This is a story about Cyntoia Brown, who was, quite rightly, found guilty of first degree murder of Johnny Allen in 2004. From the beginning, the fact that Brown was young, small, and had a sad expression led many in the left wing Nashville media, especially the Nashville Scene, to "blame the victim" and argue for Brown's release. The facts of the case (as presented at trial, but largely suppressed in this movie) clearly established that Brown viciously murdered Allen as he slept, and calmly returned to the scene of the crime a day later to steal items from Allen's home as his body lay decomposing in his bed. She bragged about her score to associates, and then threatened to kill one of them if he didn't keep quiet. The jury in Brown's initial trial wasn't impressed by bleeding heart arguments to the effect that Brown only shot Allen because she suddenly felt afraid of him. Allen was fast asleep at the time of the murder. And if Brown was so terrified, why did she return to the scene of the crime? This documentary presents only a small fraction of the evidence against Cyntoia Brown, while presenting a glossy, oversold story of her rehabilitation and redemption. Much is made of the college degrees Brown earned, yet very little attention is made of Allen's life story. Brown's relatives barely mention him, as if he was of no more value than a bug to be swatted. The lawyers defending Brown made up a new defense of "fetal alcohol syndrome," and appeared to be sincerely interested in her case. Will they gain her freedom?
Watch the show and see. Just remember, when the verdict is rendered, nobody will be able to ask Mr. Allen his opinion. Cyntoia Brown was his judge, jury, and --- as she actually herself said in a prison phone call to her adoptive mother --- his "executioner." Then make up your own mind whether this documentary was fair and balanced, or biased and manipulative.
Reviews
22 Reviews
The Lighthouse
(I) (2019)
Incoherent, Pretentious, Boring, and (need I add) Pointless
23 December 2019
Without a doubt, this film is one of the worst films ever, in terms of the disparity between the IMDb rating (8.2 at this writing) and the actual quality of the movie (about 4.2 in my estimation). The plot boring and incoherent. Eeerie, sharp B&W photography and ear-damaging sound levels are no substitute for coherent, revelatory dialog. Contrast any of the great Hitchcock films with this drivel! Hitchcock could have us on the edge of our seats, even in rather mundane circumatances. In this disastrous film, we have little idea who these two characters are, and even less idea of why we should care. The emotional shifts seem entirely unmotivated. We are supposed to attribute them to only 4 weeks of reasonably hard work in a moderately claustrophobic environment. This is simply crazy! ANY normal adult could put up with these conditions for months, and virtually anyone who ever served in the military did! After 15 minutes, my wife and I were thinking of leaving. But that 8.2 rating led us to stay. It was a huge mistake. We should have left.
Ad Astra
(2019)
Surprisingly awful!
4 December 2019
I viewed this film with high expectations, especially after seeing Brad Pitt's truly superb performance in "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood."
Pitt did his best, but the film was absolutely dreadful. Having seen several glowing reviews, I kept expecting it to get better, but...it never did.
First of all, it was science fiction without science. Numerous laws of physics, space, and time were violated throughout. The violations weren't subtle, and they were continual. One didn't know whether to laugh out loud or just gaze in amazement. Things kept happening that any high school student should know just could not happen.
Second, there wasn't the slightest bit of dramatic tension after the opening scene. It was incredibly boring. I found myself watching the seconds and minutes count down on my watch.
Third, several key elements in the plot made absolutely no dramatic or logical sense.
I could justify these opinions with extensive analyses of the film's dramatic and scientific failings, but such analyses might lead to spoilers, so I'll just stop and say that this is a truly, atrociously bad waste of time.
Pitt did his best, but the film was absolutely dreadful. Having seen several glowing reviews, I kept expecting it to get better, but...it never did.
First of all, it was science fiction without science. Numerous laws of physics, space, and time were violated throughout. The violations weren't subtle, and they were continual. One didn't know whether to laugh out loud or just gaze in amazement. Things kept happening that any high school student should know just could not happen.
Second, there wasn't the slightest bit of dramatic tension after the opening scene. It was incredibly boring. I found myself watching the seconds and minutes count down on my watch.
Third, several key elements in the plot made absolutely no dramatic or logical sense.
I could justify these opinions with extensive analyses of the film's dramatic and scientific failings, but such analyses might lead to spoilers, so I'll just stop and say that this is a truly, atrociously bad waste of time.
Leave No Trace
(2018)
Brilliant, Thought-Provoking, Unforgettable
17 January 2019
With the addition of Leave No Trace to her resume (that already includes the remarkable "Winter's Bone," Debra Granik *absolutely must* be recognized as one of the great directors of this era. She's amazing. She's proven once again she can take a simple story and creates cinema that has you totally immersed from its opening seconds. She seldom comes even remotely close to striking a false note. In this story, a PTSD-stricken vet Will, played with just the right notes of intensity and inner panic by Ben Foster, lives with his teenage daughter Tom in a carefully hidden campsite in a public park. They have superb survival skills and live a sparse, highly disciplined life. Often they think and move as one, their bond is so strong. But Tom, played brilliantly by Thomasin McKenzie, has an independent streak and is starting to feel the inner stirrings of a longing for something more than the tight confines of her existence. Will, on the other hand, can't handle the stresses of society, sees the current setup as freedom, and want things to stay as they are. Eventually change must come --- but how? I won't even hint in the direction of a spoiler. This film is just too good. What I will say is that, if you watch carefully enough, you'll see aspects of humanity that receive far less attention than they should in modern cinema. All are brought to light without CGI special effects, sexual exploitation, or gratuitous violence. People looking for explosions, brutality, and special effects will be disappointed. But people looking for a film that rivals "Winter's Bone" will be richly rewarded. You'll find yourself asking why are there so few films like this, in which simple human kindness is rendered so
dramatically yet subtly. I plan to never miss another film Granik makes.
Hannah Gadsby: Nanette
(2018 TV Special)
Weak comedy mixed with cliched social commentary
18 December 2018
As my title indicates, this wasn't really a comedy show. The performance alternated between light comedy (based largely, ironically, about the vicious stereotypes the "gay community" holds about "straight white men") and maudlin self-disclosures, often self-contradictory, not very unusual, and not very interesting. For much of the second half of the show, the audience could only muster nervous twitters as Gadsby virtue-signaled with all the subtlety of a Mack truck. You could almost hear the audience thinking -- okay, I think that to be "woke," I need to laugh now.
Overall, it was about as funny as ice cream on a toothache. Not one joke was at all memorable. As a social commentary, it wasn't particularly original or insightful either.
Gender parity will only occur when we come full circle --- when women realize that men created most of the developments in science and medicine that have doubled the life span of women, and that, throughout history, men have done the dangerous work of fighting, hunting, and dying to protect women and children.
How ironic it is that, when some crazy man walks into a restaurant with a gun to confront his wife or girlfriend violently, it is the MEN in the room who are expected to put THEIR lives on the line, and be subject to ridicule if they don't. Women are licensed to flee and hide under the tables. Men are licensed to be heroes and die. That is the side of masculinity that you never hear people like Gadsby talk about.
