1981 Reviews

Pollock (2000)

Silence is golden and evocative.

[8/10 · 1 August 2001]

Perhaps one of the most effective methods of treating the life of a visual artist is to allow for the visual to narrate. In the case of Jackson Pollock, a man whose alcoholism and emotional travails made him glaringly inarticulate and intemperate, this visual narration speaks volumes.

Pollock, in this film, is displayed as something of an idiot savant, a fact that is well accepted and understood by his wife. A particularly poignant and mordant moment in the narrative is when she rebuffs Pollock's request to have a child. She simply states that it would be too much to have to take care of two people other than herself, evidently Pollock and his prevalent tempests are enough for her. What is particularly effective about this moment is that her facial expressions, her mannerisms, the timbre of her voice express a long and involved history with Pollock, something a narrative dialogue could not have accomplished. Perhaps this picture might have been overburdened by a steady narration and the montage and close observation of the visual character of Pollock would have been disrupted. Instead, in the absence of a putative narrator we are given the gift of Pollock's art and its steady unveiling of the unveilable: the human psyche.

Personally I do not want to know what in Pollock's childhood made him into what he was and perhaps there is no explanation. His wife aptly describes his weekly visits to the psychiatrist with an acerbic gnashing of her teeth; the visits are not doing anything for him. So what then? Idiot savant? Alcoholic? Perpetually tormented artist? So it appears. And his undoing by his own hand? It seems logical, all the portents have spoken of his demise since the opening scene of the film. So, therefore, was this a predictable film? Absolutely, in the same timeless fashion that foibles and tragic flaws ultimately undo those who possess them. We knew the fate of Oedipus before Oedipus did. The ending, like predestination in Calvinism, was salient from the opening of the book... but did that tarnish the luster of the story? Absolutely not. Thus we have the same situation with this film. We knew he was doomed, some of us even knew the skeleton of his life story before we viewed this picture. But we did not suffer conventionality because the art of Jackson Pollock, the only voice truly capable of doing justice to the man, spoke.

Bravo to Ed Harris for his mature and responsible direction. Bravo to Marcia Gay Harden and Ed Harris for facile depictions of their characters. This movie is worth viewing if for no other reason than it possesses a maturity that Hollywood seems to have exsiccated from most of its directors, the ability to be subtle and to let someone else or something else do the talking.

Fatal Attraction (1987)

Very little substance and ostensibly obstreperous.

[4/10 · 1 August 2001]

This was an obstreperous film, it took almost no responsibility for itself and was extremely predictable and transparent.

The plot is formulaic: Douglas and Archer (his wife) are at a party, he accidentally meets an attractive and icy young professional (Close) and there is instant chemistry. Why is there this chemistry? Quite simply, the two find something about one another physically irresistible. Douglas simply thinks with his organ, nothing else appears to enter his mind. He appears to love his wife very much and one would think they have been enjoying a good marriage. He has a daughter, a good career he appears to enjoy, he is attractive and healthy. So what went wrong? Apparently nothing other than an arrogant chauvinism on his part. He made a mistake, a simple mistake in his mind, then things get ugly.

Close is a loose canon and deeply disturbed. Why? Well, in a rather flaky moment this film attempts to address this question by showing Douglas breaking into her apartment and discovering the death of her father in a newspaper clipping. He died fairly young of a heart ailment, a fact alluded to (if allusion is even proper considering how obvious it was as a technique) earlier in the film when Douglas and Close are in Central Park with his dog. She is carrying some type of emotional baggage. OK. But to become a murderous, unscrupulous kidnapper, stalker, hell-bent, obsessive, suicidal manipulator? Did I miss something? And furthermore, what happened to that flourishing career of hers we briefly, ever so briefly, get a glimpse of at the beginning of the film? Does she simply forsake her entire successful career, a career that must have taken years to build and mould in order to flourish, (as it apparently has been doing), in order to stalk Douglas? That is almost nonsensical. Why would a woman, whose apartment they meticulously filled with books and manuscripts, become so vapid and wounded and prepared to ignore all of her intelligence and spiritual/emotional reserves, which ostensibly enabled her to rise to success, in order to do such damage? How could she have come so far with this type of vapidity and singular weakness? And one should also ask, why does she find Douglas so important? Has she never experienced rejection before? If so, then why is she single and wary of men at 36? Obviously she has some experience with loss, mistakes and disappointment. If not, then she is a spoiled executive and success who always succeeds. But then, why would she forsake her career so easily? Do you see how many holes this story possesses?

