I won't give away any spoilers. All I will say is that I never got around to seeing this film in the theatres, and I wondered why this film was voted "Best Film" by IMDb users. Now I know. This film fully deserved to win Best Original Screenplay, and it's a crying shame it did not get more nominations, particularly for Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet (her best work since "Titanic") As much as I loved "Titanic"---and I still believe that film deserved to win Best Picture---this film is grounded in a reality that cuts deeper to the bone. It's one thing to recreate the sinking of an ocean liner in exquisite detail, but it's another to recreate the joys, sorrows, and pain that love brings out. In hindsight the debate over whether "Titanic" or "L.A. Confidential" seems rather silly. This film is better than both.
Reviews
15 Reviews
Ten Little Indians
(1989)
Once again, another blown chance....
6 May 2003
Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" is one of the most famous mystery books every written, and may be the best mystery book of all time. Unfortunately, we may never see a movie that truly does justice to this great work. Even the so-called classic version of 1940 ruins the book by imposing a "happy ending." To the filmmakers' credit, under the Hays code it may have been impossible to show the original ending in the book. However, the makers of the remakes have no excuses. And since the same man-- Henry Alan Towers--has produced all the remakes and they all have the same ending, Christie fans can only hope that someone who truly cares about this book will buy the rights from his family when he passes away, since it's obvious he will going to do the right thing.
If I have to rate this film, I would charitably give it a "7" only because I haven't seen it. And why should I bother to see it? This isn't the book I read in junior high school and fell in love with. It's a retread of what Hollywood thinks the public really wants from this book. You don't need an exotic location like Iran or the Safari desert to make this book interesting. Just use a small island, a good cast, and an outstanding director who knows how this book should be filmed. My first choice would be Christopher Nolan who directed "Following", "Memento", and the remake of "Insomnia."
There is one ray of light in the darkness of "Ten Little Indians" remakes, and that is the new film "Identity." While that film strays farthest from the letter of Christie's book than any of the official movie versions, I believe it remains closest to her spirit. More thinking clearly went into this film than went into any of the other versions of "Ten Little Indians"....
P.S. Anybody who thinks that a book or film with an ending similar to what happens in the book "And Then There Were None" is boring should ask themselves if a happy ending would have improved "Hamlet" or "King Lear."
If I have to rate this film, I would charitably give it a "7" only because I haven't seen it. And why should I bother to see it? This isn't the book I read in junior high school and fell in love with. It's a retread of what Hollywood thinks the public really wants from this book. You don't need an exotic location like Iran or the Safari desert to make this book interesting. Just use a small island, a good cast, and an outstanding director who knows how this book should be filmed. My first choice would be Christopher Nolan who directed "Following", "Memento", and the remake of "Insomnia."
There is one ray of light in the darkness of "Ten Little Indians" remakes, and that is the new film "Identity." While that film strays farthest from the letter of Christie's book than any of the official movie versions, I believe it remains closest to her spirit. More thinking clearly went into this film than went into any of the other versions of "Ten Little Indians"....
P.S. Anybody who thinks that a book or film with an ending similar to what happens in the book "And Then There Were None" is boring should ask themselves if a happy ending would have improved "Hamlet" or "King Lear."
Irreversible
(2002)
Overrated.
13 April 2003
Many critics have called this film unwatchable, and they're almost right, but not for the reason they suggest. I've got a strong stomach, so I could easily watch the murder scene and later on, the rape (although that was painful to sit through). The rape scene should be required viewing for anyone who thinks it's possible for a rape victim to enjoy sexual pleasure while being victimized. But the opening credits annoyed me because the reversed lettering made them practically illegible. I suspect even viewers fluent in French would have a hard time understanding what they meant. And I still don't see the point of spinning the camera incessantly for the first 15 or 20 minutes. Stop being artsy! I'm in a movie theatre, and I want to SEE what's going on!
Aside from the murder and rape scene, there is very little to recommend this movie. Most people are overlooking the REAL reason this movie was shown backward. Writer-director Gaspar Noé quickly figured out the real reason that most people would be interested in seeing this movie---to get a glimpse of star Monica Bellucci naked. So it's not until the very end that we see a protracted scene of Belluci in the buff and her real-life husband Vincent Cassell knocking the bottom out of that THANG. If that's what you want to see, I'd recommend waiting for the DVD. Better yet, watch "Memento", a true masterpiece that uses the backward film gimmick for reasons other than to postpone a nude scene. Except for Guy Pearce, you won't see any nudity in "Memento", but the film will make you think and you'll actually want to see it again.
