Yes.... it's on Netflix and with English subtitles!!!!!!!!!!!! Well worth watching from the first episode. Great for binge watching. The plot merits such viewing, and being so addictive, you will find it hard to stop or take a break. The acting is superb from everybody. One has to sustain disbelief, not think too much about things: should one not be seeing more students? Should not the faculty be larger? Shouldn't there be more servants? Ultimately, these questions do not matter as suspense and intrigue is built with what one gets without need for extras. This is a very engaging series and very enjoyable to watch several episodes together.
Reviews
30 Reviews
Garçon stupide
(2004)
Promising work by all but irritating to watch
16 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Whatever the merits of this film, and there are several, I find it most irritating that so much of it is filmed in close-up. It is like reading a text all in caps, with all sentences closed by an exclamation mark. At some point I got a headache. This is an relatively common fault with many indies regardless where they originate. Close-ups are used to highlight.... Use too much of it and it becomes tedious and levels the visual narrative.
Otherwise, there are promising signs. There is an amiability to the project that makes one feel churlish in criticizing it. Particularly moving is the scene between Loïc and the soccer player. The most perceptive lines in the whole film are given to the soccer player. Perhaps one ought to suspend disbelief, enjoy happy-ends, and wish Mr. Baier, his actors and crew, good luck with their next endeavor..... and of course, that they place greater trust in longer distances between lens and object.
Otherwise, there are promising signs. There is an amiability to the project that makes one feel churlish in criticizing it. Particularly moving is the scene between Loïc and the soccer player. The most perceptive lines in the whole film are given to the soccer player. Perhaps one ought to suspend disbelief, enjoy happy-ends, and wish Mr. Baier, his actors and crew, good luck with their next endeavor..... and of course, that they place greater trust in longer distances between lens and object.
Dependencia sexual
(2003)
Might have been a good movie
1 January 2005
With generosity and patience one could appreciate this movie. However, the director's choice of using split screens throughout is an overwhelming mistake that gets in the way of everything else he is trying to do. It becomes annoying, like receiving text totally underlined and in capital letters: not everything is equally important nor do the images on one side of the screen contribute continuously in any significant way to what happens on the other side nor enhance our grasp of the whole. So, we are regretfully left with a boring and pretentious conceit of the sort that should have been outgrown in film school. Rodrigo Bellott is nowhere near being a Peter Greenaway who can manipulate aspect ratios and split screens to profound dramatic effect, thereby creating effective, well-structured wholes (e.g. The Pillow Book, a film only done full justice on a theatre screen where the diverse aspect ratios which occur throughout the film can be shown.... DVD's can't do it).
Better luck next time.... and I truly hope there is a next time for Mr. Bellott. Forcing oneself to ignore his unfortunate aesthetic choice (and this is hard, for there is no avoiding it for the whole frigging movie) one realizes that Mr. Bellott may indeed have something worthwhile to say. I wish him to try again, preferably with a strong, experienced but sensitive producer at his side.
Better luck next time.... and I truly hope there is a next time for Mr. Bellott. Forcing oneself to ignore his unfortunate aesthetic choice (and this is hard, for there is no avoiding it for the whole frigging movie) one realizes that Mr. Bellott may indeed have something worthwhile to say. I wish him to try again, preferably with a strong, experienced but sensitive producer at his side.
The Manchurian Candidate
(2004)
Not up to pedigree
1 August 2004
This "updating" failed. For one thing, it is very, very long.... or one should say, one feels time creep by. For another, the script is nowhere as witty and bizarre as the original. Somehow, the villainy of a multinational does not come across as evil or alien as that of the Chinese/North Korean communists. Denzel Washington's character wears his angst on his sleeve to the point of embarrassment; Frank Sinatra was cooler and better able to put the puzzle together (in the new movie nobody seems terribly smart, except Meryl Streep, of course). The very few acts of violence in the original shocked; the ones here are just graphic. There was such cleverness in the original, even fun, none of which one can find here. This was a dead-earnest re-imagining of the plot with a switch at the end; it came out a bore.
Neverland
(I) (2003)
do not rent do not buy
10 January 2004
Sorry to see a talented player like Wil Wheaton involved in this sorry project. Usually I'm a tolerant and generous film watcher. This is strictly amateur-night stuff. It's embarrassingly bad (believe me, not at all in the "it's so bad it's funny" class). It is painfully bad in all departments: direction, cinematography, writing, acting, you name it.... with no redeeming qualities anywhere. It doesn't even merit a curiosity viewing. You'd be better off playing solitaire. Stay away.
Children of Dune
(2003)
Worthy Sequel
26 May 2003
Other than an infrequent Stanislas Lem read, I am not a sci-fi fan. However, I read the first four books of Dune, which I found engrossing and a haunting experience. The Lynch film had a gorgeous look to it, captured the feeling of the book, but I suspect that if one had not read it, the movie may have come accross as a thoroughly confusing mess. Along come these loving TV-movie adaptations. They learned from Lynch's mistakes. They gave Dune adequate length, feel, and tension. The sequel, I think, surpasses the first. Everything is neatly and tautly realized. The plot is clear. The effects are seamless. The script emphasizes the human relationships and love for the planet that give this tale depth and make it so much more than a comic-book substitute. The acting, in the main, is superb....... surprisingly only Susan Sarandon and the evil sister are less than convincing.
