estragon! Reviews

Poisoned by Polonium: The Litvinenko File (2007)

Overlong, self-indulgent, meandering

[3/10 · 6 September 2007]

This is a bad film about a fascinating subject. Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian FSB agent murdered by his former colleagues, was a fascinating man. Unfortunately, the director decided to make the film as much about himself as about Litvinenko. The film meanders for close to two hours, delving into this tangent and that, never entirely finishing a thought or even making much sense, and lingering far too often on the director's handsome but ultimately irrelevant face.

And the tangents? Mostly incomprehensible. Something about Putin and money laundering? Forgive me, but I have no idea what that was about, despite having watched a German journalist explain it to the filmmaker for what felt like an eternity. And then there's the camera-work. Some interviews have a fixed master shot that's cut with shots from a hand-held camera that appears to have been wielded by a 10-year-old with ADD. Other interviews don't even have the benefit of a steady master shot, and zoom suddenly to the subject's hands, eye, ear, whatever's handy. Now, it's one thing to use the point-of-view handycam technique to create a sense of intimacy and danger and illicit observation - we are, after all, talking about spies and secrecy. But the filmmaker doesn't know when to stop, and after the first two or three times, the effect is distracting and alienating.

And finally... the film has at least half a dozen endings. Just when you thought it was over... NO! We're not done yet. Islam! He converted to Islam! Huh? What's this film about again?

Love & Sex (2000)

mediocre film full of clichés

[3/10 · 19 September 2006]

I have to say I am stunned by the number of rapturous reviews of this film. It is nothing but a lonely-Friday-night fantasy for 30-something single women, full of clichés, predictable jokes and paint-by-numbers plot turns. Take Annie Hall, change the point of view to the woman's, and give it a warm-and-fuzzy "happy ending." Oh, and while you're at it, get rid of all the charm, witty writing, surprises and ideas.

Jon Favreau struggles mightily to inject some unpredictability and edge into this film, but there's just no saving it. This is the cinematic equivalent of being licked by a golden retriever -- cute and warm for a minute or two, but leaves you feeling icky and in need of a wash.

Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man (2005)

a disappointment - great subject, but poor film-making

[6/10 · 1 July 2006]

This film gets six out of ten only because some of the performances are almost worth the price of admission. Leonard Cohen deserves better. The director, a great fan of Leonard Cohen and a good friend of Mel Gibson, found herself before some great material, but had no clue what to do with it.

The Came So Far For Beauty concert has some terrific performances (Rufus Wainwright, Antony), and some awful ones (the two backup singers, who are inexplicably invited into the foreground and butcher "Anthem"). Cohen's turn with U2 is a lovely way to end the film. Seeing Bono sing back-up, and the look on Larry Mullins Jr.'s face are worth sticking around for.

But the problems start almost right away, and almost overwhelm the film. The performances -- calibrated for a concert stage in a large hall -- are filmed in artless close-up. It works for the charming Rufus Wainwright, but most certainly doesn't for his sister Martha and some of the others. Sometimes songs are inexplicably interrupted by some kind of often banal comment by Cohen himself, such as "The Wainwrights are doing a terrific job of reinventing my songs" (or something like that).

Worse, the film uses cheap editing tricks that have felt overused since the 80s: grainy super-8 footage of nothing at all, unmotivated digital effects, inexplicable additions of echo to some interview clips, superimposed red dots on the performance scenes, etc. This is film-school stuff.

But worst of all is the interview with Cohen himself. One gets the impression that he gave the director little more than a set of pat answers to frequently asked questions. Rarely does her questioning force Cohen to think, or to give her something he hasn't given before. (One exception is his recounting of his reaction toward losing his father -- a striking story that was unexpected and telling.) And not only is the interview itself disappointing, from a technical point of view it is strictly amateur hour. The director shot the interview herself, with a cheap camcorder. So cheap is the lens on this camcorder that the edges of the frame -- and Cohen's ear or other parts of his head (depending on the framing) -- are always out of focus. Surely, having been presented with such an opportunity, the director should have taken more care.

Bottom line: the skill, intelligence and attention to detail do not live up to the can't-lose subject matter. This is a documentary with a decent budget and some serious players behind it. Given that, it doesn't come close to living up to its potential.

Bittersweet Motel (2000)

For fans only... if that

[1/10 · 7 February 2001]

This documentary is a disaster. Badly shot, sloppily edited, full of cliches, without any semblance of story development... everything that gives rock documentaries a bad name. Phish come across as a bunch of 40-ish nerds who could just as easily be writing code in some computer lab as playing music. We learn nothing about who they are, what drives them, or why we should give a **it. Nothing happens in this film except a bunch of shows, rehearsals and allegedly funny antics by obviously bored band members.