Subscribe to CommentsI’m being arbitrary once again with my definition of “independent.” In this category, I’m going to include a) indie or non-mainstream films that are not new releases, like the first two films below, and b) new release films that are truly small films, i.e., did not get a lot of studio publicity and a wide release, and probably were not financed by a major studio, even their speciality arms. I don’t always know about the financing side, though, so I don’t want to use that as an absolute standard, even though it should be. Basically, this means that films like Juno or No Country for Old Men would appear in the New on DVD category rather than here. When in doubt, my logic goes “if a moviegoer who only goes to multiplexes knows about the film, it doesn’t go in the independent category.” I want to use it to highlight lesser-known films.
When I start writing on a film-by-film basis, Indie Cinema and World Cinema will be separate categories; I just threw them together here because there weren’t too many of either one.
Kicking and Screaming
NOT the Will Ferrell soccer movie. :) No, this is an early film from the guy who did The Squid and the Whale, one of my favorite movies from a couple of years ago. And this one is similarly excellent, though with much less plot. Basically take Slacker, throw in some Metropolitan, and then maybe a dash of Wes Anderson. The nominal plot follows a group of recent college graduates trying to figure out what to do next with their lives (a concept that hit very close to home among our group of grad students; after all, why else were we getting graduate degrees in English if not because we were unable to figure out what to do after college?). The story falls off a bit toward the end, but the characters are so identifiable and the script so outstanding that it comes very close to Richard Linklater’s best, which is a high compliment from me. Also, the cover of the Criterion edition is quite possibly the most awesome DVD cover ever, so I’m using it in lieu of the poster. Click on it to see it bigger and read the quotes, which are good in context, but perhaps even better out of context. ;)
Well Above Average
USA 1995; dir: Noah Baumbach; starring: Chris Eigeman, Samuel Gould, Olivia d’Abo
IMDb | The Frame
Dazed and Confused
My experience with other Linklater films had me anticipating this one to a possibly unhealthy degree, and it didn’t live up to my expectations. I think he does better with college and later than with high school, because Dazed and Confused was all right, but not great. Basically it follows a couple of freshmen as they try to survive the hazing given them by the older students and ingratiate themselves into the booze-and-drug ridden high school world. Yay! *eyeroll* It’s not that that story couldn’t work, it’s just that it doesn’t – it doesn’t go anywhere, and in a much less satisfying way than the way, say, Slacker didn’t go anywhere. I think because it felt like it was meant to go somewhere, whereas Slacker fit the meandering style much better. Plus, any movie wherein Matthew McConaughey (who I usually can’t stand) is the most entertaining part? Yeah.
Average
USA 1993; dir: Richard Linklater; starring: Jason London, Rory Cochrane, Wiley Wiggins
IMDb | The Frame
Wristcutters: A Love Story
While the opening credits run, Patrick Fugit (Almost Famous) slits his wrists. Soon he finds himself in a limbo-esque place, full of other suicides who all go about relatively normal lives – working dead-end (no pun intended) jobs and wandering around aimlessly. It sort of reminded me of C.S. Lewis’s hell in The Great Divorce; just a dismal, grey place characterized more by depression and boredom than pain. Anyway, Shannyn Sossamon shows up one day, claiming that she’s not supposed to be there because she didn’t commit suicide. She snags Fugit and another friend and they start seeking whoever runs the place to fix the apparent administrative mix-up. Oh, and they’re also looking for Fugit’s ex-girlfriend, who committed suicide a few weeks after he did. I could go on with the plot; there’s a commune at one point, and a guy with Jesus delusions (played by the guy who played Gob on Arrested Development; I have such a hard time disassociating him with that role enough to see him in anything else), etc. Even though the story gets fairly unbelievable at times, even for a film that’s about suicide-limbo, it remains quirkily engaging.
