Greggory Reviews

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

Is everyone a lemming?! This film is pretty dreadful!

[4/10 · 1 February 2005]

I saw Vol. 1 the other night and was absolutely dazzled! It's not because I like action -- in fact, I rather don't -- it's that Vol. 1 is masterful, creative film-making, with almost impossible attention to detail (both visual and aural) and an anfractuous script that is perfectly crafted. I just saw Vol. 2, however, and I came on this site to see what people had to say...and I'm SHOCKED by you all! I can only guess that people responded to seeing character development in Vol. 2 --as ridiculous as it is (tell me, where oh where is there ANY real depth, ANY earned feeling?) -- that was withheld (intentionally, as it was unnecessary to what Vol. 1 is) in its predecessor. What is that at the end: "All is right in the jungle / The cub is with her mother" or something like that...Are you kidding me?! Are you people sheep?! Did this touch your heart or something? I'd think that Q's had a big joke on anyone if it weren't that it would be much too much trouble to go through. The whole training thing was nothing more than a redux of that kind of thing in martial-arts movies -- not an homage, not something new, just a redux. In fact, this is the whole movie: redux. Truth serum?! A hidden snake?! All that exposition?! And as far as the action, why bother, if you're gonna step down so far from Vol. 1?! QT ran out of steam. I know he wasn't TRYING to make Vol. 2 like Vol. 1...but he should have. Or maybe not. It seems the masses -- after all, the same people who somehow call themselves film fans while watching the Oscars year after year even though they give Kevin Costener Best Director for "Dances With Wolves" over Martin Scorsese for "Goodfellas" -- can't tell the difference. I hate people.

Nil by Mouth (1997)

More concept than actualization

[6/10 · 24 May 1999]

There is a simple, nebulous concept at the heart of "Nil by Mouth": people who consume all manner of things (drugs (incl. booze) and those around them are the primary examples) but who spout nothing but rubbish. This is done more ambitiously (if more vaguely) during the film's first half: the sound is mixed so that conversations are only semi-intelligible, punchlines to jokes are cut off. Later on, this is made more explicit -- particularly in the form of a story which literally gives us the film's title. But this concept is all there is, aside from a rather lame tie-in to this being a/the root of domestic violence. Oldman dedicates this film to his father (ironically or sardonically, I hope), and I think this explains the mish-mash: this film is a sort of catharsis, an attempt to account for his upbringing. It's not bad art, but I hope he had more success with it as therapy.

Lone Star (1996)

A wonderful and truly cinematic achievement

[10/10 · 24 May 1999]

"City of Hope" was a really nice film; but its real value was a a precursor to "Lone Star". With "Lone Star", John Sayles has reached the full height of his powers as an artist. The wonderful, complex, and subtle story of an unsolved disappearance and the part(s) it plays in the history of a border town and its residents explores the interconnectedness of a particular area, its past and present, its here and there. The writing is skillful and mature, the filmmaking understated and yet masterful. Well-cast, well-acted. . . a perfect film.

Three Colors: Red (1994)

Perhaps the most philosophically dense film ever made

[10/10 · 24 May 1999]

I feel at a loss, so brilliant is this film. Kieslowski is a writer, a philosopher; and while an excellent filmmaker, his greatness lies in his writing; and "Red" is his paradigm. This film is a metafictional study of the artist's judgement in the creation of his fictional world; of how an artist can attempt to remake life -- even his own -- thru his art, even as he cannot escape the knowledge that, no matter how he involves himself in his story, it is still fiction and he is still outside of his remade world, still burdened with its unreality and the reality of the life he has tried to artistically remake. And magically, all of this is not to the smallest degree at the expense of a wonderful story about the mysteries of love and fate and the characters who live out this story, this pre-judged destiny. If I had to choose, I might nominate this the greatest film ever made.

Point of No Return (1993)

Maybe the greatest travesty in all of filmdom

[1/10 · 24 May 1999]

Everything -- EVERYTHING -- that is great about "Nikita" is more than lost in this pathetic, shallow remake: it's inverted. The great action is gone (lots of big explosions replaces the unique stylism of the original), the subtlety is lost, the backbone and ending are edulcorated if not lost completely. What's left is a run-of-the-mill shoot-'em-up that, even if I HADN'T seen the wonderful original which it was trying (for reasons of money, obviously, and not art) recreate, I would frigging hate. A piece of garbage which stinks so badly which, if I weren't for complete freedom of speech and expression, I would put forth as an example of why it should be illegal to remake an excellent film.

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

I'm afraid Tarentino will never equal this fab work

[8/10 · 24 May 1999]

Okay, okay: the gunplay and the poses are from Woo, the climax has been downright lifted from "City on Fire"; but this film has enough that's original -- and improves upon most of that which is lifts -- to make it stand on its own. A lot of wonderful dialog here (the opening alone is enough), great casting and characters -- and what about making a caper film which has no caper?! Lovely. But there is one moment which TRULY is brilliant: a fictional story (told by Tim Roth's character) which is developed and devolved until the storyteller stands in the middle of his story telling it to its characters as the camera spins 'round and 'round. One of the most-inspired moments in the history of filmmaking.

La Femme Nikita (1990)

They talk about the action, but this is simply a great film

[10/10 · 24 May 1999]

Sure, there is some action sequences which really are on a par with the best of John Woo; but this film is so, so much more than that. In the end, this is a subtle film about paying for one's sins -- and if perhaps there are some sins which can never be paid for in full. We get this in the form of an action-packed coming-of-age story of sorts with wonderful, unique characters and relationships. An exciting film, yes, but more so for its subtlety and touching ending (butchered -- as was the whole film -- by the American remake) than for its action. The style may be what one first admires, but, in my case, it was what was beneath the surface that stayed with me. A real surprise. Along with "Goodfellas", I'd say "Nikita" is the best film of the '90s.

New York Stories (1989)

"Life Lessons" is a treasure, the other two are garbage

[24 May 1999]

I won't deign to speak about the Coppola and Allen pieces, for at best these are plebian efforts. Scorsese's "Life Lessons", though, is far-and-away the most overlooked gem in filmdom. This 45-min. piece showcases all of Scorsese's signatures (except for the long steadycam shot). It is a clinic on the capabilities of cinema and shows why Scorsese is its greatest student and master. Aside from this, this is the wonderful story of an artist and his inspiration, wonderfully written and acted. The latter is a bit of a surprise, for no one will ever confuse Nick Nolte and Rosanna Arquette with Robert De Niro and Anjelica Houston; but they're magnificent. A perfect film, one of the all-time greats, made by the greatest. It just doesn't get any better than this.

Performance (1970)

Courageous, completely original, brilliant

[10/10 · 24 May 1999]

Absolutely one of my favorite films, the philosophical complexity of this rara avis has rarely been seen elsewhere in the history of the cinema. (Kieslowski comes to mind.) "Performance" explores the idea of the beholder becoming the beheld, an idea brought to the fore by the film's short opening sequence: you see the jet, you become the jet. (This, of course, doesn't mean anything until this idea is explored within the story -- then it's, "Oh, THAT'S what that opening bit was!") On top of this, there's a great story, some nice acting, a decent amount of pretense (the film's one big flaw), and a few stunning moments. In particular, a musical number -- and this film is NOT a musical) -- is one of the most staggeringly-original and (to me) wonderful moments in the history of motion pictures. A magnificent work of art, a work of art in the true sense of the word, a must-see even for those who might not enjoy it.