I do not wait to eat the entire cake before I know if it is any good and that I enjoy it, do you? I don't stuff my face full of mouthfuls of dry, sawdust tasting frosting while I wait to see if there is a hidden treat in the midst of the baked mound. Do you? I like to enjoy what I do and what I watch while I am doing it and while I am watching it. Call me old fashioned.
Reviews
31 Reviews
Go
(1999)
boring, shallow
22 April 1999
Go is one of the most boring and shallow films I've ever seen. Perhaps a better word is hollow. I'm beginning to wonder if it's even possible for the Gen Y crowd to produce sincere art. Cynicism and irony, detachment, etc.. We're too self-aware and films like this in particular are just STRAINING to be cool. It's an Empire Records like aura, but with more coitus and flashing lights. I've never been accused of being a sycophant so I can call this film what it is: a weak, affected waste of time. If you don't know what affected means, look it up.
I enjoyed Trainspotting and I selectively enjoy Tarantino, so I have no qualms with the style or subject matter. But Go brings to mind a film called Swimming With Sharks, starring Kevin Spacey, about a Hollywood studio executive and the rampant cynicism pervading the movie industry. Go is the sort of film they talk about throwing out there "for the kiddies." It just strikes me as being so cynical. Perform an autopsy on this film and you'll find it has no organs. It's a waste of time, and in my view, an indictment of my peers that it's getting rave reviews.
I enjoyed Trainspotting and I selectively enjoy Tarantino, so I have no qualms with the style or subject matter. But Go brings to mind a film called Swimming With Sharks, starring Kevin Spacey, about a Hollywood studio executive and the rampant cynicism pervading the movie industry. Go is the sort of film they talk about throwing out there "for the kiddies." It just strikes me as being so cynical. Perform an autopsy on this film and you'll find it has no organs. It's a waste of time, and in my view, an indictment of my peers that it's getting rave reviews.
The Mosquito Coast
(1986)
wandering aimlessly upstream
20 April 1999
The Mosquito Coast is an odd film. It attempts to talk about issues which are important and which few films address, fails to communicate them clearly, yet isn't sucked into the maelstrom of moralizing and sententiousness that films like this almost inevitably enter. Instead, it occupies some sort of odd middle ground of ambiguity and murkiness. One gets the feeling that the film is a lot like the Fox family: they know they're going upstream but they have no specific destination, and some of them really aren't sure why they're going there in the first place.
I felt from the very beginning that the film failed to define its ideals or set a sense of clear direction. Harrison Ford, in a performance which I found unconvincing (perhaps because of the inability of the film to articulate what motivated him), rambles on about everything from the Japanese to nuclear war. There's a large difference between subtlety, i.e. not spelling things out for the viewer, and incoherence. This was incoherent. We know that he's unhappy with America, but I don't know what he's really looking for, what motivates him, etc.. Maybe he doesn't know. But if that's the case, it should be made clear.
A good example of how this plays out is his attempt to bring ice to the "noble savages." Why does he do this? Because "ice is civilization." But why does he want to bring them civilization? It seemed to me that civilization was something he was having a lot of problems with. I assume that the novel explained this more clearly and the film failed to translate properly. He of course stated earlier in the film that the savages would probably think ice a sort of jewel. So? Why does this matter? Is he looking for lost innocence?
Then later in the film "Mother" says she wishes to go to Mr. Haddy's place. He responds "And live like savages?" I can only assume that he wishes to establish some sort of elementary civilization where a small community lives in peace and harmony. Or perhaps he's just looking to withdraw from everyone, as his spurning of Mr. Haddy's gifts would show. Also, a possible literary reference is the name of their craft, Victory, which is the name of a very dull Joseph Conrad novel about a man who withdraws from life and goes to live on an island. Extreme misanthropy? Unlikely.
A possible light at the end is his talk about man not being made to walk upright. Is he looking for some sort of return to primal existence? But then why invent air conditioning in Geronimo? It all adds up to a very disorganized mess, both in Mr. Fox's head, and on screen. The Mosquito Coast is like a puzzle that still has all the pieces, but rather than fit them together, Weir just threw them all in the box and let us look at them.
I felt from the very beginning that the film failed to define its ideals or set a sense of clear direction. Harrison Ford, in a performance which I found unconvincing (perhaps because of the inability of the film to articulate what motivated him), rambles on about everything from the Japanese to nuclear war. There's a large difference between subtlety, i.e. not spelling things out for the viewer, and incoherence. This was incoherent. We know that he's unhappy with America, but I don't know what he's really looking for, what motivates him, etc.. Maybe he doesn't know. But if that's the case, it should be made clear.
A good example of how this plays out is his attempt to bring ice to the "noble savages." Why does he do this? Because "ice is civilization." But why does he want to bring them civilization? It seemed to me that civilization was something he was having a lot of problems with. I assume that the novel explained this more clearly and the film failed to translate properly. He of course stated earlier in the film that the savages would probably think ice a sort of jewel. So? Why does this matter? Is he looking for lost innocence?
Then later in the film "Mother" says she wishes to go to Mr. Haddy's place. He responds "And live like savages?" I can only assume that he wishes to establish some sort of elementary civilization where a small community lives in peace and harmony. Or perhaps he's just looking to withdraw from everyone, as his spurning of Mr. Haddy's gifts would show. Also, a possible literary reference is the name of their craft, Victory, which is the name of a very dull Joseph Conrad novel about a man who withdraws from life and goes to live on an island. Extreme misanthropy? Unlikely.
A possible light at the end is his talk about man not being made to walk upright. Is he looking for some sort of return to primal existence? But then why invent air conditioning in Geronimo? It all adds up to a very disorganized mess, both in Mr. Fox's head, and on screen. The Mosquito Coast is like a puzzle that still has all the pieces, but rather than fit them together, Weir just threw them all in the box and let us look at them.
The Spanish Prisoner
(1997)
Completely Inane
12 April 1999
Well, if they learned one thing from making this film, I hope it's that Mamet should never sit in a director's chair again. I'm not prejudiced against Mamet. I like some of his films, particularly Glengarry Glen Ross, which is actually one of my favorites. But The Spanish Prisoner plays and sounds like a high school production. Literally.
I cannot for the life of me understand how this film can be called intelligent. Yes, it does not rely on violence, sex, swearing, drugs, alcohol, traffic violations, or even jaywalking to at least make it interesting. So call it a moral film, whatever that means. Oh, yes, it has a "plot." I assume that is why it's called intelligent.
I sat through this "plot" not knowing a thing about the film and I could see and hear the twists coming like I was tied to a post watching a host of bison pounding impending death into my ears. Plus it had more holes in it than a room full of acupuncture patients.
To begin, the editing was AWFUL, particularly the initial 30 minutes. Typically, when two characters walk into a room, it really does look like they were engrossed in conversation before walking in front of the camera. But in TSP, it looks like Mamet had just given the go ahead to roll tape. It played like it was made up of strips of paper cut up with scissors and then glued together. There might as well have been a speedbump noise every time there was a scene change.
And the dialogue?! What is even more discouraging than the abysmal quality of most films coming out now is when we're sold a piece of goods and people are convinced that it's intelligent. At least with the first problem, we're merely disgruntled. With the second, we're delusional. I find that depressing. So this film depressed me for that reason.
How contrived TSP is is metaphorically represented by the prime element of its plot structure: "The System." OK? I don't mind vague points. But this is just lazy. Why couldn't he just have made it top-secret information which could be used for insider trading? Or information about a revolutionary new product? The plot of Episode I: The Phantom Menace? Mamet may be acclaimed as a "genius," but he has to do more than throw out a script with a twist to have me sacrificing my first-born to his word processor.
