|
||||||||||||||||||||
TRIBECA 2005: Coverage Part 5
 The Tribeca Film Festival kicked off its fourth glorious year in downtown Manhattan this past April. It was founded in 2002 by Robert De Niro, Jane Rosenthal, and Craig Hatkoff, as a way of getting people back into lower Manhattan following the 9/11 attacks. Their plan worked, and millions of people have flocked to the festival over the years. So many people in fact, that getting in to actually see the movies you desire is a near impossibility. Now don't get me wrong, I entirely support the film festival and I am in favor of opening people's eyes to the wonder of cinema, by any means possible. However, the festival is arranged with the same carelessness that I fling my shoes across the floor after an eight hour day of work. I went into Manhattan on a Saturday morning hoping to see some movies, but instead found myself stuck in an endless line with rain pounding down on me. I stood on line for over an hour, only to be told that the movie was sold out, probably before I even stepped onto it. And the same thing happened for the second film I hoped to catch. By this time I took my disgruntled self to other sites around Manhattan, drowning my sorrows in several cups of cappuccino, with a few biscottis. I know what you're thinking-- why didn't I just buy a ticket in advance and save myself the headache? Well, I certainly would have, if that option had been available. But as it turns out, tickets could not be purchased for many of the movies online, or at any point before the door sales line. There is a separate line for each movie, and it only opens up shortly before the film premieres. Which means you just might find yourself spending more time standing on lines than actually seeing any films. What a joy that is. Thank heavens for press screenings and screeners. Out of the two-hundred movies showing at the festival, my schedule allowed me to see (drumroll, please!) a total of four movies. Hey, leave me alone. I am only a writer part-time, when I am not off battling superheroes, trying to save the world from mass destruction by an incompetent president, or struggling to discover a word that rhymes with ‘orange’. [THE MOVIES] Yes (drama) “We cannot talk, lots of lies. Guess that’s what happens when love dies.”  Brief Summary: Joan Allen may be able to say ‘no’ to a big mac and cheese, but she can’t help but say ‘yes’ to infidelity. Stuck in a boring, passionless marriage to rigid Sam Neill, she finds herself drawn to a sexy Lebanese chef (Abkarian) who fills her otherwise monotonous life with intense passion. Their fairy tale extramarital affair takes an ugly turn when he loses his job, and starts to feel she cares about him only as a dial-a-stud and not for his deeply spiritual and political roots. Sadly, he may be right, but she is willing to risk losing everything to prove him wrong.
Diagnosis: Yes is a movie about love and the search for meaning in life. The problem is that the film itself is not deep enough to tackle its heavy themes and enlighten the audience. All I ultimately saw at the end of the day was a lonely woman who cared mostly for herself, often at the expense of others. The oddest element to the movie is that it is expressed entirely in poetic verse. Yes, you read that correctly. For example, “Communism died, replaced by greed, a life spent longing for things you don’t need.” The good thing about this type of style is that it makes the running time pass quickly, and I felt like I had barely sat down by the time the final credits appeared. The bad thing is that it’s essentially a gimmick, to spice up an otherwise trite storyline. The acting is solid all around, and I give props to Potter for trying something new, even if I felt at times like I was in the audience of a 7th grade Shakespearean play rendition. My favorite character in the movie is the maid, played by Shirley Henderson. She is obsessed with dirt and filth and eavesdropping into the family’s conversations. She shares her consistently morbid thoughts on hygiene, saying that dirt never vanishes but just moves around, spreads onto every inch, and lives inside of us. Excuse me while I go take a long shower. Gay Sex in the 70’s (documentary) “Today, most people –even young gay men—have no idea of what life was like in the streets of New York at that time. There are few left alive to tell them of the astounding sexual freedom and sexual excitement of day-to-day life.” – Joseph Lovett.  Brief Summary: Imagine a time where you could walk into a supermarket and leave with multiple orgasms from total strangers, in addition to a large supply of bagged groceries. If you think someone is hot, you can have unprotected sex with them anytime, anywhere, and then leave and do the same with someone else the following hour. After the ‘Stonewall’ period in NYC, from 1969-1981, the gay community took their oppression and turned it into a celebration of sexual liberation. There was no AIDS or severe STD’s at that time (nothing that a little cream couldn’t fix by Monday), just an opportunity to have as much sex as you could get, without any known consequences or penalties.
