I didn't bring up many of the films I watched, did I? 2007 really was a lazy year, regarding my involvement on the board. I hope that 2008 will get better. "Still Life" never completely connected with me. I don't know why, there certainly were some beautiful and incredibly poetic sequences. But i felt that Jia had lost some of his raw energy present in "Platform" (2000), and I couldn't quite reconcile the films minimalist, introverted and personal approach with the epic socio-political project going on in the background. Somehow some scenes and the whole concept seemed a bit uninspired to me. But a friend of mine, who also thinks "Climates" was the best film of the year, loved it. "Climates" got a bit better on a second viewing, and I expect the same will happen with "Still Life". Fortunately I have all of Jia's other films on DVD, so I can explorewhatever I want from this magnificent filmmaker. 

Didn't mention the Kawase, because it was a let-down. I thought this was a walk on the tightrope between banality and profundity, and Kawase just managed to hold the balance, so it was a clear 50 out of 100. I don't know, the whole experience was interesting, and a friend of mine, to whom I've been constantly raving about Kawase fell in love with the film. But the whole audience seemed to enjoy the film, and somehow I couldn't get rid of the feeling that Kawase had arrived in viewer-friendly mainstream "arthouse" land... I hope her next feature will be much more radical. This was for me too much of a feel good movie. Even the camerawork was at times completely uninspired, though i always had the feeling that the film is trying for more, that greatness is just beyond the corner, and a small seemingly insignificant change of focus or mood could make the film reach for transcendent levels. Alas, it never really happened. Maybe my expectations were too high, but it felt like somebody was unsuccessfully attempting to copy Kawase. 
Have you seen the film, arsaib? 

Inland Empire was for me a completely pleasant and satisfying experience. Unfortunately I didn't feel any of the anxiety, shock or even wonder and incomprehension everybody was talking about. To me this was Lynch's most personal film, kind of like Tarantino's ego-trip in Death Proof . It seemed that he just did what he had always wanted to do, and the film feels completely free and had a very positive effect on me. I also think that it has probably so far the most beautiful cinematography of any Lynch film. I had absolutely no problem with the digital look or his choice of aesthetics. There were even two or three scenes that were completely transcendent (that's the thing I appreciate most in art - I use the word in a similar vein as Tarkovsky). But overall it didn't show me anything new or particularly interesting. Unlike most other Lynch films, I felt this was purely a personal exercise, and what I felt was the joy Lynch must have had while filming this. My rating may again go up on further viewings, but I couldn't find the shocking and revolutionary masterpiece everybody was talking about. 

Play was simply not for me. When i saw the trailer (which I watched numerous times) I thought that this would be the perfect film for me. Boy, was I wrong. This is as safe a romantic comedy as can be. Everything is made to please the viewer and make him feel comfortable. A very complacent film, that doesn't take even the smallest of risks. This was definitely not for me! The friend I saw this with, disagreed completely (and he also loved "Before we fall in love again"). 

Twentynine Palms is a different kind of beast. I own the DVD for some time already, and before I went to see it at the cinema, I was sure this would become one of my all time favorites. I had already watched many scenes from the movie out of context, and i had completely fallen in love with the whole concept (my adoration for Katerina Golubeva didn't hurt either ). But when I saw the film at the cinema, with the scenes in context, it had seemingly lost a lot of its energy. I don't know, .. I had no problem deciphering its many layers of meaning, and usually I'm a sucker for this kind of movie. I somehow just COULD NOT get into the film. 
In the end I refrained from rating it, because I was unable to decide how i felt about it. Why was I so indifferent to the film as a whole? At home, i started a lengthy essay, which I didn't finish, yet. By now, I think I am with you, leaning towards a modern Zabriskie Point and I do hope that I'll finish my essay as a pean of praise when I rewatch the film. The only problem is: I'm afraid I might actually not like it when I see it again, and maybe even Katerina Golubeva couldn't change that.