Scribez

Rating: 8/10

By now, we know that Alejandro Gonarez Inarritu is a great film-maker. He has directed two more brilliant movies (21 Grams, Babel) and two amazing short films (one of the 11 in 9′11″01, and one for the BMW series). But in his debut film itself, he shows his prowess.

The plot consists of three intersecting stories, linked by an accident shown at the start of the movie. There is Octavio, in love with his sister-in-law, Susana. He decides to fight his dog in order to make enough for them to leave his brother and mother for ever. The second story is of Valeria,a famous model and Daniel,a magazine publisher, who leaves his wife for Valeria. They are also affected strongly by the accident. The third involves an old revolutionary, Chivo, who now does “jobs” for a sum. He longs to talk to his long-separated daughter (who thinks he’s dead).

The plot will invoke comparisons with Pulp Fiction, but the similarities are (mostly) superficial. This movie is more emotional, less “fun”, but almost as entertaining.

The themes follow from one story to another. The first and the second share a theme of betrayal and infidelity, and the second and third are both about lost glory. There are subtle and rich implications present in all stories (How do you trust a person who has betrayed someone, even if he betrayed them for you? Will you yourself, if given a chance, kill a man who you paid to have killed?)

But there is almost nothing these stories share superficially, except the accident, and dogs. Dogs are important to all three stories. The trained dogs do wonderful jobs.

The acting is uniformly good, although some actors shine more than others, particularly Goya Toledo (Valeria), who is intense, and Emilio Echevarría (Chivo), who says much with his eyes. Watch how Emilio’s voice trembles during the penultimate scene of the movie.

Inarritu amazes with his direction in his debut film. The pacing is excellent, and so is the editing. The atmosphere is heavy. The moie is slickly shot, and Inarritu directs with a moving camera, which involves us immediately in the action. Reminds me of Scorcese.

There are problems, however. Most of them lie with the story. As I said, these movies share almost nothing superficially, and the movie feels like three stories, not one. The first story is a rather cliched one, and is saved only by Inarritu’s blazing direction. “Daniel and Valeria” deserved more time, as it is the most heart-wrenching story of the three.

This also affects the structure, as we cannot return to the earlier stories after we move on (unlike 21 Grams, which handled 3 stories in parallel). The structure feels fragmented, like Pulp Fiction, which was able to avoid this difficulty by entertaining us thoroughly. Here, we get emotionally involved, and it is dissapointing to not return to Valeria’s story after Chivo’s tale begins.

But Inarritu succeeds at making a strong debut, and tell three disconnected stories, covering a range of emotions and situations equally well. At times he is playful, at times dramatic, at times stylish, but always brilliant.

Notes:

-I was particularly impressed at how he intercut the sequences to show the time order of the events.

- Two characters from different stories turns lights on-and-off when they are uneasy.

- The middle story is almost unconnected from the other two, which are more strongly connected. Again reminds me of Pulp Fiction, and the place of Bruce Willis’s story in it.

- Inarritu reportedly said that “Love’s a Bitch” is not an accurate translation, so I don’t know whether the title is meant as a pun or not.

Edit: Added a note about structure.

—-

Anonick

I am a film addict. At this point who isn’t? I remember a time when mentioning names like Wong Kar Wai or Akira Kurusawa in a conversation would result in raised eyebrows and sneers. Now, every other dawg is an Almadovar fan or a Fellini freak. I really don’t know how much of the works by these directors are being understood by this new wave of (pseudo?) cine-philes. My fix of films come from the good old pirated CD/DVD dealers in Cochin. There is this little shop where the dude will get me any movie I ask for, even if no one else wants it; he’d get me one copy. We have a relationship going back over 5 years. There is a whole black market of pirated stuff here and it is quite efficient. I have found gems in these shops that are not found in bigger metros like Banglore and Chennai.

The new anti-piracy drive by the Govt. is a blatant attempt at killing my supply of illicit escapism. Here’s what is happening-

The Police are raiding stores and DVD/VCD rental shops, and confisticating everything they have. My good friend, the pirate of cochin had his entire collection confisticated. This man is not only a pirate, he is a serious movie buff. He has 3 versions of Citizen Kane with him- DVD conversions of varying quality. He is a collector and supplier par excellence. But it’s all illegal. The cops even confisticated blank CDs and DVDs. All in all, this brother lost over Rs. 9 lakhs in merchandise. Woah!

