etai Reviews

Gangster No. 1 (2000)

Simply Superb

[1 May 2001]

This is an excellent, well paced and dark take on the gangland theme. The acting is almost immaculate (I found Malcolm Macdowel slightly disappointing though), the set designs, especially of late 60s London, fantastic, and the soundtrack eery. The plot is strong, and especially in the pivotal scene where old Gangster no.1 meets the "Butcher of Mayfair", reminded me of classic tragihero Shakesperean themes.

Well worth taking out on video and don't believe anyone who says it reminds them of Lock, Stock... (a lightweight, entertaining and totally forgettable popcorn film).

Simon, the Magician (1999)

Houdini and the degenration of an empire

[22 April 2001]

This film is definitely not a film to take your girlfriend (or boyfriend for that matter) to unless you're looking for some serious intellectual stimulation and an excellent discussion post film viewing.

I had the good fortune to watch the film at a screening where the director was present and even took some Q&A at the end of the film offering some excellent insight into the thinking behind the film.

(Warning - spoilers- Warning - Spoilers)

Simon Magus (as opposed to Ben Hopkin's remarkable version of Simon Magus) is the modern day story of a magician who travels from Hungary to Paris to assist the helpless local police force in solving a murder enquiry. During his stay, Simon meets his old rival Peter, a magician himself who we are led to believe is a bit of a 'hack' while Simon is the real thing though we are never shown any of his magic (the director said at the screening in Tel Aviv that she wanted to show Simon the magician as a normal human being but never quite show the viewer Simon's skills). The film climaxes with a showdown between Peter and Simon who bury themselves for three days underground.

Simon's story clearly alludes to the story of Simon the 13th disciple of Jesus who also has a showdown with Peter in ancient Rome.

The director said that she chose Paris as the modern day parallel to ancient Rome as Paris is an example of a centre of an empire in cultural degeneration exemplified by the multilayered cultural, religious and other influences it is being soaked with.

The film has an excellent and small cast of actors. The music is beautiful and some of the photography spellbinding (especially one striking scene whereby Simon takes the train to Paris and there is an aproximately two minute shot of the railway from the front of the train).

This is in short not simple or easy viewing though it is terrificly rewarding and worth the two hours.

Almost Famous (2000)

Yeeech!

[18 March 2001]

To say that Kate Hudson has got to be one of the most evil inventions that Holywood has created to date would probably understate the issue. But then what could you expect from the offspring of Goldie Hawn and the daughter of step dad Kurt Russel? Hudson, in one of the worst examples of bad casting in this film, of which there are many, delivers a performance of such shallowness, of such bad taste, that one wonders whether the conspiracy theories about the corruption behind the scenes of the oscars in relation to the distribution and marketing methods used by the majors, might not be as farfetched as we would like to think.

Cameron Crowe, a fine example of the mediocrity that has been pervading Holywood in the last few years has produced such utter nonsense as the abysmal Jerry Forrest Gump Mcguire, has made a 'semi autobiographic' film about his younger days as a rock journalist in the 70s. Potentially, there is a premise here for another exploration of 70s youth/pop/rock/drug culture in the US. The film also sets to show us what it was like being on a rock band tour bus at the time. And further, its sets out to examine the phenomenon of groupies (or band aides as Kate Hudson prefers to be called as she finds the term 'groupie' having bad connotations only to declare that sex with rock stars she does not have but oral sex is legitimate).

What the film does in practice, is show the sensitive audiences of the US, quite appropriately I guess due to the new right wing family orientated conservatism of the George Dubya Bush administration, that rock bands in the 70's were very nice and their members smiled all the time and even when they took drugs, they didn't really take drugs, it was just a figure of speech, and that when they toured for 12 months in a dingy tour bus, they had singalongs where everyone joined in and sang, while smiling, really sweet songs.

