Reviews written by registered user
|13 reviews in total|
An itinerant family's search for a better life seems to lead nowhere.
The husband finds work as a cowhand, the wife wants nothing more than a
leather bed to sleep in.
The stark, black and white cinematography with which the sun-bleached, barren landscape was shot underscores the poverty the family is trying to escape. Kudos to the director who was able to coax an admirable performance from the family's dog. It's a totally engaging film w/ effectively subdued performances from the principals. Reminiscent of Italian Neo-Realist cinema, this makes for rewarding viewing, a cure for the summer blockbuster syndrome.
Of the two movies I saw today, "Grindhouse" merits a mention here
simply because it's a hoot! Conceived as an 'hommage' to 70's B double
features, the movie consists of two full-length features helmed by
Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino. Taking it further for the full
B effect, the movie featured simulated scratches, missing frames or
even entire reels making the action jumpy and frustrating to watch
right at the most crucial moments. And that's part of the fun, if the
viewer "gets" it. There were quite a few walkouts from the theater,
maybe it's just not for everyone. But those who stayed LOL'd all
The two directors' characteristic elements of gore and violence are there in spades but w/ an R rating, the teen audiences that would go for this kind of thing are shut out. Hilarious too, by the way, are the extras--trailers for non-existent movies ("Werewolf Women of the SS")concocted to make for a complete viewing experience reminiscent of those times when you could spend the entire afternoon in one of those 3rd-run theaters specializing in movies you'd never heard of but attractively promising silly entertainment. And that's all you get, because that's all it was intended to be. You pass the entire afternoon laughing yourself silly in air-conditioned comfort to escape the summer heat, then go home and forget all about it. Then you go to another theater featuring a different double feature the following afternoon for another silly ride.
Never a fan of the misogynistic and psychologically pretentious "Basic
Instinct" which took in millions--of viewers, that is, I had some hope
for the reworking of the much-delayed project that languished in
development for years. After all, I don't think Sharon Stone is that
bad of an actress.
A friend has a DVD copy of "Basic Instinct 2" which I now regret borrowing. The opening scene seemed to me funnily prophetic: A stylish vehicle careens out of control, crashes and...sinks. The most readily apparent thing about the movie is its stylishness: It is artfully blocked, lit and shot, production design is sumptuous, Sharon Stone looked even more so, and the building where the analyst holds court appropriately phallic. Alas, the plodding pace and dialog failed to keep my eyes open, or maybe it's just last night's festivities that hung a heavy cloud of somnolence over my viewing experience. No matter. When the twist at the end came, it had about as much gasp factor as someone breaking wind: Someone is relieved, others are offended.
What the heck were they thinking? Oh, I get it: Take the success of "La
Dolce Vita", infuse it w/ the elements of a behind-the-scenes look into
the tawdry goings on of a troubled Hollywood production and transplant
it back to Rome (Say, "Cinecitta", boys and girls!). And for good
measure, have a director w/ an Italian sounding name take
responsibility for it.
Trashy camp only begins to describe the little seen(and therefore intriguing to self-confessed cinephiles--we have TCM to thank) "Two Weeks In Another Town"(1962), but what a gloriously colorful bit of camp it is. Director Vincente Minnelli is an acknowledged master of color and---I don't know what else. The dialog has to be heard to be believed("Don't swallow all those pills! The doctor will have to come up and pump your stomach. You know how much that sickens me!"). Everybody spits, dribbles and sweats acid in this movie. Need it be said that everyone overacts? It's a wonder anything at all was left of the scenery after they chewed it up! And having pretty boy George Hamilton play a knife-wielding bad boy is a bit much, no? One exception is the young Daliah Lavi who left the bad acting to the two other women principals (Cyd Charisse and Claire Trevor)and just let her natural charms show through. She's even more fetching here because she looks to have more meat on her bones than in her subsequent roles( The Detainer in the OTHER Casino Royale).
