steven-f-freeman Reviews

Ip Man (2008)

Best martial arts movie of all time?!?!?!?!?

[3/10 · 6 January 2013]

The cover boasts "Best martial arts movie of all time. Hands down!" With an 8.1 IMDb rating and an engaging, plausible-sounding, story line of martial arts'-based resistance to 1930s Japanese imperialism, I figure this film is certainly worth a try. Especially since I have long practiced, respected and enjoyed martial arts, and the film claims to be based on the true story.

But how does any being of normal intelligence even sit through this movie, let alone sign on to IMDb and rate it a 8, 9 or 10??? Dimwitted, implausible story; and dimwitted, implausible characters. If in fact this film were representative of any martial arts code or practtioner behavior, that would be the end of martial arts. Every protagonist in the film is dead set on maiming or murdering each other -- and themselves! If in fact this film is even close to among the best martial arts movies now or ever, "martial arts" must be the most scum-ridden, unctuous backwater of film making that has ever existed -- a "genre" (if we can call it that) which makes XXX features high literature by comparison.

It's certainly the last such movie I'll ever watch.

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

Not funny. Not serious. Not meaningful. Not worth watching

[4/10 · 8 August 2012]

The Darjeeling Limited is not out-and-out terrible; it's pleasant, engaging and India is beautiful.

But in a sense, it's all the worse for that. Because you can't tell that it's pointless; all indicators -- the quality of the cast, the story setup, the characters, the quality of the filming -- suggest that this is going to be something special, so it's not until you've seen the whole movie that you know you've wasted your time.

The movie is a series of long, odd "humorous"? situations without punchlines or even punch. Part I is an encounter between Jason Schwartzman is hiding from the world in a 5-star hotel. His estranged lover, Natalie Portman, tracks him down. Ought to be good, but they engage in some cryptic dialog, never crack a smile, and that's that. Sadly like everything that follows, it amounts to nothing. Doesn't really make sense and there's not even enough there that you even wonder or care about what it's all about. Because obviously the writers don't even know or care; it's just some stuff that looked good on the screen.

Typical of the shoddiness of story is the bizarre waste of the Bill Murray character, who appears in a several minute sequence rushing in a taxi and running for the train. Nothing at all comes of it. It has no completeness in itself, but neither any connection with the story. He never appears again except in a meaningless montage of characters, aptly closing a meaningless film.

Beginners (2010)

If serious is funny, then this is f**king hilarious

[7/10 · 8 August 2012]

A decent movie on relationships, willingness to change and beginning anew. I particularly liked Hal, the main character's father and his willingness to change, live honestly, begin all sorts of new relationships even though he's 75 + and is diagnosed with Stage 4 cancer.

But if you're looking for a funny comedy, this is hardly that. In fact, the film's protagonist Oliver, though likable and sympathetic, is just about the least funny character you'll ever come across. One of his friends advises him "girls like funny" and asks another friend with them, Oliver used to be funny, no? She says no, "not funny--unless, like, serious is funny. Then he's f**king hilarious." That's this movie.

Crumb (1994)

Truth through and through

[10/10 · 8 February 2009]

"Crumb" is an amazing documentary about an extraordinary artist. Most great movies are great because they carry kernels of truth: Fellini on sexual desire and repression, The Godfather on the vagaries of morality and business, Casablanca of things bigger than ourselves, the great (anti)war movies on how politicians and generals coldly manipulate young men and ultimately murder them, etc., etc... But the classics are stylized accounts with kernels of truth. "Crumb," in contrast, is truth through and through uncompromisingly laid open. You don't realize how rare truth is until you finally see it.

Crumb's own oeuvre is a study in truth, inhabited by a menagerie of characters that haunt his subconscious: rigid "White Man," farcical hippie guru Mr. Natural, Amazonian Angel McSpade, the subhumans who beat up his brother as adolescents, and his own self-pitying self.

When he became a counter culture hero, Crumb promptly put the would-be worshipers at arm's length with his openly "perverse" sexual comics. He lampooned America and its critics alike, though "lampoon" isn't quite the right word, for his powerful critiques are frequently wordless, midnight black humor, if it's humor at all (see, for example, his History of America at www.zubeworld.com/crumbmuseum/history1.html). He drew what he felt and never sold-out, even turning down a commission to draw a Rolling Stones album cover because he didn't think much of their music. During the filming of the movie, he and his wife are moving to the south of France because America has become just too ugly, commercial and crass.

