I bought this movie based mainly on a review I read here, the one which author peed his pants while laughing. I am going to differ with him in two points: The movie is not stupid by any means, it might be labeled nonsensical since it is a venturesome experiment in a ancient literary genre: Nonsense. This movie belongs to the tradition Lewis Carroll and the many anonymous folks who wrote limericks, which happen to be obscenely fraught with dead and sex in the same way this secret masterpiece is. The other point of departure to the person whom I am indebted to, is a minor one; he writes that the first half an hour is tiresome, he states that until a hilarious scene he found the movie dumb. Those thirty minutes are not dumb, they might be considered bizarre and delirious—as the whole piece—but hilarious as well. This movie like almost every single masterpiece works within the rules, at least structurally speaking. Masterly exposition is followed by climax which gives way to resolution. Why did I write such a truism? Because those thirty first minutes introduce us to a different world in which the rules of what we called reality does not apply anymore. If a given viewer feels funny or uncomfortable during the first thirty minutes the reason might be very well dumbness, but the kind we experiment when transported to a realm in which everything we had for sure does not exist anymore, it is our dumbness not the movie's.
Reviews
17 Reviews
The Cat in the Hat
(2003)
This is a very good , very funny and very imaginative movie
13 June 2005
I will hold my polemicist's horses and will not debate the ovine mob that disliked this excellent movie, gave it very bad reviews and vote it down into the IMDb's Bottom 100.
Since after all I'm a gentleman, I will also hold my contempt's horses and will not quote either Matthew 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
This movie is innocent unless proved guilty, and none of its "haters" have produced a piece of evidence outside its personal taste and and near-and-dear prejudices.
What is wrong with this movie? The actors are all more than OK, especially The Cat, which is great, and the kids, who are very good. The make-up is terrific so the FX and CGI. It has very funny lines of dialog, the art feeds off on Pop Art, psychedelia and nonsense, and, the truth be told, it pays a good homage to them. This movie deserves unprejudiced viewers who love art in general and movies in particular better than mistreat a movie they did not were capable of understanding.
See it with your children or see it alone, you will thank me for the recommendation.
Since after all I'm a gentleman, I will also hold my contempt's horses and will not quote either Matthew 12:34 "Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
This movie is innocent unless proved guilty, and none of its "haters" have produced a piece of evidence outside its personal taste and and near-and-dear prejudices.
What is wrong with this movie? The actors are all more than OK, especially The Cat, which is great, and the kids, who are very good. The make-up is terrific so the FX and CGI. It has very funny lines of dialog, the art feeds off on Pop Art, psychedelia and nonsense, and, the truth be told, it pays a good homage to them. This movie deserves unprejudiced viewers who love art in general and movies in particular better than mistreat a movie they did not were capable of understanding.
See it with your children or see it alone, you will thank me for the recommendation.
The Killers
(1964)
If you haven't seen Siodmak's version you'll consider this one average
6 June 2005
Or a little below average, to tell the truth. If you were lucky enough and you have seen Robert Siodmak's 1946 excellent version which was based on the same Hemingway's short story, then you'll find this one a wreckage. I don't know whether the whole can be worse than any of its parts, in case yes, this feature is worse than its components; in case not there is only one thing worse than the entire movie: its dialogue. Nothing is more melancholy than an educated writer playing the sedulous ape to hard boiled writers; you have the talent (or the lack of talent) it takes to write straightforward stories with witty dialogue or you have not and if the latter is your case, please spare me the wanna-be film noir style. Unfortunately only Lee Marvin saves face in this movie. I imagine that Criterion edited this one as a mere curiosity, in the same vein they edited Tarkovsky film school version, there is no other possible explanation; or maybe they had a surplus of blank dual layer DVDs and needed to spend them quickly. In spite of the fact that I'm not a particular fan of Angie Dickinson I certainly do not dislike her, but I could not avoid thinking she was playing a role previously and gloriously played by Ava Gardner. I'd dare to suggest that those roles as well as Dietrich's, Garbos, Ingrid Bergman's be retired from future film-making. They retire basketball players' jerseys, don't they?
Throw Down
(2004)
This movie is beautiful.
2 June 2005
Period.
I intended to write no more, but it seems I must submit at least ten lines, so I will write the ten lines, but nothing more of interest shall be added. Many times Johnnie To's movies are masterpieces, for example PTU is an involuntary masterpiece, Dung fong saam hap, (The Heroic Trio) is an all-out masterpiece, Breaking News is a crafty self-conscious masterpiece, Yau doh lung fu bong, that is this movie, a serene, and a little facetious, masterpiece (salute to Master Kurosawa included). I don't know Whom but I want to give thanks for the existence of Johnnie To. Still I am short a couple of lines, so I must keep typing my in-praise-of-johnny-to palaver until I don't receive the message saying I did not reach the ten lines I'm required. There is a reviewer who wrote he went back to his Judo after he saw this movie, he also stated he planned to visit Japan in order to know Judo's homeland. Well, I will not resume my Judo training since I never practiced but I will travel to Hong Kong in order to know movie's new homeland, and pay tribute to Sensei To.
I intended to write no more, but it seems I must submit at least ten lines, so I will write the ten lines, but nothing more of interest shall be added. Many times Johnnie To's movies are masterpieces, for example PTU is an involuntary masterpiece, Dung fong saam hap, (The Heroic Trio) is an all-out masterpiece, Breaking News is a crafty self-conscious masterpiece, Yau doh lung fu bong, that is this movie, a serene, and a little facetious, masterpiece (salute to Master Kurosawa included). I don't know Whom but I want to give thanks for the existence of Johnnie To. Still I am short a couple of lines, so I must keep typing my in-praise-of-johnny-to palaver until I don't receive the message saying I did not reach the ten lines I'm required. There is a reviewer who wrote he went back to his Judo after he saw this movie, he also stated he planned to visit Japan in order to know Judo's homeland. Well, I will not resume my Judo training since I never practiced but I will travel to Hong Kong in order to know movie's new homeland, and pay tribute to Sensei To.