Overall, it was about as funny as ice cream on a toothache. Not one joke was at all memorable. As a social commentary, it wasn't particularly original or insightful either.
Gender parity will only occur when we come full circle --- when women realize that men created most of the developments in science and medicine that have doubled the life span of women, and that, throughout history, men have done the dangerous work of fighting, hunting, and dying to protect women and children.
How ironic it is that, when some crazy man walks into a restaurant with a gun to confront his wife or girlfriend violently, it is the MEN in the room who are expected to put THEIR lives on the line, and be subject to ridicule if they don't. Women are licensed to flee and hide under the tables. Men are licensed to be heroes and die. That is the side of masculinity that you never hear people like Gadsby talk about.
First Reformed
(2017)
Ultimately a huge disappointment
19 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Having found some of Schrader's previous work interesting, and recognizing the potential in the movie's cast, I went in with high hopes.
The hopes were not justified. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY. You'll leave the theater shocked and angry, unless your admiration for Schrader's previous work overrides your critical faculties.
SPOILERS FOLLOW.
The movie begins in promising fashion. Superb, yet subtle set design, marked by excellent, muted use of color and dim lighting to create a somber, depressed atmosphere. The leads are well cast.
Unfortunately, the writing is extremely weak, and the entirely unnecessary, completely unbalanced and unsubtle, smack-you-over-the-head "environmentalist" message quickly carries us into cartoon territory.
Nothing stands up to close examination. The priest learns that one of his parish members has "a problem." His wife is pregnant, he is obsessed with environmental pollution and nihilism, and doesn't want her to have the baby. After an awkward first meeting, during which we discover that the priest encouraged his son to go to Iraq where he died, and that his wife left him he agrees to meet with the young man a second time. In between, he discovers that the young man has constructed a suicide vest. At this point the narrative goes completely off the rails.
It is clear that the young man is violently suicidal. Anyone with any sense of morality would immediately demand that the young man be taken into protective custody. Instead the priest, who has no known expertise in high explosives, carries the vest out to his car!
Did anyone watching this film not notice that there was no "instructions manual" with the suicide vest? Nobody with an IQ above 70 would grab a packet of high explosives under these circumstances.
The young man finds out that his suicide vest is missing, and shotguns himself to death. The priest, who consumes high quality whiskey like coffee, is extremely ill, and over the next few days finds the time to become an environmental extremist AND have a bizarre levitation-tryst with the comely wife of the suicide victim. The wife, played by Amanda Seyfried, reads some of the dumbest lines I've ever heard with earnest seriousness. One can only imagine the dozens of giggling outtakes generated during the filming of this scene. Totally unbelievable on any level.
There is a "reconsecration" ceremony in the works. The priest plans to protest the destruction of the environment (I think---his motivation is a complete mystery) by blowing himself up (along with a bunch of parishioners, one would presume) with the suicide vest. Exactly how he has divined the correct operation of the vest is a complete mystery. Why he would want to kill numerous parishioners (or at least ruin their Sunday best clothing with a rain of his body parts) is an even bigger mystery.
At the last minute, he changes his mind and wraps himself in barbed wire, at which point Amanda Seyfried enters his office and they start passionately kissing. Bam, the screen goes black, and the credits roll to an ominous, rumbling musical piece.
Crazed environmentalists might somehow find an encouraging and/or meaningful message in all this. Personally, I found it to be incredibly arrogant and insultingly incoherent. The sensational violence in Taxi Driver and Raging Bull at least had some rational connection to a messages of alienation, and the character development in both movies was superb. In First Reformed, the character development is extremely weak and simply doesn't support the characters' behavior. What, precisely, motivates Amanda Seyfried to feel passion for this physically wrecked, horrendously depressed, nasty man? We saw him, in a previous scene, crush the feelings of his former lover Esther (played beautifully by Victoria Hill) as if she were some kind of insect.
What about the heavy-handed use of environmentalist concern as the main motivation for the young man's suicidal depression? Schrader trots out the the "97% of climate scientists agree" canard. The study that yielded the 97% figure has been debunked so thoroughly that nobody with a shred of intellectual honesty uses it. Our rivers and streams are actually far less polluted now than they were 30 years ago. Yet, in short order, one man has blown his own head off and another is preparing to blow himself up over the issue.
This movie had the potential to be great. A superb cast, some intriguing issues, a fine cinematographer. Schrader simply blew it with a lazy writing effort. His fans will find a way to praise this by simply ignoring his failure. Don't be fooled.
The hopes were not justified. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY. You'll leave the theater shocked and angry, unless your admiration for Schrader's previous work overrides your critical faculties.
SPOILERS FOLLOW.
The movie begins in promising fashion. Superb, yet subtle set design, marked by excellent, muted use of color and dim lighting to create a somber, depressed atmosphere. The leads are well cast.
Unfortunately, the writing is extremely weak, and the entirely unnecessary, completely unbalanced and unsubtle, smack-you-over-the-head "environmentalist" message quickly carries us into cartoon territory.
Nothing stands up to close examination. The priest learns that one of his parish members has "a problem." His wife is pregnant, he is obsessed with environmental pollution and nihilism, and doesn't want her to have the baby. After an awkward first meeting, during which we discover that the priest encouraged his son to go to Iraq where he died, and that his wife left him he agrees to meet with the young man a second time. In between, he discovers that the young man has constructed a suicide vest. At this point the narrative goes completely off the rails.
It is clear that the young man is violently suicidal. Anyone with any sense of morality would immediately demand that the young man be taken into protective custody. Instead the priest, who has no known expertise in high explosives, carries the vest out to his car!
Did anyone watching this film not notice that there was no "instructions manual" with the suicide vest? Nobody with an IQ above 70 would grab a packet of high explosives under these circumstances.
The young man finds out that his suicide vest is missing, and shotguns himself to death. The priest, who consumes high quality whiskey like coffee, is extremely ill, and over the next few days finds the time to become an environmental extremist AND have a bizarre levitation-tryst with the comely wife of the suicide victim. The wife, played by Amanda Seyfried, reads some of the dumbest lines I've ever heard with earnest seriousness. One can only imagine the dozens of giggling outtakes generated during the filming of this scene. Totally unbelievable on any level.
There is a "reconsecration" ceremony in the works. The priest plans to protest the destruction of the environment (I think---his motivation is a complete mystery) by blowing himself up (along with a bunch of parishioners, one would presume) with the suicide vest. Exactly how he has divined the correct operation of the vest is a complete mystery. Why he would want to kill numerous parishioners (or at least ruin their Sunday best clothing with a rain of his body parts) is an even bigger mystery.
At the last minute, he changes his mind and wraps himself in barbed wire, at which point Amanda Seyfried enters his office and they start passionately kissing. Bam, the screen goes black, and the credits roll to an ominous, rumbling musical piece.
