This movie is a spectacular portrayal of Charlie Kaufman's imaginative subject about what it would be like to be in someone else's head, and eventually someone else's body. Ultimately the movie asks us who we are and tries to urge us to enjoy who we are, regardless of our outer appearance. Whether it be gender or simple shame of one's appearance, the movie gives us examples of people who aren't happy with their physical bodes (ironically, the two people are married) and shows us that no matter who we try to be, ultimately we must be ourselves, and that this truth is inescapable. In a way, the movie shows us that self-reliance is paramount. The film shows an especially good contrast between a man who allows his passions to control his actions and another who uses reason to decide the fate of his life and in actuality the length of his life. This theme is almost Platonic, because the movie shows us which course of action is more moral; and luckily, although perhaps not realistically, in this movie morality wins out.
Reviews
4 Reviews
M*A*S*H
(1970)
Witty, funny. A must see.
20 May 2001
This film is an absolutely hilarious comedy that is filled with witty jokes about the war and even contains some comment on the absurdity of the war (a la Catch-22). The very first instance of dialogue in the film shows three men relaying orders from one to the other. Unfortunately, the man who is getting the orders has no idea what is being said because both officers are speaking simultaneously and their words are indistinguishable. The joke seems to be that nothing is getting done in the war although the leaders of the different units seem to think that they are doing a good job. The jokes in this movie don't stop at the beginning, though. In fact, they never stop. The entire movie moves seamlessly onward while the audience can't stop laughing. This is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen. The off-color humor from M*A*S*H seems to be a sort of inspiration for movies during the 80s like Caddyshack and such. I think it's probably one of the funniest movies of all time. Definitely a must see.
Arthur
(1981)
Good acting, good fun.
18 May 2001
This extremely funny movie has great performances from three very talented actors that really account for the bulk of the movie's worth. Dudley Moore, Liza Minnelli, and Sir John Gielgud all turn in quality performances; especially Mr. Moore, who spends the majority of the movie drunk. I'm not sure I've ever seen a funnier drunk in a movie than in this one. The sound of Mr. Moore's voice alone made me laugh, as well as his witty jokes directed at the characters around him. Every facial expression, every joke, every glance really delivers in this movie to give an honest and very genuine comedy that can appeal to almost anyone. Mr. Gielgud adds a very classy touch to the movie, which makes us feel as if we're watching something very highbrow and not just a slapstick comedy. This is not to say that Mr. Moore is not high class, he is in fact; but Gielgud gives us a sense that we are watching a movie featuring a Shakespearean actor who is giving us the privilege of watching him act, rather than us giving him the privilege of watching him. Ms. Minnelli adds some sense of realism to the movie, which spends much of its time living in the world-perhaps the fantasy world for most of us-of a billionaire (okay not quite billionaire, but what's the difference when you get that high?). Arthur Bach, Mr. Moore's character in the film, has many similarities with the modern day personality that we know as Richie Rich. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the idea of Richie Rich came from this movie. Anyway, if you're looking for a witty, well-acted comedy, this will no doubt satisfy.
Great acting, great directing make a sincere, emotional film.
17 May 2001
To say that this movie is one of the greatest war films of all time would be an understatement. Naturally, since the picture is based on Erich Maria Remarque's marvelous novel, the screenwriter was given quite a powerful story to begin with. The three main reasons why I consider this movie so forceful are the acting, the cinematography, and simply the sincerity.
Lew Ayres, the man who plays Paul Baumer, convincingly portrays the main character in many ways. First of all, the sheer innocence of his facial appearance adds a poignant touch to the film, because the overwhelming theme of the story is how the war effects all young people of each nation, whether that person dies in the trenches or survives only to lament his days in the war. Ironically, when the film was initially being put together, Remarque, the novelist who won critical acclaim for writing the book, was asked to play the role of Paul. Having seen time in the war the producers must have thought him aptly prepared to play the role. But he declined because he had other commitments and because he felt he was not such a great actor. Lucky for us, because Ayres gives a powerful performance. Other characters with relatively minor roles have major importance in the film because they portray touching, heart wrenching scene s of death. These peripheral characters all help add to the general tone of the film (and the book) because they show how dark and terrible the war can be; and they in turn show how propaganda can be so harmful, because most of the soldiers in Paul's regiment are volunteers who receive a very rude awakening when they discover what the war is really all about. The acting is simply superb, and perhaps this is due to the fact that the famous director George Cukor was an assistant who, although uncredited, came onto the set to help supervise the actors (possibly because director Lewis Milestone's English was not too good).
