The subject would sound attractive to aficionados of Cold War spy stories (a-la John Le Carre or Len Deighton). Unfortunately, it's a huge disappointment: The story has incredible plot twists; everybody talks fast and furious like James Cagney in a 30s talkie; the are no subtleties whatsoever: it's us (the West) who are right, and it's them (the Russians) who are the new Nazis. Pure Cold War propaganda film that didn't survive the future.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Fort Apache
(1948)
A great film by a genuine "Auteur"
9 November 2012
I haven't seen Fort Apache for 40 years and I was amazed by how well it wears.
The film should not be dismissed as "just an old fashioned Western". It is the work of a genuine auteur: A classic (and, at the time, original) Fordian mix of action, folklore, humor, the family, the cavalry, the military code of honor, truth vs. myth, monument valley locations, memorable camera work, professional acting (John Wayne, Henry Fonda, and many of his "stock players" -- Victor McLaglen, Ward Bond, etc.), a dose of "irishness", and so on.
Tastes have changed over the years, and our views of the period have undergone multiple revisions. But that should not subtract from the greatness of Fort Apache. The treatment of Indians, by the way, is very sympathetic (not the "savage Indians" vs. the "civilized whites" portrayal, common in other Westerns of the period).
A final note: Because of his conservative politics and somewhat limited range of roles (he didn't do Hamlet), John Wayne has often been dismissed by the "cognizanti". In my view, his performance here is perfect. Overall, I would venture that he is a much better actor than that other star who built his reputation on Westerns: Clint Eastwood. (Of course, Eastwood has achieved well-deserved acclaim as a movie director).
The film should not be dismissed as "just an old fashioned Western". It is the work of a genuine auteur: A classic (and, at the time, original) Fordian mix of action, folklore, humor, the family, the cavalry, the military code of honor, truth vs. myth, monument valley locations, memorable camera work, professional acting (John Wayne, Henry Fonda, and many of his "stock players" -- Victor McLaglen, Ward Bond, etc.), a dose of "irishness", and so on.
Tastes have changed over the years, and our views of the period have undergone multiple revisions. But that should not subtract from the greatness of Fort Apache. The treatment of Indians, by the way, is very sympathetic (not the "savage Indians" vs. the "civilized whites" portrayal, common in other Westerns of the period).
A final note: Because of his conservative politics and somewhat limited range of roles (he didn't do Hamlet), John Wayne has often been dismissed by the "cognizanti". In my view, his performance here is perfect. Overall, I would venture that he is a much better actor than that other star who built his reputation on Westerns: Clint Eastwood. (Of course, Eastwood has achieved well-deserved acclaim as a movie director).
Man Hunt
(1941)
An utter disappointment
12 February 2012
Pretty awful!
A famous director (Fritz Lang), talented actors (Walter Pidgeon, George Sanders, John Carradine, Joan Bennett; and an instantly-recognizable, though very young, Roddy McDowell), an excellent composer (Alfred Newman) --- all wasted in an idiotic, third-rate thriller.
Nothing makes sense whatsoever. The plot is beyond incredulous. Even if you are willing to tolerate a Hitchcockian MacGuffin (a not so-important story element that drives the plot) --- this one (a document that Pidgeon refuses to sign) is laughable. And if you pause to think about what is going on for even one minute, it all falls apart.
All the characters without exception are one-dimensional, the dialog is part sappy, part pompous, and embarrassingly moralistic. Even allowing for the fact that this movie was done by a German expatriate in the middle of the war (just before the US joined the war) --- the result is very difficult to sit through today.
A famous director (Fritz Lang), talented actors (Walter Pidgeon, George Sanders, John Carradine, Joan Bennett; and an instantly-recognizable, though very young, Roddy McDowell), an excellent composer (Alfred Newman) --- all wasted in an idiotic, third-rate thriller.
Nothing makes sense whatsoever. The plot is beyond incredulous. Even if you are willing to tolerate a Hitchcockian MacGuffin (a not so-important story element that drives the plot) --- this one (a document that Pidgeon refuses to sign) is laughable. And if you pause to think about what is going on for even one minute, it all falls apart.