Life Is Beautiful
(1997)
Despicable fascist propaganda. Benigni's manges to reach the lowest
14 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is a disgrace; it tries to hide the collaboration of Italian fascists to the deportation of thousands of Jews and non-Jews to death camps during WWII in Italy. Believe me, Italian fascists were as obnoxiously criminal (and sometimes even more) as their German peers. In this fascist revisionist libel Italian fascists are depicted like harmless comical characters untouched by the crimes against humanity, they and their German associates were responsible for, crimes that live and will live in infamy until the end of times.
Death camps according Roberto Benigni were some kind of poorly managed boot-camps in which you could mange to survive by means of being slightly more intelligent than the average prisoner. There's a moment of the movie when Benigni manages to reach the lowest an endeavour you had thought not possible after one hour and a half of the previous ordeal it is when he, very underhandedly, provides the viewers with a thick mist in order to veil, that is to hide, a pile of corpses of prisoners murdered by the Nazis.
Let us suppose, just for the sake of the present argument, that a fascist movie can be funny this is arguably a fascist movie well there isn't a single funny scene in this poor excuse for a movie, the joke are trite and all of them can be predicted by someone who has seen at least one cheap comedy before.
This thing has been unjustly compared to The Great Dictator, which is maybe the worst movie Charlie Chaplin did, but the the comparison is still unfair, The Great Dictator is an overrated sentimental bad movie, but it is not fascist propaganda like Roberto Benigni's.
If you want to see an excellent Italian comedy dealing with the same subject try Lina Wermüller's Pasqualino Settebellezze (1975) http://imdb.com/title/tt0075040. You will not forget the sequence in which the great Giancarlo Giannini seduces a two tons whale-sized SS woman officer in order to save his life.
Death camps according Roberto Benigni were some kind of poorly managed boot-camps in which you could mange to survive by means of being slightly more intelligent than the average prisoner. There's a moment of the movie when Benigni manages to reach the lowest an endeavour you had thought not possible after one hour and a half of the previous ordeal it is when he, very underhandedly, provides the viewers with a thick mist in order to veil, that is to hide, a pile of corpses of prisoners murdered by the Nazis.
Let us suppose, just for the sake of the present argument, that a fascist movie can be funny this is arguably a fascist movie well there isn't a single funny scene in this poor excuse for a movie, the joke are trite and all of them can be predicted by someone who has seen at least one cheap comedy before.
This thing has been unjustly compared to The Great Dictator, which is maybe the worst movie Charlie Chaplin did, but the the comparison is still unfair, The Great Dictator is an overrated sentimental bad movie, but it is not fascist propaganda like Roberto Benigni's.
If you want to see an excellent Italian comedy dealing with the same subject try Lina Wermüller's Pasqualino Settebellezze (1975) http://imdb.com/title/tt0075040. You will not forget the sequence in which the great Giancarlo Giannini seduces a two tons whale-sized SS woman officer in order to save his life.
A Matter of Life and Death
(1946)
What a marvel!
15 December 2004
This movie has the most beautiful opening sequence ever made. I've seen this movie for the first time a week ago, since then every day I see the opening and every time I feel as thrilled as I felt the first time I heard David Niven uttering the immortal words from Sir Walter Raleigh's The Pilgrimage:
Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage ( )
Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.
I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.
Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.
I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever.
Give me my scallop-shell of quiet, My staff of faith to walk upon, My scrip of joy, immortal diet, My bottle of salvation, My gown of glory, hope's true gage; And thus I'll take my pilgrimage ( )
Do you know why it would be a truism to say Michael Powell's and Emeric Pressuburger's lives are thoroughly justified for having crafted such a wonderful opening? Because they had been already admitted in the Paradise of Poets long before they made this movie.
I imagine both of them facing trial during Doomsday and saying nonchalantly to an irate God: I beg your pardon, Sir. So, do You want to know what have we done during our lifetime? Well, well you'll see: We've written directed and produced: I know Where I'm Going, Colonel Blimp, Red Shoes do you think that enough Sir? It is rather obvious that these two great artists had already fulfilled their duty with God, Nature the Muse or Whatever you may call It when they shot A Matter of Life and Death. The fact that other people's lives would be justified for their deeds could be not apparent to everybody, notwithstanding I feel my life would have a meaning had I never done anything else that to see this movie.
Of course old-timers will be tempted to say: They don't do movies like this one any more. They'll be partially mistaken; they didn't make movies like this in the past times either.
I've have already quoted Keats here, but I'll repeat his words: A thing of beauty is a joy forever.
Tears of the Black Tiger
(2000)
I thought this one was the re-discovering of the western genre
11 November 2004
Maybe it is because my expectations were too high that I'm a tad disappointed now I've finally seen it.
Of course I understand the tongue-in-cheek mood set for this movie. Indeed this is a funny movie, with some very interesting visual effects during gun fights these visual gags resemble similar ones from Sam Raimi's The Quick and the Dead. But by no means this is an archetype western like I read in one review (someone wrote that this movie was some kind of lesson on how to do westerns)
In a ranking of westerns in which John Ford's The Man who Shot Liberty Valance is 10/10, Sergio Leone's Once upon a Time in the West 9/10 Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch 8/10 Tears of the Black Tiger is 5/10 or at the very most maybe 6/10. On the other hand if you don't compare it to those summits, Tears of the Black Tiger deserves 7/10. Of course we don't need to compare this movie to those masterpieces mentioned above; I've only established the unjust comparison as a guide intended to help western-buffs to have a quick and overall idea of this movie)
Regarding the actors, the over-acting, operatic style chosen it doesn't seem to work always with all the actors. Regarding the saturated colors it is nothing more than that, they're not a feat of cinematography or post-production; those colors can be achieved very easily during color timing.