Above Average
USA 2006; dir: Goran Dukic; starring: Patrick Fugit, Shannyn Sossamon, Will Arnett
IMDb | The Frame
Hannah Takes the Stairs
I’m not wholly against considering films like Little Miss Sunshine and Juno as indie films, despite the fact that they had financing from specialty divisions of major studios and clearly straddle the line between mainstream and indie, but sometimes I’m tempted to just point at films like Hannah Takes the Stairs and say “Now THIS is an independent film.” Swanberg, Gerwig, and a group of other filmmakers including Ronald and Mary Bronstein, Mark and Jay Duplass (whose Baghead is in limited release now), and Andrew Bujalsi have made a number of films at this point loosely grouped together by critics under the name “Mumblecore.” Hannah got wider distribution than most of the others, but still was hardly seen outside of New York, Los Angeles, and Austin. Following a largely improvised script, Hannah is a twenty-something struggling through a failing relationship with her boyfriend and the possibility of relationships with two of her coworkers. There isn’t much more plot to mention, and the film comes under perhaps deserved criticism for its lack of development and the frustrating uncertainty of its heroine. On the other hand, there’s a rawness here that feels more real than most films, a rawness that gets polished away by the mainstream, a rawness I found quite refreshing. I certainly wouldn’t say that all films should be more like Hannah, but I think it’s important that there’s a space in the filmmaking/distribution world for these willfully non-mainstream films that push the envelope by refusing to play by the rules.
Above Average
USA 2007; dir: Joe Swanberg; starring: Greta Gerwig, Mark Duplass, Andrew Bujalski
IMDb | The Frame
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert
Fabulous. But then, you pretty much have to call any half-way decent film about three drag queens driving a bus (the eponymous Priscilla) through the Australian outback in outlandish costumes (and sometimes lipsynching to opera while sitting in an enormous shoe strapped on top of the bus) fabulous. Hugo Weaving is the one with the secret former marriage and son, Terence Stamp the aging one who tends to be somewhat bitter but can also be the consummate lady, and Guy Pearce is the flamboyant youth. As they move through the Outback toward their next proposed gig as lipsynching dancers, they run into mechanical difficulties, bigotry, and interpersonal conflicts. Ultimately, though, it’s a fun journey, at least for the audience if not necessarily for the three guys. Let me just say, though, that Hugo Weaving makes one ugly woman. Also interesting to see Guy Pearce before his big Hollywood roles – as my Australian friend Anna pointed out, I wonder who saw this film and thought, “you know what, I bet he’d be perfect for that straight-laced cop in L.A. Confidential!”
Above Average
Australia 1994; dir: Stephan Elliott; starring: Hugo Weaving, Terence Stamp, Guy Pearce
IMDb | The Frame
Kwaidan
I’m working on my appreciation for Japanese film. I’m getting there with anime, especially Miyazaki, but even Kurosawa I often don’t connect to on the level I would like. My friend Kat suggested I try Kwaidan, since she feels roughly the same way and now places Kwaidan among her all-time favorite films. Unfortunately, I don’t know whether it’s because I watched it during a time of moving stress or what, but it didn’t have the same effect on me. Basically, it’s a collection of unrelated ghost stories, none of which are particularly scary. Or memorable, to me. Well, there was one I quite liked, about a blind monk who gets drawn away from the monastery at night to recite poems to a mystical court which only he can see. Honestly, most of the others I don’t remember. Given my level of distraction, though, I’ll put it on the rewatch list.
Average
Japan 1966; dir: Masaki Kobayashi; starring: Katsuo Nakamura, Rentaro Mikuni, Tatsuyo Nakadai
IMDb | The Frame
In which Jean-Luc Godard tries to meld 
A stylistic return to earlier films like Band of Outsiders, but thematically tending toward Godard’s eventual political turn in 1968. Paul (Léaud) is a student and frequent protestor against the Vietnam War; meanwhile, he cautiously (almost indifferently, though his indifference is probably a pose) romances Chantal Goya. I enjoyed the film, as I always enjoy Godard films, but I need a rewatch to talk about it competently. Again, like all Godard films. I know a few people who like Masculin Feminin best of Godard’s films, and Chantal Goya best of his heroines, but she’s still not Anna Karina. :) And the ending threw me off. Still, so did Pierrot le fou‘s the first time, and now it’s one of my favorite Godard films.
Hey, look! I’m branching out from Godard and Truffaut into other New Wave directors! This is Claude Chabrol’s first feature, following four Parisian shop girls as they go about their daily lives. It’s not one of his best-known films, and it feels like a first film – like he’s still feeling out the best ways to do things – but I ended up finding it rather compelling. At first the four girls seem very similar, all working at the same store, watching the clock until they can leave, going out at night, etc. But their personalities begin to emerge – subtly, so much so that I didn’t catch all the nuances until the second time through (I rewatched almost immediately because of not paying enough attention but then being so intrigued by the end I wanted to see what I had missed). Then one of the girls starts a romance with a biker who’s been following her around, and the film takes a darker, more ambiguous turn, definitely a turn for the better. Certainly interested in seeing more Chabrol films after this introduction.
