bee-17 Reviews

The Girl on the Train (2016)

Days of Wine and Railroads

[7/10 · 10 May 2017]

This film unfolds in a way that is clearly sourced from a superior book, but that doesn't make the film bad. Unlike an author who can devote paragraphs to psychological detail, a filmmaker must find abbreviated ways to get inside a character's head. Emily Blunt's performance as the alternately sedated and explosive Rachel is by far the film's highlight. The other leads all have their moments, but mostly stick to clichés.

The most glaring downside (for me) was that the police detectives seem far more interested in melodrama than forensic science.

Brain Donors (1992)

My go-to, laugh-out-loud, feel-good movie

[9/10 · 27 June 2014]

The energy in the packed screening at University Square 4 (Madison) was unbelievable. Everyone was howling with laughter, crying and slapping their hands, slipping down to the floor. I ended up hoarse with salt on my cheeks from all the tears. In the two decades since, I watch the film at least once a year and still laugh out- loud (much to my wife's amusement).

The actors, the story, the timing, the gags, the jokes, the straight men, the settings, the music ... everything about the film was perfectly nailed. It is a masterpiece*.

*There is one scene with an inflatable sex doll. The scene was quite funny, but the anachronistic doll (briefly) pulled you out of the wonderful illusion the film creates.

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

What going to movies is all about!

[7 October 2011]

This is the best movie of the 2000's. I challenge anyone to find another movie that so effortlessly combines genres of adventure, suspense, spectacle, drama, while gracefully interweaving subplots of war, science, philosophy, military culture, medicine, and class, and also staying true to history, geography, and weather. I'm sorry for that terrible previous sentence, but I don't have the time or literary skill to do better.

This is not a Hollywood film. There are no maniacal villains, expository dialogue, musical crescendos, sweeping CGI views, fast cuts, or faster dialogue. Give the same script to any of the top 100 directors in Hollywood today, and you'd end up with the bastard offspring of Pearl Harbor, Cutthroat Island, and Wild, Wild West.

But director Peter Weir had a different idea. His movie is as much about the experience as it is about the story. He makes you feel as if you were a passenger on this claustrophobic vessel, witness to both the mundane and monumental. You feel the dread of the crew's predicament - alone, at sea, and inferior -- knowing full well that they will be annihilated in any confrontation where they do not have the "weather gage." Despite a few beautiful panoramic shots, the film's POV never strays far from the ship and her crew. The enemy is distant, largely unseen for most of the film. One of the film's "chase" scenes is a dawn-to-nightfall pursuit, during which the film handles the tense waiting by showing academic studies and timekeeping.

As far as I'm concerned, this film does not strike a single wrong note and is 2.5 hours of pure movie-going bliss.

The Road (I) (2009)

Acting and story: great. Direction and editing: not so much.

[6/10 · 18 January 2010]

I was very excited to see this movie, but came away disappointed. Most of the individual dialog scenes are well-crafted and agonizingly well-acted, but the interstitial editing and bridge scenes are so clumsy and distracting that they undermined the power of the story. There seem to be numerous lapses in time and continuity that the director makes no attempt to smooth over. It's almost like the film is missing 10-15 minutes.

While writing this review, I read some more about the director and found that he cut his teeth in music videos. It shows. Each episode is a work-of-art on its own, with beautiful and horrific imagery right out of a graphic novel. But the director is in too much of a hurry to get from one scene to the next that he sacrifices any sense of pacing. As a result, there is no rhythmic structure to the film. It's erratic, but not in a way that serves the story.

Another beef... One of the delights of science fiction movies is to get a sense of the backstory from casual dialogue/actions and background visuals. "Regional governors" in Star Wars, ads for suicide pills in Children of Men, the sushi shortage in Blade Runner, etc.

This movie has little of such exposition, and what it does have is handled in an awkward, "hey look at this" manner. The film also goes on to break its own rules. E.g., it shows how emaciated the man and his son are, but it makes no attempt to explain why Robert Duvall is such a porker (the Thief also looks like pretty well fed).

It's too bad, because it's clear that everyone involved in the film gave 110% to it. Maybe there'll be a director's cut that can make more sense of this mess.

Balkan Spy (1984)

Good, but is it a comedy?

[7/10 · 28 April 2009]

This is a movie I sought out because of it's ridiculously high ranking on IMDb's comedy genre list. It was definitely a watchable movie, but I found it to be a bit too much of a jumble of political/social commentary, slapstick, absurdity, and violence. The last half hour was especially cringe-worthy, as the main character descends into despair, sadism and ultra-violence. Watching these latter scenes, I found myself thinking about how a Serbian audience in 1984 would have received them. Would they be cringing, too, or would they be laughing? Given the history of the region in the 90's, I'm afraid of the answer.

