chtellez Reviews

My Fair Lady (1964)

One of the great films of all time--and a social critique at that

[10/10 · 2 October 2021]

My Fair Lady is an entertaining, funny, beautiful, and charming take on the myth f Pygmalion. The sculptor tat falls in love with his creation. Some may find it dated, but that would be a misunderstanding of how the arts represent their time. In this particular case, it represents the 60s representing Edwardian England. If your mind is open, you will get wonderful lessons about class, misogynism, the patriarchy and how someone's image, deportment and speech still can advance you in society. It is also not sentimental about the possible relationships between men and women, especially a narcissistic professor and an aspiring poor woman trying to find her way in a society that has nothing for her. The music is lovely, if occasionally overwrought. Rex Harrison's sprechstimme-like musical speech is a joy to experience. The conversation between Professor Higgins and Eliza at the end is the most honest love dialogue between two initially incompatible individuals, as they get ready to face a situation not tolerated in his social circle by also overcoming personal limitations. The look is deliciously artificial, as it was done in the 60s, with Cecil Beaton's displaying the breadth of his talent as a designer with the clothing and the sets. Audrey Hepburn is possibly too exquisite as a Cockney flower girl but perfect after her transformation. It does not matter. Her magnetism is such that all that is forgotten. The fact that she did not win the Oscar is more a result of professional politics than of merit. My Fair Lady grows on you. Do not miss it.

Everybody Knows (2018)

Absorbing film, with an obscure ending

[9/10 · 21 October 2018]

The actors, the setting, and the story are magnetic and absorbing. I will not spoil the time of future viewers by revealing the ending, but this film is worth watching. Many personal strands are woven around the apparent central argument. While the drama develops as a suspense thriller, this is truly a love story. In the end, I felt it was also about something else that was never fully expressed. The one flaw of the film concerns the ending, which feels incomplete, and the agency of one obscure character. Still, this is a very satisfying and entertaining film.

Paterson (2016)

Possibly the greatest actor of our time -- in a film masterpiece.

[10/10 · 8 January 2018]

If there is an inkling of an artist in you, you will love this movie. If there is kernel of humanity in you, you will treasure it forever. Every word and every screenshot is beautiful, as true beauty is, full of complexity and foreboding and layers of meaning. Jim Jarmusch has created a masterpiece that is likely to go unacknowledged in our noisy world. Adam Driver is among the best actors of our time. He perhaps may be equaled, but I am now convinced he is not surpassed by anyone. He has sneaked on us, and we are yet to fully realize how truly great he is. We should be grateful to these two artists and their excellent collaborators. The final two scenes will make you cry with joy.

Mozart in the Jungle (2014–2018)

Wonderful...but who is coaching the conductors in the show?

[8/10 · 1 January 2016]

The show is very insightful--in a kind of exaggerated way that reveals some unique subtleties of the classical music culture. However, as I see the behavior of the instrumentalists match reality, this does not happen with the "technique" of conductors. There are many fabulous conductors out there that could coach Garcia-Bernal and others that appear to conduct in the show, to add to its credibility. Otherwise, it is very difficult for the lay person to feel why a conductor can hold such sway on a musical organization and on so many people. It also kind of ruins it for the actual musicians that may watch the show.

Otherwise, congratulations on bringing the field of classical music, with its antics and glories out for a view by those who might find it intimidating. It is fun show!

Borgia (2011–2014)

A pretty mediocre show

[3/10 · 26 January 2015]

Every time one sees a historical drama announced, one expects intense acting, intriguing historical revelations, flesh and blood enactment of events that changed the world, famous people passing by, and yes, a little fantasy, a little sex, you know...what is expected of historical television these days. This show is boring to a fault. The accents are terrible. The whole rhythm is predictable: a little intrigue among cardinals; followed by a little self flagellation, so we know we are talking about the Catholic Chruch; followed by a bloody squabble among young men, making sure we cut an ear or a finger; and of course lots of sex among forbidden partners. In short, a bore. For a masterful production, seek "Isabel" by Radio Television Española. We can get history with the fun and the sex, and not be yawning in the process.