Kirk Douglas as the main character who gets to do the thankless job of saving a movie in trouble after its director(Edward G. Robinson) suffers a heart attack tries to do the same thing w/ this movie and barely succeeds. A plus, though, is that he tools around in(and gets to trash) a cool-looking Maserati convertible. Watching that car alone is worth it. As for the rest of the movie, it's like bad tabloid reportage. We know it's trash, but we can't keep our eyes off it!
Sofia Coppola's "Marie Antoinette" is an entertaining exercise in
anachronism and incongruity. There, that's it. Maybe I should stop now.
How else to treat the subject of incongruity pertaining to a teen-age Austrian princess thrust into the French court at Versailles but to go all the way: The dialog goes from period to contemporary idioms, the music switches from Rameau to rock, the young queen and her ladies act like catty, giggly high school seniors uncomfortably costumed for a prom where they do ballroom dancing to rock music. Although the costumes and production design are sumptuously executed, you could almost expect a cellphone's ring tone to interrupt a scene at any moment. And it wouldn't be out of place either.
The intricacies and contretemps of court protocol are executed with obvious relish and self consciousness, the acting even more so. So why not show the whole enterprise as nothing more than a bunch of people playing pretend at royalty? The stylized incongruities certainly suit these cynical times. And yes, for good measure, the much-rumored Converse high tops (at least I agree that's what they look like) make their fleeting appearance among the young queen's exquisite footwear.
The movie takes on a semi-serious, idyllic turn in the scenes where the young queen indulges her fantasy of a peasant's life in the artificial village around the Petit Trianon, milking cows and gathering eggs, all soft focusy and dream like--a brief, happy period before she awakes to the realities of the impending revolution. It may only be fitting that we are spared the gruesome details following her departure from Versailles. Better to remember the grand times rather than a severed head.
And who knows, "the little Austrian" might have found this biopic amusing.
A street scene where nothing really happens goes on far longer than
it's supposed to. Or does it? Is it prolonged "dead time"? Did the
picture freeze up? It develops that the street scene is a videotape
being watched by two of the main protagonists of "Caché", themselves
being watched by an unknown observer who keeps leaving surveillance
videos at their doorstep. The viewer's point of view becomes the
characters' point of view which turns out to be, in turn, the unknown
observer's point of view. Thus the implied complicity among the
audience/viewers, the voyeur/observer and the observed subject, is
rendered explicit. Or is that too pat and simple and not relating to
anything at all?
We find out further that the subject of this surveillance is a TV talk show host, someone who is comfortable about being watched by millions but finds palpable menace in the seemingly ordinary footage of his everyday existence. Do the mundane and the banal take on the character of a threat once close attention and interest are vested in them?
The film's rhythm seems uneven. Cuts jump with a jarring suddenness from one scene to another, not seeming to follow the implied narrative. Did the editor insert scenes in the wrong places? Did outtakes somehow jump of their own volition off the cutting room floor and insinuated themselves into the final cut? Some scenes seem to "happen" without anything "happening" in them. But that is not a novel concept, of course: Do the scenes bear a closer look? Will a dead body materialize among the jumble of foliage in a corner if we freeze the picture and blow it up?(Huuuwwiiinngg! Antonioni alert!)
The film's director, Michael Haneke, would not disclose anything other than that it is a morality tale, how one deals w/ one's guilt, or how one's guilt is affected (or not) if both parties are culpable. He obviously revels in the film's ambiguous elements, particularly the film's seemingly unresolved conclusion. "There are 1000 truths", he says in an interview featured in the DVD, echoing the iconic Kurosawa film, "Rashomon", where each character had his/her own "truthful" version of an incident. The supposedly subjective quality of "the truth" is, again, not a novel concept.
There was another movie I saw long ago, a psychological drama where a character talks about the three kinds of secrets: The ones we don't tell other people, the ones we don't tell ourselves and finally, the third secret is the truth. Maybe that's the secret the director was proposing with this film, in his jagged and elliptical two-hour way. Surely this will be the subject of discussions among cineastes for some time; it may even become a classic(!).