The songs are quite cool and the main actress is a not only beautiful but also she can act, the same can be said of the actor who plays the main male character, he's handsome and a good actor as well.
To conclude, this is a movie I recommend to see, not only because otherwise you'll never be able to boast you have seen a Thai western which is always a strange thing to see but also because is an entertaining movie with a couple of fine touches of comedy .
Of course I understand the tongue-in-cheek mood set for this movie. Indeed this is a funny movie, with some very interesting visual effects during gun fights these visual gags resemble similar ones from Sam Raimi's The Quick and the Dead. But by no means this is an archetype western like I read in one review (someone wrote that this movie was some kind of lesson on how to do westerns)
In a ranking of westerns in which John Ford's The Man who Shot Liberty Valance is 10/10, Sergio Leone's Once upon a Time in the West 9/10 Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch 8/10 Tears of the Black Tiger is 5/10 or at the very most maybe 6/10. On the other hand if you don't compare it to those summits, Tears of the Black Tiger deserves 7/10. Of course we don't need to compare this movie to those masterpieces mentioned above; I've only established the unjust comparison as a guide intended to help western-buffs to have a quick and overall idea of this movie)
Regarding the actors, the over-acting, operatic style chosen it doesn't seem to work always with all the actors. Regarding the saturated colors it is nothing more than that, they're not a feat of cinematography or post-production; those colors can be achieved very easily during color timing.
The songs are quite cool and the main actress is a not only beautiful but also she can act, the same can be said of the actor who plays the main male character, he's handsome and a good actor as well.
To conclude, this is a movie I recommend to see, not only because otherwise you'll never be able to boast you have seen a Thai western which is always a strange thing to see but also because is an entertaining movie with a couple of fine touches of comedy .
Séance
(2000 TV Movie)
The first 42 minutes are more than OK.
29 September 2004
From then on, alas, this movie turns into a cheap TV horror movie one of the cheapest genres ever existed. When I saw Kôrei I've already seen the very interesting Kaïro, also by Kiyoshi Kurosawa; after that positive impression had someone told me that Mr. Kurosawa was capable of clumsiness when dealing with a fantastic story I wouldn't lend him or her ears, but unfortunately that would be true. When I'm seeing a movie or reading a story I can suspend my feeling of disbelief and believe in a ghost, I don't have problems with unreality, whereas I cannot believe when the characters in a story abruptly and against their own psychology, start to act the opposite way they would. Mr. Kurosawa needs his story to go in one direction and forces the characters and the plot to achieve his needs. That is one of the biggest mistake an author can make.
Anyway this a a TV movie nonetheless, if you liked it, see Dark Water (http://imdb.com/title/tt0308379/), The Eye (http://imdb.com/title/tt0325655/) and Kaïro (http://imdb.com/title/tt0286751/), they're better, far better than the last 54 minutes of this one. Of course, you always can stop the DVD player when the display shows you 42 minutes; you'll be sparing yourselves the disappointment of seeing how the very decent first part of this movie helplessly wrecks.
Anyway this a a TV movie nonetheless, if you liked it, see Dark Water (http://imdb.com/title/tt0308379/), The Eye (http://imdb.com/title/tt0325655/) and Kaïro (http://imdb.com/title/tt0286751/), they're better, far better than the last 54 minutes of this one. Of course, you always can stop the DVD player when the display shows you 42 minutes; you'll be sparing yourselves the disappointment of seeing how the very decent first part of this movie helplessly wrecks.
Dogville
(2003)
Mr. Von Triers had a brilliant idea when he taped this rehearsal
2 May 2004
Because in case he be able to shoot a movie out the self-righteous pseudo intellectual prattle of his, he won't be repeating this brain-child which happens to be also still-born. Actors can be lured into anything -no matter how ridiculous or humiliating this anything might be- provided their agents tell this anything is "artistic".
Since Europa (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101829/), a very interesting movie, Lars Von Triers started his steep decline, after Dogville he actually stopped it: he reached the very bottom.
By the by, who this moralist wanna-be does he think he is to equal the anonymous people in the pictures on the ending titles with the bunch of slobbering mangy poachers inhabiting the Dogville in his head.
One of the most important characteristics of America is her tolerance to criticism, as far as I know there is no other society willing to pay to be vilified and even to praise the vilifier.
Just to conclude, this endeavor -the utterance of implacable moral criticism toward certain American issues- can be found in the fiction of Theodore Dreisser, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, Carson Mc Cullers, H.L. Mencken who are all American writers by the way.
The difference between them and Mr. Von Triers, is a crystal-clear one: they were not mere show-offs desperately trying to judge what they thoroughly ignored; quite on the contrary, they were poets (some better than others) trying to find a truth and express it as a thing of beauty.
The idea of poor people portrayed as vile is thoroughly fascist.
This movie reminds me the nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels who used to say: "tell the biggest lie you can and repeat it often and eventually people will believe it"
Since Europa (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101829/), a very interesting movie, Lars Von Triers started his steep decline, after Dogville he actually stopped it: he reached the very bottom.
By the by, who this moralist wanna-be does he think he is to equal the anonymous people in the pictures on the ending titles with the bunch of slobbering mangy poachers inhabiting the Dogville in his head.