And by the way, how is it that a magnificent controversy did not erupt over this film considering that Anne Archer and Douglas manage to kill the "pregnant" Close? Can you even imagine trying to get by with that today, with all of the arguing over abortion, stem-cell research and litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees? I am puzzled, if the "Last Temptation of Christ" could literally be crucified for its questions over the divinity of Jesus, how could killing an unborn child so cavalierly escape scrutiny? And what is worse is that the film simply ends there! The police come, everything is okay, Archer and Douglas have their arms around one another, there is no spiritual guilt, everything is discrete and tidy. Well, congratulations! How much more obstreperous and fantastic can we get? This script is unintelligent and cliche. Every action taken is predictable but what is worse is that it is predictably illogical. There is no character development in this film. None whatsoever. In fact, these characters are about as unidimensional as one could imagine. I don't understand all of the hype, the film did not even offer any surprises. It not only doesn't work as a story, but as a suspense film it lacks any suspense. We know immediately that Close is psychotic. We don't know why, the nuances of her personage don't exist, but that doesn't matter. She is simply psychotic and somehow that is all the explanation we need.

Don't waste your time. The best film Adriane Lyne ever made was "Jacob's Ladder." Don't miss it! Forget this film, it is not worth consideration.

Where Eagles Dare (1968)

An excellent, laconic adventure film.

[8/10 · 18 June 2001]

My highest praise is reserved for films that, with little ornamentation or pretense, accomplish their task. "Where Eagles Dare" does so with few one liners and special effects that are a part but not an overwhelming part of the script. In other words, there is little or no room for gratuitousness in this picture.

It is interesting to see Richard Burton in a role that demands little or no dialogue, especially considering this is a man who has rendered dialogue most exquisitely beautiful by the particular lilt of his voice. In this role he is frank and only speaks when necessary, therefore, seeing as how most of this film is action, he says very little. Some purists would fault Burton for taking a role that seems devoid of the usual acting challenges he appeared to enjoy attacking early in his career, but I disagree. This film is a departure from the normal Burton "oeuvre" and yet he does pull of the role of Major Smith convincingly. One does not expect this man to be either audacious nor flamboyant and Burton, whose very presence suggests a call for histrionics, executes this role quietly.

Now it is well known that Burton was not seeking a challenge by taking on this project, his primary concern was revamping his potency in the box-office by staring in a blockbuster. And he got it. But we cannot fault him for that because he possessed the facility as an actor to pull it off. Burton could be both a dramatic performer and a daring sex symbol. Besides, standing alongside a veritable "tough-guy" like Eastwood, Burton needed to be able to hold his end up because the movie going audience had already identified Eastwood as the quintessential tough guy. Had Burton not been up to the task, this film would not have been a success.

The script is entertaining and has a few notable twists in it, a testament to the skill of screenwriter and adventure novelist Alistair MacClain. Character development is not of particular importance in this story and yet one does come away with a palpable sense of Major Smith, a fact that I again acknowledge is the handywork of Burton, whose presence is auspicious regardless of his role. Overall, this film appears to be able to balance the rhythmic quietude of action while interjecting enough personal flair to make the film memorable and not another futile exercise in on-screen action and viewer instant gratification/escapism. This movie is one of the best in its genre and is worth a good viewing.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

This could have been a painting or a photograph.

[9/10 · 13 June 2001]

"The Virgin Suicides" is resplendent with still-life photography. Somehow the camera manages to unravel a little of that human facade that often obfuscates a person's internal makeup and character. You don't have to be unusually perceptive to slice through the outer layers of these characters and find a glimpse of their affected souls, the camera does that for you. There were moments, especially when watching Kirsten Dunst as "Lux", I found a light emanating from the cavernous insides of the characters and glowing amidst a drab milieu. The montages revolve around a central point, a epicentre where the will of the character dictates the movement of the surroundings. Sometimes, while watching Lux, the scenery seems to pullulate elliptically about her. When you consider that the scenery was fashioned like still-life photography, with every inch fixed and significantly conspicuous, this rotation exuberantly guides the observer and the film's periphery elements, towards the emotional centre.

