It's not often that I feel ripped off by a film I paid nothing to watch, but this huge pile of hack boringness was an affront and an offense. To connect this in any way with Kurt Cobain is ridiculous. It's totally made up, has nothing to do with facts, and is the lamest sort of exploitative cash-grab I've seen. Van Sant is capable of some very good films, however THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM! I wish I could scrub the memory of it from my brain. I seriously doubt I'll ever watch another film by Van Sant. I feel unclean for having watched it. Pathetic and insulting to Kurt's memory. Truly. Painfully!!
Reviews
22 Reviews
Unearth
(II) (2020)
A truly awful film
5 July 2022
If you're looking for supernatural horror, this ain't it. This movie made me feel like I needed a shower.
It's essentially nothing but setup. There's no payoff. There's no twist. There's nothing. You watch the movie... the credits roll... and you wish you could unsee it... at least I do.
On the upside, no need to worry about spoilers... There's nothing that could spoil this film any more than it already is.
It's essentially nothing but setup. There's no payoff. There's no twist. There's nothing. You watch the movie... the credits roll... and you wish you could unsee it... at least I do.
On the upside, no need to worry about spoilers... There's nothing that could spoil this film any more than it already is.
V/H/S
(2012)
So bad, I wish I could get 5 hours back
12 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler alert? Yes. The spoiler? This is without a doubt the worst "film" I've ever seen (it's hard to call it a film when it's all faux video). With only the thinnest trace of a plot that really serves no purpose, other showing some morons watching videos that are paradoxically even worse than the film as a whole (as hard as that seems to comprehend). The only thing more amazing about how bad this is, was learning that they actually shot _a sequel_... a sequel of WHAT? If you enjoy thoroughly random, crummy, totally unconnected vignettes of people acting even more stupidly than usual for a horror movie, then this is apparently the film for you. If, on the other hand, you prefer films that have a story or a plot or a point, I would recommend virtually ANY OTHER FILM EVER MADE. I've seen other films that I can say were just as bad, but I've never seen anything worse. Astonishingly and consistently lousy, it's not even remotely entertaining. I kept expecting something to tie it all together, but the only "connection" were the ending credits... which were plain, dull, ordinary credits - yet significantly more entertaining than the rest of the film; most likely because it indicated that it was really over. Awful. Simply awful.
The Donner Party
(2009)
...it's not a very good party, is it?
20 October 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"The Donner Party" (tagline: Based on the true events of The Forlorn Hope) is a pseudo-historical depiction of the ONLY portion of the Donner Party tragedy that has any hopefulness to it; the splinter group (AKA: The Forlorn Hope) that attempts to find rescue for the rest of the party.
Notable for Crispen Glover's remarkably subdued performance (remarkable in that I didn't know he knew how to do anything "subdued"), the film does an amazing job of capturing the feel and tension of the situation.
As with another film that involved subsistence cannibalism (the movie about the Soccer team that crashed in the Andes called "Alive"), the cannibalism, while somewhat central to the story, is very understated. You know what is going on, but it is hardly obvious; I doubt most kids would understand what was going on. That's not to say that this is a film for kids, but just as an example of how delicately the subject matter is handled.
Some fairly severe liberties were taken with the screenplay. Yes, they drew straws, but they were unable to follow through with that plan. Glover's character does come across as a little too eager to slaughter others. It's one thing to consume another person's body in order to survive, but it's entirely a different matter to TAKE a person's life for the same purpose. Plus, it hardly seemed necessary (in the context of the film) given how many others were dropping dead from hunger or exposure already... why execute someone who is still mobile? Regarding the demand that Glover repeatedly makes to the other party member about everyone needing to "contribute to the pot"... The character he was talking to had been hoarding food for himself. Glover knew about it, and was willing to put up with it until he found out the provisions they were looking for were non-existent. Glover was asking (demanding) that he share whatever food he had left with the rest of the party... and to do so without raising the ire of the others in the party who were apparently unaware that he had been eating while all were starving to death around him.
Shooting the film in the actual area where the events occurred, and with a believable amount of snow, really adds to the feel of the film.
Having Glover's character killed at the end is the most pointless change in the whole film. Why kill off one of the real survivors? Could it be just to shock and surprise all those Donner Party experts? Doubtful. Seems more like a sloppy screen writing attempt to wrap things up with "a bang"... disappointing.
I give it 5 out of 10... the 5 are for the mood, cinematography, location, music and Glover's performance. I can't give it more than that, as the changes they made to the actual events for the most part were somewhat pointless. They could easily have made the same film while maintaining historical accuracy without losing any of the story that they ended up with.
Worth watching it, but I can't see owning it.
Notable for Crispen Glover's remarkably subdued performance (remarkable in that I didn't know he knew how to do anything "subdued"), the film does an amazing job of capturing the feel and tension of the situation.
As with another film that involved subsistence cannibalism (the movie about the Soccer team that crashed in the Andes called "Alive"), the cannibalism, while somewhat central to the story, is very understated. You know what is going on, but it is hardly obvious; I doubt most kids would understand what was going on. That's not to say that this is a film for kids, but just as an example of how delicately the subject matter is handled.
Some fairly severe liberties were taken with the screenplay. Yes, they drew straws, but they were unable to follow through with that plan. Glover's character does come across as a little too eager to slaughter others. It's one thing to consume another person's body in order to survive, but it's entirely a different matter to TAKE a person's life for the same purpose. Plus, it hardly seemed necessary (in the context of the film) given how many others were dropping dead from hunger or exposure already... why execute someone who is still mobile? Regarding the demand that Glover repeatedly makes to the other party member about everyone needing to "contribute to the pot"... The character he was talking to had been hoarding food for himself. Glover knew about it, and was willing to put up with it until he found out the provisions they were looking for were non-existent. Glover was asking (demanding) that he share whatever food he had left with the rest of the party... and to do so without raising the ire of the others in the party who were apparently unaware that he had been eating while all were starving to death around him.
Shooting the film in the actual area where the events occurred, and with a believable amount of snow, really adds to the feel of the film.
Having Glover's character killed at the end is the most pointless change in the whole film. Why kill off one of the real survivors? Could it be just to shock and surprise all those Donner Party experts? Doubtful. Seems more like a sloppy screen writing attempt to wrap things up with "a bang"... disappointing.
I give it 5 out of 10... the 5 are for the mood, cinematography, location, music and Glover's performance. I can't give it more than that, as the changes they made to the actual events for the most part were somewhat pointless. They could easily have made the same film while maintaining historical accuracy without losing any of the story that they ended up with.
Worth watching it, but I can't see owning it.
U Turn
(1997)
Great ingredients, so-so meal; call it "Film Blanc"...
17 August 2004
It's an interesting ride, "U-Turn" is; but the incredible talents of just about everyone involved in the film don't live up to the potential.
The individual performances are suitably over-the-top (for the most part) - in fact, the only characters in the entire film that seem even remotely "normal" are the guys that hold up the groceria. They act just like you'd expect hoodlums to behave (but in the end, they are little more than props). None of the other characters act like you think they should. First impressions of each one are quickly destroyed, only to have it shattered as you progress deeper below the surface.
The only problem is that the "chocolatey center" of this celluloid Tootsie-Pop isn't all that tasty. The "shocking revelation" toward the end was so obvious to me from almost the very beginning that I found the on screen reactions to it to be too comical to be believed.
I would say that Sean Penn has never been better, but I think that's true for almost every film he is in. He's the "straight man", for the most part, and the film revolves around him ("revolves" doesn't quite say it? Better to say "spins wildly out of control" around him).
I'd have to categorize it as "Film Blanc"; a good "Film Noir" tale, but almost completely outdoors in the bright sun. It has all the traditional elements, but it still doesn't quite come together. "Film Noir" works best in the shadows...
"U-Turn" is to Oliver Stone what "Wild at Heart" was to David Lynch. In both movies, you're left with a distinct flavor of "What the Hell?"
If you liked "Natural Born Killers" (which I did), you will probably like this film a lot; which is not to say it's much like "NBK" at all, but it's in the same vein. And in the end, J.Lo does get her wish of becoming a bird and flying away... but I suspect not in the way she intended, and the final shot seems to point to this interpretation.
Technically, the film is stunning. The visuals, the soundtrack, the performances, the direction, the flow of the story... but it's like taking a very long trip in a really great car, only to end up in an extremely dull place that just wasn't quite worth the time or the drive (which, now that I think about it, is a very good way of describing the movie - in more ways than one).
6/10
The individual performances are suitably over-the-top (for the most part) - in fact, the only characters in the entire film that seem even remotely "normal" are the guys that hold up the groceria. They act just like you'd expect hoodlums to behave (but in the end, they are little more than props). None of the other characters act like you think they should. First impressions of each one are quickly destroyed, only to have it shattered as you progress deeper below the surface.
The only problem is that the "chocolatey center" of this celluloid Tootsie-Pop isn't all that tasty. The "shocking revelation" toward the end was so obvious to me from almost the very beginning that I found the on screen reactions to it to be too comical to be believed.
I would say that Sean Penn has never been better, but I think that's true for almost every film he is in. He's the "straight man", for the most part, and the film revolves around him ("revolves" doesn't quite say it? Better to say "spins wildly out of control" around him).
