Change Your Image
klc-256-212690
Reviews
Good Joe Bell (2020)
Sucker-punched
This film surprises in many ways.
I hadn't paid attention to the cast and only discovered afterwards that it stars mark Wahlberg. This was the first sucker-punch, because I was absolutely wowed by the performance and hadn't realized just how good Wahlberg can be until I saw this. Completely taken by surprise!
Second surprise is when we finally get to see the father (Wahlberg) talking about and against bullying. Used to over-the-top Hollywood treatments of such things, it was entirely unexpected to realize that this man is not a good speaker at all. It fits the character, however, and for once we have to give the character points for trying as opposed to being greatly affected by the speeches given. But this is not really surprising in context, as the film is not so much about bullying as it is with coming to terms with your own prejudices.
Third surprise is the acting chops of Reid Miller. Not an easy role to play, but he is entirely believable and very touching.
Overall, the film is somewhat uneven, with flashbacks which somehow upset the flow and confuse as much as elucidate. But this is a minor problem because the acting and the situations are gripping enough for the drawbacks to be forgiven.
Definitely worth your time. I would have added an extra half-star, but couldn't seem to get the system to cooperate!
Wrath of Man (2021)
great for ten-year old boys
This film aims low and goes lower.
I haven't heard such jejune phony macho dialogue since I left junior high - but I suppose that is who this film is aimed at. Why else would it get a 7+ rating? After 20 minutes of stilted, cliché-ridden dialogue, I just turned it off and looked for another film.
A State of Mind (2021)
Good intentions but...
My low score is very simple to explain. First, even though the story is not particularly new, it is the handling of it which misses the mark. The dialogue is too often predictable when it isn't clichéd. The husband and wife have no real chemistry, and the acting level was "adequate", but although not everyone did a bad job of it, the correct adjective would be "uneven". Sometimes it was rather embarrassingly amateurish - as in the interview with the agent just isn't to be believed for a moment; he overacts to a fault. Finally, from a visual standpoint, it was serviceable, but no real style or punch to it. In the end, I stopped watching from perhaps a third of the way through, because I had no reason to expect any of it to improve.
Wonder (2017)
Derivative and Predictable!
I couldn't believe it when i saw that this film has a rating of 8. I have not seen a film in a long time which left me with such a feeling of derision, not because of the subject but because it was a complete steal from so many other films of a similar nature, and not as well made as the best of them, - Mask - (starring Cher among others).
As Mask (a well-earned 7.2 rating) was made in 1985, I must presume that a lot of those so impressed by Wonder simply haven't got the experience of better films to judge this one by. Anything above a 5 is so absurd that it makes me think that people have currently lost such a sense of discernment that it is no wonder Trump became president. The people who gave this film top ratings must also have been willing to vote for THAT disaster!
The only thing I liked about Wonder was that it gave a bit of time to each of the other children so that you could see how and why they were reacting as they did. But other than that, all the rest has been done and seen before, often better. The make-up was ok, but Mask's hero (with the same genetic ailment as "the Elephant Man") was truly horrendous to see in a way that the Wonder boy is simply mildly ugly. The dialogue was often stilted, and personally I thought that Noah Jupe as Auggie's best friend was a far better, more natural actor. The second best was the girl who played his sister. The rest of the cast seemed to be going through the motions, including Julia Roberts. It is depressing to know that she actually accepted a role in what is in short a highly flawed, cliché-ridden film. The ending - which I will not divulge - was so predictable that the entire element should have been completely cut out of the film; only a five-year-old MIGHT have been surprised by the phony suspense and predictability of it.
To anyone who is incensed and disagrees with what I have said here - please - I beg of you to go find and watch Mask, and then tell me that you still think this plagiarized version of every Hollywood cliché ever written is a truly better film!
La vita davanti a sé (2020)
The Life Ahead Lags Behind
There are two major problems with this film.
First, it basically ignores all the reasons why the original story was so strong.
Secondly, it has to compete with the original film version (La Vie Devant Soi - called Madam Rosa in the English title) - starring Simone Signoret.
The first big error is in changing the focus of the story. Yes, it is still told from Momo's point of view (sort of) - but it has suddenly made Momo a "problem child" and incipient hoodlum - which was not part of the original story I don't believe - and instead of simply a kid who had been left with Madame Rosa, he is suddenly a thief who improbably has to be put in her care in the most unbelievable way.
These changes mean that the story is no longer about a kid learning from the life around him but rather a fight between good and evil within him - which was not at all part of the original. All is angst - where as the original story is humorous and philosophical and filled with the lessons of discovery.
