fideist Reviews

100 Girls (2000)

Not Just Another "Teenage Sex Comedy"

[9/10 · 18 August 2002]

Don't be fooled! Michael Davis's writing is too sophisticated for the average teenager. There is plenty here for the playful adult to enjoy too. Perhaps more than for the teenagers.

For a good double feature, also check out his film EIGHT DAYS A WEEK.

Eight Days a Week (I) (1997)

Not Your Normal Teenage Sex Comedy

[9/10 · 17 August 2002]

I HATE "teenage sex comedies" with a passion! But when I found this movie while flipping channels on cable, I immediately had to run out and rent the VHS. This is NOT your normal "teenage sex comedy!" The writing is much too sophisticated, and I would venture to guess many of jokes are even over the heads of your average teenager.

All those critics who haphazardly dumped this one in with the "Porky's genre" really missed the boat.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

A Good Time

[7/10 · 21 June 2001]

O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU? is a well balanced, good time flick.

The action/adventure is balanced very with the comedy, with a little hint of romance tossed in. The story (loosely based on Homer's epic poem ODYSSEY) is very entertaining. The music was outstanding.

I only had two complaints. First, the Coen brothers tried to hard to make this picture "cute" or "off-the-wall." By setting the adventure story in the depression-era south the way they did, they did not have to expend all that effort and energy. The nature of the idea alone could have carried it off by itself.

Second, George Clooney's acting was terrible. He portrayed his role as a charicature as opposed to a character. And that was completely out of step with the whole rest of the movie.

But in the end these complaints are trivial in comparison to the final result which is an overall good time.

Now it is time for me to go out and buy that soundtrack.

Canadian Bacon (1995)

Not worth the time for the few laughs

[1/10 · 27 January 2001]

CANADIAN BACON is a not so thinly veiled attack on conservative American ideals. One would not expect any less from Michael Moore who is an arch-liberal.

There are only a few laughs. John Candy shines. The only time worth watching the screen is when he is on it. There are also a few good moments provided in cameos by Steven Wright, James Belushi, and Dan Akroyd. But their total combined time onscreen is less than five minutes.

But all in all, it is not worth the hour and a half for the four or five laughs.

In sum, if you share the liberal political philosophies of Michael Moore, you will enjoy the America bashing, and overall enjoy the movie more than others. All others should stay away.

Scary Movie (2000)

Don't be fooled

[1/10 · 30 December 2000]

Don't be fooled -- This movie is not a parody in the grand tradition of the outstanding AIRPLANE!.

This movie is the result of a bunch of thirty-somethings (the Wayan brothers) making and starring in a comedy about teenagers. Naturally it is going to reflect their own teenage years (the '70s) -- rampant sex and drug use. Almost every joke was about sex or drugs. Even moreso than horror movies.

It is ironic that the public could not be clued to this fact by the advertising and trailers, because the mainstream wouldn't allow such information to be shown.

All the Rage (1999)

Unbelievable

[1/10 · 7 July 2000]

According to the government, in the United States there are about 50 million gun owners.

You would think with statistics like that, the Director could have found believable characters and storylines, regardless of which side of the debate he wanted to portray.

South Pacific (1958)

Poor Directing of a Classic

[7/10 · 14 February 2000]

Will someone please tell me what went wrong? Did the Director become too full of himself? Was the Producer even on the set? Did the studio screen it before releasing it?

What motivates a Director to take his crew to a beautiful polynesian location for filming, and then use color filters over the lenses?

What motivates a Producer of a musical to cast actors who can't sing in the majority of the major roles?

And what motivates a studio to let them get away with murdering a classic?

See the movie. See it for Mitzi Gaynor and the Rodgers and Hammerstein score. See it for the story: a lesson against racial bigotry couched in two beautiful romances -- one tragic, one happy.

Then dream of what it could have been, and scream for a remake.

True Stories (1986)

Highly Recommended

[9/10 · 10 January 2000]

I am not a fan of the Talking Heads, but I know enough about David Byrne to know he is a creative genius. This is perhaps the most evident in this movie TRUE STORIES.

The music is very good. Most of the songs are catchy and engaging, with only one or two exceptions. The cast is quirky and believable. And there are some absolutely hilarious parts that had me and my entire family rolling on the floor.

This movie came as a recommendation to me from someone who also liked WAITING FOR GUFFMAN. I think the comparison is true. If you liked one, you should like the other.