One of the most important characteristics of America is her tolerance to criticism, as far as I know there is no other society willing to pay to be vilified and even to praise the vilifier.
Just to conclude, this endeavor -the utterance of implacable moral criticism toward certain American issues- can be found in the fiction of Theodore Dreisser, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, Carson Mc Cullers, H.L. Mencken who are all American writers by the way.
The difference between them and Mr. Von Triers, is a crystal-clear one: they were not mere show-offs desperately trying to judge what they thoroughly ignored; quite on the contrary, they were poets (some better than others) trying to find a truth and express it as a thing of beauty.
The idea of poor people portrayed as vile is thoroughly fascist.
This movie reminds me the nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels who used to say: "tell the biggest lie you can and repeat it often and eventually people will believe it"
American History X
(1998)
This movie is blatantly racist.
11 April 2004
It can be compared with a pick-pocket who after stealing a wallet starts yelling: Catch that thief, catch that thief!
If I were a member of Arian Nation I'd screen this movie as a powerful recruiting tool. All the Nazis wannabes would join with tears in their eyes.
A few examples: 1)ALL the fights and trouble are started by African-Americans. 2) Koreans play dirty and get stores from real Americans (please tell me what on earth is a real American) just to fire white employees and hire only illegal immigrants. 3) Hispanics are depicted as bunch of wet-backs who enter the US illegally just to be exploited by greedy Koreans.
I have only read twenty comments about this still-born and nobody seems to realize that Nazis are equaled to African-Americans. That is, there are two matching sides, two gangs: on the one hand a bunch of obnoxious nazi skinheads, on the other African-Americans. Not to mention that every relevant African-American character on this movie (by relevant I mean a character who can be seen during ten seconds or more) is a punk, an out-law or a member of gang, -or like Dr. Sweeney, a former member of a gang. Also it should be noted that the director of this thing, underhandedly but also coarsely, drops the idea that the nazi violence is some sort of a reaction against a preceding insult: Nazis are bad, but nazi violence is what you get when African-Americans, Koreans and Mexicans move to your neighborhood, get the all the jobs, win the basket-ball plays and date attractive white women.
Intentions behind this libel remind me of the Nazis from the movie Bullet Proof Monk who set a Human Right organization in order to hide their actual intentions.
And last but not least, have you counted all those shower slow motion takes. What is this, a shampoo TV commercial?!
If I were a member of Arian Nation I'd screen this movie as a powerful recruiting tool. All the Nazis wannabes would join with tears in their eyes.
A few examples: 1)ALL the fights and trouble are started by African-Americans. 2) Koreans play dirty and get stores from real Americans (please tell me what on earth is a real American) just to fire white employees and hire only illegal immigrants. 3) Hispanics are depicted as bunch of wet-backs who enter the US illegally just to be exploited by greedy Koreans.
I have only read twenty comments about this still-born and nobody seems to realize that Nazis are equaled to African-Americans. That is, there are two matching sides, two gangs: on the one hand a bunch of obnoxious nazi skinheads, on the other African-Americans. Not to mention that every relevant African-American character on this movie (by relevant I mean a character who can be seen during ten seconds or more) is a punk, an out-law or a member of gang, -or like Dr. Sweeney, a former member of a gang. Also it should be noted that the director of this thing, underhandedly but also coarsely, drops the idea that the nazi violence is some sort of a reaction against a preceding insult: Nazis are bad, but nazi violence is what you get when African-Americans, Koreans and Mexicans move to your neighborhood, get the all the jobs, win the basket-ball plays and date attractive white women.
Intentions behind this libel remind me of the Nazis from the movie Bullet Proof Monk who set a Human Right organization in order to hide their actual intentions.
And last but not least, have you counted all those shower slow motion takes. What is this, a shampoo TV commercial?!
Dogma
(1999)
Since Catholicism stands mostly for atheism...
5 April 2004
Since Catholicism stands mostly for atheism is quite understandable why Catholics hate this hilarious and extremely witty film. Contrary to that fact, if you have a low level of hatred and bigotry into you, you'll have to love this movie -I'm afraid that the vast majority of Catholics and more than a half of the other Christians are out this tolerance bracket, and ought to hate it.
On the one hand this movie will make laugh your guts out, on the other you have a coherent and well-learned insight into an intolerant, late and heretic sect of Judaism which is a.k.a. Catholicism.
I think this movie is too much benevolent on the heresiarchs-followers of Paul who in the First Century underhandedly twisted the teachings of the allegedly Messiah into that anthology of threats and bribery which are the back bone of the church of Rome. Not only some of the dogmas of Catholicism would have been anathematized by the ancient Jews, but by Rabbi Yeshua Jesus Christ himself.
Of course that If I were a Catholic I would be more comfortable with Mr. Gibson's Gospel of Hatred and Humiliation than what I'm with the Good News brilliantly crafted by Kevin Smith.
As far as I know Mr. John Paul II said that the facts on Gibson's movie were accurate - the Pope should have received the green light through the Holly Hot-line, that's for sure. I wonder whether Dogma have been screened to Him. I would love to know His enlightened opinion.
I will try to find the exact wording to put it: This movie totally, absolutely, thoroughly rocks.
On the one hand this movie will make laugh your guts out, on the other you have a coherent and well-learned insight into an intolerant, late and heretic sect of Judaism which is a.k.a. Catholicism.
I think this movie is too much benevolent on the heresiarchs-followers of Paul who in the First Century underhandedly twisted the teachings of the allegedly Messiah into that anthology of threats and bribery which are the back bone of the church of Rome. Not only some of the dogmas of Catholicism would have been anathematized by the ancient Jews, but by Rabbi Yeshua Jesus Christ himself.