I was left sorry that this installment ended. I hope the producers realize they have a great team, a wonderful tale to tell, and keep going.
I was left sorry that this installment ended. I hope the producers realize they have a great team, a wonderful tale to tell, and keep going.
The Robe
(1953)
(revised) Anagram for THE BORE
20 April 2003
Like another reviewer, I was around 12 when I first saw this and I remember being awed by Cinemascope.
But now..... after so much water under the bridge..... I just saw the DVD. It's insufferable. Even Jay Robinson's campy Caligula isn't campy enough, and certainly is in shorter supply than I remembered it.
Jean Simmon's luminous beauty and dignified presence is about the only worthwhile thing in this piece of lumbering religiosity. Surely this movie is as good an apologetics for paganism as anything I know.
I remembered the Newman score being truly bad..... wordless choir and all.... even at a tender age my music instincts were remarkably good. Somehow Mr. Newman thinks that the more he repeats a minor third, the more "tragic" the music becomes..... fat chance. This is as bad as it gets, including a rather unintentionally hilarious Hallelujah at the end.
The Robe is really a Bore. Do not waste your time.
But now..... after so much water under the bridge..... I just saw the DVD. It's insufferable. Even Jay Robinson's campy Caligula isn't campy enough, and certainly is in shorter supply than I remembered it.
Jean Simmon's luminous beauty and dignified presence is about the only worthwhile thing in this piece of lumbering religiosity. Surely this movie is as good an apologetics for paganism as anything I know.
I remembered the Newman score being truly bad..... wordless choir and all.... even at a tender age my music instincts were remarkably good. Somehow Mr. Newman thinks that the more he repeats a minor third, the more "tragic" the music becomes..... fat chance. This is as bad as it gets, including a rather unintentionally hilarious Hallelujah at the end.
The Robe is really a Bore. Do not waste your time.
The Robe
(1953)
Acronym for THE BORE
19 April 2003
Like another reviewer, I was around 12 when I first saw this and I remember being awed by Cinemascope.
But now..... after so much water under the bridge..... I just saw the DVD. It's insufferable. Even Jay Robinson's campy Caligula isn't campy enough, and certainly is in shorter supply than I remembered it.
Jean Simmon's luminous beauty and dignified presence is about the only worthwhile thing in this piece of lumbering religiosity. Surely this movie is as good an apologetics for paganism as anything I know.
I remembered the Newman score being truly bad..... voiceless choir and all.... even at a tender age my music instincts were remarkably good. This is as bad as it gets, including a rather unintentionally hilarious Hallelujah at the end.
Do not waste your time.
But now..... after so much water under the bridge..... I just saw the DVD. It's insufferable. Even Jay Robinson's campy Caligula isn't campy enough, and certainly is in shorter supply than I remembered it.
Jean Simmon's luminous beauty and dignified presence is about the only worthwhile thing in this piece of lumbering religiosity. Surely this movie is as good an apologetics for paganism as anything I know.
I remembered the Newman score being truly bad..... voiceless choir and all.... even at a tender age my music instincts were remarkably good. This is as bad as it gets, including a rather unintentionally hilarious Hallelujah at the end.
Do not waste your time.
Spike of Bensonhurst
(1988)
Relax and enjoy
22 March 2003
I have been an advocate of this movie since it came out. It is charming and endearing. Sasha Mitchell exudes a natural warmth that grabs your attention and leaves you smiling. The movie is well written, well acted and well produced. On its own terms, this is an entertainement that gives much pleasure which lingers long after you've seen it. It is well worth renting.
The Rules of Attraction
(2002)
Very Funny
12 October 2002
This is a cleverly structured and brilliantly written movie. Victor's (Kip Pardue) narration of his European trip and its on-screen portrayal is a tour-de-force almost worth the price of admission. One-liners are fast and furious: some satiric, some ironic, all very funny. The three suicide attempts are funny in very different ways..... certainly the one involving Paul's friend is hilarious; the one that succeeds is truly pathetic, and highly ironic in its irrelevance: so much of the plot turns on the actions of this highly anonymous character... The acting is superb. Special kudos to Sam Russell, somebody I had never seen before, for a hilarious turn as a spoiled-rich-rebel-with-some-cause kid named Richard (who wants to be known as Dick), and to Eric Stolz in a cameo as a sleazy professor using fading charisma to get done by young coeds. Kip Pardue, Ian Somerhalder, James van der Beek and all the girls are great. If you take Dawson's Creek seriously, don't go to this movie. Otherwise, run..... you will be thoroughly amused.
Trash
(1999)
Well.... perhaps a premature first feature
7 September 2002
The cinematography and art direction were quite good. The acting was fine throughout..... especially the leads.
