Change Your Image
himbletony
Reviews
The Shining (1980)
Oh, Stanley, how could you???
I just can't get my head around why this, Kubrick's worst film, and worst by quite a margin, is so highly rated. I saw it when it first came out, expecting that the masterly Kubrick would make another masterpiece. My heart began to sink as I watched it, and by the end was so thoroughly disappointed that I sat there shaking my head in disbelief. I re-watched it again recently, persuaded by the continued ecstatic response. It only seemed worse.
There are so many problems. First of all, plot developments are signalled so far in advance that it all becomes ho-hum. The excruciating score is constantly jabbing you in the ribs telling you "Feel uneasy, feel uneasy" meanwhile, the images on screen were doing nothing of the kind. The whole enterprise was so embarrassingly over the top that I wondered if Kubrick meant it to be taken as a joke, but apparently not. Nicholson was obviously told to give the most hammy performance he could manage (even from the opening scenes????), so he became totally risible when he should have been scary. Shelley Duvall, well, what can I say? Poor woman was out of her depth, just not convincing as the loving wife nor as the terrorised victim. Her performance was just amateur.
Often in horror films, less can be more. Not here : why have creepy trickles of blood, when a swimming pool of blood can be used? Trouble is, that amount of blood just looks like red liquid, and completely loses its shock value. The sugar frosted maze looked just like an obvious studio set, which of course it was, but that took away from any tension those final scenes might have had. The few effective scenes were just swamped and therefore wasted.
I've taken time to read some of the reviews. Some seem to be of the opinion that people only like this BECAUSE it is a Kubrick film. I don't think that is the case at all, as this is just about the highest ranked Kubrick movie on imdb. On the contrary, I believe this to be liked for people who would have no time for most of Kubrick's other films. In a sense, it's his least Kubrickian film in that so much is spelt out and numbingly obvious, subtlety is non-existent.
I'm not looking at it as a betrayal of the book, as I haven't read it, I'm looking at it as a BAD BAD movie. Stanley, how could you?
Romeo & Juliet (2013)
A botched job
This is not a good film let alone a not so bad version of Romeo and Juliet. The whole enterprise is pretty, but irredeemably flat. Douglas Booth looks like a renaissance beauty, while Hailee Steinfeld just looks like the girl next door, but even allowing for this disparity, they both speak their lines as if they were reading round in an English class : no indication that they felt the passion or even understood the lines (although one supposes that they may well have done). There is therefore, zero chemistry between the two hapless actors, which is the death knell for any story of passion.
Much is made of Fellowes' script (most of it bad). The thing is, it's an uneasy mixture that works neither as version of Shakespeare, nor as its own version. Fellowes might have received more respect had he gone full out to re-conceive the dialogue in quasi-medieval terms, but he obviously lacked the nerve.
The directorial choices didn't help either : in the Zefferelli version, Romeo's eyes are following Rosalind when there is a parting of the dancers and Juliet is revealed in her full height and beauty in a stunning red dress, wearing no mask. In this version, we see a few hints of a masked Juliet, with no visual impact. Therefore, the poetic line "it seems that she hangs from the cheek of night like a rich jewel in an Ethiop's ear" is stupid, because he can't even see her properly in order to make such a judgement, particularly as Steinfeld is not in the same league as the jewel-like Hussey.
Hussey and Whiting both outdo these two leads in the clarity and urgency of their delivery. The famous misunderstood word "wherefore" in the balcony scene, which means "WHY are you Romeo?" which then leads to the questioning of how we name things (What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet") is actually delivered by Seinfeld as if Juliet IS saying "Where are you Romeo?" and the following musing not a logical extension of that incorrect idea.
The extra details add nothing to the story (the jousting for example) and just muddy things unnecessarily. The fight scenes lack the messy confusion that such a brawl would be (Zefferelli got that right again) leading to a less immediate and more artificial effect. The fact that a lot of this was shot in Verona means absolutely nothing if you are not engaged. I weep every time I watch the Zefferelli version. This one just bored me. A botched job.
Titanic (1997)
tiresome
This movie is tiresome in the extreme, totally over-hyped, over-rewarded and ridiculous. I first saw it when it first came out and the interminable amount of time it took before the iceberg hove into view was mind-numbing.
So many problems. The opening framing device was totally unnecessary and felt sooooo long, while adding nothing to our understanding, nor even piqueing our interest (wasn't that supposed to be the intention?).
Then the cast of stereotypes! Awful, and all saddled with flat, uninspired dialogue or worse still, retrospective smart-alec bits ("Picasso? He won't amount to much", "Freud? Who is he? Is he one of the passengers?" .....groan).
The fatal casting of Leonardo di Caprio, still in his baby face mode as a well travelled man of the arts (???), while Kate Winslett, mature and a little blowsy (nothing wrong with that) appears almost old enough to be his mother, is a serious misjudgement. Her fiancé (a luckless Billy Zane) lacked only a moustache that he could fiendishly twist in his most unctuous moments. A total pantomime creation (the villain in Avatar was a similar one dimensional character).