The film also failed to portray the groupie phenomenon. This is exemplified by the casting of a plastic surgery victim with blue eyes, fake blond hair, artificially baby faced skin and stupid mannerisms, with a strikingly passion-less attitude toward music (if you haven't guessed already, I am talking about Kate Hudson) who really shows the viewer that this is what you look like if you want to appear in TV series' such as Friends or Darma and Greg, and certainly not what groupies usually look like or behave.

Another striking feature of this film is its distinct lack of realism. The plot structure created around a 15 year old geek who stumbles across a cool aging rock critic who in a few minutes teaches him the tricks of the trade is pathetic. And having this kid head hunted by the Rolling Stone because of some silly article and without even an interview, send him all expenses (and the band's) paid around the US on a tour bus with the Spinal Tap-ish band is irritatingly stupid. Finally, the depiction of the band's career is based on some sort of illusion. I am not sure what Crowe was thinking about when he thought of showing this bands ascendance, only that from the very first performance you watch, they are already playing to thousands of people.

I do not have a clue why the likes of excellent actors such as Frances McDormand, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Noah Taylor agreed to participate in this pile of nonsense, but they should be ashamed!

Amores Perros (2000)

Excellent first feature

[11 March 2001]

This film is everything Magnolia tried to be but never quite achieved. It has the separate plots intertwining in critical moments, it has the big underlying themes dealing with life, death, and family and has that epic feeling. Only this film does it with coherency, originality, power and on a slightly more modest budget! The director said to a local newspaper here that he gets angry when he hears people compare his film to pulp fiction. He says that this type of plot structure can be traced back to Faulkner. He would rather have his film compared to Kurrasawa's work than Tarantino's. Watching the film and then hearing this interview makes me feel that though this is only the first film by this director, film fans are in for a real treat.. At the end of the film I felt like a (used) punching bag. Much has been said about how intensive this film is but I never expected to be so blown a way. The director's meticulous plot construction, the powerful hyper realistic photography, and the tremendous performances by all of the cast, in my opinion, makes this one of the best debuts I have ever seen and definitely one of the films of the year. GO SEE!

With a Friend Like Harry... (2000)

Hannibal, eat your heart out!

[7 March 2001]

Its a funny old world. Two days ago I saw the abysmal Hannibal and last night this excellent film. Where in Hannibal, Hopkins lazily drags through the film uttering silly phrases such as 'okey dokey' after throwing someone out of the window with his bowels pouring out of his stomach, in 'Harry...', Lopez creates a wonderful character, balancing apparent sanity with psychopathic tendencies.

This beautifuly and meticulously created thriller reminds me of Dissappearance in its tension and horrifying concepts. The way in which this film builds the suspense spicing it with wonderful black humour, uniformly excellent performances, modest but precise photography, and eery music, makes for a thoroughly entertaining two hours.

Hannibal (2001)

Nonsense

[6 March 2001]

I must say that I have not seen such a colossal flop in a long time. Not that I was expecting a masterpiece from Ridley Scott, director of numerous abysmal films, but this was quite unexpected. Much has been said with regard to the pros and cons of sequels (and prequels for that matter) though to create a film with such a thin and obvious script, with such shallow humour and such 2D characters wins the argument with a striking blow (discounting the Godfathers and Alienz).

Jodie Foster has had an unremarkable career but to decide not to be part of this flop must count to her benefit. Her replacement gives an unremarkable performance. Not that she had such a good character to sink her teeth in to… so to speak. Both Starling and Lecter's characters in this sequel, become caricatures of their original self, uttering stupid sentences and pathetic humour (occasionaly masked as black humour). And what about Ray Liotta's character. What a load of B*#@!?#s. His ridiculous character played with a remarkable lack of grace, is more suitable to Marvel comics than the sequel to the masterly Silence of the Lambs.

The plot itself is absurd and full of holes (e.g. if Lecter is on the FBI's top 10 most wanted criminals list, how could he fly in and out of the US without being stopped??? And what about Lecter's surviving victim who's so rich that he hires a gang of thugs to raise killer wild boars but not once gives a thought to the fact that Lecter is supposedly a genius criminal and his hired killers are a bunch of John Waters' like characters???)