However.... this could have been a much better movie, even if the plot really smacks of being out of the not-so-mythical 100 basic plots for Hollywood movies. That in itself doesn't damn a film. It's what the writer and director do with it that counts. This movie does not belong in cinematic hell but we certainly are put through long stretches of purgatory. Scenes are overwritten and go on too long. Frankly, the hunting accident with which the film begins in retrospect seems rather superfluous. Every indication is that the now-reduced-to-three (but it's really two, isn't it?) little gang of troublemakers behaved very much the same way before the accident. Adult characters are not developed enough nor enough is shown of their interaction with the "children." Jeremy Sisto's character loses complexity for that. Poor, sensitive Anthony comes accross also as also being rather dim..... can't he see his best friend is a brutal, criminal maniac? Where was all his sensitivity when the old lady was mugged? the dog run down? couldn't he just walk away when he realized his best friend was turning him into an accomplice to a hold-up? Just say NO? One could have understood this dogged devotion if there had been some hint of an obsessive attraction to the Jeremy Sisto character, even a hint of sublimated sexuality, but Anthony is otherwise shown to be cool and fairly detached. Jeremy Sisto overhears as much standing outside the trailer while Anthony proposes to his mother they move away. This is bad writing which a good director would have easily spotted and probably gotten the necessary rewrites. It does not help that in this case the writer and the director are one and the same.
In short..... no Orson Welles making a debut here. I wish Mr. Galluzzo well. I think he should concentrate on learning his craft as either writer or director. At this point he can't hack both.
I'm a huge fan of Mr. Sisto.... thoroughly enjoy him in Six Feet Under.... I like the nervy edge he can bring to some roles and it shows to best advantage the more reticent he is. In this flick he is made to go from aria to aria, unfortunately. I think he has great career potential and this film will in no way harm him. Eric Michael Cole I know less about but a good by-product of this film for me is that I will now look for his work. He seems an interesting actor with presence of his own, which holds up nicely even next to the flamboyant Mr. Sisto. Unfortunately, both actors, indeed most of the actors in the juvenile leads were glaringly much too old for their parts. One can suspend disbelief, but only up to a point. Youngish hoods, yes... High Schoolers, no way. Where were Brad Renfro, Nick Stahl.... their peers? Perhaps younger, relatively unknown talented wannabees might have made the movie more interesting.
Minor point but.... I am familiar with small southern towns.... even white trash shampoo their hair occassionally, particularly when they go on a date. I haven't seen so much consistently dirty greasy hair in a movie ever.
However.... this could have been a much better movie, even if the plot really smacks of being out of the not-so-mythical 100 basic plots for Hollywood movies. That in itself doesn't damn a film. It's what the writer and director do with it that counts. This movie does not belong in cinematic hell but we certainly are put through long stretches of purgatory. Scenes are overwritten and go on too long. Frankly, the hunting accident with which the film begins in retrospect seems rather superfluous. Every indication is that the now-reduced-to-three (but it's really two, isn't it?) little gang of troublemakers behaved very much the same way before the accident. Adult characters are not developed enough nor enough is shown of their interaction with the "children." Jeremy Sisto's character loses complexity for that. Poor, sensitive Anthony comes accross also as also being rather dim..... can't he see his best friend is a brutal, criminal maniac? Where was all his sensitivity when the old lady was mugged? the dog run down? couldn't he just walk away when he realized his best friend was turning him into an accomplice to a hold-up? Just say NO? One could have understood this dogged devotion if there had been some hint of an obsessive attraction to the Jeremy Sisto character, even a hint of sublimated sexuality, but Anthony is otherwise shown to be cool and fairly detached. Jeremy Sisto overhears as much standing outside the trailer while Anthony proposes to his mother they move away. This is bad writing which a good director would have easily spotted and probably gotten the necessary rewrites. It does not help that in this case the writer and the director are one and the same.
In short..... no Orson Welles making a debut here. I wish Mr. Galluzzo well. I think he should concentrate on learning his craft as either writer or director. At this point he can't hack both.
I'm a huge fan of Mr. Sisto.... thoroughly enjoy him in Six Feet Under.... I like the nervy edge he can bring to some roles and it shows to best advantage the more reticent he is. In this flick he is made to go from aria to aria, unfortunately. I think he has great career potential and this film will in no way harm him. Eric Michael Cole I know less about but a good by-product of this film for me is that I will now look for his work. He seems an interesting actor with presence of his own, which holds up nicely even next to the flamboyant Mr. Sisto. Unfortunately, both actors, indeed most of the actors in the juvenile leads were glaringly much too old for their parts. One can suspend disbelief, but only up to a point. Youngish hoods, yes... High Schoolers, no way. Where were Brad Renfro, Nick Stahl.... their peers? Perhaps younger, relatively unknown talented wannabees might have made the movie more interesting.
Minor point but.... I am familiar with small southern towns.... even white trash shampoo their hair occassionally, particularly when they go on a date. I haven't seen so much consistently dirty greasy hair in a movie ever.
The Thin Red Line
(1998)
Masterpiece
3 September 2002
Having seen this film in the theatre and now several times on DVD, this movie gains in stature with each subsequent viewing.
It is a meditation on war, a speculation on how it fits in the scheme of nature, if it does at all.... or is it evil? It is beautifully shot. All those gorgeous shots of fauna and flora are not just stunningly beautiful, but are central to the movie's theme and indeed serve as commentary on the action surrounding them, even ironic at times.
This movie is not meant to be patriotic or to give us an adrenaline rush (though it certainly has its tense action stretches). Indeed, the action to take a hilltop position on a grassy slope is certainly one of the most tense war sequences ever filmed...... perhaps we get the feel of what it is like to pursue and unseen enemy in bright sunlight in unexplored terrain..... perhaps because the enemy remains so imprecise..... fleeting distant figures yet close enough to kill or be killed. The heroics are real. So is the fear, the vanity, the care, the sacrifice..... also the betrayal, the irony.
