Change Your Image
hotnoodletuna
Reviews
Killing Priscilla (2000)
truly fascinating
What makes this documentary so intriguing is having seen both "Eye of the Beholder" and "Priscilla". One cannot dspute the fact that Priscilla was a terrific film. It was hilarious and touching in equal measure. This is important because it justifies the absolute dedication to the preservation of one's artistic principles that is so clearly on display here. It is equally important to note, however, that "Beholder" is an almost unwatchably bad film. Inasmuch as you might find the idea of watching a documentary about a mediocre director making a poor film to be boring, you would be entirely mistaken. "Killing Priscilla" gives us wonderful insights into the workings of Hollywood (from distributors who have never seen the film, to financial backers who want to make a soft-core porn out of the film) and its utterly fickle ability to ignore the passion of artists in favor of the big cash-in.
That said, however, the truly fascinating part of the film is the singlemindedness with which the director views his project. Not only does he not see that "Beholder" is incoherrent and laughable, he actually believes that he is creating a visual masterpiece. Instead of scoffing at his naivety, however, I actually began to root for him and admire his dedication to his vision. This film almost succeeds as an expose of an artist's battles against the shallow studio system. The only problem, of course, being that the execs were justifiably upset by the fact that "Beholder" is such a god-awful film. The film succeeds almost accidentally, however, as an insight into the creative mind of the artist, and how dedication to one's vision is just as alive and well for the bad artists and hacks as it is in the work of the true visionaries.
Hoop Dreams (1994)
setting the record straight
After reading the comments about "Hoop Dreams" I feel that I must help to set the record straight. Though a few of the reviewers saw this film correctly, the vast majority see this film as a basketball movie. It is not. This is a film about poor and impressionable children who are promised a better life by people who seek only to exploit them. Form the opening seen where the fat Artful Dodger-like recruiter is watching 14 year old boys play basketball and trying to entice them to attend the same prep-school as Isaiah Thomas, to the moment when Arthur is expelled because he cannot pay his tuition, we see how savagely exploited these poor children are. They have been reduced to work-horses by white America, promised a better life if they compete on the modern-day gladiatorial stage. These kids will never make the big show, and they will never escape the ghetto. They will perform like circus clowns until they no longer have the ability to excite us. This is modern-day slavery and apartheid on display in the USA, and some of you folks out there have the nerve to criticize these desperately poor families for accepting a welfare check. Shame on you for perpetuating such exploitation. This film is not about basketball. This film is about the continuing development of a minority underclass in this country, and the fact that we all promote it with our love for gladiators, and our Dickensian willingness to exploit children to fulfill our gluttonous desires. This is a film with heroes and villians. If you think its just a heartwarming story about kids playing basketball, then you are one of the villians.
The Godfather Part II (1974)
best film ever made
this is the finest film ever made. The Shakespearian elements of the family tragedy are beautifully portrayed. The juxtaposition of De Niro's Vito to Pacino's Michael is wonderful, and the scene the young Vito Corleone sitting on the bed at Ellis Island alone is perhaps the most moving single image in film history.
The Godfather (1972)
second best film ever
This is the second best film ever made. Only "The Godfather part 2" is better. Nothing else need be said, but since I ave to get four lines I will point out that Pacino's transformation in this film is one of the most moving performances in history
Suspiria (1977)
ok, so the plot was lame, but the movie's great
I have heard several times that Argento is the Italian Hitchcock. This comparison is unfair to both men. Whereas Hitchcock was the master at creating suspense through masterfully interwoven plots replete with complex and thee dimensional characters, Argento's technique is much more childlike. Indeed, the actual plot and characterization in Suspiria was weak, it didn't matter. Argento's halucinatory fairy tale of a film batters the viewer so successfully with its shocking atmospherics that the film needn't actuallly provide much of a story at all to be terrifying. The use of color filters, as well as Goblin's unrelenting soundtrack create a nightmarish scenario that draws us to the film. Argento, like all of the great masters of the genre, is able to coax us into watching, even as we know that something horrible is coming, and then still shock us senseless when the violence comes. Though Suspiria is a very graphically violent and gory film, one never finds the gore to be exploitative. Indeed, I have viewed the film on several occasions with friends who hate the slasher genres senseless gore, and even they were forces to admit that Argento's handling of violence is artfull and classy.