But what if this movie was a joke tossed in the general direction of pretentious intellectuals? Was it a lark, a spree, was it very clear to see? Do you see a pair of dancing elephants in the ink blot? Or maybe this: It's a Hitchcockian thriller with a socio-political subtext fed by an undercurrent of guilt, a commentary on a national psyche's paranoia induced by past misdeeds. Or finally, to quote Hitchcock himself, this: "It's only a moooooovie!"
A bunch of store mannequins (from Neiman-Marcus or some such) dared to dream that they were humans spending an unusually chilly summer(there's this constant chatter about the pond freezing) in a sumptuously-appointed European spa. Problem is, they're a confused bunch--not knowing which is what, where, when with whom and which feelings/emotions go with which actions. The story randomly focuses on M, A and X (I'm sure other letters in the alphabet would have done just as well). A and X do a sort of protracted mating dance while M just looms menacingly. For all their dreaming and their imaginary conversations in elegantly-accented French, they can't leave behind the fact that they're store mannequins and can't keep themselves from posing in tuxes and fabulous Chanel gowns every chance they get while trying to make sense of what really happened last year at Marienbad. Or Frederiksbad. Or Baden-Salsa. Or is it going to happen next year and they're just imagining it already happened while in their putative dream state? I bought the VHS copy years ago and now have the DVD. I think I'll send my VHS copy to my old Prof in Creative Writing. She just might get inspired in striking a few poses in class while wearing Chanel knock-offs...
...this movie deserves a DVD release. I saw it on TV(missed the opening credits) years ago and years after its theatrical release. I had to call a friend to find out who this "European" director was. Surprise--Lumet? Still, I found the ambiguities and open-endedness intriguing. Glacial pacing? Bad acting? I've seen worse. Cinematography and narrative arc were unusual for an American director. The beautiful Anouk Aimée is always eminently watchable and for that alone we should be able to watch this again. Anyone out there have the wherewithal to get this out on DVD? I'm sure others would like to give this one another go and reconsider their opinions.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I saw this--what I've always thought to be a very violent--movie a few years after its initial release and then again more than a decade later on late night TV. I've always been intrigued by a lobby card I saw(one of several pictures from the movie actually posted in the theater lobby when theaters still did that)which looked like a scene missing from the movie. Yvette Mimieux's character(if memory serves)makes her first appearance through the binoculars of one of the characters as she ran, filthy and with torn clothing, through tall grass to catch the train. The intriguing lobby card, however, depicted her struggling and hanging upside down in her underwear while one of the rebels sat at a piano, his gun slung by a strap over his shoulder, pretending(?)to sing and play a tune. The implication--that she was brutalized before she escaped to catch the train--is obvious and I can only guess at the degree of brutality and violence depicted. I'm wondering if this scene was ever in any of the versions seen by the others who posted here. Even w/o that scene, however, I thought this movie was violent enough, at least to my impressionable mind when I was younger.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie might be pointless, meaningless fluff but it was entertaining enough to warrant a DVD release. I remember seeing a much shortened version on late night TV a long, long time ago and laughed myself silly, especially at the scene w/ Jack Lemmon in drag trying to make it to a dental appointment in between takes of a "Some Like It Hot" kind of movie, while Cantinflas, mistaken for a carhop, wreaks havoc in the parking lot w/ Lemmon's girlfriend's Jaguar. "There goes my girl's car!", he exclaims and then as the car crashes, "There goes my girl!". By the way, I don't think the preceding was a spoiler. It's fun to enjoy mindless entertainment from time to time, too bad it had to be at the expense of the talented Mario Moreno/Cantinflas who was presented as a racial stereotype. If you can get past that, there is a whole parade of stars who were THE stars during that period which, I'm sure, we all look back to w/ nostalgia. If only for nostalgia's sake, I vote for a DVD release of this movie.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |