Change Your Image
JanRZ
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Prozac Nation (2001)
Yin and Yang
Starting with the director. Erik Skjoldbjoerg. I watched his newest film Narvik from 2022 day before Prozac nation, without knowing he also directed this one. It was absolutely spontaneous in this aspect. I usually look at filmography of a director after watching film (normal scenario of watching two films in a row from the same director) but I saw montage of scenes from Prozac Nation accidentally on social site. I was totally stunned when I realized it's the same director, I giggled uncontrollably at that moment, don't know why, you know when something is irrelevantly absurd. I didn't quite catch some significant cinematographic threads between these two films. So it made me rethink all I know about filming process. Was it just phase in his directing career (21 years time difference) and that's why I didn't see the mentioned threads or he just wanted both to be that way so it shouldn't be cinematographically alike? I didn't even avoid the prejudice they found first director to do it, with passion and art aside and money in the center. I try not to have these thoughts, as I would be touched as a film lover. Maybe it's the expression of my overthinking. About cinematography itself, I really liked dollyzooms and close-ups, it really was in harmony with the plot. I guess there was passion in the making after all.
Story is told retrospectively, she writes about it and thinks back (notice what letters in opening credits say). The story is about a girl who has inner pain. It's certainly not that simple, actually this film perfectly shows how complex and complicated depression is. Psychology is not something totally exact, we all have diffrent context of our pain that we want to understand, get rid of or even utilize. It's getting harder in the film when we realize the girl actually knows the potential cause, divorced parents and their terrible relationship. But she doesen't find it simple either. As she says in the film: she doesen't have a simple solution. She is cynical toward the psychiatrist with her Freud references (she knows she needs help but she is scared that she needs help). She confrontates nearly everybody, but thanks to her voice over we know she wants to be the exact opposite of it and she doesen't know where this irrepressible voluntarism comes from. This could be perfectly seen in her changeable relationship with Ruby for example (but really with everyone). She couldn't find herself in the position of helping her mom, who was attacked and robbed (she is not selfish, just tired - at that moment "even heights doesen't scare her anymore", death is not that scary now). She is creative art soul what reflects on her love for music, her reviews on it and her journalistic ambitions. I know she was raised by her mother that way, but she accepts it herself. This is significant for the ones who suffer, they fall into the creativity, into the art. They want to give their life a meaning, give the pain the worth. At the same time it's not just mercenary, it's honest, it's about the moment of existence, it's about creating the beauty. Writing this review is actually the case for me. So girl is very creative, but drugs, drugs,... One would described it as a school life stereotype, but she knows she somehow betrays herself with this. Creativity happens to be morbid as she hasn't slept for days, because drugs stimulated urge to express herself, suddenly she has some kind of sex life indifference. Drugs also affects her family relationships, she gets drunk before her grandparents, disappoints her mom, and the relationship between her mom and dad is disrupted after one call even more. Her friends are worried (about who she has constant brainstorming about their honesty in expression toward her) and she really wants to put perfectly into words Sprinsteen's music, as it totally absorbs her deep inside (she even falls in love with Lou Reed because of his music). Love is the solution, but what is love in this fight against depression? She finds boyfriend that was intelligent, authentic, loyal, but she was so depressed, paranoid, unbalanced confrontating him all the time and when it came to his handicapped sister (that was really sad, i mean it), he decides to end it with her. Towards the end of the film you would think that everything should be solved now when we are almost ending, quite the contrary though. She wants to kill herself close to the end on the toilet of her psychiatrist (they exchange intense eye contact really as she walked there to check). I think it wants to represent how hard and various it is, how it can come at any time, without progress. For that reason also I didn't write this retell of the story in movie time continuity, it doesen't matter, depression is a complete mess. It's strange how much I could relate subconsciously with the things, even though I don't know if I feel them right as they meant to be. But I think it's about exactly that. There is not a bad explanation. Everybody should find their context.
I loved the music, literature, psychology references. I'm the type of person who loves to contemplate (look at this review) and I prefer it before terms like overthinking or brainstorming, because I see meaning in it as I feel great during it. Educating is really the life for me. I love references, really the connections with other art work, in the films. Hemingway, Freud, Springsteen. We could see her contemplations about these and how deep it can go. For me the the reference to the film It's a Wonderful Life was so spot-on. What she tells about that angel from the movie is so relatable true. I think we all feel the same sometimes when we want to know really, to know, know, in order not to suffer.