I'd have to categorize it as "Film Blanc"; a good "Film Noir" tale, but almost completely outdoors in the bright sun. It has all the traditional elements, but it still doesn't quite come together. "Film Noir" works best in the shadows...
"U-Turn" is to Oliver Stone what "Wild at Heart" was to David Lynch. In both movies, you're left with a distinct flavor of "What the Hell?"
If you liked "Natural Born Killers" (which I did), you will probably like this film a lot; which is not to say it's much like "NBK" at all, but it's in the same vein. And in the end, J.Lo does get her wish of becoming a bird and flying away... but I suspect not in the way she intended, and the final shot seems to point to this interpretation.
Technically, the film is stunning. The visuals, the soundtrack, the performances, the direction, the flow of the story... but it's like taking a very long trip in a really great car, only to end up in an extremely dull place that just wasn't quite worth the time or the drive (which, now that I think about it, is a very good way of describing the movie - in more ways than one).
6/10
Fahrenheit 9/11
(2004)
Traitor? TRAITOR?!? You have got to be kidding!!
25 June 2004
I'm not a Republican or a Democrat. Like Michael Moore, I am an Independent (both in voting and thinking). I just got back from the 1st local showing of "F° 9/11" and I found it to be the most stunning film I have ever seen... "STUNNING" in EVERY sense of the word.
Even if HALF of what is presented in the film is false (which I seriously doubt since so much of it comes directly from the horses a**... err... mouth), even after the facts have been checked and triple-checked, then any traitors involved truly aren't the filmmakers, but the subjects of the film.
My father was a Naval officer during the start of the Cold War. I myself served proudly in the Navy aboard missile submarines during the end of the Cold War. My youngest brother was an Army officer during the first Gulf War, and my middle brother is presently flying jets for the Air Force in the Afghan/Iraqi. All of us became involved to protect and defend our country's ideals... one of the most important ideals being the RIGHT TO SPEAK OUR MIND, especially when others disagree. I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it AND BE HEARD to my dying day.
Until the PATRIOT act, I never felt much concern in voicing an opinion; but I truly cannot say that now (which is why I'm not using my real name). Michael Moore is unquestionably a gadfly, but he's no traitor. Moore is a documentarian (an incredibly talented one at that) that truly loves our country, hates what has happened to it, and is a true patriot. His previous films reflect that, and he has only gotten better.
I salute Michael Moore for having the guts to make this film in a day when so many people are willing to turn a blind eye to the truth in favor of hearing what they have already decided to be true.
The right-wing can nitpick the details all they want, perhaps Moore didn't include things that they would have included; but that is his right, and what he has included is uncontestable. I admire those who could see this film and then differ with the statements made (although it bewilders me how they could), but I have nothing but contempt for those that seek to discredit, ban, block, or otherwise prevent others from seeing it when they don't have the balls to watch it themselves. Blinding yourself to the truth doesn't change the truth, it only makes you blind.
Few films deserve a 20 minute standing ovation at anytime - this movie deserved it, and then some. It is just sad that people are dying and being mutilated over such half-truths, blatant falsehoods and hidden agendas. Closing with a lengthy & terrifyingly appropriate quote from Orwell's "1984", as well as a horrifically appropriate song by Neil Young (written about the 1st President Bush) truly says it all - I'll never be able to hear that song the same way again.
If this film does not win the Best Picture; blame Haliburton. It is a patriotic masterpiece, and shame on all of us for letting it happen.
Even if HALF of what is presented in the film is false (which I seriously doubt since so much of it comes directly from the horses a**... err... mouth), even after the facts have been checked and triple-checked, then any traitors involved truly aren't the filmmakers, but the subjects of the film.
My father was a Naval officer during the start of the Cold War. I myself served proudly in the Navy aboard missile submarines during the end of the Cold War. My youngest brother was an Army officer during the first Gulf War, and my middle brother is presently flying jets for the Air Force in the Afghan/Iraqi. All of us became involved to protect and defend our country's ideals... one of the most important ideals being the RIGHT TO SPEAK OUR MIND, especially when others disagree. I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it AND BE HEARD to my dying day.
Until the PATRIOT act, I never felt much concern in voicing an opinion; but I truly cannot say that now (which is why I'm not using my real name). Michael Moore is unquestionably a gadfly, but he's no traitor. Moore is a documentarian (an incredibly talented one at that) that truly loves our country, hates what has happened to it, and is a true patriot. His previous films reflect that, and he has only gotten better.
I salute Michael Moore for having the guts to make this film in a day when so many people are willing to turn a blind eye to the truth in favor of hearing what they have already decided to be true.
The right-wing can nitpick the details all they want, perhaps Moore didn't include things that they would have included; but that is his right, and what he has included is uncontestable. I admire those who could see this film and then differ with the statements made (although it bewilders me how they could), but I have nothing but contempt for those that seek to discredit, ban, block, or otherwise prevent others from seeing it when they don't have the balls to watch it themselves. Blinding yourself to the truth doesn't change the truth, it only makes you blind.
Few films deserve a 20 minute standing ovation at anytime - this movie deserved it, and then some. It is just sad that people are dying and being mutilated over such half-truths, blatant falsehoods and hidden agendas. Closing with a lengthy & terrifyingly appropriate quote from Orwell's "1984", as well as a horrifically appropriate song by Neil Young (written about the 1st President Bush) truly says it all - I'll never be able to hear that song the same way again.
If this film does not win the Best Picture; blame Haliburton. It is a patriotic masterpiece, and shame on all of us for letting it happen.
Marquis de Sade's Justine
(1969)
[insert sound of cat coughing up hairball here]
8 May 2004
In a word; terrible. The actual story "Justine" is a somewhat perverted morality tale that has a very shrewd understory; de Sade is well known in spite of his fascination with the perverse - he truly was a gifted wordsmith.
Would that the same could be said of Franco's "Justine". According to Franco on the short interview included on the DVD, Romina Power was basically forced on him to be the "star", and he does not hide his disgust at her performance in the interview. Franco didn't want her, Power didn't seem to care either way (he said she rarely even knew when the camera was rolling; basically, she'd have a hard time even playing convincing furniture) and to things even better, Romina's Mom tagged along.
If you're looking for S&M, you're not going to find it here. If you're looking for nudity, you will find it here, but you quickly won't care. If you're interested in the Marquis de Sade, you won't learn anything about him by watching this. If you're on Death Row with two hours left, then this truly is the film for you; but all others should really steer clear.
Klaus Kinski was listed as the star of the film in Europe, and yet he speaks no lines and interacts with none of the other characters in the film. The first few minutes of the film (around 10 minutes, but it seemed like 30) show Kinski as the Marquis. He appears to be swimming in a sea of writing compulsions and drifting beyond the bounds of reality, or he's simply in dire need of a strong laxative. Either way, his segments are interspersed throughout the film, and they add absolutely nothing.
Jack Palance is wildly flamboyant, but it's hard to tell what the heck is going on with him anyway. In one particularly bizarre sequence he's gliding around on some sort of a wheeled dolly like a wax statue. According to Franco, Palance was always drunk, but he was pleased with his performance as Antonin.
It's not erotic. It's not sensual. It's not alluring. My wife and I watched it anticipating something like "The Story of O", but ended up with "The Story of O No". Definitely NOT recommended.
Would that the same could be said of Franco's "Justine". According to Franco on the short interview included on the DVD, Romina Power was basically forced on him to be the "star", and he does not hide his disgust at her performance in the interview. Franco didn't want her, Power didn't seem to care either way (he said she rarely even knew when the camera was rolling; basically, she'd have a hard time even playing convincing furniture) and to things even better, Romina's Mom tagged along.
If you're looking for S&M, you're not going to find it here. If you're looking for nudity, you will find it here, but you quickly won't care. If you're interested in the Marquis de Sade, you won't learn anything about him by watching this. If you're on Death Row with two hours left, then this truly is the film for you; but all others should really steer clear.
Klaus Kinski was listed as the star of the film in Europe, and yet he speaks no lines and interacts with none of the other characters in the film. The first few minutes of the film (around 10 minutes, but it seemed like 30) show Kinski as the Marquis. He appears to be swimming in a sea of writing compulsions and drifting beyond the bounds of reality, or he's simply in dire need of a strong laxative. Either way, his segments are interspersed throughout the film, and they add absolutely nothing.
Jack Palance is wildly flamboyant, but it's hard to tell what the heck is going on with him anyway. In one particularly bizarre sequence he's gliding around on some sort of a wheeled dolly like a wax statue. According to Franco, Palance was always drunk, but he was pleased with his performance as Antonin.
It's not erotic. It's not sensual. It's not alluring. My wife and I watched it anticipating something like "The Story of O", but ended up with "The Story of O No". Definitely NOT recommended.
Opposing Force
(1986)
G.I. Jane meets Dr. Strangelove on the River Kwai
7 May 2004
"Opposing Force [1986]" wasn't as good as "Dr. Strangelove" and it wasn't as good as "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Heck, it wasn't even as good as "G.I. Jane", which is pretty sad.
The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing "acceptable" from "atrocious".
Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.
I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in "resistance training". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.
The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions.
I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.
The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing "acceptable" from "atrocious".
Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.
I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in "resistance training". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.
The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions.
I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks.
All That Jazz
(1979)
Utterly amazing piece of work...
26 May 2003
On the surface, this seems to be a self-indulgent exercise; but it doesn't take much effort to realize that the film is much deeper than it seems.
On the root level, this is a semi-fictionalized autobiography by one of the most influential choreographers of our time. On a second level, it is a film about recklessness and mortality.
Running throughout the film is a third element, acting almost like a Greek chorus; his efforts to complete his film, "Lenny". But there is a very significant difference; "Lenny" was a movie about a really funny comedian who was legislated into madness. ...but that's not what the film within the film is. The movie Joe Gideon works on relentlessly is of someone trying hard to be a comedian who tells rather unfunny gags about death and dying. With a tremendous amount of effort, Gideon manages to turn this lousy footage into a better, more polished work that gets released, even though he is still unhappy with the final result.
It seems apparent to me that the film he is working on is not "Lenny" at all; it is, in fact, "All That Jazz". Take away all the dancing and music, and "All That Jazz" is just a movie about Bob Fosse's self-destructive lifestyle told in an entertaining way. The filmed routine he is editing (which is making fun of the "seven stages of dying") ends up melding with the rest of the story - acting almost like 'table of contents'. He ridicules the entire concept in the movie, while Joe works his way through the stages in textbook fashion.
Well worth watching.
On the root level, this is a semi-fictionalized autobiography by one of the most influential choreographers of our time. On a second level, it is a film about recklessness and mortality.
Running throughout the film is a third element, acting almost like a Greek chorus; his efforts to complete his film, "Lenny". But there is a very significant difference; "Lenny" was a movie about a really funny comedian who was legislated into madness. ...but that's not what the film within the film is. The movie Joe Gideon works on relentlessly is of someone trying hard to be a comedian who tells rather unfunny gags about death and dying. With a tremendous amount of effort, Gideon manages to turn this lousy footage into a better, more polished work that gets released, even though he is still unhappy with the final result.
It seems apparent to me that the film he is working on is not "Lenny" at all; it is, in fact, "All That Jazz". Take away all the dancing and music, and "All That Jazz" is just a movie about Bob Fosse's self-destructive lifestyle told in an entertaining way. The filmed routine he is editing (which is making fun of the "seven stages of dying") ends up melding with the rest of the story - acting almost like 'table of contents'. He ridicules the entire concept in the movie, while Joe works his way through the stages in textbook fashion.
Well worth watching.
Jesus Christ Superstar
(1973)
So THIS is what Opera's all about...
1 September 2002
Warning: Spoilers
I've never liked opera. I love most music, and I can appreciate the talent that goes into the singing and performance in operas, but there has always been a missing component; I didn't understand any of the languages that the 'greats' are written in and simply following the libretto (story summary) doesn't fill the gap. As a result, I find that I tend to dislike opera as a rule.
I realize this is probably a strange way to start a film review, but this is a significant part of this film for me. When I watching this film, I believe that I 'get it', in the same way that audiences who can follow the dialog in the classic operas 'get it'. The term 'Rock Opera' was thrown out a lot when this movie was released ('Godspell', 'Tommy', 'Hair', etc), but JCS is true opera. Sure, it uses modern music rather than classical, but the classic operas were simply written in the music and language of their day. I have no doubt that JCS will most certainly be thought of in the future right along with what we today consider 'the classics'. It is brilliantly scored and lyrically, pure genius. I'm going to assume that all readers have seen this film at this point, so there are potential SPOILERS further on.
The basic libretto is the Christ tale told from the perspective of Judas Iscariot. Keeping that in mind, it only makes sense that he be presented as the only sensible person in the group, focused on the goal of social work above all else. When he sees Jesus drifting away from what he felt was a goal that they shared, they have a parting of the ways. Judas, played absolutely brilliantly by Carl Anderson, is very concerned that Jesus has suddenly (within the previous 3 years) begun seriously thinking himself divine, started acting recklessly, and generally changing his priorities. As far as the 'traitorous' intentions of Judas go, normally presented to explain his actions, he behaves here more like a very close friend that's concerned Jesus might be going nuts (what would your reaction be if your best friend started referring to themselves as god?).
When Jesus turns his back on him, Judas becomes a man lost and turns Jesus over to the Pharisees to hopefully keep him from self-destructing (remember, according to the story, they had "no law to put a man to death", he figured they would just lock him up). He felt betrayed when the Pharisees simply turned Jesus over to the Romans. He also seems to be aware of his own importance in the saga, for several times he threatens to ruin Christ's ambitions by not turning him in, and accuses God of murdering him by intentionally deluding him into being a tool for this entire process just before he kills himself. Betrayed by Jesus, betrayed by the Pharisees, betrayed by his friends, and betrayed by his god, it's no wonder he loses it.
Ted Neely, as Jesus, also gives an incredible performance. His voice is nothing short of stunning. There are two points in the film where he hits a couple of high notes that never fail to give me chills; when he ejects Judas from the last supper, and just about his entire solo in Gethsemene. It appears that he knows that his ultimate goal is dying a symbolic death and outwardly he acts with total purpose, but inside he is deeply unsure that he's taken the right path.
The costumes and the settings emphasize that this is a modern retelling. From chrome helmets to machine guns and tanks and jets. The lyrics contain some terms that are somewhat dated, which only strengthens the overall dichotomy. The interplay between Annas & Caiaphas is accentuated by the extreme vocal distances between the two actors, and they are also stand-out performers.
The film's title number comes after both Jesus and Judas have died. Wherever it is that they are; the afterlife to be sure, but since they are both in the same place at the same time it raises a few theological questions. Judas effectively scolds Jesus for doing a bad job at getting his message out there ("...Israel in 4BC had no mass communication..."). Either way, it doesn't appear that Judas has ended up in Hell, what with all the hot babes around; never mind the fact that Jesus also happens to be there at the same time.
The way that the film 'bookends', with the cast showing up on the bus at the beginning and departing on the same bus at the very end, is very effective at easing you into this story of the fantastic and letting you know when you're back to reality. If you have any doubts as to the overall message of this film, they should be answered at the very end of the film when the entire cast returns to the bus... with one, very important exception, and Carl Anderson (he's not really Judas anymore at this point in the film) seems to be the only one who notices. In this story, Judas was right; Jesus was not divine and didn't arise from the dead.
I reluctantly watched this film for the first time with a church group when they first showed it on network TV (I'm not religious myself, but this was high school and that was where all the girls were). They all raved about how great it was that this movie glorified his name and was on national television, simply by reading the title... once again proving the adage that you can't tell a book by it's cover. When it reached the point of Jesus' solo in Gethsemene, one of the guys stated that he thought it was good that they showed that he had doubts, because that's why Jesus had to pray all night long. At that point I turned around and asked if anyone was really paying attention to either what they were seeing or what they were hearing. Met with blank stares, I pointed out some of the lyrics that they hadn't noticed. They still didn't follow me until I started pointing things out from that point on. They rapidly went from being angry at me for even suggesting this, to anger at the film for having 'tricked' them, to wanting to turn the movie off (looking back, I wished I had waited until the end to mention it, but I was just as surprised as they were). Since then, about every year or so I watch this movie religiously (sorry, that was a really bad pun).
So many moments stand out; the 'Last Supper' pose that they freeze in for just a few seconds, the portrayal of King Herod (historically accurate? Who the heck cares, it's a very funny number), the dancers appearing out of midair in the Simon Zealot number (and I agree with everyone who has mentioned the girl in the purple shirt), the porn star Paul Thomas remaining completely clothed throughout the film (he plays Peter, of all things, under his own name). It was an extremely daring film for its day, and even more so these days. Surprisingly non-dated, it has forever changed my opinion of opera as an art form. It doesn't get much better than that.
I realize this is probably a strange way to start a film review, but this is a significant part of this film for me. When I watching this film, I believe that I 'get it', in the same way that audiences who can follow the dialog in the classic operas 'get it'. The term 'Rock Opera' was thrown out a lot when this movie was released ('Godspell', 'Tommy', 'Hair', etc), but JCS is true opera. Sure, it uses modern music rather than classical, but the classic operas were simply written in the music and language of their day. I have no doubt that JCS will most certainly be thought of in the future right along with what we today consider 'the classics'. It is brilliantly scored and lyrically, pure genius. I'm going to assume that all readers have seen this film at this point, so there are potential SPOILERS further on.
The basic libretto is the Christ tale told from the perspective of Judas Iscariot. Keeping that in mind, it only makes sense that he be presented as the only sensible person in the group, focused on the goal of social work above all else. When he sees Jesus drifting away from what he felt was a goal that they shared, they have a parting of the ways. Judas, played absolutely brilliantly by Carl Anderson, is very concerned that Jesus has suddenly (within the previous 3 years) begun seriously thinking himself divine, started acting recklessly, and generally changing his priorities. As far as the 'traitorous' intentions of Judas go, normally presented to explain his actions, he behaves here more like a very close friend that's concerned Jesus might be going nuts (what would your reaction be if your best friend started referring to themselves as god?).
