Hey folks, Harry here and finally, I'm getting Repojay's latest report up for all you folks to see... This is actually his last 4 reports... I've been being flooded with email from all sorts of people asking all sorts of questions about the Toronto Film Fest, films showing there, you know... pretty much one of those 'Pop Quiz hot shot' sort of things... I wish that I had the time to better handle all of this... but Repojay has done a great job here... and when you get to his REQUIEM FOR A DREAM review.... daaaaammmmnnnn, I want to see this film.... SOunds fantastic...

Hey there again!

I didn't intend this morning's report to be all about documentaries, but I inadvertently scheduled 3 documentaries in a row last night. Go figure! Here's what I thought:

FIGHTER (Dir. Amir Bar-Lev)

This was a pretty sweet film about 2 Holocaust survivors, but they survived in a different way than you're used to hearing. Both men are Czechoslovakian and live in the US. They didn't know each other until 20 years ago, but now their similar backgrounds have spawned a friendship.

The filmmaker takes them both back to Europe to retrace their steps throughout both the Nazi occupation as well as the subsequent Communist occupation. While the moments are bittersweet and poignant, the film is often lightened up with humor as the two men (both in their mid-70s) bicker and get on each other's nerves.

Bar-Lev also does a decent job at lightening things up with some of his subtitling not to mention goading them on. He also uses archival footage sparingly so as never to overwhelm the viewer or distract from the humanist story.

Bottom line is it's nothing to go raving about (the fact that it was shot on DV also doesn't aid the film much, but I understand the budget concerns) but it's a perfectly nice 90 minute documentary should you stumble across it, just for a slightly different perspective of survivors of the time.

MY GENERATION (Dir. Barbara Kopple)

This is officially the North American premiere of this documentary about Woodstock, but a work print had been shown at Sundance earlier this year.

Under the direction of Barbara Kopple (Harlan County USA) the film analyzes many of the issues surrounding the revitalizing of Woodstock in 1994. Michael Lang (who, with Kopple, was on hand) aided her in getting enormous access to the festival and examine the commericalism, the capitalist drive of local residents, logistical nightmares, the hypocritical moves of many (including Lang) as well as being a darn good concert movie with some great live footage.

The interesting thing that the film examines is how the 94 Woodstock was set up by the media to fail and it was pretty calm. Then how the 99 Woodstock was set to succeed, and how it ultimately failed. Granted, hindsight is 20/20 on the filmmakers part, but it was also pretty fair in noticing that criticisms of the newer Woodstocks (fires, rampant nudity encouraged by the media) also occured in 69.

The biggest gripe is that the 94 stuff (3/4 of the movie) is so well set up that the 99 footage feels tacked on (which, we find out during the Q&A, it was). While the 94 stuff is indepth with interviews, buildup to the concert and loads of angles, the 99 footage is 2 cameras mostly touching on just the crowd.

When this gets a distributor (and it should), check it out in a theatre because I think it will lose it's impact on a smaller TV and soundsystem. In a crowded theatre with booming Dolby Digital, this film is everything you'd expect from Kopple directing a film like this: tight, pulls a lot of punches, and rocks out hard.

THE AMERICAN NIGHTMARE (Dir. Adam Simon)

Simon did such a good job with the Fuller documentary on the Independent Film Channel that they allowed him to do another on horror films of the 70s.

This film focuses in on landmark films between 68 and 78 including Night of the Living Dead, Last House On The Left, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and a couple of others. It does this by mixing in interviews with the filmmakers alongside academians.

The theme that the horror movies are reflective of the times is a pretty solid one as it juxtaposes, as an example, Vietnam footage with footage from many of these other films. However, this theme gets tired about halfway through and you long for a new theory. Only Tom Savini's story about actually being IN Vietnam and how it affected his work is truly gutwrenching.

As noted previously, some complained because there was not enough of other films and, personally, I felt he spent too much time talking to John Landis (why was he designated expert?) and a young Academian who seemed to talk with more enthusiasm than academia.

He also noted in his Q&A that he didn't include other films because he wanted to keep between 68 and 78. Well, how about changing up your theme just to make a better documentary?

Look, when it comes on IFC soon, it'll be worth checking out on a Sunday afternoon, don't get me wrong. It's also nice to see horror directors like Craven, Cronenberg, Romero and Hooper wax off about the "why" of their movie rather than the usual "how", but overall it seemed slightly lacking and could've been more.

I've also seen CODE INCONNU and LUZHIN DEFENCE, but must run to the GREENFINGERS screening, so I'll summarize those three later today.

OK, I'm gonna make this one REAL quick or I'll be late to another screening, but I'm so backed up I gotta give you something!!!