I will grant you that art is not life. That said, it should not be more artificial than artifice requires. If Mamet hopes to continue holding an audience made up of more than sophomoric dilettantes, he should take some advice from another author. The "overdone or come tardy off," though it might impress some, "cannot but make the judicious grieve." Reform it altogether, David.
I cannot for the life of me understand how this film can be called intelligent. Yes, it does not rely on violence, sex, swearing, drugs, alcohol, traffic violations, or even jaywalking to at least make it interesting. So call it a moral film, whatever that means. Oh, yes, it has a "plot." I assume that is why it's called intelligent.
I sat through this "plot" not knowing a thing about the film and I could see and hear the twists coming like I was tied to a post watching a host of bison pounding impending death into my ears. Plus it had more holes in it than a room full of acupuncture patients.
To begin, the editing was AWFUL, particularly the initial 30 minutes. Typically, when two characters walk into a room, it really does look like they were engrossed in conversation before walking in front of the camera. But in TSP, it looks like Mamet had just given the go ahead to roll tape. It played like it was made up of strips of paper cut up with scissors and then glued together. There might as well have been a speedbump noise every time there was a scene change.
And the dialogue?! What is even more discouraging than the abysmal quality of most films coming out now is when we're sold a piece of goods and people are convinced that it's intelligent. At least with the first problem, we're merely disgruntled. With the second, we're delusional. I find that depressing. So this film depressed me for that reason.
How contrived TSP is is metaphorically represented by the prime element of its plot structure: "The System." OK? I don't mind vague points. But this is just lazy. Why couldn't he just have made it top-secret information which could be used for insider trading? Or information about a revolutionary new product? The plot of Episode I: The Phantom Menace? Mamet may be acclaimed as a "genius," but he has to do more than throw out a script with a twist to have me sacrificing my first-born to his word processor.
I will grant you that art is not life. That said, it should not be more artificial than artifice requires. If Mamet hopes to continue holding an audience made up of more than sophomoric dilettantes, he should take some advice from another author. The "overdone or come tardy off," though it might impress some, "cannot but make the judicious grieve." Reform it altogether, David.
The Matrix
(1999)
at last, something I can recommend
2 April 1999
The first 45 minutes of this film had me very excited. It is so rare that I will go to the theater and be presented with something which is both original and intelligent. It managed to hang in there throughout, though the ending was too formulaic. In addition, the voice-over at the very end reminded me of the final scene in Saving Private Ryan. It almost ruins a fantastic film.
The only other objection I can come up with is that the you must know, you must be type philosophy being handed out was just a tad hokey. I must pleasantly admit though, since I don't get to admit this very often, that The Matrix is worth seeing despite these things.
The visuals are extremely impressive, particularly the "white room," the baby harvester, the training scene with the "red woman," the Reeves interrogation scene... I have to agree with some of the previous comments that the plot idea won't seem overly original to a fan of Philip K Dick, but then what is original after you've read him? The Matrix has more original things to say than two months worth of standard Hollywood fare. I have a great deal of respect for a film which will have someone say "they're turning humans into this" and hold up a battery. A plot which looks at man as machine will get a thumbs up from me just for trying.
I feel some hope for the future of movie-making in America to be able to recommend this film.
The only other objection I can come up with is that the you must know, you must be type philosophy being handed out was just a tad hokey. I must pleasantly admit though, since I don't get to admit this very often, that The Matrix is worth seeing despite these things.
The visuals are extremely impressive, particularly the "white room," the baby harvester, the training scene with the "red woman," the Reeves interrogation scene... I have to agree with some of the previous comments that the plot idea won't seem overly original to a fan of Philip K Dick, but then what is original after you've read him? The Matrix has more original things to say than two months worth of standard Hollywood fare. I have a great deal of respect for a film which will have someone say "they're turning humans into this" and hold up a battery. A plot which looks at man as machine will get a thumbs up from me just for trying.
I feel some hope for the future of movie-making in America to be able to recommend this film.
Analyze This
(1999)
why the rave reviews?
2 April 1999
The laughs are few and far between. Analyze This is not subtle, it's not intelligent, it's _not even FUNNY_. I wasn't expecting a brilliant piece of work, but THIS is receiving rave reviews?
Crystal needs his own personal director or else some sort of mental strait-jacket so that he learns that there is a point where less is more. He has a few good lines, but for the most part is merely obnoxious. The last scene with the mob bosses is one of the most embarrassing scenes I've ever watched. Why is it even in the film? It looks to me like it's simply a chance for Crystal to do a bit of stand-up on his own, but it's so bad that you want to take him out behind the barn and end his misery.
I'm a huge DeNiro fan and I find even his performance disappointing. His popular crying scenes are really not that great. They look, dare I say it about the great Robert, poorly acted. I wanted to laugh but it just wasn't there. His "you, you" thing was old the first time he used it. With his track record a miss is allowable. With Crystal it's expected. He should stick to making kid's films about giant actors and such things.
If you want to see a really good comedy in this vein, try Grosse Pointe Blank, about a hitman going to his 10-year high school reunion. It's witty, intelligent, and well-acted. But avoid Analyze This, even if you're a DeNiro fan. If you're a fan of Crystal, well, your expectations of intelligent life have probably been lowered to the paramecium level anyway. So enjoy.
Crystal needs his own personal director or else some sort of mental strait-jacket so that he learns that there is a point where less is more. He has a few good lines, but for the most part is merely obnoxious. The last scene with the mob bosses is one of the most embarrassing scenes I've ever watched. Why is it even in the film? It looks to me like it's simply a chance for Crystal to do a bit of stand-up on his own, but it's so bad that you want to take him out behind the barn and end his misery.
I'm a huge DeNiro fan and I find even his performance disappointing. His popular crying scenes are really not that great. They look, dare I say it about the great Robert, poorly acted. I wanted to laugh but it just wasn't there. His "you, you" thing was old the first time he used it. With his track record a miss is allowable. With Crystal it's expected. He should stick to making kid's films about giant actors and such things.
If you want to see a really good comedy in this vein, try Grosse Pointe Blank, about a hitman going to his 10-year high school reunion. It's witty, intelligent, and well-acted. But avoid Analyze This, even if you're a DeNiro fan. If you're a fan of Crystal, well, your expectations of intelligent life have probably been lowered to the paramecium level anyway. So enjoy.
Glengarry Glen Ross
(1992)
enthralling
25 March 1999
This film is perfect. I give out 10s about as often as Stanley Kubrick made films, and Glengarry Glen Ross is one of them.
There is so much more in this film than just a bunch of guys in a real estate office. I'm puzzled, as an aside, why the language is considered such a big deal. There is less of it in GGR than in the average DeNiro film I watch. Maybe it's because the film is composed of almost nothing but dialogue.
Back to the content. GGR contains at least two, maybe three of my favorite performances by anyone. Baldwin, who I really don't like, is perfect. Lemmon is excruciatingly good, and Pacino actually makes me forget who I'm watching. He really sinks into his character. Pryce also gives a commendable performance.
For those who didn't get this film, who think it's just dark and pointless, here's the point. The title is Glengarry Glen Ross. If you listen to the conversations you will notice that the Glengarry leads are the new leads, the ones given to closers, the leads given to those who go out and squeeze as much money out of people as they can so they don't lose their jobs.
