Igby is sort of like Holden Caulfield, but without a serious thought in his head. It's hard to either like or dislike the character, since we only have his cheeky one-liners to define it. The people around him are quite horrible in their own unique ways, so that kinda makes him look better, but they are basically one-dimensional manifestations of various narcissistic types. So, the setup is that Igby is your basic disaffected youth, presumably intelligent (although that is never really established), navigating amongst these jerks for most of the film. It didn't seem quite plausible that these women would be so anxious to sleep with him -- Culkin has this sort of baby-fat thing with his face, he's rather short, and he doesn't seem to do anything to warrant such instant passion. The film goes on and on, without a bit of dramatic tension, only a series of scenes that I suppose are meant to elucidate the incredible range of self-conscious egos striving for hipness in the Big Apple. There are scenes that should really draw the audience in for some emotional connection to Igby's difficulty with his parents, but once the one-liners flee the screen, so does any hope for believable drama. And there's one of the weakest endings I've seen in some time. What is most surprising is that Susan Sarandon and Bill Pullman read this script and decided they wanted to be part of this mess. Perhaps the only point is to draw attention to how many phonies there are in the world. Problem is, Holden already did that about 60 years ago.
Reviews
23 Reviews
My Country 'Tis of Thee
(1950)
Alarmingly protofascist
30 April 2012
Even given that this was produced in 1950 during the Cold War, this short film is egregious propaganda. It relates our history in terms that invite a comparison with Nazi spin. One would think that the citizens of the USA were some master race. The Indians "moved westward" after their conflicts with the white settlers. The quick look at the Civil War does not even mention slavery. What we're given here is a version of American History that has no relation to reality. Scary stuff. I can heartily recommend this to students of history who want to research the McCarthy era, with its Communist paranoia -- perhaps this is an attempt by Hollywood to fend off the witch hunt and the subsequent blacklisting of many writers and directors.
Mysteries of Lisbon
(2011–2020)
This film has a multitude of problems
7 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure it's possible to express a spoiler here -- the film just doesn't have any truly dramatic moments outside of one dueling scene, and even that is pretty uninteresting. It's amazing that someone decided the story needed over 270 minutes to tell. There are many scenes that are totally unnecessary to the story and many more that could have been shortened.
There's a point where we see a couple get together, and we expect passion, fireworks, some real emotion. Alas, it is not to be. Way too many scenes are filmed from quite a distance, as if to say, "let's disengage ourselves as much as possible from this". The main effect is to prevent us from seeing the acting going on -- watching several people talking from such as distance, it's hard to tell what anyone is supposed to be feeling.
And the pacing. This film is glacially paced, and taxes even the most patient of us. There better be a payoff, but it never comes. I made it to the end, and I can honestly say that I felt like I had wasted my time. There just isn't enough going on in this costume drama to care. About the only good thing I can say is that the production values are not too bad, although it seems that the budget must have precluded much location shooting -- we see coaches going by the same landscape over and over throughout the film.
Summary: limp, boring soap.
There's a point where we see a couple get together, and we expect passion, fireworks, some real emotion. Alas, it is not to be. Way too many scenes are filmed from quite a distance, as if to say, "let's disengage ourselves as much as possible from this". The main effect is to prevent us from seeing the acting going on -- watching several people talking from such as distance, it's hard to tell what anyone is supposed to be feeling.
And the pacing. This film is glacially paced, and taxes even the most patient of us. There better be a payoff, but it never comes. I made it to the end, and I can honestly say that I felt like I had wasted my time. There just isn't enough going on in this costume drama to care. About the only good thing I can say is that the production values are not too bad, although it seems that the budget must have precluded much location shooting -- we see coaches going by the same landscape over and over throughout the film.
Summary: limp, boring soap.
That Hamilton Woman
(1941)
Film sinks into melodramatic depths under Korda's direction
25 February 2010
First of all, the film is too long by about 35 minutes. Given the star quality of Olivier and Leigh at the time, that's probably deliberate. Never mind that we see several scenes that cover the same self-conflicted feelings again and again. Some scenes are embarrassingly overwrought, and one can only blame the director. Leigh especially thinks more is more, and seems never to have heard of nuance. The battle scenes are typical of British film of the era, with models standing in for real ships. Granted, the film was made during wartime, but even before the war British production values were meager -- the reason Hitchcock packed up for America. There is a death scene that goes on way too long, which dips the film further down into its melodramatic depths. As the film returns from the protracted flashback, it abruptly ends, with no explanation of what had happened to That Hamilton Woman after the recollections.
The patriotic message is repeated often enough to help establish the film as encouragement for the British to hang in there during these war years of the 1940's. I found myself wondering if the treatment of the Italians as uncultured fools was based on Italy's alliance with Germany, or merely a fairly typical English attitude of superiority that defined (at least) the 1930's (mirrored in my recent reading of Agatha Christie's novels, which rather blatantly sneer at Italians and other foreigners).
I was rather surprised that this film was deserving of the Criterion Collection treatment. But then again, they seem to think Douglas Sirk is a genius, too.
The patriotic message is repeated often enough to help establish the film as encouragement for the British to hang in there during these war years of the 1940's. I found myself wondering if the treatment of the Italians as uncultured fools was based on Italy's alliance with Germany, or merely a fairly typical English attitude of superiority that defined (at least) the 1930's (mirrored in my recent reading of Agatha Christie's novels, which rather blatantly sneer at Italians and other foreigners).