CODE INCONNU (Code Unknown) (Dir. Michael Haneke)

I guess I was expecting a lot from Haneke after Funny Games completely floored me when I saw it a few years ago. His first film since then, however, left me completely underwhelemed.

Basically, it doesn't revolve around anything inparticular. There's several stories that sometimes intertwine, but often do not. There are scenes that are often complete, but usually start as the scene is going on and ends before it's finished.

Most of the characters intersect in the opening scene and then each of their lives are subsequently explored. There's an actress, a poor woman and a common thief. The biggest problem is that nothing terribly interesting happens to these French people. Juliette Binoche, as the only star, does her best but leaves you with nothing memorable. In fact, very little of the film is actually memorable. Also, if you expect something shocking (as in his previous work) don't look for it here.

THE LUZHIN DEFENCE (Dir. Marleen Gorris)

This film is certainly well put together but, much like Gorris' previous Antonia's Line, it's nothing terribly daring or original. In my opinion, much like Hollywood has a formula, this one follows the arthouse costume drama formula.

In it, Emily Watson plays a young single socialite on holiday in Italy. At the hotel is a national chess championship where John Turturro, as a socially inept Chess master, falls head over heels for her. Inexplicably, she does the same and the film follows along to it's logical melodramtic ends (replete with insanity and chess championship). Along the way is the chess rival, who's being manipulated by Turturro's former mentor.

Is it a decent film? For sure. The acting, though, is standard. Watson does the same innocence she's done several times now and Turturro as a doddering misfit just never seems to escape into the character and is always somewhat Turturro. Fans of this type of stuff will no doubt be satisfied, but I particularly want something a bit different, and not more formula.

OK, off I go again. If all goes well, another update in a few hours...

OK, now's about the time I play major catchup...if I can squeeze it all in!

GREENFINGERS (Dir. Joel Hershman)

Any of you who know how much I love Hershman's other film, Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me, knows how much I couldn't wait to see this one. Granted, I was probably the only one in the audience who even knew of Hershman's first film, so I was the only one slightly disappointed that it was a major departure from that film.

That said, on it's own merits, it's still a really good film. It is somewhat predictable, however. It's in the style of many recent British comedies (hence the comparison to The Full Monty) and the unique point about all that is that Hershman is American.

The plot involves a motley group of prisoners sent to a "halfway-house" prison of sorts. There, the elder Fergus (played by the guy from Waking Ned Devine) teaches Clive Owen about gardening. From there, the warden puts it upon several other inmates to start a gardening program and then they become quite good at it.

Yes it was predictable but it had such a good soul with many charming, funny moments, that it was certainly light fun entertainment. All the characters had great personality and were given some fun lines to act upon that personality.

So, yes, most importantly it's enjoyable and while not LIKE the Full Monty, if you enjoyed that one this one will certainly fit you just nicely.

THE IRON LADIES (Dir. Yongyooth Thongkonthun)

This movie is the reason I didn't write another report yesterday. Several people recommended this Taiwanese flick to me and found that I could JUST squeeze it into my free time between 2 other movies. Insane? Maybe, but I bought the ticket anyway!

The plot is pretty simple. Guy can't make it onto a local volleyball team because he's gay. After a new coach takes over and brings him on the team, the straight "jocks" quit. So what does the coach do? Assembles a team of all drag queens.

Basically, if you hadn't figured it out yet, this is your typical sports movie where a group of underdog misfits/outcasts band together and triumph over the odds and over the simple minded jock types. So, like Greenfingers, no major plot twists or surprises here.

Instead, it's very light fun and pokes fun at gay stereotypes while embracing them at the same time. The movie is so good natured about the whole thing that you can't help but enjoy yourself the entire time.

I would predict not a major US distribution, but a US distributor to buy the rights and remake it. Hollywood story written all over it.

101 REYKJAVIK (Dir. Baltasar Kormakur)

Ah...an Icelandic coming of age movie. What could be finer. Starring Spanish actress Victoria Abril, no less.

Well, while it captures Iceland's youth culture pretty nicely, it's not anything you haven't seen before, but it's done well enough to enjoy yourself.

The plot has the main male lead be a "slacker" guy with no job who still lives at home in his late 20s. He ignores his girlfriend and just gets drunk all the time. All that changes when Mom's friend (Abril) comes to town.

Some plot twists abound after that that I won't spoil, but even with those original story elements, the fact remains that it's still a very basic coming-of-age movie. Good humor and ocassionally nice cinematography makes it a little bit better than most. It's the type of thing you wouldn't pass up seeing, but I wouldn't go out of my way either.