Zombi 2 (1979)
a truly poor film
I have now seen "The Beyond", "The Gates of Hell", and this film. I must say that I have no idea what accounts for Fulci's popularity. His films are absolutely devoid of plot, pacing, or characterization. Instead, Fulci films tend to be one scene after the other of bloody gore, intersperesed heavily with inane and unrealistic dialog. I can see why gorehoounds could get into this film, but more demanding horror fans need some sort of plot, suspense, or at least a sympathetic character. Fulci fails to provide any of these elements.
When comparing Fulci's film to the Romero trilogy, one can only be shocked at how racist the Fulci picture is. Romero used his zombies as metaphors for the destruction and corruption of our society. Moreover, Romero was groundbreaking in his decision to use African-American heroes in his first two films. This was an especially interesting move in 1968 when "NOTLD" was released. In contrast, Fulci's film serves up some old hackneyed carribean voodoo trance silliness. The film makes no effort to explore the true nature of Santeria or any other carribean religion's zombie mythology. Instead, it presents the usual colonial "Gee ain't these natives exotic and dangerous" viewpoint. White heroes are attacked and the blame rests squarely witin some voodoo curse placed by blacks. This offensive and absurd plot device is almost a polar opposite to Romero's liberal and challenging films. Indeed, anyone who seeks to compare them is lacking the basic critical ability to delve beyond the visual and interperet the filmmaker's message. In this case, Fulci's reactionary Euro-trash cannot hold a candle to Romero.
Maniac (1980)
promising concept but poorly done
Maniac takes a path that few films dare, by allowing us to sympathize with the killer, and presenting him as the protagonist of the film. Indeed, for the first half hour, the film creates a shockingly claustrophobic scenario, in which Frank is the only real character in the film, and the others are all introduced to serve merely as his victims. This structure makes for some powerful viewing, because Frank's worldview is so claustrophobic and stifling that we almost literally feel his isolation weighing down upon us.
The film loses its power when it creates a semi-traditonal love interest for Frank. Inevitably, this opens up the film, by allowing us to assume a perspective other than Frank's at various times throughout the remainder of the film. Though this does come as a sort of emotional relief for the viewer, it also diminishes most of the tension that the stellar first half hour so completely creates.
Were it not for this cop-out, Maniac would be one of those rare films that, while being nearly unwatchably upsetting, is also a brilliantly moving film. Indeed, many of the camera angles used, as well as Spinell's terrific performance lend this film more credibility than it deserves.
In summary, the film starts out as emotionally raw and brutal as "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", or "Peeping Tom", but about half way through the film it relents and becomes more generic slasher fare. All serious analysis aside, however, Savii's work on this film has to be seen to be believed. Gorehounds can't afford to miss it.
Cornbread, Earl and Me (1975)
a sharply mixed bag
The film does have a moderately intriguing mesage about polkice brutality and political corruption being obscenely hoisted upon African American communities in the urban United States. That said, the film is horribly dated, and elements of it are unnacceptable by today's standards. I mean the slain icon's name is Cornbread for Pete's sake!!! Where wre his cohorts Fried Chicken and Watermelon? Moreover, the societal corruption is presented in a way that makes us feel sad and powerless rather than angry and indignant. This is really a product of the early seventies Blaxploitation genre that would be utterly offensive by today's standards were it not for the still relevant and timely subject matter of the film. Worthwhile viewing for those who can differentiate between the message and the overdone elements. I fear, however, that the film's excess could leave white biggots laughing at the maudlin African American stereotypes on parade rather than addressing the political concerns of the film at all.
Mr. Holland's Opus (1995)
a thinking man's picture
Clearly, Mr. Holland's Opus is a film that intends to document the changes that occur throughout the life of a remarkable man. In doing so, the film does rely heavily on improbable and schmaltzy plot devices (particularly the ending). That said, this film is so well written and staged that only the most jaded viewer could avoid being swept along with the drama.