I was rather surprised that this film was deserving of the Criterion Collection treatment. But then again, they seem to think Douglas Sirk is a genius, too.
Imitation of Life
(1959)
Auteur or Soap Opera Jockey?
18 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
We just finished watching Imitation of Life (1959), the DVD edition that came out last year. Except for a few grainy reels, the film looks pretty good (1.85:1, Pathe). I think this is my third film of his. After watching the featurette with film historian commentaries, I have to say, I don't get it.
My wife and I found the film to be unbelievably melodramatic and over-the-top, with a ridiculous performance by Lana Turner and an annoying one by Sandra Dee that one historian found nuanced. The fact that Godard wrote an article in the late 50's telling us that Sirk is a great auteur strikes me as absurd, akin to calling Jerry Lewis a comic genius. Even more puzzling to me is that Fassbinder idolized Sirk. We are supposed to believe that Sirk knew exactly what he was doing, and got exactly the performances he was after to emphasize the absurdity and vacuousness of American Life in the 50's. They sum up with it being "one of the greatest of all American films".
But I was just reading that Sirk was distinctly uncomfortable with the critical praise. He was content to make at least 7 films under the guidance and admiration of Dr. Goebbels, and only left Germany when his ex-wife outed his current wife as being a Jew. I'm unsure whether Sirk wasn't hostile to America for different reasons. Still, the only sympathetic female character is Annie, the black maid. He clearly wanted to show how little had changed since the first film version (1934), and how badly white female Americans still behaved toward blacks. This isn't exactly hard-hitting as far as portraying black life in America, though.
But the film still has some really serious flaws. The character Steve is trotted out whenever needed to help Lora through the crisis du jour, and after an early attempt to bring her in line with the traditional passive role of woman, to just wait her out until she's practically exhausted every selfish act she could commit. And just why does he love her so much? This is just one instance of credibility/motivation that bugged me. Lora neglects her child, is indifferent/uncaring about Annie's personal life, uses Steve and any other man if it furthers her interests, yet at the end of the film she is supposed to now "get it".
During the course of the way-too-long film, Sirk beats us over the head with one example after another in regard to each sub-theme. In one example of bad film-making, he has Annie encounter her daughter Sarah Jane during a nightclub appearance that is basically a repeat of an earlier such scene. We are telegraphed early on that Annie will die (of what? we never know!), so that is used to drench as much weepiness as possible out of her scenes with her wayward daughter. In keeping with everything that came before, the funeral scene is ultra melodramatic and sustained. You would think that it was a major black civil rights figure dying, with the hundreds seen crowding the sidewalks.
Obviously Lora and Annie are used as archetypes/caricatures. The jewels dropping at the beginning are transparent. So why can't Steve see through Lora? Is this meant to be a totally anti-American film, disguised as a harmless soap opera? Does Sirk have nothing but disdain for the weak and clueless honkies, while he overidealizes every black? Should the film be seen as anticipating another Sirk admirer, Lars von Trier, who disdains and portrays every American as dumb, evil or both? I don't buy the Brecht argument in the Slate article that overemphasizing emotions and theatricality equals more. I don't see Lora as victim, mostly because that's typical of both the far left or right, which is to blame external forces rather than require people to assume some sort of personal responsibility.
I don't get where Slate comes up with: "what Sirk rightfully believed to be a seriously deranged American society" also. I haven't found anything to indicate he thought that way. The reviewer seems to think it's grand to interpret the film as an indictment of its pathological characters, but in the context of a tearjerker aimed at female audiences, that seems to be saying that the filmmaker detests the very audience he's crafting the film for, which would be cynical, to say the least.
I have to say, it *was* refreshing to see Troy Donahue's character spitting out the N word and beating Sarah Jane up, though. He's usually so *nice*.
Since John Waters loves Sirk, and he is known to love a lot of dreadful American dreck, I rest my case. The art direction itself, with its supersaturated gaudy colors, seems like Waters on acid.
My wife and I found the film to be unbelievably melodramatic and over-the-top, with a ridiculous performance by Lana Turner and an annoying one by Sandra Dee that one historian found nuanced. The fact that Godard wrote an article in the late 50's telling us that Sirk is a great auteur strikes me as absurd, akin to calling Jerry Lewis a comic genius. Even more puzzling to me is that Fassbinder idolized Sirk. We are supposed to believe that Sirk knew exactly what he was doing, and got exactly the performances he was after to emphasize the absurdity and vacuousness of American Life in the 50's. They sum up with it being "one of the greatest of all American films".
But I was just reading that Sirk was distinctly uncomfortable with the critical praise. He was content to make at least 7 films under the guidance and admiration of Dr. Goebbels, and only left Germany when his ex-wife outed his current wife as being a Jew. I'm unsure whether Sirk wasn't hostile to America for different reasons. Still, the only sympathetic female character is Annie, the black maid. He clearly wanted to show how little had changed since the first film version (1934), and how badly white female Americans still behaved toward blacks. This isn't exactly hard-hitting as far as portraying black life in America, though.