Glen Ross farms are talked about in a brilliantly written conversation between Ed Harris and Alan Arkin, the one when Harris orders donuts and Arkin keeps repeating back to him what he said. "..Boots, yes." In that conversation, Harris talks about what he learned when he first got into the sales racket. You don't sell one car to a guy, you sell him 5 cars over fifteen years. But, he says, those guys who come in and burn everyone for as much money as they can get and then go to Argentina ruined a good thing. The drive to win the Cadillac had ruined the ideal of maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship between customer and salesman. Sharks like Baldwin came in, made their millions, and left a wasteland for the "losers" to work in.
The film is about how business in America is war, and about how the drive for capital has ultimately dehumanized us. The strongest contrast is between Baldwin and Lemmon. Baldwin is a machine. Everything in his life, his very identity, is defined by the fact that his watch cost more than a "loser's" car. "Family man? Go home and play with your kids." "A loser is always a loser." His name is that he drives a BMW.
With Lemmon, pay attention to the brief references to his daughter. The man is desperate to make money, not only to keep his job, but to pay for his daughter's medical treatment. A very human thing.
Eventually, these men prey not only on customers, but on each other. It's vicious. If you don't understand why, all you'll see is the viciousness, and you probably won't enjoy the film.
There is so much more in this film than just a bunch of guys in a real estate office. I'm puzzled, as an aside, why the language is considered such a big deal. There is less of it in GGR than in the average DeNiro film I watch. Maybe it's because the film is composed of almost nothing but dialogue.
Back to the content. GGR contains at least two, maybe three of my favorite performances by anyone. Baldwin, who I really don't like, is perfect. Lemmon is excruciatingly good, and Pacino actually makes me forget who I'm watching. He really sinks into his character. Pryce also gives a commendable performance.
For those who didn't get this film, who think it's just dark and pointless, here's the point. The title is Glengarry Glen Ross. If you listen to the conversations you will notice that the Glengarry leads are the new leads, the ones given to closers, the leads given to those who go out and squeeze as much money out of people as they can so they don't lose their jobs.
Glen Ross farms are talked about in a brilliantly written conversation between Ed Harris and Alan Arkin, the one when Harris orders donuts and Arkin keeps repeating back to him what he said. "..Boots, yes." In that conversation, Harris talks about what he learned when he first got into the sales racket. You don't sell one car to a guy, you sell him 5 cars over fifteen years. But, he says, those guys who come in and burn everyone for as much money as they can get and then go to Argentina ruined a good thing. The drive to win the Cadillac had ruined the ideal of maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship between customer and salesman. Sharks like Baldwin came in, made their millions, and left a wasteland for the "losers" to work in.
The film is about how business in America is war, and about how the drive for capital has ultimately dehumanized us. The strongest contrast is between Baldwin and Lemmon. Baldwin is a machine. Everything in his life, his very identity, is defined by the fact that his watch cost more than a "loser's" car. "Family man? Go home and play with your kids." "A loser is always a loser." His name is that he drives a BMW.
With Lemmon, pay attention to the brief references to his daughter. The man is desperate to make money, not only to keep his job, but to pay for his daughter's medical treatment. A very human thing.
Eventually, these men prey not only on customers, but on each other. It's vicious. If you don't understand why, all you'll see is the viciousness, and you probably won't enjoy the film.
Kafka
(1991)
disappointing
24 March 1999
If you're an actual fan of Kafka, I would recommend steering clear of this one. If you're not, then I would say that this is the kind of film that people watch and say, "Wow, that's the kind of movie that makes you think," which is one of the dumbest things I think that can be said about a film. Such films, I have found, tend to bring up rather crude and elementary ideas and toss them out as something profound. (If a film really does make you think, you don't say so, because you probably watch films like that all the time anyway. So a movie which doesn't have the soundtrack running every 30 seconds is not new to you). If you think that Orwell's 1984 is a profound book, then you'll think this movie is enjoyable. If you know better, then you probably won't.
I didn't find Kafka (the film) very engaging at all. It did not make many attempts at subtle references to his works, which would have been fun at least. The closest we get is two assistants working for him in his office (The Castle), and Irons at one point is asked what he's working on and says a book about a man who wakes up to find himself turned into an insect. Of course there's the castle in the movie, etc.., but these are so obvious that they're dull. Small references to his life are also made, such as his asking Brod to destroy his works, he starts coughing up blood at the end, etc..
Kafka the film is like a decent landscape painter's works, you look at them, say oh that's nice, and move on to the next one. They lack the profound melancholy of a Friedrich, or the tempestuous battle of the elements, as in a Turner. Something within the soul of the artist which infuses his work with a meaning deeper than a mere reproduction of nature or his social environment.
What's missing in Kafka the film is what makes Kafka the author appealing. His books are not simple lessons about the dangers of totalitarianism or any such easily conjured up enemy. It's the existential torment of the protagonist which is so captivating. Whether Kafka is struggling with God, or authority, or bureaucracy, or modernity, is fun to bat around, but not the essential point.
The film is sophomoric, because rather than focus on or depict this struggle, it turns Kafka into some sort of prophet waging war against ideological biology and the democratization of mankind's soul. Can you read that into him? Perhaps. But don't turn an incredibly unique and profound author into a neo-Marxist political science major writing for the college newspaper.
What disturbed me the most about the film was that they had the gall to go into the castle and explain to you what was inside. The whole point of Kafka's work is that we DIDN'T KNOW what was going on there. So we get ushered into the castle and given an 8th grade ethics class. Pathetic.
I didn't find Kafka (the film) very engaging at all. It did not make many attempts at subtle references to his works, which would have been fun at least. The closest we get is two assistants working for him in his office (The Castle), and Irons at one point is asked what he's working on and says a book about a man who wakes up to find himself turned into an insect. Of course there's the castle in the movie, etc.., but these are so obvious that they're dull. Small references to his life are also made, such as his asking Brod to destroy his works, he starts coughing up blood at the end, etc..
Kafka the film is like a decent landscape painter's works, you look at them, say oh that's nice, and move on to the next one. They lack the profound melancholy of a Friedrich, or the tempestuous battle of the elements, as in a Turner. Something within the soul of the artist which infuses his work with a meaning deeper than a mere reproduction of nature or his social environment.
What's missing in Kafka the film is what makes Kafka the author appealing. His books are not simple lessons about the dangers of totalitarianism or any such easily conjured up enemy. It's the existential torment of the protagonist which is so captivating. Whether Kafka is struggling with God, or authority, or bureaucracy, or modernity, is fun to bat around, but not the essential point.
The film is sophomoric, because rather than focus on or depict this struggle, it turns Kafka into some sort of prophet waging war against ideological biology and the democratization of mankind's soul. Can you read that into him? Perhaps. But don't turn an incredibly unique and profound author into a neo-Marxist political science major writing for the college newspaper.
What disturbed me the most about the film was that they had the gall to go into the castle and explain to you what was inside. The whole point of Kafka's work is that we DIDN'T KNOW what was going on there. So we get ushered into the castle and given an 8th grade ethics class. Pathetic.
Mindwalk
(1990)
makes Leni Riefenstahl look like Woody Allen
24 March 1999
Did I tell you that I REALLY care about the future of our planet? I mean, really, really, care?
Madonna stated this past year that there is a thin line between genius and BS. May I also observe that there is an equally thin line between art with a message and propaganda. If you don't know how to tell the difference, ask yourself if you feel like you've been presented with a tool for you to pick up, or a puzzle for you to figure out, or a symphony to sit back and enjoy, or if you've just been beaten over the head for a couple of hours.