Aside from the murder and rape scene, there is very little to recommend this movie. Most people are overlooking the REAL reason this movie was shown backward. Writer-director Gaspar Noé quickly figured out the real reason that most people would be interested in seeing this movie---to get a glimpse of star Monica Bellucci naked. So it's not until the very end that we see a protracted scene of Belluci in the buff and her real-life husband Vincent Cassell knocking the bottom out of that THANG. If that's what you want to see, I'd recommend waiting for the DVD. Better yet, watch "Memento", a true masterpiece that uses the backward film gimmick for reasons other than to postpone a nude scene. Except for Guy Pearce, you won't see any nudity in "Memento", but the film will make you think and you'll actually want to see it again.
Memento
(2000)
"Memento" is not unfair to diabetics....
13 April 2001
Warning: Spoilers
Many things went through my mind as I saw "Memento", but the last thing I was thinking about was how "helpless" or "invalid" diabetics are. Sammy Jankis' wife has her husband give her insulin injections, but that is clearly HER CHOICE. Obviously, she can give herself injections if she has to. Sammy's wife doesn't die because diabetes has made her helpless, but rather because she doesn't believe that his short-term memory loss is a real condition. She gambles that if she asks Sammy to give her another insulin shot after he has "forgotten" it, his love for her would snap him out of this condition and her "old Sammy" will return. Unfortunately, she's wrong and dies as a result of her gamble. Since it was Leonard's advice that ultimately led her to take this action, he is haunted by her story throughout the film. But none of this would have happened if she gave herself the insulin shots.
I am not an expert in diabetes, but criticism of this film that it demeans diabetics reminds me of Italian-American groups that slam masterpieces like "The Godfather", "GoodFellas", or "The Sopranos" simply because they depict Italian-American characters as gangsters......
I am not an expert in diabetes, but criticism of this film that it demeans diabetics reminds me of Italian-American groups that slam masterpieces like "The Godfather", "GoodFellas", or "The Sopranos" simply because they depict Italian-American characters as gangsters......
Memento
(2000)
A brilliant idea that's masterfully executed.
8 April 2001
Warning: Spoilers
"Memento" opens with the shot of a man holding a photograph of a bloody corpse. As the man shakes the photograph, the image starts to waver and fade, until it becomes the blank image that you initially see when a photo emerges from an instant camera. It becomes clear that this is a sequence shot with high-speed film backwards. Writer-director Christopher Nolan establishes two things right away. The first is the structure of the movie, which will go backwards in time from the murder shown in the opening scene to the moment when that murder becomes inevitable. The second is a visual metaphor for his protagonist's condition: Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce) is brain damaged and cannot convert short-term memory into long-term memory. Ever since he confronted two burglars who sexually assaulted his wife, any new person, place, or object he encounters fades from his mind like the image you see in the opening scene. This leaves Leonard with a huge handicap because he is determined to kill his wife's murderer.
We don't have to wait long before we see Leonard kill the man he thinks is responsible. In the opening moments of the film, we see Leonard shoot Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) point blank in the back of his head. The initial footage is shown backwards, and then we successively see a short scene that leads up to Teddy's murder. This is followed by another that begins earlier, and the pattern will continue throughout the movie. Christopher Nolan uses this narrative technique to put us in Leonard's state of mind. Like us, he doesn't know what happened earlier. But because WE know the future, we slowly begin to glean how different characters are using Leonard and how he tries to learn the truth about his wife's death.
But there's another reason that Nolan tells the story backwards. Since we know that Leonard is going to kill Teddy, we do not ask ourselves "whodunit" as the picture progresses. What we want to know is whether Teddy really is the man who killed Leonard's wife, or is Leonard being set up by someone like seductive bartender Natalie (Carrie-Ann Moss)? Nothing is quite like it seems in this mystery, and the viewer has to pay close attention to gather all the clues. Fortunately, it isn't that hard to follow since Nolan punctuates each vignette with a striking visual image. Thus at the conclusion of each scene, we immediately recognize the beginning of the earlier episode, so we know how everything fits together. (Give credit to cinematographer Wally Phister, who does an outstanding job in this film.) Also, between the episodes we see a flashback of Leonard in a hotel room explaining his situation and the sad story of Sammy Jenkis to a mysterious caller on the telephone. (This sequence is shot in black-and-white to distinguish it from the other scenes.) Not only do we learn more about Leonard's condition in these scenes, but also his guilt for how he treated Jenkins, a man with a similar handicap whom Leonard investigated when he was an insurance claims expert. Sammy Jenkins' story becomes vitally important as the movie progresses.