Interviewed in the film, he and his brothers acknowledge being unpopular wimps, abused by their father and many of their peers. Underlying the truth in his work lay the truth of his life and family, exposed with embarrassing candor. His older brother and mother never leave their small, poor home, though they have nothing in common so they just maintain an uneasy truce. His younger brother lives as a monk, drawing a long linen tape through his body to clean his intestines while sitting on a bed of nails. Neither brother has ever had sex.

Crumb, it's clear, loves them, and it's a painful, poignant love because he's also detached. What can he do after all, except accept them? His work too, is poignantly portrayed: at one point he sits semi-autistic listening to soulful old records (he's a collector), with a slow panning over a collage of haunting illustrations.

Crumb is routinely referred to as a pervert. And of course his family is deeply disturbed. But so is much of America. And so is much of the world. Psychiatrist Alfred Adler observed that "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well." So of course Crumb is not normal. He has allowed us to know him.

American Splendor (2003)

Ordinary life conveyed with extraordinary candor

[9/10 · 8 February 2009]

From the opening credits this movie captivated and continually surprised me, and in the end it's going to stay with me. American Splendor may not have the reach, scale or gravitas of a West Side Story or Godfather, but it is nevertheless nine stars for me.

And I think it's precisely because the film does not reach for the stars. American Splendor is an honest story on an honest scale, the real story of a regular guy who, "for the most part, lived in sh-t neighborhoods, held sh-t jobs." Harvey Pekar, we learn at the onset, is a real-life comic book character, but his were ANTI-superhero comics, about the challenges of everyday life: "No idealized sh-t; no phony bullsh-t." Not only is he not a superhero; he's also not a gangster or a gang member, a soldier or a spy, or anything we typically associate with high drama. Rather he's a Cleveland file clerk. Think about how often a file clerk is the star of a film, and you begin to get an idea of just how uncommon such honest stories are.

Now you might wonder why the story of a Cleveland file clerk would even be worth watching. But as Pekar observes, "ordinary life is actually pretty complex stuff." For example, after Pekar shares a brief, tender, heartfelt conversation with a former classmate he happens to run into, the glimpse of friendship/ affection/ love makes its ensuing absence almost unbearable.

The film, amazingly, captures the sweetness, sadness and complexity of ordinary life through a series of innovative maneuvers: having the real Harvey Pekar narrate and pop in to comment on the film along with his wife and friends and use of comic-strip scenes and video footage of Pekar's Dave Letterman appearances. But it's never innovation just to be different or even creative, but rather a way to maintain the honesty -- keeping the viewer in the know as to what's in front of and behind the camera. And rather than detract from the narrative sequence, the effects make the story all the more cohesive.

Pekar observes that although we inevitably lose the war (i.e., we die), we can win some battles along the way. Sometimes, though, even winning a single battle can seem next to hopeless. But although the odds were stacked mighty high against Pekar and American Splendor, both triumph boldly, an unqualified, wholehearted win that no subsequent loss, however inevitable, will ever undo.

Ghost World (2001)

The meaning of "Ghost World"

[7/10 · 16 January 2009]

I liked this movie very much, not so much while watching (we were expecting more of a comedy), but upon reflecting that night. To me, "Ghost World," the title, refers to a world that's no longer alive to the main characters, especially Enid, though also to a lesser degree Rebecca and Seymour. Enid's life is no in longer in the world in which she has grown up, certainly not with her father, and not being carried along with the mainstream thoughtlessness and a lock-step life (e.g., just going to college cause everyone else does). But neither is the plan she long shared with Rebecca -- working in a whatever-type job and living independently -- working out. The idea of moving in with Seymour and becoming his girlfriend was borne of a sentiment of desperation that she almost immediately recognized as such.

The movie is about growing up and moving on from ghosts and into life, and how hard, but necessary that is. I wasn't thrilled with the Norman/Bus story line, but I understand it as a metaphor. It seems as though there is no bus-line out of town, but in fact there is. Enid "doesn't know what (she's) talking about" when she repeats what everyone knows and what is written on the bench about this line not being in service. The one person she imagines will always be there, crazy Norman waiting for the bus, in fact, leaves on that bus. She sees both that no one is always there as you might want them to be, and also that it is possible to leave. Having attempted but not surrendered to the unsatisfactory options in her world (she won't toe the company line at her movie-theater job, won't accept life with a totally out-of-touch father and fiancée, and won't become Seymour's girlfriend/wife), she realizes after a great deal of probably necessary pain that if she is to join the world of the living, she, too, must leave what has become her Ghost World.