All the characters without exception are one-dimensional, the dialog is part sappy, part pompous, and embarrassingly moralistic. Even allowing for the fact that this movie was done by a German expatriate in the middle of the war (just before the US joined the war) --- the result is very difficult to sit through today.
Allonsanfan
(1974)
Dreadful and pretentious
12 March 2011
Dreadful and pretentious film. The script is plain awful - scenes are entirely disconnected, with things happening without any logic or reason. Entire parts could be cut out because they serve absolutely no purpose (for instance, Fulvio taking his son Massimiliano to a restaurant). Many scenes pretend to have a lot of "significance" but are void of any true meaning whatsoever (for example, their sensual eating of gelato or the carnival woman "giving birth"). The various battle scenes are the quality of Monty Python skits, and monologues often reminded me of middle school productions. The Taviani brothers are enamored with setting up beautiful "tableaux", but without any true justification, these artful images just look pretentious. I have been a great admirer of Italian cinema (and indeed of most things Italian) for many years, but at times one must recognize an abysmal work for what it is.
La Terra Trema
(1948)
Heavy Handed
7 February 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I am a great enthusiast of Italian neorealismo and indeed of most things Italian. Yet, I find the accolades "triumph" and "masterpiece" to be greatly overstated when applied to La terra trema.
This scripted documentary is engaging and moving: We watch real people in real places, and we care deeply about the protagonists. Yet, the film has considerable flaws, and in the end, I suggest it is "significant" and "important", but hardly a "masterpiece" or even "great".
First, Visconti never manages to get from his local actors the same level of natural screen presence that one finds in true masterpieces such Ladri di biciclette or Umberto D. Much of the acting comes across as well amateurish, with actors reciting and declaiming, acting-out anger by throwing their hats to the ground and waving their fists, and in general delivering lines that are too punchy to be authentic (regardless of Visconti's well-known efforts to involve the actors in the development of the dialogue and his decision to stick entirely to the local dialect, except for the narration).
More importantly, the film's message is heavy-handed to the point of becoming tiresome. And if the story and images are not sufficient in making you feel the pain, the narration is endlessly there to remind you of the misfortune of the protagonists. Visconti keeps hammering and hammering the suffering, until the opposite effect is achieved: the viewer becomes fatigued.
The narration is rife with communist propaganda (the hammer and sickle are visible on the sides of buildings). It reprimands Toni's neighbors for not joining his revolt, and announces to the audience something to the effect that in the future they must act unitedly if they are to alter their future!
Other than the Valascos and the bricklayer who is in love with Toni's sister, every character in the whole of Aci Trezza is portrayed negatively. The wholesalers are cartoonishly evil, Toni's girlfriend disappears when things turn for the worse, his neighbors are mocking him, pleased at his misfortunes; even the fisherman who risked his life to go search for him at sea somehow gets no credit when he brings him back --- as if Visconti is reluctant like to admit that one of his characters acted nobly.
The film drags this way for 160 minutes where 120 would have been quite sufficient. There are numerous points where one thinks "this would be a nice place to wrap it up", but Visconti has more
In the end, I greatly prefer the humanist agenda delivered more delicately and subtly by Visconti's contemporaries like Chaplin or De Sica.
This scripted documentary is engaging and moving: We watch real people in real places, and we care deeply about the protagonists. Yet, the film has considerable flaws, and in the end, I suggest it is "significant" and "important", but hardly a "masterpiece" or even "great".
First, Visconti never manages to get from his local actors the same level of natural screen presence that one finds in true masterpieces such Ladri di biciclette or Umberto D. Much of the acting comes across as well amateurish, with actors reciting and declaiming, acting-out anger by throwing their hats to the ground and waving their fists, and in general delivering lines that are too punchy to be authentic (regardless of Visconti's well-known efforts to involve the actors in the development of the dialogue and his decision to stick entirely to the local dialect, except for the narration).
