Change Your Image
kevhol2000
Reviews
Rob Roy (1995)
This film is better than "Braveheart" and here's why....
**Attention Spoilers**
First of all, let me say that Rob Roy is one of the best films of the 90's. It was an amazing achievement for all those involved, especially the acting of Liam Neeson, Jessica Lange, John Hurt, Brian Cox, and Tim Roth. Michael Canton Jones painted a wonderful portrait of the honor and dishonor that men can represent in themselves. But alas...
it constantly, and unfairly gets compared to "Braveheart". These are two entirely different films, probably only similar in the fact that they are both about Scots in historical Scotland. Yet, this comparison frequently bothers me because it seems to be almost assumed that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". I like "Braveheart" a lot, but the idea of comparing it to "Rob Roy" is a little insulting to me. To put quite simply, I love "Braveheart", but it is a pale shadow to how much I love "Rob Roy". Here are my particular reasons...
-"Rob Roy" is about real people.
Let's face it, the William Wallace in "Braveheart" is not a real person. He's a legend, a martyr, a larger than life figurehead. Because of this depiction, he is also a perfect person, never doing wrong, and basically showing his Scot countrymen to the promised land. When he finally does fail, it is not to his fault. Like Jesus, he is betrayed by the very people he trusted most. He even goes through the worst kind of torture because he wants freedom so much.
The depiction of Wallace is very well done and effective. But it really doesn't inspire or intrigue me. I find human ambiguity far more facinating than human perfection. That is why "The Last Temptation of Christ" is a better film than "King of Kings", and that is also one of the reasons why I think "Rob Roy" is better than "Braveheart". Rob Roy may be heroic and brave, but he is far from perfect. He makes several mistakes that affected the lives of many of his loved ones. Now sure, not bearing false claim against the Duke of Argyll was an act of nobility and courage, but it was also an act of egoism and self centeredness. Let us not forget that the kinfolk that he had claimed to protect were driven homeless by the end of the film because of this act. But Rob did the best he could, and that was all you could ask of him.
Rob's Wife Mary, is also a normal, ambigious person. Let us start though, with how she looks in this film. Sure, she's beautiful, but she doesn't wear makeup and she basically allows her natural beauty to show. Compare this with the two loves (or one, depending on your point of view) of William Wallace in "Braveheart". Now these two ladies are hot, but hardly indicitive of how women looked at the time (especially the lay persons). Maybe not a fair comparison, but just another example of how Rob Roy's attempts for accuracy are far more effective.
Throughout "Rob Roy", Mary has to live with her vicious rape by the dastardly carrion, Cunningham. She feels compelled to tell Rob of her struggle, but doesn't because she knows that Rob must seek revenge for her rape. Such revenge would surely mean the death of Rob, and Mary is not prepared for such a sacrifice.
The villains in "Rob Roy" are equally as compelling. Although the enemies in "Braveheart" are well written, they are hardly original. Robert the Bruce, a man both brave and cowardly, is plagued by moral decisions that are all to familar in the fictional realm. Should he take his claim as the king of Scotland, or should he betray Wallace in order to ensure the safety of his family name? Bruce is the most ambigious character in "Braveheart", but from Brutus in "Julius Ceasar" to Fredo in "The Godfather Part II", these types of characters are hardly original. Longshanks, although a compelling villain in his own right, is very one dimensional. He is the epidemy of evil, and his tyrant ways stand in direct contrast to Wallace's heroism.
"Rob Roy" has three villains that are wonderful in their chicanery. First of all, let's start with Marquis of Montrose. He is a man who is so obsessed with his self image, that he's willing to let an innocent man suffer because of it. "See to it that I am not mocked" are his favorite words to his "factor". He is a man obsessed with power, upset that a man of great noble bearing as the Duke of Argyll can be considered of greater providency then him. He is shamefully self obsessed and insecure. He is an evil aristocrat, but in ways that make him unique.
Cunningham and Callarn are the conspirators in "Rob Roy", and are also Roy's direct assailants. Callarn is so cunning in his cowardace that he is almost comical. He will do anything to maintain the good will of the Marquis, which includes backstabbing and trickery. Cunningham is a compelling character in that he seems to have been raised to do whatever he can to obtain status and the affection of the Marquis. He needs a father, little does he know that the Marquis is his real father. Therefore, when the opportunity to obtain wealth comes from Callarn, he grabs it without even questioning it. He is very much like the evil of modern man, so self centered and vain that he cares not about the consequences of his actions on others.