The negative comments I have read on this site I think stem from disappointment by viewers not getting the movie they were expecting. This is no formulaic "action" war movie.... not a Dirty Dozen, Saving Pvt. Ryan, In Harm's Way..... good on their own terms as these may be. They should take a second look at Thin Red Line.... listen carefully to the various voice-overs.... wallow in the imagery..... let the movie unfold at its own pace and on its own terms. I bet they will see a very different movie from what they thought they had seen originally. I think they will be quite favourably impressed.
I think it is one of the greatest war-based movies ever made.
It is a meditation on war, a speculation on how it fits in the scheme of nature, if it does at all.... or is it evil? It is beautifully shot. All those gorgeous shots of fauna and flora are not just stunningly beautiful, but are central to the movie's theme and indeed serve as commentary on the action surrounding them, even ironic at times.
This movie is not meant to be patriotic or to give us an adrenaline rush (though it certainly has its tense action stretches). Indeed, the action to take a hilltop position on a grassy slope is certainly one of the most tense war sequences ever filmed...... perhaps we get the feel of what it is like to pursue and unseen enemy in bright sunlight in unexplored terrain..... perhaps because the enemy remains so imprecise..... fleeting distant figures yet close enough to kill or be killed. The heroics are real. So is the fear, the vanity, the care, the sacrifice..... also the betrayal, the irony.
The negative comments I have read on this site I think stem from disappointment by viewers not getting the movie they were expecting. This is no formulaic "action" war movie.... not a Dirty Dozen, Saving Pvt. Ryan, In Harm's Way..... good on their own terms as these may be. They should take a second look at Thin Red Line.... listen carefully to the various voice-overs.... wallow in the imagery..... let the movie unfold at its own pace and on its own terms. I bet they will see a very different movie from what they thought they had seen originally. I think they will be quite favourably impressed.
I think it is one of the greatest war-based movies ever made.
24 Hour Party People
(2002)
not that good
31 August 2002
this movie is like picking lint out of your navel...... perhaps self-absorbing to you but not very interesting to anybody else. Manchester is a place people leave. It had its not-quite-fifteen minutes like other places before/after. This movie (jerkily) tries to show it but it really doesn't say much about it. I'm sure it feels "important" to a few who understand the in-references (when they can make out the words) and have convinced themselves M was the center of the universe fleetingly. For the rest of us..... boring. Lots of talent in this movie..... shame it's wasted.
Now..... when will we get the Curt bio.... and I guess something about Seattle .....
Now..... when will we get the Curt bio.... and I guess something about Seattle .....
K-19: The Widowmaker
(2002)
Easily Misunderstood Tragic Film
21 July 2002
It is very easy to be disappointed by this film if one enters the theatre expecting an action thriller based on true events which occurred during the cold war. This is not what this movie is about.... if that is what you are looking for, rent Hunt for Red October.
The cold war is at its height. To maintain their side of the power equation, the Soviets launch their first nuclear submarine..... an imperfect, untested, hastily put together submersible, seemingly ignorant of the potential for atomic disaster inherent in the simplistic layoutof the ship and its reactor, devoid of protective redundancies. In addition, the ship was woefully ill equipped: manuals were missing, radioactive protective gear was not provided, the chief nuclear staffer fresh out of school with no experience whatever. The Cold War logic which made the USSR send such an unprepared weapon to sea,(or for that matter which fueled America's own tragedy by making it send "advisors" to Vietnam around this time) provides the underpinnings upon which this tale is told and upon which decisions in its narrative are taken. It is a tale of heroism and camaraderie, loyalty and patriotism. Much is sacrificed in the service of an ideology we know was false and now know was destined to fail. The message, if there is one, is that ultimate virtues are not as important as what you do for your fellow-men in your immediate situation. Heroism is defined as risking one's life for the many, knowing full well that it could result in one's own death, fully aware of the life-plans one would be giving up. Perhaps it is doubly sad when such knowing heroes are young. There are no easily discernible villains in this movie. One can, of course, blame the bureaucratic bigwigs who sent such an unfinished product to sea and at each danger signal refused to acknowledge obvious inadequacies and shortcomings. The Cold War objective was all-commanding. Cold War logic required the Soviets to respond in kind to the perceived threat of American nuclear submarines.
In the final analysis, this is a very sad movie which in its own circumscribed way evokes the sadness and waste of that whole cold war period. The acting, the mis-en-scene, the music are superb. The interaction between all the characters is peerless. Kudos in particular to Messrs. Ford, Neeson, Camargo, Sasgaard, and Ginty. There seems to be a lot of relative newcomers in smaller roles.... all of them did well and created memorable characters in their brief parts.
I have found critics reluctant to praise this movie. I think they were disappointed for not seeing what they were expecting, a hang by the edge of your seat thriller, so they blame the director for not making the sort of movie they "figured-out" it was going to be. Such silliness. This is a movie that will be remembered.
