AdamRant Reviews

The Sadist (1963)

low-budget exploitation at it's finest

[8/10 · 10 February 2004]

'the sadist' starring none other than arch hall jr. who was practically skewered to death by the mst 3000 gang's jabs in the hilariously bad 'eegah!' stars and carries this great exploitation shocker from the early 1960s. this movie proves, if anything, that anyone can make a good movie if they put their mind to it, even arch hall jr. the script keeps you on your toes, as all good thriller scripts do, it is surprisingly brutal for a movie made in 1963 and there is no way that one of the majors would've even touched this thing because of that very reason. one of the great dps of all time, academy award winner for the 'deer hunter', vilmos zsigmond shot this thing and it has all the visual flare of a french new wave film, which you never saw in low-budget exploitation films of the time. i can see how some people might think that arch hall jr.'s performance is over-the-top, but i see it as stylistic. i am surprised that arch hall jr. wasn't given more legitimate roles after his performance in the sadist. anyway, i highly recommend this for a friday night movie when there is nothing else good on the shelf at the video store.

adam rant studio city

Andrei Rublev (1966)

perfection is not the word

[10/10 · 28 December 2002]

this sublimely poetic, gorgeous piece of epic black and white filmmaking from russian writer/director andrei tarkovsky surpasses all filmed epics to this point in film history and that includes 'gone with the wind' and 'lawrence of arabia'. it is hard to find the proper words to describe this metaphorical experience, for much of the meaning of this film is quite relevant to soviet russia circa 1966 (when the film was released). ultimately it is about artisitic freedom and the eternal quest of human kind to somehow transcend the constraints of existence. this theme is beautifully illustrated in the brilliant opening sequence of the film in which a 15th century russian country peasant attempts to escape a horde of marauders via a primitive hot air balloon. the peasant ultimately fails, but it is clear that tarkovsky is telling us that trying is all that matters; not whether you succeed or fail. the wonderful thing about this sequence is that it stands alone within the context of the film. the peasant who takes the hot air balloon ride is never heard from again, but a shot in the middle of the film alludes to this sequence and invites us to make a metaphorical connection between the peasant and andrei rublev's quest of artistic freedom and rublev's quest to find the meaning of life within the confines of his strict roman catholic lifestyle. the criterion collection dvd of 'andrei rublev' is a must see for any serious film enthusiast. the dvd features the 205min director's cut of the film that was never released in russia or the united states until now. the russians felt the film was too weird and violent. as a whole the hidden message in the film secretly spoke out against the suppressing nature of the communist party in the 1960s. in america where a 180min version was released by columbia in 1969, the film was considered too artsy even for the art house crowd. tarkovsky's cinematic technique is a sight to behold. there are bravura shots throughout the story that make brian depalma's so-called 'bravura shots' look like child's play. the invasion of the cathedral by the tartars is one of the most horrifying war scenes ever put on film. nevertheless, despite the brutal imagery of the middle part of 'andrei rublev', tarkovsky somehow achieves pure cinematic beauty as he ends the film with a section which features the son of a bell maker heading the construction of a new bell for the recently rebuilt cathedral, which had been all but demolished by the tartars. the boy's quest is so gripping that we find ourselves immersed in a story that essentially has nothing to do with the overall plot of the film or so we are led to believe. rublev actually has an encounter with the the bell maker's son at the end of the film at which time tarkovsky's themes unify with great success. tarkovsky ends the film with stark color shots of the actual cathedral frescos of andrei rublev. somehow tarkovsky has creates a film about the process of artistic creation within the restraints of censorship from a brutal horde of invaders without showing a single brush stroke on screen.

Snatch (2000)

been there done that

[8/10 · 26 January 2001]

there is no doubt that Guy Ritchie is a master of "the art of cool." and his visual style is eye-popping, 'snatch' seems to be lacking in the emotional connection department. the labyrinth plot resembles lock, stock, and two smoking barrels far too much for my taste. that's alright except for the fact that the 4 main characters in lock, stock were more human. i cared what happened to them. this film had nobody to root for. the boxing promoters were never fully developed, they were cardboard cut-outs. even the vicious enforcer in lock, stock is sympathetic because he is a father trying to support his son. the visual climax of 'snatch' was the boxing match at the end of the film. was it breathtakingly mounted?? yes. was it exciting?? yes. was there enough at stake for me to care?? no. 'Raging Bull' it was not.

favorite line of the film: 'do you have anything to declare?' 'yeah, don't go to england.' DENNIS FARINA is classic, he's always good. other stand-out performances, Brad Pitt (obviously), the guy that played Boris (Rade Serbedzija) and Mike Reid who played 'Doug the Head.'