Many have criticized Tim Roth's performance in this film as overacting. Hogwash I say. It is clear that Cunningham is not simply evil but also psychopath throughout the film. In a world where a man and his stepson can go around shooting random people for amusement, is Cunningham too much of an unbelievable character? We live in a society where people seem to have decreased the value of human life. "Rob Roy" simply teaches us that only the circumstances of this decreased value has changed. It is a problem throughout human history that the vanity of the human heart will not allow for the capacity for compassion. Rob Roy and Mary give us hope that goodness will prevail, but snakes will always exist in our world.
Another character that I find fascinating is the Duke of Argyll. He is a true nobleman, and his values of honesty and courtesy are in direct contrast to the Marquis. He appreciates the bravery of Rob Roy and Mary, and has a direct vexation for the Marquis and his factor. He gives the world hope for the people of power. Hopefully, people like the Marquis are an exception and not the rule.
- The final duel in "Rob Roy" is more exciting then 10 of the battle scenes in "Braveheart".
One thing I get tired of is people telling me that "Braveheart" is a better film because of the battle scenes. First of all, battle scenes are hardly original. From "Spartacus" to "Gladiator", Hollywood has had a long tradition of historical European battle scenes. "Braveheart" has some of the best battle scenes ever put on film, but they suffer from one important problem. These battle scenes have no context except for the fight for freedom.
Now, don't get me wrong, duels are hardly original either. In fact, there are probably 10 times as many films with duels as there are with battle scenes. But the context of the duel between Cunningham and Rob Roy is a beauty to behold. It is one of the greatest scenes in film history. Let me explain why...
First of all, the fighting style and the bearing of the two characters in this duel describe the characters perfectly. Cunningham is effette and dangerous, Rob Roy is strong and courageous. Cunningham uses a fencing sword while Rob uses a broadsword. Cunningham fights with quick tricky movements, while Roy's fighting style is more obvious.
The whole film, from the deliberately slow first half to the exciting second half, is leading up to this moment. It is powerful stuff, and it is clear that Rob must exterminate this menacing evil that has plagued his whole world. When Rob finally gets the upper hand (literally and figuratively,) it is one of the greatest moments in film history. Rob wins because he has more to live for, and his honor is more powerful than 10 Cunningham's. The use of music is absolutely chilling in this scene. Good prevailing against a real evil is more powerful to me than seeing a dude get disemboweled just so he can yell "FREEDOM!". But hey, maybe that's just me.
- "Rob Roy" is more realistic than "Braveheart"
I don't know that people in the aristocracy or Scotsmen talked like the people in "Rob Roy", but I do feel that it clearly an attempt to capture their speech patterns. I feel that many people are bored by "Rob Roy" simply because they can't understand what the characters are saying. If this is the case, then read some Shakesphere, or put on the close-captioning. "Rob Roy" is actually one of the greatest written films of the 90's. Many of the dialogue in this film is clever, but maybe you have to watch the film a couple of times to understand it.
By contrast, the dialogue in "Braveheart" is hardly very interesting. Of course, what do you expect when the main character is a Scotsman played by an Australian? This is a legend, and there was clearly not an attempt to capture the speech of the times. This film takes place several centuries before "Rob Roy", and yet they talk like the people today. Thus the reason that many people like it better. Audiences today have become increasingly lazy, and they don't want to take the time or patience to understand things that are complex. Therefore, as with many epic films, they expect to see the villians speak a recognizable English accent while the heroes speak in a vernacular not too far away from our American language. Sure, it is clear that the Wallace is Scotish, but other than sounding like Scotty from Star Trek and a couple of "Aye"s for acknowledgement, the Scots in this film fit into the Hollywood tradition of how we believe Scots should sound.
So, do these descriptions prove that "Rob Roy" is a better film than "Braveheart"? Hardly. But if it proves one thing, it shows that it is hardly common knowledge that "Braveheart" is a better film than "Rob Roy". To put simply, "Rob Roy" is a film that has themes that are very apropos in today's world. "Braveheart" is a film about a legend that is inspiring but hardly realistic. You can make a decision on what you think is better...
Grade - A Score - 9
Red Dragon (2002)
A very good film (from a Manhunter Fan's perspective)
**Attention Spoilers***
"Red Dragon" is a very good film. A dramatic retelling of a book that has inspired the imaginations of many readers. It is also, as many have already described, a book that has already been made into a controversial yet brilliant film entitled "Manhunter".
I personally feel that both films are equally good. "Red Dragon" improves many of the inadaquacies of "Manhunter" while not really touching that film's brilliant flouishes. Put simply, "Manhunter" seems to be a director's movie while "Red Dragon" favors actor and story. I feel almost honored to see two interpretations of such a great novel.