The cold war is at its height. To maintain their side of the power equation, the Soviets launch their first nuclear submarine..... an imperfect, untested, hastily put together submersible, seemingly ignorant of the potential for atomic disaster inherent in the simplistic layoutof the ship and its reactor, devoid of protective redundancies. In addition, the ship was woefully ill equipped: manuals were missing, radioactive protective gear was not provided, the chief nuclear staffer fresh out of school with no experience whatever. The Cold War logic which made the USSR send such an unprepared weapon to sea,(or for that matter which fueled America's own tragedy by making it send "advisors" to Vietnam around this time) provides the underpinnings upon which this tale is told and upon which decisions in its narrative are taken. It is a tale of heroism and camaraderie, loyalty and patriotism. Much is sacrificed in the service of an ideology we know was false and now know was destined to fail. The message, if there is one, is that ultimate virtues are not as important as what you do for your fellow-men in your immediate situation. Heroism is defined as risking one's life for the many, knowing full well that it could result in one's own death, fully aware of the life-plans one would be giving up. Perhaps it is doubly sad when such knowing heroes are young. There are no easily discernible villains in this movie. One can, of course, blame the bureaucratic bigwigs who sent such an unfinished product to sea and at each danger signal refused to acknowledge obvious inadequacies and shortcomings. The Cold War objective was all-commanding. Cold War logic required the Soviets to respond in kind to the perceived threat of American nuclear submarines.
In the final analysis, this is a very sad movie which in its own circumscribed way evokes the sadness and waste of that whole cold war period. The acting, the mis-en-scene, the music are superb. The interaction between all the characters is peerless. Kudos in particular to Messrs. Ford, Neeson, Camargo, Sasgaard, and Ginty. There seems to be a lot of relative newcomers in smaller roles.... all of them did well and created memorable characters in their brief parts.
I have found critics reluctant to praise this movie. I think they were disappointed for not seeing what they were expecting, a hang by the edge of your seat thriller, so they blame the director for not making the sort of movie they "figured-out" it was going to be. Such silliness. This is a movie that will be remembered.
K-19: The Widowmaker
(2002)
Easily Misunderstood Tragic Film
21 July 2002
It is very easy to be disappointed by this film if one enters the theatre expecting an action thriller based on true events which occurred during the cold war. This is not what this movie is about.... if that is what you are looking for, rent Hunt for Red October.
The cold war is at its height. To maintain their side of the power equation, the Soviets launch their first nuclear submarine..... an imperfect, untested, hastily put together submersible, seemingly ignorant of the potential for atomic disaster inherent in the simplistic layoutof the ship and its reactor, devoid of protective redundancies. In addition, the ship was woefully ill equipped: manuals were missing, radioactive protective gear was not provided, the chief nuclear staffer fresh out of school with no experience whatever. The Cold War logic which made the USSR send such an unprepared weapon to sea,(or for that matter which fueled America's own tragedy by making it send "advisors" to Vietnam around this time) provides the underpinnings upon which this tale is told and upon which decisions in its narrative are taken. It is a tale of heroism and camaraderie, loyalty and patriotism. Much is sacrificed in the service of an ideology we know was false and now know was destined to fail. The message, if there is one, is that ultimate virtues are not as important as what you do for your fellow-men in your immediate situation. Heroism is defined as risking one's life for the many, knowing full well that it could result in one's own death, fully aware of the life-plans one would be giving up. Perhaps it is doubly sad when such knowing heroes are young. There are no easily discernible villains in this movie. One can, of course, blame the bureaucratic bigwigs who sent such an unfinished product to sea and at each danger signal refused to acknowledge obvious inadequacies and shortcomings. The Cold War objective was all-commanding. Cold War logic required the Soviets to respond in kind to the perceived threat of American nuclear submarines.
In the final analysis, this is a very sad movie which in its own circumscribed way evokes the sadness and waste of that whole cold war period. The acting, the mis-en-scene, the music are superb. The interaction between all the characters is peerless. Kudos in particular to Messrs. Ford, Neeson, Camargo, Sasgaard, and Ginty. There seems to be a lot of relatively newcomers in smaller roles.... all of them did well and created memorable characters in their brief parts.
I have found critics reluctant to praise this movie. I think they were disappointed for not seeing what they were expecting, a hang by the edge of your seat thriller, so they blame the director for not making the sort of movie they "figured-out" it was going to be. Such silliness. This is a movie that will be remembered.
The cold war is at its height. To maintain their side of the power equation, the Soviets launch their first nuclear submarine..... an imperfect, untested, hastily put together submersible, seemingly ignorant of the potential for atomic disaster inherent in the simplistic layoutof the ship and its reactor, devoid of protective redundancies. In addition, the ship was woefully ill equipped: manuals were missing, radioactive protective gear was not provided, the chief nuclear staffer fresh out of school with no experience whatever. The Cold War logic which made the USSR send such an unprepared weapon to sea,(or for that matter which fueled America's own tragedy by making it send "advisors" to Vietnam around this time) provides the underpinnings upon which this tale is told and upon which decisions in its narrative are taken. It is a tale of heroism and camaraderie, loyalty and patriotism. Much is sacrificed in the service of an ideology we know was false and now know was destined to fail. The message, if there is one, is that ultimate virtues are not as important as what you do for your fellow-men in your immediate situation. Heroism is defined as risking one's life for the many, knowing full well that it could result in one's own death, fully aware of the life-plans one would be giving up. Perhaps it is doubly sad when such knowing heroes are young. There are no easily discernible villains in this movie. One can, of course, blame the bureaucratic bigwigs who sent such an unfinished product to sea and at each danger signal refused to acknowledge obvious inadequacies and shortcomings. The Cold War objective was all-commanding. Cold War logic required the Soviets to respond in kind to the perceived threat of American nuclear submarines.
