Change Your Image
lemmy caution
Reviews
Neco z Alenky (1988)
Alice in Dullsville
Cool animation technique is way undermined by slow, slow pacing.
If I had a watch, I'd be looking at it as frequently as the white rabbit does in the movie. If I had a rabbit, I'd rather be watching it for amusement.
There was no sense of adventure, or even engagement. And this seemed like a very long 84 minute movie.
Best avoided. 3/10.
Almost Famous (2000)
Almost perfect
Cameron Crowe's rock and roll lullabye is a confident movie by a completely assured filmmaker. Avoiding the main contemporary conventions of too-bitter irony and too-sweet treacle, he presents a semi-autobiographical story that works on every level.
Crowe's interviews with the great Billie Wilder are presenting a remarkable return on time invested; every rule of strong screenwriting that they came up with is put into practice here. (And making the debt plain to see, a key late scene of the movie is a clear homage to The Apartment, Crowe's favourite Wilder flick.)
A deep knowledge of rock and roll may enrich the experience of this movie, but isn't a prerequisite. Rock geeks, however, who adore critics as much as the bands they write about will love this movie, especially seeing Lester Bangs brought to life as a sloppy, ranting, mad genius.
Excellent acting all around, unwavering direction and a superbly crafted screenplay. It's all too rare that I come out of the theatre glad that I went to a movie; this time I was ecstatic.
Rating: 9 out of 10 (excellent)
King Lear (1987)
No Thing
Godard's listless crapfest is a big waste of time. I mean- it's fine if you want to pick one scene from a play and analyse it for an hour and a half; it's fine if you want to do this in an obscure semi-story way that only become the tiniest bit clear after having watched the whole thing.
But when it's constructed as an endurance test, with the director holding the audience in contempt- I mean, why waste your time? (To the end of making your experience as unpleasant as possible, Godard shows up as a "professor", mumbling unintelligible profundities. And then throws piles of squealing seagulls and vari-speeded music onto the soundtrack. Thanks for reminding us that film is a constructed medium, professor!)
There were a couple effective scenes, but they were immediately undermined by what followed. I did think a little about Lear, but more to keep myself occupied than from any theses the film presented.
And a caveat to anyone considering seeing this because the IMDB credits list Woody Allen: don't bother; he's only in the flick for a few minutes at the end and barely says anything.
To review: avoid.
Rating: 3 out of 10 (very poor)
Le mépris (1963)
Made me feel contemptuous, all right...
When I read people lavishing praise on this film, I feel a little like the child in "The Emperor's New Clothes". I mean, really, crap is crap, even if it is wrapped in a burrito of pseudo-profundity.
There was some funny material, mostly supplied by Jack Palance as the ultra-smarmy producer. But otherwise, the lead characters are uninteresting-- I didn't care about them at the start, and - surprise!- I didn't care about them at the end.
Throughout, I wasn't sure where Godard's tricks began and where his technical ineptness ended. Weird editing abounds, with many cuts against actions that really break the flow. Is this a device, Godard saying to us, "hey folks, just a movie here!" and if so, to what end?
(On a related note, I don't know if the dubbing in the version I saw was bad on purpose, or was also an attempt to break down the form. In one scene in a theatre, a woman on stage is singing a song- but is clearly lipsyncing something other than what is playing. And then, when the characters in the audience speak to each other, the song cuts out for their dubbed dialogue. In my mind, it says something negative about a film when I can't tell if this sort of thing is purposeful or not.)
And ultimately, the movie says nothing interesting about one of its more obvious themes, the conflict between the "pure" artist and the "greedy" producer. (A pretty dull topic to begin with, anyway.)
In the final analysis, not much to recommend here. Worthwhile for mocking arty film pretense and also for Bardot's ass.
1963. In garish colour with garish dubbing. Rating: 3 out of 10 (poor).
Passing Glory (1999)
Passing-ly decent...
I must admit that I watched picked this one up on the drawing power of Andre Braugher, based on his powerful work on the now-defunct tv series "Homicide: Life on the Street". So I guess I shouldn't be disappointed that his character in this movie strongly resembles Homicide's Frank Pembleton. (In this movie he's a Jesuit priest; in Homicide his strong moral centre arises from his Jesuit background) Despite this, or perhaps because of this, Braugher is almost always compelling when he's onscreen, exercising his range from indignant anger to his icy cold stare.
There were also some strong supporting performances, especially Bill Nunn as the concerned father of the best player on the high school team. The whole thing is apparently drawn from real life, and the background of the struggle to overcome America's apartheid system is certainly compelling.
All that said, however, this movie does have some problems. Many of these probably arise from the format- in a 90 minute made for cable movie, there isn't time to be as expansive as one would like. But still, too many of the characters are really one dimensional, and follow a pattern of set up/resolution. Rather than showing any real-life personality, they get the movie-imposed "character arc". (And pity the poor white folks in this movie; I know there's frustratingly little time to offer us more characters, but we get really no chance to get into the heads of the players on the other side of the ball and their families.) And worst of all, this movie ends with the deeply cliched BIG GAME.