Mindwalk makes Riefenstahl's documentaries of the Nazi years look subtle and clever. And that was propaganda at its finest. Mindwalk is pompous and sententious, condescension dressed up as earnestness. Liv should have taken a hint from her character in Persona and not said anything for the whole film, except "No, don't!"
Madonna stated this past year that there is a thin line between genius and BS. May I also observe that there is an equally thin line between art with a message and propaganda. If you don't know how to tell the difference, ask yourself if you feel like you've been presented with a tool for you to pick up, or a puzzle for you to figure out, or a symphony to sit back and enjoy, or if you've just been beaten over the head for a couple of hours.
Mindwalk makes Riefenstahl's documentaries of the Nazi years look subtle and clever. And that was propaganda at its finest. Mindwalk is pompous and sententious, condescension dressed up as earnestness. Liv should have taken a hint from her character in Persona and not said anything for the whole film, except "No, don't!"
Ronin
(1998)
better the second time
21 March 1999
For its genre, Ronin is a good film. I don't think it's quite fair to criticize it for what it is not, such as saying that it's a poor film because there are movies out there with better car chases.
I saw it at the theatre and thought it was OK, saw it on video expecting to be more disappointed, and actually liked it better the second time.
I don't think the plot is as difficult to understand as some might claim. I had no trouble following it. Whether or not it's credible, well, how many action films are? It's credible enough for me to watch it and not say is this ever stupid. That's about all that I look for in an action film, sorry to say.
I actually enjoyed the dialogue for the most part. DeNiro and Reno in particular were solid. The film did begin to fade towards the end, especially once everyone was in the skating arena. I appreciated Frankenheimer showing as much of France as he did. That was a bonus.
So, yes, I could point to a number of flaws in Ronin. But, perhaps because of my low esteem for action films overall, I would say it's a worthwhile watch if you're an action fan, or a DeNiro fan, as I am.
I saw it at the theatre and thought it was OK, saw it on video expecting to be more disappointed, and actually liked it better the second time.
I don't think the plot is as difficult to understand as some might claim. I had no trouble following it. Whether or not it's credible, well, how many action films are? It's credible enough for me to watch it and not say is this ever stupid. That's about all that I look for in an action film, sorry to say.
I actually enjoyed the dialogue for the most part. DeNiro and Reno in particular were solid. The film did begin to fade towards the end, especially once everyone was in the skating arena. I appreciated Frankenheimer showing as much of France as he did. That was a bonus.
So, yes, I could point to a number of flaws in Ronin. But, perhaps because of my low esteem for action films overall, I would say it's a worthwhile watch if you're an action fan, or a DeNiro fan, as I am.
Pather Panchali
(1955)
masterpiece
20 March 1999
What a wonderful film. For those who have not watched any films from India or heard of Ray, I strongly recommend it. Full of sadness, hope, innocence, and despair, it is an emotionally evocative portrait of the life of an Indian family, their trials, and their courage and persistence throughout. They go on, not because they are exceptional, but because they must, because they are human.
Ray does a masterful job of capturing the simple joys of childhood, and the ambitions and dreams which make us all human, regardless of where we are. Simple scenes such as a disfigured elderly woman seated on a porch, singing of her approaching death, are very moving. I have never seen the basic elements of life treated with such an incisive yet soft touch as Ray has in this film. It is wonderful to watch in comparison to the broad writing strokes and vulgar generalities of most directing and writing today. At the risk of sounding trite, this is a film which is not merely entertainment or art, but one which reaches into your heart and makes a place for itself there. It belongs there.
Ray does a masterful job of capturing the simple joys of childhood, and the ambitions and dreams which make us all human, regardless of where we are. Simple scenes such as a disfigured elderly woman seated on a porch, singing of her approaching death, are very moving. I have never seen the basic elements of life treated with such an incisive yet soft touch as Ray has in this film. It is wonderful to watch in comparison to the broad writing strokes and vulgar generalities of most directing and writing today. At the risk of sounding trite, this is a film which is not merely entertainment or art, but one which reaches into your heart and makes a place for itself there. It belongs there.
Hamlet
(1996)
moderately cloying
16 March 1999
I enjoyed this film immensely when it came out, going to it five times while it was still in theatres. A much better way to spend an evening than watching the retread scifi thriller material out at the time.
I have to admit though that after seeing it again a few times on video it doesn't have the same attraction for me that it originally did. As film, it's solid. The settings are wonderful, and I admire the desire to produce the entire play unedited.
I don't enjoy the acting as much as I first did. In the case of Branagh, that may be merely a matter of personal taste. I would prefer a less garrulous Hamlet. Obviously, since all actors of Hamlet are working from the same script, unless edited, this is dependent entirely on the manner in which they portray the character. I find Branagh's performance a bit cloying, and far too over the top in some cases.
In addition, some of the cameos are distracting. Heston and Crystal I enjoy, but Williams, and particularly Lemmon, are annoying. The others, Attenborough et al, are fine.
While I can't give Hamlet a whole-hearted recommendation, I have to say that it far surpasses the trite commercialism of all the new "greatest films of all time" which have come out over the last few years. That's a phrase being used far too often now, revealing a lack of familiarity with the great films of the past. In that sense, I admire Mr. Branagh's desire to bring great drama to the screen, and hope that he meets with continued success in the future.
I have to admit though that after seeing it again a few times on video it doesn't have the same attraction for me that it originally did. As film, it's solid. The settings are wonderful, and I admire the desire to produce the entire play unedited.
I don't enjoy the acting as much as I first did. In the case of Branagh, that may be merely a matter of personal taste. I would prefer a less garrulous Hamlet. Obviously, since all actors of Hamlet are working from the same script, unless edited, this is dependent entirely on the manner in which they portray the character. I find Branagh's performance a bit cloying, and far too over the top in some cases.
In addition, some of the cameos are distracting. Heston and Crystal I enjoy, but Williams, and particularly Lemmon, are annoying. The others, Attenborough et al, are fine.
While I can't give Hamlet a whole-hearted recommendation, I have to say that it far surpasses the trite commercialism of all the new "greatest films of all time" which have come out over the last few years. That's a phrase being used far too often now, revealing a lack of familiarity with the great films of the past. In that sense, I admire Mr. Branagh's desire to bring great drama to the screen, and hope that he meets with continued success in the future.
The Deer Hunter
(1978)
an amateur's masterpiece
16 March 1999
I'm a big DeNiro fan and since The Deer Hunter is a Best Picture winner as well as a DeNiro flick, I thought I'd enjoy it. I did, sort of. It definitely could have been better.
In particular, the infamous wedding scene. I have no problem with long scenes: I'm a Tarkovsky fan. But they must have a point, either character development, or else setting a mood. As I see it, the wedding scene did neither. It could have been cut much shorter without losing any of its effect, and that time could have been used to give greater insight into the life of the town and the relationships between Walken, DeNiro, Streep et al.
So the wedding finally ends, and almost instantly we're plunged into Vietnam and into "the scene." I didn't clock it, but I would bet that the wedding lasted almost as long or longer than their entire actual war experience. What was Cimino thinking? He was obviously striving for some sort of jarring contrast, but it didn't work at all. It just seemed sloppy to me. It was like a B-grade Coppola ripoff followed by something from an entirely different film, like Cimino had been watching TV and changed channels while taping. I understand that that was the point. It just wasn't done well.
Then the rest of the film is based on the trauma of Vietnam and how this affected the characters. That's fine, but it's built on just one scene. It's a tribute to "the scene" that this works at all. It is very poor writing and editing though in my opinion.
The remainder of the film is enjoyable, though ponderous at times, particularly the hunting scene. I did appreciate the treatment of DeNiro coming home. Excellent understatement. Just showing him having conversations with his friends, asking how they're doing, and having them say Oh same as always was fantastic. It wasn't sententious or melodramatic. Kudos on that.
The Deer Hunter seems like a half-finished sculpture. There are beautifully chiselled sections broken up by large chunks of untouched rock. The effect is very uneven. I guess the best way to sum it up is inconsistently poignant.
While The Deer Hunter is a solid film, it's not the best Vietnam movie, as it can't compare to the inexorable emotional intensity of Apocalypse Now, nor am I certain it was even the best movie of its year.
In particular, the infamous wedding scene. I have no problem with long scenes: I'm a Tarkovsky fan. But they must have a point, either character development, or else setting a mood. As I see it, the wedding scene did neither. It could have been cut much shorter without losing any of its effect, and that time could have been used to give greater insight into the life of the town and the relationships between Walken, DeNiro, Streep et al.
So the wedding finally ends, and almost instantly we're plunged into Vietnam and into "the scene." I didn't clock it, but I would bet that the wedding lasted almost as long or longer than their entire actual war experience. What was Cimino thinking? He was obviously striving for some sort of jarring contrast, but it didn't work at all. It just seemed sloppy to me. It was like a B-grade Coppola ripoff followed by something from an entirely different film, like Cimino had been watching TV and changed channels while taping. I understand that that was the point. It just wasn't done well.
Then the rest of the film is based on the trauma of Vietnam and how this affected the characters. That's fine, but it's built on just one scene. It's a tribute to "the scene" that this works at all. It is very poor writing and editing though in my opinion.
The remainder of the film is enjoyable, though ponderous at times, particularly the hunting scene. I did appreciate the treatment of DeNiro coming home. Excellent understatement. Just showing him having conversations with his friends, asking how they're doing, and having them say Oh same as always was fantastic. It wasn't sententious or melodramatic. Kudos on that.
The Deer Hunter seems like a half-finished sculpture. There are beautifully chiselled sections broken up by large chunks of untouched rock. The effect is very uneven. I guess the best way to sum it up is inconsistently poignant.
While The Deer Hunter is a solid film, it's not the best Vietnam movie, as it can't compare to the inexorable emotional intensity of Apocalypse Now, nor am I certain it was even the best movie of its year.
Persona
(1966)
alluring
16 March 1999
I have not seen a film which is more metaphorically protean than Persona. Obviously the original title declared it an analysis of what film is. But I think Persona works on a smaller scale as well, depicting how the artist interacts with society, as well as the interplay between the various aspects of the artist's inner life. The various perspectives do blend together, but there's more here than just a depiction of what cinema is and is not.
Great performances by a pair of very beautiful and talented women, Ullmann and Andersson. Great cinematography as well. I particularly enjoy the shot of Andersson with her sunglasses on, leaning back against a white wall. Also the night scene with the two doors where Ullmann walks into Andersson's room wearing a white gown. The unadorned simplicity of the various settings is also enjoyable.
The more I watch Bergman the more I appreciate his analysis of the polarization of modern existence, the vast gulfs which separate us from ourselves, from others, from God, and his belief that love is what can close those gaps. Some may find him depressing, but I always come away from his films hopeful. Persona gets a very rare 10 from me.
Great performances by a pair of very beautiful and talented women, Ullmann and Andersson. Great cinematography as well. I particularly enjoy the shot of Andersson with her sunglasses on, leaning back against a white wall. Also the night scene with the two doors where Ullmann walks into Andersson's room wearing a white gown. The unadorned simplicity of the various settings is also enjoyable.
The more I watch Bergman the more I appreciate his analysis of the polarization of modern existence, the vast gulfs which separate us from ourselves, from others, from God, and his belief that love is what can close those gaps. Some may find him depressing, but I always come away from his films hopeful. Persona gets a very rare 10 from me.
The Siege
(1998)
How to Moralize with a Sledgehammer
15 March 1999
I rarely go into theatres with any sense of expectation. I tend not to let reviews affect my judgment. I do prefer thoughtful films, I'm more of a drama fan than an action fan. So when I went to see The Siege I wasn't set for a great action film, or lots of explosions. I had not read any reviews, so I didn't know much about the film.
I loathed it. Intensely. I hated it so much that I actually threw popcorn at the screen, which I had never done before. I'm not kidding. The response from the people being attacked with me was enthusiastic, so that gives you some indication of what the film is like, if you haven't yet been subjected to it.
My reaction had nothing to do with "racism," or lack of action, which non-Americans seem to assume is the only thing keeping the Yankees spending money on cinema. The Siege is one of the better examples of how film makers today feel it necessary to subject you to Clockwork Orange type treatment in order to make a moral, intellectual, or political point. I felt like the old man in Kurosawa's "Ran", sitting in the castle looking haggard and horrified, my mind under siege.
I don't mind unlikely, inventive plots. But please, let them be intelligent, and show some respect for the viewer. I'm tired of being condescended to whenever I go to a movie, so much so that I decided, since I was being taken for granted, I'd stop going. I haven't gone to any this year. The Siege played a part in that; I'm watching foreign videos instead.
The acting was bad. Why is Denzel Washington a star? He hasn't been in a decent movie in six or seven years. Willis' character was abominably written. The screenplay was vile, particularly the ending and the confrontation between Washington and Willis, which was insulting.
If this is what the studios consider a thoughtful script maybe we should petition the government to declare martial law in Hollywood. We could put all the screenwriters in cages and sell tickets. I'd pay $7.50 for that. I'd even give it two thumbs up.
I loathed it. Intensely. I hated it so much that I actually threw popcorn at the screen, which I had never done before. I'm not kidding. The response from the people being attacked with me was enthusiastic, so that gives you some indication of what the film is like, if you haven't yet been subjected to it.
My reaction had nothing to do with "racism," or lack of action, which non-Americans seem to assume is the only thing keeping the Yankees spending money on cinema. The Siege is one of the better examples of how film makers today feel it necessary to subject you to Clockwork Orange type treatment in order to make a moral, intellectual, or political point. I felt like the old man in Kurosawa's "Ran", sitting in the castle looking haggard and horrified, my mind under siege.
I don't mind unlikely, inventive plots. But please, let them be intelligent, and show some respect for the viewer. I'm tired of being condescended to whenever I go to a movie, so much so that I decided, since I was being taken for granted, I'd stop going. I haven't gone to any this year. The Siege played a part in that; I'm watching foreign videos instead.
The acting was bad. Why is Denzel Washington a star? He hasn't been in a decent movie in six or seven years. Willis' character was abominably written. The screenplay was vile, particularly the ending and the confrontation between Washington and Willis, which was insulting.
If this is what the studios consider a thoughtful script maybe we should petition the government to declare martial law in Hollywood. We could put all the screenwriters in cages and sell tickets. I'd pay $7.50 for that. I'd even give it two thumbs up.
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
(1991)
mind gum
10 March 1999
Well, I wasn't going to comment on this film, but I find that I have to. Comparing it to Lawrence of Arabia or Ben Hur is like saying that the Batman cartoonists can use chiaroscuro as well as Rembrandt did. I mean, I can see Arnie doing a cameo in a Kenneth Branagh film in the near future, can't you? He has so much heart, and does a great job of expressing the universal human spirit.