Of course that If I were a Catholic I would be more comfortable with Mr. Gibson's Gospel of Hatred and Humiliation than what I'm with the Good News brilliantly crafted by Kevin Smith.
As far as I know Mr. John Paul II said that the facts on Gibson's movie were accurate - the Pope should have received the green light through the Holly Hot-line, that's for sure. I wonder whether Dogma have been screened to Him. I would love to know His enlightened opinion.
I will try to find the exact wording to put it: This movie totally, absolutely, thoroughly rocks.
Treasure Planet
(2002)
You've got to love this right-like-rain movie.
14 January 2004
It is beautifully crafted, the acting is superb, the script is terrific and includes the most brilliant dialog ever - witty idioms and ship-shape sentences flow in the manner of 19th Century quaint English literature. Edition and soundtrack are awesome. The animation... let me find an expression lofty enough: the animation definitely kicks all the asses that had been long waiting to be kicked. I haven't read any review on this beauty yet, but it is so good that I'm afraid that the great masses of the public did (an will) ignore it. Please prove me wildly off the mark: convince there are a lot of people other than the usual happy-few who loved the output of Mr. Ron Clements and Mr. John Musker's craftsmanship.
Mystery Men
(1999)
The Lord be praised! From time to time somebody remembers that a movie has to be entertaining!
11 June 2003
If you think movies and art in general must also educate and moralize, well, it takes us to a more complex issue and I'm willing to discuss it some other time. That said, I'll cast the first stone: Is William Shakespeare educating, moralizing or just plain entertaining? But today, I'm here to celebrate this extremely funny movie. The actors brought together make a `super squad', especially the three original members of the `super team'. Ben Stiller is superb and his character `Mr. Furious' is hilarious. In fact, everyone performs his or her role perfectly. The cinematography, locations, effects, costumes, make-up, music
everything in this movie is very well done and finely achieved. This movie also casts a beautiful actress, the waitress (Claire Forlani), who -- lo and behold! -- can act as well; and a great villain, Casanova Frankenstein (Geofrey Rush).
There's a hero, `The Shovel' (William H. Macy) who knows he's gifted but has taken numerous blows over the past twelve years, as his wife makes very clear whenever she has the opportunity. There's an Englishman from India, (the talented Hank Azaria) who throws his mother's silverware (to be precise he's a fork-thrower) There is an invisible man, who can become invisible only when nobody looks at him (himself included). There's an accursed young man who farts the enemy unconscious. There's a brave heroin, Baby Bowler (Janeane Garofalo) , whose devastating arm is a translucent bowling-ball that holds her father's skull, and when she's not throwing it against Casanova Frankenstein's evil forces, she quarrels with his father's skull, that of an anti-Communist, anti-gay autocratic and very bad tempered cantankerous old man. There are two possible outputs when one brings all of these unrealities together: One possibility is that of ending up with a ludicrous and altogether regrettable piece of junk. The other, that of this present case, one can achieve one of the funniest and most amazing pictures made in years.
There's a hero, `The Shovel' (William H. Macy) who knows he's gifted but has taken numerous blows over the past twelve years, as his wife makes very clear whenever she has the opportunity. There's an Englishman from India, (the talented Hank Azaria) who throws his mother's silverware (to be precise he's a fork-thrower) There is an invisible man, who can become invisible only when nobody looks at him (himself included). There's an accursed young man who farts the enemy unconscious. There's a brave heroin, Baby Bowler (Janeane Garofalo) , whose devastating arm is a translucent bowling-ball that holds her father's skull, and when she's not throwing it against Casanova Frankenstein's evil forces, she quarrels with his father's skull, that of an anti-Communist, anti-gay autocratic and very bad tempered cantankerous old man. There are two possible outputs when one brings all of these unrealities together: One possibility is that of ending up with a ludicrous and altogether regrettable piece of junk. The other, that of this present case, one can achieve one of the funniest and most amazing pictures made in years.
Requiem for a Dream
(2000)
I'm going to write a couple of those so-called spoilers with the hope that other people be spared the ordeal of seeing this movie.
6 June 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I dare to say this is the worst movie I've ever seen. And I've seen almost all the movies.
Jesuitism Jes"u*it*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. jésuitisme.]