I saw the beginning on TV recently and watched again up until Kate is rescued from leaping off the stern. I hoped that I might be able to reassess it. No chance. It got me just as annoyed as the first time, the improbabilities just as ludicrous (would the crew REALLY have allowed Leo and chum to the bow to yell "King of the world"?). The only reason this got two stars was for the technical sequences during the sinking, but as for the fate of the protagonists, by that stage I was past caring. If only they had employed a talented screen writer. Such a waste.
Nära livet (1958)
a turning point in my film going life
This film is one of the most important of all those that I have seen in my movie going, spanning fifty years, for it was the first Bergman film I saw in the early sixties at Auckland's only cinema for foreign films. I was struck by its humanity, by its clear eyed view of what it is to be human. Not only did it open up the whole body of Bergman's subsequent work, but I saw the themes first explored in this film deepened and enriched (with a few disappointments to be sure) throughout his career. I first learned here that more difficult and challenging films keep giving long after they have been first seen. Those who say Bergman is gloomy and depressing, all I can say is that the MOST depressing experience in the cinema EVER for me, was being persuaded to join a group of people "just for a laugh" to see the truly execrable "Sex and the City 2" Compare the insulting view of women in that piece of rubbish with this gem.
The Yards (2000)
one of great unseen movies of the nineties
I had to move pretty quickly when this movie first came out. In spite of strong reviews, I guessed it wouldn't be around for long (in recent times, think of the wonderful Tabu, which in spite of ecstatic reviews, totally bombed in the UK). It was good that I caught it and I did not regret it. This is more than a story of corruption and redemption, it is also an amazing mood piece. The fact that so many quality stars were involved in this film tells you how impressed they were by the script and by the vision of director James Gray. I think the slow ratcheting of tension was beautifully done, not at all boring. In some ways it reminded me of "On the Waterfront", which I also love and was as much about character as plot. Yes, it is THAT good.
El sur (1983)
Flawless film making.....believe me.
I saw this film when it was first released in the UK then quickly saw it again, to fix it in my memory as I feared its commercial life would be short. Later I saw it on BBC television and recorded it on videotape, which is the best I have been able to obtain so far. Infuriatingly, it is now available on import, but ONLY on Bluray, which I don't have. Suffice it to say that this film is one of the saddest yet sublimely beautiful films in history. At its heart is a mystery, sketched out for the viewer, but with much left to be surmised, while at the same time Estrella knows even less. She thinks her father has a magic quality, but as she matures she realises that the magic hid some deep unhappiness. She needs to know more about this man, but we know that her search is likely to be fruitless. This is why the "unfinished" ending is, to me the perfect place to end. The "South" is used as a metaphor for some place other, a place we may dream of, but not visit or know. Maybe a place of romantic dreams, a place where we imagine we can find lost loves. This is the father's tragedy : essentially a good man who seems to be living a private life of impossible dreams, when what he has in reality is so precious. This is heartbreakingly beautiful cinema, I can't recommend it highly enough.
Al-mummia (1969)
A film to transport you to another time and place.
I saw this haunting film in the 70s at a film club in Richmond upon Thames, having read an article about it in distant New Zealand. It was something of a holy grail, then, and did not disappoint. The often criticised slowness allows you to immerse yourself in the pace of a different place and a different time, and in fact the minimalistic acting further enhances the spell. Not for everyone, therefore. My biggest disappointment has been the lack of a DVD release. I was certain that when I saw the new print obtained with the support of Martin Scorsese, a DVD would follow on soon after, but sadly this is not the case. One contributer has mentioned that the film is available as a free download. Well, don't bother. It is muddy, degraded and without subtitles, no way to view a masterpiece. Sadly it adds to the list of dvds not available in the UK eg Rachel,Rachel and The Pawnbroker, both Oscar nominated.
The Dead (1987)
A film of great warmth and depth
Has there ever been a greater swansong than Huston's final film? I love this in so many ways. Joyce's tale is reputed to be one of the best short stories ever written, and that is pretty accurate, but maybe Huston has even improved upon it. I say this because an Irish friend who saw the movie said that a love and deep understanding of the Irish shines through in every frame. It is this warmth that makes it such a wonderful experience, and yet it only makes the final few minutes of the film more poignant. The casting is inspired and Anjelica Huston has never been better. How fitting that this role should be in her father's last work. If you have never seen this sublime film, I urge you to remedy that. It will be watched many times in the future and its status will surely grow.
Skoonheid (2011)
A film of merit, but beware the "uncle"/"nephew" thing
There seems to be a misapprehension about this movie and is key to understanding it. Francois is not in fact a blood uncle. In the opening wedding scene Christian says something ( I can't remember his actual words) which establish that. The opening scene shows Francois transfixed by a vision of a young man known to him last as a boy before the two families lost touch. If he were a REAL uncle, how likely is it that he doesn't already know what he looks like? This changes the whole dynamic of the movie and makes his actions at the later beach scene easier to understand. This movie is very good, but not an easy watch, but I feel that viewers need to know the above, (a point which even a few commercial reviewers got wrong) in order to appreciate its merits.