Waking Life review

 Number 530 on the top 1000 films of all time is Richard Linklater's animated surrealist drama 'Waking Life.'

Wiley Wiggins plays an unnamed protagonist who undergoes an existential crisis. He has a series of philosophical conversations before he realises that he is in a lucid dream that he must wake up from.

I don't think I've seen such pretentious Oscar-bait since Megalopolis. Don't get me wrong, Waking Life was beautiful to look at. It had a unique rotoscoping animation technique, but beyond that, the film was about as interesting as any of the films mentioned on my list of films that will put you to sleep. It was an arthouse film that was all style and no substance.

It's a shame as this was the same Richard Linklater who directed the brilliant Before Trilogy and the hilarious School of Rock. Yet Waking Life lacked the same humour and heart as Linklater's other efforts. This is despite how the Before Trilogy similarly had a lot of talking and little action.

The difference was that this talking occured between interesting characters who I actually gave a damn about. I couldn't say the same about Waking Life. Whereas the Before Trilogy had sparkling dialogue, Waking Life had the most boring philosophical discussions ever. Interestingly, the two leads from the Before Trilogy: Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delphy) also cameo here in one of the many scenes that are tangential to the main plot.

Rather than one continuous film or dream in this case, Waking Life was a collection of unrelated dreams that you forget as soon as you wake up. Although I can't ever remember dreaming about pseudo intellectual discussions a la Woody Allen. Also what was with the Alex Jones cameo? Apparently Richard Linklater just dismissed him as funny quack. Little did he realise how consequential Alex Jones would be in later life.

Maybe I just wasn't clever enough to understand the true genius of this film, but I also didn't care. Never mind Waking Life, this was a bad dream that I couldn't wait to wake up from.

Stalker review

Number 182 on the top 1000 films of all time is Andrei Tarkovsky's science fiction art film Stalker.

Set in a distant future in an unnamed land, Alexander Kaidonovsky plays the Stalker - a guide who steers people safely through a dangerous area, where the laws of physics don't apply, called the Zone. At the centre is a room said to grant the greatest desires of its occupants. The Stalker's next charges are the Writer (Anatoly Solonitsyn) and the Professor (Nikolai Grinko.)

From Italian art house to Russian art house, but the change in country doesn't make me anymore receptive to art house cinema. Films like these remind me of the dense, academic books, where nothing happens, which I had to slog through for my degree. And when I say nothing happens, I mean nothing - the film is little more than a philosophical debate about faith and the nature of human desire. Too intellectual for the likes of me. I didn't even understand what I didn't understand. Too much talking. As such, I found this film virtually unwatchable. Part of it was down to my own personal tastes, but also due to Tarkovsky's stylised direction.

Firstly, there was the soundtrack or lack thereof. In pivotal moments, a soundscape of distorted, synthesised sound effects played which created an eerie atmosphere. But much of the film had no music altogether. Only silence. Yes, this made things creepy, but it also made things boring. Sometimes in film, the use of music can be distracting, but the opposite was true here. Yes I know that Tarkovsky wants to ensure the audience can focus their whole attention on the philosophy, but you have to give them something to work with. Silence isn't engaging enough.

Especially when it's coupled with long takes of the characters doing very little. The film begins with the Stalker getting out out bed and brushing his teeth. It is not until the ten-minute mark that any dialogue is said. Any first-year creative writing student will tell you this is not interesting way to start a story.

One thing I did find interesting was Tarkovsky's colour scheme. For the scenes outside the zone in the "real world," he uses a sepia tone, but the scenes within the zone are in full technicolour. Perhaps this is how the Zone forces men to be completely honest with themselves and their desires whereas the real world allows them to keep lying to everybody.

That's my attempt of interpreting the film, but my days of deeply analysing media are long over. Although this film does raise an interesting question. If the Stalker was guiding you through the Zone to the room so your heart's desire can be granted, what would it be?