1. The principles and practices of the Jesuits.
2. Cunning; deceit; deceptive practices to effect a purpose; subtle argument; -- an opprobrious use of the word.
This movie, which qualifies as some kind of paradigm for boredom; could be perfectly described with the second entry for Jesuitism in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary's 1913 edition. It is so biased, that it has flown over the boundaries of plain bigotry and extreme anti-drug-right-wing propaganda. G.K. Chesterton used to say that there are more tints in the human soul (human psychology if you are an atheist) than there are greens and browns in the leaves of a forest. Mr. Aronofosky, of course, would not agree with Chesterton; for him is there's only a colorless, somehow mudded, state of mind, which makes it very easy for people to be taken deep into the bottomless abyss of idiocy and Evil. It doesn't matter how much a person can be loved, it doesn't matter how talented or beautiful one can be; the Devil, (i.e. `The Drug') will get them. The Devil wants your soul and if you try `The Drug' but once, he'll get it. Aronofosky tells the story of four more or less normal and not precisely intelligent people, who in one year are driven to Hell and Damnation because of `The Drug': one of them a very beautiful Jewish girl, who becomes a hooker; her boyfriend, also a Jew, ends up in jail and with one arm cut-off; the boyfriend's mate, a black man, ends up in jail and beaten, called nigger and forced to do forced labor; and the Jewish boy's mother, who also becomes a junkie and at the end of her tether is treated unsuccessfully with electroshock therapy. Why on earth would an Yiddishe-momme become an addict? Simply, just because she takes amphetamine pills to loose weight, that she may wear a red dress in a TV show. Of course, TV is Evil, too. TV is the Devil itself, Mr. Aronofosky. Warns us. In spite of the fact that all the junkies in this film are African-American and Jewish; in spite of the fact that drug dealers are Italian-American and African-American; in spite of the fact that the men who drag Jennifer Connelly's character to prostitution are, again, a Jew and an African-American (she gives herself in exchange of drugs, shrilling, isn't it?). And just when we're starting to ask ourselves: Is this movie a racist movie? The director or the producers realize what we have in mind and try to mend the whole thing providing us, very underhandedly and sneakily, with some redneck cops and doctors in a state 600 miles south of New York. Somebody should have tipped them that placing a bunch of coarse rednecks makes the movie no less a stereotyped racist movie, quite on contrary. This churlish doctor is so mean that refuses to take care of the junkie-Jewish boy's gangrenous arm and gives him up to the no less churlish racist local police. It must be said that the boy gets his arm in such a horrendous shape after shooting the Devil, I mean `The Drug' repeatedly in the same spot, even when the arm is not an arm anymore but a purple piece of rotting meat. The police first try to make him work and noticing he cannot do anything but stink; send him to the hospital to get his arm amputated. The end is one of those all-out endings; Mr. Aronofosky is kind enough to open the gates of his personal look-alike idea of Hell. And he achieves his goal, we're allowed to catch a glimpse of one of the worst infernal circles, the one intended for tediousness and ennui. I've had a nightmarish idea: What if, from time to time, the damned who inhabit down there are mercilessly punished with the projection of this picture?
Jesuitism Jes"u*it*ism (?), n. [Cf. F. jésuitisme.]
1. The principles and practices of the Jesuits.
2. Cunning; deceit; deceptive practices to effect a purpose; subtle argument; -- an opprobrious use of the word.
This movie, which qualifies as some kind of paradigm for boredom; could be perfectly described with the second entry for Jesuitism in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary's 1913 edition. It is so biased, that it has flown over the boundaries of plain bigotry and extreme anti-drug-right-wing propaganda. G.K. Chesterton used to say that there are more tints in the human soul (human psychology if you are an atheist) than there are greens and browns in the leaves of a forest. Mr. Aronofosky, of course, would not agree with Chesterton; for him is there's only a colorless, somehow mudded, state of mind, which makes it very easy for people to be taken deep into the bottomless abyss of idiocy and Evil. It doesn't matter how much a person can be loved, it doesn't matter how talented or beautiful one can be; the Devil, (i.e. `The Drug') will get them. The Devil wants your soul and if you try `The Drug' but once, he'll get it. Aronofosky tells the story of four more or less normal and not precisely intelligent people, who in one year are driven to Hell and Damnation because of `The Drug': one of them a very beautiful Jewish girl, who becomes a hooker; her boyfriend, also a Jew, ends up in jail and with one arm cut-off; the boyfriend's mate, a black man, ends up in jail and beaten, called nigger and forced to do forced labor; and the Jewish boy's mother, who also becomes a junkie and at the end of her tether is treated unsuccessfully with electroshock therapy. Why on earth would an Yiddishe-momme become an addict? Simply, just because she takes amphetamine pills to loose weight, that she may wear a red dress in a TV show. Of course, TV is Evil, too. TV is the Devil itself, Mr. Aronofosky. Warns us. In spite of the fact that all the junkies in this film are African-American and Jewish; in spite of the fact that drug dealers are Italian-American and African-American; in spite of the fact that the men who drag Jennifer Connelly's character to prostitution are, again, a Jew and an African-American (she gives herself in exchange of drugs, shrilling, isn't it?). And just when we're starting to ask ourselves: Is this movie a racist movie? The director or the producers realize what we have in mind and try to mend the whole thing providing us, very underhandedly and sneakily, with some redneck cops and doctors in a state 600 miles south of New York. Somebody should have tipped them that placing a bunch of coarse rednecks makes the movie no less a stereotyped racist movie, quite on contrary. This churlish doctor is so mean that refuses to take care of the junkie-Jewish boy's gangrenous arm and gives him up to the no less churlish racist local police. It must be said that the boy gets his arm in such a horrendous shape after shooting the Devil, I mean `The Drug' repeatedly in the same spot, even when the arm is not an arm anymore but a purple piece of rotting meat. The police first try to make him work and noticing he cannot do anything but stink; send him to the hospital to get his arm amputated. The end is one of those all-out endings; Mr. Aronofosky is kind enough to open the gates of his personal look-alike idea of Hell. And he achieves his goal, we're allowed to catch a glimpse of one of the worst infernal circles, the one intended for tediousness and ennui. I've had a nightmarish idea: What if, from time to time, the damned who inhabit down there are mercilessly punished with the projection of this picture?
September 11
(2002)
I'm sure Timothy Mc Veigh would have loved this movie.
3 June 2003
In order to avoid confusion, let me clarify a couple of points: I am not a red neck. I am not even a moderate nor a conservative. Quite on the contrary, I am a radical: a Libertarian. I'm not a WASP either, I was not even born in the States.