What do I mean? I think Sophia Coppola quietly unveiled the inner lives of her characters and did so while remaining taciturnly committed to allowing the story to tell itself. What is interesting is that at times, with the possible exception of Lux's character, the story and the characters are inseparable. There is a melding of the two, a fusion of body and motion that guides the viewer through movements, not unlike a symphony gliding towards a finish, or crescendo, or maybe resolution? I admire Coppola's ability to remain quiet, in modern American film this is a rare quality. It is also noteworthy that Coppola did not exploit the sexuality of her characters to make up for the lack of gratuitous violence in the story. The sexuality of the characters is never denied, never overlooked, but is allowed to flourish organically, slowly unfolding like a flower whose moment has come and whose world is anticipating its arrival.

One could criticize this film because it appears that Lux dominates the story and she does. However, I do find that she provides an appropriate apex, a needed centre for the rotation and litany of the film. We also could criticize the screenplay for shrouding us in a thick mystery, a persistent rhetorical refrain of Why? How? Who? But there is a reason there isn't an omnicient narrator, for, like a portfolio of still-life photographs, we are left with images and the narration they exude, not the philosophy or paradigm rendered putative by pedagougery or didactics.

American History X (1998)

A good film, but limited in scope.

[8/10 · 11 June 2001]

I would imagine that this could make a very fine book because the issues that the script attempts to address are fascinating and infinitely complicated. However, in a two hour time frame it is very difficult to attempt to understand how the human mind and psyche operates as well as how family dynamics are constructed and/or break down.

This movie is primarily concened with the effect racism, loss and hatred have had on Daniel and Derek Vinyard. They lost their father in a racially motivated killing and the stress and tragic results this event had on their family led both of them to turn toward hate, particularly the older Derek who, under duress, vainly attempts to fill his father's shoes after his death. Derek's decision to turn toward a local skinhead organization has a significant impact upon his younger brother who is in need of a father figure.

While Derek is in prison he begins to try and reform his ways and through the help of a former teacher, begins to see past the intellectual and logical confines of the racial-hatred he had adopted. His experiences with skinheads in jail only further solidifies his feelings that something is very wrong with racial hatred. Without a doubt we could devote a lengthy picture to studying Derek's character development, his motivations and how his decision making leads him to the different stages in his development. This movie mistakenly attempts to both briefly accomplish this and examine the development of the younger Daniel. The two hour format does not allow more than a cursory attempt at character examination and furthermore, we find that the social tensions and racially motivated hatreds that are so prominent in these two main characters, are not evenly remotely addressed from the point of view of persons on the other side, notably minorities or other poor or lower-middle class whites struggling with similar economic difficulties.

The movie leaves us with another equivocal point, what about the racially motivated killing of Derek's brother Daniel. What is the purpose of this action in the story? While on the one hand racial killings occur on a regular basis and for apparently simple reasons, how does this relate to the trajectory of the story? To me it seems like a very simple and Hollywood way of ending a story that is too complicated to resolve in so short a time frame. Is this God paying Derek back? That too seems extremely sophomoric an ending, a very biblical explanation to a question that, by its very nature, is challenging conventions and demanding that those who are willing to entertain its implications, rise above simple answers and their own assumptions and prejudices. The ending is a disappointment because it does not acknowledge the very difficult and complicated causes which led to its very occurence.

I have to admit, I walked away from this movie feeling dissatisfied. While this was a good film with excellent acting, I must add that the script seems as though it either falls short, or loses its resolve.

Love Story (1970)

If you accept that tragedy does occur without reason, you will find watching this movie easier.

[10/10 · 11 June 2001]

I have been reading the reviews of this picture here on the database and I am struck by the persistent and rhetorical comment, why did Jenny have to die? Why not? Do tragic things happen to people all of the time without rhyme or reason? Absolutely! But that should not detract from the film, if anything, that should enhance its message.