More importantly, the film's message is heavy-handed to the point of becoming tiresome. And if the story and images are not sufficient in making you feel the pain, the narration is endlessly there to remind you of the misfortune of the protagonists. Visconti keeps hammering and hammering the suffering, until the opposite effect is achieved: the viewer becomes fatigued.
The narration is rife with communist propaganda (the hammer and sickle are visible on the sides of buildings). It reprimands Toni's neighbors for not joining his revolt, and announces to the audience something to the effect that in the future they must act unitedly if they are to alter their future!
Other than the Valascos and the bricklayer who is in love with Toni's sister, every character in the whole of Aci Trezza is portrayed negatively. The wholesalers are cartoonishly evil, Toni's girlfriend disappears when things turn for the worse, his neighbors are mocking him, pleased at his misfortunes; even the fisherman who risked his life to go search for him at sea somehow gets no credit when he brings him back --- as if Visconti is reluctant like to admit that one of his characters acted nobly.
The film drags this way for 160 minutes where 120 would have been quite sufficient. There are numerous points where one thinks "this would be a nice place to wrap it up", but Visconti has more
In the end, I greatly prefer the humanist agenda delivered more delicately and subtly by Visconti's contemporaries like Chaplin or De Sica.
WALL·E
(2008)
Heavy-handed message; clichéd characters; 100 minutes of pantomime
29 June 2008
This was one of the uncommon situations when I saw a movie without knowing anything about it beforehand. I tend to believe that in such situations one's reactions are most genuine, without a trace of foreign influence.
It turned out that WALL.E was quite a disappointment. For brevity, I'll list only three reasons.
(1) First, the movie's message: it's heavy-handed, to say the least. And it gets rather thick towards the end. I leave it at that, for fear of spoiling.
(2) Animation is about characters. The character of WALL.E is very predictable. It's completely human/childish (and clichéd, at that!). It seems the challenge for the creators/animators was simply "how do we convey this emotion, given the mechanical constraints", "how do we relate this trait, given the expressive limitations", etc.
(3) Being essentially a silent movie (question: how come a rather sophisticated robot -- watching TV, making plans, and all -- has such rudimentary speech skills -- he can barely utter a syllable or two?), it strongly resembles a pantomime: For 100 minutes, the audience is asked to guess what the character is attempting to do. After a while, it gets tiresome.
BTW: I noticed that it's much easier to praise a popular movie than criticize it. Somehow, many readers get upset when reading a review with which they don't agree. This being a 9.3 movie at the time of writing, I expect the worst :-)
It turned out that WALL.E was quite a disappointment. For brevity, I'll list only three reasons.
(1) First, the movie's message: it's heavy-handed, to say the least. And it gets rather thick towards the end. I leave it at that, for fear of spoiling.
(2) Animation is about characters. The character of WALL.E is very predictable. It's completely human/childish (and clichéd, at that!). It seems the challenge for the creators/animators was simply "how do we convey this emotion, given the mechanical constraints", "how do we relate this trait, given the expressive limitations", etc.
(3) Being essentially a silent movie (question: how come a rather sophisticated robot -- watching TV, making plans, and all -- has such rudimentary speech skills -- he can barely utter a syllable or two?), it strongly resembles a pantomime: For 100 minutes, the audience is asked to guess what the character is attempting to do. After a while, it gets tiresome.
BTW: I noticed that it's much easier to praise a popular movie than criticize it. Somehow, many readers get upset when reading a review with which they don't agree. This being a 9.3 movie at the time of writing, I expect the worst :-)
The Cup
(1999)
A rare opportunity ot take your kids to a different "sport" movie
24 April 2000
Tired of having to take your kids to formula movies from Hollywood? This terrific film is set in a world unfamiliar to most kids, yet they will discover that basic behavior is much the same everywhere. They will enjoy the familiar themes of school pranks, soccer mania, or group effort towards a "cause", but in an environment drastically different from the cliche American suburbia.
Tell Your Friends