Crazed environmentalists might somehow find an encouraging and/or meaningful message in all this. Personally, I found it to be incredibly arrogant and insultingly incoherent. The sensational violence in Taxi Driver and Raging Bull at least had some rational connection to a messages of alienation, and the character development in both movies was superb. In First Reformed, the character development is extremely weak and simply doesn't support the characters' behavior. What, precisely, motivates Amanda Seyfried to feel passion for this physically wrecked, horrendously depressed, nasty man? We saw him, in a previous scene, crush the feelings of his former lover Esther (played beautifully by Victoria Hill) as if she were some kind of insect.
What about the heavy-handed use of environmentalist concern as the main motivation for the young man's suicidal depression? Schrader trots out the the "97% of climate scientists agree" canard. The study that yielded the 97% figure has been debunked so thoroughly that nobody with a shred of intellectual honesty uses it. Our rivers and streams are actually far less polluted now than they were 30 years ago. Yet, in short order, one man has blown his own head off and another is preparing to blow himself up over the issue.
This movie had the potential to be great. A superb cast, some intriguing issues, a fine cinematographer. Schrader simply blew it with a lazy writing effort. His fans will find a way to praise this by simply ignoring his failure. Don't be fooled.
American Animals
(2018)
If you enjoy watching stupid people
16 August 2018
This movie features some stylish direction and good production values, but the primary purpose seems to be to showcase the incredible, mind-boggling stupidity of the characters, as well as their complete lack of any kind of moral compass.
What is the purpose of showing, in detail, the inner details of a heist whose perpetrators can't plan for even the most obvious contingencies? Is this supposed to be funny? Ironic? Clever? Regardless, it was simply the most banal cringe fest I've watched in 20 years.
What is the purpose of showing, in detail, the inner details of a heist whose perpetrators can't plan for even the most obvious contingencies? Is this supposed to be funny? Ironic? Clever? Regardless, it was simply the most banal cringe fest I've watched in 20 years.
Butter
(I) (2011)
Truly dreadful with a few fun moments
19 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is, without a doubt. one of the dumbest, most offensively stupid "satires" ever put to film. Apparently, this was supposed to be an allegory. The Jennifer Garner character was supposed to represent Sarah Palin and modern conservative values, and the young African-American child was supposed to represent Barak Obama.
Let's try a little thought experiment.
Imagine for a moment a movie in which all the characters save one are African-American. In fact, in this entire large Midwestern area, there is one Caucasian person, a lovely child, sensitive, intelligent, incredibly gifted artistically. Though occasionally subjected to racism from the African-American characters, she is wise beyond her years -- she forgives them and actually understands them. Through her charm, wisdom, and artistry, she transforms several of their lives and brings them closer together.
Many of the African-American characters are plagued by serious personality defects -- they are selfish, provincial, jealous. One of the cooler and more sympathetic characters is a foul-mouthed prostitute.
Stop. Stop. What? You can't imagine such a movie? Of course you can't! Because in modern, "liberal" Hollywood, you could never make such a movie poking fun at racism, intolerance, and constricted value systems within the African-American community.
But reverse the races, and you have "Butter" exactly as it plays out.
Actually, there were a few charming moments in the film, but something this dumb doesn't deserve an audience, As noted critic Lisa Schwarzbaum put it as she gave it a D+ rating in Entertainment Weekly, if you are intolerant, and condescending, with a left-wing perspective, you'll love this film.
Let's try a little thought experiment.
Imagine for a moment a movie in which all the characters save one are African-American. In fact, in this entire large Midwestern area, there is one Caucasian person, a lovely child, sensitive, intelligent, incredibly gifted artistically. Though occasionally subjected to racism from the African-American characters, she is wise beyond her years -- she forgives them and actually understands them. Through her charm, wisdom, and artistry, she transforms several of their lives and brings them closer together.
Many of the African-American characters are plagued by serious personality defects -- they are selfish, provincial, jealous. One of the cooler and more sympathetic characters is a foul-mouthed prostitute.
Stop. Stop. What? You can't imagine such a movie? Of course you can't! Because in modern, "liberal" Hollywood, you could never make such a movie poking fun at racism, intolerance, and constricted value systems within the African-American community.
But reverse the races, and you have "Butter" exactly as it plays out.
Actually, there were a few charming moments in the film, but something this dumb doesn't deserve an audience, As noted critic Lisa Schwarzbaum put it as she gave it a D+ rating in Entertainment Weekly, if you are intolerant, and condescending, with a left-wing perspective, you'll love this film.
Beasts of the Southern Wild
(2012)
Incoherent, sloppy, and misguided: don't believe the silly hype
19 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this film carefully, twice. Apparently, liberal reviewers got caught up in the notion of a "natural, mixed-ethnic local community" in Katrina-land and concentrated on the themes of community, family, and the triumph of "naturalness" over "modernity." These are important themes, if dealt with in a coherent, sensitive, intelligent fashion. However, this film offers none of these qualities. In giving the film high ratings, many reviewers ignored the film's countless flaws and negative aspects, including idiotic (at times phony-mystical) dialogue, acceptance of child abuse, alcohol abuse, and sheer stupidity, glorification of prostitution, and romanticizing pervasive squalor. A key moment of "triumph" in the film involves the filthy, ragtag assortment of characters physically assaulting a group of public health workers who are trying to assist them. I ask any New York Limousine Liberal reviewer who found this mess to be "uplifting" to answer the following -- would you allow any of the central characters in this film to reside in your apartment building? (Of course they would not.) Oh --- the central character is a very graceful and beautiful young child actress, Quvenzhané Wallis. Her main "acting" consists of grimacing at the camera. I found her to be more puzzling than convincing, and (literally) she has about one-tenth the acting chops of Dakota Fanning at the same age, who did more with her eyes alone in any one minute on camera than Miss Wallis does in the entire movie. Standing there looking sullen when you are supposed to be experiencing a run of emotion is not acting, no matter how adorable you are.
Brave
(2012)
Not only Disappointing, but also strangely racist
21 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I watched the 3D version of this film. The positives are limited, so I'll get to them first. The visuals were absolutely gorgeous in places, and the 3D effects convincing yet not obtrusive.
Now for the sad reality.
Given what we have come to expect from Pixar, this film came up short in several respects. The essential problem is that a number of previous Pixar efforts have excelled not only in the technical realm, but also in terms of characterization and emotional power. They keep you glued to the screen from start to finish. By contrast, this film is jumbled, lacks character depth, and is ultimately actually boring. So while Toy Story 3 is both beautiful, touching, and deep, this movie is simply passable. It fails to consistently hold one's interest.
There is one more annoying aspect of it that has become so omnipresent in our culture that it might go right over the heads of the typical denizen of the modern university Arts Faculty, let alone the typical viewer, so I'll take pains to point it out.
The primary characters are all Scots -- an itentifiable minority group in our society. Is this group treated with respect? Hardly! All the (white) male characters are portrayed as imps or hulking buffoons or simpletons. This in fact mirrors what one often sees in a random assortment of modern TV ads. The only attractive characters are women or animals.
Had any identifiable non-white "minority" group received similar treatment, Harvard's English faculty would already be hard at work "deconstructing" the work as racist. Watching this film, only the culturally aware viewer can articulate what feels so vaguely discomforting and wrong.