Losing anyone is profoundly difficult and one cannot produce a hierarchy of tragedy because no matter how long you have been with someone, or how many years your relationship has had the opportunity to grow, we seldom feel there is ever enough time. What is also difficult is that we so often feel we haven't begun to realize the possibilities within one another. Jenny's death, while certainly tragic and profoundly haunting and sad, does make sense if you remember that all things are fleeting. By addressing this issue this film is not a jaunt into sentimentality but a realization that the bonds of love exist on multiple levels of consciousness. We can only infer, as we watch Oliver struggle to assess his loss at the conclusion of the movie, that her presence and what she meant to him will persist in his mind for years to come. And perhaps that is what is the most powerful feature of this movie, his life must go on and she tells him, "I don't want you to be sick." She knows he needs to move on, to find happiness, to not allow the sadness of his loss to obliterate the beauty of what they had together and that in life, beauty exists and can be found once more, regardless of whether or not we have fallen.

This is an unusual depiction of a love story because one does not get the sense that the value of one's life can be assessed solely by the involvement with another person. Oliver's life must go on and it will. He must get back out there and relearn how to live and he probably will. Does this mean that his life with Jenny is cheapened? No, because his life was enhanced by his time with her. This movie provides a mature examination of love and relationships, it does not tell us that once two young beautiful people find love that life is perfect and within their own relationship it is clear that life is not perfect, they do argue, they do have disagreements, they do have difficulties. However, they do have each other and they seem to be able to provide comfort and happiness within one another and perhaps this fosters a strength in Oliver so that he may continue?

The music is deceptive. On the one hand the music tinges each moment of happiness with a touch of sadness, but on the other hand, the music itself should not let one believe that the movie is suggesting that without one another all of life is lost. And the line "Love means never having to say your sorry" does not belong here. It is a mistake because it is a gimic, a line designed to be memorable and to render the film, like a catchy song, stuck in one's mind. But the movie does not need this line to do so, the bond between these two characters, the quality of their love and the questions that they face is enough to make this film persistent and memorable. Sometimes Hollywood just has to sink its teeth into projects that would do find to stand alone.

Splendor in the Grass (1961)

Whatever you think of Elia Kazan, he still is one of the greatest directors who ever lived.

[10/10 · 5 June 2001]

I am not a fan of the politics of Mr. Kazan, nor do I have the least amount of respect for his conduct during the McCarthy era, however I cannot help but acknowledge that he is simply one of the finest movie directors who ever lived.

Splendor In The Grass is yet another brilliantly acted film, one which is so engrossing, so riveting, that by the time it is finished one literally feels out of breath. Now perhaps one could say, well Mr. Kazan has been blessed with a continuing succession of extremely talented actors and actresses. This is true, "Gentleman's Agreement," "A Streetcar Named Desire," "On The Waterfront," "Splendor In The Grass" each possess legendary performers. However! How did they perform at their best? Mr. Kazan. And if you ever hear them interviewed, those who are still alive, they all pay tribute to his superior ability to demand and acquire the best an actor has to offer. Natalie Wood in particular proves this in the film, so does the nascent Warren Beatty, both whom deliver poise far beyond their respective ages at that time.

Mr. Kazan also is a superior story teller and this film maneuvers with lyrical facility and poetic grace. I did not find one moment unnecessary, every image told a story and aided my descent into the minds of the characters. And you certainly empathize with them! You are drawn in and engrossed by their experiences. All of this is the result of a master technician and artistic visionary who had both the aesthetic genius and technical know-how to conduct one of a series of top-notch pieces in the American film landscape. A must see!

Blazing Saddles (1974)

Mel Brooks has the keys to the kingdom...

[10/10 · 29 May 2001]

Great comedy is born, forged, fashioned and bred in a crucible of sensitivity, learning and icon-worship/iconoclasm. Mel Brooks, a man who I believe could have made his career as a historian, a film-critic, a political columnist, has opened up his vault of talents to create a comedy that will persist for generations. Why? Why does Mr. Brooks have the keys to the kingdom?