Kieslowski’s Polish films don’t have quite the same cinematic beauty as his later French ones, but Blind Chance has interest of its own in its branching, repeating structure – quite possibly an influence on Tom Tykwer’s 
I rated this Well Above Average upon watching it, so I’ll let it stand, but I’m tempted to knock it down to Above Average. I wanted to be blown away by this – the lone mainstream film in last year’s Oscar race? A thinking person’s corporate thriller? Sounds like one to get excited about. And it was good, don’t get me wrong. There’s a lot to like about it, starting with the trio of main actors, all of whom are outstanding. George Clooney is the eponymous corporate fixer, the guy who gets called in to keep scandal and litigation away from his clients. This time, Tom Wilkinson has gone off the deep end, raving about all the bad things the company he works for does. That’s all tied up with Tilda Swinton and some reports she’s concealing about the unethical things the corporation has done in the name of research. There’s a lot of moral underpinning, too, as Clayton must decide whether to do the right thing and uncover the corruption or take the payoff he desperately needs to support his family. It’s a good story, but unnecessarily convoluted by the introduction of Clayton’s brother’s subplot (which is needed for background, but not in the detail we get). It’s also definitely an actor’s film, which is fine – but I would’ve liked a bit more crackle from Gilroy as writer/director.
I was truly expecting the worst from this one, after the horrific reviews it got on release. Folks, it is not that bad. Certainly it’s no classic like the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but it’s a perfectly acceptable little thriller to kill a few hours with. The basic storyline is similar to the original – aliens land and start taking over the bodies of humans, turning them into emotionless husks that otherwise seem the same as ever. Kidman’s ex-husband Jeremy Northam is one of the turned, and he tries to get her to join him; she spends the rest of the movie trying to get herself and her son to safety. There’s a good mix of intense and quiet moments, and I’m not at all sure where the charge of incomprehensibility that a lot of reviewers made comes from, because everything made perfect sense. Apparently they need to watch Made in USA. Or, like, Pirates of the Caribbean 3. Anyway, the moral/ethic dilemma introduced is that supposedly if the alien beings won, there wouldn’t be any more conflict or war, which is introduced by emotion and passion (a similar theme to 2002′s Equilibrium) – the question left open at the end is which is better, peace or freedom. Normally I’m not a huge fan when remakes stick on moral quandries, but this time it works, mostly because these are the sorts of questions that classic sci-fi used to ask before sci-fi turned into mere alien-hunting action.
You’d expect a film about a shy man who orders an anatomically correct sex doll off the internet and then acts as though she’s his real girlfriend would veer quickly into Judd Apatow territory, with coarse jokes galore, but that’s not in the least what Lars and the Real Girl is (though the trailers tended to suggest it would be – yet another film mismarketed by the Hollywood machine). Instead, it’s a heartfelt exploration of the psyche of a very damaged man, and the lengths to which his family and friends, indeed, his whole town, will go to try to help him recover. It gets a bit sentimental at times, but there’s enough bittersweetness filtered in that it never gets too saccharine. Ryan Gosling turns in another winning performance as Lars, while Mortimer and Clarkson, as always, provide stellar support. (Seriously, Patricia Clarkson is one of those people whose films you can just about bank on being good.)
I probably would’ve gotten more out of this if I were familiar with Bob Dylan’s life and music, but even so, I was fascinated by its approach to the biopic genre. Rather than give a straightforward account of Dylan’s experiences, director Haynes instead envisions Dylan as a series of characters, each with a different name (none of which is “Bob Dylan,” just fyi) and played by a different actor — or actress, in the case of Cate Blanchett. In this way, he builds a multifaceted picture of a person constantly reinventing himself, sometimes a kid prodigy twanging out blues rhythms, other times a self-centered hotshot pretending he doesn’t enjoy media attention, still other times a quiet man dealing with the breakup of his family, among others. And to add to the fragmentation, these personas don’t follow each other sequentially, but are woven together throughout. I was also intrigued by the homages to European art films, especially Godard’s Masculin Feminin and Fellini’s 8 1/2 (I’m sure there were others I didn’t catch), but I have no idea what they mean. Someone who knows Dylan better than I might be able to shed some light on whether those references have intrinsic meaning to a story of his life, or if they’re just Haynes playing around. There’s a bit of an unwelcome air of pretension about the whole project, but it’s mostly made up for by its undeniable virtuosity.