Titus (1999)

Mad Max Meets Shakespeare in an empty Coliseum

[8 February 2001]

This a breathtaking adaptation of one of Shakespeare's most gruesome plays. Though slightly long, it is visually stunning, excellently acted (especially Anthony Hopkins who finally gets a, well, beefy role), and excitingly scored. For those interested in politics, sociology and the psychology of leadership, it is unavoidable but one must use cliches - this play, though written in the late 1500's, has a relevance today which is dumfounding.

The War Zone (1999)

Roth creates a directorial debut masterpiece

[31 January 2001]

I was warned so much in advance that I entered the cinema wearing a (virtual) bullet proof vest and was equipped with two packets of Kleenex. As the film ended, I found myself oddly desensitised. I felt like someone punched me in the stomach and I was left out of air, almost hollow.

Roth, following his mate Gary Oldman, has chosen a courageous yet uncommercially viable issue to tackle in his directorial debut. Nevertheless, aided by gifted photographer, Seamus McGarvey, and inspired casting, Roth's film is a triumph.

The stunning and clever location, the 'understatedness'/'Englishness' of the characters, the harrowing soundtrack, the unanswered plot threads, all make for a disturbing, horrifying, and unmissable film experience.

Thumbs up for Tim Roth.

The Contender (2000)

not bad for video

[16 January 2001]

I'm not sure that The Contender knows what it wants to be. On the one hand it's edited snazzily, has the feel of an indie and has unconventional character development (e.g. Allen/Hanson who I started out hating though surprisingly she grew on me) but on the other, it falls into the usual Hollywood pitfalls (e.g. the goodies are really good/handsome/right on and the baddies are really bad/ugly/misogynist/prolife). Not to mention the awful score (for crying out load, is any mainstream American film ever going to loose those terrible MOR tracks mixed with third rate orchestrated drivel) and an ending - WARNING WARNING WARNING - so damn patriotic - the USA is the best and only country on earth - get your handkerchiefs out - kind of endings, that you wonder whether it was worth the effort of seeing yet another American film over 2 hours long.

And I'm sorry, Joan Allen does not deserve an Oscar for this (not that the Oscar has any relevance to the standard of a performance, but thats a different discussion altogether) and neither does Gary Oldman who gives a great performance but does not reach some of the peaks of his previous work as an actor (not to mention as a director).

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Just a thought..

[11 January 2001]

I think everything has been said about this film so I won't repeat how powerful, orginal and audacious this film is.

What I found striking though, reading many of the comments, is that almost every review focused on the drug use and some even thought the film is anti drug propeganda that should be seen by schools. I think that is slightly naive and shows, with respect to the commenters, an ignorance and detachment from the issue.

Furthermore, and this is really the main point I am trying to make, I disagree that this film is about drugs. This film, in my humble opinion, is about addiction. As such, it is not real or hyper real. It is, following my thesis, a surreal analysis of human obssession, addiction, and the effects thereof. To support this view, merely look at the way Aronofsky juxtaposes the story of Ellen Burstyn's obssession with appearing on TV and the means taken with that of the kids' obssession with 'finding a way out' and the consequential drug addiction.

Ravenous (1999)

An underated masterpiece

[11 January 2001]

I love these kind of films. Most people are so disgusted by them, they fail to realise how subtle and complex the issues they are dealing with really are.

This film works on several levels and I can say with confidence, that it is a masterpiece on each and every such level. Some of the commenters have already analysed the allegories relating to land abduction but I would also add that it makes a very convincing and powerful statement with regard to the 'evil that men do'. The characters are mostly men, and given a free reign, they are shown to loose all humanity. Greed, I think this film suggests, is the real motive underlying man's behaivour.

I would also like to note two more unrelated things: (1) the soundtrack to this film is inspiring in its originality, melody, atmosphere, and role in the film as a product, and (2) I loved the nod to superhero battles in one of the later scenes (which I will not describe) reminding me of the better Marvel hero comics.