But the film still has some really serious flaws. The character Steve is trotted out whenever needed to help Lora through the crisis du jour, and after an early attempt to bring her in line with the traditional passive role of woman, to just wait her out until she's practically exhausted every selfish act she could commit. And just why does he love her so much? This is just one instance of credibility/motivation that bugged me. Lora neglects her child, is indifferent/uncaring about Annie's personal life, uses Steve and any other man if it furthers her interests, yet at the end of the film she is supposed to now "get it".
During the course of the way-too-long film, Sirk beats us over the head with one example after another in regard to each sub-theme. In one example of bad film-making, he has Annie encounter her daughter Sarah Jane during a nightclub appearance that is basically a repeat of an earlier such scene. We are telegraphed early on that Annie will die (of what? we never know!), so that is used to drench as much weepiness as possible out of her scenes with her wayward daughter. In keeping with everything that came before, the funeral scene is ultra melodramatic and sustained. You would think that it was a major black civil rights figure dying, with the hundreds seen crowding the sidewalks.
Obviously Lora and Annie are used as archetypes/caricatures. The jewels dropping at the beginning are transparent. So why can't Steve see through Lora? Is this meant to be a totally anti-American film, disguised as a harmless soap opera? Does Sirk have nothing but disdain for the weak and clueless honkies, while he overidealizes every black? Should the film be seen as anticipating another Sirk admirer, Lars von Trier, who disdains and portrays every American as dumb, evil or both? I don't buy the Brecht argument in the Slate article that overemphasizing emotions and theatricality equals more. I don't see Lora as victim, mostly because that's typical of both the far left or right, which is to blame external forces rather than require people to assume some sort of personal responsibility.
I don't get where Slate comes up with: "what Sirk rightfully believed to be a seriously deranged American society" also. I haven't found anything to indicate he thought that way. The reviewer seems to think it's grand to interpret the film as an indictment of its pathological characters, but in the context of a tearjerker aimed at female audiences, that seems to be saying that the filmmaker detests the very audience he's crafting the film for, which would be cynical, to say the least.
I have to say, it *was* refreshing to see Troy Donahue's character spitting out the N word and beating Sarah Jane up, though. He's usually so *nice*.
Since John Waters loves Sirk, and he is known to love a lot of dreadful American dreck, I rest my case. The art direction itself, with its supersaturated gaudy colors, seems like Waters on acid.
Australia
(2008)
This movie is all over the place
23 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
For the first 15 minutes, you might think that this will be a silly comedy, with its opening slapstick shenanigans. But then, once it gets going, it looks like it's gonna be an old-fashioned western, with Kidman in the Barbara Stanwyck role. Jackman appears bare-chested for you ladies, but does a cattleman need to look like a weightlifter? It just makes him look like he has a pin head.
If you are looking for subtlety, you must go elsewhere -- there will be no doubt to the goodness of the good guys and the badness of the bad guys. I think I have to go back to a stinker like "Twister" to find an apt comparison.
But wait, it's also a romance! Then Kidman's character pulls the same line that Streep did in "Out of Africa", giving Jackman an ultimatum. But don't worry, that wasn't serious! But wait, now it turns into a war movie! With only 4 writers, they apparently couldn't get the money to sign on a 5th who could contribute a sci-fi subplot. Still, we get "Rabbit Proof Fence" Lite -- hey, we need the serious historical injustice thing to tie the whole thing together. Except that most of us will sorta forget social relevance, what with all this other visual stimulation going on. There's a lot of really obvious CGI in the movie, too, which makes an already unreal movie look just plain cartoony, but there aren't any dinosaurs in sight.
Acting? No, Luhrmann insists on overacting.
In the first scenes, the ranch looks rundown and lifeless. But, hey, once rainy season hits, it's a lush oasis. Gee, that's amazing!
Correct me if I'm wrong, you native Australians. But does a small child really go on walkabout? I was under the impression that was a rite of passage to become a man, not someone still waiting for the onset of puberty.
Now, when it would not make any difference whatsoever, would the bad guy really kill his own child? Luhrmann doesn't think we will think past the big cheer that will go up from the crowd when an aboriginal spear finds its mark.
This movie is almost 3 hours long. Pretentious? By the lowered standards set by "Titanic", no. Just bad.
If you are looking for subtlety, you must go elsewhere -- there will be no doubt to the goodness of the good guys and the badness of the bad guys. I think I have to go back to a stinker like "Twister" to find an apt comparison.
But wait, it's also a romance! Then Kidman's character pulls the same line that Streep did in "Out of Africa", giving Jackman an ultimatum. But don't worry, that wasn't serious! But wait, now it turns into a war movie! With only 4 writers, they apparently couldn't get the money to sign on a 5th who could contribute a sci-fi subplot. Still, we get "Rabbit Proof Fence" Lite -- hey, we need the serious historical injustice thing to tie the whole thing together. Except that most of us will sorta forget social relevance, what with all this other visual stimulation going on. There's a lot of really obvious CGI in the movie, too, which makes an already unreal movie look just plain cartoony, but there aren't any dinosaurs in sight.
Acting? No, Luhrmann insists on overacting.
In the first scenes, the ranch looks rundown and lifeless. But, hey, once rainy season hits, it's a lush oasis. Gee, that's amazing!