But, it's always nice to see a film from within the communist era that reflects upon the communist apparatus and how it affects daily life, especially in such a candid manner. This film must have really irked some of the people in charge! For searing political commentary that is rolling-on-the-floor hilarious, I highly recommend Milos Forman's The Firemen's Ball.

Grizzly Man (2005)

Herzog's narration

[6 January 2008]

I found it fascinating that this film begins like a formal "objective" documentary, but the narrator slowly inserts more and more of his opinions until he ends up in an open debate with the film's subject. Certainly, Herzog is probably better equipped than most to provide counterbalance to the rants of a lonely man in the bush. But, the technique was jarring and I couldn't help but wonder if Herzog was simply using Treadwell's situation as a platform to speak out about his own Winnetou-influenced theories on the natural world.

Below are clippings of other IMDb comments on this unorthodox narrative technique:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

...Herzog's pretentious moralizing narration.

...dreadful patronising pseudo-intellectual narration...

Werner's barely-mocking, critical narration notwithstanding...

herzog also was very keen on adding his own opinions about grizzles and nature, both of which he apparently doesn't know a thing about.

Herzog's narration is a pleasant and soft spoken counter voice to the often shrill and out of control Treadwell.

The narrator was bad and asked dumb questions.

First of all, as a narrator and interviewer, Herzog should omit his personal opinions about the subject of this documentary, and I believe this is a basic rule.

Werner Herzog, who directed and narrated this film, is constantly insisting we hear his opinion on things At times Herzog ... can't resist his own explanations, which are almost as ludicrous and funny as Timothy Treadway's rants and declarations of love for foxes and bears. (Erol) Morris would have known how to fill in the cultural context Herzog pretty much missed in his heavy handed narration. The limit is the aerial shot of the jumbled ice blocks in the glacier which Herzog sees as Treadway's soul. Come on now, isn't that just a wee bit Teutonic? Adding to the humor is Herzog's narration. Never in my life have I seen such a corny pseudo-intellectual. Cliché follows cliché all delivered in a tone that suggest wisdom is being imparted.

Werner Herzog's compassionate narration doesn't aim to judge Treadwell, but point out that the great foundation of his life, his enthusiasm for the wild, while the thing which gave him meaning, was also based on a misconception.

Herzog's compassion is not patronizing, and not overly sentimental. As he states frequently throughout the film, he tries to understand humanity from a filmmaker's perspective.

Herzog's world-weary cynicism proved a perfect counter point to Treadwell's naive view of nature. Normally, I don't like to hear the filmmaker narrate a documentary. I prefer documentaries where the subjects and the footage manage to tell their own story. However, I enjoyed Herzog's narration. ... What other documentary filmmaker would recommend that an interviewee destroy film?

Herzog, with a welcome and somewhat eerily detached view, narrates this documentary...

Without Herzog interjecting his own balanced suppositions, we're unable to see just how Treadwell's acts of defiance are not only acts of pure lunacy, but acts of poignant proclivity as well.

Herzog narrates the pictures in his usual gloomy way and he also criticises Treadwell occasionally for his apparent views that nature is in harmony.

Every so often, director and narrator Werner Herzog brings us down to earth with unaffected commentary.

The only pet peeve I have about Grizzly Man is the narrator sometimes inputting his own opinion into a story made only for the man who lived it. I think he should let the viewer make up his mind, and keep it a documentary.

The director narrated his opinion often over video of Treadwell, whom he never knew personally, many times stating his beliefs as fact...

...Herzog's near-undecipherable and extremely lame narration...

The narration and writing were terrible...

...The brilliant, warm, distinct narration...

Herzog gives both a compassionate and harsh approach.

Herzog's narration is fascinating - he does not approve of Treadwell and his manic devotion to these wild beasts, and he openly disagrees with Treadwell's belief that nature is harmonious - and yet he is not hostile toward Treadwell at all. There is almost a sense of admiration for the man's courage and ingenuity.

Anything beautiful about the original footage is completely overshadowed by Herzog's Reineer Wolfcastle-esquire narration over the top of it. Please do not tell me if and why something is beautiful. Please do not assault me with unsolicited gems of film making know how. Do not let me live vicariously though your emotions because they are more finely tuned then my own.

The director puts himself in focus... It's ridiculously bad journalism, and I can't believe so many comments seem to have missed that? I almost started laughing sometimes during the movie. I don't want the directors personal views... at least not in the narrating. If he had some skill he could let the viewers decide for themselves.

Herzog narrates a poetic and contemplated voice-over that highlights his differences with Timothy stating the uniting bond between nature is not beauty or harmony, but violence and the need to kill.