THE PRINCESS AND THE WARRIOR (Dir. Tom Tykwer)

As has been mentioned by many, don't go into this expecting him to regurgitate Run Lola Run, despite the fact that Lola herself (Franka Potente) is the female lead. After you get over this realization, though, you have a wonderfully lyrical moving movie that is nearly 180 degrees from Lola.

The plot is hard to fully describe as I more FELT it than watched the story. Sissi (Potente) is a nurse at a psychiatric hospital who gets hit by a truck. A thief who is running from the cops happens to save her life. After she is well, Sissi wants to track down her savior as she feels some destiny is involved here.

Halfway through the movie is a bank robbery scene that, while not particularly inventive, is so dramatic based on the preceding hour of building up the characters, that you are sucked in and hold your breath for the entire sequence.

Up until that point, I liked the film, but felt a bit too distant from the whole thing. From that point on, Tykwer held me by the throat and didn't let go for another full hour. All the secondary characters became vitally important as well. I just hope I never have a year like the one Sissi has in this movie.

A winner and something that moves Tykwer from one to watch to one to see.

POSSIBLE WORLDS (Dir. Robert Lepage)

Every festival has one film that catches me completely offguard and floors me by sheer surprise. Last year it was Gemini (which I see has made it's rounds to other festivals just this year). This year, my film is Possible Worlds.

The closest film I can compare it to is Cube, not because they have similar stories, but because they have the same existentialist bent.

The story seemingly starts as a basic oddball murder mystery where someone kills a man in his apartment and only steals his brain. Who did it? As the detectives track the killer, we flash back to the man to find he lives in an infinite number of worlds where only the slightest differences occur. These differences include subtle changes in his girlfriend's background, which he has trouble sorting out as the various worlds collide within him.

The acting is decent and the script, adapted from a Toronto stage play, is also pretty darn good. It's a gripping storyline that is both sci-fi, metaphysical, dramatic, and offers up a good number of surprises to explain the goings on.

The big treat, though is the cinematography. Every shot is breathtakingly simple but amazing. Little things from windows to cafeteria doors look awe inspiring and powerful. The editing of these shots is also intense and your jaw will be on the floor most of the movie even if you had the sound turned down. The job that they did conveying these multiple worlds and the hyper-realism in them (compared to the grey, flat police station) is intense.

I hope this is not to head-y for a US distributor because this is simply a jewel in the rough. It does have a feel that it could go straight to Showtime or the Sci-Fi Network, but for it's own good I hope it doesn't. There's too much greatness in this film to let it suffer such a fate.

Lepage has made other films, although they've all been in French. I guess it's fitting that my pick so far for the entire festival has been a Canadian filmmaker. Remember this title and whether you find out it's playing in your local theatre, on the shelf in your video store, or showing at 2 AM on cable, make sure to watch it. You won't regret it.

That covers everything from before today. I'll update today very shortly.

Hey there! Whew! Yesterday was an extremely hectic, busy day as well, but rewarding in so many ways as you'll see at the end of this update!

THE LAST RESORT (Dir. Paul Pawlikowski)

Pawlikowski did this one for, I believe, British television. It's one of those movies that has a nice story, a solid cast of unknowns, but very little to really make a lasting impression.

The story follows a mother and her son who have just landed in the UK from Russia. They are there for the woman to be with her boyfriend. Instead, the boyfriend is nowhere to be found at the airport. Since they don't have anywhere to go, they are put into a refugee hotel in the middle of nowhere where they are forced to stay for many months.

The film analyzes the woman's troubles, the things she has to do to attempt to make money (including a near foray into internet porn) as well as the kid's descent into delinquency due to poor supervision. The amusement park worker who befriends them is decently played, but seems a tad unrealistic.

This fits into a Saturday afternoon on Bravo quite nicely, but nothing else to really recommend.

ivansxtc. (Dir. Bernard Rose)

Leave it to the British to skewer Hollywood better than most. This film is a modern adaptation of a Tolstoy work set in Hollywood with all the sleaze intact.

Basically, at the beginning of the film, we find out that Ivan, a Hollywood agent, has just died. Even though the doctor says cancer, Hollywood says drugs. We then go back to the last week or so of Ivan's life to find out where he was before his death.

It is here that the movie becomes rather relentless in showing off the backstabbing, drug taking, sex games, power plays, etc. of Hollywood without holding back too much. Peter Weller as the big Hollywood star is probably the best send off as he relishes being a "star" while playing up the smug asshole quotient to the hilt.

The film was shot (and projected, I might add) on HD Beta, which looked surprisingly good onscreen and actually made for a weird viewing experience. Not used to seeing video on a movie screen made it feel very real, but also altogether surreal at the same time. The best part about the Beta, for this film, is that they could shoot it renegade and not worry about permits, etc. and get a very very verite feel.

