Change Your Image
kmac1313
Reviews
Steal This Movie (2000)
... No put it back!!!
First I have to ask, Vincent, what were you going for with that accent, New Yawk, Bahston, Joisey? Sounded like a combination of all but it distracted me from your dialogue. Should have just played Vincent playing Abby.
Second, there was a review here that should be removed as the guy that wrote it is so off base I think he saw a different movie. Dude, FYI. it's Jerry Lefcourt. Look into it.
Third, Abby was kicked (really he was kicked) off the stage at Woodstock by Townsend during the Who performance. Abby was the type of guy you wanted to kick. He was all about Abby.
This film is a romanticism of the truth. Don't steal it; steal Medium Cool instead.
Adaptation. (2002)
The Garden Weasled!
How sad. The movie bloomed when we were showed the orchids and their history along with the quests or the plight of all the collectors. Then the film became a weed.
More time could have been spent on the misfortune of early collectors, on the fascination of the flowers, flower shows, Seminoles, swamps by people possessing the passion of the Orchid thief. The part with the bee "making love" to a flower in its image was very cool as well as the part about the Darwin's Moth.
LaRouche was great as well but Charles should have kept himself out of the garden as his writers block left him putting everything he did want to put in a movie into his screenplay.
Wasted opportunity for what could have been a very unique film. Too bad as he said he wanted a movie about flowers. He had the right idea.
Theeviravaathi: The Terrorist (1998)
Malli? or should it be called Malo!
Careful -- there could be a comment here that maybe a spoiler.
I only mention the spoiler as I believe this film should carry the "buyer beware" label as I believe some scenes have been edited out so it could show in Chicago (where I saw this film). I am unsure of the print that showed as I think I never saw the entire film. Scenes appeared to be "blacked out" -- scenes that were probably important to the film ending. Yet let's press on (caution: spoiler comment in forth paragraph).
This could have been a good film but the sound editing is terrible. The sound of water and breathing distracts you as it dominates in almost every scene. It becomes annoying; however, the music sound track is very good. The story does has movement and is helped along by the music score as it builds to the climax. Yet be prepared to be left..... hanging. (spoiler comment below)
I can only guess what was edited out (my guess was a visual destruction that Chicago audiences may have found disturbing). The editing, in fact, ruined the film for me as the black outs came at the climax. If an American viewing (or Chicago) was going to be a problem for the film they should have inserted a stock shot or kept tight on Malli's face.
It had potential as a good Indie but the poor sound recording and poor editing caused me to think "malo" instead of "Malli - si! - muy bueno".
Happiness (1998)
Unhappy about Happiness
Films are made to entertain. This one does not - in fact it could have been made far better using voyeurism (David Lynch does it well in Blue Velvet). Was this film made because it now can be? Is it Shock for the sake of Shock? After seeing this and "Doll House" I am convinced this director has or had in his youth a peeping tom view of the world we know exists but for some reason he enjoys it wide screen large and in our face. I believe he was turned on making Happiness and also hopes to titillate a select audience - an audience who enjoys seeing others transgress or emotionally tortured. I believed the director enjoyed it when the loving Happiness wife found out about her sick husband and their worlds crumbled and also when the lonely teacher character, after being used, emerges in a warped way as the winning loser? Is the point being that those that appear as winners are rarely while those that appear as losers are, through their inner strength, comfort and acceptance of their station, after all, winners? I guess.