jon-551 Reviews

Ask the Dust (2006)

A brave attempt, if poorly executed

[5/10 · 24 February 2006]

I saw the same rough-cut screening at the Smithsonian in DC that others here refer to. I share the hope that either this is a VERY rough cut and extensive repairs can be made, or that this will quietly come and go.

Ask the Dust by John Fante, in my view at least, IS the Great American Novel, which makes for an all the more difficult task of adaptation. This story has been adapted by writers and filmmakers over and over for almost 70 years. It's almost pointless to go into all the ways the film falls short of the novel's impact, because it's wrong to pile on when the film did have some strengths, and doing so would completely spoil the plot for future viewers.

The locations are excellent and faithful to the book's settings and general reality. The performances are fine, especially Salma Hayek in a tough role - though Farrell is a bit too good looking and clean cut. One problem at the center is that the Bandini character is pretty anti- social, and is at his most honest, real, charming, and interesting in his inner monologues. The early part of this film/script seems to cope with this, but it is all but dropped.

Bandini's arc as both a man and a writer is far too distilled (there is even a - gulp - montage as he breaks through on his first novel). His obsessive relationship to H.L. Mencken is given very short shrift, and on the other end of the scale, his relationship to diseased hack Western writer wannabe Sammy is almost completely eliminated, as is the encounter with the girl brought to tears by his first published story. Again, I hate to nitpick a difficult adaptation, but these discrepancies, plus a baffling alteration of the details of the book's climax, are really hard to justify.

I had brought my signed copy of "Ask the Dust", with the thought that if Towne's adaptation cut it, I'd ask him to add his signature. By the time the credits rolled, while not as disappointed as some reviewers here, that thought was long gone.

The Arrival (1996)

very down-to-earth alien flick

[7/10 · 1 July 2005]

Expecting cookie-cutter mediocrity, I was really pleasantly surprised.

The cons of this film are the common pitfalls in every low-budget sci-fi, not to mention the haggard-loner-versus-the-shadowy-big-conspiracy genre. The plot turns and dialog are mostly predictable, and the composition is sloppy at times. My guess is this film was treated to a fairly brutal production schedule.

That said, this movie has a lot going for it.

Sheen does just an excellent job - he carries the film. All the Estevez/Sheens have been in some pretty bad films, not to mention - gag - TV, but talent and professionalism really runs deep in that family.

The (human) characters are refreshingly human and believable, a sharp contrast to Independence Day which, another reviewer mentioned, came out at the same time.

I also appreciated the clear-eyed treatment of the science-y stuff. I totally disagree that this is a "message" movie - if there is a message about global warming here, it is that aliens are causing it! Hardly a boon to the tree-hugger cause. And the head alien getting all pious at the end about humans not deserving the earth - this is not exactly a sympathetic character! So I fail to see this as a guilt trip.

On the other hand, it is interesting that topics like "terraforming" and colonization of other planets are creeping into real mainstream scientific discussion now, almost a decade after this film's release. If there is a not-so-cool- when-it-happens-to-you "message" here, you still have to give the filmmakers credit for being ahead of the curve.

I generally assume that films that look like they suck always do - but every once in a while you stumble across one that doesn't!

Carlito's Way (1993)

"I know a Puerto Rican when I see one" -- Chris Rock

[2/10 · 19 February 2005]

I'm shocked to see this film so well-reviewed, but seeing all the thumbs up on this site I do have to acknowledge the good points in "Carlito's Way". It's true that Pacino and Penn are two of the best American film actors ever, and their work in this film, as well as DePalma's effort as Director, does deserve praise.

Latter day fans of the actors, or fans of Scarface, will see something of a reversal for Penn and Pacino - Pacino is simmering and reserved (complicated in a word, like many of Penn's pre- and post- "Fast Times" roles), and Penn is the bombastic psycho, a la Pacino's Tony Montana. And DePalma shows his technical and visual expertise, and deft handling of underlying violence, tension, and suspense, in many of the scenes mentioned in other reviews.

But part of the reason the three principals here merit some applause, is that the script for this film is awful. It is paint-by-numbers without a shred of humor or irony.

Pacino's "Puerto Rican" accent is unbelievably bad, as if he were mocking his own role, or if the text of the script were so bad he felt a need to mangle his own delivery. It's even worse than his Cuban accent in Scarface, without the cartoonish humor. Tony Montana couldn't even speak his few Spanish lines convincingly. Carlito sounds like a Cajun with bad gas, not a Puertorriqueño.

Also, while I agree with other reviewers that Pacino's physical look in this film makes a big contribution (Penn's even more so), I have never met a Puerto Rican who looked as white as Pacino. Rick Aviles is Puerto Rican. John Leguizamo is half Puerto Rican. Pacino? Not remotely.

This flaw is made worse by Pacino's voice over narration - one of my least favorite devices in cinema. The narration is so horribly written, it must have been added after the original cut. On occasion, narration is thus added to a completed film as an afterthought, where the original cut otherwise might seem confusing or incomplete, or to novel adaptations (like this one), to make up for the lack of illuminating backstory or detail. In "Carlito's Way", it's simply unnecessary and annoying. The film would have been shorter and better without it.

I also agree with other reviewers that the very "True" romance between Pacino and Penelope Ann Miller is a departure from other Pacino gangster films, where his character is too unflappable or monomaniacal to be involved in and motivated by any such relationship. And the premise of two lovers who have been tragically separated - and shed some of their narcissism in the process - is compelling. But the pair's actual performances as lovers are childish and irritating. I agree with an earlier review here that the mock rape scene is so ridiculous that it's a chore simply to sit through it.

To sum up, the whole cast and the director are excellent, but the script is garbage. Such a combo worked a lot better in "King of New York", a far less ambitious film, but one that is more watchable than this one because it sticks to its strengths.