|
| I haven't posted on here in a whole year! That's crazy. Well now I have a new blog which is more Web 2.0 than Xanga. I plan to have my new blog for a long time and with it's RSS features, I'll be able to archive all my posts easily, so if I ever do switch from that blog I'll be able to import all old posts in a clean simple manner. Oh, how I love Web 2.0!
This will most likely be my last post on here, though I might sign on once a year to make sure xanga doesn't delete this archive of four or so months of my life in 2006.
My new blog is here: http://ivoryshipping.wordpress.com/
- chad zahara
| | |
| 
Hombre (1967)
A white man raised by Apache indians, John Russell, or Hombre as he is also known, has experienced the cruelty of white men first hand. He prefers to live as an indian. The death of his legal father changes all this as he is persuaded to leave the mountains and come down to civilization and live in his newly inherited home. On arrival it becomes clear that John has no intention on staying, and quickly plans to sell the home, but on a cross country stage coach ride everything changes when he, as well as a few others, get held up by some clever bandits. These criminals have figured out that Indian Agent Dr. Favor, one of the passengers, has been buying poor supplies and rotten meat to give to the indians while pocketing the rest of the money. This does not sit well with Hombre.
Through very patient filmmaking the director, Martin Ritt, gives us a fairly good sense of being stranded as well as being morally confused. Very long shots accomplish the dead pace of the desert. Minimal amounts of ambient sound can be heard, apart from that of a hungry crow or a creaking old mine shaft, making us feel just that much further from civilization. The editing also plays an integral role in isolating us with shots that are mostly long and drawn out. The acting was unfortunately quite dry. Paul Newman had one expression the whole film and a boring mono-tone voice to accompany it. The bandits were the typical greedy grubs, no dynamics there. The only portion of the characters I found enjoyable were their cleverly sparse one-lines.
When we remove the wild west motif and all of its flat characters we are left with a story of doing what is right no matter the cost. Hombre may not have changed much, he may have changed a lot, no one really knows due to the way he is portrayed. What we do know is that the few things he does do are heroic and that to us is what really counts. Do we care if Hombre likes refried beans? No. Somewhere between Beowulf and Sir Gawain there is John Russell.
Three stars.
Chad Zahara
October 3, 2006 | | |
| 
For my film studies class this year I have to write reviews so I though't I'd post them on here as well. Not that they are any good, but I'll get better. I hope... :p
Anyway here is my first one for the movie Thirteen:
Thirteen (2003)
The teen years are tough. This has been proven generation after generation, but are they getting any better? Thirteen answers with a loud resounding "NO."
Here we have Tracy, a fairly preppy 13 year old girl who seems to be making the best of her life, even though things are not perfect, but after being teased by some other girls, one day, she releases the animal inside going on a rampage of booze, drugs, sex, and screaming matches with her mom.
The events unravel rapidly and without comfort. We are on Tracy's ride. Nothing is censored. This shocking piece of filmmaking brilliance is achieved two ways. One, through the heartbreaking performances of Holly Hunter (Tracy's mom) and Evan Rachel Wood (Tracy). Both oscar worthy. The second way is through the intense camera work. Shot mainly handheld the camera is a character in itself. It tilts back and forth with the actors during fights. It spins whimsically when Tracy is high and it shakes when the characters are agitated giving us an unforgiving immediacy to the scene. If it weren't for the realism the affect would be not nearly as great.
Well written, acted, directed, and shot I can not find anything wrong with this movie. While I am not about to sit down for a second viewing anytime soon it's not because I didn't like it, it is just hard to digest, but that is what they were going for. This is gold weighted proof that the oscars are unfair.
Five stars.
Chad Zahara | | |
| 
Lately I've found myself listening to a lot of music containing some sort of electronic element. Bands like Marilyn Manson, The Fiery Furnaces, Architecture in Helsinki, Modest Mouse, Echo and the Bunnymen and even Coldplay, feed my need for a crispy computer beat. Though no band, in my opinion, can balance it as well as Radiohead does.
In the shadow of their massive 1996 hit album OK Computer, Radiohead either needed to accept it as their best work or reinvent themselves. Thankfully they chose the latter, resulting in one of the most amazing albums of the 2000's thus far.
I cannot explain the emotion of the album, nor can I explain what genre it belongs to. It would be like calling Vincent Van Gogh merely a painter. This is art, not music. This is really something special.
final: 98%
chad zahara
sept 17, 2006 | | |
| 
I'm going to do this review Minor Threat style:
THIS ALBUM IS CRAZYYYYYYY
ITS SO FUCKING ANGRYYY
IAN MACAYE SINGS SO FAST
THE GUITAR RIFFS ARE AWESOMEEEEE
AAHHHHHHHH!
GREAT TO LISTEN TO TO RELEASE ANGERRRRRR
FUCKIN LEGENDARYYYYYY
Final: 90%
chad zahara
sept 2, 2006 | | |
|