I know that piracy is wrong, that it is illegal and kills the movie industry. But here is my argument for it. The Malayalam film industry is a con. The home videos are of such low quality that you’d wonder where the Rs.300 you shell out for a DVD is spent. The conversion is bad- some of the older films are actually converted from video cassettes. There are no multiple audio tracks. There is no bonus material whatsoever. A rough estimation by me pegs the true value of these DVDs (including a generous profit) at about Rs.120. The pirated version is only Rs.100. So why shell out more for the same shit. The legal version of the DVD should provide the consumers with some incentives for it’s purchase.

I don’t always go for the pirated DVDs; I have a collection of original DVDs (foreign films) too. There is quality in conversions and a slew of bonus features that I wouldn’t get in a pirated DVD, so I have no reservations in paying the price printed on it’s back. Some of the films that you really want never make it legally to the CD/DVD shops. Films by Ozu, Kobayashi, Kar Wai, to name a few, are not there on any shelves in any CD/DVD shops selling legal DVDs. Ordering it online is an option, but I’ve done it and I’ve gotten a broken disc with me to remind me to never try that again.

Another point I’d like to raise is the censorship of original DVD content by the Censor Board. The original DVD of Irreversible by Gasper Noe is actually 16 minutes shorter than the actual film. Y Tu Mama Tambien has been cut too- very abrupt cuts. The pirated DVDs feature pristine conversions and no such censoring. Not to mention, films like The Last Temptation Of Christ are actually banned in India and piracy is the only way of getting it.

So in a country where good films seldom reach theatres, where there are no incentives for buying an original CD/DVD, where half the films that do reach legally are censored, why should I buy or wait for an original DVD? I agree again that piracy is illegal. But in many cases, it is the only option. It is a thriving business because of this, even with the raids on. I can still get the DVDs from the pirates of Cochin and I will keep buying it.

powered by performancing firefox

Director: Pedro Almodovar

Rating: 8.5/10

There is a vein of dark humour that runs in all of Almodovar’s films. Volver is no exception. Though Almodovar simplifies his narrative, he still layers it with his usual repertoire of wit, sensitivity and not to mention- an obsession with women. Penelope Cruz excels under her mentor’s directing again (after All About My Mother). This is by far her best performance to date and long expected one.

The plot revolves Raimunda (Penelope Cruz), her daughter Paula (Yohana Cobo) and Raimunda’s sister Sole (Lola Duenas). Raimunda lives with Paco, the two have a very cold relationship. The events lead upto Paula killing her father after he tries to make moves on her. The film uses converging parallel narratives of Raimunda and Paula trying to get rid of the body while trying to re-build their lives and that of Sole being visited by her dead mother. There is also the story of Augustina, whose mother left her 4 years before and she hopes to find out what happened to her. All this leads to a powerful, emotional and revealing conclusion that is definitely Almodovar’s.

One of the problems I had with this film was it’s pace- the film meanders a bit here and there. But over all, the acting, the directing and the script holds you by the balls (and thats the sign of a good film). Cruz is divine. I am rooting for her to win the best actress Oscar this year. The cinematography by Jose Luis Alcaine and editing by Jose Salcedo is good, but then again, this is a director’s film. the music by Alberto Iglesias is forgettable, but the song Volver, sung by Penelope Cruz stays in your mind.

On Almadovar
There are very few directors who capture women on screen as well as Almodovar (Wong Kar Wai is the best for me). The way he frames the actors and the way he nurtures the characters in a film is quite intriguing. He is an auteur beyond compare and arguably one of the best directors alive. But what makes his films tick? As I mentioned before, there is always the dark humour, but I feel the reason why his films stand out is because he is a humanist. He cares about his characters and he cares about what they represent. Almodovar talks not about death in this film but about the “rich culture surrounding death”. Discussing philosophy in a simple narrative is Almodovar’s gift.

On Cruz
Cruz is beautifull, Cruz is divine and with this film she shows she is a great actress too. Her range and depth is used exceptionally well here. I liked her in Vanilla Sky but I loved her here. The screen oozes with her presence and her energy. She brings a poignancy and believability to the role of Raimunda. Penelope Cruz succeeds in making us care for her character. This is not method acting; for this to happen you need a screen presence and charisma that only true stars can bring to a film. Cruz is…(I better stop).