The cinematography of this film is absolutely magnificent. The film rarely has gory sequences because the director finds other ways to imply death and still have the same emotional effect. One way in which he does this is by showing single body parts (such as a hand or a leg) and allowing these appendages to show the death of the soldier as a whole. Also, the cameraman uses overhead angles at times with great skill and also focuses on the trenches at times as the soldiers fall back into them after being shot (which implies that the trenches are a symbol of hell, because soldiers fall into them to die). In short, the cinematographer Arthur Edeson allows the camera to do the talking and to drive the film, rather than the dialogue (speaking of which, there is relatively little; the actors' facial expressions do the bulk of the talking in the film).
When I say this film is sincere I really can't give you any tangible evidence to prove the point; all I can tell you is to see the film. The film at times overwhelmed me with emotion to the extent that I got goose bumps from watching some of the more agonizing scenes. In a way, this movie is much like a silent film. This stands to reason because it came at the very beginning of the 'talkie' age, only three years after The Jazz Singer (1927). Also, Milestone directed silent films before this one, and he seemed to know that less focus on dialogue and more focus on acting would bring about an overwhelmingly emotional and well, sincere, film. The film obviously had an effect on its star, Mr. Ayres, because once World War II began and he was drafted into the war, he conscientiously protested serving in the army because of his opinions towards war. I believe he admits that his opinions stem from his work in this movie. Certainly this is a powerful admission, because his protest caused him and his films to be blacklisted in Hollywood, and his career suffered greatly because of his ideals. So if you don't believe my words about the power of this film, believe his.
Lew Ayres, the man who plays Paul Baumer, convincingly portrays the main character in many ways. First of all, the sheer innocence of his facial appearance adds a poignant touch to the film, because the overwhelming theme of the story is how the war effects all young people of each nation, whether that person dies in the trenches or survives only to lament his days in the war. Ironically, when the film was initially being put together, Remarque, the novelist who won critical acclaim for writing the book, was asked to play the role of Paul. Having seen time in the war the producers must have thought him aptly prepared to play the role. But he declined because he had other commitments and because he felt he was not such a great actor. Lucky for us, because Ayres gives a powerful performance. Other characters with relatively minor roles have major importance in the film because they portray touching, heart wrenching scene s of death. These peripheral characters all help add to the general tone of the film (and the book) because they show how dark and terrible the war can be; and they in turn show how propaganda can be so harmful, because most of the soldiers in Paul's regiment are volunteers who receive a very rude awakening when they discover what the war is really all about. The acting is simply superb, and perhaps this is due to the fact that the famous director George Cukor was an assistant who, although uncredited, came onto the set to help supervise the actors (possibly because director Lewis Milestone's English was not too good).
The cinematography of this film is absolutely magnificent. The film rarely has gory sequences because the director finds other ways to imply death and still have the same emotional effect. One way in which he does this is by showing single body parts (such as a hand or a leg) and allowing these appendages to show the death of the soldier as a whole. Also, the cameraman uses overhead angles at times with great skill and also focuses on the trenches at times as the soldiers fall back into them after being shot (which implies that the trenches are a symbol of hell, because soldiers fall into them to die). In short, the cinematographer Arthur Edeson allows the camera to do the talking and to drive the film, rather than the dialogue (speaking of which, there is relatively little; the actors' facial expressions do the bulk of the talking in the film).
When I say this film is sincere I really can't give you any tangible evidence to prove the point; all I can tell you is to see the film. The film at times overwhelmed me with emotion to the extent that I got goose bumps from watching some of the more agonizing scenes. In a way, this movie is much like a silent film. This stands to reason because it came at the very beginning of the 'talkie' age, only three years after The Jazz Singer (1927). Also, Milestone directed silent films before this one, and he seemed to know that less focus on dialogue and more focus on acting would bring about an overwhelmingly emotional and well, sincere, film. The film obviously had an effect on its star, Mr. Ayres, because once World War II began and he was drafted into the war, he conscientiously protested serving in the army because of his opinions towards war. I believe he admits that his opinions stem from his work in this movie. Certainly this is a powerful admission, because his protest caused him and his films to be blacklisted in Hollywood, and his career suffered greatly because of his ideals. So if you don't believe my words about the power of this film, believe his.
Tell Your Friends