This is one hell of a concept for a movie when you think about it, and Nolan did a very good job directing. But his direction would not have been enough without the terrific performances given by the principles. Guy Pearce (best known for his role in "L.A. Confidential") gives a haunting performance of a man who has to constantly reassemble the pieces of his shattered life minute by minute. Carrie-Ann Moss is more than just a pretty face who usually turns up in movies like these, but a very good actress who is alternately both tender and manipulative to Leonard. Joe Pantoliano's loquacious performance as the doomed Teddy is reminiscent of a young Joe Pesci. He almost never stops talking and he often leavens the story with humor. His Teddy seems like a pal, but you're never completely sure how far you should trust him. If there's any justice, all three of these performers will be rewarded with Oscar nominations next year, and Guy Pearce will grab a trophy like his "L.A. Confidential" co-stars Kevin Spacey and Russell Crowe.
To sum up, I cannot recommend this movie any more highly than I do. It is not often that I feel compelled to see the same movie twice within 24 hours, but that is the case with "Memento." After you see this, you will probably want to discuss the film with other people who have seen the whole film. If that's the case, I urge you to go to the IMDB message forum for "Memento", and keep the secret from others who don't want to learn any spoilers prematurely.....
We don't have to wait long before we see Leonard kill the man he thinks is responsible. In the opening moments of the film, we see Leonard shoot Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) point blank in the back of his head. The initial footage is shown backwards, and then we successively see a short scene that leads up to Teddy's murder. This is followed by another that begins earlier, and the pattern will continue throughout the movie. Christopher Nolan uses this narrative technique to put us in Leonard's state of mind. Like us, he doesn't know what happened earlier. But because WE know the future, we slowly begin to glean how different characters are using Leonard and how he tries to learn the truth about his wife's death.
But there's another reason that Nolan tells the story backwards. Since we know that Leonard is going to kill Teddy, we do not ask ourselves "whodunit" as the picture progresses. What we want to know is whether Teddy really is the man who killed Leonard's wife, or is Leonard being set up by someone like seductive bartender Natalie (Carrie-Ann Moss)? Nothing is quite like it seems in this mystery, and the viewer has to pay close attention to gather all the clues. Fortunately, it isn't that hard to follow since Nolan punctuates each vignette with a striking visual image. Thus at the conclusion of each scene, we immediately recognize the beginning of the earlier episode, so we know how everything fits together. (Give credit to cinematographer Wally Phister, who does an outstanding job in this film.) Also, between the episodes we see a flashback of Leonard in a hotel room explaining his situation and the sad story of Sammy Jenkis to a mysterious caller on the telephone. (This sequence is shot in black-and-white to distinguish it from the other scenes.) Not only do we learn more about Leonard's condition in these scenes, but also his guilt for how he treated Jenkins, a man with a similar handicap whom Leonard investigated when he was an insurance claims expert. Sammy Jenkins' story becomes vitally important as the movie progresses.
This is one hell of a concept for a movie when you think about it, and Nolan did a very good job directing. But his direction would not have been enough without the terrific performances given by the principles. Guy Pearce (best known for his role in "L.A. Confidential") gives a haunting performance of a man who has to constantly reassemble the pieces of his shattered life minute by minute. Carrie-Ann Moss is more than just a pretty face who usually turns up in movies like these, but a very good actress who is alternately both tender and manipulative to Leonard. Joe Pantoliano's loquacious performance as the doomed Teddy is reminiscent of a young Joe Pesci. He almost never stops talking and he often leavens the story with humor. His Teddy seems like a pal, but you're never completely sure how far you should trust him. If there's any justice, all three of these performers will be rewarded with Oscar nominations next year, and Guy Pearce will grab a trophy like his "L.A. Confidential" co-stars Kevin Spacey and Russell Crowe.
