of the best episodes is because of Shelley Long. Every episode she has appeared in Modern Family has been excellent. This show needs her quirkiness. She especially works well against Ed Neill. It's hard to imagine that they were ever married to each other, but that's what makes their chemistry in the show so good. I think instead of focusing so much on the kids, the show should focus on their mother. It would be interesting to see how the craziness of both Neill and Long contributed to the makeup of the kids. So far it just seems like Long is brought into the show to be used as a monkey wrench in Neill's second marriage. It's just amazing to me how many more stories can be developed if Long was a regular in the show. 3 episodes is not enough of Shelley Long in Modern Family.

I have mixed feelings about 'The Tree of Life.' Let me first tell you the things I liked about it: (1) the stunning cinematography, (2) the poetic images; and (3) the acting--especially Brad Pitt who was a revelation. (I didn't know he could act!) Another thing I liked about it was the story. I grew up with a father like Brad Pitt so I could relate to the Jack character. I didn't think the Brad Pitt character was a horrible father because that's the way most fathers were like back in the '50s. But, at the same time, I could understand why Jack resented his father for a very long time. Now me me tell you the things I didn't like about it. I realize this was an episodic film filled with poetic images like most of Malick's films. I have seen all of his films, and I have to say--I felt 'The Tree of Life' was his weakest. I found it unfocused and underdeveloped. When you really think about it, what as this film really about? Think about it. Strip away all the stunning cinematography and poetic images and what exactly are you left with? Essentially it's a story about the emotional scars a strict father left on his eldest son and as a result, how the son comes to grips with his life through his shaky faith. If you really think about it, 'The Tree of Life' could be a story about the tortured childhood of Job's son. To me, it just didn't seem like that big of a deal to make a movie about that. Another thing I didn't like about it was that I felt the characters were underdeveloped--especially the mother. She just didn't seem to make any kind of impact in the film and she should have. Back then when mothers stayed at home to raise the kids, she was the one who was around Jack more than the father. Yet I didn't see much of a relationship between the two of them. I got the feeling that Jack didn't respect his mother because he thought the father walked all over her. So that was it? That wasn't much of a relationship if you ask me. The whole story just seemed so typical and not very unique or original. That was the biggest problem I had with 'The Tree of Life.' I personally think it's very overrated.

Although the performances of Kate Winslet, Guy Pearce and Evan Racel Wood were all top notch in this 2011 remake, I preferred the original 1945 film. I just found the updated version to be too long. And it really didn't explain things as well as the 1945 version, such as the real reason why Mr. Pierce left his family. I know they make it seem like it was because he had another woman. But in the 1945 movie, it explained why he sought companionship with another woman. He was getting into a lot of arguments with Mrs. Pierce spoiling their daughters--especially Veda. And that's another thing too. In the 2011 version, it really didn't explain why Veda was a spoiled brat. But in the 1945 version, Mrs. Pierce said that she wanted to give the best things for her daughters. Anyway, another reason I liked the 1945 version more was because it had more style. I liked the film-noirness of it. I found the 2011 version to be all so typical and common. Nothing special. I don't know why they even bothered remaking this movie since the original was so much better. 5/10

BIUTIFUL has received major award nominations from the Academy Awards, BAFTA, etc., which is why I went to see this film. However, I just did not care for it. It ran for 2 1/2 hours and it felt longer! I think the problem I had was that I just didn't care for any of the characters, including the Javier Bardem character. None of them were well developed. They all seemed pretty much two-dimensional or caricatures of what we've seen before. For example, the wife of the Javier Bardem character just seemed like "white trash" to me. I realize she was bi-polar and all that, but she still seemed unfit for a mother, and I have no idea what the Javier Bardem character saw in her as a potential wife--especially with her psychological disorder. None of this was explained. Now let's talk about the Javier Bardem character's brother. He was the typical sleezy brother who ran a nightclub and had no regard for his brother. (I could see why the Javier Bardem character didn't tell him that he had cancer nor ask him to watch his kids after he died.) Finally, let's talk about the Javier Bardem character. Who raised him and his brother? How did he wind up getting involved in illegal immigration? What did he see in his slutty ex-wife or whoever she was (because I'm still not clear on her marital status). I think the problem with a lot of films is that they don't explain that much so it leaves the moviegoer with no emotion connection. That's what happened to me.