In the final analysis, this is a very sad movie which in its own circumscribed way evokes the sadness and waste of that whole cold war period. The acting, the mis-en-scene, the music are superb. The interaction between all the characters is peerless. Kudos in particular to Messrs. Ford, Neeson, Camargo, Sasgaard, and Ginty. There seems to be a lot of relatively newcomers in smaller roles.... all of them did well and created memorable characters in their brief parts.
I have found critics reluctant to praise this movie. I think they were disappointed for not seeing what they were expecting, a hang by the edge of your seat thriller, so they blame the director for not making the sort of movie they "figured-out" it was going to be. Such silliness. This is a movie that will be remembered.
Locura de amor
(1948)
of its time....
3 July 2002
This movie was part of a propaganda effort of the Franco regime to extol the "traditional" values of the "true" Spain..... by true is meant nationalistic, non-foreign characters in the plot, the archvillains being the Flemish allies of the King and the moorish girl played by a very young Sarita Montiel. It extols the nobility's loyalty to the pure hispanic lineage of Queen Juana, hence to Spain. Thus we have a paean to the class structure which Franco rose to protect in his fascist attack against the Spanish republic. Several films were made at this time in this same spirit, many utilizing Ms. Bautista herself, and all emphasizing nationalistic values such as the revolt against the French during the Peninsular War.
Of course, these issues are of antiquarian interest by now. Suffice it to say that, at the time, Buñuel was making much better stuff on string budgets in Mexico..... and that the current vitality of Spanish cinema began as a revolt to the Catholic and fascist strictures which went away when Franco died.
As merely a movie, Locura de Amor is quite engaging, in a compressed telenovela sort of way..... very melodramatic but with some truly grand set pieces as when Queen Juana enters the cortes to confront the scheming nobles: as she moves forth all her titles are read out loud, a reminder of the greatness that was the Spanish empire at that time when colonization of the world was proceeding at full throttle.
Bautista could be a stirring actress.... this part is written over the top and as such it is played. The rest of the cast is swell. Montiel went on to have one of the most refulgent careers in Spanish cinema and one can understand why. Jorge Mistral played handsomely and sympathetically a part which required him to look handsome and be sympathetic. Minor parts were cast from strength.
If you are interested in Spanish cinema this is an important film to see for what it represents. It is engaging enough to merit watching. Unfortunately it is hard to find. I bought a PAL version in Barcelona which a friend graciously turned to VHS format. I doubt it will ever make it to DVD..... not when "Law of Desire" and the like are still waiting to be released.
Of course, these issues are of antiquarian interest by now. Suffice it to say that, at the time, Buñuel was making much better stuff on string budgets in Mexico..... and that the current vitality of Spanish cinema began as a revolt to the Catholic and fascist strictures which went away when Franco died.
As merely a movie, Locura de Amor is quite engaging, in a compressed telenovela sort of way..... very melodramatic but with some truly grand set pieces as when Queen Juana enters the cortes to confront the scheming nobles: as she moves forth all her titles are read out loud, a reminder of the greatness that was the Spanish empire at that time when colonization of the world was proceeding at full throttle.
Bautista could be a stirring actress.... this part is written over the top and as such it is played. The rest of the cast is swell. Montiel went on to have one of the most refulgent careers in Spanish cinema and one can understand why. Jorge Mistral played handsomely and sympathetically a part which required him to look handsome and be sympathetic. Minor parts were cast from strength.
If you are interested in Spanish cinema this is an important film to see for what it represents. It is engaging enough to merit watching. Unfortunately it is hard to find. I bought a PAL version in Barcelona which a friend graciously turned to VHS format. I doubt it will ever make it to DVD..... not when "Law of Desire" and the like are still waiting to be released.
Minority Report
(2002)
Apparently a minority report
22 June 2002
The look, the feel, the tension and action in the early, exposition part of the movie are great, that is, while we are being given the incident which tells us how "pre-crime" works. It's down hill after that, way too long, with a somewhat predictable, almost cliché denouement (the bit of dialogue where the "truth" is revealed ... no I'm not going to spoil it.... is really a tired device ... a villain self-incriminating as if on the stand of a Perry Mason courtroom, for those who remember Perry Mason.... and it was already a cliché device by then... Spielberg should be embarrassed if not ashamed). It falls far short as thriller and certainly in no way can it pretend to be a thought provoking piece..... well, it pretends..... there just isn't any there there. Spielberg has had a long splendid career. At the beginning he was pooh-pooed by the critics. Since Schindler's list he's regarded as walking on water. I think he's a splendid director in a checkered sort of way. I don't think "Minority Report" will be remembered as one of his better movies. It certainly doesn't measure up to some of the more effective summer thriller/blockbusters like Bourne Identity or Spiderman. I truly was expecting a more intelligent treatment of an intriguing topic, a more exciting thriller, in short, a much better movie.