Instead of true understanding and growth, this film depends more on stock clichés. Madame Rosa's children are of all backgrounds and religions, and in the original story she insists on making sure that each child remains true to his own religion and culture. This is done out of respect for the individual children, but is not at all made clear in the new version. Yes, Mme Rosa has a tattoo on her arm and mentions Auschwitz, but we get absolutely no sense of her being attached at all to her Jewishness. The audience is supposed to understand what all this means, but she doesn't explain any of it to Momo -and this is the real problem with the film. There are no convincing diaologues between them that don't simply sound preachy. Everything is surface - nothing seems to be deeply rooted in anything except facile melodrama.
Finally, there is Sophia Loren, who I have always liked in the past, but who somehow seems to be sleepwalking through most of this part. Everything is underplayed, as if she is counting on her reputation rather than her talent to pull this one off. She is supposed to be an aging , physically exhausted older prostitute, but we get no indication of age or pain in her body. Anyone remembering Simone Signoret's Madame Rosa (for which she won an Oscar) realizes how much more Signoret inhabited the character - making us feel like every movement and every breath was an effort. She was far more believable than Loren, who still gives the impression for most of it of being in far too good shape physically. Even the script is illogical about this; she excuses herself and two minutes later the two others go looking for her. She is eventually found in an orchard which is so vast that she would have had to be a marathon runner to have reached the point where they find her in the time allotted... yet she is supposed to be barely able to walk. Yes, she keeps lapsing into catatonia - but we get the impression she is going into Alzheimer's instead of being physically enfeebled by a bad heart.
In the end, the IDEA of this story is better than the execution. A huge disappointment - much of which should be placed at the feet of Loren's son, who directed and co-wrote the script - making unnecessary changes which allowed for simplification instead of depth. All those who have been raving about how touching this film and Loren's acting are have obviously not seen the original film or read the book it was based on. If they had, they too would be less enthralled. This version would almost certainly never have gotten off the ground without the Loren/Ponti names behind it.
Call Me by Your Name (2017)
Out of date and should have been better
Yes, this isn't a bad film. But what bothered me about it is simply that it felt ten years out of date, at least.
By that I mean that it was everybody's feel good gay movie, because it hit (almost) all the right buttons from top to bottom. It would have been far more daring and needed if it had been made BEFORE everyone was already on board.
I think the best way to explain what I mean is to compare it to another "gay" film from the same year - the one that didn't get voted for an Oscar, didn't pretend it was being politically correct (but actually was moreso) - the one which - as a gay man - I felt to be far far better in just about ever way: God's Own Country.
Instead of upper middle class people, in beautiful homes with top-notch educations and basically totally spoiled lives (an Italian villa for god''s sake!) - God's Own Country takes place in the scrubby, poor, downtrodden wasteland of northern England, with characters who are almost already complete losers on the social level: sheep farmers and a Romanian refugee. No pretty scenes of luxury, no real hope for a great life, and almost nothing that anyone watching this film can normally aspire to.
So what makes it a better film.?
Reality.
The film is light-years ahead of Call Me By Your Name, not only because of the crude sex and total frontal nudity, but specifically because it isn't even concerned with gay issues. The protagonists are gay - but that isn't the point. It is really about learning to let your guard down with another person, and the fact that they are gay is simply a fact, not the central part of the problem. In other words, it isn't about people trying to get to the sweet spot concerning gay issues - they are already there because they are more concerned with being simply human. How much more advanced can you get than to take the gayness for granted with no preaching nor feel-good moments between parent and child? (In this film, (SPOILER) it is a parent who, without a single comment on the relationship, makes the possibility of it working happen by simply giving her son an address which she didn't need to give, and which he didn't even know she had. Her caring for her child's welfare has nothing to do with HER feelings, but about what she recognizes as needed by her kid. And the true beauty of this film is that a good half of it is played with silences, letting the physical - be it a touch or a glance - do most of the exposition for us. That internalized tension makes it a much more difficult and perfect acting job as well.
SO - there you have it: Call Me By Your Name isn't a bad film, but everyone who liked it almost certainly never even heard of the other one, as CMBYN had all the money and media hype behind it. But when I have talked to other gay men - especially those who are not 22 year olds on the circuit in big cities - it is not CMBYN which is considered to be the true Oscar material. Go see for yourselves and compare. I think you might agree.
Normal People (2020)
No bite to it
I was expecting far more from this. After the third episode it began to get really dull - because the entire thing seems to be based on a very unrealistic lack of communication between the two. Perhaps at the beginning this would be normal, but as they continue to see each other over the years, half their misunderstandings are because they just don't speak out. It gets stale and isn't believable, specifically because at the beginning they say exactly what they want, and the more they know each other, and the deeper the feelings, the less the communication seems to be flowing.
As does the sex. Always the same, a couple of moans and tenderness. Where's the passion?