Seeing as this comes from the director of the very good documentary "Hoop Dreams", I would have hoped for more investigation of the characters involved, and the circumstances of their lives, rather than more kinetic in-game action. (And, despite the executive producer presence of Magic Johnson, the basketball sequences are fairly uninspired.)
All things considered, the movie was well put together and moved along briskly. If I wasn't thrilled, at least I wasn't bored. If you like Andre Braugher, you'll probably want to see this movie, but in general, you'd probably be better off watching a few old episodes of "Homicide", and chasing that with "Hoop Dreams".
Final note: If I were making a movie about a high-school basketball team, I'd get my people to watch "Hoosiers", and then filter everything from that film out of my project. Sports are such a huge part of so many people's lives, there's got to be more stories than these movies keep on telling. In this flick, I found all the trouble that went into setting up the BIG GAME much more interesting that the game itself; why can't that be the focus?
Rating: 5 out of 10 (average). (And this factors in a bonus point for Andre Braugher)
Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Leonard Cohen (1965)
Poetry is not an occupation, but a verdict
Jazzy portrait of the artist as a young poet, it's fascinating to see this glimpse of the pre-pop singer Cohen. Whether he's self-effacing, full of himself, or both is up for debate, and we can't gather much of why he's in the poetry biz besides for the purpose of meeting girls. (There's a wonderful CanCon moment where, on some stereotypical CBC panel discussion program, Pierre Burton grills him on this point, and Cohen refuses to play along).
While it is a nice time capsule of Montreal in the early '60s, whether or not you enjoy this depends on how you feel about L.C., and about the possibility of poetry embiggining the human spirit. Myself, I'm a bit of a sucker for it.
Black and white, 44 minutes. Rating: 5 out of 10 (average).
The Day After Trinity (1981)
Powerful stuff
Often gripping documentary detailing the father of the American atomic bomb. Two interesting themes emerged throughout the film. The first is the tension between the delight of scientific discovery and the social responsibility for its results. The second was the story of how the American government co-opted the scientific brilliance of a generation of progressive/left-wing scientists (who were rallied by anti-fascist fervour) to ignite a so-called Cold War with Communist Russia.
In both cases the hubris of the scientists (that nuclear weapons can be controlled, that politicians will act selflessly and share the knowledge, and enter into an international stewardship of the Bomb) reminds us of the gulf between technical skill and political savvy.
All of this is well presented well in the film, focused through the lens of the story of Robert Oppenheimer, and his triumphs and failings - his genius and short-sightedness - are laid bare. It does falter a bit after detailing the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - seeing anything after the presentation of this destruction leaves us emotionally exhausted - but Oppenheimer's fall from grace does feel like an anti-climax, and seems a little rushed.
Rating 7 out of 10 (quite good).
The Spirit of St. Louis (1957)
A pleasant surprise
Coming across this on a tour through the works of Billy Wilder, I was prepared to be underwhelmed- possibly self-serving autobiography, possibly boring Jimmy Stewart, but I came out quite impressed.
Most surprising of all was the way that Wilder kept things moving- from the framework of the flight of the Spirit of St. Louis we cut away to various bits of back story. Some tell us about the preparation of the voyage- of the skull-sweat and innovations required to make this plane. (The plane seems so primitive- no radio, or radar- and yet, we can appreciate what a wonderful technological marvel it was) Some of the flashbacks are almost just comic relief, but they all tend to serve the story well.
As for the voyage itself, we get an excellent presentation of how to find the dramatic possibilities of a long (over thirty hours!) flight. The scenes detailing Lindbergh's exhaustion are exquisite, and we feel an almost eerie high as Stewart forces himself through.
Jimmy Stewart was humble and folksy as always, but outside the range of hokiness. During a long solo flight when he has no one else to act to, we are sucked in to the tiny world of the plane's cockpit.
Thus, overall, a very enjoyable experience- going way beyond the meagre expectations I had going in. One slight complaint is that the videotape that I watched had a jarring pan-and-scan that really seemed to subtract from the composition of a lot of shots. But what can you do?
1957, colour. Rating: 6 out of 10 (above average).
Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974)
Because it feels so good...
Warren Oates is excellent in this tale of a guy out for one last score. Although the first half-hour or so is somewhat boring, it picks up, and builds to a heated finish.
All of the usual Peckinpah touches are on display: slow-motion death, misogyny, and a thick layer of dust on top of everything. The film ends with a powerful jolt, and as usual with Peckinpah, one is left wondering: can this fetishisation of violence really be used as a means to indict it?
Rating: 6 out of 10 (good).
A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (1982)
A midsummer night?
Bummer that many of the key scenes at midnight (even with a full moon) looked pretty much the same as the afternoon.