Isabel (2011–2014)

Impressive, given the task!

[10/10 · 4 January 2015]

This series is ambitious, almost to a fault, but in the end, utterly successful. To narrate so many plots and subplots is arguably necessary to lift these historical characters of almost mythological stature from the danger of appearing as cardboard figures. Instead, we see how the triumphs and tragedies of these momentous times emerge out of the dreams and sins of passionate people with very specific character strengths and flaws. Not a single character is a monochromatic figure, and this, in a series of this length, is extraordinary. What took place during the reign of Isabel changed the world forever in almost every respect. I am a Spanish-speaker, and I have seen the series "a la carte" online at the RTVE site. With the opportunity to binge on a quick succession of episodes, one sees at first certain repetitive patterns of courtly intrigue and manipulation, and occasionally predictable reactions from Isabel and King Fernando in particular. But, on the whole, "Isabel" allows us to reflect on the role of kings and queens, and the need to be decisive at the opportune time, taking the right advice from the right people. Terrible things happen, especially to the Jews and the Moors, for political expediency; and to women overall for the necessity of heirs and alliances; but the horror is not sentimentalized in any way. Also during the first two seasons, one wonders if while securing the kingdom, and after the loss of friends and the destruction of foes, these Catholic kings ever had a moment of transcendent self-awareness or even fleeting self-doubt. However, by the third season, as Isabel and Fernando face death and the destruction of everything they built, then the depth of self-awareness is fantastic and even heart-wrenching. It was perhaps an overall tactic of director Jordi Frades and his team to keep the action moving forward, only to crash in emotional upheavals at the end, for which we are prepared then to understand as spectators . The last few episodes depicting the relationship of Isabel and Fernando's daughter and heir Joanna the Mad with her parents and husband Philip the Fair is one of the most nuanced and vivid I have seen on TV. Other characterizations are poignant and memorable, especially Pablo Derqui as the weak king Enrique IV, Julio Manrique as an egotistical and visionary Columbus, Lluis Soler as the deep thinker Hernando de Talavera, and Irene Escolar as Joanna. It must also be said that this series is often superior to the more recent historical recreations of royal episodes from England, by avoiding easy titillation and vulgar emotion at every turn. More often that not, the complexity of characterization is perceived over time, in particular with the central characters of Isabel (Michelle Jenner) and Fernando (Rodolfo Sancho). This is one of those cases where getting to the end in one sweep offers many rewards unavailable from any other dramatic genre. I hope a version with supertitles (and perhaps even one with English dubbing for those who do not like to read the TV screen) will be made available for the US. To those for whom history holds an attraction, this series will spark voracious reading to know more about Spain, a country that we can now see determined a lot of what we still live today. I personally would finish each episode with a desire to seek more in history books and the internet. I hear that a new series may be in the works on the life of Isabel's grandson Charles V, who ruled over the largest empire of his time. I will be hard to surpass "Isabel", but I do hope this team tries a task like this again!

Decoding Deepak (2012)

Chopra is a kind man and loves his son

[3/10 · 8 June 2014]

This was a strange movie. One expects to understand why Deepak Chopra, certainly an influential author and thinker, came to be what he is. Instead we are promised a personal view of the man, intriguing enough. This is accomplished through the lens of a son and a family that appear resentful of the fact that Chopra's career takes all of his time and attention. It reminded me of the many stories about Picasso's family and how they suffered under the glare of his ambitious and driven desire to paint. The problem is that Gotham Chopra is, occasionally, simply mean. Gotham Chopra claims the father is driven to be relevant, no matter what. However, it is also appears here that Gotham desires prominence as well, through a tell-all film about the father he does not understand and whom he wishes to diminish. It is disturbing to confirm that men driven by a passion for art, science, etc., often cannot produce successful families, but it is even more disturbing to see the lack of respect and compassion of the son for the father. We are expected to conclude that the son's actions are justified by the purported neglect of the father.However, Deepak Chopra must have acquiesced with the production and publication of this film, for the sake of the son, even though it aims to demolish his professional image. By the way, in this regard, it is so one-sided, it fails. Even in the casual comments, Deepak Chopra remains coherent with his philosophy of life. Gotham Chopra should take distance from the father, and start his own road. He seems like a gifted man. He does not need his father, one way or another.