To sum up, I cannot recommend this movie any more highly than I do. It is not often that I feel compelled to see the same movie twice within 24 hours, but that is the case with "Memento." After you see this, you will probably want to discuss the film with other people who have seen the whole film. If that's the case, I urge you to go to the IMDB message forum for "Memento", and keep the secret from others who don't want to learn any spoilers prematurely.....
Pleasantville
(1998)
I heard about this movie, but I didn't know that it would be THIS good....
8 April 2000
I knew what this film would be about before I rented it, but I'm stunned that it would be THIS good. Nothing against "Saving Private Ryan" or "Shakespeare in Love", but this film should have won Best Picture in 1998 and it was a shame that it wasn't nominated. It's an even bigger injustice that it did not get a nomination for best screenplay or cinematography.
In the hands of another writer, this movie could have been made as just a parody of 1950's sitcoms like "Leave It To Beaver" or "Ozzie and Harriet." But this film isn't about how clichéd those series look decades later. It's about the false nostalgia for a past that never existed. We survived the past and we know that everything turned out all right. Because of this, we selectively choose our memories and weed out the unpleasant ones. That's why the past is sometimes seen as "the good ol' days." Pleasantville does not represent how the 50's actually were but rather an idealization of what people THINK the 50's were---no one had sex, everyone got along swell, and life was fairly easy. Nothing could be further from the truth, and there are many film from that era which show how real people (even in suburbia) actually lived. This film argues that free will and choice is ESSENTIAL to life and that we should embrace freedom instead of fearing it. It isn't just about making out, but having the OPTION to make out.
Another reviewer claimed that this film was an attack on the 50's, but David and Jennifer could very easily have been dumped in the world of "The Brady Bunch", "Gilligan's Island" , or "Batman." But setting "Pleasantville" in a 1950's sitcom allows for the brilliant metaphor of black and white versus color. Black and white photography is a stylized depiction of the universe, but unless you're color blind it's not the way you actually see the universe. When we first see Pleasantville's citizens, all of them are cardboard cut-outs of stereotypes. As they begin to open up and become real people, color seeps into their world. The catalyst seems to be the willingness to experience new sensations and become vulnerable. Jennifer has slept with lot of guys when she was in the normal world, so sex does not change HER into a color character. On the other hand, when she actually finishes a book (without pictures) for the first time in her life, THEN she becomes colorized. Similarly, David does not bloom into color until he breaks out of his aloofness and defends his "mother." Compare the way he ignores his real mother at the beginning of the film to how he consoles and comforts her at the end to see how much David has changed.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. There are a lot of films out there that are very entertaining and/or very moving--like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Titanic." Movies like "Pleasantville" which challenge the audience and force them to think are very rare, and should be treasured by the discerning filmgoer.
In the hands of another writer, this movie could have been made as just a parody of 1950's sitcoms like "Leave It To Beaver" or "Ozzie and Harriet." But this film isn't about how clichéd those series look decades later. It's about the false nostalgia for a past that never existed. We survived the past and we know that everything turned out all right. Because of this, we selectively choose our memories and weed out the unpleasant ones. That's why the past is sometimes seen as "the good ol' days." Pleasantville does not represent how the 50's actually were but rather an idealization of what people THINK the 50's were---no one had sex, everyone got along swell, and life was fairly easy. Nothing could be further from the truth, and there are many film from that era which show how real people (even in suburbia) actually lived. This film argues that free will and choice is ESSENTIAL to life and that we should embrace freedom instead of fearing it. It isn't just about making out, but having the OPTION to make out.
Another reviewer claimed that this film was an attack on the 50's, but David and Jennifer could very easily have been dumped in the world of "The Brady Bunch", "Gilligan's Island" , or "Batman." But setting "Pleasantville" in a 1950's sitcom allows for the brilliant metaphor of black and white versus color. Black and white photography is a stylized depiction of the universe, but unless you're color blind it's not the way you actually see the universe. When we first see Pleasantville's citizens, all of them are cardboard cut-outs of stereotypes. As they begin to open up and become real people, color seeps into their world. The catalyst seems to be the willingness to experience new sensations and become vulnerable. Jennifer has slept with lot of guys when she was in the normal world, so sex does not change HER into a color character. On the other hand, when she actually finishes a book (without pictures) for the first time in her life, THEN she becomes colorized. Similarly, David does not bloom into color until he breaks out of his aloofness and defends his "mother." Compare the way he ignores his real mother at the beginning of the film to how he consoles and comforts her at the end to see how much David has changed.