The main problem is the cardboard characters driving this opus; She is inevitably completely unsure of herself - and yet at the beginning she knew how to put everyone in their place; Instead of getting stronger as the years go by, she seems less and less capable of controlling any situation, whereas at the beginning she was handling most situations with finesse. Huh? I think I finally got fed up with the Italian villa episode, where the new boyfriend, Jamie is begin a prick, and nobody speaks up - specifically not her She won't even talk to her best friend Peg. Yet anyone with half a brain should have known that inviting the ex to stay with the new boyfriend around when her own feelings are constantly in flux is going to be a disaster - and she's supposed to be an intelligent girtl. This is medium-range pot-boiler... well-named, because in fact the people here are just way too "normal" to be particularly interesting.
Colette (2018)
Interesting but too contemporary
I enjoyed this film quite a lot, for the acting, the subject matter, the sense of period, and even the nods to various painters from the time-period. The film keeps our attention with the conflict between Colette and her husband... and the various games they play.
What is unfortunate, but not something which destroys the enjoyment, is an attempt to make the husband seem to be a monster from today's feminist point of view... or from Colette's for that matter. (Spoilers!) He is seen as domineering and egotistical and manipulative; That might be, but Colette 's talent is taken seriously by him, and many of his choices might simply be part of what could be understood in the context of that time period; He is, in fact, ahead of his time, first by allowing her to write, secondly by supporting her writing and improving it by showing her how to add a sexual vibrancy which will make it more marketable. He is also ahead of his time in allowing her more sexual freedom than most.
That he doesn't want to put her name on the book because the public wouldn't accept a woman author was probably correct at the beginning; later on she is correct in saying that the books ere famous enough that adding her name wouldn't matter. She complains that he spends too much on picking up the tab at dinners with other people, of spending too much at the races etc...he says that it is what is expected and that it is necessary for their image; Anyone knowing the French would understand that he was probably right. Le Tout Paris would NOT have taken him seriously if he didn't play the game correctly. Personally I think he can only be faulted for not letting her know in advance that he intended to sell the rights to her books so as to allow her not to lose her country house; His promise to be open and honest with her was broken by this betrayal; He should have spoken to her and convinced her before signing away the rights. but he was probably right that they couldn't keep the house otherwise.
Colette is a very headstrong girl, which pleases the feminist set - but that doesn't mean that her choices are automatically goods ones; She too is manipulative. Those who know the story of her life know that she married two more times...the second time she divorced supposedly because he was unfaithful, but then so was she - with her step-son! The third time she was to a Jewish man who supported her so that she could find the time to write. yet she was able to write anti-Semitic things into her books. She was supported by him to the very end, including by his helping to publish her complete works... yet she is buried alone.
A fascinating woman, worth knowing more about. This film piques the curiosity enough to make one want to know more.
Sleeping Giant (2015)
Tense and foreboding
Having read the other reviews here, there is only one which I completely agree with. The signs are there if you look for them, but most people seem to have missed the fact that the Sleeping Giant is not only a teenager's anger, but perhaps moreso his sexuality beginning to burgeon with disastrous results.
SPOILERS Where several other reviewers talk about a triangle of two teens wanting the same girl, in fact it is much more about one teen wanting his buddy but afraid to admit to it - and finding a way to discourage the girl from continuing her flirtation with the object of his affection (his buddy). There is one scene where his buddy says (I'm paraphrasing) "If you like someone you should tell them." and there is a second when he almost admits his love for the other boy... but we also understand that, when, in a later scene with his fathers "mistress", he says "There's something wrong with me" - it is really the admission that he has gay feelings. That other reviewers missed this doesn't surprise me; it is very nuanced in the telling, but any gay person will see the signs that others miss.
As for the rest of the film, it is extremely well constructed, with so many moments of foreboding building to a climax that the tension is almost unbearable sometimes. Beautifully shot, beautifully acted, a gem.
Bølgene (1998)
jousting with feelings
A lovely little film short about two teenagers on an overnight on a little island somewhere in Norway. It is a place they have been coming to since they were young boys, but now as they approach adulthood they are trying to see further into the future of life and their relationship.
What is nicest about the film is that it is exploring them as much as they are exploring each other. We don't exactly know what to expect, nor do they. But they have taken a step in a direction which is concrete, even if not defined.
Brings back lots of memories. And a sense of veracity.
Peyote (2013)
discovering love
I do not want to write very much about this film, except to say that it is exceptional. The beginning is wonderful, where one of the actors plays like the child he still is. It is so perfectly done that it brings back memories of childhood. Then he meets the other boy, and the get to know each other and take the temperature of their friendship; the rest I will let you see for yourself. what is exceptional about this film is that none of the traditional Hollywood tricks is used here. The only thing which is presented, and why it works so well, is that the Director takes his time, letting the actors FIND the emotion as it slowly builds. it is so rare to see a film where emotion finds its way, instead of being automatic and forced. This makes it so much more real than most of what one sees today - with music swelling in the background to tell us what we , the spectators, should be feeling. In other words, in this film, it gives everyone the time to feel; instead of telling us what to feel, it lets us discover ...ourselves.
