MarkB-11 Reviews

I'll Be There (2003)

Wholesome doesn't play in the UK you mean?

[8/10 · 14 March 2004]

I suppose there's not much edge to a film where a dad learns he has a child, actually cares and actually becomes a loving man. Not much there, eh, folks? Is that what 'characterless' means? Should he have thrown a fit? Should she have gone Goth and taken up ska?

This is a sweet little film that failed to find an audience, which is a real shame. Craig Ferguson's script is sensible and caring and intelligent, as are the actors. The only possible quibble I have is that Phillipa Law might be underused. But then, her character wasn't really needed. Contrary to other opinions, Charlotte definitely managed to hold up her end. Was she given a Julia Stiles-level part. I think not, nor would that have been right to do.

Cute little film, with a good mix of music.

8 of 10.

The House of Mirth (2000)

Make up your Mind!!!

[3/10 · 21 February 2004]

Okay, so this is a sumptuously beautiful film. So the costumes and sets are rigorously period. So the manners are, on the surface, correct. This still doesn't work. I know there appear to be a substantial crowd of supporters, but that is perhaps because they, like this film, want to specially plead for self-destructive women to get the break no equally self-destructive man would even be considered for. Lily Bart is obnoxiously self-centered and casually wrecks several lives around her. She puts herself into terrible risk, both with her aunt and with Gus, then expects to be let off. When, as should be the case, there is no release without compensation (repentance and determination to amend herself in the future for her aunt, sleeping with him for Gus), she then begins the long descent because she refuses to bend or consider changing herself.

So, this should work, right? It doesn't because this is a fundamentally unsympathetic position and yet the filmmakers insist we sympathize with her. Well, I don't play that game. Either you have her prevented by real and EXTERNAL forces and thus be unable to change, or you focus on her as a willing antisocialite, but not both. It's both for Davies and I turn thumbs down on the effort, if only for that.

Besides, of all the actors only Eleanor Bron and Dan Ackroyd have any feel for the actual attitudes and sensibilities of the period. Eric Stoltz would like you to believe he does and Gillian Anderson doesn't even bother. This creates what supporters are calling a 'painterly' version. By that they must really mean 'frozen into a frame', when films like 'Tom Jones' make it clear you can do this and have action too.

There's just no heart to this film and, while I don't insist on a eucatastrophe, I do insist on a consistent tone and some kind of progress to finality.

Wish I could have gotten that here.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

The Greatest

[10/10 · 20 February 2004]

epic film, in any case. This is the equivalent of Doctor Zhivago or Lawrence of Arabia. That is, this is true if we only consider LotR:RK by itself. Naturally, that is the usual practice, even in series like Star Wars. However, LotR has simply changed the rules. Now, if you need to make a huge film, don't want to scrimp all that much, and still want to have people not faint in the theatres, you break it up and produce it in bits.

Clearly, PJ saved the best bit for last. RK is simply the finest most deeply-felt epic of all time. It beats Intolerance. It's more sweeping that Gone With the Wind (and I mean that in all seriousness: where GWTW narrowed as it continued, RK continues to open up, proceeding from a small, intimate and highly ominous opening to the incredible sight of tens of thousands of fighters trying to hold out (a la Zulu, another film PJ openly admits inspired him and which he tops, almost casually).

I guess The Godfather remains the best, sort of. I have come to dislike that film as I have aged. It's message does not deepen, which one would have expected. I think that to really make the full comparison, I'll have to wait that many years on LotR too, just to be fair.

Still, that makes LotR #2 all time. If you haven't seen it, please do. Then buy the Extended Edition. Can't fix the Scouring, but we can fix Faramir/Eowyn, yes?

Big Trouble (2002)

Movie's Cleaner than the source

[9/10 · 13 January 2004]

Here's a novelty: a name director, already known for fairly strange versions of existing material (cf Addams Family, MIB, Wild Wild West), takes on a very obscure novel and makes a film that is more family-friendly than the novel was. And, the novelist is himself a pretty family-friendly guy.

That's 'Big Trouble'. It's smart, sassy and surreal. If you have 90 minutes and need to simply chortle, this is what you slip into the DVD or tape machine. I'd mention names to applaud, but I'd have to mention them all, so take it as given that everyone here works up to what their best ever was.

Now, this is not your heavy-lifting film. Do not look for consistency in plot. What this really is is a first attempt to US magical realism and how I wish LA magical realism was as funny.

Definite winner, especially if you're renting via Netflix, for instance.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

You improve on this by...

[10/10 · 18 December 2003]

...well, you only do so by including the remainder of the extended footage whose absence is so obvious: the walk from Minas Tirith to the Black Gate, Frodo's time among the yrch, the palaver with Saruman. That's the only way. So, given all that does exist and was only cut for time, that means that what's left still rates the rank it would have if they'd been included, which is a ten of ten.

Sometimes, you just have to think these things through, you know?

Cheers!

Who Is Cletis Tout? (2001)

Haven't You Actually Ever Been to the Movies??