In fact, our culture is now so imbued with anti-white-male racism that one quickly realizes that the "humour" in the movie simply wouldn't work (at all!) if the film had been made about a black African family and the sexes reversed.
Suppose, for example the film was made about a young tribe in Africa, with a massive, hulking, rather dumb *matriarch*, three moronic and unattractive females as "potential brides" for a handsome young prince, and a host of equally inept female supporting characters. It wouldn't work!
Now do you get it? It is hard to see at first, but it is simply a fact that this kind of propaganda is an intentional element of much of our modern media. White males are portrayed, relentlessly, as idiots and buffoons, or, alternatively, robotic male model heroes.
Learn to see it, and don't support it. Let the producers know -- we want balance in our movies and in our culture, and we are prepared to vote with our wallets.
And don't be deterred by the standard retorts that "white males control everything," and "why don't you get a sense of humour." Look where "tolerance" has gotten us over the past 20 years.
Now for the sad reality.
Given what we have come to expect from Pixar, this film came up short in several respects. The essential problem is that a number of previous Pixar efforts have excelled not only in the technical realm, but also in terms of characterization and emotional power. They keep you glued to the screen from start to finish. By contrast, this film is jumbled, lacks character depth, and is ultimately actually boring. So while Toy Story 3 is both beautiful, touching, and deep, this movie is simply passable. It fails to consistently hold one's interest.
There is one more annoying aspect of it that has become so omnipresent in our culture that it might go right over the heads of the typical denizen of the modern university Arts Faculty, let alone the typical viewer, so I'll take pains to point it out.
The primary characters are all Scots -- an itentifiable minority group in our society. Is this group treated with respect? Hardly! All the (white) male characters are portrayed as imps or hulking buffoons or simpletons. This in fact mirrors what one often sees in a random assortment of modern TV ads. The only attractive characters are women or animals.
Had any identifiable non-white "minority" group received similar treatment, Harvard's English faculty would already be hard at work "deconstructing" the work as racist. Watching this film, only the culturally aware viewer can articulate what feels so vaguely discomforting and wrong.
In fact, our culture is now so imbued with anti-white-male racism that one quickly realizes that the "humour" in the movie simply wouldn't work (at all!) if the film had been made about a black African family and the sexes reversed.
Suppose, for example the film was made about a young tribe in Africa, with a massive, hulking, rather dumb *matriarch*, three moronic and unattractive females as "potential brides" for a handsome young prince, and a host of equally inept female supporting characters. It wouldn't work!
Now do you get it? It is hard to see at first, but it is simply a fact that this kind of propaganda is an intentional element of much of our modern media. White males are portrayed, relentlessly, as idiots and buffoons, or, alternatively, robotic male model heroes.
Learn to see it, and don't support it. Let the producers know -- we want balance in our movies and in our culture, and we are prepared to vote with our wallets.
And don't be deterred by the standard retorts that "white males control everything," and "why don't you get a sense of humour." Look where "tolerance" has gotten us over the past 20 years.
16 to Life
(2009)
A Superb, Endearing, Charming Film -- A Better "Mystic Pizza"
25 May 2012
This delightful little indie film focuses on a group of teenagers (and one adult) running a tiny fast food operation in the middle of a small town in Iowa.
The main protagonist, Kate, is turning 16 today and has never been kissed.
Keenly intelligent, independent-minded, wholesomely attractive with a good set of values, she's everything most parents could wish for in a 16 year old daughter.
Beautifully photographed and edited, well cast and charmingly acted, this film surpasses almost anything big-studio Hollywood has made in recent years dealing with the topic of coming of age and romance.
It manages to succeed at doing this without any of the blatantly contrived and self-conscious plot manipulations that characterize most attempts at the genre.
In its emotional range and choice of topics, this film will strike many as a light-hearted, and in most ways superior alternative to "Mystic Pizza."
The main protagonist, Kate, is turning 16 today and has never been kissed.
Keenly intelligent, independent-minded, wholesomely attractive with a good set of values, she's everything most parents could wish for in a 16 year old daughter.
Beautifully photographed and edited, well cast and charmingly acted, this film surpasses almost anything big-studio Hollywood has made in recent years dealing with the topic of coming of age and romance.
It manages to succeed at doing this without any of the blatantly contrived and self-conscious plot manipulations that characterize most attempts at the genre.
In its emotional range and choice of topics, this film will strike many as a light-hearted, and in most ways superior alternative to "Mystic Pizza."
The Artist
(I) (2011)
Charming and endearing, but shallow, predictable, and overrated
11 March 2012
This film was delightful and charming in many ways. It made me feel good. The dog was cute --- extremely cute. Bejo was a revelation, a woman whose charm and style transcends mere fashion in any era.
But --- Best Picture? You have to be kidding. Where was the story? You could sum it up in 5 lines. Where was the depth of characterization? There was virtually none. What motivated the characters? Why were they so shallow? What reflection was there of the incredibly complex world events that characterized that era?
Granted --- the field was extremely weak this year. When Clooney's well- crafted but ultimately tepid "The Descendants" is getting raves---well, you know it's a thin field.
This lightweight little French pastry belongs firmly in the middle of the "three star" category, and deserves nothing more. (Although the dog certainly deserves Oscar consideration.)
Every year now, it seems, the Academy gets a "grand idea" in its head, and then votes accordingly.
A few years ago, the grand idea was to have a Female Director win, and the result was an Best Picture award for the searingly dramatic but unrealistic and deeply flawed "Hurt Locker."
Last year, it was "The Charm of the Royalty," as the workmanlike "The King's Speech" won out over movies like "Winter's Bone", a film that was utterly riveting from the first frame to the last, and directed and acted with absolute brilliance.
And this year, it was "Ode to Hollywood" time, evidently.
Perhaps the most telling point about this film is that the guy writing the film's score (I won't dignify his efforts by listing his name) ran out of ideas at the film's most critical juncture --- its dramatic conclusion. So what did he do? He lifted Bernard Herrmann's brilliant music from Vertigo! A fine choice, indeed. But it put into stark contrast the distinction between the genius of Hitchcock and Herrmann, and the rather modest contributions of this film. Half the people writing rave reviews here probably have no idea where that music came from.
Consider "Psycho" and "Vertigo". Each film is a completely brilliant, completely original classic that broke new cinematic ground in its time. Yet neither won "Best Picture". Many knowledgeable film buffs now rate them among the ten best films ever made.
But --- Best Picture? You have to be kidding. Where was the story? You could sum it up in 5 lines. Where was the depth of characterization? There was virtually none. What motivated the characters? Why were they so shallow? What reflection was there of the incredibly complex world events that characterized that era?
Granted --- the field was extremely weak this year. When Clooney's well- crafted but ultimately tepid "The Descendants" is getting raves---well, you know it's a thin field.
This lightweight little French pastry belongs firmly in the middle of the "three star" category, and deserves nothing more. (Although the dog certainly deserves Oscar consideration.)
