As a historian I can say that there is little so difficult or gratifying as to bring history accurately alive for others. As a military historian I will say that war is both the highest and lowest achievement and calling of humanity. All wars are filled with pathos, and it is almost by definition impossible to fully understand and contextualize them until they are of the past. It may be that the US Civil War is that around which the greatest pathos exists; perhaps the last war in which honour and purpose were equally upheld on both sides - which is not to say that all those who participated were honorable or idealistic. In this work, Ken Burns brought history to life, made the war as understandable as possible, and transmitted the pathos, the honour, the horror, the vileness, and the humanity of the thing. In so doing he redefined film documentary. The Civil War is the best use to which television has been put.
Reviews
6 Reviews
The Civil War
(1990)
The best use to which television has been put
28 September 2002
As a historian I can say that there is little so difficult or gratifing as to bring history accurately alive for others. As a military historian I will say that war is both the highest and lowest achievement and calling of humanity. All wars are filled with pathos, and it is almost by definition impossible to fully understand and contextualize them until they are of the past. It may be that the US Civil War is that around which the greatest pathos exists; perhaps the last war in which honour and purpose were equally upheld on both sides - which is not to say that all those who participated were honorable or idealistic. In this work, Ken Burns brought history to life, made the war as understandable as possible, and transmitted the pathos, the honour, the horror, the vileness, and the humanity of the thing. In so doing he redefined film documentary. The Civil War is the best use to which television has been put.
Cinema Paradiso
(1988)
About as good as film gets
19 May 2001
A beautiful film - one in which acting, dialogue, story, emotion, location, music, and just about every other element of a good film are exactly right. I would love to see the 'director's cut'. Every emotion the director - the storyteller - desired in the viewer is elicited, but at no point is the viewer overtly manipulated. The film is sincere, genuine, and wonderfully absent of gimmickery. This is a rare film: every bit as good as a fine book.
Enemy of the State
(1998)
Unintentional Comedy
7 August 1999
Enemy of the State is a most annoying film. Even with an intensely unoriginal story, it could have been quite good. Unfortunately, by deciding to treat the audience as if its members were stupid, the film falls on its face. It is, literally, incredible.
Will Smith can act very well, as seen in Six Degrees of Separation. Unfortunately he mailed in this performance. Weak direction seems to have left everyone incapable of deciding what Smith's character should be: the smart, wise-cracking lawyer or the action hero? In North By Northwest Cary Grant never appears to have the full measure of the situation into which he has been thrust, rendering the film and his portrayal believable. In Enemy of the State, Will Smith seems to go from intelligent but confused dupe out of his depth to omniscient and omnipotent hero for no apparent reason. How?
Gene Hackman is, as always, eminently watchable and believable. Unfortunately, he has done this film before, played most of the characters better, and he must have known this cheap imitation of "The Conversation" wasn't even in the same league as the original. Two other great actors, Jon Voigt and Jason Robards, are wasted in this film. Robards' cameo at the beginning shows the impact a great screen actor can have in the smallest of roles. His proves in many ways more intriguing than any other character, and he's dead after the first five minutes!
The silliest thing about the film is the technology represented: satellites taking real-time, moving images of *infinite* resolution through clouds visible from the ground; call tracing which takes place in barely a minute, with 'kewl graphix'; ability to rotate a three dimensional image taken by a single *fixed* camera. Further offending the viewer are blatant and incessant product placements and excessively relaxed techno-geeks who are so stereotyped it's disgusting...not to mention the various ethno-stereotypes in the film, which annoyed me though I am proudly non-PC. Ugh.
This film is so ridiculous as to be an unintentional comedy. Hollywood wonders why Americans are perceived as buffoons they are not, and why some fellow countrymen seem to be convinced of endless government conspiracy?! More a Hollywood conspiracy to create audience stupidity.
Will Smith can act very well, as seen in Six Degrees of Separation. Unfortunately he mailed in this performance. Weak direction seems to have left everyone incapable of deciding what Smith's character should be: the smart, wise-cracking lawyer or the action hero? In North By Northwest Cary Grant never appears to have the full measure of the situation into which he has been thrust, rendering the film and his portrayal believable. In Enemy of the State, Will Smith seems to go from intelligent but confused dupe out of his depth to omniscient and omnipotent hero for no apparent reason. How?
Gene Hackman is, as always, eminently watchable and believable. Unfortunately, he has done this film before, played most of the characters better, and he must have known this cheap imitation of "The Conversation" wasn't even in the same league as the original. Two other great actors, Jon Voigt and Jason Robards, are wasted in this film. Robards' cameo at the beginning shows the impact a great screen actor can have in the smallest of roles. His proves in many ways more intriguing than any other character, and he's dead after the first five minutes!