The Surrogate (1984)

Stinker

[3/10 · 10 January 2000]

With the notable exception of the exotic Carole Laure, this movie is poorly acted. The direction is terrible. The story is poorly written. There is no semblance for the plot ending. There isn't even a good reason for the title.

Shannon Tweed is her normal gorgeous self. But you have to have more reason than that to give a movie two hours of your life.

Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999)

Filmmaking 101: How Not to Direct a Movie

[2/10 · 29 December 1999]

You can't blame the actors, by and large they did a stand-up job. You can't blame the story, the premise had great promise. You must, MUST blame the Director. This is a terrible movie. Yes, it has its "laughing out loud" moments, but by and large it is very poorly made, and not worth 90 minutes to catch the two or three funnies.

The Director was shooting for a mockumentary, in the vein of THIS IS SPINAL TAP, or WAITING FOR GUFFMAN. But the idiot did not think the audience would be attentive enough to notice his use of multiple cameras, or clean cinematography.

Second, a mockumentary must have a believable storyline. DROP DEAD GORGEOUS was the furthest thing possible from believable. It was a farce, more akin to AMAZON WOMEN ON THE MOON. Now there is nothing wrong with a good farce! But just don't try to sell it as a mockumentary.

And therein lies the answer. Run, don't walk from this movie. There are better, funnier mockumentaries and better, funnier farces on the video shelves.

The Red Violin (1998)

Beautiful, Engaging Film; Terrible Ending

[7/10 · 29 December 1999]

The RED VIOLIN is well acted, beautifully filmed, and the story is extremely engaging.

The ending is way, way too pretentious. After following the history of the instrument for 300 years, we have no logical reason to believe that Morritz was the violin's "Saviour," or that his choice for it's contemporary ownership meant the end to its wanderings through time, except for the Director (and story) telling us so. We are left more inclined to believe the violin will go on, and that Morritz and his daughter are just another stop in its journey. What arrogance to say otherwise.

I will not even go into Morritz's "end justifies the means" morals.

Such a terrible ending to such a wonderful, beautiful film.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)

Not Funny

[1/10 · 25 November 1999]

I am a fan of the television show. But this movie was a major disappointment.

If you think little kids swearing is funny, you will think this movie is funny. If you think "farting" is funny, you will think this movie is funny.

But if you are like me and think the real genius in SOUTH PARK is the human relations between a bunch of oddball people, you will be disappointed in this movie.

How Green Was My Valley (1941)

Easily John Ford's Greatest

[10/10 · 5 September 1999]

This is the third greatest movie I have ever seen. Ranking only behind CITIZEN KANE and CASABLANCA.

It is easily John Ford's greatest. The movie is filled with visionary shots that only a truly magnificent and ingenius Director can provide.

The story is over the top, bordering on melodrama, but successfully walking that tight line without crossing over into it. I am still in amazement that it could be done.

Don't miss it.

The Wages of Fear (1953)

Refreshingly Different

[9/10 · 25 June 1999]

I have seen literally thousands of movies, and this one is unique. It is its own, and holds its own.

The suspense is sometimes on a par with Hitchcock's best. [Twice, even my fourteen year old son had to sit up, and forward onto the edge of his seat!]

The International flavor is unparalleled. We hear four different languages spoken. We see a mixture of cultures that other filmmakers can only dream about -- White European, White American, Native American, Hispanic, African, and on and on.

The acting is flawless all along the cast. Particularly interesting is the interaction between characters within and across genders.

While the story starts out slow, overall it is entertaining. And while melodrama is approached, it never is breached; reality is never really abandoned so a very difficult and fine line is successfully walked.

Highly recommended.

From the Journals of Jean Seberg (1995)

Historical Revisionism for the Bolster of Feminism

[1/10 · 20 April 1999]

Director Mark Rappaport does for the life of Jean Seberg what Oliver Stone did for the JFK assassination. He takes a little bit of fact, mixes it with a lot of speculation, and then spins it the way he wants the viewers to see it.

FROM THE JOURNALS OF JEAN SEBERG is politically correct historical revisionism to bolster the feminist dogma that a patriarchal culture is the root of all evil. At point is the notion that the film-making industry, long thought a bastion of liberalism, is not only a participant in the subjugation of women, but also a conduit to it.