[9/10 · 7 July 2003]

Hollywood used to be able to do the caper film really well. Think Topkapi or Charade, even Hitchcock. This is not really a favored genre any more, mostly because there doesn't seem to be a shared pool of references, even to old films. So, 'Who is Cletis Tout?' is taking a big risk (which clearly didn't pay off): tell a quirky tale with odd-ball and mostly harmless characters. The film is also very fast-paced, but I found it correctly paced, that is, when the action is supposed to zip along, it does. When it is supposed to amble, it does that, too. This was quite pleasant to experience, this correctly-paced kind of film effect. I'd like to see more of it, myself.

To help my fellow reviewer below, I will note that 'Critical Jim' would be a nickname, one at least one Mafia employer is very familiar with and appears to call upon only when the problem is very out of control. There could be two reasons for this: (1) Jim isn't very good (this would be the wrong reason), (2) Jim is very expensive (this would be the right reason).

Also, it is quite true that Jim does interject himself into the telling of the tale (without warning). I rather like his intrusion and also liked how distinct that intrusion was, compared to how Finch is telling the tale (this is not a spoiler. You learn who Finch is in the first five minutes). This all suggests that the writer actually edited the work in progress. This is also novel and appreciated.

'Cletis Tout' makes two films Tim Allen has made that hardly anybody has seen and I don't know why. I don't want to know why. I just want Tim to keep making films like 'Who is Cletis Tout' and 'Big Trouble'. He's good at this. And I keep enjoying myself.

9/10

The Caine Mutiny (1954)

This is subversive

[21 February 2000]

Though I am approximately as old as this film, I had not ever seen it, for one reason or another, in all that time. I had seen the later version, the TV performance of the stage play, but, though I am a devoted fan of Bogart's, I had not seen this film.

I now wish I could still make that claim. Not because Bogart's performance disappoints, it surely does not. Nor for the courtroom interplay, for at least a hint of it remains. Rather, I was left with a very uncomfortable feeling of having had my opinion manipulated and having honor besmirched, in the interest of justifying an action in which none of the participants can emerge unsullied. I suppose there had to be heroes, even if manufactured.

Viewers will find the foreground filled with the young couple, the purpose of which appears to rig the emotional response to the climactic situation, but which were entirely invented for the film. I found this distracting and textually unfair. That neither actor was particularly convincing in role will not help, though the girl sings nicely and looks only for decency, thus lending a wholesomeness that appeals.

Still, the overall tension and ambiguity of the situation, as originally framed, is muted and distorted in this film. Using Ensign Keith as the point of view distances us from the antagonists, but this is a foggy substitute for putting the audience in the position of sitting on the Court Martial, hearing their words paint the picture of what happened on the USS Caine. We could have had a variation on Rashomon. We don't get it here and we also get a very distorted view of Navy discipline. The ending particularly disappoints, suggesting that what is knavish behavior will be endorsed as being courage.

Watch for Jose Ferrer and Van Johnson, in addition to Bogie, but don't expect sense to be made of what you see. It is not there.

The Negotiator (1998)

Do Cops Really Talk Like That?

[9/10 · 24 January 2000]

I found this to be a trenchant, generally fast-moving policier, with two standout lead performances by Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey, ably supported by a large cast. For something this well-performed and cleverly written, I generally give full thumbs-up, but I have to say that I found the language to be too harsh. The distinction comes up because of the degree of professionalism Spacey's Chris brings to the proceedings when he first shows up, clearly delineating the need for clear, calm thinking. Now, it is true that many of the other characters have sincere motivation to make things as emotionally distraught and confusing as possible, but I'm not sure that having them repeatedly insert the F-word into their expostulations really needed to be the mechanism for this. Perhaps it substitutes in today's film culture for actual subplots, designed to divert the protagonists from achieving their ends? Not sure, but gotta say, I would have enjoyed this film far more if the use of profanity had been more judicious.

Photographing Fairies (1997)

A True Story?

[1/10 · 24 January 2000]

This is not the true story. It is the darkest possible fiction derived from the events. It endorses suicide, morose obsession with death, a totally gratuitous sideswipe at organized religion in general (and the Anglican Church, in particular) and generally provides a nihilistic, pointless world view from which filmgoers, I suppose, are intended to walk away, richer in their poverty and more hopeful in their hopelessness.

Utter trash, though attractively performed by a capable cast. That anyone would suggest this is a true rendering, however, is very much false advertising. You want the real story? Rent 'Fairy Tale'. That's the real story. See if you can find any correspondence between the facts presented in either case. I only found one: the girls who made the original photographs were pre-pubescent.

Pokémon: The First Movie - Mewtwo Strikes Back (1998)

Hurt by enforced limitations

[6/10 · 12 November 1999]

The Pokemon phenomenon continues in this feature and for all I can see adheres to the TV format, simply expanded for the better sound and some of the FX opportunities of the big screen. The plot is unobjectionable, the pokemon are in general undeniably cute, and the intensity level is relatively low. Therefore, it is just fine for that matinee showing when you have too many kids on your hands and too little for them to do. It kept the kids I brought quite entranced, which was entirely the point.