L'armée du salut (2013)
Finding one's way
The film held my attention, because it is so completely outside a Western way of life, so for me it was almost of anthropological interest. But how much of what we saw is really the way things are, and how much was seen through a prism? So many of the people in the film seem to express everything with a total economy of words. It is hard to imagine the main character becoming the author he supposedly did, because he barely expresses anything verbally throughout most of the film. One doesn't get a sense of playfulness within the family. Just tensions and conflict... and a total lack of real communication.
I was beginning to wonder if this is really a national characteristic - until the one moment when we see a bunch of kids playing on the beach which made me feel that this family was not typical at all.Eventually this slow, plodding, SILENCE for so much of the film wore down my interest. Near the end, a French lover asks the now-grown boy to explain why he doesn't want to be lovers any more; his answer is "I told you in my letter". But we never know WHAT was in the letter, and this is finally the real failure for me of the film. Too much is left for the audience to imagine, without any help from the film-maker.
The only part which I truly liked was the meetings with various men. The way one looked at him you could feel his desire,it was palpable; with a second, the boy's need for tenderness and a shy affection was truly sweet, and the exact opposite of sheer lust. They were the most believable moments in the film. If I have given it a score of 5 - it is partly because it is an enigma which is interesting despite itself. But technically, an almost immobile camera and overly long takes which would have been better with editing made it hard to go higher.
Blackmail Boys (2010)
cinema vérité gay
I have given this film a higher mark than it deserves, but before I say anything about the film I will say why. I have seen so much trash given marks of 6 here by audiences who obviously love car chases, explosions and other completely "seen it a thousand times" crap that I thought that a film that a least tries to be a bit less mainstream deserves some credit.
Nevertheless there are as many negatives as positives to this film, when all is said and done.
The premise is reasonable: a young gay man, Sam, needing money for his education, decides to prostitute himself. When his long-time lover Aaron comes to visit and realizes that one of his boyfriend's clients, Andrew Tucker, is a high-profile Christian writer and homophobe, they hatch a plan to blackmail him to get the money which will allow them to marry and to end the need for prostitution as a means for paying the bills. So far so good.
But... from that point on, there are too many negatives for the film to work as well as it might have. First problem is casting. There is no chemistry between the two lover at all. They smile, they kiss, they make love - but when Sam kisses a client he doesn't register any kind of difference between the two. Worse, without being mean - it seems logical to imagine that a high-profile Christian writer with lots of money will seek out someone who is truly gorgeous, buff, HOT... none of which can be said about Sam. Second problem: there have been enough movies made about blackmailers for the two kids to have imagined at least one or two things might be necessary to guarantee their safety. Example: they both go to the drop-off zone. One should have kept the video while the other went for the money. But how could Andrew be sure there weren't twenty more copies out there? He couldn't, which makes it unlikely that he would have fallen for the blackmail scheme. Third problem: the level of acting in general just wasn't good enough to be believable. Andrew seems correctly devastated when he returns home. His wife isn't credible for a second. Fourth problem: why wouldn't Sam take Aaron to a hospital? Why would he go back o his own place, If Andrew wanted to come back and finish the job, he'd know exactly where to find them. When someone knocks on his door - he opens it without even asking who is there. Would this be the kind of thing a person would do after his lover was stabbed? Hardly. The lack of logic to the behavior of the people in this film is a gaping hole in the script.
So with all that against it, why did I in fact actually like the film to some extent? Well, first because the direct monologues and typed out messages work quite nicely. There is a certain sweetness to the two boys,even if they don't come across as really hot for each other. I thought some of the visuals, the angles, the jiggling camera-work all added a cinéma verité aspect that also was effective. In fact, as it came across almost as a home movie in certain parts, it made the entire thing more believable despite the negatives mentioned previously. It seemed to say: "Hey, these are REAL people, therefore they don't come across as typical Hollywood hunks, they don't have incredible dialogue, their relationship is low-key comfortable as opposed to romantic" - so in a sense many of my original criticisms can be ignored if we take this as almost a documentary instead of a highly polished professional film product. So in the end its choice of style allows for the lack of professionalism.
Lastly, the music was a nice change from the usual. It added to the sweetness of the general atmosphere - almost as if it were 60's hippy rather than modern. And the credits at the end were kind of fun too...
Finally, I guess what won me over the most was the fact that the film didn't shy away from the sex. It was raw and showed full frontal nudity and - gasp -real erections! Real masturbation. And yet, none of it came across as pornographic. But it made the film seem honest.