Sid and Nancy (1986)

The greatest story of doomed love since Romeo and Juliet

[10/10 · 6 July 1999]

Sid and Nancy is one of those rare films that has all the bursting exuberance of youth without all the negative side effects. There are no scenes that scream out "HEY LOOK AT US! WE'RE YOUNG, WE'RE TWISTED, DON'T YOU WISH YOU WE'RE US!?" Okay maybe it has a few, but none of them feel like they exist strictly for shock value, none of them feel the least bit contrived or unnecessary. That is what makes Sid and Nancy so great. Most film criticism stems from reaction to prior film releases. Reviewers like Siskel and Ebert tend to cling to comparisons as a safety blanket, and as an almost cop out for original thought. Director Alex Cox (Repo Man) tells a story of doomed love that tends to defy easy categorization. Its brilliant combination of ultra realistic biography and surrealistic conjecture create a film universe that had not been seen prior to its release. The film opens in a dingy New York City, Chelsea Hotel room. Sex Pistols bassist and Punk Rock icon Sid Vicious (Gary Oldman, in a staggering performance) is being questioned by police about the apparent murder of his girlfriend and world famous rock n' roll groupie Nancy Spungen (Chloe Webb, Twins, TV's China Beach). Smash cut to the punk rock era of 1977 London, where Sid meets Nancy in a world of anarchy and disillusion inhabited by kids who don't know quite what they are disillusioned about. After a brief first encounter there is no chemistry between these two classic lovers, but soon Nancy sees Sid at a Sex Pistols gig, jumping around on stage freely showing his lack of musical ability and its love at first sight. (Note: it is a documented fact that Sid Vicious barely knew two chords on the bass guitar.) When Sid, after asking Nancy to cop some heroin for him, bashes his head against a brick wall in a twisted attempt to empathize with her, Nancy's love is only reaffirmed by Sid's complete abandonment of personal safety. Before we know it the two are shooting up the drug, which immediately begins a cycle of codependency that only desperate youth could satisfy. So the question arises are they really in love? Or do they need each other to support their habit? Well the question is answered, at least in Alex Cox's eyes, in a scene where the Sex Pistols play a gig on a riverboat, which ends violently in a police clash with Sex Pistols fans. As the boat docks, the punk rock youth pour onto the dock to escape the Billy clubs. Sid and Nancy casually stroll through the chaos unscathed as if they know that their love will protect them. As corny as the above event my sound, Alex Cox quickly juxtaposes with a scene of pure brutal addiction where we get to witness one of the most frantic "fiending for drugs scenes" ever shot. Sid and Nancy's desperation does not only make us cringe, it also makes us laugh with a classic comic topper that has to be witnessed to gain full appreciation. There in lies the beauty of Sid and Nancy, a locomotive of a film that is always on the verge of jumping the tracks, but is saved at the breaking point by carefully placed contradictions that more often than not makes us laugh. As if the above were not enough to make an engrossing movie, the film is also a great example of integrating historical events into a story without distracting the viewer from the film's unifying themes. Sid and Nancy is a great anthology of the rise and fall of a social movement, which behind the spiked hair, and leather jackets, was a dead on assessment of the hypocrisy that existed in England and the United States circa the decadent 1970's.

Apocalypse Now (1979)

The most important Epic of the Baby Boomer Generation

[10/10 · 30 June 1999]

Apocalypse Now is not a Vietnam movie, its not even a war movie. It is a modern-day Epic using the classical conventions of Homer to tell its story. From the opening chords of The Doors "The End" (which is a miniature version of "Oedipus" amongst other myths) we are given clues of the films epic aspirations. All the elements are here: The feeling that we enter a story in progress, like the Odyssey which begins on the journey home after the ten year war, helps to create a sense that Willard (Martin Sheen) has fought his physical war and is ready to move on to war with his self. The unmistakable sense of journey which is snowballing toward an inevitable conclusion. And the obstacles faced by Willard on his journey, his nervous breakdown in the beginning of the film is like a battle of the Gods within himself preparing him for the next step of his life's journey, Kilgore (Robert Duvall) is the Cyclopse, the Playboy Bunnies are the Sirens, and the Dolong bridge is like the River Styx, the entrance to Hades, the point of no return, the screams from the fog are the Furies always in chaotic flux voicing their alienation, and Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) is the insane (sane?) collective unconscious of the Gods.

Apocalypse Now is not only an Epic it is THE Epic of its generation, the WWII Generation had Gone With the Wind, the Rock n'Roll Generation has Apocalypse Now. The other important Epic of this Generation is the Star Wars Trilogy which fails in its rather conventional views on morality, its too tight, its too clean, the lines are too clearly drawn, what Star Wars gains in scope with its 3 films is lost in its lack of complexity. The best film of the trilogy The Empire Strikes Back succeeds in being such due to its obvious relation to Greek Tragedy (afterall it does contain one of the greatest reversals in film history). There is an inherent danger in reducing the inner conflict of good and evil down to something as simple as black vs. white, like the Star Wars films do. Lets face it, nothing in life is that simple, and the minute we start believing they are is the minute we start coming apart. Apocalypse Now succeeds precisely because it does come apart, it shows what happens to men in desperate situations and consequently warns us of the dangers of these situations. By the end of the film we aren't sure who is right and who is wrong. When Willard kills Kurtz we don't feel a burden lifted, instead we feel uneasy, because we know there is a little Kurtz in all of us. Any movie that attempts to get an audience to confront these feelings, is no longer just a movie, it transcends to Myth.