Correct me if I'm wrong, you native Australians. But does a small child really go on walkabout? I was under the impression that was a rite of passage to become a man, not someone still waiting for the onset of puberty.
Now, when it would not make any difference whatsoever, would the bad guy really kill his own child? Luhrmann doesn't think we will think past the big cheer that will go up from the crowd when an aboriginal spear finds its mark.
This movie is almost 3 hours long. Pretentious? By the lowered standards set by "Titanic", no. Just bad.
The Stunt Man
(1980)
Underrated and seldom seen or mentioned
28 April 2009
This is definitely one of my favorite films of its time. I can't understand why this film is not more highly rated by just about anyone -- the critics or the public. It's not really a cult film so much as a seemingly chaotic black comedy. One is never quite sure if Eli Cross is totally insane, or has taken measures to prevent the killing of his on-the-lam stunt man. The case is definitely made that Cross is desperate, and resorting to desperate measures. The "killer crane" is a wonderful device, since it helps in the overall feel of vertigo that Rush is looking for.
There's obviously the motif of trying to tell reality from false perceptions, and what better way than to have cinema as the setting? We share Cameron's bewilderment at what is happening to him, and there is non-stop tension in every scene -- you just don't know what lunacy may arise at any time. Can he trust anyone? The special edition of the DVD has interviews that really do enlighten. The difficulty in Rush having this film realized is a gripping story in itself -- obviously Rush was as obsessive as his antagonist Cross! I confess to falling for Barbara Hershey -- it's not so much her performance than how Rush photographs her -- she seems to represent not just the Most Desirable Woman but also Comfort. (Or is she just acting? Has Cross put her up to this? What are her true feelings?) And Cameron needs a lot of comfort. They filmed this in San Diego at the Hotel Coronado, but I can't seem to remember reading anything about it at the time! (I was certainly living here at the time.) Of course, Some Like It Hot was also filmed at the Coronado.
There's obviously the motif of trying to tell reality from false perceptions, and what better way than to have cinema as the setting? We share Cameron's bewilderment at what is happening to him, and there is non-stop tension in every scene -- you just don't know what lunacy may arise at any time. Can he trust anyone? The special edition of the DVD has interviews that really do enlighten. The difficulty in Rush having this film realized is a gripping story in itself -- obviously Rush was as obsessive as his antagonist Cross! I confess to falling for Barbara Hershey -- it's not so much her performance than how Rush photographs her -- she seems to represent not just the Most Desirable Woman but also Comfort. (Or is she just acting? Has Cross put her up to this? What are her true feelings?) And Cameron needs a lot of comfort. They filmed this in San Diego at the Hotel Coronado, but I can't seem to remember reading anything about it at the time! (I was certainly living here at the time.) Of course, Some Like It Hot was also filmed at the Coronado.
Tell No One
(2006)
Put your brain on hold
22 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
First off, if you want to make a good film, don't cram all your exposition into the last 10 minutes. The viewer is expected to be bewildered for nearly two hours, only to have Margo's father explain everything to Alex very late in the film. To make matters worse, the scriptwriter decided it wasn't enough to have the basic mystery solved, but adds in a completely unnecessary murder that we knew nothing about (involving Alex's father!).
There's some serious motivation issues with characters also. Margo's father's choices don't seem to make sense once the film is over. Why didn't he just kill Philippe's father and be done with it? Instead, a complicated plot to obscure the truth is concocted, but one which ensures that everyone will be in physical jeopardy for years (including the completely innocent photographer, who gets murdered by Philippe's father's thugs). Although Alex is a doctor (whom one would think is relatively bright), he chooses to flee the police, during which he not only endangers his own life, but those whom he involves in a nasty pile-up on the freeway. Why was Margo's friend so keen on keeping her promise to Margo, once all the crap hits the fan for Alex? And are we to think that Margo's father would rather kill himself rather than go to prison? What about his wife? Did he consider her wishes? Those are some of the main problems.
Then there are some nasty details, like: why was her father there the night of her faked death? How did he get a hold of the junkie's body on such short notice and get it back quickly in order to bury it with the other two? Alex's friend Bruno seems over-eager to be part of the mayhem, in which he and his friends have to kill for Alex, notwithstanding the perceived debt he owes Alex for saving his son's life. What good would the photos of Margo do? They don't implicate Philippe at all. And why would Margo have the safety deposit box key handy that night for her would-be abductors to take? Did I miss some other things? Probably. Minor irritations of mine include the fact that although Alex is a doctor, he smokes like a fiend. Which makes his marathon run away from the police even that more impressive. Also, when he is riding in the convertible with his lawyer, neither of them is wearing a seat belt. How bright could they be?
There's some serious motivation issues with characters also. Margo's father's choices don't seem to make sense once the film is over. Why didn't he just kill Philippe's father and be done with it? Instead, a complicated plot to obscure the truth is concocted, but one which ensures that everyone will be in physical jeopardy for years (including the completely innocent photographer, who gets murdered by Philippe's father's thugs). Although Alex is a doctor (whom one would think is relatively bright), he chooses to flee the police, during which he not only endangers his own life, but those whom he involves in a nasty pile-up on the freeway. Why was Margo's friend so keen on keeping her promise to Margo, once all the crap hits the fan for Alex? And are we to think that Margo's father would rather kill himself rather than go to prison? What about his wife? Did he consider her wishes? Those are some of the main problems.