This is a film that I loved when I was in high school. I am no longer in high school. I no longer love the film. It is a congeries of major elements in the American action film formula: lots of "cool" one-liners, impressive special effects, and lots of explosions and chase scenes. At least when the film sticks to these it's entertaining in that ripping legs off of spiders sort of manner. But when it strays into the arena of philosophical rumination it's just downright sad.
One has to be embarrassed for Mr. Cameron that he thinks this should be taken seriously, particularly the facile conclusion at the movie's end. If I want deep thoughts I'll watch something by Bergman or Tarkovsky. Cameron's like a French neo-classicist with some technical skills who's straining himself trying to produce something profound and winds up making a picture that has a proficient surface but no soul.
This is a film that I loved when I was in high school. I am no longer in high school. I no longer love the film. It is a congeries of major elements in the American action film formula: lots of "cool" one-liners, impressive special effects, and lots of explosions and chase scenes. At least when the film sticks to these it's entertaining in that ripping legs off of spiders sort of manner. But when it strays into the arena of philosophical rumination it's just downright sad.
One has to be embarrassed for Mr. Cameron that he thinks this should be taken seriously, particularly the facile conclusion at the movie's end. If I want deep thoughts I'll watch something by Bergman or Tarkovsky. Cameron's like a French neo-classicist with some technical skills who's straining himself trying to produce something profound and winds up making a picture that has a proficient surface but no soul.
Licence to Kill
(1989)
close to the best
10 March 1999
I wish more Bond films were like this one. It's almost my personal favorite. Too often 007's humor is so obvious and unsubtle that it's just not enjoyable, i.e. Roger Moore and his all too ready one-liners. LTK took the high road and avoided that altogether, and wound up being quite an entertaining film. A refreshing change from the typical fare being thrown at us.
Dr. No
(1962)
one of the best
10 March 1999
Yes, most of Dr. No is cheesier than an Afghani shepherd's lunch. But this is one of my favorite Bonds anyway. I like the music, the "underneath the mango tree" thing. Doing the intro with just the regular theme song is a nice contrast to all the following films. The introduction to Bond is without comparison in the series. It's perfect.
Maybe I'm simply enraptured by her tropical innocence combined with her encyclopedia reading, but Ursula Andress is not only my favorite Bond girl, but the ideal woman, except for maybe Viveca Lindfors in Stargate. I fully realize that that should make me an object of scorn or pity. But her lines about seeing a praying mantis, blah, blah, is so rewind-worthy. And the look on her face when Bond kills the guy in the river is so hilarious/alluring/acted that I can't help but love it.
Then of course they have to kill off Quarrel, the ultimate non-white sidekick since Tonto, who believed in the "dragon." But despite all that, it remains a great example of a human action film. Action is such a de-humanized genre now. Oh for the days of yore, when secret agents actually ran out of breath and had to do little things like place a hair on the closet door to see if anyone opened it. Now they'd just have a laser sensor that would kill any intruder. Sigh. And the spider, and especially the spider music.....
Maybe I'm simply enraptured by her tropical innocence combined with her encyclopedia reading, but Ursula Andress is not only my favorite Bond girl, but the ideal woman, except for maybe Viveca Lindfors in Stargate. I fully realize that that should make me an object of scorn or pity. But her lines about seeing a praying mantis, blah, blah, is so rewind-worthy. And the look on her face when Bond kills the guy in the river is so hilarious/alluring/acted that I can't help but love it.
Then of course they have to kill off Quarrel, the ultimate non-white sidekick since Tonto, who believed in the "dragon." But despite all that, it remains a great example of a human action film. Action is such a de-humanized genre now. Oh for the days of yore, when secret agents actually ran out of breath and had to do little things like place a hair on the closet door to see if anyone opened it. Now they'd just have a laser sensor that would kill any intruder. Sigh. And the spider, and especially the spider music.....
Brazil
(1985)
"Consumers for Christ"
5 March 1999
Regarding the symbolism in Brazil, of course that's the point. Lowry's dreams are not all that unique. They are a result of the regimented world he lives in. Look at all of our modern films: the two dominant characters are the rebel and the ordinary joe living a mundane life who somehow escapes from it or begins to do outrageous things.
(That's why I hated Titanic, well, partially. Rose is breaking out of her supposedly constricted life. It's propaganda. It makes it appear that the "freedoms" we have now are exactly what we need in order to escape from the restriction of prejudices and ignorance. Rose tied herself into the ever-growing strait-jacket of modern political myths. But in order to glorify those myths Cameron had to denigrate our past and all that it stood for, making its adherents look like chauvinistic fools. The person I know who liked Titanic the most liked it for that reason - she wanted to escape from her own life and envied Rose. But such people always stop there. They live in their fantasies and never stop to investigate why they feel their lives must be escaped from.)
Another note about the samurai he fights is that it continued to suddenly disappear. Lowry initially didn't know what he was fighting, for one. There really is no definitive enemy to fight. We are boxing shadows. It is a system which has no heart or kill point. That's part of the frustration, particularly for those who can't think abstractly. Most of them lash out at "the media." They can't locate who they're fighting, and so they accept the lies.
Listen to the opening interview on the television. The terrorists are refusing to "play the game." The assumption is that they are simply jealous because someone else is "winning the game." Why play at all? Any hope of that is over though. The 60s was the last gasp of opposition and it got swallowed up. Now the nostalgia for protest is a marketing tool. Consumption is a replacement for thought. When you feel angst you go shopping. We've been convinced that our anxiety is caused by something other than what it really is. Commercials are not about self-gratification, but self-doubt.
I read an interview with Gilliam in which he said the reason he could no longer live in America is that there was an unwillingness to think about anything. In the end, you are fighting the conditioning you have received from your entire culture, in essence, fighting yourself and struggling to regain control of your own mind. Parallels between Lowry seeing his own face and Skywalker seeing the same in Return of the Jedi are illuminating.
The point that Gilliam makes in the end is that the enemy is ubiquitous yet intangible. Lowry wanted to run from it, go "far away," never realizing that you can't escape. We still think in terms of a locus of power. But Gilliam, throughout the last part of the film, continually crushed our naive hopes that somehow we can act out the fantasy that many of us may have, to get away, find the girl of our dreams and live in a trailer in a beautiful setting.
Because we have no fear of physical control, we assume that we are free. Some Americans still believe in the myth of rugged individualism. The system is built on lies and that's what Gilliam was showing. It's a "State of mind." You can't escape. The only place that you can be free is in your head. "He got away from us," as they say at the end. That's really the only hope we have left.
On a lighter note, I derive so much glee from watching Lowry's mother walk around with a boot on her head.
(That's why I hated Titanic, well, partially. Rose is breaking out of her supposedly constricted life. It's propaganda. It makes it appear that the "freedoms" we have now are exactly what we need in order to escape from the restriction of prejudices and ignorance. Rose tied herself into the ever-growing strait-jacket of modern political myths. But in order to glorify those myths Cameron had to denigrate our past and all that it stood for, making its adherents look like chauvinistic fools. The person I know who liked Titanic the most liked it for that reason - she wanted to escape from her own life and envied Rose. But such people always stop there. They live in their fantasies and never stop to investigate why they feel their lives must be escaped from.)
Another note about the samurai he fights is that it continued to suddenly disappear. Lowry initially didn't know what he was fighting, for one. There really is no definitive enemy to fight. We are boxing shadows. It is a system which has no heart or kill point. That's part of the frustration, particularly for those who can't think abstractly. Most of them lash out at "the media." They can't locate who they're fighting, and so they accept the lies.