Well, for starters, someone once said that genius stands on the shoulders of giants. Mr. Brooks is well versed in American movie history and has viewed and sublimated the cannon adroitly and with considerable flare and facility. From Cole Porter references to "Gabby Johnson," Brooks unfurls a flag of American film history and a quick hand at the card table of American comedy. He knows when to drop the right line, the correct reference, he understands how films and human knowledge build upon the advances made by their predecessors. Brooks could be a historian because he knows what films work together properly, how they are connected and why if you cross certain themes the result is unmitigated hysteria and gut splitting laughter. Who else would have paired Cole Porter's "I Get A Kick Out of You" with an inter-racial western complete with Yiddish Indians? Who else would have the sense to know how to properly assault the genre of the American Western with just the right dose of absurdity?

Brooks is a sensitive man. Comedy is the result of those who must laugh at themselves, their short comings, their myopia. Comedy is born out of the humility imposed by suffering, therefore if suffering is to be remedied and good fortune and mirth restored, whose suffering is safe from the razor-blade of satire, self-reflection and parody? To laugh is to forfeit the sanctity of the human mind in order to reap a whirlwind of instant gratification, a luminiscent gratification that can only come when one makes a joke or becomes the butt of someone else's joke. We remember folly and foolishness much more readily than morality and the lessons of profound wisdom. Why? Because we are all, deep down inside, confronted with our own appalling inequities and a horrific sense of timing. A comedian knows this and unlike a psychologist or psychiatrist who takes these coups seriously, the comedian knows that truly great art, born of suffering, is still more irridescent when it evokes a laugh, at least for him bent on instant gratification.

Brooks knows his stuff. He understands how to cross genres and he has been blessed with an immutable gift for irony. Everything is ironic! Watch this movie! And learn a little about the mythic and cosmological past of your entertainment industry as well as find out what it could have been like on the range with all of those fools who thought they were doing God's work in settling our wild frontier.

Take the Money and Run (1969)

Low budget genius.

[10/10 · 25 May 2001]

What do Woody Allen and Bob Dylan have in common? A genius for making genius their own way. While Dylan excels in being Dylan and writing songs that only Dylan can truly let shine in their full brilliance, as well as shunning the incendiary alchemy of both analog and digital studio wizardry, Allen is the same way. He can use a little of this and a little of that and wham bam thank you ma'am! What do you get? A little gem like "Take The Money and Run."

This film is unpretentious and absolutely hilarious. It stands with the best of the Mel Brooks parody films, a film celebrating a rich history of American drama and comedy. Allen pokes fun at everything and like a Dylan with scathing, razor sharp, satirical humour, expounds on the eccentricities and idiosyncracies of our colourful and quixotic society. He satirizes our (American)love of the maverick criminal and fashions a new legend, the tragic jester hero, a tragic fool like a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern, opening a new realm of possibility for all of us who don't speak so eloquently, don't carry our weapons so proudly, don't coin or brandish one liners with either the poise or delivery of an Eastwood or a Connery. For all of us semi-primates, there is Allen who sheds a golden light on our inequity and our folly. And like a Dylan, prone to laughing discordantly at himself in the middle of a song, Allen never takes himself or his audience too seriously.

This movie is one of his finest, it is witty and slapstick, you will snicker and guffaw, that I can assure you. And for those of you already enamoured with Allen and his work, who have yet to soak in this sauna of humour, you have great things ahead of you!

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

Visually stunning. A sensory masterpiece.

[10/10 · 24 May 2001]

I believe the crafting of music with visual image and motion makes this movie a masterpiece, a unique event in western film. My one criticism, a small one at that, is the story lacks the subtlety and complexity that demands masterful acting, however the images and score quell my complaints. Nowadays a masterpiece comes in many forms, there is no one guise for evaluating film.

Wings of Desire (1987)

A modern masterwork.

[10/10 · 24 May 2001]

I don't believe I have ever seen any film quite like "Wings of Desire." Furthermore, I don't believe I have ever seen a film that probes more trenchantly into the psyche of men and women, daring to speak in a dialogue that is not readily lucid and ostensible to most viewers. I have viewed this movie dozens of times and still I find the language is unfolding for me

This film is resplendent with exquisite music astutely paired with a subtle yet suggestive montage. The use of colour paints a moving and brightened aesthetic, one which drifts with the mood of the characters as well as challenges the mind and the emotions of the viewer.