Then there are some nasty details, like: why was her father there the night of her faked death? How did he get a hold of the junkie's body on such short notice and get it back quickly in order to bury it with the other two? Alex's friend Bruno seems over-eager to be part of the mayhem, in which he and his friends have to kill for Alex, notwithstanding the perceived debt he owes Alex for saving his son's life. What good would the photos of Margo do? They don't implicate Philippe at all. And why would Margo have the safety deposit box key handy that night for her would-be abductors to take? Did I miss some other things? Probably. Minor irritations of mine include the fact that although Alex is a doctor, he smokes like a fiend. Which makes his marathon run away from the police even that more impressive. Also, when he is riding in the convertible with his lawyer, neither of them is wearing a seat belt. How bright could they be?
Shine a Light
(2008)
What happened?
13 October 2008
I don't know. It seemed like this should be a great way to summarize the Stones' career: the Scorcese treatment. But I was distinctly underwhelmed. There was the over-representation of mediocre Stones songs (they do have some great material that wouldn't just be a greatest hits set). There was Mick, who ardently believes that more is more. But then he didn't give more (where it counts) on a throw-away vocal on "As Tears Go By." Then there was Marty, who distrusts the viewer not to get bored by not hazarding a single lingering shot. Or to cut away from Mick when Chuck Leavell was delivering a very nice piano solo. My wife noted that the Stones seemed better when Mick stepped off the stage. His "rooster on acid" shtick was nearly nonstop on the faster numbers, and grew boring very, very quickly. I've seen Peter Gabriel and Bono do much, much better as entertainers. But then, I never drank the Kool-Aid.
From a film-making point of view, I don't get the value of the Clintons in there, nor of the footage with Marty. And the crowd looked like a group of friends of the band's and Marty's, with a smattering of trust fund kids and investment bankers for good measure. Check out "Gimme Shelter" instead; there's some pretty gritty stuff in there, and it's not all pretty, but at least it's real.
From a film-making point of view, I don't get the value of the Clintons in there, nor of the footage with Marty. And the crowd looked like a group of friends of the band's and Marty's, with a smattering of trust fund kids and investment bankers for good measure. Check out "Gimme Shelter" instead; there's some pretty gritty stuff in there, and it's not all pretty, but at least it's real.
No Country for Old Men
(2007)
Major disappointment from masterful filmmakers
27 December 2007
I am really surprised by the critics' admiration for this film. I am not so surprised at the reaction of the Tarantino fan types that have rated this film so highly on the IMDb. A film with this much graphic violence (I counted Anton's tally at 14, but maybe I missed some) better have some good points to make -- and any more, they should be NEW points -- or else it's just a horror film. I am afraid that the Coens have come up with a horror film. Okay, but then I don't understand how the critics can get so worked up (of course, I thought they were way too kind to Little Children also).
Essentially, as some other readers have so rightly pointed out, this film is pointless. The insults of other readers --- that those of us who believe this are dumb --- doesn't hold water. I have discussed the film with a number of friends who are great fans of cinema (and I mean they have an appreciation of the classics of world cinema), and they also had to agree. And we are fans of the Coens, and feel that they make interesting films with great dialog, settings, acting, and photography. In fact, I cannot fault the film technically. The problem is with the story itself, which means that either Cormac McCarthy failed, or the Coens did in adapting it.
So I invite other readers to explain what points are made here that we haven't already seen a zillion times in other films. The relentless evil of man? The ultimate meaninglessness of existence? Do we really need this much blood to do so?
Sigh. Okay. How about this? The Coens have attempted to adapt what I suppose is a serious American novel to the screen. However, if that is the case, I shouldn't have to accept the usual suspension of disbelief. Thus, how is it that this ultimate killing machine was apprehended by the not-so-bright deputy in the first place? We first see Anton in custody - - handcuffed as it were. From then on, this psycho has essentially killed everyone he has chatted with. That was a major loose end for me.
Another friend considered the film a rip-off of The Terminator, which he says in turn was a stolen idea. Even down to the scene where Anton has to repair himself.
Other critics have called the film "funnier than Fargo", which if true, is pretty distressing. In the theater I was in, there were indeed chuckles in the appropriate spots, but when I saw Fargo, people were laughing loud and hard throughout. To imagine a theater audience doing so with this film is downright chilling.
Essentially, as some other readers have so rightly pointed out, this film is pointless. The insults of other readers --- that those of us who believe this are dumb --- doesn't hold water. I have discussed the film with a number of friends who are great fans of cinema (and I mean they have an appreciation of the classics of world cinema), and they also had to agree. And we are fans of the Coens, and feel that they make interesting films with great dialog, settings, acting, and photography. In fact, I cannot fault the film technically. The problem is with the story itself, which means that either Cormac McCarthy failed, or the Coens did in adapting it.
So I invite other readers to explain what points are made here that we haven't already seen a zillion times in other films. The relentless evil of man? The ultimate meaninglessness of existence? Do we really need this much blood to do so?
Sigh. Okay. How about this? The Coens have attempted to adapt what I suppose is a serious American novel to the screen. However, if that is the case, I shouldn't have to accept the usual suspension of disbelief. Thus, how is it that this ultimate killing machine was apprehended by the not-so-bright deputy in the first place? We first see Anton in custody - - handcuffed as it were. From then on, this psycho has essentially killed everyone he has chatted with. That was a major loose end for me.