Every year now, it seems, the Academy gets a "grand idea" in its head, and then votes accordingly.
A few years ago, the grand idea was to have a Female Director win, and the result was an Best Picture award for the searingly dramatic but unrealistic and deeply flawed "Hurt Locker."
Last year, it was "The Charm of the Royalty," as the workmanlike "The King's Speech" won out over movies like "Winter's Bone", a film that was utterly riveting from the first frame to the last, and directed and acted with absolute brilliance.
And this year, it was "Ode to Hollywood" time, evidently.
Perhaps the most telling point about this film is that the guy writing the film's score (I won't dignify his efforts by listing his name) ran out of ideas at the film's most critical juncture --- its dramatic conclusion. So what did he do? He lifted Bernard Herrmann's brilliant music from Vertigo! A fine choice, indeed. But it put into stark contrast the distinction between the genius of Hitchcock and Herrmann, and the rather modest contributions of this film. Half the people writing rave reviews here probably have no idea where that music came from.
Consider "Psycho" and "Vertigo". Each film is a completely brilliant, completely original classic that broke new cinematic ground in its time. Yet neither won "Best Picture". Many knowledgeable film buffs now rate them among the ten best films ever made.
Smash
(2012–2013)
This show will grow on you
22 February 2012
I tuned in on this show with a great deal of curiosity. A big name cast, with Spielberg as Executive Producer, and an intriguing idea: will it work?
I could tell from the trailers that the plot lines and dialogue were painting broad strokes, and I worried about that. The pilot revealed that my hunches and my concerns were right.
A fair number of dramatic clichés and shifty camera work kept me from getting emotionally involved for a while.
But the minute Katharine McPhee started singing "Let Me Be Your Star," I started getting hooked. McPhee is still growing into her chops as an actress, and she seems to improve with each episode. A bit flat at times in the pilot, she now seems completely at home with the likes of Angelica Huston.
The thing is, I have seldom seen an actress who can simply grab your attention like a magnet, simply by entering the frame. McPhee is just incredibly, naturally beautiful. Your eyes just lock on her. If she can summon a bit more depth and animation as the show rolls on, she could become a mega-star.
I laughed when an earlier reviewer suggested it was Christina Aguilera singing for Katharine. Not a chance--if you are at all familiar with either singer.
I could tell from the trailers that the plot lines and dialogue were painting broad strokes, and I worried about that. The pilot revealed that my hunches and my concerns were right.
A fair number of dramatic clichés and shifty camera work kept me from getting emotionally involved for a while.
But the minute Katharine McPhee started singing "Let Me Be Your Star," I started getting hooked. McPhee is still growing into her chops as an actress, and she seems to improve with each episode. A bit flat at times in the pilot, she now seems completely at home with the likes of Angelica Huston.
The thing is, I have seldom seen an actress who can simply grab your attention like a magnet, simply by entering the frame. McPhee is just incredibly, naturally beautiful. Your eyes just lock on her. If she can summon a bit more depth and animation as the show rolls on, she could become a mega-star.
I laughed when an earlier reviewer suggested it was Christina Aguilera singing for Katharine. Not a chance--if you are at all familiar with either singer.
The Wire
(2002–2008)
Extraordinarily Literate, Brilliantly Engrossing
5 June 2010
I'd heard about The Wire and, in an off-moment, ordered the first DVD of Season 1 from a rental agency several months ago. It sat on my shelf for a week before I turned on the first episode while working out on my rowing machine. I found it complicated and difficult to follow because of the noise from the rower, so I waited until the evening and powered it up on my high power surround sound setup. Soon, I was enthralled. Before long, I was addicted. After the third episode, I told my wife, "We have to watch this together," and restarted at episode 1. Last night we completed the final episode of the final season, having watched every episode. As a university professor who's worked with drug addicts, was once an Honors English major at Cornell, and is a film fanatic, let me be blunt, because there is little I could add about The Wire that has not already been said.
If you are literate, educated, and an intelligent consumer of fine drama; If you have the patience to read great novels, and derive great joy from the way great writers can interweave many characters and themes, arriving at a point of convergence with perfect timing and coherence; If you want to watch a show where EVERY character is portrayed brilliantly, and no character fails to surprise and delight with the depth and uniqueness of the writing; THIS is the one show you must see, from beginning to end. The quality, compared to anything else I have seen, is staggering.
You must invest the time. You may need to get a few episodes in before you become hooked. But trust me...you will be rewarded.
As a cinematic achievement, I actually rate this show above The Godfather Trilogy.
If you are literate, educated, and an intelligent consumer of fine drama; If you have the patience to read great novels, and derive great joy from the way great writers can interweave many characters and themes, arriving at a point of convergence with perfect timing and coherence; If you want to watch a show where EVERY character is portrayed brilliantly, and no character fails to surprise and delight with the depth and uniqueness of the writing; THIS is the one show you must see, from beginning to end. The quality, compared to anything else I have seen, is staggering.
You must invest the time. You may need to get a few episodes in before you become hooked. But trust me...you will be rewarded.
As a cinematic achievement, I actually rate this show above The Godfather Trilogy.
Laughable, Biased, Deliberately Inaccurate
1 August 2004
This film uses a strategy similar to "Fahrenheit 9/11." Assemble movie footage taken out of context, intersperse with comments by "experts" who, on close examination, are all very biased individuals with axes to grind.
You can detect numerous questionable statements and misleading techniques in the first few minutes of the film, much of which is devoted to innuendo and name-calling. For example, statements from representatives of Democratic Party shadow organizations like FAIR (there's a misnomer if ever there was one) are presented as if they were from unbiased sources.
Go to FAIR's website, and you find countless critiques of what they consider media dishonesty. You won't find a single example of alleged Democrat unfairness. All the critiques are against conservative sources. Contrast FAIR with SPINSANITY, which critiques misleading media commentary from both ends of the political spectrum, and you quickly see the truth.
In a similar vein, consider the "expose" provided by "Outfoxed" of Bill O'Reilly's "shutup" technique. "OutFoxed" presents a quote by O'Reilly in which he claims to have told a guest to "shutup" one time. "OutFoxed" then presents a quick montage of clips where O'Reilly uses the phrase "shutup" numerous times. The intended effect is to present O'Reilly as a liar. But if you play the montage slowly, you discover that only one of these examples actually has O'Reilly saying "shut up" to a guest on his show. The rest of the clips are taken out of context from occasions where O'Reilly used the term, either in the midst of an editorial or a news story. Check it out!
Then we have the ubiquitous David Brock, who seems to appear in every Democratic hit piece. Brock used to be a conservative hit man. Mysteriously, just in time for the book-selling season running up to the conventions, he decided he was "Blinded by the Right." Since then, he has appeared repeatedly at Democratic functions and in Democratic hit-pieces.
The end result of this one-sidedness is that this movie is laughably lacking in balance and credibility. Perhaps the high point of comedy is when some Democratic hack derides the banners Fox News runs underneath its programming as "weird banners" and manages to attach sinister connotations to them.