The silliest thing about the film is the technology represented: satellites taking real-time, moving images of *infinite* resolution through clouds visible from the ground; call tracing which takes place in barely a minute, with 'kewl graphix'; ability to rotate a three dimensional image taken by a single *fixed* camera. Further offending the viewer are blatant and incessant product placements and excessively relaxed techno-geeks who are so stereotyped it's disgusting...not to mention the various ethno-stereotypes in the film, which annoyed me though I am proudly non-PC. Ugh.
This film is so ridiculous as to be an unintentional comedy. Hollywood wonders why Americans are perceived as buffoons they are not, and why some fellow countrymen seem to be convinced of endless government conspiracy?! More a Hollywood conspiracy to create audience stupidity.
Low comedy; decent spoof; good nostalgia; poor production
19 July 1999
Austin Powers, International Man of Mystery is funny. It's not witty. It's none too smart. It could have been much, much funnier. However it is undeniably funny, if you like disjointed sketch comedy stretch out to its maximum degree and if you have seen the plethora of films being spoofed. It isn't just James Bond films (Connery only, Myers has some taste) being parodied, nor even the genre (Avengers, The Prisoner, Secret Agent, Our Man Flint), it is also the 'long-60's era' (The Graduate, The better Carry On films, Casino Royale, The Mouse That Roared, I Love You Alice B. Toklas, Smashing Time, Sleeper).
The main problem here is that in Casino Royale, for instance, Peter Sellers - Myers' obvious template - already did a fantastic sendup of Bond. In that same film Ursula Andress was far more interesting and sexy than Alotta Fagina. Robert Wagner couldn't even begin to have the screen presence of Orson Welles as Le Chifre. In fact virtually nothing in Austin Powers is original. It's just a different person's vision of the same thing: parody revisited. In the best such parodies, however, the comedy is most effective when played straight. Austin Powers is intentionally camp and thus loses the edge it could have had, especially if it had been better written.
Two things *are* original, or very nearly. The contextual juxtaposition of the 60's and the 90's is amusing and should have been taken much further. The character of Dr Evil - who in a reverse of the Bond norm is the only character *with* a character - is very interesting and could have been further explored. And this is exactly where the film shows its true character: half developed ideas lost in the attempt to spoof an era. This is just a long series of sketches welded together...vaguely. The production quality is also low. This may have been part of the parody, but I don't think it is.
If you want to see hilarious, intelligent low-budget sketch comedy beautifully welded into a single story, see Monty Python and the Holy Grail. If you want a good giggle and someone else pays, Austin Powers is a good choice...if you've seen the right movies to get the jokes.
The main problem here is that in Casino Royale, for instance, Peter Sellers - Myers' obvious template - already did a fantastic sendup of Bond. In that same film Ursula Andress was far more interesting and sexy than Alotta Fagina. Robert Wagner couldn't even begin to have the screen presence of Orson Welles as Le Chifre. In fact virtually nothing in Austin Powers is original. It's just a different person's vision of the same thing: parody revisited. In the best such parodies, however, the comedy is most effective when played straight. Austin Powers is intentionally camp and thus loses the edge it could have had, especially if it had been better written.
Two things *are* original, or very nearly. The contextual juxtaposition of the 60's and the 90's is amusing and should have been taken much further. The character of Dr Evil - who in a reverse of the Bond norm is the only character *with* a character - is very interesting and could have been further explored. And this is exactly where the film shows its true character: half developed ideas lost in the attempt to spoof an era. This is just a long series of sketches welded together...vaguely. The production quality is also low. This may have been part of the parody, but I don't think it is.
If you want to see hilarious, intelligent low-budget sketch comedy beautifully welded into a single story, see Monty Python and the Holy Grail. If you want a good giggle and someone else pays, Austin Powers is a good choice...if you've seen the right movies to get the jokes.
Tampopo
(1985)
Archetypal comedy about food in society
17 July 1999
Juzo Itami is, roughly speaking, Japan's Woody Allen, although he made fewer and consistently better films before his tragic death. Itami's best film, and indeed one of the finest films ever made, Tampopo is at once a small Japanese film and a story which is international in essence. It is about that most central of substances in everyone's life: food. It is also about yearnings and love and quests. Food in Tampopo is not merely food, it is a metaphor for most other things in life, and it is a link between them as well. Tampopo is screamingly funny, whether seen in its original Japanese or through the (occasionally hard to read) English subtitles. Tampopo is also truly witty, moving, and filled with moments of pathos. No one who sees it can do so without being impressed by all its aspects, and desiring a trip to both Japan and the nearest udon shop.
'The Wedding Banquet' and 'Eat, Drink, Man, Woman' give every sense of having been influenced by Tampopo; as excellent as they are, Tampopo is the one to see first.
'The Wedding Banquet' and 'Eat, Drink, Man, Woman' give every sense of having been influenced by Tampopo; as excellent as they are, Tampopo is the one to see first.
Tell Your Friends