Nothing new in terms of Pokemon lore here, which was also well-received in the full auditorium. But, as an adult who has some appreciation of the possibilities of the medium, I have to sadly admit being a bit disappointed in it. Don't get me wrong, it was a pleasant way to spend something under two hours, but the film's animation was only a tiny improvement on the TV show and demonstrably worse than the Nintendo 64 games spun off from it. I contend that this is inescapable for the marketers involved. You see, the TV show is the true franchise, supporting the cards, so everything put out within the Pokemon universe must support the level of quality they can maintain on TV...which is quite low. I would say that the film is /intentionally/ lower quality, precisely so that the images the kids have of the characters, who have a patented form and mode of moving on TV, are not disrupted and turned off from watching the cartoons.

Since I didn't expect anything else, I wasn't actually disappointed in that sense, just that they didn't seem to take advantage of the opportunities they had to improve on the quality, such as in nature scenes, backgrounds, and such.

In sum, if you're under the age of about 12, give this a 10, it works. If you're like me, it's more along the lines of a 5. Here's wishing the distributors would put 'Princess Mononuke' into wider release.

Independence Day (1996)

Patriarchy and Patriotism

[8/10 · 7 November 1999]

There is an undercurrent today, rumbling about that men aren't particularly needed in that 'old-fashioned' way. That primal level defenses simply are a thing of the past. Well, to my mind, that kind of mind-set presumes an awful lot. I am watching, with some trepidation, feminist thinking degrading our forces simply on the 'why-not' premise of women requiring that all situations be made level for their abilities, whether those abilities in fact exist. The result is droves of men, good men, leaving the services, because the premise is flawed and the execution is destructive.

Independence Day is a text entirely to the contrary and thus, entirely to my liking. It is vital that women /not/ need to put themselves utterly into harm's way, for they are a priceless resource. ID4 takes this completely seriously. The result is a rousing war movie, one that stirs the blood. There is some simplification of the situation, a potential impediment that seems necessary when a film maintains a wide viewpoint through its entire length. However, even given this, focus is also kept on a limited number of key individuals, whose interaction and ability to come together are key to whether they will succeed, or fail.

This is in many ways an old-fashioned movie, in that there are no permanently disturbed characters, no one's sexual hangups are explored, selfishness and self-absorption are put aside. Thus it is not 'edgy'. I say, good. Ordinary folk have too much living to do to bother with films that endlessly navel-gaze and woolgather. There is no moss growing on these people and I'd like to see people in real life being just as courageous.

So, if you want deep thought, go see something else. If you want to see people responding to crisis and see it done with dispatch and brio, see this film. Highly recommended.

Serial (1980)

No need to have been there, but...

[6 November 1999]

Satire can be a delicate medium. It's very easy to simply go for the straight joke and bully one's way thru the material. At times, Serial does do this, and this, combined with an overall feel of being a TV movie, is what costs it two points on my rating. However, these are minor blemishes. The Marin scene was truly mad in those days. Take my word for it, I was there. And just because the characters are archetypes doesn't mean they shouldn't be recorded, for the amusement of future generations that might otherwise be tempted to go all out for personal growth and freedom.

Seen thru the eyes of the 'relatively normal' Harvey Holroyd, the scene in Marin is freewheeling and novel, the first few times around the track. After that, the consequences start lurching into sight and people's deeper selves start emerging, hurt, confused and unmoored, just as in life. You'd think that would make Serial funny for the first 45 minutes and from then on a drag. Not in the least, particularly due to the introduction of Skull, the madcap recruiter. This element permits the pace not only to avoid maudlin regrets, but to increase the pace and the zaniness, zapping targets in all directions with merry abandon.

A winner all the way and highly recommended for anyone who wants to see Hollywood put the wringer to itself.

Those who like this film might also like 'The Player' and 'Network', which are more serious takes on trenchant satire of the New Age generations.

Richard III (1983 TV Movie)

Trenchant begins to describe this version...

[10/10 · 31 October 1999]

I'm fairly sure that many educated and interested-in-film folk have seen the superb and terrifying McKellen version, but sadly, I'd bet hardly anyone remembers this version, which in the original was the capstone of the cycle of plays that begins with Richard II and continues through the various Henry plays (six of 'em). The series was cast as a whole, and the list of actors is a who's-who of British acting skill, culminating in this horrorshow of a play. From the opening moments, when the camera pulls back from the last frame of Henry VI, Part III to reveal a small blackboard, onto which a disembodied hand scrawls Richard III in chalk, to the final frame, where Margaret sits, cackling hysterically atop a pile of bodies (all the characters killed in the preceding eight plays), this version assaults you and tests your ability to withstand true, and intentional villainy, as personified in the demonic Richard. See this version...plague the BBC with letters asking for it to be reissued...write to the actors and shower them with adulation..whatever it takes to return this play to the public eye, where it richardly belongs. Cheers!