Watch this movie if you want to see an exceptionally humorous example of Democrat paranoia-spin in action. The real question for conspiracy theorists should be, "Which rich and powerful person/organization financed this utterly pathetic movie?"
You can detect numerous questionable statements and misleading techniques in the first few minutes of the film, much of which is devoted to innuendo and name-calling. For example, statements from representatives of Democratic Party shadow organizations like FAIR (there's a misnomer if ever there was one) are presented as if they were from unbiased sources.
Go to FAIR's website, and you find countless critiques of what they consider media dishonesty. You won't find a single example of alleged Democrat unfairness. All the critiques are against conservative sources. Contrast FAIR with SPINSANITY, which critiques misleading media commentary from both ends of the political spectrum, and you quickly see the truth.
In a similar vein, consider the "expose" provided by "Outfoxed" of Bill O'Reilly's "shutup" technique. "OutFoxed" presents a quote by O'Reilly in which he claims to have told a guest to "shutup" one time. "OutFoxed" then presents a quick montage of clips where O'Reilly uses the phrase "shutup" numerous times. The intended effect is to present O'Reilly as a liar. But if you play the montage slowly, you discover that only one of these examples actually has O'Reilly saying "shut up" to a guest on his show. The rest of the clips are taken out of context from occasions where O'Reilly used the term, either in the midst of an editorial or a news story. Check it out!
Then we have the ubiquitous David Brock, who seems to appear in every Democratic hit piece. Brock used to be a conservative hit man. Mysteriously, just in time for the book-selling season running up to the conventions, he decided he was "Blinded by the Right." Since then, he has appeared repeatedly at Democratic functions and in Democratic hit-pieces.
The end result of this one-sidedness is that this movie is laughably lacking in balance and credibility. Perhaps the high point of comedy is when some Democratic hack derides the banners Fox News runs underneath its programming as "weird banners" and manages to attach sinister connotations to them.
Watch this movie if you want to see an exceptionally humorous example of Democrat paranoia-spin in action. The real question for conspiracy theorists should be, "Which rich and powerful person/organization financed this utterly pathetic movie?"
The Hunting of the President
(2004)
A few good moments, but ultimately weak, disappointing
1 August 2004
With the political polarization of America nearly complete, the majority of viewers of this movie don't want or need a reasoned evaluation of its contents. Those fans of Clinton and Michael Moore, who see a right-wing conspiracy around every corner, will cheer rabidly. Avid Bush supporters will dump on the film, labeling it another 'crockumentary.' So, unless you are in that tiny minority of viewers who wants an objective opinion about the movie, you should read no further.
Personally, I thought that Clinton was, to some extent, the victim of a witch-hunt that ultimately hurt the country by distracting the president and clouding his judgment. So I went into this film willing (if not exactly ready) to be convinced by exciting new evidence.
But this film showed no balance at all. For example, the film tries to dismiss the notion that Clinton was a serial sexual harasser by presenting only the most blatantly biased information. Take the case of Paula Jones. The film actually spends several minutes trying to dismiss Jones by attacking the motivations of her attorney! We learn that Jones's attorney, an attractive blond, has right wing leanings, AND supported an anti-abortion action but had two abortions herself! Even the grave and stern intonations of Morgan Freeman can't sell this drastic irrelevancy to a critical-minded viewer.
The irony is stunning. The Clinton's pushed hard for legislation that strips many of a male defendant's rights to information access in sexual harassment proceedings. Yet here are Clinton's supporters, assassinating Jones's character by (a) attacking the motivations of her attorney and (b) piecing together selected clips that make Jones look trashy and dimwitted. The message is clear: if Clinton is the alleged harasser, then the intelligence, appearance, and social status of the alleged victim are relevant.
The only relevant 'fact' presented in defense of Clinton is an allegation by David Brock that one of the state troopers supporting Jones stated her willingness to be Clinton's 'boyfriend.' One can only imagine the reaction of the producers of this film had David Brock produced testimony in support of Jones. How do you spell 'hearsay evidence by a source of doubtful credibility'?
Meanwhile, the serious claims of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick were mysteriously forgotten. Willey far more credible than Jones, presented very strong evidence. The testimony of any one of these women is enough to raise doubts about Clinton. But the conjunction of testimony by Jones, Broderick, and Willey suggests very strongly that Clinton has a problem controlling himself around powerless women in hotel rooms. But you would never have a glimmer of that watching this film, which tries to suggest that Clinton may have had a problem with personal morality, but nothing more. Contrast the treatment of Clinton with that of Clarence Thomas, convicted in the minds of Democrats on the basis of evidence from a single witness of questionable credibility. (Anita Hill, at the time a mediocre assistant professor at a second rate law school, is still collecting huge speaking fees lecturing about sexual harassment and women's rights.)
The film is particularly insulting in its continual use of a standard technique. Clinton appears with appropriately stirring background music (you know, the kind they play in movies when the military hero visits the Arlington cemetery). Then some marginal character is introduced. If the character supports the author's thesis, his/her credentials are overstated. If the character is one of the villains of the piece, questionable sources are immediately invoked to portray the character as (a) a yokel, (b) a scam artist, (c) sexually repressed, (d) a Republican, often all of the above.
That many of the sources are totally biased or highly questionable: (1) Carville, whose wacky antics on TV make Ann Coulter look like a reasoned moderate, (2) Brock, the former Republican attack dog who mysteriously "converted" just in time for this election campaign (and some huge book sales).
The 'meat' of the movie to me (and to several other reasonable reviewers) was the story of Susan McDougal, who claims that prosecutors tried to get her to lie about Clinton. Along the way, McDougal maligns her ex-husband, referring constantly to his mental instability, and claiming a mysteriously complete lack of knowledge about any of his darker dealings. McDougal gives her account with a calmness that suggests a heavy infusion of prozac. Clinton supporters see this calm, smiling demeanor as virtual proof of honesty and saintly integrity. Apparently none of these people has ever spent time talking with incarcerated female felons. Many of them affect the identical demeanor. Here is a startling fact: psychopaths make excellent liars! They are difficult to detect! My own view is that, rather than being the smoking gun in this grand conspiracy theory, McDougal is simply a loose end.
Personally, I thought that Clinton was, to some extent, the victim of a witch-hunt that ultimately hurt the country by distracting the president and clouding his judgment. So I went into this film willing (if not exactly ready) to be convinced by exciting new evidence.
But this film showed no balance at all. For example, the film tries to dismiss the notion that Clinton was a serial sexual harasser by presenting only the most blatantly biased information. Take the case of Paula Jones. The film actually spends several minutes trying to dismiss Jones by attacking the motivations of her attorney! We learn that Jones's attorney, an attractive blond, has right wing leanings, AND supported an anti-abortion action but had two abortions herself! Even the grave and stern intonations of Morgan Freeman can't sell this drastic irrelevancy to a critical-minded viewer.
The irony is stunning. The Clinton's pushed hard for legislation that strips many of a male defendant's rights to information access in sexual harassment proceedings. Yet here are Clinton's supporters, assassinating Jones's character by (a) attacking the motivations of her attorney and (b) piecing together selected clips that make Jones look trashy and dimwitted. The message is clear: if Clinton is the alleged harasser, then the intelligence, appearance, and social status of the alleged victim are relevant.