Herzog, too, makes no effort to uphold the sanctity of the fourth wall. He is both audience and narrator, commenting on Treadwell as much as the contents of Treadwell's tapes. In a break from traditional (think March of the Penguins-style) narration, he actually appears on camera conducting interviews, firmly affixing a face to the (judgemental but, I thought, dead-on) voice. It's thrilling that in this film, we *are* supposed to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

Herzog's approach to this film is what really works for me and at times during his narration I felt some real anger coming from his voice ... When Treadwell starts to go on a tirade, it was Herzog's narration that brought it in context -- it allowed me to bridge the gap: to recall my own frustration over my illusions.

The director has bound it all together with his own frank and idiosyncratic narration.

Winged Migration (2001)

Beautiful

[29 June 2003]

The visuals were so stunning that the music and the nearly incomprehensible french narrator didn't bother me one bit.

What did bother me was that the few attempts at narrative were clumsy and awkward. But that's a very minor fault.

What I applaud most of all is that this film was very fair with the life cycle of a bird. Right from the beginning, it's clear that birds migrate to survive. The film is filled with birds dying of this and that (unfortunately no scenes of power lines and windmills). The adversity they face has given me new appreciation for even the most mundane canadian goose.

What I also applaud is the decision not to spell everything out as if we were children. Much of the factual information is left for the viewer to discern from what we see.

Signs (2002)

Refreshing

[19 August 2002]

Given the usership of IMDB, many of comments on 'Signs' are surely going to be negative. *** SPOILER *** It's amusing how passionate people can be in describing naked, unarmed aliens as unrealistic. (what do they say about E.T.?)

'Signs' wasn't the best film, but it was refreshing to see a movie that uses a science fiction plot for a backdrop to an intelligent story. It's also refreshing to see world-affecting events from the perspective of common people. Other personal favorites like this include Miracle Mile (1989) and Trigger Effect (1996).

Which would you choose... Challenging films that aren't so much about the events depicted, but the characters dealing with them. Or Jeff Goldblum writing a computer virus that causes an alien spaceship to coredump?

Signs (2002)

Refreshing

[18 August 2002]

Given the usership of IMDB, it's clear that many of comments on 'Signs' are going to be negative. *** SPOILER *** It's amusing how passionate people are in describing naked, unarmed aliens as unrealistic. (what do they say about E.T.?)

'Signs' wasn't the best film, but it was refreshing to see a movie that uses a science fiction plot for a backdrop to an intelligent story. It's also refreshing to see world-affecting events from the perspective of common people. Other personal favorites like this include Miracle Mile (1989) and Trigger Effect (1996).

Challenging films that aren't so much about the events depicted, but the characters dealing with them. Or Jeff Goldblum writing a computer virus that causes an alien spaceship to coredump. It's your choice...

The Train (1964)

A visual feast... impossible today.

[14 March 2001]

I won't dwell on the plot or characters, both of which are superb. Instead, use this film as a reality check of Hollywood today.

It is full of long, yet kinetic camera work: tracking and panning, revealing and hiding, meticulously scripted. Continuity is near perfect as the camera moves from airplane to train to ground. The visceral impact of watching real actors in real action without cuts cannot be understated. Today's films cheat the need for planning and shot development by peppering action sequences with epilepsy-inducing quick cuts.

The Train used no miniatures, no digital effects, no CGIs, no blue screens... I think a film like this is more satisfying because of its honesty. Real explosions, wrecks, and derailments. The camera firmly anchored in reality instead of floating around a virtual, rendered world. Is anyone really amazed by the visuals in Godzilla, Independence Day, or the upcoming Pearl Harbor? They may be nice, but I'll take the battle sequences of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" over anything that Jerry Bruckheimer can dream up.

After watching The Train and seeing just how good an action movie can be, I feel cheated more than ever by the crap in the multiplex today.

The Patriot (2000)

unoriginal film

[2 October 2000]

I've got to hand it to Mr. Emmerich... this is his least clunky, most American-looking film to date. That said, it still was a piece of garbage. He must have watched Mann's Last of the Mohicans a dozen times but was unable to figure out why its battle scenes worked. As a director, Emmerich has no patience to let an action scene unfold at a natural pace-- you can imagine him hammering the square into the round hole back in nursery school. The only time he allows the camera to linger is while admiring the pumping lungs of a corset-enhanced woman. In addition to his trademark single-purpose composite characters and rapid, disjointed, filmed-on-different-day cuts, he has now added to his arsenal an obnoxious use of slow motion (a la Renny Harlin) and Saving Private Ryan-style fast motion/high exposure/low frame rate footage.