A bit stymied on this one. Point #1: It’s a terrible film. Point #2: It knows it’s a terrible film. Point #3: It’s not a terrible enough film (or terrible in the right way) to fall into the “so bad it’s good” category. It’s basically like the filmmakers decided to rip off every bad action film ever and then go even further. There’s a pregnant woman in danger, being chased by a man with a gun, which pulls bystander Clive Owen into the action to rescue her. But wait! Let’s have him help her give birth while in a gunfight with the bad guys. Uh-oh, she got killed, so Owen has to take the baby with him to protect it. So he enlists the help of a woman who can nurse the baby. But wait! Let’s make her a prostitute who specializes in serving men with breastfeeding fetishes. Eventually they hook up, but not only that, they hook up while in a gunfight with the bad guys. Then they’re chased by Paul Giamatti, and they figure out that something serious is going on. I wouldn’t really feel bad about revealing the “something serious,” but hey. Even a bad film deserves its suspense, right? Eventually there’s a confrontation on an airplane. But wait! Let’s have them jump out and parachute to the ground while in a gunfight. Anyway, the dialogue is so bad it’s obviously intentional, and every time you think it can’t possibly go any more over the top, it does. By the end, my mouth was hanging open in sheer amazement at the audacity of the film. Not necessarily in a good way. But not necessarily in a bad way, either.
Aw, Noah Baumbach, what are you doing to me?! I’d heard the bad reviews for this, his newest film, but somehow I convinced myself that the writer/director of Kicking and Screaming and The Squid and the Whale couldn’t possibly make a subpar film, right? Wrong. Nicole Kidman plays Margot, a cynical, bitter writer who takes her teenage son to her estranged sister’s wedding (to a man who disgusts Margot). Then there’s supposed to be some deep interfamilial and personal reevaluation, except that never happens. Instead, we get only a lot of uncomfortable scenes strung together by uncomfortable silences, and while I’m not generally against uncomfortableness in films, there’s nothing to offset it or make it worthwhile. The dialogue feels stilted, and I don’t know who to blame. Kidman actually does a really good job acting the part physically, but as soon as she opens her mouth, everything falls flat. But the dialogue isn’t really bad, either – I can see why someone reading the script would be attracted to it. Somewhere between page and screen it died, though. Perhaps Baumbach isn’t as good an actor’s director as he needs to be. Also, the complete lack of score actually works against the film, despite Baumbach and Leigh’s protestations that score would’ve ruined it (in a conversation on the DVD) – while score does, as they point out, manipulate the audience, it also gives the audience empathy. I could hardly have cared less about what happened to these people, and I wanted to. Badly.
In the near future, researchers create a cure for cancer by reverse engineering the measles virus. Yay! Unfortunately, viruses are tricky buggers and the cure mutates into a rabies-like disease that spreads like wildfire, turning 99% of the population into bloodthirsty zombie-esque creatures. Boo. The fate of humanity rests in the capable hands of Will Smith, as immune medical researcher Robert Neville, working in deserted Manhattan to reverse-reverse engineer the disease. What could have been a routine survival creature feature becomes a good deal more, focusing on Neville’s loneliness and abandonment. He depends deeply on the company of his dog and of the store mannequins for which he creates personalities and stories – a moment when one of the mannequins is “in danger” from the zombies and Neville breaks down in panic could be merely ludicrous but is instead tragically believable in his world of devastation and isolation. It’s quite obviously a Smith tour-de-force, and he doesn’t disappoint. The special effects on the creatures do, but I choose to believe their lack of believability is intentional, because they aren’t the real horror Neville has to face. I only wish the ending had sustained the contemplative quality of the earlier sections – it eventually does become little more than survival horror and never follows through on the implications of Neville’s psychological situation as much as it could have. Still, a solid blockbuster with a lot more thoughtfulness and integrity than most.
