Ingredients, at first glace, looks like another derivative documentary covering the green-ness of growing your own food.  But Ingredients actually takes a different angle at it’s subject.  Although most of the political concerns in the films are covered in several other, similar documentaries, Ingredients tries to show it’s audience the actual progress and examples of local growing, rather than preaching the politics of its subject.

Ingredients rightly avoids wasting time on what it’s audience already knows from films like Food Inc. After a very short animated clip of the evolution of the food industry (much like the animation from Bowling For Columbine), the film gets right into several types of food experts (chefs, farmers, scholars) and their views on the subject of locally grown foods. It’s almost inaccurate to call this an environmental documentary, because the argument for local growing is actually in the opposite direction.  Rather than “the environment is ruining, so we should grow locally”, Ingredients says “we should grow locally because of it’s own benefits, which happens to be great for the environment.”

The point, which really isn’t revealed until the final portion of the film, is to show a revolution cultivating from the “affluent” class.  As they catch on to locally grown foods, it will trickle ‘down’ to the rest of society.  At first Ingredients suggests that to really gain the benefits of better nutrients and taste, everyone ought to know as much as they can about the plants they are buying and their source.  On one hand, this is asking a lot of a working person, and Ingredients even admits that the sustainable growing is not feasible in feeding the world, due to  growing populations.  But even if an everyday person is unable to do so, this trend is already set in motion via chefs, scholars, and farmers, as well as a growing consumer population who have already come to see the benefits.

Overall, this is a well-made documentary which let’s the subjects talk for themselves, who seem interested, knowledgeable, and for the most part passionate.  Since it takes for granted the evils of processed food and environmental concerns, one could say it’s intended for those already bought into the green lifestyle.  But Ingredients doesn’t really use those in it’s main arguments, so it is probably the most accessible film of this type to anyone who doubts the politics of being green.

Rating – 3 /5

Here are a bunch of mini reviews of things I watched from the festival and since then:

All Around Us (Gururi no Koto) -4/5 (CIFF09)
Great, though quite slow.  A family-drama that leaves many messages about living life and the connections between loved ones, especially a spouse.  Some characters were a bit annoying, though it can’t be helped if art imitates reality.

Surveillance -3/5 (CIFF09)
Not horrible, but could have been much better, in my opinion.  Some twists in the plot, some of which are predictable.  But this is no action movie.  It’s almost all dialogue, and awkward dialogue at that, for the first three-quarters of the film.  Probably would have been better as a short.

Chaser (Chugyeoja) – 5/5 (CIFF09)
Excellent thriller.  Korean movies contain some of the best psycho-killer/ detective movies and this is one of them for sure.  Though not as epic as a Park Chan-wook film, it has great pacting, characters, tone, and is interesting to watch.  Some gory parts.  Worth tracking down.

Sparrow (Man Jeuk) – 2/5 (CIFF09)
Too slow, and too long.  The plot is not interesting enough to make a whole movie out of, though it did hold my attention.  What was there was executed well and had some nice imagery.

White on Rice – 4/5 (CIFF09)
Good feel-good comedy.  You kind of root for the main character, and definitely grow to like his quirks.  You can see a lot of miscommunications that a Japanese-American may come across, and this really hits home if you have some familiarity with a non-native English speaker.  Plot is a bit uninspired, but serviceable for fun.

Meatball Machine – 1/5
After seeing the excellent Machine Girl, and iffy Tokyo Gore Police… I knew that Meatball Machine could go either way.  And it was bad.  Bad in a bad way.  Even for a B-movie, there is nothing really interesting that goes on.  The characters are beyond boring… enough to make a user manual seem a worthwhile use of time.  Gross out moments are not realistic or that gross if you’ve seen either of the mentioned ultra-gore movies.  Unfortunately, I can’t recommend this movie to even gore fans.

Tale of Two Sisters (Korean) – My 2nd viewing – 4/5
Although it’s probably one of the best Korean horror films I’ve seen, the rewatch isn’t that great.  The characters are a little boring and the pacing slow, but the ending and mystery is pretty good.  Although it’s a must see for asian horror fans, you really probably only need to see it once.  Compare with Ju-On, which I can watch many times and still enjoy.

The Wrestler

Mickey Rourke is up for best actor in this very realistic story about the downfall and clinging-on of past fame of an old wrestler.  The movie itself is kind of a downer, though more reflective than sad.  Some parts are extremely graphic, which really help the story seem realistic.  If the camera work weren’t so good, I would think this was a documentary.  I suppose this is a testament to Rourke’s acting.  Though, I’m not sure if he deserves the praise because of acting as much as him fitting the role both on and off the camera.  I can’t say either way.  To me, this is a great accomplishment.  The movie is meaningful, but doesn’t go the extra mile to really move the audience, in my opinion.

Rating – 4 /5

————-

Frost/Nixon

Another contender for Best Actor, in addition to Best Picture.  Frost/Nixon is a very interesting based-on-real-life story about an interview between an Australian TV figure with the recently outed Nixon.  Especially great if you like a politically charged film.  I don’t mean this like a nation-wide politics, but on a personal level: similar to The War Room, which focused mostly on the internal politics of the campaign managers.  Nixon is played very well.  It’s a tough call of whether or not Rourke in The Wrestler is better than Nixon’s portrayal in Frost/Nixon.  The main character of Frost isn’t anything great… he is more of a silent protagonist if anything.  He doesn’t really show you his feelings as much as Nixon does.  And Nixon does get very emotional.  His confession confrontation in the last interview is amazing.