Final Destination (2000)

Yet another Nike sponsored catastrophe

[21 December 2000]

Final Destination does not know what it wants to be. It lacks coherency and direction and whenever it doesn't know what to do, it throws in a cheap gag to help it stumble along.

The crux of the problem with this abysmal farce is that instead of using a vaguely interesting concept (without ruining too much, something to do with 'the grand scheme of life', fate, etc.) to create an truly original flick it gets trapped in the Hollywood machine and therefore has to spoon feed the viewer, e.g. by making death into Death, i.e. a new baddie like freddie kruger, jason, leatherface, etc. Here, Death is made almost human so that the dumb viewer can grasp who the baddie is - pathetic and insulting.

Needless to say that the characters and acting are awful. Yet another generation of third rate zitty teenage actors of the worst kind. The acting is so poor its not even amusing in the most camp B-movie attractiveness kind of way possible. The characters are 2D stereotypes made so much more gracefuly in films like Scream.

This has got to be one of the worst horror films I have seen in a long long time.

Snatch (2000)

One Step Forward (..and not two) for Guy Ritchie

[19 November 2000]

Guy Ritchie has definitely done it again. Using the same formula as in Lock, Stock.. and backed by the ever - in - search - of - a - new - image - Madonna, Ritchie has gone and made another winner.

Tightly scripted, cleverly shot, and classily casted, this is an immensly entertaining film.

Brad Pitt deserves his own little paragraph. Brad Pitt has had a terrible career. Brad Pitt thought that having a pretty face and muscles makes you a good actor but, as countless others have proved before him (including the abysmal Keanu Reeves), that is not enough. So Brad Pitt took a lesson from Johnny Depp on how to overcome your pretty face by choosing challenging, unexpected and difficult roles in films not intended to be watched by freckle faced brace wearing teenage girls. Brad Pitt has finally switched ranks and hopefuly, after the Fight Club and this film he will never again shave.

As this is Ritchie's second film, he is excused from making the same film again (with bigger budget, snazzier cast etc) but, he will not be able to make another film that looks like a Smirnoff/Guiness commercial if he wishes to develop his undoubtebly original talent.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

a classic festival opener

[18 November 2000]

No wonder this film has opened so many festivals. This is a remarkable piece of work and a great achievement for Ang Lee following some pretty undistinguished films made recently by Lee.

I will not repeat what has been said by almost all reviewers here with regard to the choreography though what I would point out is how magnificent this film looks on such a relatively small budget. It puts Hollywood to shame.

Saving Grace (2000)

A British Feel Good

[12 November 2000]

Wow, the Brits have done it again. A small, sweet, well acted feel good flick. But here, under these wrappings lies a message. Masked by hilariously stoned tea ladies, a hilariously stoned village doctor, a hilariously stoned widow, and in fact just about hilariously stoned everyone, is a little message about getting hilariously stoned. Slightly naughty of a mainstream feelgood comedy, but then again, this isn't an American comedy, this film's undercurrent agenda sets out to show the hypocricy of banning weed whilst allowing alcohol.

If I had to pick something wrong with the film it would probably be some of the naff postcard-ish photography. Cornwall is stunning enough to not have to go out of your way to make it look like a postcard.

Ride with the Devil (I) (1999)

I wouldn't want to spoil the party but..

[9 November 2000]

Ang Lee is an inspired and accomplished director but I can't help but wonder what the excitement is all about?! The film, although beautifuly directed, was pretty weak on the acting, and while it might have been accurate in historical detail, missed the 'personal' stylized touch of the director. I know the facts and would rather see a documentary if that's what I was in search for.

And Jewel. Probably the most aweful product of the decaying American music industry was brought in to do what? Lend her even worse acting talents? And in any case, her character was two dimensional stereotypical sexist drivel.

Having said all that, I was still gripped to my chair and well impressed by the depiction of human atrocities for the full duration of the film.

Slam (1998)

Spike Look Out!

[5 November 2000]

Without Saul Williams this film could not have been made. Its as if it was tailor made for William's awesome rapping talents without which the film would be pointless.