Both the intentional use of real historical events, and the theme accidental and unintentional heroism beg a comparison to "Forrest Gump". This film is infinitely superior to Gump, however, because it deals with success in terms of great moral acchievment. "Gump", for all of its overrated praise, merely shows Gump gaining material wealth. Moreover, "Holland's" bitter sweet ending is not merely tacked on, but is the logical result of the educational policies of this country. This film celebrates the great American sense of community by elevating a teacher to heroic status. This film is truly a wonderful acknowledegment of the hard work put forth every day on on behalf of our children by teachers. This film is about real Americans, and needn't stray into the utterly fantastic to fill us with a se4nse of wonderment at the life led by Glen Holland. This is "Forrest Gump" for thinking people. A nearly perfect film.
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Sheer brilliance in cinema
Stanley Kubrick explores both the nature of the artist as well as the society that he inhabits in this demented and fascinating film. For, Alex is not simply a hoodlum, he is an artist that works in the medium of pain. Kubrick's film examines the sanitization of his art through societal impositions upon it.
Kubrick's masterstroke is to shoot the actions of Alex and his "droogs" without any sort of object removed moralizing whatsoever. The actions are simply depicted, and it is the viewer who must process the sequences and produce a genuine and unmanipulated response.
Equally important, however, is Kubrick's extreme moralizing when depicting the actions of the state. The actions taken to "help" young Alex come across as little more than a shocking brand of neo-fascism. It is the very fact that we find Alex's behavior distasteful without any manipulation that serves to make Kubrick's point. We must preserve our right to free expression and trust in the people to make the appropriate determination as to the legitimacy of the work. As this film shows, the alternative to such freedoms is far more heinous and brutal than anything that one individual could possibly produce
K-PAX (2001)
good performances-- generic material
potential spoilers!!!!!
K-Pax is undoubtedly a waste of the formidable acting chops of both Spacy and Bridges. Both men turn in subtle performances, peppered with believable vocal and physical mannerisms. The subject matter, however leaves alot to be desired. The fundamental flaw is that the film asks us to care about the Jeff Bridges character's family relationship without developing these characters at al. Neither the children or his wife are given any voice, nor is the reason for their familial strife explored futher than simply saying that Bridges is a "workaholic". Such a generic explanation is fine as backstory, but it cannot be used as the primary motivation for a protagonist's actIONS
SPOILERS ALERT!!!!
Nowhere in te film is this more evident than in the relationship between Bridges and his estranged son. This relationship is dismissed with the explanation that " they don't talk." For one t have any emotional investment in their reunion, we must have a more significant esxplanation than this. This film purports to explore the worldly by means of the supernatural, but it merely glosses over the most fundamentally human elements of the film.
An attempt at Capraesque schmaltz that lacke the social insight and commentary to acchieve that level of quality. A predictable, dull, and simplistic film. Bridges and Spacey wasted their time on this rubbish, but that doesn't mean you have to.
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
pure genius
This is undoubtedly one of the finest films of the year. Aranofsky has managed to make a film even more technically interesting than "Pi", guaranteeing that he is ad industry force to be reckoned with. Ellen Burstyn's heart wrenching performance is her finest since "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore". That she was denied the Oscar is a travesty.
Sure the film is thematically a "Just say no" cautionary fable, but the editing and pacing fill this film with a life and vitality that belies the simplicity of the narrative. The performances are brilliant, particularly Leto and Burstyn (The mother/ son dynamic between them is just heartwrenching) and Marlon Wayans proves that he has dramatic range as an actor. This is not a film for the squeamish or the generic "Scary Movie" crowd, but if you're prepared t be challenged and engaged by the films you watch, this is one of the finest films in recent years
Cannibal ferox (1981)
Don't believe the hype
The majority of comments on this film arew polarized into two camps. Those who argue here that this is somehow an important film, or even that the gore is particularly titilating are mistaken. Equally mistaken, however, are those who argue that this film is vile and horrendous. It's just boring and technically inept.
The gore and characterization is decidedly racist and mysogynistic. Why, for example, are the actions of the white leads glossed over, while the actions of the cannibals are explored graphically. In any event, the dialogue is dumb, the dubbing awful, the effects far too silly looking to really be as repulsive as the film's supporters and detractors claim. This is an absolute waste of time. There are plenty of wonderful B-movies, both camp and serious that provide an infinitely better hour and a half than this drek. If you want disgusting rent John Water's "Pink Flamingos". (Hilarious and repulsive.). If the cheezy attempts at social commentary are what intrigues you about this film(and you are full of it if you really claim this), than you would be infinitely better served by one of Romero's "Dead trilogy" films.