We are to believe the Ms. Seberg was not responsible for any of the decisions she made in life, they were all the fault of the men in her life. She was a martyr. Yet at the same time we are to see her as an icon of feminism -- the first modern woman on the silver screen. A real life "Joan of Arc."

And the real story behind the real Jean Seberg? Sadly, you will not find it here.

Raging Bull (1980)

Perfection with a Fatal Flaw

[8/10 · 15 April 1999]

It is said that when the Amish women make a quilt they deliberately leave a flaw in it, under the worldview that only God could truly make something perfect. Fortunately of course, the flaw the Amish women choose to leave is something trivial not fatal.

It is this analogy that I think of after viewing Martin Scorsese's RAGING BULL. The only problem is the flaw that Mr. Scorsese left in was akin to omitting an entire seam. And the quilt unravels.

RAGING BULL is masterfully filmed, masterfully acted, and masterfully written. It is genius. But it lacks sympathy for the characters. The viewers are unable to make an emotional connection with the characters on the screen. Watching the story (viewing the art) is only half the requisite. Viewers should be allowed to experience the story (experience the art) via making an emotional connection.

This was a fatal flaw. Interestingly the consequential question we are therefore led to ask is -- was the story of Jake LaMotta worth framing on the screen? Why or why not? Very interesting.

Casino Royale (1967)

Funny Escapist Romp

[9/10 · 11 April 1999]

Critics and the masses alike are generally down on CASINO ROYALE. I find it always a fun romp, full of beautiful women, quick one-liners, and visual gags.

Woody Allen is his hilarious best. Joanna Pettet is stunningly sexy. Peter Sellers is stellar. Burt Bacharach's score is unforgettable.

Sadly, I did find two things not to like. The "fight in the casino" ending was action-filled, but ridiculous and unfunny. And sadly, David Niven only walks through his part providing little feeling and mostly no effort. And since Niven is on the screen for a majority of the film, it did hurt.

All in all this movie reminds me a great deal of Steven Spielberg's comedy 1941. Lots of stars, lots of action, and so many jokes that they fly fast and furiously. So much so that viewers miss an abundance of them.

Red River (1948)

Believability

[9/10 · 3 April 1999]

The most refreshing thing I found about RED RIVER was the overall believability of the film. Don't get me wrong, the plot had some of its stereotypical corn symptomatic of the age in which the film was made. But the characters were not that stereotypical. The "good guys" weren't purely good; the "bad guys" weren't purely bad. This made for a much more believable film.

Alexander Nevsky (1938)

Grand Film

[9/10 · 29 March 1999]

ALEXANDER NEVSKY is nothing short of a grand film on a grand scale. The film opens a window to a world and culture most Americans will never become acquainted with. And much has been said and written regarding the film's thinly veiled patriotism in the face of imminent war with the German Nazis.

By US standards the acting is a bit stilted. The screenplay is short on words and big on visuals and action. And while the action can become tiresome, the visuals are often stunning. Direction is incredible.

On another note, fans of Ralph Bakshi animation might notice that he stole a lot of his visuals for WIZARDS directly from a copy of ALEXANDER NEVSKY.

The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976)

The Funniest of the Lot

[8/10 · 27 March 1999]

Blake Edwards's first film in the series, PINK PANTHER, was a film about a jewel thief that also had a bumbling detective in it, played by Peter Sellers. Edwards was no dummy, he found out what his audience wanted and made a second movie, A SHOT IN THE DARK, that fleshed out the bumbling detective. PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN was the third movie in this series, and by far the funniest, from beginning to end.

If you have to see one, I guess I would probably say see A SHOT IN THE DARK, because many of the laughs in PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN rely on the foundation the other film made. But after you see the former, and you get a chance to see the latter, do it.

Chinatown (1974)

Well Rounded Film Noir Work

[9/10 · 25 March 1999]

CHINATOWN is a classic example film noir. It is must viewing for fans of the genre.

The Oscar winning script is extremely engaging. Polanski's directing is his best work. The sets and costumes are period perfect. Nicholson is perfect in the protagonist role, and Huston does a perfect "creep."

The only weak area is Faye Dunaway who looks like she is walking through the role. The true film noir femme fatale has a contained emotion the viewer can sense lying underneath her expressionless facade. She is a smoldering volcano only appearing dormant on the outside. Ms. Dunaway got the expressionless appearance right, but we sense no heat underneath. For true examples of femme fatales, think Lauren Bacall in THE BIG SLEEP, Barbara Stanwyk in DOUBLE INDEMNITY, or Marlene Dietrich in TOUCH OF EVIL. Or more modernly the steamy Linda Fiorentino in JADE or THE LAST SEDUCTION.