I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. There are a lot of films out there that are very entertaining and/or very moving--like "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Titanic." Movies like "Pleasantville" which challenge the audience and force them to think are very rare, and should be treasured by the discerning filmgoer.
Is nowhere near as good as the first trilogy
30 June 1999
I truly do not get it. This film, according to the IMDB users, is in the top 90, and "Titanic" is bumped off of the list? I cared about the characters in "Titanic", and also in "A New Hope", "The Empire Strikes Back", and "Return of the Jedi." With the notable exception of Jake Lloyd, most of the actors in this film are exceptionally wooden. The visuals are stunning, but I want a reason to root for the characters BESIDES the fact that I know what happens in the other movies. Well, at least I can take solace in the fact that this film is NOT going to pass "Titanic" like everyone predicted. That honor will go to "A New Hope" which was made when Lucas remembered that characters were more important than visual effects....
Titanic
(1997)
Congratulations, Titanic bashers!
21 March 1999
You managed to push this film off the IMDb top #250 list and push its rating down to 7.5. Now I would not say this is the greatest film ever made (that honor should go to "Seven Samurai" or even the best American film ever made (that honor should go to "Casablanca"), but you can't tell me that there are more than 250 films better than this one. Certainly not "The Three Colours" trilogy, the most overrated set of foreign films to come out in recent years!
I just have one request for the more than 18,000 people who felt compelled to vote for this movie--please rent "The Quiet Man."! Only 900 people have bothered to vote for this masterpiece which is far greater than "Titanic"--and I'm a "Titanic" fan! If nearly 20,000 watch this film and vote their honest opinion, there is no doubt that "The Quiet Man" would vault to the top 10 in the top #250 list. Thank you very much.
I just have one request for the more than 18,000 people who felt compelled to vote for this movie--please rent "The Quiet Man."! Only 900 people have bothered to vote for this masterpiece which is far greater than "Titanic"--and I'm a "Titanic" fan! If nearly 20,000 watch this film and vote their honest opinion, there is no doubt that "The Quiet Man" would vault to the top 10 in the top #250 list. Thank you very much.
The Quiet Man
(1952)
A masterpiece that is sadly overlooked by the AFI and IMDB
21 March 1999
This is quite simply, one of John Ford's greatest films, and one of the greatest films ever made. It is unconscionable that not only was this film overlooked by the American Film Institute, but also by IMDb voters. Only 900 have bothered to vote for this classic? And then give it only a rating of 8.0?
Much better reviews of "The Quiet Man" have been written, so I won't waste time trying to outdo them. But I will say that I believe that this isn't the misogynist dream that some feminists believe this film to be. The worst thing that Sean Thornton does to Mary Kate is drag her back to her brother to demand the dowry. Remember, this comes AFTER she strands him in town and he is forced to walk home. But Thornton is a gentleman that refuses to beat a woman. When he comes back home from his long walk, Mary Kate offers him a stick, expecting Sean to beat her as punishment for leaving him in town. Instead he throws it in the fire. Later, when he is dragging Mary Kate along on the famous "good stretch of the legs" march, Sean meets a villager who gives him a stick to "beat the wife" with. Even though he is hopping mad, Sean throws away the stick. People who watch the entire movie know that Sean loves Mary Kate because of, not in spite of, her fiery spirit, and wants to be her partner, not her master. "The Quiet Man" is a wonderful romance that deserves to be seen more often than on St. Patrick's Day.
Much better reviews of "The Quiet Man" have been written, so I won't waste time trying to outdo them. But I will say that I believe that this isn't the misogynist dream that some feminists believe this film to be. The worst thing that Sean Thornton does to Mary Kate is drag her back to her brother to demand the dowry. Remember, this comes AFTER she strands him in town and he is forced to walk home. But Thornton is a gentleman that refuses to beat a woman. When he comes back home from his long walk, Mary Kate offers him a stick, expecting Sean to beat her as punishment for leaving him in town. Instead he throws it in the fire. Later, when he is dragging Mary Kate along on the famous "good stretch of the legs" march, Sean meets a villager who gives him a stick to "beat the wife" with. Even though he is hopping mad, Sean throws away the stick. People who watch the entire movie know that Sean loves Mary Kate because of, not in spite of, her fiery spirit, and wants to be her partner, not her master. "The Quiet Man" is a wonderful romance that deserves to be seen more often than on St. Patrick's Day.