I wonder if Mikisoq H. Lynge, who wrote IMDb' Storyline, actually saw NUUMMIOQ? Because if he/she did then why is the Storyline inaccurate? I did in fact see the film. Here is a copy of the storyline, and my revisions to the CAPITALIZED inaccuracies: "After being diagnosed with a terminal illness, Malik joins his best friend on his last boat trip into the fjord. Malik is a 35 year old carpenter living in Nuuk. Things are starting to look bright in Malik's life, when he's diagnosed with terminal cancer and faces a difficult decision: Leaving his hometown to receive medical care that would perhaps prolong his life - or stay in Nuuk with family and friends and die within a few months. Malik and his childhood friend Mikael decide to go on a the last boat trip into the fiord, WHERE THEY SEEK OUT THE CAREFREE WORLD OF THEIR CHILDHOOD. (This is not true at all. They did NOT go on the boat trip to "seek out the carefree world of their childhood." They went on the boat trip because Mikael, who is Malik's COUSIN, wanted to take pictures of the iceberg for a TV commercial.) During this boat trip, the two friends REDISCOVER THEIR FRIENDSHIP (As I said before, Malik and Mikael are COUSINS. They might've grown up together as if their were friends, but the bottom line is that they're family--blood relatives! They share the same grandparents, who are an important part of both of their lives. This would not have happened if they were just FRIENDS?! I'm not sure why Mikisoq H. Lynge insists on calling them "friends"? Another thing--Malik and Mikael were already close so they did not have to go on the boat trip to REDISOVER their friendship.) and Malik is given an opportunity to come to terms with his own imminent death." I just thought I would straighten out that Storyline. I think I know why Mikisoq H. Lynge changed it in some places. He/she probably wanted to make NUUMMIOQ sound a lot more interesting than it actually was. Overall, the film was all right, but it was nothing to write home about. I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was that I found it contrived in some places. **SPOILERS ALERT** For example, wasn't it convenient of the writer(s) to have Malik come across a strange woman who killed herself on the first night of his boat trip thereby forcing him to reevaluate his mortality? Wasn't it also convenient to have Malik's boat run out of gas on their way home thereby forcing them to seek help from the sheep farmer who they make amends with before Malik's death? Finally, wasn't it convenient to have Malik's girlfriend be able to go out on a date with him on the night before he is about to leave for Denmark so he can explain to her his medical condition? I believe NUUMMIOQ had good intentions, but it was difficult for me to relate to or empathize any of the characters due to the "contriveness" of the story.

I saw TREELESS MOUNTAIN at the Hawaii International Film Festival because there was a nice writeup on it in the Honolulu Advertiser. Plus, it won 3 awards at film festivals. I'm not sure what all the acclaim was about because I thought TREELESS MOUNTAIN was horrible. It pretty much focuses on these two girls who were deserted by their mother. I'm not completely clear as to the reason why, but I read somewhere it was because she went off to look for her husband, who deserted her. So that makes a lot of sense. The husband deserts the wife, and the wife deserts her children. Obviously the wife didn't like her husband deserting her (otherwise why would she be looking for him), and didn't even consider that her children may not like being deserted by not only their father but their mother as well! As you can see, there wasn't much character development of the mother. So what we're left with are these two girls, who were first dumped off at their aunt's house. The aunt gets tired of babysitting them so she dumped them off at their grandparents' house. (I'm not sure how old the girls were--probably 7 and 9 years old.) Anyway, the film focuses on these two girls left to their own devices because I guess in Korea it's not a state law for children to go to school. Or, maybe this all happened during summer vacation. Again--this was not clear in the film. Back to these two girls. The camera focuses on them basically doing nothing. You see them manually washing their laundry, their grandmother helping them bake something in the kitchen, and other mundane stuff. I couldn't wait for this movie to be over. I would NOT recommend this movie. If you want to see a better film about a child that was deserted by his parents, I would highly recommend a Brazilian film called THE YEAR MY PARENTS WENT ON VACATION. At least there was more action in that movie.