Jorge Luis Borges used to say that there are some kind of folk who do not feel poetry, and that these sad people usually earn their living teaching poetry. This movie was made by and for people who do not feel poetry, by and for show-offs; and I dare say, by and for people who have no sense of decency or, for that matter, respect for other people's life or death (especially when the victims are thought to be mostly 'bloody imperialists' killed in Yankee soil.) I even find the original marketing idea of the eleven episodes of eleven minutes, nine seconds and one frame as particularly hideous and repulsive. Just plain awful. Why didn't they assign a budget of as many dollars per episode as individuals were brutally murdered in the attack? The whole idea rests somewhere between mere stupidity and reckless fascism. Anybody who is serious about film-making (and serious about life and death) should have angrily declined to participate in this recollection of innuendoes and non-sequiturs. With two exceptions: the episode of Burkina Faso -- almost amusing --, and the one from India --which documents the story of a man who was unfairly and wrongly investigated in relation to the attack, on the basis that afterwards he didn't return home and that he was an American Muslim (and, truth be told, when the facts were known he was honored as a hero). All other nine episodes, essentially and extremely boring and emotionless, can be listed in two different categories:
First: 'I don't care about the thousands of victims: Americans, foreigners, children, youngsters, adults, old-timers...' and can be resumed in pure boredom and lack of emotion. Makhmalbaf's (Iran); Lelouch's (France) I'm afraid I'm going to commit an heresy since it's Lelouch's, but maybe, his episode might be considered built upon an idea which could be regarded as almost original; Tanovic's (Bosnia-Herzegovina); Gonzalez Inarritu's (Mexico); Gitaï's (Israel); Penn's (USA)
Second: 'The bloody Yankees deserve it'. And can be resumed in frustration and hatred. Chahine (Egypt) vindicates the suicide bombers; Loach (UK) considers the 9/11 reckless attacks were some kind of punishment for the alleged support of the USA to the Chilean dictatorship headed by the serial-killer Augusto Pinochet, in fact someone should inform Mr. Loach that the victims of Pinochet were not related to Al-Qaida and that Chile is a South American country which sole existence Mr. Bin Laden should have ignored, he ought to be informed too that the American government sanctions against the Chilean dictatorship were harder than any other ciountrie's; and, Imamura (Japan) windingly points out that WWII is related the attack to the WTC. Imamura has at least been coherent in this: the supposed cause effect linking is entirely nonsensical, which plays well with his episode including a man who believes himself to be a snake. It pretends to be obscure. It is, instead, quite ludicrous.
There's some kind of error shared by many, including some Americans, and it consists in the belief that this movie wasn't commercially screened in the States because of some kind of censorship. Nothing further from the truth: This movie wasn't screened in the States because it is a complete fiasco. A fiasco of the wackyest kind. Even in Buenos Aires, where Peronism and other forms of Fascism are nearest and dearest to the hearts of a sizable number of its inhabitants, and anti-Americanism is in vogue, the movie was screened in living rooms hurriedly converted into theaters, and was applauded by a very select public: The usual sad few who routinely lend their applause to other equally 'quaint' spectacles. Like the sight of a McDonald's fast-food restaurant or, perchance, an elderly Jew, being burnt to ashes.
Jorge Luis Borges used to say that there are some kind of folk who do not feel poetry, and that these sad people usually earn their living teaching poetry. This movie was made by and for people who do not feel poetry, by and for show-offs; and I dare say, by and for people who have no sense of decency or, for that matter, respect for other people's life or death (especially when the victims are thought to be mostly 'bloody imperialists' killed in Yankee soil.) I even find the original marketing idea of the eleven episodes of eleven minutes, nine seconds and one frame as particularly hideous and repulsive. Just plain awful. Why didn't they assign a budget of as many dollars per episode as individuals were brutally murdered in the attack? The whole idea rests somewhere between mere stupidity and reckless fascism. Anybody who is serious about film-making (and serious about life and death) should have angrily declined to participate in this recollection of innuendoes and non-sequiturs. With two exceptions: the episode of Burkina Faso -- almost amusing --, and the one from India --which documents the story of a man who was unfairly and wrongly investigated in relation to the attack, on the basis that afterwards he didn't return home and that he was an American Muslim (and, truth be told, when the facts were known he was honored as a hero). All other nine episodes, essentially and extremely boring and emotionless, can be listed in two different categories:
First: 'I don't care about the thousands of victims: Americans, foreigners, children, youngsters, adults, old-timers...' and can be resumed in pure boredom and lack of emotion. Makhmalbaf's (Iran); Lelouch's (France) I'm afraid I'm going to commit an heresy since it's Lelouch's, but maybe, his episode might be considered built upon an idea which could be regarded as almost original; Tanovic's (Bosnia-Herzegovina); Gonzalez Inarritu's (Mexico); Gitaï's (Israel); Penn's (USA)
Second: 'The bloody Yankees deserve it'. And can be resumed in frustration and hatred. Chahine (Egypt) vindicates the suicide bombers; Loach (UK) considers the 9/11 reckless attacks were some kind of punishment for the alleged support of the USA to the Chilean dictatorship headed by the serial-killer Augusto Pinochet, in fact someone should inform Mr. Loach that the victims of Pinochet were not related to Al-Qaida and that Chile is a South American country which sole existence Mr. Bin Laden should have ignored, he ought to be informed too that the American government sanctions against the Chilean dictatorship were harder than any other ciountrie's; and, Imamura (Japan) windingly points out that WWII is related the attack to the WTC. Imamura has at least been coherent in this: the supposed cause effect linking is entirely nonsensical, which plays well with his episode including a man who believes himself to be a snake. It pretends to be obscure. It is, instead, quite ludicrous.
There's some kind of error shared by many, including some Americans, and it consists in the belief that this movie wasn't commercially screened in the States because of some kind of censorship. Nothing further from the truth: This movie wasn't screened in the States because it is a complete fiasco. A fiasco of the wackyest kind. Even in Buenos Aires, where Peronism and other forms of Fascism are nearest and dearest to the hearts of a sizable number of its inhabitants, and anti-Americanism is in vogue, the movie was screened in living rooms hurriedly converted into theaters, and was applauded by a very select public: The usual sad few who routinely lend their applause to other equally 'quaint' spectacles. Like the sight of a McDonald's fast-food restaurant or, perchance, an elderly Jew, being burnt to ashes.