The only relevant 'fact' presented in defense of Clinton is an allegation by David Brock that one of the state troopers supporting Jones stated her willingness to be Clinton's 'boyfriend.' One can only imagine the reaction of the producers of this film had David Brock produced testimony in support of Jones. How do you spell 'hearsay evidence by a source of doubtful credibility'?
Meanwhile, the serious claims of Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broderick were mysteriously forgotten. Willey far more credible than Jones, presented very strong evidence. The testimony of any one of these women is enough to raise doubts about Clinton. But the conjunction of testimony by Jones, Broderick, and Willey suggests very strongly that Clinton has a problem controlling himself around powerless women in hotel rooms. But you would never have a glimmer of that watching this film, which tries to suggest that Clinton may have had a problem with personal morality, but nothing more. Contrast the treatment of Clinton with that of Clarence Thomas, convicted in the minds of Democrats on the basis of evidence from a single witness of questionable credibility. (Anita Hill, at the time a mediocre assistant professor at a second rate law school, is still collecting huge speaking fees lecturing about sexual harassment and women's rights.)
The film is particularly insulting in its continual use of a standard technique. Clinton appears with appropriately stirring background music (you know, the kind they play in movies when the military hero visits the Arlington cemetery). Then some marginal character is introduced. If the character supports the author's thesis, his/her credentials are overstated. If the character is one of the villains of the piece, questionable sources are immediately invoked to portray the character as (a) a yokel, (b) a scam artist, (c) sexually repressed, (d) a Republican, often all of the above.
That many of the sources are totally biased or highly questionable: (1) Carville, whose wacky antics on TV make Ann Coulter look like a reasoned moderate, (2) Brock, the former Republican attack dog who mysteriously "converted" just in time for this election campaign (and some huge book sales).
The 'meat' of the movie to me (and to several other reasonable reviewers) was the story of Susan McDougal, who claims that prosecutors tried to get her to lie about Clinton. Along the way, McDougal maligns her ex-husband, referring constantly to his mental instability, and claiming a mysteriously complete lack of knowledge about any of his darker dealings. McDougal gives her account with a calmness that suggests a heavy infusion of prozac. Clinton supporters see this calm, smiling demeanor as virtual proof of honesty and saintly integrity. Apparently none of these people has ever spent time talking with incarcerated female felons. Many of them affect the identical demeanor. Here is a startling fact: psychopaths make excellent liars! They are difficult to detect! My own view is that, rather than being the smoking gun in this grand conspiracy theory, McDougal is simply a loose end.
The Man in the Moon
(1991)
Superb Family Film -- One of the best ever made
30 July 2004
This "coming of age" film deals with the experiences of two young girls, Dani and Maureen, as they learn about life and love one fateful summer.
Directed by Robert Mulligan, famous for his superb work in "To Kill a Mockingbird," the film never hits a false note. All the acting is superb. As Dani, Reese Witherspoon makes a stunning film debut. Watching this beautifully photographed and superbly directed and edited film, I felt like I was looking through a window to reality, rather than watching a movie.
I have watched this movie at least 5 times, and can honestly say that it is one of the single best movies ever made about being young, being in love, and going through the feelings, challenges, and changes of young adulthood. Families with children between 10 and 15 should watch it together, and use it as a discussion piece, as it raises a number of issues about sibling rivalry, how to deal with being in love, the responsibilities of a parent, etc.
Directed by Robert Mulligan, famous for his superb work in "To Kill a Mockingbird," the film never hits a false note. All the acting is superb. As Dani, Reese Witherspoon makes a stunning film debut. Watching this beautifully photographed and superbly directed and edited film, I felt like I was looking through a window to reality, rather than watching a movie.
I have watched this movie at least 5 times, and can honestly say that it is one of the single best movies ever made about being young, being in love, and going through the feelings, challenges, and changes of young adulthood. Families with children between 10 and 15 should watch it together, and use it as a discussion piece, as it raises a number of issues about sibling rivalry, how to deal with being in love, the responsibilities of a parent, etc.
Fahrenheit 9/11
(2004)
Typical Moore -- Simplistic, Lying Propaganda
27 June 2004
By now, all sophisticated filmgoers understand Moore's recipe. Skillful but misleading editing, unrepresentative but emotionally powerful images, narcissistic self-involvement, and a complete disregard for truth or subtlety. The result, to be sure, can be powerful propaganda. The fact that so many Americans seem to be taken in by it is evidence that the American educational system is in bad need of overhaul. Courses in critical thinking need to be taught in every American high school.
Many viewers of this film were apparently struck by Moore's implication that Bush gave members of the Bin Laden family free passes out of the country while airplanes were grounded. Gong! Turns out, this was a fabrication. The planes were not grounded...and the Bin Laden family members were interviewed before being allowed to leave.
Many viewers apparently believed that members of the Taliban flew to Texas to meet with Bush. Except that Moore never said that, he only deliberately implied that.
Many viewers were impressed by Bush's apparent confusion when first confronted with the developing facts of 9/11. Of course, virtually any person can be made to look stupid, small-minded, confused, mean, whatever if a camera happens to catch them at the right moment. Jimmy Carter was paralyzed for more than a year when the mullahs took hostages. I'm sure that, during that time, there were thousands of minutes when he stared vacantly into space, wondering what to do next. So what?
Moore has a way of presenting "facts" that lull people into false premises. For example, in "Bowling for Columbine," he seemed to "randomly" open a door in a major Canadian city and found it unlocked. The message is that there are profound differences between Canada
and the U.S. Of course, anyone who has lived in any major Canadian city knows that Canadians lock their doors, and that it is highly
likely Moore staged the event shown in the film.
I'm sure Moore will convert some people with this film. That is what propagandists do.
Many viewers of this film were apparently struck by Moore's implication that Bush gave members of the Bin Laden family free passes out of the country while airplanes were grounded. Gong! Turns out, this was a fabrication. The planes were not grounded...and the Bin Laden family members were interviewed before being allowed to leave.
Many viewers apparently believed that members of the Taliban flew to Texas to meet with Bush. Except that Moore never said that, he only deliberately implied that.
Many viewers were impressed by Bush's apparent confusion when first confronted with the developing facts of 9/11. Of course, virtually any person can be made to look stupid, small-minded, confused, mean, whatever if a camera happens to catch them at the right moment. Jimmy Carter was paralyzed for more than a year when the mullahs took hostages. I'm sure that, during that time, there were thousands of minutes when he stared vacantly into space, wondering what to do next. So what?
Moore has a way of presenting "facts" that lull people into false premises. For example, in "Bowling for Columbine," he seemed to "randomly" open a door in a major Canadian city and found it unlocked. The message is that there are profound differences between Canada
and the U.S. Of course, anyone who has lived in any major Canadian city knows that Canadians lock their doors, and that it is highly
likely Moore staged the event shown in the film.
