Change Your Image
aleph1
Reviews
Mechenosets (2006)
Pretentious and empty
Nothing positive to say. Meandering nonsense, huffing and puffing with a "message". New Russian (post-Soviet) films can be very good (Cuckoo comes to mind), yet many have the bouquet of cardboard and the aftertaste of asbestos (Nochnoi Dozor would be a good example). This is a "dozor" type of emptiness. Acting would be horrible if not for the saving grace of utterly unappealing direction and incompetent editing that sometimes is so awful that it distracts from the impotence of the actors. Special award to the cameraman for making sure that every shot is shaky (would someone please realize that Blair Witch has had its 15 seconds of undeserved fame?) and takes are geared towards attention-deficit pre-teens who subside on CounterStrike and masturbation. The female lead poses and tries to look seductive too often, male antihero need a diction coach (although genetics aren't bad: rather expressive eyes.) One (middle) finger for this irrelevant pile of non-art. Anyone who reviews this positively better be a (distant) cousin of the "auteurs".
Constantine (2005)
Parsifal it ain't... curious theology... poor harmony...
One of the previous reviewers titled his/her review "God awful" (sic!) Well, God must be pretty awful to allow for the stable existence of an Universe (ours) where reviews are predominantly concerned with the personal appeal of actors, where _plots_ are regularly confused with _scripts_, and where this movie gathers more than 3 million comic book fans in its opening weekend.
All the recognizable actors in this extended MTV video are flat-liners: they play themselves and thus sustain the same note. But this is not bad per se: a lot of great music is written with just a handful of notes.
The notes of Mr. Reeves, Ms. Weisz, Mr. Hounsou are loud enough but the resulting chord is irritating. What can you expect from a combo of three clichés: 'phase-shifted', 'noir while perky' and 'mysterious foreigner'?
There is no direction to seriously consider (unless one believes that absence of editing is the new hot style of directing). Special effects are uninspired: hell is a sandstorm in Arizona, demons are decomposed.
The movie benefits from Hollywood's current Kabbalistic fad: Archangel Gabriel is played by a woman but is treated like a man (being hit by Constantine, etc.), there exists an alternative Bible for the non-humans (this concept was mangled to make it click with the pseudo-Catholic 'intent' of the movie), etc. The main theological theses, (1) that of God/Devil pact of neutrality and (2) that of human actions as ontological causes of non-humans' existence are also interesting and (I dare say) Zohar-inspired but handled very poorly.
The astounding absence of Gabriel's direct spiritual access to God (in the final scene s/he threatens Satan unaware that God had withdrawn His powers from her/him) is, most likely, just a plot device, as misused as the rest of Catholic mythology.
(Parenthetically: what the heck do screenwriters have against poor old Gabe? Remember Prophecy (1995)? Why Gabriel is such a left-wing/right-wing radical? Leave the guy/girl alone!)
Longinus' Spear is completely wasted here -- see Parsifal by Syberberg to appreciate what can be done with this fascinating mythical device (if brains be used).
Was this movie a disappointment? Hardly: it proves that the end is near. Whether it is the end of Monotheism or the end of bad taste, I don't know.
Solaris (2002)
Good film. Good acting. Decent philosophy. Just not Lem.
Clooney has class and is a real man (not the macho coward a-la Mel Gibson et al.), his range has grown dramatically and his emotions are believable.
Supporting cast almost steals the show (Davies!) but at the end Clooney is more memorable.
Music was quite decent and so was cinematography. The movie deserves a couple of Oscars (2002 is a watery vintage...) but there is something unsettling about it.
To put it simply: this is not the real Solaris. In fact, it is, once again, a distortion.
Stanislaw Lem hated the first Solaris and left Moscow almost in tears. His novel ends on the Planet (Kelvin standing by the Thinking Ocean) with cathartic big bang: "I knew that the reign of scary miracles was over..."
Tarkovsky's overdrawn and self-important film ends on Earth: Kelvin kneeling in front of his father begging for forgiveness, forming a two-bodied incestual Uroboros.
Lem complained that his optimistic message was negated and muddled. He was right. Solaris-the-novel is optimistic in that there is a triumph of reason over the "dark depths of the subconscious" and there is a feeling that scary miracles (a thinly veiled reference to the unshakable grip of the Idea of Supreme Being on the throat of human civilization) must be left in the past if we were to grow.
Alas, the new Solaris, well-made and compelling it might be, is still a deeply theistic film. No need for spoilers (c'mon, go read the book!) but the final sequence has been seen a good dozen times before: from Michelangelo to the Simpsons. I am not going to criticize Soderbergh for not being able to answer the ripe question: what is there AFTER religion -- he is not the new Plato. And he certainly has the right to believe in Higher Powers.
Still... Here's Lem putting in front of us both Creation and Resurrection as mere artifacts of supressed subconscious -- and here are Tarkovsky and Soderbergh turning it into an affirmation of forgiveness that we might gain from some source (Planet Earth or Planet Solaris -- does it really matter?)
Has the time of scary miracles turned into the time of viscous thinking?
