Change Your Image
edmontdantes
Reviews
Komissar (1967)
Great film in the tradition of Russian Cinema
I was surprised to hear that "Komissar" was filmed in 1967, a year when the USSR was already firmly past Kruschev's thaw and entering the repressive Brezhnev era, because there is something very "thawish" about this film. The general criticism of war, the dignity of ordinary people during a time of calamities, and the juxtaposition of battles with moments of civilian life, all hearken back to the ideas expressed in "The Cranes are Flying" (1956). As in all Soviet cinema, many of the central ideas are expressed through symbolism. This makes the film somewhat difficult for viewers who are not used to this style, but most people tend to find it refreshing and psychologically stimulating. It certainly prompts more post-film discussions than current American cinema that simply shoves the director's point of view down the audience's throat.
Some of the themes that I found particularly interesting were: the use of the innocence of children to depict the horror of war, the image of saddled horses without riders galloping into battle, and, of course, the father dancing in the midst of a bomb raid. Most of all, I thought that the change in Vavilova - going from a rough, battle hardened Red Army officer to a nurturing mother, is the most poignant aspect of this film. The scene where Vavilova is hunted my soldiers for having a child mimics her own persecution of a man who leaves the army to be with his beloved. The soldiers turn out to be figments of her imagination, but the point is obvious. However, Vavilova's decision in the end of the film (which I will not reveal for fear of getting blacklisted by the IMDb NKVD) is puzzling in light of the changes in her character. I suppose that Askoldov's opinion that a person's nature cannot be changed by one experience is contrary to my own optimism. Still, I find the end to be somewhat unrealistic.
Clerks II (2006)
Smith's writing takes a turn toward maturity
I've always been a fan of Kevin Smith's work and it's not only because I'm from Jersey. Well OK, that was certainly a big part of why I started watching his films, but it's his ability to entertain the audience with bathroom humor while, almost clandestinely, exploring some sort of metaphysical concept that has kept me a fan all these years. Now, sometimes this combination works (Clerks - exploration of post adolescent apathy, Chasing Amy - exploration of modern sexual identity, Dogma - exploration of what religion means and what it should mean) and other times it fails because the scale is tipped too much to one side of the scale (Jay and Silent Bob strike back - too much silliness, Jersey Girl - Not enough silliness). I'll reserve judgment for Mallrats because 1) it parallels Clerks II in many ways (the concept is the relationship between two best friends as one of them is about to leave to Florida with his fiancé) 2) If one watches the deleted scenes than it becomes obvious that there are two entirely different films - one that Smith wanted to make and another that the studio made him make.
In Clerks II Smith lives up to the standards of his better movies and improves on them with a more mature script. Smith's best quality is his ability to write and that's what really shines here. The unique ideas and views on pop culture are certainly present in Clerks II, but they flow within the plot of the movie rather than outside of it as in previous films where Smith would resort to monologues in set environments in order to make his point (see Chasing Amy). Still, despite his writing and directorial abilities, Smith is still dependent on the actors to deliver their lines properly and in Clerks II it's more of a hit than a miss. The real stars of this movie are Jeff Anderson and Rosario Dawson both of whom manage to come off perfectly natural in their respective roles. Anderson is the true protagonist of the film and really carries the movie with excellent facial expressions and a great way to deliver Smith's tongue-in-cheek humor. However, both Dawson's and Anderson's abilities are sabotaged by Brian O'Halloren. O'Halloren's Dante is the central character (but not the protagonist) as it is his decision to move to Florida with his girlfriend that sets off the events discussed in the movie. Dante's character is supposed to be that of an underachiever but an optimistic one who still sees some sort of light in the end of the tunnel - there is supposed to be something lovable, charming, and down to earth about him which is why he is always getting the girl. But O'Halloren is simply unable to deliver and his performance comes off as trite and listless. His on screen chemistry with Anderson is good enough but he is simply unable to compete with Dawson.
The side characters in the movie also deliver. The ubiquitous duo of Jay and Silent Bob, the wimpy Christian co-worker of Dante and Randal, Jennifer Schwalbach Smith as Dante's domineering fiancé, even Ethan Suplee (Varsity Blues, American History X, Butterfly Effect), Ben Afflek, and Jason Lee all make cameos.
The Comedy in the movie is dead on and there were quite a few laugh out loud moments. The "climax" of the movie is reached in one particularly witty scene involving "interspecies erotica" and the dénouement of the love triangle between Dante (O'Halloren), Becky (Dawson), and Emma (Schwalbach). The scene really fuses the aforementioned bathroom humor with melodrama and is classic Smith at its raunchy best.
Upon the end of this films the audience actually gave a standing ovation and that's really the best way to judge a film (then again, I saw it on opening night in Jersey). 9/10
The Holy Land (2001)
Trite and unoriginal
The holy land begins with an unoriginal scene - a child being born - and ends with an original sequence (the main characters are all depicted in their misery and the main character is .....(American beauty). In between there is a mish mush of uneven ideas and plots lines that are never fully developed.