Gerhard Richter Painting (2011)

We are lucky we have this documentary

[8/10 · 10 August 2013]

Many of the negative commentaries about this documentary assume that Richter wanted to be left alone and should be left alone; or alternatively, that Corinna Belz should have pried more intensely with "deep, probing" questions to Richter about the nature of his creativity, his technique, his background , etc. These objections show a certain lack of sensitivity and openness to what was actually offered in the documentary. In fact, at some point Richter complained that he did not behave as he normally would with the eye of the camera always around, and still the film got made! This was an act of incredible generosity and courage on Richter's part. Even while he remains circumspect, we do see him working. The whole voyeurism exercise could pose perhaps a risk to the evaluation of his work by posterity. It may also represent a teaching legacy for those who are able to learn from what they glimpse of his technique in the film. I can imagine that the director could have designed with the assistance of critics and scholars all kinds of challenging aesthetic questions, and risk a pedantic approach to the experience; but Ms. Belz chose a delicate touch in the end --indeed like the visit of a friend--and did not force the reactions of the artist. For those paying attention, there is a lot to learn from this film. However, beyond the recognition of Richter's generosity in letting us peep into his world, it is logical to believe that someone that looks so fit for his age, plans his exhibits in small scale, and works in such a clean architectural environment did keep the right to vet the final results in this film. Glimpses of his personal life are very few. His first two wives do not appear except in unlabeled portraits and you would not recognize them for who they are; his parents are mentioned briefly even though he did not see them again after his flight from East Germany; his young wife is an exquisite brief presence. In short, the film is probably a reflection of his disciplined persona.

For those who care to see what was offered without the bitterness of not having accomplished this themselves, there is much to be praised in this film. My only complain concerns the English supertitles, which were not done with care. They can barely be read in half of the film. I hope this will be corrected at some point.

Admission (2013)

Excellent movie, but alas...the risks of mislabeled expectations!

[8/10 · 31 July 2013]

A movie that is expected to be a romantic comedy--with emphasis of comedy--gets so-so reviews on the basis of the fact that the movie is not as funny as an SNL episode. It is an excellent movie, funny sometimes, sad sometimes. It may not give the best representation of Princeton or of the faculty's lifestyle, but in the context of the movie, this is also OK, because the movie addresses the complexities of relationships and choices without hitting you over the head with it. The big surprise was that Tina Fey can do a dramatic part! Lili Tomlin is also spectacular. These comediennes have range! I suggest to watch it without preconceptions.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

One of the greatest movies of the last 25 years

[10/10 · 25 June 2013]

This film is a dramatic and poetic expression of a philosophy of life and contains a great message. No talent or skill has merit by itself, but must be placed at the service of a higher purpose. It is a warning for the narcissistic artist and for anyone with a selfish creative force. This is not stated ostensibly at any time in the movie, however. Instead, we are treated to a wonderful adventure, with complex characters, extraordinary choreography and inspiring images of nature. The music is also beautiful and has become influential. The love story is touching and at times sublime. It does not really matter that the movie uses formulas that prevail in many popular Chinese adventures. History has many examples of popular formulas that are brought to the level of high art by insightful masters, and this is one of them.