Recount (2008 TV Movie)

Extraordinarily accurate and on target

[10/10 · 1 January 2009]

I have been studying and writing about elections and election fraud for several years. I studied the 2000 Florida election in great detail, writing a chapter in my book, "Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count" (Seven Stories Press, 2006), on the subject: "Chapter 2. Florida sets the Stage in 2000." Recount dramatizes the count-the-ballots battle in Florida after the 2000 election. In my experience, reporting on events about which I am knowledgeable often barely resemble the reality because of errors, shortcuts and important omissions which seem inevitably to be part of the process. But I saw no errors or inaccuracies at all in Recount. Everything and everyone was portrayed consistent with my understanding of what happened and the actual behavior of the cast of characters. Moreover, they amazingly touch on every important point despite the standard length film time and story-line constraints. It's obvious that extraordinary effort went into researching what happened and crafting the story-lines. Finally, it's a momentous, high drama, tightly told and cut with many powerful scenes, including the final scene of (uncounted) ballots sitting in boxes in a warehouse. The acting is as good as it gets. Whether or not you think you already know what happened, this is a highly compelling film.

Something's Gotta Give (2003)

Great cast, Great story concept. Terrible movie

[3/10 · 20 June 2008]

I was really disappointed by this movie.

Great cast, Great story concept. Some good dialog, enough for an appealing trailer... but a terrible movie.

Totally unbelievable, ludicrous plot and character development.

It's hard to be both totally predictable and ludicrously implausible at the same time. But this movie manages both.

Jack Nicholson was OK (which is terrible for him). Keanu Reeves was unlikely. Keaton's character became ridiculous. When she was going berserk telling Nicholson's character how much she loved him, it was just too much. My entire family, all of us with different tastes, gave up on the movie.

To top it off, there were many continuity errors. Pathetic commentary on film critics that it won so many awards.

Amazing Grace (2006)

Great story, melodramatically told

[6/10 · 8 June 2008]

Great story, melodramatically told.

The politics didn't ring true to me at all: Why would Pitt care that much about bringing Wilberforce onto his team? Would any MP, e.g., Wilberforce and the other abolitionists, count on the "integrity" of other MPs to sway their vote? The supposed parliamentary debates seemed unreal (there was no parliamentary procedure) and not even particularly intelligent or compelling. For example: The abolitionists never even address the questions raised by Dundee and others about the effect on the nation and the claim that the French would immediately fill the void. Another was Wilberforce's "evidence that the Africans themselves opposed slavery" -- a petition by English people supporting abolition.

Another shortcoming: They didn't include a particularly good version of the title song.

Love Actually (2003)

Please, Grow up

[2/10 · 26 December 2007]

If this film were made by an eight year old girl playing "pretend" with her five-year-old cousins ("OK, Hughie, pretend you're the prime minister and now you're crying cause you love me … Billy Bob, you can be the president … "), I might say it was cute.

But as a feature film? Pathetic. Anyone who works with movies who gives this film a thumbs up ought to be drummed out of the industry. And any male giving it a 6 or higher might as well cut off his testicles. This movie is for functional eunuchs only.

There isn't a remotely realistic plot line or honest dialog in the 45 minutes I tolerated. The only honest sentiment comes from a down-and-out singer who acknowledges his current song is a craven, purely-commercial, Christmas "turd." One can only hope that this is a wink from the producers telling us they understand exactly what kind of movie they have made.

Unfortunately, it's not just harmless fun. Such insipid cultural output leads directly to an addle-headed world of McDonalds-eating, People magazine-reading, American Idol-watching morons who swallow every piece of crap proclaimed by the US and UK governments, preached from Jesus-land pulpits and broadcast on Fox News.

People, please abandon this kind of rot. Get off your fat &$#! Think. Grow up.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

Primal honesty and morality

[10/10 · 26 December 2007]

After many years of barely watching any movies, I treated myself to several classics recently. And this was the best.

That I so enjoyed this movie so much came as a shock to me. I literally never before have been able to even sit through a western, which (in my admittedly limited experience) was schlock action starring John Wayne as the taciturn all-American good guy being tough and beating up the outlaws. Watching GBU, I was enthralled for the entire three hours. Twice. And if I had time, I would have watched it a third time.

The setting is typically western: a dry, dusty panorama in which men barely co-exist with each other; few wasted words; and lots of action, horses, and gunfighting in a wild west barely governed by incipient institutions of law & order – all shrouded within a morality play of good vs. bad. But what I liked so much is exactly what I hate about John Wayne westerns – the seriousness and honesty with which moral context is considered. In Hollywood, good vs. bad is as thoughtlessly superscripted as the protagonists' white and black hats. In GBU every remnant of moralizing has been ruthlessly cut.