I find the main idea of the story to be that Hemingway reference. You can gradually and then rapidly crash or bankrupt, if you like, but it's the same way in healing process. It is spontaneous and too complex, just as all your bad things and your thoughts in sense that you don't know how you can heal, it's just starts at any time. Film tells us that prozac is the source of positive change in the depression mess (we have to help ourselves if we can). Millions depressed people use them, whole nation, that's todays world. Whether it's placebo or not, people want it in order to calm up a bit and start breathing again. I loved the scene where the door of a drug store just moves so fast with people sped up going in and out and she is just contemplating about all this problematic watching this without being sped up. Here I would also praise the whole screenplay, it was brilliant, authentic, so strong. Even with that main idea with gradual and rapid healing (as in the case of suffering) at the end in girl's voice over. That was the strongest part for me, because in that voice over that sentiment is not stressed, it's calmy naturally said. Because we have to look at the film as a whole. Probably the biggest emphasis on that idea of a movie is rather structural - it's at the end, but still natural, film is not a pose, film wants to be serious. That's why screenplay is great. At the end she realises she can't be everything (the way of her upbringing). By that, I think or I believe, she realizes everything. The only thing that I'm about to write shortly is Chrsitina Ricci was amazing, because she was.
"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but, I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." easter egg in coulisse of one scene, which I found to be summarization of the complexity of depression.
I'm not affraid of being annoying, boring, vague, or not being brief. Some people read and some don't. And I don't really mind. This film was worth it. I feel better writing this, now I'm gonna read others. Have a lovely day and the rest of your existence. I've shortened it a bit for you :).
Záhrada (1995)
Konecne je vsetko tak, ako ma byt
Truly satisfying slovak art film.
I am from Slovakia and I watched this film with my dad, who went to the cinema for this film when it was released. Now, he rewatched it with me after 30 years and he could not stop saying how it reminds him of his childhood times in the village called "Pondelok" to which he casually refers to as a true and only home. He also said how authentic it is in terms of screenplay with all the problematic that is discussed. He said that the philosophy insertion(references to Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Ludwig Wittgenstein) was spot on as young students(just as my dad back then) all over Slovakia were contemplating about everything in global level after Velvet Revolution. But he also stressed that it was genuine with such details as hair shearer, cars and interior and exterior of the shack in general.
For me, as someone who loves philosophy and films, this film was really positive surprise. Cinematography and love/countryside plot were original, satisfying, deep and artistic, it was an allegory. Film was enriched by comical passages through the character of Jacob's father played by wonderful Marián Labuda(his son made cameo in this pic as the barman as well). Presenting each chapter in historical slovak vernacular felt like typical works of Hviezdoslav or Kukucin from slovak realism in literature, and I found it kind. Mirror-rotated writings were so creative too. Caterpillar reflection was amazing. I didn't completely get the end, with the levitation stuff, felt magical though. But I am gonna probably rewatch it some time later for sure and have some conversation about it with my dad at the same time.
I didn't save on words in this review, but I needed this so bad to feel comfortable inside, if you know what I mean.
I am not affraid to put this movie into comparison to some slovak classics like "The shop on main street" or "Perinbaba", because this film is important as it speaks its own context based on own period of time in Slovakia. This should be refered to as our(the Slovaks) cinematographic legacy.
Dakujem za krasny film.
Catch-22 (1970)
Orr is not crazy Yossarian, not as much as the system
One of the greatest movies I've ever seen in terms of both cinematography and plot. It's an adaptation of the equally amazing novel of the same name from 1961, written by Joseph Heller.
The film follows in detail not only the story of the novel but also the form of storytelling through a completely disrupted continuity.
This picture was directed by Mike Nichols and let me tell ya, what a flawless cooperation! I mean, if you saw his earlier film The Graduate starring Dustin Hoffman from 1967 you could see a lot of significant transitions such as J-cut, L-cut & Match cut, which connect the following scenes with previous ones mainly only formally. Semantically either not at all or very covertly. This creates sequences that contain only one or two scenes, and such short sequences tend to create temporal chaos.
In the case of Catch 22, it appears to me, that ruining the time continuity is the only correct way to tell this story. Because as the film gradually develops and moves on, beholder suddenly starts to connect thoughts of successive scenes and finds out that movie might be time discontinuous, but it's continuous in semantic way. It's very hard to explain, but I think you'll got the point after watching.