Another friend considered the film a rip-off of The Terminator, which he says in turn was a stolen idea. Even down to the scene where Anton has to repair himself.
Other critics have called the film "funnier than Fargo", which if true, is pretty distressing. In the theater I was in, there were indeed chuckles in the appropriate spots, but when I saw Fargo, people were laughing loud and hard throughout. To imagine a theater audience doing so with this film is downright chilling.
Big Night
(1996)
A great "little" film
28 March 2006
After having looked over my reviews on IMDb, I noticed that only one of them was enthusiastic. That should be rectified, since I consider myself a big fan of cinema, and I choose as my second enthusiastic recommendation Big Night. This is one of those films that doesn't have to show off. It's a slice of life sort of thing going on here, with an assortment of people with strengths and faults, but who all value life's simple pleasures, like good food. It's a story about the underdogs , and their hopes and dreams and struggles -- some within reach, some not. It's got a good cast too. They all make it look easy, but they have a charming script and careful direction. I think Billy Wilder would have approved. At turns funny and touching, and the last scene -- several minutes without a word of dialogue -- is pure gold.
In the Mood for Love
(2000)
Pretentious Junk
2 January 2006
The best thing I can say about this film is the art direction, which conveys the claustrophobic inner world of its characters. Virtually without exterior shots, possibly due to budget constraints (i.e. trying to recreate early 60s Hong Kong), the film relies heavily on its lush, over-saturated interior surfaces to create the mood. Yet I would suggest that beyond being representational of the repressed passion of the characters, there is little more to see here besides the sets. The performances have been outlandishly overpraised by the "less is more" crowd. In particular, the often-wrong Cannes judges bestowed a best actor award for a performance that in fact does not even create a three-dimensional character, but focuses on long pulls on cigarettes and blank staring into space. Yeah, great stuff. Both my wife and I have seen thousands of films combined, and we both thought it underwritten, underacted, repetitive, and akin to watching paint dry. Beautiful paint, yes, but that's all.
What is more intriguing is the praise the film has gotten. At least one critic mentioned how he thought the film would have been dismissed as laughable if it had been Western actors in a less exotic locale. Could be. It is baffling that so many can be taken by something with so little merit. I could only find one major critic who panned this film: Peter Rainer in New York Magazine. His comments are spot on, in case you want a more thorough argument regarding its self-conscious aesthete mindset.
What is more intriguing is the praise the film has gotten. At least one critic mentioned how he thought the film would have been dismissed as laughable if it had been Western actors in a less exotic locale. Could be. It is baffling that so many can be taken by something with so little merit. I could only find one major critic who panned this film: Peter Rainer in New York Magazine. His comments are spot on, in case you want a more thorough argument regarding its self-conscious aesthete mindset.
Mondovino
(2004)
Not terribly informative, dogmatic, and yes, undisciplined camera
5 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
As noted in other comments here, the camera-work is laughably bad. I am tempted to say that the director of photography is a 7-year-old, but that would be mean -- to 7-year-olds.
Okay, but what about the subject? I was looking for some insight into the state of the wine industry worldwide, you know, Mondovino. What the film is about is a very narrow view of one intrigue in that world: the struggle between Mondavi and the French and Italian wineries that they would like to buy. There is no enlightening narration that would put the whole deal into context, so we are left with the selective process of the director and the interviews with the various characters in this little psychodrama. There's no shortage of despicable characters, or even despicable dogs, in sight. There is a shortage of evenhandedness, however.
Is the director a Marxist? I wondered as I tried to maintain some semblance of focus as the camera dipped, swerved, zoomed in a chaotic flourish. Small grower in France: good. Huge grower in USA: very, very bad. Forget about the hundreds of small wineries throughout North America, Australia, and South America. There is a dead horse to beat here for over two hours.
To learn about the intrigue more, you are better off reading about it elsewhere. And you will be able to sample your favorite wine without feeling sick while doing so.
I suggest a new award at Cannes for Best America-bashing Diatribe.
Okay, but what about the subject? I was looking for some insight into the state of the wine industry worldwide, you know, Mondovino. What the film is about is a very narrow view of one intrigue in that world: the struggle between Mondavi and the French and Italian wineries that they would like to buy. There is no enlightening narration that would put the whole deal into context, so we are left with the selective process of the director and the interviews with the various characters in this little psychodrama. There's no shortage of despicable characters, or even despicable dogs, in sight. There is a shortage of evenhandedness, however.
Is the director a Marxist? I wondered as I tried to maintain some semblance of focus as the camera dipped, swerved, zoomed in a chaotic flourish. Small grower in France: good. Huge grower in USA: very, very bad. Forget about the hundreds of small wineries throughout North America, Australia, and South America. There is a dead horse to beat here for over two hours.
To learn about the intrigue more, you are better off reading about it elsewhere. And you will be able to sample your favorite wine without feeling sick while doing so.
I suggest a new award at Cannes for Best America-bashing Diatribe.