In seeing "Holy Land" I was really hoping to find something closer to the truth of the seedy and multifaceted society that is modern Israel. But like the film's main character, a naive young Hassidic Jew, the film is clueless and only offers a shallow glance at a few people none of whom (except for the Russian prostitute) really represent the groups that they attempt to depict. The direction is mediocre at best and so is the writing (the worst points come when the concept of God is brought up and rather than attempting to honestly ruminate on this idea the writer merely uses it to move the romantic plot line). The acting is also bad except for the Russian Prostitute who actually does an excellent job portraying the conflicting emotions both through verbal and non verbal expressions. Ironically, she also has the best lines in the movie and her character is closest to the reality of the many Russian expatriate women who are forced to sell their body (and, one could argue, their soul) to escape the chains of poverty that bind their homelands.
But despite the talented actress' best attempts even her character falls flat in the utterly unbelievable sequence that serves as the denouement of the movie. The Orthodox boy confronts her for, essentially, being a prostitute (although the entire point of the movie is that he sees her as a prostitute with a heart of gold) and she leaves him. Atrocious. I wasted two hours of my life.
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
The Necros are attacking!
Spoiler alert Did anyone else notice that a few times in the movie the necromongers are referred to as "Necros"? Yes, I think that it sounds like Negros. I wasn't really offended by it but I just thought that it was really funny. Furthermore, this movie had no plot whatsoever. Why the hell do they go to Crematoria and why, for heaven's sake, are the guards there Russian? On the way down to the jail the little computer screen is in Russian, the guys speak with a Russian accent, they drink a lot of Vodka (that I found offensive), and their names are Russian (Sergei, Anatoly). And what is the deal with those Furians? At first we are made to believe that they were a planet of warriors who frightened the Necromongers, but then we found out that they weren't really all that hardcore and Vin Diesel just happens to be one.
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
wouldn't nuclear reactors blow up and destroy the rest of the world?
I really liked "the day after tomorrow", an enjoyable, if forgettable, piece of Hollywood summer blockbuster. The idea was interesting and the suspense was well built. I was, however, hoping that the movie would actually be a little more about the day after tomorrow rather then, well, tomorrow. That is that instead of seeing the northern hemisphere getting destroyed I was hoping for what happens afterwards. Furthermore, the movie was centered way too much on America. What is the deal with the two "even bigger" hurricane things over Europe and Asia. Last, but not least, the subject of this message. If the world was ever destroyed by a storm of the magnitude then there would be chernobyl-like nuclear explosions all over and the world would be a very, very, different place for at least a few million years.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Jesus is as he was, everything else is skewed
Mel Gibson's new film the Passion of the Christ has many positive points such as the costumes (which are excellent), the cinematography, and the acting. The decision to make the movie in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew only adds on to the flick instead of making it burdensome. But despite this plethora of positive accomplishments, the narrative and the violence makes it a difficult, and in my opinion, insulting movie to watch. The beating that Christ takes is unbelievably brutal and is only magnitized by the fact that it's being inflicted on one, not very big, man. Besides the infamous whipping scene and crucifiction there is constant sucker punches, slaps, spit in the face, etc. To a devout catholic or christian who sincerely believes that this man took such a beating to redeem the sins of humanity this may be inspirational, touching, and even uplifting. But I only felt pity and disgust as this human being is savagely beaten. The violence aside, my main problem with the movie, however, is the anti-semitism. People can argue either way but let me tell you; I walked into this movie a huge Mel Gibson fan and a firm believer that this movie will not be anti-semetic and walked out feeling insulted and vowing never to give Mel Gibson a penny of my money. First of all there are the crowds composed of Jewish women and children yelling to have Jesus crucified. It seems that everyone not only wants him dead, but also tortured. Second are the priests, the Cohanim, who are portrayed as cowardly, coniving, slippery snakes with bad teeth who hate Jesus because he is the polar opposite of them. The greater political situation of the time is not expressed and we never get a well-rounded side of the Cohanim. In other words it's good guy Jesus vs. Bad guy the Jews. But what really gets me is the depiction of Pontius Pilate. We know from other historical writing such as Josephus Flavious's "Jewish Antiquities" that Pilate was a monster, a brutal murder who crucified thousands in an attempt to suppress jewish uprisings. I know that the gospels paint a different picture of him but Mel Gibson takes it to an extreme. Apparantly Pilate is sleeping with a follower of Jesus (Claudia), something never mention in the Gospels, and is a philosopher in search for truth - "veritas". When the Jews mention that they want Jesus crucified he gasps as if it is the most harsh penalty ever made whereas in reality we know that Pilate crucified thousands of men every day and crucifying another false Messiah would hadly cause him to lose sleep. Basically, the reforms of Vatian II are completely ignored and the Romans are exculpated of all guilt and instead it is shifted unto the Jews. If you want a good depiction of Pontius Pilate read Bulgakov's "Master and Margarita". If you want a good story of Jesus watch Scorcece's "the last temptation of Christ". If you want a good portrayal of Jesus as a person but an ignorant portrayal of the gospels watch "The last temptation of Christ".