Babe
(1995)
A masterpiece of storytelling.
8 January 1999
When I first saw the trailers for "Babe," I was skeptical that it would be any good. It looked too similar to "Gordy," a LOUSY talking pig film that was released earlier that same year. (I didn't actually see "Gordy," but the trailer told me everything I needed to know.) But after I heard favorable reviews from Siskel & Ebert, along with other local film critics, I decided to give it a try.
I'm very glad I did. Prejudging "Babe" on the basis of "Gordy" is like deciding "Jaws" isn't any good based on "Anaconda." Chris Noonan does an outstanding job establishing character and pacing the action accordingly. (That's one of the reasons why George Miller's sequel isn't as good--you don't care much about the city animals and the action sequences look too rushed and disjointed.) What impresses me throughout this film is how Noonan effectively uses editing to build suspense--in the alarm clock sequence, the scene where Farmer Hoggett almost shoots Babe, and the finale at the sheepherding contest.
It's rare to see an adult drama made this well and "Babe" is a film that should have won Best Picture. Unfortunately, the Academy's long standing prejudice against animated features also extends to live-action children films. (After all, The Wizard of Oz is a much better film than GWTW.) Thirty years from now will people still remember Mel Gibson's overrated epic, or this masterpiece? If there's any justice, "Babe" will become a modern classic like "Miracle on 34th Street" while "Braveheart" will be forgotten.
ONE FINAL NOTE: While it was nice to see that Babe won at least one Academy award, it won the wrong one. Babe should have received the Best Editing award won by "Apollo 13" and "Apollo 13" should have received the Best Visual Effects award won by "Babe."
I'm very glad I did. Prejudging "Babe" on the basis of "Gordy" is like deciding "Jaws" isn't any good based on "Anaconda." Chris Noonan does an outstanding job establishing character and pacing the action accordingly. (That's one of the reasons why George Miller's sequel isn't as good--you don't care much about the city animals and the action sequences look too rushed and disjointed.) What impresses me throughout this film is how Noonan effectively uses editing to build suspense--in the alarm clock sequence, the scene where Farmer Hoggett almost shoots Babe, and the finale at the sheepherding contest.
It's rare to see an adult drama made this well and "Babe" is a film that should have won Best Picture. Unfortunately, the Academy's long standing prejudice against animated features also extends to live-action children films. (After all, The Wizard of Oz is a much better film than GWTW.) Thirty years from now will people still remember Mel Gibson's overrated epic, or this masterpiece? If there's any justice, "Babe" will become a modern classic like "Miracle on 34th Street" while "Braveheart" will be forgotten.
ONE FINAL NOTE: While it was nice to see that Babe won at least one Academy award, it won the wrong one. Babe should have received the Best Editing award won by "Apollo 13" and "Apollo 13" should have received the Best Visual Effects award won by "Babe."
Once Upon a Time in the West
(1968)
Who cares that Clint Eastwood isn't in this film?
8 January 1999
It has been said many times that the role of "Harmonica" was intended for Clint Eastwood. But I think it's enormously unfair to Charles Bronson to endlessly speculate on what Eastwood may or may not had done. Who cares? Eastwood had his chance and turned it down. Bronson seized it and made the most of it. Not only do I think that "West" is Bronson's best movie, I think Bronson does a better job in this film than Eastwood in the "spaghetti trilogy".
If you think about it, all three leads in this film are cast against type. Charles Bronson is not the type of actor you'd think of for a lead as a hero (although he did a great job in "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Great Escape.") The average person thinks of Jason Robards as a crotchety grandfather, certainly not a cunning outlaw a la "Tuco" in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." And was there ever a more unlikely villain in screen history than Henry Fonda, who build a career on playing sincere, kind protagonists? (By the way, Fonda's role was originally intended for John Wayne, who turned it down.) And yet all of these great actors make you forget their other personnas and suck you into Sergio Leone's world...
If you think about it, all three leads in this film are cast against type. Charles Bronson is not the type of actor you'd think of for a lead as a hero (although he did a great job in "The Magnificent Seven" and "The Great Escape.") The average person thinks of Jason Robards as a crotchety grandfather, certainly not a cunning outlaw a la "Tuco" in "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly." And was there ever a more unlikely villain in screen history than Henry Fonda, who build a career on playing sincere, kind protagonists? (By the way, Fonda's role was originally intended for John Wayne, who turned it down.) And yet all of these great actors make you forget their other personnas and suck you into Sergio Leone's world...