Don't expect anyone to rush and pick this up for distribution, but certainly a pleasure if you delight in destroying Hollywood.

IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE (Dir. Wong Kar-Wai)

Wong Kar-Wai is certainly on a streak and In The Mood For Love does not disappoint. It leaves you captivated as you keep waiting for the shoe to drop that never does.

The film is set in Hong Kong in 1962 and follows two neighbors who slowly discover their respective spouses are having an affair with each other. They begin a friendship and a working relationship at first to console each other on their partner's absence, but it goes profoundly deeper than that. Their reluctance to fall in love is the tension that exists in the entire film.

Not just wonderfully acted, the movie is very nicely stylised and is just wonderful to look at. Wong Kar-Wai's use of mirrors and doors always forces the 2 not-lovers to be crammed into small portions of the frame and superbly accents their trapped emotions.

This film cements Wong Kar-Wai's importance to World Cinema, in my eyes.

POLLOCK (Dir. Ed Harris)

Ed Harris has made this biopic of painter Jackson Pollock his labor of love. For that, he wrote, directed, produced and starred in this project that chronicles Pollock's life from about 1941 until his death.

The picture basically is straight forward. I was hoping, given Pollock's abstract art and the notion that his art is just "created" that the film would be more of the same. Instead, it plays itself out as a solid HBO movie. Harris does a great job of the onagain/offagain drunk Pollock, but it's really Marcia Gay Holden as Pollock's wife Lee Krassner who is the rock of both Pollock and the film.

By the end, when she leaves, the film really loses it's emotional center, which may be intentional to accent Pollock's feelings as well, but it makes the last 15 minutes seemed forced and you just want it to come to an end.

THE YARDS (Dir. James Gray)

What can you say about a cast that includes James Caan, Joaquim Phoenix, Faye Dunaway, Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron? How about that the movie is contrived and bad.

Wahlberg just got paroled from prison and wants to work for stepuncle Caan's subway repair business. However, Caan won't let him work until a few years of engineering school is under his belt. Needing money now, he hooks up with Phoenix to help handle, basically, the shakedown side of the business. When a job finds one person dead and a cop in a coma, Wahlberg has to run first from the cops and then from his own family who want to kill him.

Basically, it's full of stereotypical New Yawk punks, stuffy politicians on the take, and white Italian Mafiosi wannabees. No plot twist is unexpected and while the acting is quite good, they're saddled with some ridiculous dialogue.

This movie might have felt good had it come out in 1995, right after Gray's last flick, Little Odessa. Instead, it's many years too late and not worth the price of admission.

REQUIEM FOR A DREAM (Dir. Darren Aronofsky)

Prepare to be bitch-slapped over and over and over and over.

This film follows 9 months in the life of Ellen Burstyn, who gets addicted to diet pills so she can be on television and Jared Leto and Jennifer Connelly as a smack-addicted couple looking to make the big score to open a clothing store.

The movie, though, is about the form which I'm sure will piss a lot of people off. Aranofsky delves you right into the increase insanity that drug addiction brings and drags the audience right in it. This movie has 3 times the edits of a normal Hollywood movie, and believe me it shows and leaves a nasty residue in your head.

The first 15 minutes, I wondered what the hype of the film was all about. The last 45 minutes had me holding my breath with my jaw on the floor. The fact that it was relentless for those 45 minutes, never giving the moviegoer a chance to breathe, made it that much harder to stomach. It was an allout assault and Aranofsky knows it.

There's so much going for this movie, including Ellen Burstyn who was absolutely astounding as the mother. The role is so daring and she is so ridiculously beliveable every step of the way that she better get a damn Oscar nod, if not the whole damn thing. I know, the Academy don't look highly on NC-17 drug pictures, but damn it give it to this woman!!!!!!!!!

The sound design was also insanely amazing. The metaphors they put together through the sound connected with the visuals that happen so fast it makes me astounded they were ever able to complete the sound design at all.

The music by Clint Mansell and Kronos Quartet is also deserving of one of the most haunting, harrowing scores I've heard in quite a long time. It stays with you way way way too long.

If you haven't, check out RequiemForADream.Com to get an idea of what the movie is like. The thing that surprised me is how much of the movie is that website. I can't explain it anymore than that, but just take whole chunks of the assault on your senses that this site gives you and multiply it by 100 and you'll see what I mean.

Very very VERY few films have affected me like this one. Believe me, you need to schedule a good hour after this movie to decompress and return yourself to reality after the attack (and this movie IS an attack on you). That said, it's a welcome attack. I highly recommend sitting close to the screen so the images can envelop you and so the Dolby Surround can attack you from all sides.

Believe me, this movie will hurt and you will be thanking Aranofsky for making you hurt.

More updates later...

REPOJAY