Still, CHINATOWN is a film not to be missed.

Diabolique (1955)

A Child Can Figure It Out

[8/10 · 25 March 1999]

I enjoy great movies, and LES DIABOLIQUES is not one of them. It is a great idea, story, and plot. But it lacked the needed suspense and mystery, as the only possible solution is too easily figured out minutes into the film. The only real excitement comes in the last fifteen minutes, but it takes you ninety minutes to get there. Not worth it.

Paul Meurisse's acting was dreadful, Vera Clouzot's was only adequate. The exception in all this was Simone Signoret who gives a brilliant performance; the only main character offering any believability, and in her case it was total and absolute. Watch for Charles Vanel's performance as a "Columbo"-like Inspector Fichet.

A good but not great movie, LES DIABOLIQUES is only worth a rental if all the Hitchcock films are already checked out.

The Grand Illusion (1937)

One of the Greatest Films Ever

[10/10 · 24 March 1999]

When we talk of the "Golden Age" of films during the late 1930s, it is easy for fans of cinema to become myopic to American releases. But not all golden celluloid comes from southern California, nor even the USA.

THE GRAND ILLUSION comes from France and is without a shadow of the doubt one of the greatest movies ever made. The story was thoroughly engrossing and entertaining. The acting was superb. The directing was outstanding. The camerawork was always on bullseye.

The bill calls this an antiwar film. Frankly, I didn't see that at all. It was, however, honest and real about the first World War. To interpret that as pro- or anti- is to project a personal bias. There are no blood and guts. No gore. Rather caring personal relationships are made and then shattered, across social, political, and racial lines.

Orson Welles, Francois Truffaut, Ingmar Bergman, and on and on, they all referred to this as one of greatest, important and most influential movies ever. It demands not be missed.

My Dinner with Andre (1981)

Existential Paradox becomes Celluloid

[10/10 · 21 March 1999]

MY DINNER WITH ANDRE is one of the greatest movies of all time because it works on a seemingly infinite number of levels. Yet at the same time it is one of the biggest failures in film because it only succeeds in connecting to the most insightful of its audience. The resulting paradox only serves to prove the film's lesson to be true. Brilliant!

This is either a movie you will turn off after fifteen minutes, or it is a movie you will watch over and over again to pick up all the things you missed in previous screenings. The former will be bored and lost by the endless, meaningless talk. The latter will find gold in every word, and veins left to be mined time after time.

In simple terms, the question is understood "If life is a stage, are you going to be an actor, a director, or a playwright?" It is the viewer's choice. Wally is a struggling playwright who has fallen back on acting. Andre is a former actor and director who has left the theatre entirely. Wally and Andre meet for dinner, and Andre recounts his experiences since leaving the theatre.

But one of the ironies is that their dinner itself is theatre, and both Andre and Wally have roles to fill. [Notice they wrote the script and use their real names. They are not playing characters. They are necessarily playing themselves.] And summarily the viewer also has a role to fill. If life is a stage, viewing the theatre is in itself theatre. The viewer is now in a place of choosing the role. And will that choice be made mechanically or deliberately? Mechanics is acting. Deliberation is playwrighting.

This is a brilliant, brilliant film. One of the greatest movies of all time. And its resolve is purely subjective to the individual viewer. The goal is to deliberate and come away enlightened (literally). Unfortunately the majority of viewers will act mechanically and turn it off.

The Opposite of Sex (1998)

A Trojan Horse

[2/10 · 14 March 1999]

The producers of THE OPPOSITE OF SEX have gone through great pains to advertise their film as politically incorrect. But it doesn't take very long to see right through their charade.

This is your standard politically correct Hollywood fable. While the film is narrated by Deedee, she is not the protagonist, she is in fact the foil. The true protagonist of the story is her homosexual half-brother Bill. It is him that we sympathize with, not her.

The film takes its standard politically correct potshots at gun owners, the religious right, Christians, Republicans, etc. They even dredge up that "evil" boogeywoman Anita Bryant to lob a rhetorical tomato at.

The movie is very well made, well acted, very funny, and highly entertaining. The problem is the preaching of liberal propaganda. If this does not bother you, or you are able to overlook it, you will find this movie very much worth a rent.