Furthermore, the acting is superb. One immediately is engulfed by a philanthropic warmth emmenating from the characters, notably Bruno Ganz who, I feel, becomes his character entirely. While his dialogue may be sparse, his body language and master of physical and psychic subtlety is brilliant and it becomes readily apparent that Ganz can tell a story with his entire being, not just the words that flow eloquently and effluently from him. To make a gross understatement, I was very impressed.

One of the elements of this film, which I will admit I am ill qualified to discuss, was the subtle and probative examination of the modern German psyche as it comes to terms with its turbulent past, present and future and perhaps a historian should comment here. However, anyone can immediately sense that Berlin, a city that is as much alive and active as any character in this film, is a character that needs to be accounted for and a source of energy and inspiration as well as pensive recapitulation, that needs to be discussed.

I could ramble on and on about this film but I should sententiously state that this is a brilliant artwork that demands full attention.

The Big Chill (1983)

A let down.

[5/10 · 24 May 2001]

I have to admit, this movie did not impress me. I had heard, many times, that this movie was a modern classic that dealt with the existential crisis of growing older and facing the ephemerality of one's youthful dreams. Furthermore, the topic, suicide and its effect upon a close circuit of college friends, did seem intriguing. But it did not hit the mark, in fact, I feel the movie grossly missed its intended message and sunk into equivocality and ambivalence.

What do I mean? For example, it becomes very apparent that everyone is touched and hurt by the suicide of their friend, however, why must they turn to marijuana, sex, infidelity and some highly questionable decision making like Mary Kay Place's search for a possible father to aid her in conceiving a child without a father? Now I am not some strict moralist and I am not saying that the world should conform to the loftiest of ideals, but I do feel as though we have a meandering script, a story without a message, merely a half-hearted continuation of an ethos that died hard at the close of the 1960's, i.e. free love and the recreational usage of drugs. We never see this successful and supposedly adult characters candidly address their pain, disillusionment, sorrow. What we see is them revert back to old college idealism and easy answers to pressing and disheartening questions. The script seems to suggest that while life is not easy, it is okay to use drugs and sex to depart from life's problems for awhile, no harm done. I disagree, but then again I am also far more cynical at my age than these characters evidently were when they were in college in the 1960s.

My one compliment of this movie is its excellent music, however I don't think it was artistically crafted to aid and serenade the montage.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968)

The chess match.

[9/10 · 24 May 2001]

The romantic, sexual and dramatic tension of this movie are all consummated, explicated, kinematically explained in the chess match. In my humble and amateurish opinion, that scene is one of the most provocative and invigorating in film, particularly in the action genre. The pairing of music with movement and mise en scene as well as incorporating subtle corporeal responses finds a new and heightened awareness in Jewison's tour de force execution of human biorhythms and intrigue. In other words, it is a masterful, seductive sequence that is an allegorical expression of the movie itself.

See it! The filming and editing are superb and the actors are as sexy as they come.

Sunday Bloody Sunday (1971)

Brilliant imagery and frank performances.

[10/10 · 16 April 2001]

I believe that Sunday Bloody Sunday is Schlesinger's best work. Having been offered the privilege of watching Darling, Marathon Man and Midnight Cowboy I have to conclude that this movie is his masterpiece. Apart from the portentuous presences of Finch and Glenda Jackson, this movie possesses its own visual and narrative artistic merits and deserves to be called a work of art and even, I dare say, a masterpiece. Jackson and Finch are convincing in their performances and Finch's torrid and tempestuous affair with Murray Head is both believable and extremely human, there appears to be no hesitation, no equivocation in the performances of these men. Glenda Jackson is superb, of course, continuing to win over audiences with her austere beauty but most importantly, her imposing presence and captivating voice both vocally and corporeally speaking. I have to say that this film captures both the technical possibilities of film, bridging the gap between fine film and great art, but furthermore it incorporates brilliant acting that warms the audience and holds the frigid imagery of a dreary and struggling London at bay. The result is a duality: the city is granted a presence, almost personal, (so captured and brought to life by Schlesinger) and the very human travails of the characters speak a timeless humanity.

Ordinary People (1980)

Hauntingly real. Very real.