I'm sure Moore will convert some people with this film. That is what propagandists do.
Psycho
(1960)
The best horror film ever -- by a wide margin
14 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Psycho still holds up as brilliant entertainment more than 40 years after its release. So great is the film's influence on modern cinema that this fact is, in itself, amazing. Psycho broke cinematic ground in many areas, and immediately spawned countless imitators (William Castle's "Homicidal" comes immediately to mind.)
First, consider the elements of the film's success. A razor sharp script. One of the 5 best musical scores in the history of film. One of the best acting performances (and certainly the most underrated) in film history by Anthony Perkins. Near perfect black and white photography. All these things fit together so seamlessly that it is easy to overlook them.
Second, consider (and it is difficult for modern viewers, since so much of Psycho has been imitated to the point of becoming a cliche) the ways the film broke new ground. (WARNING -- SPOILERS FOLLOW)
a. It killed a central character, in a completely shocking and surprising way, halfway through the film. It killed a female character! It killed a *sympathetic female* character!!
These things *just weren't done* in a film before then. Let me tell you, I watched the film, at the age of 16, on the big screen. After the shower room scene, people were in a state of complete shock. My mother, who sat next to me, had dug her fingernails about a quarter inch into my forearm. The man sitting in front of me had an asthma attack. The impact of Psycho on film audiences was so powerful it is really difficult to imagine.
b. It completely succeeded in fooling the audience with a major twist.
Let me assure you. Virtually NO ONE who watched Psycho had ANY IDEA Norman Bates was the killer until the final scenes. The killer with a split personality has now become a tired cliche in cinema, but at the time it was revolutionary. EVERYONE thought the killer was this crazed woman we hadn't seen yet. Every one of my friends and all the adults in my neighborhood saw Psycho. Everyone admitted, laughingly, that they had been completely fooled.
c. It actually created a phobia for many of its viewers!
For me, and for many other people, Psycho actually created a phobia. For years after watching it, many people actually felt creeping fear every time they drew a shower curtain shut. For the master of suspense, there could be no higher tribute.
I cringe when I see people call Psycho "overrated" or wonder aloud "why it wasn't shot in color." Good grief!
To understand the true genius of the film, you had to be alive at the time and watch it on the big screen. But please, please go back and watch one scene -- the "sandwich dinner" and ensuing conversation between Tony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Watch this scene, and all it manages to convey, then watch the identical scene played, in color, by two pretty good actors (Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche in the dreadful 1998 remake. Vaughn knows what he's up against, and can't begin to come close to Perkins. The question is, could any actor in the history of film play this scene as well?
That one scene, in my opinion, should put Tony Perkins in the acting hall of fame, and should have won him an Academy Award. But in those days, horror films were automatically ruled out.
First, consider the elements of the film's success. A razor sharp script. One of the 5 best musical scores in the history of film. One of the best acting performances (and certainly the most underrated) in film history by Anthony Perkins. Near perfect black and white photography. All these things fit together so seamlessly that it is easy to overlook them.
Second, consider (and it is difficult for modern viewers, since so much of Psycho has been imitated to the point of becoming a cliche) the ways the film broke new ground. (WARNING -- SPOILERS FOLLOW)
a. It killed a central character, in a completely shocking and surprising way, halfway through the film. It killed a female character! It killed a *sympathetic female* character!!
These things *just weren't done* in a film before then. Let me tell you, I watched the film, at the age of 16, on the big screen. After the shower room scene, people were in a state of complete shock. My mother, who sat next to me, had dug her fingernails about a quarter inch into my forearm. The man sitting in front of me had an asthma attack. The impact of Psycho on film audiences was so powerful it is really difficult to imagine.
b. It completely succeeded in fooling the audience with a major twist.
Let me assure you. Virtually NO ONE who watched Psycho had ANY IDEA Norman Bates was the killer until the final scenes. The killer with a split personality has now become a tired cliche in cinema, but at the time it was revolutionary. EVERYONE thought the killer was this crazed woman we hadn't seen yet. Every one of my friends and all the adults in my neighborhood saw Psycho. Everyone admitted, laughingly, that they had been completely fooled.
c. It actually created a phobia for many of its viewers!
For me, and for many other people, Psycho actually created a phobia. For years after watching it, many people actually felt creeping fear every time they drew a shower curtain shut. For the master of suspense, there could be no higher tribute.
I cringe when I see people call Psycho "overrated" or wonder aloud "why it wasn't shot in color." Good grief!
To understand the true genius of the film, you had to be alive at the time and watch it on the big screen. But please, please go back and watch one scene -- the "sandwich dinner" and ensuing conversation between Tony Perkins and Janet Leigh. Watch this scene, and all it manages to convey, then watch the identical scene played, in color, by two pretty good actors (Vince Vaughn and Anne Heche in the dreadful 1998 remake. Vaughn knows what he's up against, and can't begin to come close to Perkins. The question is, could any actor in the history of film play this scene as well?
That one scene, in my opinion, should put Tony Perkins in the acting hall of fame, and should have won him an Academy Award. But in those days, horror films were automatically ruled out.
No Such Thing
(2001)
A muddled waste of potential
28 March 2003
With a fine cast, and an intriguing premise, this film caught my attention.
The problem is, the writer-director obviously had no idea what he was trying to say. He wanted to say something profound, but never succeeded. Ultimately, the story fizzled badly. One cannot imagine using Julie Christie in a more wasteful way.
The problem is, the writer-director obviously had no idea what he was trying to say. He wanted to say something profound, but never succeeded. Ultimately, the story fizzled badly. One cannot imagine using Julie Christie in a more wasteful way.
Finian's Rainbow
(1968)
Not profound, but profoundly satisfying musical entertainment
28 March 2003
In my opinion, this is the most underrated movie musical of all time.
Although its treatment of social themes seems outdated, this movie somehow overcomes this obstacle through its fabulous score, excellent photography, and the star power of Fred Astaire and Pet Clark.
Clark, already a veteran performer when she rose to stardom during the "British Invasion," was essentially making her movie debut, and was in her mid-30's when cast as the "young lead." It is a tribute to her superb talent that she overcame these obstacles and put on a fabulous show. Just watch her "Old Devil Moon" with an open mind.
Although its treatment of social themes seems outdated, this movie somehow overcomes this obstacle through its fabulous score, excellent photography, and the star power of Fred Astaire and Pet Clark.
Clark, already a veteran performer when she rose to stardom during the "British Invasion," was essentially making her movie debut, and was in her mid-30's when cast as the "young lead." It is a tribute to her superb talent that she overcame these obstacles and put on a fabulous show. Just watch her "Old Devil Moon" with an open mind.
Band of Brothers
(2001)
Certainly one of the best made-for-television productions ever.
20 December 2001
"Band of Brothers" transcends most of the ordinary limitations of cinema. By its careful direction, realistic sets, and slow-but-sure character development, it succeeds where so many other movies (even "Saving Private Ryan") have failed --- it actually takes you inside the mind of a soldier. If you never watch another movie about World War II, watch this show.
Tell Your Friends