Though a film that I thoroughly enjoyed, it is not without problems. There is the occasional drift into melodrama and the ending that leaves a few too many questions unanswered. But overall I was won over by Penelope Cruz’s performance of a lifetime and Almodovar’s great direction. As artists, the mentor and the apprentice seems to have reached a level where both are now peers.

(p.s. I saw it on pirated DVDs. Take that Indian Police.)

Review by: bApHoMEt

powered by performancing firefox

“You better be sure you wanna know what you wanna know.”

Brick(2006) by Rian Johnson is a daring film in many ways. It assumes, much like Primer that the viewers are smart and are willing to go with the plot no matter how far fetched it may seem. The lines are confounding to say the least. Sometimes they don’t make sense at all and it may take a couple of viewings to actually figure out what the characters are talking about. In that way, it’s a lot like A Clockwork Orange; you have to learn the lingo as you go on.

The narrative centers around a detective story but the setting is a modern day high school and somehow it’s all just very very cool. Brendan Frye (played by Joseph Gordon Levitt from 3rd Rock from the Sun) is a high school student who unlike most others knows how the ‘upper crust’ of druggies operate, their inner workings so to speak. He is pulled into this once he gets a phone call from his ex-girlfriend who cries and mentions something about a ‘brick’, a ‘tug’ and a ‘pin’. Confused, he launches an investigation of his own to make sure she’s alright with the help of another recluse, The Brain,a prodigy of sorts. He also informs the Vice Principal of the school of some of the goings on. As things move on, he meets a lot of shady and sophisticated characters like Laura , the violent Tug , seductive Kara, Brad and drug baron The Pin.

Now, the film is very very confusing mostly because it’s not that easy to understand what the characters are talking about. It takes a little time to get into the flow, but once you’re in, it’s very rewarding. If you’re a fan of film noir, you’ll love it for the freshness it brings in to the genre.

What really struck me was the direction and editing. The camera is still for mostof the scenes and the editing is excellent. Some of the scenes are really mindblowing. Most of the special effects were made thanks to some very original techniques. There is a scene where Tug comes to hit Brendan…very neat stuff. The film was shot on 35mm stock and hardly any scene required a green screen.

The film had a very low budget but won the Special Jury Prize for Originality of Vision at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival and was also nominated at Independent Spirit Award 2006 for the John Cassavetes Award (best film production with a budget under USD 500,000).

The posters for this film are pretty amazing too. All in all, 9/10. One of the best films of 2006.

Director: Edward Zwick

Rating: 6.5/10

There are action films and there are issue driven films. Blood Diamond falls in between. A blistering performance by Leonardo DiCaprio fails to lift the film from it’s mundane action film genre trappings and it’s failure as an attempt to discuss the issues that plagued Sierra Leone in 1999.

Blood Diamond is the term used to describe diamonds mined to finance conflicts. The film tells the story of Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou), a fisherman who is enslaved to mine for blood diamonds. He finds a large one, which he hides before being captured. In jail he meets Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a mercenary who smuggles diamonds. They escape and go to the warzone to retrieve the diamond. On the way they are joined by Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connely). The rest is an action movie with characters on the run in a conflict ridden paradise.

There are many things profound that Edward Zwick tries to say with the film, but he fails to tell anything because he tries to say too much. The cinematography by Eduardo Serra is top-notch, the editing is tight and the music by James Newton Howard is decent and passable. The film is performance driven, beautiful to watch and has an engaging narrative.

On Leonardo DiCaprio
DiCaprio is the new De Niro (watch This Boy’s Life to see them side by side). He is a delight to watch as Danny Archer, making him believable and intense. I’ve admired this star since watching What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. He is that rare example of a brilliant child actor growing up to be an even better adult actor. There is no doubt that he has a powerful screen presence, but it is always accompanied by a blistering performance.

On Edward Zwick
Zwick is perhaps one of Hollywood’s great technical directors along with Ridley Scott and Steven Speilberg. As always in his case, this technical brilliance seems to be directed mostly at the visuals. Zwick’s images are beautifull, his films feature exotic locales or a sort of exoticization of everyday places. His recurring theme of white world-weary man helping people of other races and thereby acquiring a new perspective on their culture continues (take Glory or The Last Samurai) in this film. This seems forced most of the time as he seems to struggle at grasping all the nuances.