I will not describe the plot, but I will just say that I believe it is the best of the Hannabal Lecter stories, much better than "Silence of the Lambs". I think "Silence" is a great film, but it suffers from a lackluster villain (Buffalo Bill) who doesn't even compare to the Tooth Fairy. Francis Dolarhyde is a remarkable villian, an evil man yet strangely worthy of our sympathy, or at least our empathy. Ralph Fiennes plays this role perfectly. You can sense the evil in his tortured presence. Yet, much like Dr. Lecter, we still want him to break out of his bondage with the Red Dragon, and run away with true love. Emily Watson is also wonderful. You can sense her need for affection and belonging. Its a great performance, Oscar worthy.
Edward Norton and Harvey Keitel are also good in their respective roles, and Anthony Hopkins is great as always. I enjoyed Norton, but this film doesn't belong to him. The scenes in the film that will become embedded in my memory are the scenes with Francis Dolarhyde and Hannabal Lecter. This film is about tortured people, who are chained to the monsterous chasm of their very soul.
"Manhunter", by contrast, was a film about a man who must look into the depths of this chasm to find these tortured people. William Peterson's performance and Michael Mann's stylish direction was the key to that film. Although Brian Cox and Tom Noonan were good in their respective roles, we never really got to glimpse into their madness. The direction "Red Dragon" takes is the opposite. And we, as the audience, are given two great films as a result.
Score: 7.5 Grade: B+
Defending Your Life (1991)
A great, very poignant comedy
I have to say that I have a certain appreciation for this film that few could probably say. Its very sentimental to me. Watching this film evokes memories of my childhood. I remember going to the theater with my best friend in 8th grade, not having much to see. We kind of watched this movie on a whim, not really realizing how good it was going to be. I'm sure many people who rent this film have the same experience. Theres something magical in this film. It really has a message that is so important to our lives. That message, is that fear runs our lives and presents us from being happy.
You know what, when you think about it, its so true! There are so many people who live their lives with such confidence, such grace. They don't go around wishing that they had done more, that they had done this or done that. Life is different for these kind of people, and for the unfortunate unhappy people (which is most of us), we seem to have spite of these types. Yet, we strangely admire (or at least should) them for their philosophy and unique appreciation of life.
The Meryl Streep character is an example of this graceful wonder. She is what we aspire to be, but maybe never quite attain. She is so confident and happy in her life that things seem to come easily, without many crossroads or barriers. She may have fear, but she's learned to live with it, and achieve great feats by defeating it.
The Albert Brooks character, is quite simply us. Oh, the scene where he's about to make the speech! Its so horrifying because I have felt exactly that way. When we observe it, it seems comical because it really kind of silly to get all worked up about a speech. But on a deeper level, it hurts, because I know I've been in that situation. You know that even though he might have been "relieved" that he wouldn't have to make the speech. But inside, he knew he would never go on that stage again, and that's quite a humiliating thing to think about.
I don't really understand people who criticize this film's afterlife. Its not supposed to be religious. Its metaphorical, and actually very clever. Believe me, when you think about it, our lives seem more relevant according to this afterlife, then in other religious surroundings such as Heaven or Nirvana.
This film is very funny as well. But I will not give away anything. I won't even set up any jokes. Just experience it, and try to think about if there have ever been any time you've felt pains in your stomach...
Score: 8.5 Grade: A-
The Godfather Part III (1990)
Somewhere, there is a great movie in here...
*Attention Spoilers*
"The Godfather: Part III" is quite simply, one of the most misconceived films ever made. Its incredible the amount of love and effort put into a film that's so mediocre. It is like the black sheep of the family, much like the Fredo in the Corleone family. There is a lot to like about this movie, but it just doesn't jell together.
So, what's wrong? Well, I think one problem is that Coppola should have trusted his original instincts when it came to approaching this film. Coppola originally didn't even want to make this film have "The Godfather" in the title. All he wanted, was something conoctating that this was a film about Michael Corleone and his redemption. That's it. While this film is epic in scale, with elaborate set pieces and beautiful scenes, it would have been better to make this film a lot smaller, more personal. Just about all the scenes where Michael deals with his enemies, although they are entertaining, have a been there/done that feel to them. They all feel like Coppola was trying to make an epic even greater than the first two films. Instead, he made a film that seemed strangely impersonal and distant (even though the true subject matter of this film is far from it).
