dave9999-1 Reviews

Bartleby (II) (1970)

A 'Must see' classic !

[10/10 · 5 February 2007]

*****May contain spoilers******May contain spoilers****** *****Does contain spoilers******Does contain spoilers****** Best to Go get a copy of the film NOW before reading any more Bartleby reviews.

It has taken nearly 35 years to finally find out the identity of this haunting, mesmerising classic. I can remember seeing this film in the early 1970's on British TV on a B/W TV not yet even in my teens. Never been able to forget it since. It has haunted me. I have only ever seen it the once. The blackness of this film has attached itself to my inner-core ever since.

The film as I recall portrays a sad slow decline into debilitating Mental Illness and Infirmity, set initially in a lively functioning office workplace. It is a very disturbing film, portraying the slow death of a man. With nobody, really noticing or caring much about 'Bartleby's' problem, until it was too late. (The Manager did show some interest towards the end, no doubt due to some kind of loyalty or guilt).

His office staff colleagues were of course shocked and disturbed by his increasingly incredible behaviour. Wanting him to be out of their environment for convenience sake. Not knowing how to deal with him. Not knowing how to deal with death.

A classic film, in the same off beat genre as "Abigails Party" Et-Al. Though never receiving the same widespread recognition. This film is as bleak, cold and heavy as it gets whilst still being a drama.

It may only be available on DVD Region one though at present. So unless it turns up on the TV sometime, all those outside of North America may never get to see it. If you ever do, I'd turn the colour down to B/W to get the full effect.

Thinking about it, I started a 35 year spell of depression around the same time as I viewed THAT film. To be honest, just lately, I feel I'm going the same way as Bartleby did.

(This review updated 22/12/2009).

King Kong (2005)

Lacking in many departments.

[4/10 · 17 December 2005]

*** This comment may contain spoilers ******

For starters many of the cast were miscast. Namely Captain Englehorn, he needed to be a more older type, like JON VOIGHT. Hayes was also miscast far too big and bulky,(Starvation was abundant, plenty of clips showed us a depression was a on, remember!) along with that young type Jimmy, now he couldn't act out of a paper bag. And that sea dog with the stubby beard, just not quite there was it. And those studio types reviewing Jack Blacks film, were they miscast or what.

Didn't want the cast to overshadow the Ape and more importantly from Jacksons viewpoint his Directorship. It wasn't a film about King Kong it was just another one of those cult director movies, like Orson Wells, Kirbrick etc. I mean so what! What is so great about a director? people flip their lids about a director. They are just another cog in the wheel like the producer, the editor and casting agent or best boy dolly grip!

That scene with the multi tooth sea slugs slithering over someones arms and head, some ghastly scene that could have come out of John Carpenters "The Thing"..That unbeknown to Jackson, I believe was his own horrific, monstrous ego wanting to consume everybody and everything in sight, given half the chance. There was the Tommygun shooting the bugs off someone in the jungle scene, even an expert would most probably have shot him dead. There was the Jet Airline Engine exhaust plumage clearly seen to the upper right in one skyline scene, poorly, poorly edited that. Then the New York street shots, I noticed the background was very blurred especially later on. Either the limits of CGI or whatever imagery they used. Of course you had the Scene towards the end where they are in Cenrtal park sliding around on the lake, one 1930's mortar round shattered the ice but a 20 odd TON giant Gorrilla didn't!, with "Nobody in sight" "Nobody" walking about!. then within 1/2 a second they are being chased down a street.(bits cut out there) There were bits where the ape was skulking down a street either before that time or after with "Nobody" around, not even coming out of an apartment, "Nobody" looking out of a window even. As if.

Just too many "As ifs" for my liking. You could fill a page full of the annoying, "As ifs" in that movie. Then two seconds later clambering up the Empire state building, again bits cut out there. Which was instantly evacuated, Bungling Solders let the writer in, as if, nobody coming out the lift!. Thinking back, by law for the safety of the public they would have had to have had someone with a tranquiliser gun in that theatre. Then all of a sudden from being late at night 11 or 12 o'clock it was "Daybrake" the sun was coming up. Like 5 or 6 hours just evaporated into thin air. All that money spent on that film, it wasn't too bad but could have been a lot lot better. Peter Jackson actually gave tens of million dollars so it could stay at 3 hours long. That smacks of ego to me, a bit two much wrapped up in the whole thing.

I much prefer the 1970's remake with giggly Jessica Lange to this "Horror" film. It should have been a "15" or even a "18" certificate. Not my most favourite film of the year, that goes to "The adventures of shark boy and lava girl". now that is a proper film....PS. The film was 3 hours long, most people know it is 3 hours long BEFORE going to see it, like going to see a Star Wars film then saying afterwards that personally they didn't like the Sci-fi and Outerspace parts. How long is a 3 hour film going to be? could it possibly be 3 hours!!. Timewise we got two 90 minute films for the price of one, and we should look at that as a bargain. But to be honest, we only really got half a film, the rest was Jacksons bloated, monstrous ego, and we all know now what that looks like!.*****This comment may contain spoilers ****

The Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl 3-D (2005)

Some people are missing the point.

[10/10 · 6 December 2005]

Without doubt the best film I have seen this year, even better than Fantastic Bore, and I have been a FF fan for over 30 years. Better than War of the Worlds. (Tim Robbins "hamed" it up completely.)... Why is this film so intensely Hated or Loved and so widely commented on?.(80 odd comments on this IMDb site alone, so far) Because it is SO good!. It is So, So good. It will be seen as an all time Cult classic. Without doubt.

One of those films initially with mixed reviews that later on become an all time great. That is when people understand it more fully. I went to see it twice, thoroughly enjoying the film from start to finish. Within two minutes of the film I was totally captivated by it, it had regressed me back to an age of happier times. 40 years of guilt, inhibitions and hardheartedness just vanished away, leaving the, "Child within us" as we are so widely reported to having, once more alive and kicking. A rebirth of sorts,

If I could watch this film every weekend at the movies, I would do so. Were I a lottery ticket winner I would buy a single screen cinema and consistently show this film in my town. That is how good this film is. One of my all time top 10 films. I can feel it!. Just, "Let go" and you might to.