Listen to the opening interview on the television. The terrorists are refusing to "play the game." The assumption is that they are simply jealous because someone else is "winning the game." Why play at all? Any hope of that is over though. The 60s was the last gasp of opposition and it got swallowed up. Now the nostalgia for protest is a marketing tool. Consumption is a replacement for thought. When you feel angst you go shopping. We've been convinced that our anxiety is caused by something other than what it really is. Commercials are not about self-gratification, but self-doubt.
I read an interview with Gilliam in which he said the reason he could no longer live in America is that there was an unwillingness to think about anything. In the end, you are fighting the conditioning you have received from your entire culture, in essence, fighting yourself and struggling to regain control of your own mind. Parallels between Lowry seeing his own face and Skywalker seeing the same in Return of the Jedi are illuminating.
The point that Gilliam makes in the end is that the enemy is ubiquitous yet intangible. Lowry wanted to run from it, go "far away," never realizing that you can't escape. We still think in terms of a locus of power. But Gilliam, throughout the last part of the film, continually crushed our naive hopes that somehow we can act out the fantasy that many of us may have, to get away, find the girl of our dreams and live in a trailer in a beautiful setting.
Because we have no fear of physical control, we assume that we are free. Some Americans still believe in the myth of rugged individualism. The system is built on lies and that's what Gilliam was showing. It's a "State of mind." You can't escape. The only place that you can be free is in your head. "He got away from us," as they say at the end. That's really the only hope we have left.
On a lighter note, I derive so much glee from watching Lowry's mother walk around with a boot on her head.
The Killing Fields
(1984)
poignant
3 March 1999
I watched this movie with my father shortly after it came out on video, so I would have been only 9 or 10 at the time. I did not see it again until this year, but I could still remember the scene of a lone man stumbling across a field strewn with the skeletons of his countrymen. Watching it again was both a moving and a worthwhile experience.
There are so many scenes which will, as the movie case says, haunt the viewer long after watching. The scene already mentioned, Waterston and Ngor wandering through the remains of the homes of Cambodian civilians destroyed by American bombs, a little girl, her hands over her ears, crying and screaming, surrounded by explosions and gunfire.
The acting performances are top notch all round, particularly, of course, by Dr. Ngor. The team of Joffe and Menges is superb, as they also are in The Mission. Both films are in my video library.
As an aside, whatever happened to Joffe? Super Mario Brothers? The Scarlet Letter? The Mission and The Killing Fields are such rich, well-crafted films. It's a shame that actors and directors are pulled towards Hollywood. Artistic integrity is priceless. Perhaps that's why it's given away by so many.
There are so many scenes which will, as the movie case says, haunt the viewer long after watching. The scene already mentioned, Waterston and Ngor wandering through the remains of the homes of Cambodian civilians destroyed by American bombs, a little girl, her hands over her ears, crying and screaming, surrounded by explosions and gunfire.
The acting performances are top notch all round, particularly, of course, by Dr. Ngor. The team of Joffe and Menges is superb, as they also are in The Mission. Both films are in my video library.
As an aside, whatever happened to Joffe? Super Mario Brothers? The Scarlet Letter? The Mission and The Killing Fields are such rich, well-crafted films. It's a shame that actors and directors are pulled towards Hollywood. Artistic integrity is priceless. Perhaps that's why it's given away by so many.
Saving Private Ryan
(1998)
amazing battle scenes, subpar story
2 March 1999
I went to see Saving Private Ryan twice in the theatre. I was very impressed the first time I saw it, and the battle scenes were so haunting that I felt it would be worthwhile going again. While I again enjoyed them, they obviously did not have the same impact as when seen for the first time and this caused me to give greater attention to the remainder of the film. It didn't hold up well.
I feel it would have been best for Spielberg to have begun this film right off in the boat. No advance warning, no sentimentality. It would have been perhaps the most amazing first scene in cinematic history. But he had to overdo it. The first graveyard scene can be accepted, though it is undesirable. But the second was insulting, not just to me, but to the film itself and the message it had attempted to convey. He can understate well, as the scene in which Mrs. Ryan is told of the fate of her sons proves.
(The rule which is so often broken by film makers today is don't tell, show. But they are so used to talking down to the audience that it is seen as desirable and normal. I see it as manipulative and condescending).
It also seemed as if I could actually see the seams in the movie, the transition from one scene to the next. It was obvious that it was _written_. Yes, of course, all screenplays are written. But a truly good film can draw you in to the point where it IS reality. SPR did not do that for me. I'm sure there has already been sufficient comment on the stereotypicality of the characters. And of course the scene in which there is an argument over whether or not to take the child along with them.
There is a sense in which films like this are protected from artistic judgment because it is felt that the message they are conveying is so important. I believe this is part of the reason it has received as much praise as it has. While the battle scenes and cinematography are truly magnificent, those things alone are not enough for a film to be considered the greatest film of all time, nor even the greatest war film of all time.
I feel it would have been best for Spielberg to have begun this film right off in the boat. No advance warning, no sentimentality. It would have been perhaps the most amazing first scene in cinematic history. But he had to overdo it. The first graveyard scene can be accepted, though it is undesirable. But the second was insulting, not just to me, but to the film itself and the message it had attempted to convey. He can understate well, as the scene in which Mrs. Ryan is told of the fate of her sons proves.
(The rule which is so often broken by film makers today is don't tell, show. But they are so used to talking down to the audience that it is seen as desirable and normal. I see it as manipulative and condescending).
It also seemed as if I could actually see the seams in the movie, the transition from one scene to the next. It was obvious that it was _written_. Yes, of course, all screenplays are written. But a truly good film can draw you in to the point where it IS reality. SPR did not do that for me. I'm sure there has already been sufficient comment on the stereotypicality of the characters. And of course the scene in which there is an argument over whether or not to take the child along with them.
There is a sense in which films like this are protected from artistic judgment because it is felt that the message they are conveying is so important. I believe this is part of the reason it has received as much praise as it has. While the battle scenes and cinematography are truly magnificent, those things alone are not enough for a film to be considered the greatest film of all time, nor even the greatest war film of all time.
The Edge
(1997)
Hopkins as Sisyphus?
2 March 1999
I enjoyed this film the first time I saw it and purchased it solely for the Hopkins character. The more I watch it, the poorer The Edge seems overall, and the more impressed I am with Mr. Hopkin's character and his performance.
I do have to agree about the Lit. 101 symbolism. It struck me that Mamet probably saw the Indian paddle or some similar trinket and based the entire screenplay on the idea this gave him. I suppose that's OK, if rather conventional.
The film was shot about an hour away from where I lived at the time, so I'm biased in that regard. But it is an incredibly beautiful area in Alberta.
Though I hate it when people say this, I do like the Hopkin's character because I can identify with him in some ways. His ability to maintain his humanity throughout all of his trials, natural and relational, is inspiring, and in my view, well worth taking the time to watch. His performance carries this otherwise ho-hum movie.
I do have to agree about the Lit. 101 symbolism. It struck me that Mamet probably saw the Indian paddle or some similar trinket and based the entire screenplay on the idea this gave him. I suppose that's OK, if rather conventional.
The film was shot about an hour away from where I lived at the time, so I'm biased in that regard. But it is an incredibly beautiful area in Alberta.
Though I hate it when people say this, I do like the Hopkin's character because I can identify with him in some ways. His ability to maintain his humanity throughout all of his trials, natural and relational, is inspiring, and in my view, well worth taking the time to watch. His performance carries this otherwise ho-hum movie.
