ds1909 Reviews

Late Bloomer (2012– )

Useful Spunky Fun!

[10/10 · 26 June 2015]

This show works on so many levels. It's a step-by-step helpful guide for "late bloomers" who are perhaps trying gardening for the very first time. Ms. Katrell really nails it with her professionalism and passion for getting in touch with our food, the soil and our connection to the planet.

For quick and helpful info, you can do a key word search for a specific episode. Or, if you want to be inspired, you can watch the series from her first intro episode forward chronologically to follow her journey - a vicarious one for many of us who might be considering tearing up our front yards (as she does) to grow food. You'll hear about the mistakes she makes and the triumphs when her learning curve starts to zoom upward.

Katrell has a pleasant and professional on-camera presence and she never takes herself too seriously. The only thing she seems really serious about is making up for lost time as a "late season" and first time gardener.

Jarhead (2005)

Glossy Fluff

[5 November 2005]

Production values are A+ but the movie isn't about anything. It vaguely dips into a host of issues and subjects but never fully develops any of them or gets around to making a point -- oh yeah, and it has a killer soundtrack. (Great images and music to make killer trailers and sell movie tickets.) I heard a rumor that "American Beauty" was radically different when shot (a courtroom drama, in fact) and was shaped in its current form in the editing room. That info along with the sucky follow up, "Road to Perdition", makes one conclude that Mendes is a showman but NOT a storyteller. A better "study" of war and its effects on the human psyche is "The Thin Red Line".

The Chumscrubber (2005)

Pretentious and Derivative

[12 July 2005]

This movie (please don't call it a "film") is a mish-mosh of styles, themes and techniques lifted from the library of films these dudes must have adored in their short lives (movies like Heathers and Edward Scissorhands). All of these wishful elements that hope to become a film never gel. It really can be summed up in one word: boring. It tries way too hard but ultimately says nothing. Do we need another movie about disaffected teens in a twisted, exaggerated suburbia with crazy Danny Elfmanesque music? Yeah, there's a lot of "hype" about the movie. That's what you get when people spend $ advertising and realize they made a mistake in financing this project. A few performances are good but most are two dimensional. The whole film is two dimensional and superficial, which is ironic because if you try real hard to piece together a theme for this project I think the kids who made it were trying to make a statement against such superficiality. If you find yourself noticing the blue eyeliner on "Crystal's" eyes so much you have to draw only one conclusion -- the story is SO boring, that I'm watching the chick's eyeliner.

We saw this movie at the academy and most in the audience were 70+ years old. But these folks have worked in the business their whole lives and know movies. Guess what they did at the end of the movie? They hissed! The auditorium was full of hissing seniors. Never once have I been to a screening at the academy and heard grandma and grandpa hissing. That was the most entertaining part of the entire evening.

If you want to see an artful film about teenagers go rent "The Virgin Suicides". There's a film where technique exists as a storytelling device as opposed to the technique used in Chumscrubbers which merely exists as a mechanism for the filmmakers to show how "cool" they are.

The Night of the Hunter (1955)

Brilliant & Magical

[10/10 · 9 July 2005]

This film hasn't gotten the recognition it deserves. The best way to describe it would be a "dark fairy tale". It's much, much more than a "stalker movie" -- which is how the previous reviewer described it. In fact, it can't be called a stalker movie at all. Rather, it's an allegorical tale of good and evil (and also of naivete -- believe it or not it's the adults who are mostly naive and the children who listen to their instincts in this tale). The directing AND acting are brilliant. It dances on the cusp of the subconscious with a sophisticated touch, never going over the top. The use of light and dark, stage locations, shadows and sound are all handled deftly and again, the acting is brilliant. Lillian Gish, Robert Mitchum and Shelley Winters each handle their roles in unexpected ways (going against the grain of their standard fare). This film is a gem that is not to be missed, dismissed or oversimplified, and it's complexity and layers are to be savored. Sophisticated film lovers are in for a real treat.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Brilliant but Flawed

[8/10 · 12 December 2004]

I've never seen a film that better embodies the "decompression" that one undergoes at the end of a relationship. This film is brilliantly directed, beautifully shot & edited and there is some very good writing.

There are two stories here, the main one (Jim Carrey & Kate Winslet) which I consider the "brilliant" part and the secondary story (Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo etc.). The secondary story brought this film down. It starts off great but really trails off lamely. The mind erasing people are supposed to be "kooky" and they are, but it's pretty forced and not funny at all and pretty pointless. Similar to Shakespeare's use of comic relief in secondary side stories, at least in S's case, the side stories had a point and were often poignant themselves. This "comedic relief" simply wasn't and really had no relation to the main story except that the characters interacted. Also, the numerous pot references were tiresome. That stuff is only funny to dedicated stoners and seemed incongruent to the rest of the movie.

SPOILER: A truly brilliant moment comes at the end of the film when, considering whether they should stay in contact, Clementine says she will only end up getting bored and hating him for it (as if it's her pattern with men and she knows it) and Joel says OK, that's fine with him. As if his love for her is so important, he's OK with having to deal with that major, inevitable obstacle. He doesn't care. -- That's material with real depth, obviously coming from a writer who's had some life experience.

There are no easy answers about love in this film, which is why it's brilliant. It really captures the complexities and wonder of relationships.

Barry Lyndon (1975)

Flawed Masterpiece?

[11 March 2003]

Just caught this movie on IFC over the weekend. It immediately brought Brecht's epic theater to mind. I believe Kubrick was going after same principle: emotional detachment. This can especially be argued for due to the voiceover telegraphing important events before they happen so there is no surprise. And of course, there is the pacing, the static photography (except for those zooms, which no matter how beautiful, look dated unfortunately since no one uses them anymore), the deliberate music etc.

I found the filmmaking brilliant and agree with the reviews I'm reading about this being a "masterpiece" except for one critical flaw: the casting of the lead character. Ryan O'Neal is simply too wooden. Whether he was directed to be that static (to match the intent of the film's "vision") or if he simply couldn't handle being "subtle", His lifeless face is a black hole of energy in this piece, sucking it dry. It is interesting to note, however, that the English-trained actors do much better in the film -- they handle subtlety much, much better, still doing "inner" work without suffering from a paralyzed face as O'Neal does. His accent isn't too consistent either, sounding half American most of the time.

Otherwise, this is a beautiful film and should be watched for many, many reasons. (It used only 100% natural light sources -- exquisite!)

Tuvalu (1999)

Tedious beyond belief!

[8 February 2002]

This movie tries way too hard to be cute. It's the worst of "art" films because it is so self-conscious. It could have been cut down. It is too long and very hard to sit through. There is nothing compelling going on in the story.

The grunts and giggles got on my nerves -- why not do something daring and make it completely silent? As it is, if characters want something they point and grunt, or if they approve of something, they giggle. Very repetitive and very annoying. The director should stick to commercials or become an art director.

Wanna see a good "arty" retro spoof in black and white? Rent Richard Elfman's "The Forbidden Zone". Or rent the real thing and see a good silent-era film.