Case in point, take the first long scene, where we meet all the characters again in Michael's party celebrating his charity donations. In the first two films, the long opening scenes had a symbolic significance. The first film's wedding, demonstrated the great Italian cultural heiritage present in the Corleone life. The second film's party, showed Michael's continuing distance from his heiritage, through his acceptance and approval of typical American norms and behaviors. So, my question is, what significance does this first long scene in the third film have? It seems to me, that the only reason this was done, was just because it was done in the last two films. There's no need for a scene like this, it was well established in the last film that Michael destroyed his relationships in order to achieve absolute power. This film should have been about Michael trying to rekindle these fragile relationships (which, in a way it is). Therefore, the introduction of all these new characters, just get in the way of what the film is truly about.
At least though, this first party scene is well filmed and entertaining. The final sequence, the typical montage of violent events that occurs in all these films, is so confusing and inept, that you kind of wonder if Coppola even cared about it.
There are though, very many things to like about this film. It is pretty entertaining on a visceral level. I liked the villians of this film, they were well played, even though I feel that they were unnecessary to the story. Andy Garcia is wonderful as Sonny's bastard son, and Al Pacino and Diane Keaton are great together, and both give great performances. But...
Man, Sophia Coppola is BAD. She is awful. Its strange, because she is such an important character. You have to give Coppola credit though, because she was a risk. By casting a nonactress in this role, Coppola was trying (I think) to show a person of complete innocence and their relationship with a father who they think the best of (which is far from the truth). She is like Jar Jar Binks in this way, a failure that is noble just because it was a risk, though misconceived she was. But, I wish I could say she was a bad actress, at least then there would be something to analyze. But she almost seems like an extra even when doing emotional lines. She doesn't even act, which is the worst thing you could ever say about a performance. I heard that Wyona Ryder was originally cast in this role. Obviously, that choice was a lot better, but what are you gonna do?
Also, the actor that plays Michael's son fares little better. Its not really his fault though. The idea that he would become the star of an Italian opera, just getting out of school, is really ridiculous. Also, for a guy who's so important to the story, he sure has a small part! I wish there was some way they could have gotten Robert Duvall to come back, because Tom Hagen, really my favorite character in the whole Godfather saga, is sorely missed.
Still, I'm giving this film a 6. I think its because it is entertaining, and the scenes where Michael comes into grips with his sins, and tries for reconciliation, are powerful moments overwise sorely missing in this film.
Score: 6 Grade: B-
The Godfather Part II (1974)
Not a sequel in the strictest sense...
*Attention Spoilers*
There are two scenes in "The Godfather Part II" that completely describe the mastery and eloquence of this wonderful film. One scene is at the very beginning. I am referring to the party celebrating Michael's son's first communion. The music and atmosphere play in strict contrast to the beginning of the first film. In "The Godfather", the Corleone family was fully emersed into the Italian life. They were completely outside the American ideal, basing their lives on values learned through Sicilian experience and heiritage. The music during the wedding was Italian, even the food was Italian. During Michael's party in the second film, the music played is distinctly American, so much so that the pure blooded Italian, Frank Pantangali become upset and insulted by the whole presidings. He tries to get the band to play Italian music, and they rebel. He accuses Michael of ignoring his heiritage by moving to Las Vegas and drinking champaign (instead of the wine that Italians usually drink). The irony, is that Michael probably thought that ignoring his ancestory would help the family eventually become legitimate. Instead, by vacating everything thing that defines him, Michael becomes a castle among himself, a powerful man who is as hollow as he is evil.
The theme here, is that the American capitalist system is in many ways more corrupting than anything ever seen previously. For example, in the first film, the villains (including Vito), although evil and corrupt, are still men of honor and take action based on this honor, no matter how misguided. There may be backstabbing, but it is, as many would say, strictly business. Michael in this film, by contrast, seems to have forgone any resemblence of these honorable traits. He kills men without any basis other than for the acquisition of complete power. He commits fratracide because he wants to destroy all those who have wronged him, even though he has done more harm to his family then Fredo would ever think of doing (especially to all those close to him: Kay, Tom Hagen, his children, and of course Fredo). But again, he's only working under the system he's entered into. This is clear when he negotiates with a corrupt Senator at the beginning of the film. This Senator clearly has no guidelines or values to follow, he only wants what many people in his position want, money and more Power. But Michael is smarter, and understands that having such a man as an ally is better than killing him. Vito, by contrast, probably would have had Luca Brasi put a bullet through his head for a man of his power treating others of similar status with such disrespect. Thus, there is no longer a showing of decorum in the American system, only crass "directness" and dishonesty. I think, the corruption in the American system is part of the reason why "The Sopranos" is so popular today. With all the scandals like Enron, many criminals in white collar society can screw people over, even their friends and get a mere slap on the wrist. In "The Sopranos", if you go against the Family you get wacked. Plain and simple.
