All my major points of criticism have already been covered at length by other reviewers, so I'm just going to say that I hate the constant dropping of f-bombs and other bad language.
Reviews
6 Reviews
Edge of America
(2004 TV Movie)
Seems like Eyre bit off more than he could chew
22 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Chris Eyre's movies are always interesting because he lets us glimpse into the lives of contemporary American Indians. "Edge of America" is no exception and therefore worth watching.
However, unfortunately, the story does not really explore any of the issues it touches on, such as inter-minority racism, lack of adequate housing on the reservation, economic problems, alcoholism and drug abuse, single parenting, teenage pregnancy, lack of perspectives for teenagers and all the related problems, cultural differences and resulting misunderstandings between minorities, and more.
It was not clear to me why the new English teacher - Kenny Williams - took the job in the first place. At some point he said he "needed to slow everything down", but I would have liked to learn more about his motivation to live and teach on an Indian reservation.
I was glad to see Wes Studi in a different role than that of the bad guy, and I enjoyed his exchanges with Mr. Williams, but I did not see a real connection between Mr. Williams and the girls and could not follow the change in their relationship that supposedly happened somewhere along the line.
However, unfortunately, the story does not really explore any of the issues it touches on, such as inter-minority racism, lack of adequate housing on the reservation, economic problems, alcoholism and drug abuse, single parenting, teenage pregnancy, lack of perspectives for teenagers and all the related problems, cultural differences and resulting misunderstandings between minorities, and more.
It was not clear to me why the new English teacher - Kenny Williams - took the job in the first place. At some point he said he "needed to slow everything down", but I would have liked to learn more about his motivation to live and teach on an Indian reservation.
I was glad to see Wes Studi in a different role than that of the bad guy, and I enjoyed his exchanges with Mr. Williams, but I did not see a real connection between Mr. Williams and the girls and could not follow the change in their relationship that supposedly happened somewhere along the line.
Big Bear
(1998– )
No need for loincloths and leggings
27 September 2007
This movie is the only one I've come across so far that is filmed entirely from the Indians' point of view.
The fact that the Natives speak English and the Whites gobbledygook makes it possible for the viewer to relate to them much better than in movies where they speak native languages. Brilliant idea!
I liked that the Indians were using "White" tools and clothes. There are many movies depicting the mid- to late 1800s in which whole tribes are clad entirely in buckskin, which is not realistic because by that time, Indians had been in contact with Whites for a good 300 years.
"Big Bear" proves that you don't need loincloths and leggings to tell a compelling story about historical Indians. You need convincing characters portrayed by good actors, and "Big Bear" has those - and more.
The fact that the Natives speak English and the Whites gobbledygook makes it possible for the viewer to relate to them much better than in movies where they speak native languages. Brilliant idea!
I liked that the Indians were using "White" tools and clothes. There are many movies depicting the mid- to late 1800s in which whole tribes are clad entirely in buckskin, which is not realistic because by that time, Indians had been in contact with Whites for a good 300 years.
"Big Bear" proves that you don't need loincloths and leggings to tell a compelling story about historical Indians. You need convincing characters portrayed by good actors, and "Big Bear" has those - and more.
The Education of Little Tree
(1997)
Same old, same old
25 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.
Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).
The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.
Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.
However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).
Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?
Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).
The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.
Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.
However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).
Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?
Stolen Women, Captured Hearts
(1997 TV Movie)
There are things wrong with this movie...
26 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
... but overall I can't help loving it - even though I'm not a fan of romance movies. At all! I never get tired of looking at Michael Greyeyes, though. :D
My main complaint about the story is that it doesn't take the time to develop the relationship between the main protagonists (instead, precious minutes are wasted on some goat-milk drinking cavalry fool with fake teeth.) One moment Anna is outraged by Tokalah's advances, the next moment he throws a blanket around her shoulders and she changes her mind. One moment she calls him an arrogant pompous fool, the next they're fused at the lips.
It's all a bit too fast and the ending too abrupt (how come she didn't need a map to find the Indian village?) and bewildering (what exactly happened to the village?), but oh well... I still like it!
My main complaint about the story is that it doesn't take the time to develop the relationship between the main protagonists (instead, precious minutes are wasted on some goat-milk drinking cavalry fool with fake teeth.) One moment Anna is outraged by Tokalah's advances, the next moment he throws a blanket around her shoulders and she changes her mind. One moment she calls him an arrogant pompous fool, the next they're fused at the lips.
It's all a bit too fast and the ending too abrupt (how come she didn't need a map to find the Indian village?) and bewildering (what exactly happened to the village?), but oh well... I still like it!
If only my vacuum cleaner sucked like this movie!
8 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First, let me say I understand that it is impossible to make any book into a movie without bending the storyline(s) and/or reducing subplots. This is especially true for books as complex as the Harry Potter series, and I think the director -or whoever makes those decisions- did a fairly good job stripping the "Goblet of Fire".
My complaints about this movie are not that the Dursley and Weasley family scenes were left out or that Crouch's son appeared in Harry's dream. I neither missed Winky, Dobby or S.P.E.W., nor the conversations between Snape and Karkaroff, nor Ludo Bagman or even Sirius (to name just a few). However, here are some of my peeves:
I disliked the movie because it: generally sacrificed character interaction and development for CGI action scenes; dragged things out to the point where they became boring (Harry getting chased by the dragon) or annoying (the prefects' bathroom scene); added completely unnecessary scenes (the performances by the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students or Neville's outburst at the lake); and made any interaction between the sexes look awkward, embarrassing, or ridiculous.
I disliked the movie because it portrayed Dumbledore as a raving lunatic; turned the miserable, mean squib Argus Filch into the plucky comic relief guy; and made Minerva McDonagall a dance instructor - to give just a few examples.
Last but not least I disliked the movie for its bad colors and lighting. Come on, people, it is not the absence of light that makes a movie "dark", it is the content!
My complaints about this movie are not that the Dursley and Weasley family scenes were left out or that Crouch's son appeared in Harry's dream. I neither missed Winky, Dobby or S.P.E.W., nor the conversations between Snape and Karkaroff, nor Ludo Bagman or even Sirius (to name just a few). However, here are some of my peeves:
I disliked the movie because it: generally sacrificed character interaction and development for CGI action scenes; dragged things out to the point where they became boring (Harry getting chased by the dragon) or annoying (the prefects' bathroom scene); added completely unnecessary scenes (the performances by the Beauxbatons and Durmstrang students or Neville's outburst at the lake); and made any interaction between the sexes look awkward, embarrassing, or ridiculous.
I disliked the movie because it portrayed Dumbledore as a raving lunatic; turned the miserable, mean squib Argus Filch into the plucky comic relief guy; and made Minerva McDonagall a dance instructor - to give just a few examples.
Last but not least I disliked the movie for its bad colors and lighting. Come on, people, it is not the absence of light that makes a movie "dark", it is the content!
Tell Your Friends