Alenchik Reviews

Up at the Villa (2000)

More enjoyable than some reviewers would have you believe

[26 July 2003]

I was intrigued when this film showed up on the day's TV roster and even more intrigued when I found out who the cast are and read a quick synopsis of the story. Most of the reviewers here, at IMDB, have made the movie sound dreadful. I found it hard to believe that anything with Sean Penn and Kristin Scott Thomas would be awful and had to check out the film for myself. My conclusion -- it is quite good, engaging, and definitely worth watching.

The lead actors as well as most of the supporting cast are rather wonderful. Though, I wish that someone slightly more dashing and not so limp played the role of the Austrian student, even if the stumbling manner and sudden onset of neurosis are required of the part. The scenery is inviting; the sets are great; the variety of accents is interesting; some of the extras are a bit shaky. The film is not so much about the setting, the era, or the social/political/economic spheres, though all of these have a firm bearing on the events and characters. It is chiefly about human actions under pressure of circumstances, about relationships, flights of fancy, slip-ups, weaknesses, trust and emotional maneuvering. "Up at the Villa" addresses these topics as good as any other period film.

I recommend this movie to those who, like I, enjoyed more than one of the following:

The Talented Mr. Ripley

Gosford Park

Howards End

Country Life

The Wings of the Dove

A Room with a View

The Remains of the Day

White Nights (1985)

Mistakenly Underrated

[10/10 · 13 June 2001]

Frankly, I don't see why everybody is so up in arms about the quality of this movie. I, for one, don't need to preface my review with a disclaimer that only its dance sequences can be enjoyed. I happen to think that it's a pretty excellent cinematographic work overall. Let me elaborate.

The camera work here is among the most original and clever out there. It's incredibly dynamic and energetic, offering unusual perspectives, delivering great close-ups, and skillfully capturing the sweeping wide spaces. An unusually large amount of footage is devoted to the city landscapes of St. Petersburg - a rarity in American flicks on Russian themes. It's all the more jarring, however, that despite attempts to ensure authenticity of the setting, at least the first couple of car rides seem to have been done in a stationary vehicle and plastered rather crudely against the city background. But this is a forgivable and almost charming flaw, considering the film's limited budget and the release year of 1985.

The film is a paradox of sorts, showcasing interesting performances from Rossellini and Hines, two actors who have since been totally under-appreciated. There's good chemistry between the impressionable and high-strung duet of Darya and Raymond. Jerzy Skolimovski (Colonel Chaiko) is the classical cunning villain with a Slavic flare. Baryshnikov himself seems a bit rigid and somewhat formulaic as Nikolay Rodchenko. That is when he's not dancing, of course. For when he dances, he unleashes all imaginable and unimaginable potential.

Obviously, the story line is sketched out in broad, exaggerated strokes. But I bet the filmmakers actually expected the overall theatricality to be taken with a grain of salt. Besides, the subject matter discussed wasn't keen on subtleties. The events depicted were behind-the-scenes operations all right, but they were as blunt and theatrically bizarre as can be. And as for those who think the circumstances and emotions of the dissidence and emigration (or defection in this case) experience are overblown - brush up on mid-20th century history and get a grip on things. Not only had the Big Brother's machinery of state control and suppression been well oiled for decades in the Soviet Union and its satellites, but the shadow of this absurd, merciless beast hangs over many of those nations still. Folks, the fictionalized account of Nikolay Rodchenko is merely a -slightly- glamorized and dramatized version of real life experience of countless victims of the era.

The scenes of Nikolay and Darya fleeing through the deserted streets of Leningrad and the subsequent humiliation they experience in front of the American embassy send chills down my spine every time I watch the movie. That threat and that danger are very real to me even though my emigration experience in the 1990s was simply peachy in retrospect and comparison. Just as disturbing and sobering, by the way, is Rodchenko's reception by the Americans and the so-called international community inside the gates. He to them is but a nimble exotic specimen...

Anyhow, let me dismount my high horse and reiterate, seconding the earlier reviews, that `White Nights' features superb, matchless dancing; and, to miss it is a deathly sin. Well, almost...

There are essentially four dance highlights in the movie. Choreography is mainly by Baryshnikov, Hines, and, very importantly, Twyla Tharp. Baryshnikov's duet with Florence Faure in the opening credits is bound to leave your breathless. It is sheer perfection - immensely inventive and impeccably executed. The second instance when you'll forget that you could blink and breathe is during the 11 rubles for 11 pirouettes number. He does it with a godly effortlessness. Hines' and Baryshnikov's dance studio number is fascinating to watch. And, then… Then, there's Mikhail's solo to Vysotsky's tape on the stage of the Kirov theatre. Its beauty is literally painful and words can never describe it.

If you haven't seen `White Nights' or haven't seen it more than once, you're denying yourself an unearthly pleasure. And you can snicker at my high-flown sighs and exclamations all you want :)

Onegin (1999)

Pathetic...

[3/10 · 22 August 2000]

My perception of the film was greatly influenced by the close familiarity with Pushkin's novel-in-verse I've acquired through numerous readings of the text both in Russian (my native tongue) and in several English translations. Thus, (nitpicking?)comparison of the cinematographic version to the literary original was pretty inevitable as I watched the film. I'm surprised by all the positive reviews I see here for I think that this movie is simply pathetic and laughable. Its portrayal of the characters, the times, the themes is grossly inadequate. Most importantly, it completely misses the mood (or, rather, the many moods) of the novel. Too many of the interpretations on the part of the director and actors are preposterous, and - worst of all - one-sided. The vapid Liv Tyler is entirely unfit for the role of passionate Tatyana, and, as a result, her performance is a miserable failure. For one, Tatyana wouldn't be caught dead singing cheesy Russian romance songs. Fiennes as Onegin doesn't deliver either. The duel scene, while visually impressive, is painfully out-of-place and overdramatized. The very atmosphere of the film is ridiculously misrepresented...

Although I couldn't keep a sardonic grin away practically for the entire duration of the movie, I realize that I may be misjudging the value of the film and the achievements of the filmmakers because of my preconceived ideas of what "Onegin" should be on screen or on stage. Undoubtedly, attempting to render an authentic portrayal of the work that serves (almost unarguably) as the foundation of modern Russian literature and trying to depict with accuracy the most renowned (anti)hero of Russian literature - Onegin - is a great (unsurmountable?) challenge. Does that mean that any attempt should be met with admiration nevertheless? I'm still trying to decide.

The film suffered from the incredible hype that preceded its premiere because it did not live up to the expectations of most who impatiently awaited its release.