Good, Bad, and Ugly are personified in the form of three characters: Bad ("Sentenza") is the easiest to understand. He is *very* bad, perhaps not so different from other villains, but much more sharply developed; murderous, sadistic, traitorous, and remorseless. Good ("Blondie") and Ugly ("Tuco") are more puzzling, but their labels are the key to the movie. Both Blondie and Tuco are outlaws and killers with only the barest hint of morality, but they're not evil in the same way that Sentenza is. Tuco is demonstrative, emotional, loud, wild, and unpredictable; but driven by survival rather than satanic urges. Blondie is cool, calm, rational and controlled – in many ways similar to Sentenza – but whereas Sentenza tortures, maims, kills, and lies for the hell of it, even apparently enjoys it, Blondie simply goes about his business coolly, and shows several poignant hints of empathy, decency, and a sense of justice.

GBU takes place during the Civil War and strips away the high-level political struggle of history books, leaving us with the soldier's vantage point of brutality, pointless death, and some individual decency. The politics are indecipherable from this vantage point. GBU hits this point home when our protagonists wind up in a prison camp because the oncoming gray cavalry uniforms turn out to be dust-covered blue. Later, they encounter an army fighting over a worthless bridge, suffering countless pointless deaths and casualties. Because Leone has so rigorously excised traditional off-the-shelf morality, the few instances of humanity are remarkably poignant. One such instance is when Blondie shares his coat and cigar with a dying soldier; another is when prisoners are forced – by Sentenza's orders – to play music to cover up the screams of the tortured. Sentenza apparently enjoyed the irony of beautiful sounds used for such ends; the musicians are, of course, pained by it.

That was one of many extraordinarily striking scenes. The honesty of the moral context was what I liked best about the film, but I liked everything else too. Indeed the same primal, ruthless honesty that characterizes the character development pervades the film. The music is unlike anything I'd ever heard – it's an audible version of the arid west and the tensions and lawlessness that characterize the film. Underlying the entire score is one instantly memorable theme starting off with what sounds like a screaming hyena. The story took place in New Mexico, and even though it was filmed in Spain, it really does look like New Mexico; and just as in life in the American west, the wide, breathtaking panorama tends to subordinates dialog. Indeed, it is several minutes into the film before even one word is spoken.

The plot was extremely clever – and never predictable. High level suspense is maintained for the full three hours. It was hard to imagine how it could unfold – three uncompromising outlaws in search of one buried treasure; cooperation was not in their nature, but nothing was ever done out of character. Any Western cliché that you can think of is either given a unique twist or destroyed by masterful storytelling. For example there is an utterly irreverent scene in which Tuco meets his brother, a sincere Priest, and turns platitudes upside down. The brother begins with the standard rebuke of the criminal's behavior, but Tuco punches back and says, "Where we come from there were only two ways out. You lacked the courage to do what I've done." The movie is also irreverently funny: For example, Twice Tuco gained the upper hand on Blondie and said:

"There are two kinds of spurs(?), my friend. Those that come in by the door, and (crosses himself) those that come in by the window."

"There are two kinds of people in the world, my friend. Those who have a rope around their neck and those who have the job of cutting." Later Blondie gained the advantage of Tuco and observed:

"You see in this world there's two kinds of people my friend - those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig." In addition to all these specific attributes, a unique and strikingly cool style infuses the entire film: long scenes of tense silences – never for an instant boring; and telling, startling close-ups and transitions. Most noteworthy was the film's climax. As the protagonists stand there with their fingers on their holsters, waiting for the first person to go for their gun(s), the transitions start out slowly, and speed up as the tension increases. As I write this, I wish I had my own copy of the film, just so I could see this scene again.

Not just a great western, but easily one of the best movies of *any* kind ever made.

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003)

Distraction for the brain dead

[2/10 · 14 March 2006]

If this is among the best from Hollywood, I don't think I'm going to another for a long time.

I know I'm in the minority, but I just don't see the point of this movie. Its plot was totally predictable, filled with all the usual silly impossible heroics. The protagonists, by all rights, should have been killed many times over.

The movie also had a rash of other implausibilities, e.g., no one on the protagonists' crew died despite sustained mortal combat against a superior foe, who by virtue of a curse, could not die. The ending was especially nonsensical: several times throughout the movie, Orlando Bloom had been condemned to death (of course, he implausibly escapes each time) after having saved the life of the beloved fiancée of the commander (and daughter of the governor). Then at the end, they simply lets him and his accomplice go?!?! Even the Johnny Depp character, which admittedly had some charm and craftiness, didn't make sense: why was he seemingly quasi-drunk all the time, slurring his syllables? And why all the eye-makeup? In the end, I wonder about all the money spent on this movie, and about a society in which a silly, pointless fantasy can be lauded as among the finest cultural outputs in years.