Anna Karenina (I) (2012)

Brilliant and beautiful

[10/10 · 2 March 2013]

This film version of the classic Tostoy novel is a paraphrase and a metaphor. Not unlike what happens in an opera based on a preexisting work, (let's say Otello by Verdi,) details are not always respected to preserve the thrust of the emotional drama in a much shorter new art form, in this case, a film. Of course many of the reviewers here with a negative opinion will point to better book adaptations of Anna Karenina in film. But they miss the point. This is not an adaptation. It is a new artistic work based on another. This film nests Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, but it has its own expressive tools and its own take on the story. The use of dancing and of the rundown theater as metaphors for relationships judged by crumbling society was extraordinary. Besides this, the acting of Jude Law as Karenin will be remembered for years to come and is worth viewing no matter what opinion the rest of the film may deserve. Do not be dissuaded by the negative reviews here. Go watch this film on its own terms.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

Interesting choices

[10/10 · 7 November 2011]

This is a beautifully shot movie, with lovely music and amazing piano playing by Jean-Ives Thibaudet. If you are not very familiar with the novel or the 1995 BBC TV version, you will enjoy it outright. If you belong to those viewers who are Jane Austen fans, you will need to see this version more than once to overcome the barriers imposed by a rushed and drastically summarized script and the odd--and I dare say-- unnecessary distortions of Austen's milieu and social mores. However, with each repeated viewing you will sense that the scriptwriter embeds layers from the excised scenes into the dialog, the gestures and the facial expressions, as if days and months would pass by in seconds inside the mind of the characters. If you have read the novel in depth, you may be able to project those layers unto the characterizations in this movie.

All the criticisms I have read in this site are on the mark. Indeed, Knightley seems too modern and disheveled; Bingley can barely speak intelligently; Wickham, although attractive, is reduced to a minor character. MacFadyen seems too shy and awkward at first, although his eyes are incredibly expressive, his voice is beautiful, and he is ultimately convincing. People are dressed with so many styles that one cannot tell the time period; perhaps this was one more way to establish class differences and historical style transitions. And still, in the end, these criticisms do not affect the ultimate success of the movie. The psychological transformation of Darcy and Elizabeth as they overcome their pride and prejudices(the true message in Austen's novel) is achieved beautifully, in a manner that will make the viewer return to this film time and again.

Furthermore, the cinematography is special, with beautiful planes of light and color that emulate early Romantic paintings, and unexpected time-lapse sequences with music, such as the one with Lizzie in the swing through the seasons or observing herself in the mirror after Darcy's first proposal.

I must also say that, in spite of her anachronistic sleeveless dresses, this is the best Caroline Bingley I have seen. She is beautiful, fashionable and snobbish, not older or unattractive, like in other productions; in short, a true object of contrast as a class-conscious potential rival for Darcy's attention.

The final "Mrs. Darcy" kisses are an indulgence for the American market that could have been handled much better. Both characters could have been still dressed and behaving with the modesty suited to the historical time, as a credible transition between their previous life and what is to come. Instead, it is enjoyable and tender, but also jarring, even within the range of compromises already made in the movie.

If you accept that the masterful Austen novel must be seriously abridged for the purposes of a movie, you will enjoy this "Pride and Prejudice" on its own terms, and it will get better and better with repeated viewings.

Priest (2011)

I look forward to the sequel!!

[10/10 · 30 May 2011]

A friend and I went to see Priest to spend a lazy afternoon, neglecting to read any reviews. Now after the fact, I am surprised by the negative reaction of some critics, when there is far worse junk out there. Clearly the film makes overt references, not only to other films, but to many cultural forces outside of the movies. If absolute originality were to be the hallmark of greatness in movies, clearly it would be the end of commercial Hollywood. And still, works of ostensible high art borrow right and left in our times and throughout history. Therefore, referential elements are not in themselves a mark of lack of quality.

Although clearly borrowing concepts from Catholicism, somehow the film still did not offend me, perhaps because the history and symbolism of the Catholic Church is far more complex than anything we see in this movie. In spite of all the cross-references, the movie simply works as entertainment, in a sleek, coherent and economical way that should be commended. Paul Bettany is an outstanding actor. Clearly he should be in artistically more ambitious projects, but that is not the fault of Priest--quite the opposite! The production design is superior. I would pay to see the sequel, where the director may be persuaded to reveal more complexity and nuance in the characters...so, I am looking forward!