Zwick’s fixation with discussing issues plaguing Africa, from hunger to child soldiers causes the film to loose it’s focus and slows the pacing of the film in places. The scope of the film is very broad but as always Zwick never gets down to the depths of the issues. The current political situation in Somalia looms large when one watches this film. But for a more honest portrayal of Africa I’d still stick with The Constant Gardener or Hotel Rwanda, where narrative and characters were given priority over giving us a history lesson.

Review by: bApHoMEt

powered by performancing firefox

Director: Robert De Niro

Rating: 8/10

“The true story of the birth of the CIA through the eyes of a man who never existed”- reads one of the taglines for this film. The film tells the story of Edward Wilson (Matt Damon) and of the birth of the CIA. The narrative takes us into the life and times of this fictious character, loosely based on real life personalities. But De Niro does something a bit different here- he makes a spy movie that is more about character and drama than action.

A sizeable portion of the film is told in flashback. Initially you’d think that this is a build-up to a grand action finale, but the flash back is done to emphasize the character, hence the finale is about the decisions and the choices he makes. The tone of the film is dark and sombre, the pacing is slow and deliberate. This is however a flawed film, mainly because of the lack of focus on plot. Though De Niro has so many characters here and so many interesting set-ups, he doesn’t follow through with a kill. What we get instead is a meandering film that revolves around the main character. There are no grand expositions or reveals, just well written dialogues and forgettable shots. But when it works, it works big-time.

There are some powerfull scenes, like in The Godfather, where violence is sparse but violence is imminent; violence is implied. The acting is top notch from a good supporting cast, the weakest link being Angelina Jolie. I personally never warmed upto Jolie’s acting, for some reason her performance here reminded me of her role in Alexander. The most interesting parts of the film are early-on, with Damon and Micheal Gambon, who first appears as his poetry teacher in college and then as his mentor during his work for OSS during the WWII.

On Robert De Niro
This is De Niro’s second film as a director (the first being A Bronx Tale). De Niro understands character, but he has his hands full here. He tries to do too much with the characters in this film. I did like his idea of letting the characters breathe, giving them space and silent reflection, but he overdoes this. The editing could have been a bit more tight. The shots are average at the most. There is no doubt that De Niro is a good director, but there is also no doubt that a film like this would have transformed into a masterpiece if it were reigned by Coppolla, De Palma or even Stone.

On Eric Roth
Roth is one of my favourite screenplay authors. His films look as good, sometimes even better on paper than the screen. His material and his style has changed significantly since Forrest Gump. Though I am not much of a fan of his Ali, he has found a consistent vibe with Munich and now this. Roth’s screenplays deal with the internal conflicts of his characters. In Munich it is excellent because these conflicts are integral to the plot and are driven by the plot. Here, the plot is found wanting.

On Matt Damon
Damon is, as always, a thrill to watch. Comparisons to his performance in the genre-shaking Bourne series are inevitable. However, his character has this dark and stoic quality that is played masterfully by him. Damon’s gift lies in his calculating eyes, there is always something going on in his character’s head. The character’s body language is strained, his words are cautious and weighed, his face is emotionless.

What makes this film click are the performances. This is not a director’s film, though it could have been. The screenplay is dark and ironic, the music is used sparsely in the background, and the cinematography is average. Though a wasted opportunity this film still succeeds because of it’s characters and the portrayal of the times they live in. De Niro over-reaches, but I’d rather see a flawed film that tries this much than a good film that doesn’t.

Review by: bApHoMEt

powered by performancing firefox

Director: Alphonso Cuaron

Rating: 10/10

The common theme in all the films I liked in recent memory has to do with the breaking through of the tyranny of narrative that has long held mainstream film in its grip. Some of the finest films and some of its ambitious failures all share an expansive use of the medium that dared to challenge the usual plot-driven aesthetic and instead made use of cinema’s full visual palette and expressive grammar. Children Of Men could have been a conventional sci-fi thriller, but instead emerges as an unusually bold technical leap- it’s densely layered production design almost a collage of cultural signifiers, it’s long takes harking back to film’s master directors.

From the start, it’s always the little things that you’ll notice- there are no lengthy expositions or long plot discussions, the dialogues are casual and the narrative is taut. But the film uses scenes with cohesive themes and shots with extensive cultural references, that a whole three-act narrative is crammed into each segment.