When Jesus turns his back on him, Judas becomes a man lost and turns Jesus over to the Pharisees to hopefully keep him from self-destructing (remember, according to the story, they had "no law to put a man to death", he figured they would just lock him up). He felt betrayed when the Pharisees simply turned Jesus over to the Romans. He also seems to be aware of his own importance in the saga, for several times he threatens to ruin Christ's ambitions by not turning him in, and accuses God of murdering him by intentionally deluding him into being a tool for this entire process just before he kills himself. Betrayed by Jesus, betrayed by the Pharisees, betrayed by his friends, and betrayed by his god, it's no wonder he loses it.
Ted Neely, as Jesus, also gives an incredible performance. His voice is nothing short of stunning. There are two points in the film where he hits a couple of high notes that never fail to give me chills; when he ejects Judas from the last supper, and just about his entire solo in Gethsemene. It appears that he knows that his ultimate goal is dying a symbolic death and outwardly he acts with total purpose, but inside he is deeply unsure that he's taken the right path.
The costumes and the settings emphasize that this is a modern retelling. From chrome helmets to machine guns and tanks and jets. The lyrics contain some terms that are somewhat dated, which only strengthens the overall dichotomy. The interplay between Annas & Caiaphas is accentuated by the extreme vocal distances between the two actors, and they are also stand-out performers.
The film's title number comes after both Jesus and Judas have died. Wherever it is that they are; the afterlife to be sure, but since they are both in the same place at the same time it raises a few theological questions. Judas effectively scolds Jesus for doing a bad job at getting his message out there ("...Israel in 4BC had no mass communication..."). Either way, it doesn't appear that Judas has ended up in Hell, what with all the hot babes around; never mind the fact that Jesus also happens to be there at the same time.
The way that the film 'bookends', with the cast showing up on the bus at the beginning and departing on the same bus at the very end, is very effective at easing you into this story of the fantastic and letting you know when you're back to reality. If you have any doubts as to the overall message of this film, they should be answered at the very end of the film when the entire cast returns to the bus... with one, very important exception, and Carl Anderson (he's not really Judas anymore at this point in the film) seems to be the only one who notices. In this story, Judas was right; Jesus was not divine and didn't arise from the dead.
I reluctantly watched this film for the first time with a church group when they first showed it on network TV (I'm not religious myself, but this was high school and that was where all the girls were). They all raved about how great it was that this movie glorified his name and was on national television, simply by reading the title... once again proving the adage that you can't tell a book by it's cover. When it reached the point of Jesus' solo in Gethsemene, one of the guys stated that he thought it was good that they showed that he had doubts, because that's why Jesus had to pray all night long. At that point I turned around and asked if anyone was really paying attention to either what they were seeing or what they were hearing. Met with blank stares, I pointed out some of the lyrics that they hadn't noticed. They still didn't follow me until I started pointing things out from that point on. They rapidly went from being angry at me for even suggesting this, to anger at the film for having 'tricked' them, to wanting to turn the movie off (looking back, I wished I had waited until the end to mention it, but I was just as surprised as they were). Since then, about every year or so I watch this movie religiously (sorry, that was a really bad pun).
So many moments stand out; the 'Last Supper' pose that they freeze in for just a few seconds, the portrayal of King Herod (historically accurate? Who the heck cares, it's a very funny number), the dancers appearing out of midair in the Simon Zealot number (and I agree with everyone who has mentioned the girl in the purple shirt), the porn star Paul Thomas remaining completely clothed throughout the film (he plays Peter, of all things, under his own name). It was an extremely daring film for its day, and even more so these days. Surprisingly non-dated, it has forever changed my opinion of opera as an art form. It doesn't get much better than that.
Ed Gein
(2000)
There's normal, there's abnormal, and then there's Ed.
17 August 2002
I caught this film on cable expecting a real waste of time (hey, I wasn't busy), but was very surprised to see that there was a lot more to this movie than it seems on the surface.
Yes, 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'Psycho', 'Silence of the Lambs', and numerous other films have been "loosely" based on the story of Ed. These are all far better horror movies and, with the exception of 'Psycho', depend very heavily on blood & guts. However, all three of those films were fictional accounts. There's something considerably more horrific about the fact that these events actually happened (although many names were changed to protect the innocent/dead/consumed).
Yet another case of showing what happens when children are raised without a sense of love, compassion or happiness. Jeffery Dahmer's problems had very similar origins, as did several other serial killers (and, I'm sure, many who are still out there). Instead of 'love and affection', Ed and his brother are given large doses of 'fire & brimstone'... Ed accepts this without question, although his brother does not (much to Ed's dismay), and the combination of the twisted religious concepts his mother imposed upon him (to her, there seemed to be no good in the Bible, only 'Revelations' and in particular the 'Whore of Babylon', which all other women seemed to be in her mind... upon which most of his killings are attributed to, granted through his schizophrenic delusions of his mother).
Regardless of what made him what he turned out to be, the sensationalistic qualities of the true events are better left for those who wish to learn more. This film touches on much of the creepiness, but explains little motivation (aside from his religious 'logic')... I believe this is intentional, as the movie is really telling the life story of Ed Gein rather than describing his tabloid exploits.
Oddly enough, I was not left with a feeling of disgust, repulsion or anger with Ed; Ed was a surprisingly sympathetic character that you feel more pathos for than anything else. Steve Railsback again has done a wonderful job of portraying a historical sicko (after his wild-eyed performance as Charlie Manson in 'Helter Skelter'), and is utterly convincing.
This is a psychological profile rather than a case history. They hint at several motivations in the film (his comment at the bar of "...any of y'all fellas ever considered changing your sex, like they do in Sweden?", his 'skin suit', his 'rituals' where he is attempting to resurrect his dead mother, etc), but ultimately it is simply the delusions of his mother that drive him to action... actions, which in most case, Ed really seems to object to; but being a loyal son, he obeys his mother.
They do not focus on the truly bizarre elements, such as the skull bowls or the skin lampshades, because for the most part this film is told through the mind of Ed... and these things would have been nothing special to Ed, just another hobby like books on Nazi atrocities, cannibalism, shrunken heads, and taxidermy. To him, these artifacts were simple furnishings that he didn't think twice about. I also question that the skull bowls were something that were used a lot; I believe that they were the equivalent of his 'fine china' that he brought out for special occasions (like have his next dinner over for dinner).
My wife felt that Ed should not have been found insane because he knew what he was doing was wrong. I disagree with that. While he may have known that what he was doing could get him in trouble, were he to get caught, he clearly felt that he was doing what mother told him to do, which for him was the 'right' thing to do... never mind the fact that he accepts these instructions from a delusion (compare this to Russell Crowe's character in 'A Beautiful Mind'... he has delusions as well, but he ultimately acknowledges them as delusions and can ignore them... Ed is so focused on bringing his mother back, that he wouldn't ignore his delusion even if he knew she was not real - it might seem strange to compare the two films, but I happened to see them back to back).
In the end, do we learn anything new? Not really. Do we learn anything about ourselves? Not really. Do we learn anything about human nature? Only that we seem to be fascinated with these sort of aberrations. Serial killers and mass murderers have become the 'freak show' of modern times, and it's ok to stare at them... at least, that's the way it seems. The film 'bookends' with actual footage of his neighbors at the beginning of the film talking about what a quiet, normal guy Ed was, and ends with actual footage of the real Ed being hauled away by the police.
To say that the aforementioned films were based on the life of Ed is like saying that a film about chopping down trees is based on the life of George Washington; they only take snippets of his tale. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" takes the 'leatherface' mask, bone sculptures and indirect cannibalism (since they are selling the meat, it is a different type of cannibalism), but Ed certainly had no commercial operation; "Psycho" takes the aspects of his isolation, taxidermic skills, and the delusions of his domineering dead mother; "Silence of the Lambs" takes the cannibalism (true cannibalism, which Ed was a 'fan' of), the sexual identity issues, and the idea of dressing up as a woman (as opposed to dressing up LIKE a woman)... but none of these are as horrible as what really happened. To tell the true story of Ed Gein, in full Technicolor blood & guts, would be far more than what most audiences could stomach...
Not a bad film, not a great film. Great performance by Railsback. Best to see if you know a little bit about Ed to begin with, but not required... the actual atrocities are not as interesting as the man himself and how he came to be what he was.
Yes, 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'Psycho', 'Silence of the Lambs', and numerous other films have been "loosely" based on the story of Ed. These are all far better horror movies and, with the exception of 'Psycho', depend very heavily on blood & guts. However, all three of those films were fictional accounts. There's something considerably more horrific about the fact that these events actually happened (although many names were changed to protect the innocent/dead/consumed).
Yet another case of showing what happens when children are raised without a sense of love, compassion or happiness. Jeffery Dahmer's problems had very similar origins, as did several other serial killers (and, I'm sure, many who are still out there). Instead of 'love and affection', Ed and his brother are given large doses of 'fire & brimstone'... Ed accepts this without question, although his brother does not (much to Ed's dismay), and the combination of the twisted religious concepts his mother imposed upon him (to her, there seemed to be no good in the Bible, only 'Revelations' and in particular the 'Whore of Babylon', which all other women seemed to be in her mind... upon which most of his killings are attributed to, granted through his schizophrenic delusions of his mother).