To make thing even more harder to understand, one scene, which is divided throughout the film, is not related to any of the scenes in time or meaning, but it is very important for the emotional charge. The scene most embodies Yossarian's despair caused by the entire war and the system. I'm talking about the scene where the young pilot Snowden dies in Yossarian's arms in the crashed plane. Snowden's fate is a great symbol of how the war kills the innocent youth, and still someone can profit and gain power without seeing this, with no conscience.
Philosophies like opportunism(Nately's passionate debate with old Italian man) or sophistry(Yossarian denoted by his friends) are being discussed in the film, but as it shows up no philosophy can obviate catch 22 and is irrelevant and indifferent to the system. Indifference in one scene particulary hits into your eyes. While Milo and Colonel Cathart(Martin Balsam) are discussing really the EGG, burning loud plane moves right in front of their noses, but they are so focused on their conversation, they just keep moving and hop into the car. From cinematographic point of view, this scene is so well-made and I am just stunned how authentic it looks for the year 1970. Another absurd story scene but absolutely brilliant cinematographic scene is when Hungry Joe is accidentally sliced into the half with airscrew of a plane by his friend McWatt in the cockpit, McWatt with remorse kills himself by hitting the mountain and Yossarian and his friends seeing this from the beach keep saying: "jump Doc.!", cause they think he is up in the plane that is about to crash, but Daneeka right behind them responds: "I'm right here sergeant, I'm not in the plane...", what doesen't bother our spectators. I mean, seeing this, it's so funny and sad at the same time. A lot of fight scenes in flying plane with desperate Yossarian were also nicely done by the director, his ingenuity in these "hard to shoot" scenes brought the genuineness.
The story is based in the island south from the Italy with American air base. Movie develops from comedial to serious to tragical. Yossarian(played by superb Alan Arkin, who gave the role hundred percent authenticity) and Milo(Jon Voight) are the ones demonstrating it. Yossarian is so paranoid at the beginning of the movie, self-pitying all the time, even determined to convience the doctor that he is crazy to stop him from flying. But subsequently he starts to be more contemplating as the system seems to be uncrossable thanks to catch 22. He ruins the bombarding, he is receiving medal naked from general Dreedle(Orson Welles), etc. After deaths of his friends(killed by venal system of their own country which cooperates with the enemy; no directly war causes their end but their "own side") and one friend Orr went missing after crashing into the ocean, it's starts to be emotionally very difficult for him. Suddenly everyone seems sad - doctor Daneeka(Jack Gilford) by the sea, Major Danby("the emotional patriot" at first) is all by himself in the pub looking so sad and lonely, etc. System is full of absurdity and injustice, like when Yossarian is penalised for being outside in the city after approved time even though he is in the room with the murderer who killed prostitute by pushing her through the window and yet he is left unpunished unlike Yossarian. We see that catch 22 is not one actual law, but it is made up rotten phrase that changes based on context: Yossarian doesen't want to fly? CATCH 22 ON HIM; or: do we need to empty up the brothel, and if so how to gain authority over prostitute women? CATCH 22 ON THEM (stunned old lady talking to Yossarian close to the end of the movie about this); just like in these examples. What adds to the tragic, Yossarian is even blamed for the death of his friend Nately by Nately's prostitute girlfriend, who in Nately saw the redemption from her volatile life and she stabs Yossarian (the film begins with this scene, just so you can imagine how discontinuous it is). Milo turns from absolutely innocently appearing tradesman into head of the rotten system.
Film itself tries to convience you that you understand it as it starts and almost ends with same particular scene, but from different cinematic angle where Yossarian is having the conversation with superiors. Version of this scene from the beginning is taken from the distance and camera graduallly moves closer to the protagonists having conversation, but nothing makes sense so far. In the version from the almost end we are directly in the conversation and now, all of a sudden beholder has subconscious feeling that everything is in the place, he gets it now, just because he subconsciously recognises this scene from the beginning, but now he knows what's going on in it and knows its action circumstances. Superiors want to get rid of Yossarian, because he is full of problems to the spoiled system which they are part of and they make a compromise with him. They send him home as he wanted, but he has to be "friend" with them and back home in America he has to say only nice things about them. Basically they want him to be a part of the system. Yossarian feels absolutely terrible inside, but agrees. Than the already mentioned stab comes.