It tells the story of Theodore Faron (Clive Owen) living in a future world nearing apocalypse in London. He was a political activist, now he is a bureaucrat. His wife Julian Taylor (Julianne Moore) is now a rebel leader. Women are infertile and the movie begins with the death of the youngest human- 18 years old. The year is 2027 and all hells broken loose. There is anarchy in every part of the world; Britain survived because of its authoritarian rule and it’s absolute ban on immigration.

To this world of utter hopelessness, hope is revealed- a girl is pregnant. Her name is Kee (note the nomenclature- it’s similar to ‘key’), and Theo must help her escape London to avoid her and her child from being used as political tools. The narrative of the film deals with this escape. Cuaron uses this narrative to overload us with questions and possibilities from current political scenario and its extrapolation, to philosophy and its cousin- religion.

On Clive Owen

I‘ve liked Clive Owen- from his assassin days in Bourne Identity, through his struggle with bullshit films like Arthur and his emergence as a lead actor in Inside Man. But this film is his magnum opus. The acting is so understated that the world-weary tough guy that he almost portrays stays just that- almost. There is a haunted hollowness in his eyes, a stoop to his stance and a sort of John-McClane-Bruce-Willisness that is riveting to watch. Understated performances are often overlooked, but in this case it acts as a perfect counter to the stark images flowing on the screen.

On Alphonso Cuaron

Hollywood has become corrupted by “narrative,” making movies that are the visual equivalent of books on tape, composed of talking heads delivering dialogue that moves the story along and nothing more. Alphonso Cuaron, noted for his meandering and trippy Y Tu Mama Tambien, is a director who surprised me with his absolute mastery of the film medium even in gross Hollywood over-productions like Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban. However, I feel that he is the latest in a very small elite group of directors (including David Lynch, Terrence Mallick, Gullermo del Toro, Darren Aronofsky…) who make “thematically oriented” films, that make use of the medium’s formal elements- sound, music, acting, cinematography, editing- to transcend mere plot and character.

This is by far one of the best films of 2006, and one of the best Sci-Fi films ever. The reason is its absolutely unwavering fidelity to the world it tries to create and the characters it tries to populate itself with. The film succeeds because of its questions and it’s answers (and sometimes the lack of it). It shows us a future that might just occur in a few days time- man dying bit by bit and feeling the agony of a life carelessly wasted. It’s scary as hell, but that’s the way it will be.

P.S. Did I mention that Michael Caine is a hippy in this film?

Review by: bApHoMEt

Before Sunrise (1995) and Before Sunset (2005) are two films but in order to be fully appreciated, they have to be seen together. It is a surreal and very profound experience.

Both of them were directed by one of my favourite directors, Richard Linklater (Waking Life, Dazed and Confused, A Scanner Darkly, School of Rock and the relatively unknown Tape). The screen play for the first movie was written by Kim Krizan and Linklater and the latter flick was penned by Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy and Linklater.

BEFORE SUNRISE (1995)

 I believe if there’s any kind of God it wouldn’t be in any of us, not you or me but just this little space in between. If there’s any kind of magic in this world it must be in the attempt of understanding someone sharing something. I know, it’s almost impossible to succeed but who cares really? The answer must be in the attempt.

Two strangers in their early twenties, Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) meet on a train and immediately connect through conversations that range from the metaphysical to the abstract. They realise that there exists a connection and decide to explore it further. Jesse has to catch a plane to the US on the next day from Vienna and he asks her (who was on her way to Paris) to get down with him at Vienna. She agrees but not without a little hesitation. They realise that their time is limited and so decide to make the most of it. Slowly, as they begin to converse, an undeniable attraction between the two grows but none of the two spoil anyting by calling it love or any such thing.

A film like this does not depend on the way it’s shot; it lies entirely in the hands of the actors and the writer. All of them do a marvellous job and the result is nothing short of spectacular!

The writing is simply amazing. The conversations are beautiful and the movie makes you believe that the finest form of seduction is conversation. The characters perfectly portray the sense of hope that accompanies individuals about to take on life. 

The landscape and architecture of Vienna accentuate the beauty of the writing. An amazing piece of film making.

10/10 

BEFORE SUNSET (2005)

Richard Linklater, 10 years later decides to experiment with the same characters again and the result is no less profound!