Regardless of what made him what he turned out to be, the sensationalistic qualities of the true events are better left for those who wish to learn more. This film touches on much of the creepiness, but explains little motivation (aside from his religious 'logic')... I believe this is intentional, as the movie is really telling the life story of Ed Gein rather than describing his tabloid exploits.
Oddly enough, I was not left with a feeling of disgust, repulsion or anger with Ed; Ed was a surprisingly sympathetic character that you feel more pathos for than anything else. Steve Railsback again has done a wonderful job of portraying a historical sicko (after his wild-eyed performance as Charlie Manson in 'Helter Skelter'), and is utterly convincing.
This is a psychological profile rather than a case history. They hint at several motivations in the film (his comment at the bar of "...any of y'all fellas ever considered changing your sex, like they do in Sweden?", his 'skin suit', his 'rituals' where he is attempting to resurrect his dead mother, etc), but ultimately it is simply the delusions of his mother that drive him to action... actions, which in most case, Ed really seems to object to; but being a loyal son, he obeys his mother.
They do not focus on the truly bizarre elements, such as the skull bowls or the skin lampshades, because for the most part this film is told through the mind of Ed... and these things would have been nothing special to Ed, just another hobby like books on Nazi atrocities, cannibalism, shrunken heads, and taxidermy. To him, these artifacts were simple furnishings that he didn't think twice about. I also question that the skull bowls were something that were used a lot; I believe that they were the equivalent of his 'fine china' that he brought out for special occasions (like have his next dinner over for dinner).
My wife felt that Ed should not have been found insane because he knew what he was doing was wrong. I disagree with that. While he may have known that what he was doing could get him in trouble, were he to get caught, he clearly felt that he was doing what mother told him to do, which for him was the 'right' thing to do... never mind the fact that he accepts these instructions from a delusion (compare this to Russell Crowe's character in 'A Beautiful Mind'... he has delusions as well, but he ultimately acknowledges them as delusions and can ignore them... Ed is so focused on bringing his mother back, that he wouldn't ignore his delusion even if he knew she was not real - it might seem strange to compare the two films, but I happened to see them back to back).
In the end, do we learn anything new? Not really. Do we learn anything about ourselves? Not really. Do we learn anything about human nature? Only that we seem to be fascinated with these sort of aberrations. Serial killers and mass murderers have become the 'freak show' of modern times, and it's ok to stare at them... at least, that's the way it seems. The film 'bookends' with actual footage of his neighbors at the beginning of the film talking about what a quiet, normal guy Ed was, and ends with actual footage of the real Ed being hauled away by the police.
To say that the aforementioned films were based on the life of Ed is like saying that a film about chopping down trees is based on the life of George Washington; they only take snippets of his tale. "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" takes the 'leatherface' mask, bone sculptures and indirect cannibalism (since they are selling the meat, it is a different type of cannibalism), but Ed certainly had no commercial operation; "Psycho" takes the aspects of his isolation, taxidermic skills, and the delusions of his domineering dead mother; "Silence of the Lambs" takes the cannibalism (true cannibalism, which Ed was a 'fan' of), the sexual identity issues, and the idea of dressing up as a woman (as opposed to dressing up LIKE a woman)... but none of these are as horrible as what really happened. To tell the true story of Ed Gein, in full Technicolor blood & guts, would be far more than what most audiences could stomach...
Not a bad film, not a great film. Great performance by Railsback. Best to see if you know a little bit about Ed to begin with, but not required... the actual atrocities are not as interesting as the man himself and how he came to be what he was.
Contact
(1997)
....the act of things meeting together.
4 August 2002
Warning: Spoilers
As many have stated, this is a somewhat slow science fiction movie about receiving a message from aliens and building a device to go visit with them. The struggle of the noble scientist against the Government rounds it out, but that's about as far as most people see.
Carl Sagan was a scientific genius, regardless of whether or not you agree with his religious views (just like Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, or Hawking), and the story is far deeper than this simple fable. The title 'Contact' refers not only to the message from the ET's, but also several other levels; contact between parent and child, between religion and science, between extremists and moderates, between men and women, and between truth and faith.
Arroway's {Foster, Jodie} sole goal in life is seeking contact of one sort while denying herself contact of another. She looks for alien signals and for the most part shuns human contact. She slowly comes to the realization that she prefers both.
The film has also been criticized for being "anti-religious", but I disagree strongly. This is the most balanced film ever made, theologically speaking. It's not the contact between Arroway and Joss {McConaughey, Matthew}, each of them have their extreme examples. Joss is a spiritual man of moderate religious beliefs, Arroway is a scientist of strong scientific beliefs. In contrast, Drumlin {Skerritt, Tom} is the scientist of weak beliefs (willing to compromise anything in order to win something for himself, really more of a politician than a scientist); while Joseph {Busey, Jake} is the contrast of Joss, a religious zealot of extremist beliefs.
There is another significant character pairing, and it represents the two strongest performances of the film; that of Hadden {Hurt, John} versus Kitz {Woods, James}, the wealthy powerful civilian against the powerful corrupt politician (the level of his corruption becomes apparent by the end of the film). Hadden is 'godlike' in his ability to do whatever he wants (you can't get more 'godlike' than hovering freely in space while gleefully pulling the strings on Earth); while Kitz is his evil counterpart, using the law and the media in the most malicious manner at his disposal to deliberately discredit and misinform the public of the truth.
But ultimately it is the contact between science and religion that makes for the most controversy, and this is sad. Far from being 'anti-religious', this film has far more to do with the areas where science and religion come together. It never says religion is wrong or foolish, far from it; it places spirituality as a matter of tremendous importance (witness the candidate selection process) and, at the end, turns the tables completely around by placing science in exactly the same situation and with exactly the same argument (i.e., "Prove it!") In the end, the scientist is forced to ask others to have faith in that which she alone knows (or does she? What's the obvious distinction between a hallucination and reality?) She ends up in the role of the prophet, proving how difficult it is to prove to others that what you see is really what you saw. It answers neither, which is only a spoiler if you were expecting this film to truly explain the meaning of life. ;)
[POTENTIAL SPOILERS] It is interesting, given her views, and I'm sure far from accidental, that the first thing Arroway says when she drops into the wormhole is "Oh my God!", which she repeats a couple of times. It is also interesting, and appropriate for a Sagan piece, that in the end Arroway has only herself to believe in, that 'god' (Hadden) is dead, the ET's she sought are not 'god' (they can't be the Creator if they didn't even create the machine) and seem to have just as many questions as we do. The religious extremist (Joseph) martyrs himself, which conveniently takes the hypocrite (Drumlin) out of the picture with him. In the end, the most open-minded character in the film (and I shudder to suggest this) is Joss; but at the same time he is completely unchanged by this whole experience, his purpose seems to be merely to give Arroway a theological Maypole to dance around, but it works. Arroway isn't really 'converted', in a religious sense, but she is surely changed by the experience. In effect, unjustly 'martyred' for science in spite of of strong, potentially exonerating evidence, deliberately withheld from her (the time that the camcorder was running), but there is nothing at all to suggest that she turns to religion as a result of this.
Sagan was a life-long scientist, and for him that was indeed equivalent to saying that he was not a religious man ("He didn't want to believe, he wanted to know", according to his wife after he died), and I'm certain he would have been delighted with how the film turned out, and I don't think the film-makers could have asked for much more contact than that.
7.5 out of 10
Carl Sagan was a scientific genius, regardless of whether or not you agree with his religious views (just like Aristotle, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin, Einstein, or Hawking), and the story is far deeper than this simple fable. The title 'Contact' refers not only to the message from the ET's, but also several other levels; contact between parent and child, between religion and science, between extremists and moderates, between men and women, and between truth and faith.
Arroway's {Foster, Jodie} sole goal in life is seeking contact of one sort while denying herself contact of another. She looks for alien signals and for the most part shuns human contact. She slowly comes to the realization that she prefers both.
The film has also been criticized for being "anti-religious", but I disagree strongly. This is the most balanced film ever made, theologically speaking. It's not the contact between Arroway and Joss {McConaughey, Matthew}, each of them have their extreme examples. Joss is a spiritual man of moderate religious beliefs, Arroway is a scientist of strong scientific beliefs. In contrast, Drumlin {Skerritt, Tom} is the scientist of weak beliefs (willing to compromise anything in order to win something for himself, really more of a politician than a scientist); while Joseph {Busey, Jake} is the contrast of Joss, a religious zealot of extremist beliefs.
There is another significant character pairing, and it represents the two strongest performances of the film; that of Hadden {Hurt, John} versus Kitz {Woods, James}, the wealthy powerful civilian against the powerful corrupt politician (the level of his corruption becomes apparent by the end of the film). Hadden is 'godlike' in his ability to do whatever he wants (you can't get more 'godlike' than hovering freely in space while gleefully pulling the strings on Earth); while Kitz is his evil counterpart, using the law and the media in the most malicious manner at his disposal to deliberately discredit and misinform the public of the truth.