If you are a latent believer: 10/10. If you are a free thinker: 7/10. If you are a product of Saturday morning cartoons: 2/10.
X-Men (2000)
Nazism, the Mutants, Sequels and an Oscar(?)
I was very impressed with the opening scene. Bryan Singer seems to have a very good understanding of what Nazism/Totalitarianism is all about: enforced equality.
The movie is excellent, truly: I expected either a bunch of special effects aimed at people who prefer "Reader's Digest" (>90% of summer movies, take a pick) or something self-absorbed to the extent of anesthesia (Star Trek comes to mind). What I got was high-grade directing, tolerable script and very good acting (Jackson and McKellen).
Here's the big question of the day: (this is not a spoiler, but if you'd rather not know anything at all about the movie, skip the following three paragraphs).
Why does the X sign on the Xmen uniform look so suspiciously like the swastika?
Why does Professor X wear a small golden encircled X as a necktie pin -- again, it looks exactly like the golden swastika that Hitler (and highest-ranked) Nazi party members wore on their neckties.
I mean, Singer, who filmed Apt Pupil (a movie about an SS officer) could not "miss/overlook" these strange similarities. Could it be that the school of Xavier is not "good to the last drop"? ...As I was leaving the movie theatre, I overheard a woman (about 35) talking to her husband (older, tired) and her two kids (about 7 and 10): "I liked it -- but, you know, I wanted more".
I agree: the film is about 10 minutes too short. The ending also was tepid. I'd rather see Magneto looking at Prof X and saying something like "You don't know what he (Wolverine) is about to find. But I do" -- and a cut to Wolverine doing something (whatever, really).
Then again -- there will be sequels. I would hope for the Nazi allegory to develop and for some unusual twists to happen. Alas, the all dumbing force (20 Century Fox) might consider that to be "too dark".
Rating: 10
Heck, I would even nominate it for a special Oscar(R): for outstandingly brave and novel idea of having a plot and an actual ethical conflict in a summer action movie.
End of Days (1999)
Capricorn One where art thou?
Old stars sometimes want to go supernova rather than brown dwarf.
Arnold is old. Arnold has cellulitis (no kiddin'). Arnold's wife stands in the way of any and all bedroom scenes. Arnold is a Republican. Arnold is a true believer. Arnold had not had a single smashing/good movie since T2.
Arnold meets Hyams.
Hyams made the OJ classic 'Capricorn One'. Hyams is patently free of imagination and/or talent. Hyams likes long takes of scenery in an action movie. Hyams shares the belief that passions (especially passionate love) come from Satan. Hyams believes that Satan is (a) stupid and (b) inexperienced.
Hyams meets Marlowe.
Marlowe is not related to the great Christopher in any way. Marlowe assumes that the only logical justification for a apocalyptic flick is that 666 looks like 999. Marlowe forgets that we live in the year 1999 not 999. Marlowe writes in a character who asserts that one would agree to many things if one is on fire.
Arnold, Hyams and Marlowe make a flick.
I wish I rented Capricorn One...
South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
Let the zap=zap=zap=zap Force be with you, Eric Cartman
Many things were said but one is true: an instant classic. (At the same time, this is nowhere near 'clean family entertainment' or 'breathtaking creativity' -- quite cynical; and well-drilled brilliance cannot mask the overall predictability). Best moment? Eric Cartman possessed by the Force, much like good old Emperor Palpatine (even the animation is up to the task). Worst moment? Suggestive use of an artificial stimulation device by Saddam Hussein (not cartoonish enough, hence loses the charm and indeed becomes tacky). Best song? Blame Canada! Worst song? Big Gay Al's special execution number with parade. Best guest appearance? Bill Gates (nerds of the Silicon Valley, rejoice).
PREDICTION: will be really popular on DVD. Or is it DVDA? One never knows...
Lake Placid (1999)
Gore, funny police denigration, jabs at Jaws&Godzilla = two stars
Want to see the Golden Girl Betty White quote the South Park Movie? How 'bout a man bitten in half (rather realistic -- and I am a physician). Plus, semi-precious jabs at Godzilla (the final 'eye-no-longer-glowing-ah-ah-cry-cry') and Jaws (can't tell without spoiling). Acting -- light but professional, directing -- efficient but uninspired, special effects -- better than Dr. Who but no Phantom Menace. Typical no-brainer, except for the script: first 20 minutes were dynamic and sharp (sheriff who repeats the word 'sarcastic' rather appropriately, paleontologist who you hope is secretly FBI special agent Dana Scully, barbed dialogue etc.) The movie was holding very well up to the moment the characters arrived to the lake and the real fun was supposed to start. Alas, it slipped into a typical weekend fare with the surprise factor of 'Entrapment'. Verdict: When I snap my fingers you'll wake up and forget you ever saw this movie.
AND PLEASE: if you want some serious epistemology or exhilarating Method acting or you actually believe that an innovative movie could be based on the 'big beast underwater is scaaaaary' cliche -- DON'T see this one and if you do, don't nit-pick nor complain bitterly to IMDb.