Rating – 4 /5

—————-

Slumdog Millionaire

Danny Boyle delivers again.  Aside from Millions, he’s put out some of my favorite genre movies.  And now…. a Bollywood genre?   Slumdog is unlike any other movie this year.  Aside from it’s emotionally-charged “love destiny” story, it shows some of the beauty and dirt of India.  It opens up some cultural barriers between India and the West, as well as shows us how to make a feel-good ending.  You couldn’t root for the main character enough, and one can feel each tough decision that he makes throughout his tough life.  Monetarily, it is a “rags to riches” story, but emotionally, he has one dream.  It is epic and Slumdog is easily the best film up for nomination at the Oscars.

Rating – 5 /5

Since I’ve seen my last Stephen King-based movie (parts of Stephen King’s Nightmares series), I’ve actually read a Stephen King book: Cell.  It was pretty good once I got used to his writing style, but the biggest thing that I noticed was his use of stereotypical, annoying characters (not including the protagonist, thankfully).  The Mist suffers the same fate.  Though there is definitely a deeper message in the movie’s story, the ‘pure enjoyment’ portion of this movie, especially the horror aspect, suffers from predictability and a lack of power.

The Mist is in a few ways similar to M. Night Shyamalan’s recent work (The Happening and Lady in the Water).  The characters contrast each other so much that it’s hard to believe any of them are real.  At least in Shyamalan’s movies, this doesn’t become a distraction.  And similar to The Happening,  the characters are often overacted or overly pronounced within the story.  Perhaps, this is due to using Stephen King’s literature as source material.  Stephen King also seems to use a lot of product placement to make his alternate reality relative to his audience, but it just comes off as cheap in the movie.

Unlike Shyamalan, who has become very good in building tension, The Mist isn’t able to build tension at all.  The horror aspect of The Mist is a failure before anything really interesting happens.  The plot element of the mist is a good idea and I feel like it could have made for a great movie, but something was either lost in translation or poorly executed.  Without giving away spoilers, the real force behind the mist is revealed at a good pace, but it just doesn’t grab you as terrifying the way it could have.  A whole movie based on the mystery of the mist may have made a great film, but the audience isn’t really given a time to reflect on the mystery or really feel the fear felt by the characters.  The special effects are actually quite good and help the movie believably unfold, but the characters’ reactions ruin the encounters with the mist.  There are too many times to get frustrated and think, “OMG get moving!!” or “why don’t they just…??”

In the end, the only good scenes are ones where people bite it and when no one is talking, which takes up less than 10% of the film time.  So in my view, this movie could cut an hour, turned into a short, and be worth watching.  As it stands, The Mist is a below average, popcorn movie for the masses.  It definitely tries to lay on deeper messages of how people deal with fear and the obvious relation to recent American politics.  In fact, this part is not done poorly, but for a horror movie, there are more enjoyable movies than The Mist.

Rating: 2 /5

I hesitate to even give this film a genre, because Shyamalan doesn’t seem to follow genre’s anymore. Well it’s arguable if he ever did. Lets get it out of the way. His movies aren’t that scary. There are a few shockers, a few “wtf is going on?!” moments, and a lot of fantasy play. This goes for everything since The Sixth Sense, which I’m finding to be more and more the outcast, rather than the epitome of Shyamalan’s work.

So why go on about the director? Well, I just wanted to bust a few myth’s about him and his career (and inflame some of the internet, as if it needed to be done) before we move on to the movie. You see, a lot of people don’t understand his movies. Critics certainly don’t. Look no further than reviews of Lady in the Water. Shyamalan is often criticized of having dumb characters, plots, and just plain not making sense or being interesting. Harsh. But that’s only if you look at them with the narrow mind-set of comparing it to genre classics and mainstream blockbusters.

Sometime you have to take a movie a bit more light-heartedly and try to enjoy it as a dose of entertainment.  Here is a great example.  The plot and characters should not be taken so strictly into having dramatic, realistic performances, but rather as an emphasis on the role of the audience in moving the mystery of the plot forward. Shyamalan has done this from the very beginning: throw the audience a teaser trailer of what looks to be a captivating thriller with a number of scary moments, then at the release relax the film to unfold a mystery with a very simple plot with a several missing details. And so The Happening has very little to do with its image of a post-Apocalypse thriller.  In fact, there is a lot more comedy than thrills in the movie.

The Happening contains Shyamalan’s best attempt at a deeper message in a movie yet. Using very pop cultural references in nearly every non-action scene, and his usual style of dialogue, The Happening reveals both it’s superficial and deeper message at the same time. It’s one of those “if you get it,” then you will understand every little detail of the movie. If you don’t… well, it’s still a fun ride. The imagery and pace is as good as it has always been for him, so by the end of the runtime it feels fresh, compact, and lightly satisfying.

Although it is released as a mainstream movie, The Happening would be better off as an art house flick. It’s style is connected so much with it’s auteur that it shouldn’t be compared with other epics and polished classics. You can like this style or not, but there ought not to be an automatic demerit because of personal preferences. Unfortunately many will be disappointed as they were with The Village and Signs, but anyone who enjoyed those should appreciate The Happening for the story and message it quite successfully portrays.

Rating: 3 /5