The Vito scenes in "The Godfather Part II" are used to contrast those of Michael. Yet, even though Vito's actions seem more honorable, he is slowly getting corrupted as well. It is clear, that killing the town boss was not a selfless act of a caring man. It was a power play, a way for Vito to acquire power himself, because just as he hated that boss, he strangely admired him as well. In a way, Vito loses his innocence the moment he witnesses the bosses power at the play, and continues on a dark path that Michael embarks and completes by the end of the film.
My favorite scene in all "The Godfather" films is the scene at the end, where we see all our favorite characters (except Vito), some dead, at the table and Michael announces that he is going into the army. This scene is one of great sadness, because Michael was such an intelligent man that he knew what the "life" would mean to his soul. He knew that he would lose everything if he went on that dark path, and that is the tragedy...
9/10 Grade: A
Zombie Nightmare (1987)
BAD, yet very funny!!!
Zombie Nightmare is one of those "funny in a bad way" movies that's actually quite endearing. I admit, I'm basing this review on the MST episode. Yet, I beg anyone who loves the show who hasn't seen this episode to see it. This is classic 80's pain, much like what "Angel's Revenge" did for the 70's.
Oh well, where to begin. The funniest moment actually occurs in the first minute of the movie. I won't give it away, yet I will say that its supposed to supply quite a "jolt", but instead is probably one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. I love the use of music in this scene too. Its almost like the makers of this movie seemed to think they were so "cool". Yes, I am a fan of Motorhead!
I guess, the synoposis of this movie is this. Big, heavy metal dude gets killed by punks, then gets turned into a zombie and seeks revenge. That's about it. Adam West may have played Batman, but let's face it, he's a horrible actor. His scenes don't even seem phoned in. He plays such a jerky detective, yet he's strangely distant and disjointed. I think if you had a hypnotized actor doing a role, that actor would have more interest than West has in this movie.
There are also "great" scenes where West's young detective protege thinks that something else is killing the kid's, and a great argument ensues. This is DRAMA!
2/10 movie grade A- MST episode grade
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)
Um, not so fresh...
This is the kind of film that is really good as a time capsule, but doesn't really bode well as a good movie. I won't elaborate, because I think past posts have explained most things very well, thank you. But here are the problems:
1. This film is about an issue. There is hardly any line of dialogue that doesn't deal with this couple's relationship and dealing with the reality in the real world. Yes, this issue is relevant today, but the issue presented here is hardly relevant, because the suitor is...
2. Sydney Poitier! I mean, this guy is the man! Poitier never played a character more perfect than this, and usually, his characters are pretty perfect! He is a demi-God of all that is right with the world. A doctor who probably deserves the Noble Prize.
Well, there are other things. But I won't sway too much on the negative. I did enjoy Spencer Tracy in this movie, and did find some moments funny. A film like this should be congratulated for putting an issue like this in our nation's conscience. Its just too bad it hasn't aged well.
6/10
Philadelphia (1993)
Compelling Film about Human Beings
Yes, films like "And the Band Played Slowly" deal more factually about the issues dealing with AIDS. Yes, the film does "sell out" by depicting a homosexual character with AIDS who never seems to show affection for his male partner beyond a little hugging. Yes, the characters in this film are played by actors who are almost universally liked, and distract the viewers from the compelling reality that AIDS affects many people who engage in behavior that to many people is morally ambiguous. Yes, and most importantly, this film is flawed as a story because its plot is related to the status of courtroom drama.
Yet, aside from these apparent roadblocks, "Philadelphia" is a beautiful drama. The beauty of this film lies in the way certain scenes captivate the soul, and unleash the universal patterns of humanity that most of us share. Take for instance, the scene where Andrew's boyfriend is angered by Andrew's apparent lack of interest in anything else other than work. The dialogue in this scene, the anger and compassion exhibited by Banderas, and the look of emotional tenderness by Hanks, is positively sublime. This scene exhibits the love these two characters share that is both tender and original. This scene is a better example of love than any make out session.
There are also many other wonderful scenes. The scene where Andrew talks with his caring family, the famous opera scene with virtuoso performances by Hanks and Washington, and the final heartbreaking scene, showing Andrew as a child playing in the ocean.
The theme of this film, I think, is spoken by a previous employee of Andrew's lawfirm who received HIV by transfusion. She states quite clearly that its not about who's fault it is, or why you got the disease, you just try to survive with it. Those naysayers of this film seem to miss this important point. We should all have the love of life that Andrew seems to have. Yet, we should all feel privileged to continue a life that people like Andrew lose every day. I think, what offends people the most, is that Philadelphia is not really about an issue. It is really about a human being who doesn't want to lose his life, but has bravely accepted it anyways. 8/10