[10/10 · 18 August 1999]

Watching this movie reminded me very much of myself and what my family went through while I was in high school. What is remarkable about this film, besides the superb acting, is how realistic and unsentimental it is. Nothing is romanticized and the film makers do not try and make a happy ending out of the story. The movie is deeply moving because it does exactly what it sets out to do, it examines how depression and death affect an ordinary family.

Hutton's performance is extremely compelling, in fact he is remarkable. I was very moved by him, the expressions on his face, the way he carried himself, everything was believable. This simply is a remarkable movie, nothing seems overdone or left out. I can not give any movie higher praise. I am glad to know that there are other people out there who understand depression and death and how they can affect ordinary people. This is a very humane movie.

Another Woman (1988)

Stunning. Perceptive, insightful and objective!

[10/10 · 10 August 1999]

I was absolutely astounded when I saw this movie, it is simply brilliant. One of the best movies I have ever seen. This movie is never caught up in sentimentality and is never brought down by the value system or personal wistfulness of its writer and director. The movie is straightforward, not disguising any element, not using any device to imply that one particular viewpoint has greater validity than another. It simply is an objective and unbiased look into a woman's life.

The music in this movie is very beautiful. Woody Allen is a master of introducing music to influence mood and he is very subtle about it. Unlike the often abrupt and rather abrasive incorporation of music by directors aiming to forcefully manipulate one's point of view and emotional response, Allen knows that this will happen through subtle presentation. Again, what is so brilliant in this movie is its subtlety. To me, that is what makes everything so real. You are presented with someone's life through a window, you hear their thoughts and observe their actions. You find that the events of their life follow a progression without implications, without obvious foreshadowing. You are left with your own insightfulness and the struggle of the character to find her way out of the darkness she is in.

The acting is stunning. Gene Hackman and Ian Holm give incredible supporting performances and Gena Rowlands is remarkable. She does not come across forced or attempting to be something she is not. It is as if she were playing herself, she is very believable.

I think this movie is a masterpiece. I recommend paying very close attention to the ending, it is haunting.

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

A classic.

[10/10 · 2 August 1999]

I have never seen a feature picture quite like this one. Everything about this is intelligent, the $25,000 budget, the acting, the open script, the secrecy with the publicity. I am very impressed. The photography is different and the tone of the picture is very effective, it truly is a student documentary that has been well edited. The acting is superb because it is realistic and intimate, no one was coaching, they had an open script and had to rely on each other. This is very intelligent and a true money maker!

Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)

An excellent film and a well written play but...

[9/10 · 29 July 1999]

I think this is an interesting and intelligent script and the acting in the movie is superb. I think the atmosphere is well thought out and the character motivation works. All the pieces appear to come together in the plot...but... the fowl language is extreme.

I do not object to the language because it is profane, but because it goes overboard. People under pressure do act irrationally and they do lash out, but this is extreme. I don't know of any work environment where people refer to each other as "c***suckers" either to each other's faces or with such frequency. No boss would tolerate his subordinates to talk him with such blatant disrespect. I also don't believe that level of cursing would occur because it is unprofessional. However, the company executive (Alec Baldwin) coming over and acting the way he did, that I believe.

Mamet is an excellent playwright, but he goes overboard in this case. I still highly recommend this movie and the interesting human interactions that occur, but you should keep in mind that this is a bit extreme. If he modified the dialogue a little, I wouldn't have any real complaints.

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)

Very difficult to watch but well executed.

[8/10 · 29 July 1999]

Burton and Taylor have an almost diabolical chemistry which does not even need direction. I am not a fan of Mike Nichols' style but in this movie it does seem to work, he picks up on the brooding and ruminating, scathing, vicious bubbling inside the lead characters. He gets right in their faces and you can just peer inside their eyes and there you find the anger and hate and disappointment that Albee was writing about.

Burton and Taylor make this movie come alive, their intensity is superb. I think Nichols is able to capture this extraordinarily well, it is too bad that "The Graduate" was such a disappointment. "The Graduate" is highly disorganized and desultory compared to this movie. I will add though that this is very difficult to watch because of the hate and unpleasantry which is the focus and parade of the story. Still, it is worth looking into.