In the ten years since their one night in Vienna, Jesse has been married and has a son and Celine works for an environmental organization in France. Jesse has written a book detailing and slightly romanticizing their night and is on a book tour in France where he meets Celine again.

After a few minutes of awkward conversation, they become more at ease and discover that long lost connection and begin talking about where life has taken them in the past 10 years. They begin conversing about their regrets, their successes, failures and about growing older. The writing is as stirringly beautiful and poignant as the prequel (even got nominated for an Oscar) and you really believe that these two characters were the same ones you’ve seen before and more importantly, you believe in their connection.

This time, they are in Paris and the surroundings amplify the emotional maturity of the two characters. Beautifully scored and shot!

10/10

I’d fallen so much in love with the movies that I even own the two screenplays. I admit, mushy stuff isn’t really my thing but Richard Linklater has created something no movie about couples has ever been. A must watch if you’re the kind of person who thrives on conversations.

Some movies make you hopeful, some make you think and some make you depressed. This one does a fine job of doing all three.

Directed by Darren Aronofsky (Pi, The Fountain), this is another one of his exercises in low budget film making and boy does he do it well! What hits one more than the ‘plot’ or story is the way it’s shot. Close ups of protagonists and sometimes very graphic images to convey the pain and anguish of addicts.

You could say this is a story of addiction; people addicted to drugs, prescription medication and most imporatantly, hope. Every single one of the characters is addicted to the belief that happiness is just around the corner and they go through hell trying to get there.

Harry Goldfarb (Jared Leto), Tyrone (Marlon Wayans) and Marion (Jennifer Conelly) are drug addicts who will do anything to get some crack. And I mean anyhthing; including selling Harry’s mom’s TV or selling Marion to a king pin fond of kinky sex. Harry loves his mother but cannot show it, Tyrone has ambitions but doesn’t know how to make them true and Marion wants to be a designer but is too addicted to stay focused. The main character in the movie is Sara Goldfarb (Ellen Burstyn in her Oscar nominated performance), Harry’s mom who thinks she’s going to appear on a TV show and gets addicted to diet pills in an attempt to tone down and fit into a red dress. She loves her son…way too much and Harry cannot reciprocate it. Things go very very wrong for all of these people.

Like Pi, there are a lot of montages of short shots with an amazing background score by the Kronos quartet and composed by Clint Mansell (Pi). Editing, like Pi is excellent and there are even cameos by some of the actors from Pi including Sean Gullette.

All in all 8.5/10. Brilliant film but may be too painful to watch. Originally rated NC-17.

One word: Wow!

11:15, restate my assumptions: 1. Mathematics is the language of nature. 2. Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers. 3. If you graph these numbers, patterns emerge. Therefore: There are patterns everywhere in nature.

This is one movie I’ve heard so much about and trust me, it didn’t disappoint. Shot entirely on what I assume is a DV cam and entirely in black and white, this 1998 film by Aronofsky is the story of a genius’s fall into insanity.

Max Cohen is a brilliant but highly reclusive and paranoid mathematician who thinks that everything in the universe can be understood trhough numbers. He believes there exists a ‘pattern’ in Pi that can predict the stock market (which he says is an organism in itself) and later on is convinced by a set of Kaballistic jews that he may have uncovered the lost name of God (which incidentally has 216 Hebrew letters). With two sets of people behind him (Jews and a bi**h of a representative from Wall Street) with ulterior motives, Max tries to crack the code but is debilitated by headaches (we are left to assume this is a result of him staring at the sun when he was 6). I’ve read somewhere that these headaches are known as ‘Cluster Headaches’ and are known to induce the most pain known to man.

Most of the shots in this films are grainy close ups of the protagonist and it does a fine job of letting the viewer get a sneak peak into the turmoil of one man as he tries to uncover a pattern in the universe beacuse he refuses to believe that everything is chaotic (‘There is no order, only chaos’, says his mentor Sol).  Max Cohen’s paranoia is perfectly portrayed by Sean Gullette. Amazing!

The music by Clint Mansell is more of techno but it accentuates the fast cut editing perfectly. The editing is brilliant and the ‘pill-popping’ scenes are similar to the ones in Requiem for a Dream (by the same director) which is next on my list.

This is a fine example of no-budget movie making. Made on $60,000, it’s no surprise it made waves at various film fests all over when it was released.

8.5/10 Brilliant stuff!