The Bourne Identity
(2002)
Entertaining Well Crafted Thriller
15 June 2002
I saw this movie today.... it was somebody else's choice. How lucky I was. It is thoroughly entertaining and elegant. There is no room for pretentiousness. The relatively fast pace never loses momentum without relying on video-clip type editing which I usually find so annoying. The script is well written, reserved and stripped down to essentials without lapsing into Mamet-styled affectations. Paris looks beautiful in any season.... but one rarely gets to see it so beautiful in winter. It's great to see La Defense on film after so many years of it being there. The acting is superb: the movie is cast from strength. Matt Damon proves to be a very convincing action hero.... certainly stronger than Keanu Reeves or Tom Cruise. His reserve gives the character strength and the right degree of remoteness. His natural charm is held in check. This man is a killer for hire, which in itself assumes a certain insularity in dealing with the world. Everybody else is fine. The score is particularly interesting... relies a lot on clever use of percussion..... my theater had great surround-sound.... it makes a difference.... it reminded me of Stewart Copeland.
The movie conjures an atmosphere of cold objectivity which fits the story perfectly. It gives it a special flavor and makes it the quality entertainment film it is. It's a classy flick. See it in the theatre.
The movie conjures an atmosphere of cold objectivity which fits the story perfectly. It gives it a special flavor and makes it the quality entertainment film it is. It's a classy flick. See it in the theatre.
Quo Vadis
(1951)
S&S Classic Holds Up Well
25 May 2002
This sword and sandal epic survives much better than others filmed around that time. The decor, costumes, and art direction certainly have not been matched by anything that followed, including Spartacus, Ben Hur and Gladiator. The music is top drawer Miklos Rosza. Peter Ustinov gives the performance of his life. Deborah Kerr is luminous. Robert Taylor seems a bit stiff and a bit aged for the part, but is otherwise ok. Everyone else is fine. The lumbering sanctimoniousness which afflicts all these epics when dialogue turns to religion is certainly no worse than any other and wears lighter than most. The script is certainly more bearable than Ben Hur (which I find one of the most overrated films of all time) and The Robe (otherwise known as The Bore). Quo Vadis has moments of sumptuous cinematic fun in the same way as de Mille's earlier Cleopatra (Claudette Colbert), e.g. Nero (and us via the camera) looks through gem-colored lenses at his guests at some palace feast or another. Cinematically it implies greater voluptuousness than anything ever shown. Pagans are always so much more interesting than Christians. Fortunately, we spend a lot of time with Pagans in this film. Like the de Mille, Quo Vadis holds up well and is well worth seeing. I hope they do a thorough reconstruction if they put it out on DVD.... the original technicolor remastered must be awesome.
The Innocents
(1961)
don't look over your shoulder.....
20 March 2002
One of the greats. Certainly one of the bleakest, scariest movies ever made, from one of the scariest novellas ever written. It is also sumptuously and beautifully shot, certainly meriting careful DVD restoration. It truly defines "glorious black and white." Another great performance by that great, arguably underappreciated actress, Deborah Kerr. Michael Redgrave's brief intervention can provide an interesting subtext to the film.
We Were Soldiers
(2002)
Perhaps a classic
7 March 2002
Let us not forget that at some level, this is a great action flick: it promises action, delivers action, some of the most harrowing action ever captured on film. The action is clear, understandable, chaotic and unpredictable...... and magnificently filmed. The cinematography is aptly beautiful, without the (arguably) annoyingly self-conscious beauties of Thin Red Line, but still beautiful (e.g. whenever helicopters took to the sky).
Over and beyond, this is a very moving, very sad film. The loyalty of the men to each other is deep and meaningful. They were mostly conscripts; Vietnam was not even a big war yet in the American consciousness (1965). One can already sense the ambiguities and pitfalls of the disgraceful policy and horrible tragedy Vietnam would eventually become. The only cause these soldiers truly understood was the personal need to fight so as to defend each other in extremely perilous circumstances which they neither comprehended nor had chosen. They were soldiers. Magnificent film.
Mel Gibson gives the performance of his life and more so than by just avoiding the Mel Gibson star turn and for once creating character. Greg Kinnear shows potential as a wonderful action hero. Chris Kline is quietly strong and touching. The music score is magnificent and ingeniously integrated with the actual sounds of the film narrative... yes it is calculated to pull at your heart-strings, and it does...... masterfully.
This is a must-see film, one that could become a classic.
Over and beyond, this is a very moving, very sad film. The loyalty of the men to each other is deep and meaningful. They were mostly conscripts; Vietnam was not even a big war yet in the American consciousness (1965). One can already sense the ambiguities and pitfalls of the disgraceful policy and horrible tragedy Vietnam would eventually become. The only cause these soldiers truly understood was the personal need to fight so as to defend each other in extremely perilous circumstances which they neither comprehended nor had chosen. They were soldiers. Magnificent film.
Mel Gibson gives the performance of his life and more so than by just avoiding the Mel Gibson star turn and for once creating character. Greg Kinnear shows potential as a wonderful action hero. Chris Kline is quietly strong and touching. The music score is magnificent and ingeniously integrated with the actual sounds of the film narrative... yes it is calculated to pull at your heart-strings, and it does...... masterfully.
This is a must-see film, one that could become a classic.
The Magnificent Ambersons
(2002 TV Movie)
In Defense of Jonathan Rhys-Myers
31 January 2002
Perhaps "Magnificent Ambersons" should have been left undisturbed in its first screen adaptation. A&E certainly does not have the integrity or vision of, say, HBO, to undertake the kind of "restorative" project this billed itself to be. Their invariably insensitive and consistently maladroit placement of commercial breaks during their "fine arts" programming alone merits eternal damnation. In this instance, in spite of all the hype, there was no reason to expect anything of worth from them. (Let's not forget that Pride and Prejudice wasn't really theirs).