But ultimately it is the contact between science and religion that makes for the most controversy, and this is sad. Far from being 'anti-religious', this film has far more to do with the areas where science and religion come together. It never says religion is wrong or foolish, far from it; it places spirituality as a matter of tremendous importance (witness the candidate selection process) and, at the end, turns the tables completely around by placing science in exactly the same situation and with exactly the same argument (i.e., "Prove it!") In the end, the scientist is forced to ask others to have faith in that which she alone knows (or does she? What's the obvious distinction between a hallucination and reality?) She ends up in the role of the prophet, proving how difficult it is to prove to others that what you see is really what you saw. It answers neither, which is only a spoiler if you were expecting this film to truly explain the meaning of life. ;)
[POTENTIAL SPOILERS] It is interesting, given her views, and I'm sure far from accidental, that the first thing Arroway says when she drops into the wormhole is "Oh my God!", which she repeats a couple of times. It is also interesting, and appropriate for a Sagan piece, that in the end Arroway has only herself to believe in, that 'god' (Hadden) is dead, the ET's she sought are not 'god' (they can't be the Creator if they didn't even create the machine) and seem to have just as many questions as we do. The religious extremist (Joseph) martyrs himself, which conveniently takes the hypocrite (Drumlin) out of the picture with him. In the end, the most open-minded character in the film (and I shudder to suggest this) is Joss; but at the same time he is completely unchanged by this whole experience, his purpose seems to be merely to give Arroway a theological Maypole to dance around, but it works. Arroway isn't really 'converted', in a religious sense, but she is surely changed by the experience. In effect, unjustly 'martyred' for science in spite of of strong, potentially exonerating evidence, deliberately withheld from her (the time that the camcorder was running), but there is nothing at all to suggest that she turns to religion as a result of this.
Sagan was a life-long scientist, and for him that was indeed equivalent to saying that he was not a religious man ("He didn't want to believe, he wanted to know", according to his wife after he died), and I'm certain he would have been delighted with how the film turned out, and I don't think the film-makers could have asked for much more contact than that.
7.5 out of 10
The Skin Game
(1931)
Worth the time, but a "classic" only in terms of its age.
23 July 2002
Warning: Spoilers
"The Skin Game" is a great example of Hitchcock's trek into the cinematic master that was to become. His 15th film as a director, the first 10 being silent films, and the film's soundtrack suffers from the same sort of distractions that all cinematic innovations seem to generate; early color films often used overly intense and saturated colors, the first widescreens spread the action out simply because they could, and 3D movies used deliberate dimensional effects that had no real part of the movie (the paddle-ball guy in "House of Wax" comes immediately to mind). There are several sequences where people are shouting, dogs are barking, and car horns are blowing - having absolutely nothing to do with the plot, but certainly it stunned the audience of its day with ACTUAL SOUND! The soundtrack was very obviously redubbed (and rather poorly in places) probably due to the camera equipment being so noisy. To make matters worse, the dogs barking sound suspiciously like people, and there are a lot of sequences of dialog where the actors deliberately turn their backs to the camera - redubbing is much easier when you don't have to lip-sync. There are also several scenes that have a noticeable lack of sound effects until the characters begin speaking (example: Hornblower leaves a house, closes the door, walks to his car and gets in, all in complete silence... something that the audiences of the day would probably never have noticed).
I won't duplicate the descriptions that others have left - the plot is not very complicated, so long as you can follow the dialog through the poor soundtrack and the various British accents. Even the DVD soundtrack is horribly inconsistent, but the film is still worth the time for any Hitchcock fan. This is a film that could benefit greatly from having subtitles - and the DVD does indeed have subtitles - but only in French, Spanish, and Portuguese... no English!
The conflict of old money versus new money and the unstoppable progress of industry eroding away at the established lifestyle of the days of the land-owners figure prominently in the plot. The film "bookends" in a truly bittersweet way with an elderly couple and their cottage, which results in what was easily the most stunning comment of the entire film (far more startling than the "big secret" that the film really revolves around). If you look close enough, there's a really significant story... and it's worth the effort. I'd give it a 6 out of 10 for today, but probably a 7.5 for its day.
ANTI-SPOILER: Don't look for the traditional Hitchcock cameo. He doesn't make an appearance in this film. ;)
I won't duplicate the descriptions that others have left - the plot is not very complicated, so long as you can follow the dialog through the poor soundtrack and the various British accents. Even the DVD soundtrack is horribly inconsistent, but the film is still worth the time for any Hitchcock fan. This is a film that could benefit greatly from having subtitles - and the DVD does indeed have subtitles - but only in French, Spanish, and Portuguese... no English!
The conflict of old money versus new money and the unstoppable progress of industry eroding away at the established lifestyle of the days of the land-owners figure prominently in the plot. The film "bookends" in a truly bittersweet way with an elderly couple and their cottage, which results in what was easily the most stunning comment of the entire film (far more startling than the "big secret" that the film really revolves around). If you look close enough, there's a really significant story... and it's worth the effort. I'd give it a 6 out of 10 for today, but probably a 7.5 for its day.
ANTI-SPOILER: Don't look for the traditional Hitchcock cameo. He doesn't make an appearance in this film. ;)
Executive Decision
(1996)
Excellent action film, and truly beyond belief...
14 May 2002
First off, I'd like to say that this is, without question, my favorite Steven Seagal film of all time. His acting talents have never before been more appropriately utilized in a film.
Secondly, this is the movie that proved that Marla Maples is the human equivalent of a book cover with no book. She is pure wallpaper in this film, and even this stretches her acting abilities to the limit.
That being said, 'Executive Decision' has a completely implausible plot, and yet the film works very well as a whole. Like 'Die Hard' and 'Die Hard 2' (AKA: 'Speed'), there are elements to this film that simply require a tremendous 'suspension of disbelief', but the story flows smoothly and the characters are strong enough that it makes for a very cohesive, enjoyable film.
Halle Berry is quite good; J.T. Walsh is, and always was a real standout (R.I.P); but I think it's Kurt Russell that really makes the film 'fly'. He's kind of like a combination of Bruce Willis in 'Die Hard', Nicholas Cage in 'The Rock', and Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan in any of the Tom Clancy films, and if it wasn't for him I believe this film would fall flat.
After the tragic events of September 11th 2001, the plot takes on a very different feel... just a little too close to reality. Interestingly enough, when the film was originally released, there were protests about the 'unfair portrayal' of Islamic terrorists. I think history has now proven this to be a moot point. Neither I, nor the film, suggest that all Arabs or all Muslims are terrorists, but knowing that people like these terrorists clearly exist makes it all the more chilling.
All in all, it's a great roller-coaster of a film. Highly recommended.
Secondly, this is the movie that proved that Marla Maples is the human equivalent of a book cover with no book. She is pure wallpaper in this film, and even this stretches her acting abilities to the limit.
That being said, 'Executive Decision' has a completely implausible plot, and yet the film works very well as a whole. Like 'Die Hard' and 'Die Hard 2' (AKA: 'Speed'), there are elements to this film that simply require a tremendous 'suspension of disbelief', but the story flows smoothly and the characters are strong enough that it makes for a very cohesive, enjoyable film.
Halle Berry is quite good; J.T. Walsh is, and always was a real standout (R.I.P); but I think it's Kurt Russell that really makes the film 'fly'. He's kind of like a combination of Bruce Willis in 'Die Hard', Nicholas Cage in 'The Rock', and Harrison Ford as Jack Ryan in any of the Tom Clancy films, and if it wasn't for him I believe this film would fall flat.
After the tragic events of September 11th 2001, the plot takes on a very different feel... just a little too close to reality. Interestingly enough, when the film was originally released, there were protests about the 'unfair portrayal' of Islamic terrorists. I think history has now proven this to be a moot point. Neither I, nor the film, suggest that all Arabs or all Muslims are terrorists, but knowing that people like these terrorists clearly exist makes it all the more chilling.
All in all, it's a great roller-coaster of a film. Highly recommended.
Moulin Rouge!
(2001)
I hate musicals.
12 January 2002
My wife loves musicals, but I hate them. I really can't stand 'em. I'd rather file my teeth than watch them.
However, I was absolutely blown away by 'Moulin Rouge!' With the exception of a couple of the numbers, it didn't really feel like a musical. Incredibly lush graphics, sets, costumes and camera movements. Most impressive!
So I still hate musicals... but I LOVED 'Moulin Rouge!'
However, I was absolutely blown away by 'Moulin Rouge!' With the exception of a couple of the numbers, it didn't really feel like a musical. Incredibly lush graphics, sets, costumes and camera movements. Most impressive!
So I still hate musicals... but I LOVED 'Moulin Rouge!'
Finally, on-screen Tolkien worth watching
20 December 2001
Ever since Ralph Bakshi made his disastrous 'animated' attempt at filming this epic tale (and only the first half of it at that), I had given up on it ever being brought to the big screen... I haven't read the trilogy since I was in high school, but so much of it came back to me vividly after 20 years that I could hardly believe it. Now, anyone who is expecting ANY movie to be a literal translation of a book doesn't understand the nature of film; that's why books and movies both exist. The idea is to tell the story as best you can, and I felt Peter Jackson did a magnificent job. Many of the scenes in the film were actually more impressive than the impressions I got while reading the books. Are there parts left out? Absolutely! It's already going to be basically a 9 hour film, and it takes a hell of a lot longer to read the series than that... so duh, there are parts left out! Look at what's there, not what's missing.