Arlington Road
(1999)
I do not remember any fine trick story film, and that includes "The Usual Suspects."
22 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
In spite of the fact that I am not going to write a single word about the plot, my comments may contain a few of those so-called SPOILERS.
Edgar Allan Poe said that stories should be written having their very last line in mind. This movie has been constructed on that premise. There is a problem, however, and it is not in that very last line, but in the process through which we get there: this movie is thought to belong to the trick-story genre, and it fails not because of the unforeseen ending, but of the 126 minutes that precede it. It is there that all of us, viewers -- but more especially the characters -- are supposed to think and act not the way we -- or they -- would; but the peculiar way the author wants us to. Being that the script is based in a novel, I should assume that Mr. Pellington bought the writer's previous mistake. Of course I understand a man who yields before temptation and especially when that man is an artist whose craft is to dazzle. The idea of the enormous ending should have seemed a great idea to all the people involved, it's a pity that nobody warned them that to prepare a susrprise has nothing to do with the delicate craft of suspense. This time, the temptation was too important to be let down. The trick story technique -- the surprise ending -- does really work, though generally when written and, more specifically, in short stories like Poe's, Saki's and in the extremely short O'Henry's. In point of fact, I do not remember any fine trick story film, and that includes "The Usual Suspects" and its also acclaimed "great" finale. When `Arlington Road' is finally over we realize that it has been constructed in order to arrive to a surprise ending, and we discover that those we thought were simple flaws in the script, were in reality forced situations necessary to make the ending fit. In this movie there are too many coincidences and too many arbitrary acts by characters that are made to act not the way they would, could or should, but the way the makers needed to prepare the surprise. I do not have a problem with characters being whimsical or clumsy. Look, for example, at John Huston's "The Asphalt Jungle", where "Doc" Riedenschneider loses all his money and his freedom because of a doomed enchainment of little mistakes, bad luck and, at the very last minute, because of his own lustful psychology. In Huston's movie things happen within the story's rules, not the director's or the writer's or even the producer's; the characters go to the encounter of their doomed fate not against what they are, but precisely because of what they are. In `Arlington Road,' the characters and the situation are coarsely directed to reach a `brilliant and surprising' ending. I'm not saying `that thing would never happen that way in real life.' I do not care about real life. But I do care about the character's lives and the given reality within the movie. I say that this merely surprising ending does not belong in this film, or that this often-sluggish film does not fit its own all-out finale.
Finally, there was a clear intention of the author (or authors) to play Alfred Hitchcock's sedulous ape (especially The Man Who Knew too Much Hitchcok's). To endeavor to undertake such a task -- such seemingly impossible task, as no one has ever achieved it -- is not intrinsically a fault. To fail to do it properly, however, certainly is.
Edgar Allan Poe said that stories should be written having their very last line in mind. This movie has been constructed on that premise. There is a problem, however, and it is not in that very last line, but in the process through which we get there: this movie is thought to belong to the trick-story genre, and it fails not because of the unforeseen ending, but of the 126 minutes that precede it. It is there that all of us, viewers -- but more especially the characters -- are supposed to think and act not the way we -- or they -- would; but the peculiar way the author wants us to. Being that the script is based in a novel, I should assume that Mr. Pellington bought the writer's previous mistake. Of course I understand a man who yields before temptation and especially when that man is an artist whose craft is to dazzle. The idea of the enormous ending should have seemed a great idea to all the people involved, it's a pity that nobody warned them that to prepare a susrprise has nothing to do with the delicate craft of suspense. This time, the temptation was too important to be let down. The trick story technique -- the surprise ending -- does really work, though generally when written and, more specifically, in short stories like Poe's, Saki's and in the extremely short O'Henry's. In point of fact, I do not remember any fine trick story film, and that includes "The Usual Suspects" and its also acclaimed "great" finale. When `Arlington Road' is finally over we realize that it has been constructed in order to arrive to a surprise ending, and we discover that those we thought were simple flaws in the script, were in reality forced situations necessary to make the ending fit. In this movie there are too many coincidences and too many arbitrary acts by characters that are made to act not the way they would, could or should, but the way the makers needed to prepare the surprise. I do not have a problem with characters being whimsical or clumsy. Look, for example, at John Huston's "The Asphalt Jungle", where "Doc" Riedenschneider loses all his money and his freedom because of a doomed enchainment of little mistakes, bad luck and, at the very last minute, because of his own lustful psychology. In Huston's movie things happen within the story's rules, not the director's or the writer's or even the producer's; the characters go to the encounter of their doomed fate not against what they are, but precisely because of what they are. In `Arlington Road,' the characters and the situation are coarsely directed to reach a `brilliant and surprising' ending. I'm not saying `that thing would never happen that way in real life.' I do not care about real life. But I do care about the character's lives and the given reality within the movie. I say that this merely surprising ending does not belong in this film, or that this often-sluggish film does not fit its own all-out finale.
Finally, there was a clear intention of the author (or authors) to play Alfred Hitchcock's sedulous ape (especially The Man Who Knew too Much Hitchcok's). To endeavor to undertake such a task -- such seemingly impossible task, as no one has ever achieved it -- is not intrinsically a fault. To fail to do it properly, however, certainly is.
Gattaca
(1997)
This is a perfect one, that is the only problem with thismovie.
5 May 2003
So it can be easily underrated calling it merely flawless or cold or... This movie was made by someone who knows how to make a movie, and more important by someone who knows that stories should be amazing and thrilling. By someone who does understand that film-making, like storytelling in general, could be method, form and source of happiness.
Tell Your Friends