Films ends in hospital (present in terms of time, so last scene in terms of continuity), some weeks after stabbing incident, still on Island where Yossarian seems to be fully recovered and is speaking to his friends, one of them is chaplain(firstly Yossarian saw great hope in this chaplain for escape). Hospital was a great refuge for Yossarian during the war (more described in the book), now he is free. He is so depressed that he happened to be a part of the system that killed his friends, system that abuses power through fictional laws like catch 22 and at any time it refers to it just for personal profit. Yossarian sees no escape, when suddenly one of his friends(Major Danby) tells him that Orr survived the crash into the ocean and escaped on a little boat to Sweden. Another friend, chaplain one(Anthony Perkins), says that it's a miracle, but Yossarian is not listening anymore. He, who considered Orr to be crazy for always crashing into the ocean now realises, that it was all just the training for escape and understands now why Orr call him crazy back for not wanting to fly with him. Yossarian is totally changed in spirit and he jumps out of the window, grabs little boat, runs toward the coast and willing to escape he starts to paddle in the endless ocean. He has hope, absurd and impossible, but has one. The last thing we see is extreme long shot of the ocean and the coast and little white dot in the ocean, Yossarian.
Craziness is the only sane reaction in the crazy system(thread with the title of this review).
Film is super underrated so please go watch it guys. Whether the book or the film, both of them are work of a genius.
BigBug (2022)
not the best, not the worst, rather good
Interesting comical sci-fi with significant topic for this century, but also cliché theme for a sci-fi movie. Robots, and their effort to take over the human race.
Anyway, nicely processed in sense of cinematography. Really liked the close-ups and subsequent facial expressions of our protagonists. From an aesthetic point of view I think appealing movie. Stunning, not affraid to say. Mastered staging of particular scenes, what gave us the impression of the future. Also nice colorgriding.
What I found bit odd in story part were relationships between the characters. I mean it wouldn't be that weird if it ended as it was developing the whole time. Especially in case of two main protagonists. But I take it with the grain of salt as it's comedy and many things were exaggerated anyway, what I consider as normal, even bright and significant thing in such a movie.
I really liked the performances of ones playing robots. The evil robot reminded me of good old days with robocop. It was interesting seeing robots as if divided into two camps. One helping people and willing to act and even be as humans, and the other taking over the humans and basically controlling people(we could saw some disturbing pictures really).
The fact, that whole movie was situated in one household, just raised the tension. So it was creatively made up in this aspect. I also liked note that Apple Macintosh(computer from 80s) is ultra old-school and the boy's historical ignorance of certain things. Another thing I want to appreciate is ingenuity of characters in insulation and threat situation(frozen clothes, car breaking the glass, utilizing dog outside to pull the lever, etc.).
Overall, it fulfilled the purpose in my case as I was entertained. But I wouldn't watch it again eventually. By that, I don't want to discourage you from watching the movie. Quite the contrary. Go watch it and make your own opinion. As I have said, it's rather good.
Yôjinbô (1961)
True classic
I am truly satisfied with this Kurosawa's masterpiece.
I saw Magnificent seven week early on, and I have to say I found this eastern much more appealing. I mean Magnificent seven is quite the film as well, but this film's story was just more eye-catching and simply worked for me better.
Another thing I really liked were swipe transitions between the shots. In comparison to dissolve transitions in western, we can actually see how can such a detail change the whole dynamics of the movie. Firstly I mistakenly named it as a wipe transitions, but there's slight the difference between the two. Although I was lost in context sometimes during the film, thanks to threads between the actions I jumped back into a wave of amazing fabula and sujet.
I also liked a lot the game of light and shadow. Kurosawa certainly knew how to utilize black'n'white kind of a movie. As our main protagonist abuses the villagers for money and sics both sides against the other, he constantly stays in shadow, but as soon as he learns his lesson he comes to light. So it has also noir-genre elements.
What I found interesting was the idea of Samurai sword being better choice than gun. Therefore we could also see interesting promotion of Japanese culture, not just through mentioned idea, but also through aspects such as clothing, food, currency, calendar elements and so on, that had appeared in the movie.
I also know about the reality that Sergio Leone's film A fistful of dollars starring Clint Eastwood, was massively inspired by this movie, so we can surely say they liked a lot the motive of the film in America as well. (something like in case of Seven samurai and Magnificent seven)
As we can tell, this film is one of a kind. It had massive impact at the time, but still has as it lives on. This film is spot on. So indulge in some real movie magic. I highly recommend.