The Untouchables
(1987)
could have, should have....
2 March 1999
This one isn't holding up all that well in my books. There are some undoubtedly fantastic scenes and Oscar-worthy performances. But the overall quality is spotty.
Connery's performance remains one of my all-time favorites. His first meeting with Ness is very enjoyable. His death scene never fails to move me every single time I watch it. Great musical score as well.
DeNiro's Capone is too one-dimensional (no fault of his), Martin-Smith's is entirely cartoonish. Garcia is good, as is Costner, the earnestness which always characterizes his performances finding a perfect match in the character of Ness.
The bridge scene is so bad that it almost ruins the whole film. Connery manages to provide some saving grace with his interrogation tactics and opposition to running.
It seems as if this film is composed of nothing but caricatures, from the photographer to the police trainee, but the performances are so good and there are so many strong scenes that they somehow balance out the crude (read banal) writing. A friend of mine saw an interview with Mamet in which he said that the best stuff was actually edited out of the final product. Ya gotta hate studios. The Untouchables really could have been much better than it already is.
Connery's performance remains one of my all-time favorites. His first meeting with Ness is very enjoyable. His death scene never fails to move me every single time I watch it. Great musical score as well.
DeNiro's Capone is too one-dimensional (no fault of his), Martin-Smith's is entirely cartoonish. Garcia is good, as is Costner, the earnestness which always characterizes his performances finding a perfect match in the character of Ness.
The bridge scene is so bad that it almost ruins the whole film. Connery manages to provide some saving grace with his interrogation tactics and opposition to running.
It seems as if this film is composed of nothing but caricatures, from the photographer to the police trainee, but the performances are so good and there are so many strong scenes that they somehow balance out the crude (read banal) writing. A friend of mine saw an interview with Mamet in which he said that the best stuff was actually edited out of the final product. Ya gotta hate studios. The Untouchables really could have been much better than it already is.
Through a Glass Darkly
(1961)
my first exposure to Bergman
2 March 1999
This was the first Bergman movie I ever watched. Consequently, it holds sort of a special place in my catalogue of movie memories.
I enjoyed the depiction of the numerous relationships between people or objects which were kept apart by walls or a "dark glass." The artist and the fullness of what he/she is attempting to depict, mankind and God, and more particularly in the film, between Minus and women, Minus and David, etc..
The most gripping, however, were the relationship between David and Karin, and between Karin and "God." I'm not going to get into detail for the sake of those who haven't seen the film. But Bjornstrand's line about the "magic circle" we draw around ourselves instantly vaulted close to the top of my list of movie lines which have impacted me.
Lastly, I appreciated how the von Sydow character, Martin, acted as a representation of what love is not, i.e. his desire to always do the right thing, rather than the honest thing.
I enjoyed the depiction of the numerous relationships between people or objects which were kept apart by walls or a "dark glass." The artist and the fullness of what he/she is attempting to depict, mankind and God, and more particularly in the film, between Minus and women, Minus and David, etc..
The most gripping, however, were the relationship between David and Karin, and between Karin and "God." I'm not going to get into detail for the sake of those who haven't seen the film. But Bjornstrand's line about the "magic circle" we draw around ourselves instantly vaulted close to the top of my list of movie lines which have impacted me.
Lastly, I appreciated how the von Sydow character, Martin, acted as a representation of what love is not, i.e. his desire to always do the right thing, rather than the honest thing.
Atrocious
26 February 1999
Well, I can't say that I'm surprised by how popular this movie was/is. When films like Titanic and Saving Private Ryan are being raved about as the greatest films ever made, discriminating taste is obviously not part of the mental movie-watching equipment required to get into the theatre.
Ever After is simply one of the latest additions to that growing list of subpar, lavishly praised movies. I won't even get into picking apart the plot or the acting. My primary complaint, similar to my beef with Titanic, is how we view, and more importantly - depict, the past through the glasses of our own neuroses and prejudices.
In Titanic, the assumption was that for Rose to truly be free, to be human or real, she must spit over the side of the boat and engage in drunken revels, while her fiancee goes to discuss politics over cigars. (get it, ooohh boring!) Her fiancee was not a character, but a caricature, the donkey on which James Cameron could pin the tail so that all those in the audience could squeal. We collectively engaged in trashing the past while we, the more enlightened ones, sat in the theatre congratulating ourselves and willing Rose on to degrade herself in the back seat of a car.
Now take Ever After. The Leonardo character was presented as such figures always are in popular cinema: a harmless, grandfatherly, "eccentric" old "artist." For eccentric read: cute, cuddly, quirky, the Barney the dinosaur element of his soul conquering the Botticelli/Donatello aspect. He wasn't a great man, he just knew how to paint real well. It was the Reader's Digest version of an artist. Emphasize what we have in common with the great souls, what they liked to eat for breakfast. Democratize them, make them harmless.
Prince Henry I found even more pathetic. Sorry, I really don't think he had the same need that we do in our industrialist era to make gooey distinctions between who he was and what he did. The line (slight paraphrase?) "I want to be loved not for my position, but for who I am" almost had me wretching into my popcorn. Come on! I wouldn't want this guy ruling my nation. Maybe I'd let him work in the field, where he could make helmets out of daisies and walk around in those boots that Leonardo made.
I realize some of you are saying, Hey, it's a fairy tale! So? Even the "serious" historical films are doing this. And obviously we're not learning enough history to counterbalance the lessons we're getting from our forms of entertainment. Therefore, everyone who came before was like us, and we are the apex of civilization. So let's all emote together. I'll pass, thank you.
Ever After is simply one of the latest additions to that growing list of subpar, lavishly praised movies. I won't even get into picking apart the plot or the acting. My primary complaint, similar to my beef with Titanic, is how we view, and more importantly - depict, the past through the glasses of our own neuroses and prejudices.
In Titanic, the assumption was that for Rose to truly be free, to be human or real, she must spit over the side of the boat and engage in drunken revels, while her fiancee goes to discuss politics over cigars. (get it, ooohh boring!) Her fiancee was not a character, but a caricature, the donkey on which James Cameron could pin the tail so that all those in the audience could squeal. We collectively engaged in trashing the past while we, the more enlightened ones, sat in the theatre congratulating ourselves and willing Rose on to degrade herself in the back seat of a car.
Now take Ever After. The Leonardo character was presented as such figures always are in popular cinema: a harmless, grandfatherly, "eccentric" old "artist." For eccentric read: cute, cuddly, quirky, the Barney the dinosaur element of his soul conquering the Botticelli/Donatello aspect. He wasn't a great man, he just knew how to paint real well. It was the Reader's Digest version of an artist. Emphasize what we have in common with the great souls, what they liked to eat for breakfast. Democratize them, make them harmless.
Prince Henry I found even more pathetic. Sorry, I really don't think he had the same need that we do in our industrialist era to make gooey distinctions between who he was and what he did. The line (slight paraphrase?) "I want to be loved not for my position, but for who I am" almost had me wretching into my popcorn. Come on! I wouldn't want this guy ruling my nation. Maybe I'd let him work in the field, where he could make helmets out of daisies and walk around in those boots that Leonardo made.
I realize some of you are saying, Hey, it's a fairy tale! So? Even the "serious" historical films are doing this. And obviously we're not learning enough history to counterbalance the lessons we're getting from our forms of entertainment. Therefore, everyone who came before was like us, and we are the apex of civilization. So let's all emote together. I'll pass, thank you.
Tell Your Friends