As for the script, there are several fleeting original, interesting moments, ==== MARGINAL SPOILER ==== such as how the anxieties of battle show on his two youngest boys' faces. However, these moments are far too rare. Instead, we are stuck with historical and popular sound bites: "Taxation without representation," "All men are created equal," and, at one laughably placed moment, "It's a free country!" I was surprised not to hear "Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes!" or "Remember the Alamo!"

When the bit characters were looking to the director for tips on motivation and period behavior, I'll bet he handed out copies of Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. The film's treatment of black people was an incredible insult to blacks and the intelligence of the audience as a whole. Are we such simpletons that we can't handle complex, contradictory heroes?

Other critiques have suitably ripped apart the authenticity and historical accuracy of the film better than I ever could. Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions of better revolutionary war movies. Maybe the one good thing to come from The Patriot is that other, better films exploring the period might be coming soon.

Very Bad Things (1998)

Humanity Litmus Test

[26 February 2000]

Movies like Very bad Things are good for one thing only--a humanity litmus test.

The fact that this film and its characters disgust and repulse me is a testament that I'm not hopelessly jaded by the violence and inhumanity on the screen these days. This film falls somewhere in the vicinity of misguided, depraved, and mean-spirted. Judging by the comments in this forum, there are a lot of other people who feel the same way.

I understand the need and/or enjoy the presence of violence and grisliness in film contexts such as camp (Evil Dead), horror (The Thing), numbing realism (Schindler's List), action/war (Rambo), or black/satiric comedy (Pulp Fiction). I love dark characters with motives and point-of-views unlike my own, and I call myself a fan of well-done satire and black comedy.

Black comedies seem to be a difficult genre because they either hit or miss depending on the individual viewer's sensibilities. There are very few black comedies that people find just "okay." I can appreciate that, but it means the director must at least have an idea of the sensibilities he/she is trying to challenge. What audience was Peter Berg aiming for with Very Bad Things? Whoever they are, I hope to hell my sister never marries one of them.

The Saint (1997)

What movie was I watching?

[3/10 · 6 September 1999]

It doesn't matter how well-filmed it was, how nice a butt the lead has, how good the Russian speaking was, or anything else. When a movie tips to the "ludicrous" side of my suspension of disbelief scale, it's time to flush it. The scriptwriters of this piece of trash believed that the audience would eat any illogical, brain-numbing plot devices they could conjure up.

Movies often turn to the illogical plot device to help get the story somewhere more interesting. I don't fault them for that. A small plot hole in exchange for transporting us somewhere interesting is a small price to pay.

For instance, it's difficult but I'm willing to believe that a moody, 30 year old blonde is an accomplished physicist. Shue's bio says that she did go to Harvard, though she sure didn't win any award for oratory. Anyway, moving on, I'll even believe that Val Kilmer is able to change his elaborate disguises in seconds, unassisted. My stomach is growling, but I'm ready to watch the film. Then, they throw in cold fusion. Fine. Cold fusion is a valid plot device these days. My stomach is ready to hurl, but if the story is good, I'll survive.

But no, the scriptwriter dwells on the illogical and makes it the centerpiece of the movie. Cold Fusion this, cold fusion that. Yada yada yada. At one point, we're somehow expected to believe that an angry mob of 100,000 freezing Muscovites interpret (let alone see) a fusion-powered lightbulb to mean that, although they will still be cold and hungry for the foreseeable future, the Russian government deserves their support.

Most of the other comments on this film are positive. Did they see a different version than I did? I think I'm an ordinary movie-going guy, but I can't figure out what there was to like about this one.

Millions (1991)

Spaghetti sex.

[6 September 1999]

I'm curious about movies like this. Did the director run through each take in multiple languages so that an un-dubbed release can be made in multiple countries?

This movie looks and moves like an Italian sex drama, yet everyone speaks English. It's about as awkward as watching Dog Day Afternoon dubbed into the Queen's English.

Anyway, the bodies are beautiful, the wealth is disgusting, the liquor cabinets are well-stocked, and Billy Zane sleeps with just about everyone.

Meet Joe Black (1998)

Sore butt award

[14 June 1999]

This film was an enigma. I applaud any director willing to make a movie with long, meandering scenes that explore characters more deeply than the average skin-deep Hollywood flick. At the same time, long and meandering coupled with boring is a bit too much to stomach. There has to be some reasonable, believable motivation, and none of these characters had it (except for the money-loving Drew). The spiritual connection between Pitt's Death and the other characters never went beyond his being courteous and properly enunciating their first names. Claire Forlani is a wonderful girl to look at, but I hate being confronted with those "only in Hollywood is she a [doctor rocket scientist primate researcher]" characters.

I like watching people muse about life and death, and it's great to see writers tackling interesting approaches to the subject. Some people will undoubtedly connect to this film. I didn't. This gets the sore-butt award of the week.