What's there is gorgeous. The characters more than fit their descriptions in the books; the Shire looks exactly the way it was described; Gandalf, the Hobbits, and the Black Riders look exactly the way they were described. The elvish is accurate (yes, Tolkien actually created both a written and spoken elvish language, among others... he was a linguist after all) and it more than lived up to my expectations, which were very high. The only downer is that it's going to take two more years to see the whole thing! (I sure wish I knew how it was going to end... heh heh)
What's there is gorgeous. The characters more than fit their descriptions in the books; the Shire looks exactly the way it was described; Gandalf, the Hobbits, and the Black Riders look exactly the way they were described. The elvish is accurate (yes, Tolkien actually created both a written and spoken elvish language, among others... he was a linguist after all) and it more than lived up to my expectations, which were very high. The only downer is that it's going to take two more years to see the whole thing! (I sure wish I knew how it was going to end... heh heh)
High and Low
(1963)
Symbolism in Perfect Balance
10 December 2001
Warning: Spoilers
!!SPOILERS GALORE!!
Tengoku to Jigoku ('High & Low', or more correctly, 'Heaven & Hell') is a remarkable expression of the Taoist elements of Shintoism and Zen; the concept that nothing can exist without an opposite (represented by the 'taiji', or 'yin-yang' symbol.) There are many obvious allusions to this, most notably the living conditions of Gondo and the kidnapper - Gondo, high on the hill in affluent air conditioned comfort (Heaven) and the kidnapper, deep within the heat of the city amidst drugs and squalor.
'High & Low' can also describe the significant elements that drug use plays in the film... To get too high is to get completely low (again, 'Heaven & Hell' most certainly applies.) Gondo's home is very bright and filled with windows, while the kidnapper lives in a very dark apartment, again a significant contrast.
Gondo's gut-wrenching decision to pay or not pay the ransom for his chauffeur's child. To keep the money for himself would mean he would be able to take control of his company, but there would be no honor in that. There are several wonderful shots at the beginning of the film while they are trying to decide what to do where Gondo and the chauffeur are on opposite sides of the room facing away from each other, and another standout shot where the family is gathered on one side, the police gathered on the other, and Gondo is sitting in the dead center trying to decide what to do.
Since there would be no honor in gaining control of the company if it meant even the risk of killing a child, he really has no choice, even though he puts it off as long as possible. Once he has made up his mind, there is no going back, even though it certainly means his ruin. The auctioneers tagging his furniture while they discuss their plans are particularly noticeable - could this be considered honorable? And yet Gondo pays no attention.
The visual of Gondo mowing his own yard says more than any words. He accepts his decision totally, and all that it means. Even though the vast amount of the money is retrieved, his debt would still be greater. He certainly does not end up in a good financial state, but he ends up in an honorable one (running his own small shoe company with the values he cherished.)
The actions of his fellow executives are almost as contemptible as those of the kidnapper. They are willing to take control of the company no matter what the cost, even dragging Gondo's personal assistant along with them. In the end, the 'old man' (only referred to in the film, never seen) would have retained control of his company, but the combination of the bad publicity associated with Gondo's situation and the cheap shoes the other executives were pushing to produce would almost certainly have resulted in the ultimate ruin of the company.
I found the ending of the film unsettling and somewhat unsatisfying. The kidnapper essentially demands to see Gondo to simply gloat about the fact that he's not afraid of dying because he was able to ruin a rich man... and yet he ends up breaking down predictably. Gondo sits emotionless - there is no happy ending, there is only the fact that Gondo's life is going to continue and the kidnapper's is not. In the end, Gondo maintains his honor while the kidnapper is dragged out of the room in a shameful display (clearly afraid of dying despite his boasting.)
The most satisfying part of the movie (for me) is how quickly they go from capturing the kidnapper to the execution of his sentence. If only that sort of swift justice was a reality, at least as an American.
A wonderful film that any fan of Kurosawa or fine film noir should not miss. It is true, there are no samurai in this film, but it is still pure Akira Kurosawa.
Tengoku to Jigoku ('High & Low', or more correctly, 'Heaven & Hell') is a remarkable expression of the Taoist elements of Shintoism and Zen; the concept that nothing can exist without an opposite (represented by the 'taiji', or 'yin-yang' symbol.) There are many obvious allusions to this, most notably the living conditions of Gondo and the kidnapper - Gondo, high on the hill in affluent air conditioned comfort (Heaven) and the kidnapper, deep within the heat of the city amidst drugs and squalor.
'High & Low' can also describe the significant elements that drug use plays in the film... To get too high is to get completely low (again, 'Heaven & Hell' most certainly applies.) Gondo's home is very bright and filled with windows, while the kidnapper lives in a very dark apartment, again a significant contrast.
Gondo's gut-wrenching decision to pay or not pay the ransom for his chauffeur's child. To keep the money for himself would mean he would be able to take control of his company, but there would be no honor in that. There are several wonderful shots at the beginning of the film while they are trying to decide what to do where Gondo and the chauffeur are on opposite sides of the room facing away from each other, and another standout shot where the family is gathered on one side, the police gathered on the other, and Gondo is sitting in the dead center trying to decide what to do.
Since there would be no honor in gaining control of the company if it meant even the risk of killing a child, he really has no choice, even though he puts it off as long as possible. Once he has made up his mind, there is no going back, even though it certainly means his ruin. The auctioneers tagging his furniture while they discuss their plans are particularly noticeable - could this be considered honorable? And yet Gondo pays no attention.
The visual of Gondo mowing his own yard says more than any words. He accepts his decision totally, and all that it means. Even though the vast amount of the money is retrieved, his debt would still be greater. He certainly does not end up in a good financial state, but he ends up in an honorable one (running his own small shoe company with the values he cherished.)
The actions of his fellow executives are almost as contemptible as those of the kidnapper. They are willing to take control of the company no matter what the cost, even dragging Gondo's personal assistant along with them. In the end, the 'old man' (only referred to in the film, never seen) would have retained control of his company, but the combination of the bad publicity associated with Gondo's situation and the cheap shoes the other executives were pushing to produce would almost certainly have resulted in the ultimate ruin of the company.
I found the ending of the film unsettling and somewhat unsatisfying. The kidnapper essentially demands to see Gondo to simply gloat about the fact that he's not afraid of dying because he was able to ruin a rich man... and yet he ends up breaking down predictably. Gondo sits emotionless - there is no happy ending, there is only the fact that Gondo's life is going to continue and the kidnapper's is not. In the end, Gondo maintains his honor while the kidnapper is dragged out of the room in a shameful display (clearly afraid of dying despite his boasting.)
The most satisfying part of the movie (for me) is how quickly they go from capturing the kidnapper to the execution of his sentence. If only that sort of swift justice was a reality, at least as an American.
A wonderful film that any fan of Kurosawa or fine film noir should not miss. It is true, there are no samurai in this film, but it is still pure Akira Kurosawa.
The Pledge
(I) (2001)
Truly thought-provoking [POTENTIAL SPOILERS WITHIN]
23 October 2001
Warning: Spoilers
When I first watched this film, I was very unsatisfied with the ending. It didn't seem to answer anything, nobody seemed the better, and it was tremendously sad. However, in retrospect, I'm finding myself going over the elements of the movie more and more (which, in my mind usually marks the better films) and I think the ending, while truly sad is the ultimate conclusion to actual title of the film. Nicholson makes a promise to find the killer and keep it from happening again to another child... a very strong promise, which he takes so seriously that he literally devotes the remainder of his life to fulfilling it, even though I don't think even he is truly aware that he is even doing it.
He fulfills his pledge; he knows that the person accused of the crimes was not the guilty party, while none of the other cops care... to them, it's a closed case, time to move on. But Nicholson knows that the real villain is still out there and still a threat and attempts to track him down in a most remarkable way.
Like I say, he fulfills his pledge to the mother. In the end, the true killer can never perform an evil deed, but Nicholson is totally unaware of it. To make matters worse, his retirement was turning into a much better lifestyle than his entire life as a cop in Reno, and yet his continued attempt to find the killer destroys even this. His former co-workers are left thinking that he has literally gone off the deep end, and he has lost any respect that they had for him. His 'new family' turns their back on him (and rightfully so, I believe) once the mother finds out what was actually going on. In his death, the true killer ends up utterly destroying Nicholson's very existence.
My wife and I debated over what would have happened next at the end of the film. I can't imagine anything other than Nicholson's complete self-destruction, either by deliberate action (suicide) or eventually through alcohol, but my wife was convinced that he would have had to have found out about the fatal accident since he did know who the killer's mother was and would have known that the guy was dead. In either case, I give the most credit to Sean Penn for ending the film in the fashion in which he does. You simply don't know what Jack's going to do, and that truly puts you in Nicholson's mind at that very moment. Any film that can get right into your head like that has really achieved something special. Once again, Jack (very similar to in 'The Shining') is absolutely incredible as a man slowly losing his mind, but a lesser director would have made the ending much more obvious, more blatant, more satisfying to a lesser audience. Kudos to Mr. Penn for a thought-provoking, intelligent yet truly disturbing piece of work.