Diagnosis: Although the title sounds like a porno movie, Gay Sex In The 70s is actually a fascinating documentary about sexual excess and repercussions. There are several men interviewed, talking about what life was like during those days, in a completely carefree era. While it’s impossible for me to fully imagine that kind of a reality, since I’ve been raised in a generation of fear and intimidation, it was interesting to learn about people’s experiences and the differences in life several decades ago. The strength of the film is its acute sense of humor, and its avoidance of delving into melodramatic terrain. It’s ultimately a very happy, joyous movie, about a culture having a good time in bath houses, fire island, upper west side piers, studio 54, and anywhere else. One interesting tidbit I learned is that many of the men were really romantics at heart, just looking for the great love of their lives. They would have sex first, and see if a connection stemmed from there—something I am sure heterosexual males would not mind in their own community. When the film does touch upon the AIDS epidemic in the early 1980’s, it is done in a way that highlights the positives of them uniting to fight this disease and raise public awareness together. I recommend Gay Sex In The 70’s to anyone with an open mind. If you read this entire review, then you probably qualify. Infection (foreign/horror) “We can’t handle an airborne pathogen this toxic!”  Brief Summary: In the most incompetent hospital in Japan, a new dying patient is admitted with a dangerously high fever and a rash spreading throughout his body. After accidentally killing another patient from malpractice, the doctors are distressed and unable to pinpoint what the new patient suffers from. They are horrified when they witness him dissolve into a puddle of green ooze before their eyes. “The patient experienced liquefaction of internal organs” announced one doctor. “But he smiled right at me!” exclaimed another. When the bizarre infection starts to spread to the hospital staff, they realize their medical degrees won’t be too beneficial to them. (Not that they truly were in the first place.)
Diagnosis: Infection has its moments of unintentional comedy, but there is absolutely nothing frightening about it. Unless the sight of people bleeding green goo from their ears and screaming in an over-the-top fashion gives you the willies, you’re probably better off renting something successfully freaky, like The Shining. The doctors in this movie are so inept that you begin to wonder if they hand out medical certifications in Japan like fliers on the streets. One nurse leaves enough holes in a guy’s arm to fill a golf course, because she has ‘bad aim’ and cannot find his vein. Oops. The rest of the staff kills patients by giving excessive doses of the wrong medications, misplacing people in rooms they cannot locate, burning bodies to try and cover up deaths, and trying to contain viruses by sticking some plastic wrap over the victim’s faces. Sounds like a place you’d love to bring your family for treatment, right? Overall, Infection is a very bad B-horror movie with terrible acting, direction, editing, and writing. Skip it and thank me later. Punk: Attitude (documentary) “Say what you mean, mean what you say—and put a beat to it.”  Brief Summary: Punk: Attitude/, a documentary released by IFC TV, throws in more expletives than all of Tarantino’s films combined. The central theme of the movie is “Fuck This!”, the general anthem of the Punk community in response to the mainstream agenda. We are introduced to the history of punk rock and its symbolic figures, styles, and distinct underground cultures across the world. Some of the many rebellious bad-asses interviewed are Henry Rollins, Tommy Ramone, and Jim Jarmusch (don’t know quite how he snuck in there).
Diagnosis: I’ll admit it-- I really know nothing about Punk Rock. Before seeing this documentary, I could easily identify a Ramones tune and point out a Punk on the street, by the wild pink hairdo and safety pins in the nose. But beyond that, I am hopelessly clueless about the movement. The problem is that after seeing this movie, I know virtually the same variety of information as I did before my viewing. It’s a fun glance at a number of bands (Sex Pistols, The Clash, etc) that had a strong impact on music, and the fear it pumped into conservatives, which is always amusing. Blondie, who I loved as a kid, said that people were scared of her because they thought she was ‘punk rock’. Who could possibly be scared of a woman who raps about a man from Mars that eats guitars? It seems that the title Punk: Attitude is a bit of a misnomer, and should be called Punk: A Glimpse Into Every Punk Band That Ever Existed. There is simply too much information in the movie about the history of the gazillion bands themselves, and not much else. For die-hard Punk fans, this documentary will be a slice of heaven, but I’m not sure of its accessibility to the rest of the population. Ultimately, rebellion does not always make for quality entertainment. [FINAL THOUGHTS] That sums up my barely-extensive coverage of the Tribeca Film Festival. Hopefully I will be able to see a lot more films next year. Perhaps next time around I will camp out in tiny huts and try and see a whopping ten films! For all of Cinema Blend's Tribeca 2005 coverage click here.
Comment on “TRIBECA 2005: Coverage Part 5”Note: This website is not intended for use by minors. The views expressed in this comments section are not necessarily our own. Comments that we deem to be poorly worded, off topic, or threatening will not be published. For free, uncensored discussion visit our forum.Leave a ReplyMAIN SITE NAVIGATION
HOME l ABOUT US l l SEARCH l MOVIE NEWS l MOVIE REVIEWS l MOVIE PREVIEWS l DVD REVIEWS l DVD NEWS l SOUNDTRACKS l FEATURES DATABASE l TELEVISION l MUSIC l GAMES l CELEBRITY l TECHNOLOGY l RSS 2.0 FEEDS l MESSAGE BOARDS l LIVE CHAT l SYNDICATE US l LINKS | CB STORE | GIANT FREAKIN ROBOT This site is operated by Cinema Blend LLC. For advertising inquiries, contact Gorilla Nation. CinemaBlend.com is a private, independently owned website which is intended only as entertainment. The views expressed on this website may or may not reflect those of its owner. Don't take us too seriously. Made in Webta Labs 
|
|