This film is definitely a milestone in black cinema. Its fresh, breathtaking, original, powerful and 'takes no prisoners' (mind the pun).

And a couple of word about the soundtrack - the ever excellent DJ Spooky takes the credits combining the most powerful hip hop outfits around, to create an intensive soundtrack which completes this film and leaves you open jawed.

It All Starts Today (1999)

Loach-ish

[7/10 · 29 October 2000]

I wouldn't want to spoil the party so, yes, this film is an important look at the serious social problems inherent in France and the lack of ability and care of the authorities to do anything about it. Yes, it is hard hitting. Yes, the camera work is exceptionally beautiful and masterfully handled.

But, I can't seem to get rid of the weird feeling I get when a (approx.) two hour film tries to condense so many problems into such a short time. The dialogue becomes self righteous and totally unbelievable. Also, the characters were unbelievable either. The main character is conveyed as an almost angelic do-gooder who can do no harm. His partner, as well, is dissappointing - it is just too obvious to take a georgous wild sculptress to help decorate the film. A friend suggested to me that the partner's one dimensional role suggests sexually discriminatory undertones.

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

a healthy signal

[8/10 · 28 October 2000]

This film signals that not all is decaying in American cinema. With a generous helping hand (and some solid connections) from dad, Sofia Coppola has gone and quite bravely adapted a pretty slow paced philisophical shocker of a novel. She does this with talent and inspiration and comes up with a stylish perspective on gender politics, generation gaps and suburban humdrum lives.

The soundtrack, as beautiful as it was when I purchased it 6 months ago, is nothing compared to the way it sounds whilst watching the film. It is an integral part of the piece, creating an almost ethereal atmosphere.

The acting is generally of a high standard, standouts include the (almost) ever excellent James Woods and the totaly miscast Scott Glenn who reminds us that even the power of your dad's connections should be handled with care.

Frequency (2000)

The ugly consequences of the Back to the Future Series

[22 October 2000]

It takes a lot of money to come up with such a monumental flop. I should of known, any film these days starring Dennis Quaid should be enough to keep me a way from the cinema but the idea of dad and son connecting through a radio transmitter through time seemed potentially interesting. Boy, was I wrong.

Not only is the plot full of holes and discrepancies, the whole film lacks any sort of direction. Is it a drama? Is it a thriller? Is it Back to the Future 16?

(The next paragraph might reveal some of the plot so please skip it if you still want to see this film!)And I haven't even mentioned the scary part - the film, at its core, encourages and supports old school American family values e.g. the film suggests that the you are doing badly if you do not have a family by the age of 36, and that if circumstances were rectified, you would have a family with two kids and that would be considered a 'good end'.

The result is yet more evidence that Hollywood has become a platform for pushing traditional conservative republican values on innocent viewers.

Shaft (2000)

What's the point?

[22 October 2000]

Hollywood remakes of European films are c**p. Hollywood remakes of Hollywood films are apparently c**p too. What is the point of remaking a film that is so 'of its time', so entwined in the cultural/social/political context of its time? Remaking one of the major masterpieces of the blaxploitation cinema in the year 2000 is a pointless money spending extravaganza.

This is not to take away from the qualities of the film as a straightforward action film. It is a totally gripping, fast, well acted action film per se. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Mixed Feelings...

[19 October 2000]

Any new Coen Brothers film is a reason to get excited especially after wetting our appetites with the Director's Cut of Blood Simple. And any new film with John Turturro is a reason to still have faith in the power of acting. But, this time around I am not entirely convinced that the Coens hit the jackpot. Paying tribute to Homer and Sturges sounds pretentious and impressive but it doesn't quite work. The story evolves at a very slow pace, the trademark wackiness seems a tad contrived and getting George Cloony to star feels like a sell out. Also, the way the Coens dealt with Depression-era politics and social issues is lightweight and unsatisfying. Having said that, this film is light years more entertaining and amusing than any Hollywood drivel that gets spewed at us regularly. The fluency of their humour is something that your De Niro/Crystal/De Vito comedies will never achieve.