He fulfills his pledge; he knows that the person accused of the crimes was not the guilty party, while none of the other cops care... to them, it's a closed case, time to move on. But Nicholson knows that the real villain is still out there and still a threat and attempts to track him down in a most remarkable way.
Like I say, he fulfills his pledge to the mother. In the end, the true killer can never perform an evil deed, but Nicholson is totally unaware of it. To make matters worse, his retirement was turning into a much better lifestyle than his entire life as a cop in Reno, and yet his continued attempt to find the killer destroys even this. His former co-workers are left thinking that he has literally gone off the deep end, and he has lost any respect that they had for him. His 'new family' turns their back on him (and rightfully so, I believe) once the mother finds out what was actually going on. In his death, the true killer ends up utterly destroying Nicholson's very existence.
My wife and I debated over what would have happened next at the end of the film. I can't imagine anything other than Nicholson's complete self-destruction, either by deliberate action (suicide) or eventually through alcohol, but my wife was convinced that he would have had to have found out about the fatal accident since he did know who the killer's mother was and would have known that the guy was dead. In either case, I give the most credit to Sean Penn for ending the film in the fashion in which he does. You simply don't know what Jack's going to do, and that truly puts you in Nicholson's mind at that very moment. Any film that can get right into your head like that has really achieved something special. Once again, Jack (very similar to in 'The Shining') is absolutely incredible as a man slowly losing his mind, but a lesser director would have made the ending much more obvious, more blatant, more satisfying to a lesser audience. Kudos to Mr. Penn for a thought-provoking, intelligent yet truly disturbing piece of work.
One Night at McCool's
(2001)
Simply a kick-ass film
16 October 2001
You can look at just about any movie and come up with misogynistic theories. Personally I saw Liv Tyler's character as an incredibly powerful, totally in charge and in control person. My wife and I both thoroughly enjoyed the film from start to finish.
I would describe it as 'Rashomon' meets 'There's Something About Mary'. Everyone has a totally different view of exactly the same sequences. Everyone draws completely different conclusions based on their perceptions as well. It kind of proves that you can't judge a book by it's cover, particularly when the cover is somewhat out of focus.
There is not one bad performance in the film, and even Andrew "Dice Clay" Silverman is a riot. Once you see it, you'll never be able to hear the song 'Y.M.C.A.' without thinking of this movie. The ending has to rate as one of the funniest blackout gags ever filmed. Highly recommended.
I would describe it as 'Rashomon' meets 'There's Something About Mary'. Everyone has a totally different view of exactly the same sequences. Everyone draws completely different conclusions based on their perceptions as well. It kind of proves that you can't judge a book by it's cover, particularly when the cover is somewhat out of focus.
There is not one bad performance in the film, and even Andrew "Dice Clay" Silverman is a riot. Once you see it, you'll never be able to hear the song 'Y.M.C.A.' without thinking of this movie. The ending has to rate as one of the funniest blackout gags ever filmed. Highly recommended.
Cube
(1997)
Cube? More like square root...
16 October 2001
I was very disappointed by this film. The concept is a good one, and the booby-traps are in many cases very effectively portrayed (particularly the first one, but who the hell was that guy anyway?)
I agree that it is reminiscent of The Twilight Zone, but certainly not the better episodes. There's an interesting premise with no real payoff. Clearly the Cube is supposed to be some type of a prison (clue #1, all the characters are named for famous prisons), so why should there be any chance of getting out of it in the first place? Where are all the other prisoners? I can understand no guards, but no food or water? While everyone has a 'special talent' that allows them a chance for escape if they pull together, what exactly is the purpose of the cop character? In the long run, he certainly does not assist in any way... far from it.
For me, the really good Twilight Zone episodes setup a very interesting premise and completely change your initial impression by the end of the program. There was no 'twist', no 'startling revelation',no big 'payoff'... it just sort of ends. And to be honest, by that point I was pretty much glad that it did. Great potential, disappointing execution.
I agree that it is reminiscent of The Twilight Zone, but certainly not the better episodes. There's an interesting premise with no real payoff. Clearly the Cube is supposed to be some type of a prison (clue #1, all the characters are named for famous prisons), so why should there be any chance of getting out of it in the first place? Where are all the other prisoners? I can understand no guards, but no food or water? While everyone has a 'special talent' that allows them a chance for escape if they pull together, what exactly is the purpose of the cop character? In the long run, he certainly does not assist in any way... far from it.
For me, the really good Twilight Zone episodes setup a very interesting premise and completely change your initial impression by the end of the program. There was no 'twist', no 'startling revelation',no big 'payoff'... it just sort of ends. And to be honest, by that point I was pretty much glad that it did. Great potential, disappointing execution.
What's Eating Gilbert Grape
(1993)
Stillwater pool of emotions
21 September 2001
Warning: Spoilers
I had heard many people praising this film long before I ever actually caught it myself, and I have to say that the praise is more than worthy. On the surface it is a simple story of an unusual family closely bound together, but in actuality it is really about life itself. The title of the film "What's Eating Gilbert Grape?" (for international readers, the term 'eating' is a play on words meaning 'bothering') can refer to many facets of his character.
[POTENTIAL SPOILERS]
Gilbert is bothered by the problems that his mother's large size impose on the family, and yet he isn't bothered enough to realize the curiosity others have in her; even helping kids get a better look at her through the window.
Gilbert is bothered by having to take care of his rather impaired brother Arnie (masterfully played by DiCaprio), and yet he will not tolerate others to be disrespectful to him.
Gilbert is bothered by the fact that he is effectively trapped by his family, and yet he really has nowhere to go (which seems to be a favorite chant of Arnie.)
Gilbert is bothered by his father's suicide, which apparently triggered his mother's depression that led to her weight problem, and yet he seems constantly filled with the desire to just 'check out' himself but doesn't.
Gilbert is bothered by a non-emotional sexual fling which ultimately has predictable results, and has difficulty dealing with a true relationship with Juliette Lewis.
The care and concern that he feels for his family is powerful and tangible. An interesting metaphor used several times is him starting a fire (lighting a match), only to blow it out again, which kind of summarizes his existence; starting something, and then changing his mind (at least until the end of the film.)
This film deals with the kind of gut-level emotions that we all have but would rather not acknowledge, very much like 'The Cider House Rules' (by the same director.) A truly wonderful film that should not be missed.
[POTENTIAL SPOILERS]
Gilbert is bothered by the problems that his mother's large size impose on the family, and yet he isn't bothered enough to realize the curiosity others have in her; even helping kids get a better look at her through the window.
Gilbert is bothered by having to take care of his rather impaired brother Arnie (masterfully played by DiCaprio), and yet he will not tolerate others to be disrespectful to him.
Gilbert is bothered by the fact that he is effectively trapped by his family, and yet he really has nowhere to go (which seems to be a favorite chant of Arnie.)
Gilbert is bothered by his father's suicide, which apparently triggered his mother's depression that led to her weight problem, and yet he seems constantly filled with the desire to just 'check out' himself but doesn't.
Gilbert is bothered by a non-emotional sexual fling which ultimately has predictable results, and has difficulty dealing with a true relationship with Juliette Lewis.
The care and concern that he feels for his family is powerful and tangible. An interesting metaphor used several times is him starting a fire (lighting a match), only to blow it out again, which kind of summarizes his existence; starting something, and then changing his mind (at least until the end of the film.)
This film deals with the kind of gut-level emotions that we all have but would rather not acknowledge, very much like 'The Cider House Rules' (by the same director.) A truly wonderful film that should not be missed.
From Dusk Till Dawn
(1996)
Put it in the proper context...
22 October 2000
Not a film to be taken too seriously, but a hell of a lot of fun to watch. This was Tarantino's first screenplay (first one he wrote, not first one put to film) and there's a reason for it's existence; Tarantino believed that he would get, at most, one shot at being a success in films (being a nobody working at a video rental store in LA at the time) and as such he needed to get "everything" in there. So he throws his whole wad into it; tense psychological suspense, extreme violence, vampires, hot chicks, great dialogue, and lots and lots of humor. As has been mentioned previously, it seems like two films in one. The first "film" is about the psychotic Gecko brothers, and their bloody attempt to get across the Mexican border and away from the law. The second "film" is an over-the-top vampire flick with all the cliches. Tarantino and Rodriguez are long time friends, and Quentin agreed to let him film the screenplay so long as he could play the really twisted Gecko brother. Taken as a whole, this film is the cinematic equivalent of a full-course meal... creepy, NBK-type violence at the beginning, over-the-top comedy at the end, with George Clooney, Harvey Keitel & Juliette Lewis providing surprisingly top-notch performances. Salma Hayek is nothing short of spectacular because she does what she does best, which is eye candy with precious little acting. Anyone who's enjoyed anything written or directed by Tarantino should find plenty to enjoy in this film... however, this is not a film that stands up to critical analysis. It was not intended to win an Oscar, it was merely supposed to give Quentin further work in the film business... and it succeeded admirably.
Tell Your Friends