The Experiment
(2001)
Shocking, yes; realistic, no
22 July 2005
I posted a comment years ago in reference to the differences between the actual Stanford Prison Experiment and the film inspired by it. (Check out Dr. Zimbardo's website for details on what actually occurred during the experiment.) Now, I have finally seen the film myself. (My wife is German and she saw it in Berlin when it came out. We had several conversations by phone at the time, which prompted my original comments.) Once you consider that this film is merely inspired by, and not a depiction of the original experiment, there are some real storyline problems with the film nonetheless. First, the unrealistic time line -- almost instantly, both guards and prisoners assume their roles with vigor and the psychological effects seem instantaneous. Second, the experimenters are under-developed as characters or participants in the drama, which will later just confuse the viewers. Third, the subplot of the girlfriend doesn't work, and is totally unnecessary to the storyline (Billy Wilder cautioned filmmakers that if it doesn't advance the plot, throw it out.) Fourth, the fellow prisoners would most likely have punished Number 77 themselves for causing trouble that resulted in their own punishment at the hands of the guards -- we don't even have some verbal abuse thrown at him. Fifth, it is unrealistic to think that the experimenters would have given the guards batons after telling them "No violence." This would be sheer stupidity and criminal negligence, as we see later on. Sixth, the experimenters do not take measures (given point #5) to ensure that they can prevent or stop violence from occurring. Seventh, outside of the two characters Tarek and Berus, no one behaves in an independent manner, but slavishly follows these two dominant personalities -- possible, but unlikely, and there is no adequate explanation for this given. Eighth, for all the careful screening of the participants, are we to believe that the experimenters had no idea that Berus was psychotic, or that if he was as authoritarian as they admit in more than one scene, that he could not possibly be pathologically sick? Ninth, the experimenters are not held responsible in the final reel. What could have been an interesting film is undermined by the filmmakers' desire to manipulate audience emotions. We are supposed to feel repulsion and hatred for Berus and his weak companions, yet the thinking viewer will be more led to blame the experimenters themselves, which I don't believe is what the director intended.
Titanic
(1997)
There are much, much better epics out there...
12 August 2003
Despite Cameron's showboating at the Academy Awards, this is simply a bombastic mess. His first mistake was to take on too many roles, and crucially, that of screenwriter. What flimsy story he concocted to precede the disaster is rife with bad dialog and the most tired stereotypes imaginable. Take a look at the "Goofs" page here, too. You would think they could have done much better; sloppy work for one of the most expensive films ever made.
I felt like shouting at the screen at times: are you kidding? They spend how many minutes of the film in bone-chilling water and aren't even shivering just a little bit after getting out? (The water temperature would have to be about, what, 30 degrees? After all, there's icebergs floating in it! They would have been hypothermic within minutes, and dead after a few more.) And he gets the Best Director Award for such atrocious work? (The Man Who Would Be King of the World, indeed!)
Billy Wilder tersely summed it up in one of his interviews with Cameron Crowe: "Have you ever seen such horse**** in your life?"
I felt like shouting at the screen at times: are you kidding? They spend how many minutes of the film in bone-chilling water and aren't even shivering just a little bit after getting out? (The water temperature would have to be about, what, 30 degrees? After all, there's icebergs floating in it! They would have been hypothermic within minutes, and dead after a few more.) And he gets the Best Director Award for such atrocious work? (The Man Who Would Be King of the World, indeed!)
Billy Wilder tersely summed it up in one of his interviews with Cameron Crowe: "Have you ever seen such horse**** in your life?"
Love in the Afternoon
(1957)
Forget the casting! Great script, funny movie
21 July 2003
Two items: a) Wilder acknowledges that the part was written for Cary Grant, but he couldn't get him to do the part. b) Wilder has mentioned in more than one interview that Cooper (in real life) could have any woman he wanted. Remember, too, that this is just a movie. The comments here by "dropus" are completely on the mark. I can only add that there are some really funny lines and situations in this film, and the liquor cart scene is pure gold. Why would Ariane go after such an older man? Perhaps the line where she says she prefers older men is a clue, plus the fact of her naivety. Sure, it's not perfect, but it is a better film (especially looking at it after 45+ years) than most of the crap out there, and one of Wilder's greatest scripts. Oh, yeah, and this is Audrey's film, NOT Gary's. So just watch it and enjoy!
The Score
(2001)
The words come out of their mouths, and just die.
25 September 2001
I can't believe some critics that I respect thought that this was a good caper flick. The dialogue is not just awful, it reeks. Cliche after cliche occurs, both in the dialogue and in the plot. You can spot the ending coming a mile away, but if you are still with the film by that time, I share your pain. Kudos to Marlon Brando, who seemed to sense he was involved in a complete travesty and just gave it up. Or is Marlon even able to act at this point, as he wheezes through his scenes? It was up to Oz to get him to make even the most feeble attempt to act, and he fails. Sad, because at one time or another we have seen these actors doing really good work.