Also bummer that the first half of the film is slow and muddled. Only once the the whole farce is set up do things really get going. And the ending isn't so hot. But the pretty fine middle makes up for it.
Fun watching these pre-TV people entertain themselves- archery and singing the Lord's Prayer (!) included. Woody's wit makes up for his lacklustre direction in this one, and Mia Farrow is kinda wooden. "Lesser" is a key adjective tossed at this film, but, hey, the crumbs of giants and all that.
Rating: 5 out of 10 (average).
Teorema (1968)
Unmasking the unbearable emptiness of bourgeois life...
...or so this film would have you think. Is capitalism really a dreamworld, our rôles and possessions merely shabby window dressing? What happened when it is all swept away?
Like the inhabitants of Plato's cave, a well-to-do Italian family is shown that the lives they lead are inauthentic and shallow. But where to turn when you find out that the life you led has been a fraud? Religion? Sex? Art?
All compelling questions, even moreso now, thirty plus years on from when this film was made. Capitalism has managed to adapt to every criticism and become more subtle, its spectacles enveloping us in a cradle to grave ocean of images and brands, all of which can give meaning and backfill those empty spaces, and all at a reasonable price. Thus, it is compelling to consider what might happen to someone who has this value-giving process shattered.
Alas, compelling philosophical questions do not a good film make. Besides its mighty technical limitations (including bad camera work, terrible editing and lousy blocking) Teorema doesn't deliver.
The characters are (with the exception of Stamp) absences rather than presences. That their lives are torn apart doesn't really matter to us because these people never meant anything to us anyways. Perhaps the aim was to present them as everyfolk, to say, "this could be you", but from such generalities there is little for us to hang our emotions on.
Stamp is the catalyst for all of these changes, and although we have as little impression of his character, his stare and his seductive energy set him apart. Alone amongst the characters (until he awakens them) he acts upon the world. He is the best thing about this often dull movie, transforming the family members in a manner that is sexy yet not explicit (one of the few things the movie pulls off).
Grainy colour. Italian w/ English subtitles. Rating: 3 out of 10. (flawed)
Barbary Coast (1935)
During the gold rush...
Not too much appealing is this early Howard Hawks production, with the possibly exception of Edward G. Robinson as the bad guy. Although he ran a casino, for some reason he was costumed as a dandy pirate. Regardless, he ran early San Francisco his way- with a sneer and a stogie- and woe to anyone who'd try and stop him.
This film is populated by stock characters spouting overly dramatic dialogue, and there's really nothing much here that engaged me. I give this movie 4/10, and even that's resting on Edward G. Robinson's attitude.
Sabrina (1954)
"Democracy isn't fair"
Fairy tale of class relationships framed as an American "romantic comedy", in which a chauffeur's daughter falls in love with a son of a rich capitalist family.
Although the strict Marxist framing seems somewhat dated today, there are indeed still lessons to be learned from this film. The self-hating father, whose identity is based entirely on the ideology of his oppressors, remains a compelling case for proletarian re-education. And as a cautionary tale about the (literally) seductive powers of the bourgeois, this film retains its power.
Although the reactionay ending is disappointing, any film that presents American tycoons and European aristocrats as virtual pedophiles, ravaging the naive energy of the proletariat, cannot be all bad.
Stylishly filmed in black white by the always reliable Billy Wilder. Some decent jokes, plus Bogart. 5/10.
Scarface (1932)
Blast from the past.
Some good ideas and innovative (for the time) techniques still don't prevent this from adding to less than the sum of its parts. Too much of the acting is hammy and overly mannered. There are a few good moments (such as when the title character's sister confronts him towards the end) but even that dissolves into melodrama.
Overall, I think this movie is more notable than truly engaging or entertaining. Seeing the invention of gangster clichés is neat, and so is reflecting upon all the movies down the road that have paid respect to this. (DePalma's remake is the most obvious.. but many more subtle homages, such as naming of the characters in "The Usual Suspects" after Boris Karloff's role.)
Contemporary folks looking for pure entertainment should move along; if you have a soft spot for movie history, give this a try.
Sergeant York (1941)
Life is like a turkey shoot...
Baffling, bizarre war flick, from some time and place completely devoid of irony. There's a lot of laughs to be had from the hokey corn planted knee deep throughout, but it never goes over the top.
Besides the wonderful first half, which sets up every hillbilly cliche in the book, the breathtaking propagandizing rationalization of "killing in the name of" is awe-inspiring. In making his decision to go to war, York's Bible is Providentially blown open to the passage "give unto God the things of God and give unto Caesar the things of Caesar." And indeed, we soon enough see Sgt. York rendering unto Caesar with a vengeance, with a cold stare and maniac grin. "Just like shootin' turkeys," York muses (in a weirdly looped in line) as he mows down more German soldiers in a key Hollywood backlot battle of WWI. Jesus'd be proud, son.