Reading through the reviews posted I feel compelled to defend Jonathan Rhys-Myers as an actor. He is a very fine one, and has given many compelling performances, e.g., Gormenghast, Velvet Goldmine, Ride with the Devil, The Governess, etc. Much can be expected from him. Perhaps he needed a stronger guiding hand in Ambersons. Let us not forget that a task of the director is to ensure performances play off well within context..... there are dailies where certain things should leap as obvious. This does not invalidate JR-M's obviously controversial interpretation, but it does definitely place blame on the director for allowing incongruity of such high order.
Jonathan is a talented man. This movie is but a blip.
Reading through the reviews posted I feel compelled to defend Jonathan Rhys-Myers as an actor. He is a very fine one, and has given many compelling performances, e.g., Gormenghast, Velvet Goldmine, Ride with the Devil, The Governess, etc. Much can be expected from him. Perhaps he needed a stronger guiding hand in Ambersons. Let us not forget that a task of the director is to ensure performances play off well within context..... there are dailies where certain things should leap as obvious. This does not invalidate JR-M's obviously controversial interpretation, but it does definitely place blame on the director for allowing incongruity of such high order.
Jonathan is a talented man. This movie is but a blip.
The Man Who Cried
(2000)
Movie Flows from the Music
4 January 2002
The 20th century is full of tales of displacement, heroism, fortune reversals, fortitude, determination, betrayal, ambiguity, cruelty, tragedy and much such distress. They are played against or triggered by a world plagued with war and upheaval the likes of which one hopes humanity will never see again. "The Man Who Cried" condenses in a handful of characters much of such 20th century misfortune. Ms. Potter takes the melancholy and haunting melody from Nadir's aria in Bizet's Pearl Fishers as a continuous motif.... even when disguised as something else (e.g. the Yiddish song in the Russian beginning)..... which inexorably weaves her sad tale of many woes .... as if the undulating accompaniment is recurring grief supporting the lyrical moments in our lives in the melody above. This is a most unusual film which leaves you with memory of your own feelings as you watched it ... more so than just the pegpoints of a narrative.
Unfortunately, the last 10 minutes or so of the film are seriously flawed: they seem contrived and almost precipitous. It's a pity, because it takes some of the lustre off.
The movie is splendidly cast with top notch performances from everybody. I must single out Johnny Depp...... he projects great inner strength through minimalist acting. In my opinion this man is one of the most underrated actors in film; I hope his body of work, ever more singular and distinguished, will some day be fully and officially recognized. Kate Blanchett is superb and her Russian accent, inflections and mannerisms, accentuate the bittersweet glamour of her part. She conveys a character of such complexity that leaves you wanting to know more. (It's wonderful to have a new great Kate to praise in films again). Tarkovsky stalwart Oleg Yankovsky (sp), Christina Ricci, John Turturro.... all are at their best.
A film that will probably never have a mass audience but which we are glad it was made. It will stay with you if you have a certain sensitivity, doubly so if you appreciate the emotional richness resulting from the integration of a musical idea with a linear narrative to create a new, inseparable whole.
I can see myself returning to this DVD.
Unfortunately, the last 10 minutes or so of the film are seriously flawed: they seem contrived and almost precipitous. It's a pity, because it takes some of the lustre off.
The movie is splendidly cast with top notch performances from everybody. I must single out Johnny Depp...... he projects great inner strength through minimalist acting. In my opinion this man is one of the most underrated actors in film; I hope his body of work, ever more singular and distinguished, will some day be fully and officially recognized. Kate Blanchett is superb and her Russian accent, inflections and mannerisms, accentuate the bittersweet glamour of her part. She conveys a character of such complexity that leaves you wanting to know more. (It's wonderful to have a new great Kate to praise in films again). Tarkovsky stalwart Oleg Yankovsky (sp), Christina Ricci, John Turturro.... all are at their best.
A film that will probably never have a mass audience but which we are glad it was made. It will stay with you if you have a certain sensitivity, doubly so if you appreciate the emotional richness resulting from the integration of a musical idea with a linear narrative to create a new, inseparable whole.
I can see myself returning to this DVD.
Demetrius and the Gladiators
(1954)
Worthless
11 October 2001
I thought it might be fun, with Jay Robinson over the top and Susan Hayward chewing scenery...... it really wasn't. The only sparkle came in seeing Ernest Borgnine, Anne Bancroft and Richard Egan in small character roles. Cheesy and boring. Skip it.
Bully
(2001)
Tough little movie
27 July 2001
This is a tough little movie with nothing to say beyond what it shows. It is riveting and sad. It is well written. The acting is superb. It's really an ensemble work....the interplay between the characters is masterful. Standout is Brad Renfro who brings eloquence and subtlety to a difficult role. The actor becomes the part, it all flows from a committed core. Not far behind are Bijou Philips and Michael Pitt....... real naturals. The movie sticks with you after you leave the theatre. Quite sobering. A note on sex: there is a lot of it, but it's never prurient or titillating. It's always to the point. It's pervasive, provides motivations, and creates ambiguities never fully resolved. No cheap thrills here.
Tell Your Friends