Synopsis: An agent for the secret police in communist-era East Berlin finds himself drawn to the latest target of his surveillance.

I originally watched this around when it was first released, and I remember liking it quite a lot, but finding it to be a bit more slow-paced than I’d like. This time the pacing seemed just right. It’s not a fast-paced film by any stretch of the imagination, but the pacing does a really great job of setting a certain tone and giving us time to really care about the characters.

I think there are a couple of things that elevate this film from a good one to a great one. There’s Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck’s stellar direction, featuring beautiful, meticulously composed widescreen cinematography. The film is really tense when it needs to be, and Donnersmarck does a great job of keeping things intriguing throughout. The performances, too, go a long way towards cementing this film’s status as a classic. Though all the performances are above average, special notice must go to Ulrich Mühe (who sadly passed away shortly after the film’s release) — he gives a really astonishing performance, and is able to say more with the subtle expressiveness of his face than most actors could say with an entire soliloquy.

The film is at times electrifying, at times moving, and always entertaining. It’s well over two hours long but it never outstays its welcome. It definitely takes its time, but it’s all the richer because of it.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A man who lives his life in other people’s homes falls in love with an equally damaged woman.

It’s a rare pleasure to go into a movie knowing nothing about what it is about, and then slowly letting the plot unfold. It’s an experience that you really don’t get to have all too often (the internet has made that nearly impossible), at least outside of a film festival. But it’s how I got to watch 3-Iron, so I wasn’t even aware that the film was a love story, and I was completely unaware of its central gimmick — that the two main characters never speak a word to one another (in fact, the man never speaks at all, and the woman has maybe three lines of dialogue). It’s an odd concept for a love story, but it works. Basically.

For the first twenty minutes or so, I kept thinking “oh, okay, now they’re going to start talking to each other… oh, okay, they were waiting to leave the house, now they’ll start talking.” Eventually it became fairly clear that the two characters were never going to speak, which is kind of neat. I mean, it feels a bit contrived at times, but it’s such a unique premise for a film that I was willing to cut it some slack. And it really does work; there’s definitely a palpable chemistry between the two characters, with brief looks and sideways glances many times saying more than words ever could. It is kind of odd that they absolutely never speak to each other, but you don’t think about it as much as you’d think you would.

Aside from that, director Ki-duk Kim shoots the film with an austere, minimalist style that suits the story perfectly. The acting is pretty great, with both actors admirably rising to the challenge of creating memorable characters without saying a word. It’s a movie that easily could have been disastrous, but all involved definitely rise to the challenge.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A quirky young girl in Paris interacts with her quirky friends, her quirky neighbours, and her quirky love interest. Did I mention that the movie is quirky?

This was not a film that I was particularly looking forward to revisiting. Not that I hated it, but it’s just not something that I felt any kind of desire to ever watch again. But hey, it’s been almost ten years, and obviously this movie has its fans (it currently stands at number 44 on the imdb’s top 250). I thought I might be able to appreciate Amelie a bit better this time around. Nope.

Like I said, I don’t hate this movie. I think that probably, as a fifteen or twenty minute short, I’d find it enjoyable enough. It does have its charms, and for a while it’s kind of endearing in an oddball kind of way. But it’s just so consistently, relentlessly hyper-stylized and insufferably quirky — and there’s really not much to it other than its style and its quirk. So if you find yourself ambivalent towards (or downright annoyed by) the film’s in-your-face aesthetic, then you’re really not going to be in for a good time, because the movie revels in its own exaggerated sense of style.

Plus, I just don’t think that Amelie herself is a particularly compelling central character — she is just far too outrageously quirky to ever really relate to on an emotional level. She makes Mr. Bean look like Jimmy Stewart (and at least we’re never supposed to identify with Mr. Bean as anything other than a clown, which isn’t the case with Amelie). She’s surrounded by other characters who are all equally quirky in their own bizarre ways, and certainly, I can see what Jean-Pierre Jeunet was going for here, but it just did not work for me. I found it pretty grating at times.

It occurred to me while I was watching (and not enjoying) this film, that my feelings about it must be how some people feel about The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, which is pretty darn quirky in its own way, but which I think is a masterpiece (yeah, that’s right, I said it — I think it’s Anderson’s best film, and easily one of the best films of the aughts). I’m not sure why I’m okay with Anderson’s hyper-stylized universe, but annoyed by Amelie’s. It’s just a matter of taste, I guess.

Buy the movie at Amazon

Synopsis: A year in the life of a family in Taiwan.

This is a film that frequently pops up on “best of the decade” lists, so my expectations were fairly high. It’s nice to watch a well-regarded film that really lives up to its acclaim — it’s distressingly common to watch a movie that gets a lot of hype and then walk away wondering what all the hubbub was about (yeah, that’s right — I said hubbub. I like that word; people don’t use it enough). That’s definitely not the case here.

I won’t lie: this is not a fast-paced film, not even a little bit. Acclaimed (and tragically deceased) director Edward Yang’s style consists mostly of unusually long, wide shots, in which things tend to unfold at a slow, meticulous pace. The imdb claims that Antonioni is one of Yang’s favourite directors, which doesn’t come as a particular surprise as the two definitely share a lot of the same sensibilities. However, unlike Antonioni, who always keeps you at an arm’s length, there is a warmth and richness to this film that really draws you in. It’s very long and very slow, and yet you don’t really feel it. Also, unlike the cool, restrained characters of someone like Antonioni, the people here feel much more vibrant, with some scenes almost approaching melodrama, but never in a way that feels forced or artificial.

This is a long film — it’s almost three hours long, which on the surface is a bit daunting. But when you actually watch the movie you realize that the length is pretty much perfect. Yes, some of the scenes go on a bit longer than you’d think they would, but it all adds up to a film that is surprisingly compelling, and one in which you really get to know and like the central characters. Honestly, by the end of the film I would have been happy to spend another couple of hours with that family.

Buy the movie at Amazon