Year of the Horse
(1997)
tedious, flat moviemaking
4 August 2001
some guy from manitoba weighed in here and i can only echo his comments. i have been a fan of this band since 1970 and now i feel like i would have been better off not seeing this film. i don't care to read interviews with musicians, and i knew neil only through his music. he comes off as being a rather dim guy (not knowing even roughly the distinction between the old and new testaments of the bible), getting in pointless arguments with the band. i am almost of the mind to say that the whole film is a put-on, that jim and neil thought it would be really funny to do a spinal tap-like thing, but if that is the case, the thing backfires. watching pedro talk, not once, not twice, but three times about how the filmmaker can't possibly do his job effectively may be the big wink, but ironically jim creates nothing but a tedious film that offers no enlightenment whatsoever into the people who are making this music, and the grainy 8mm (no doubt supposed to reflect the raw nature of crazy horse's music) only keeps us from seeing just how boring it is to watch these guys in action. i am living in berlin right now, and the germans just love neil, and some think this film shows a guy at the height of his powers (one review of the show at the waldbuhne actually claims his voice has mellowed and gotten less whiny). to me, the one-chord solos only reveal a guy who hasn't given his instrument much attention over the decades (but he can sure write songs!), and the feedback-drenched "we may never end this coda" philosophy has grown really, really stale to the point of self-parody. spinal tap indeed. jim, on the other hand, seems to think less is more. less insight, less clarity, and not a bit of interesting camerawork in over ninety minutes. for comparison, see what scorcese did with the last waltz or demme did with stop making sense. truly one of the worst portraits of a group i have ever seen.
The Experiment
(2001)
Clarification regarding this film's events
19 April 2001
I want viewers and potential viewers of this film to keep one thing in mind. Although the film is based on the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted at Stanford University in 1971, many (or is most?) of the events depicted in the film did NOT occur during the actual experiment. The film is a fictionalized account, not a "true story" as more than one reviewer here has claimed. No one died during this experiment, and the experiment was abandoned after six days because the "guards'" treatment of the "prisoners" was becoming more and more disturbing, although it was psychological torment, not physical. Also, the "prisoners" were showing signs of depression and severe stress. All of this is documented in complete detail on Dr. Philip Zimbardo's web site: This is a day-by-day account of the entire TRUE experiment, and believe me, it is chilling enough without having to fictionalize it. It is especially instructive when reading this account to notice the clear parallels with the concentration camps; obviously this is what attracted the German filmmakers. On a personal note, I attended Stanford shortly after the experiment and it was part of the curriculum of the course I took from Dr. Zimbardo.
Dancer in the Dark
(2000)
Heavy-handed and inaccurate death-penalty story
11 April 2001
I have admired Lars von Trier's work in the past (notably Europa, released in the U.S. as Zentropa, and The Element of Crime), but this film angered me. There are events depicted in this film that just could not occur; that is, they misrepresent our justice system in the interest of its anti-death penalty sub-theme. The overall theme of the film is rather anti-American, I thought. Everyone who speaks with a foreign accent: good. Everyone who speaks with an American accent: bad. Although well-acted for the most part (I think people tend to overpraise Bjork, though), the film suffers from the heavy-handed treatment of its director. Too long, tedious at times, and relentlessly gloomy. The musical numbers feature songs that are weak, both melodically and lyrically. There is no subtle touch at work; von Trier hammers his points home, punctuated by the jerky, edgy handheld camera work some of us have grown tired of, its novelty having long ago worn off. Sure to be a hit with people who already hate America, and those looking for reasons to. By the way, I am myself against the death penalty, but this film goes about attacking it in such an unbelievable and misleading way. The truth of how people are executed in America is a strong enough indictment; why do we need to distort that truth? A poor film that fails with its dogma.
Welcome to the Dollhouse
(1995)
The coming-of-age film meets realism
12 June 1999
It takes a lot of guts to make a film like this. Hollywood has pushed the sugar-coated views of growing up down our throats for too long -- finally we get some realism. My own memories of 7th grade are mostly related to the appalling way in which middle-school-age children treated each other. It's a really terrible age to be unless you are blessed with good looks, smarts, and luck. The main character here isn't, and it throws her reality in your face. This will make a lot of people uncomfortable, because we have a tendency to reinvent our childhoods -- and omit the unpleasant behaviors we experienced.
Ronin
(1998)
Exciting car chases
11 June 1999
This movie is worth seeing just for the car chases, which are quite well done. The rest is above average for action films these days, mostly because we don't get a wise-cracking hero/buddy formula going on. The romance part is somewhat unbelievable, and the ending is somewhat unsatisfying (this sort of thing has been done before).
Henry Fool
(1997)
Tries hard, but just misses
20 January 1999
Warning: Spoilers
Although fairly entertaining, "Henry Fool" ultimately does not satisfy. What point is being made? Merely that artists are rarely appreciated in their own time, or that if they are, it is because of commercial success? This is hardly an overwhelming revelation. Or if we focus on Henry's fate, what is there other than how unfortunate his luck has been, or how woefully inadequate his self-knowledge? A lot of younger viewers will applaud the audacity of some scenes, but these are trifles, fast food tidbits to keep the viewer entertained. Hartley wisely omits any exposition of the actual memoirs or poetry being regarded; to do so would invite judgment by the viewer, and perhaps make even more ludicrous Simon's eventual winning of the Nobel Prize (after only 7 years of Simon's work being on the scene, we can only conclude that some major house cleaning has been done in the critical circles in Stockholm). But the film tries to play both at farce and drama (the wedding, suicide, denouement, etc.), or we could forgive these events' unlikeliness. We are just not that impressed that it took Henry to get Simon to come out of his shell for that to carry the film. As Henry makes his run for it at the end, we ask ourselves "So?"
Tell Your Friends