Seven Samurai
(1954)
Quite possibly the best movie ever made.
6 January 1999
Many film critics cite "Citizen Kane" as the best film ever made. Although "Kane" is a very good choice, an astute film student can learn just as much about the art of cinema from watching "Seven Samurai" and enjoy a much more exciting movie.
I have seen this film many times on videotape and laserdisc. (God willing, I hope to get the DVD later this month.) While there are many things to praise about this film, I am expecially impressed with Kurosawa's attention to character. How many times in American blockbusters do we see cardboard characters that seem less like real people than stereotypes? In this film, not only are each of the samurai distinct individuals, but the farmers are also real people too. They aren't just victims that need to be rescued--they take an active role in the defense of their village, and once battle-trained, are just as brave and heroic as the samurai. Because Kurosawa gives us the time to get to know the characters, each death affects us all the more.
A final word about the actor Toshiro Mifune. When he died in 1997, many commentators called him the "John Wayne" of Japan. Mifune would have been honored, but he was more gifted and versatile than Wayne ever was. In this film, his character first seems like a buffoon--you almost wonder if "Kikuchiyo" is supposed to be a comic relief for the other "real" samurai. But as the action get more serious, "Kikuchiyo" changes and ones appreciation for Mifune grows. There is a speech Mifune makes about the nature of farmers and samurai that is so moving, it should have won him an Academy award if this had been an English language film. As it stands, the loss belongs to the Academy, not to Toshiro.
I have seen this film many times on videotape and laserdisc. (God willing, I hope to get the DVD later this month.) While there are many things to praise about this film, I am expecially impressed with Kurosawa's attention to character. How many times in American blockbusters do we see cardboard characters that seem less like real people than stereotypes? In this film, not only are each of the samurai distinct individuals, but the farmers are also real people too. They aren't just victims that need to be rescued--they take an active role in the defense of their village, and once battle-trained, are just as brave and heroic as the samurai. Because Kurosawa gives us the time to get to know the characters, each death affects us all the more.
A final word about the actor Toshiro Mifune. When he died in 1997, many commentators called him the "John Wayne" of Japan. Mifune would have been honored, but he was more gifted and versatile than Wayne ever was. In this film, his character first seems like a buffoon--you almost wonder if "Kikuchiyo" is supposed to be a comic relief for the other "real" samurai. But as the action get more serious, "Kikuchiyo" changes and ones appreciation for Mifune grows. There is a speech Mifune makes about the nature of farmers and samurai that is so moving, it should have won him an Academy award if this had been an English language film. As it stands, the loss belongs to the Academy, not to Toshiro.
Titanic
(1953)
O.K. for its time, but badly dated today.
4 January 1999
I remember seeing this film on T.V. many years ago, and the basic story of the legend is powerful enough that I thought this film was gripping. Unfortunately, it's badly dated and you don't have to watch James Cameron's masterpiece to pick out the faults. While "Nearer My God To Thee" WAS probably played as the ship went down, does anyone believe that the remaining passengers on board would sing the song in unison? (What you see in Cameron's version and "A Night To Remember" is more realistic--the rest of the passengers are panicking as the band plays on.) Furthermore, I think what the real priests did on Titanic is more heroic than Richard Basehart's character. Basehart rushed to the boiler room to help a trapped passenger. In real life, two Catholic priests (travelling in second class) went to steerage to hear confessions and console the remaining passengers. In Cameron's film you see one of them quoting Revelation as the stern rises higher into the air.
Still, if you can ignore all that, the acting is surprisingly good--especially from Barbara Stanwyck.
Still, if you can ignore all that, the acting is surprisingly good--especially from Barbara Stanwyck.
Titanic
(1997)
Terrific film, with an underrated screenplay.
2 January 1999
I read "A Night To Remember" when I was in high school,and remember seeing the 1953 film on television (it looks hokie today but it seemed gripping when I first saw it) so I looked forward eagerly to seeing James Cameron's movie--especially when early reviews suggested it was pretty good. I expected to see a meticulous depiction of the ship itself as well as a harrowing re-enactment of the sinking. What I did not expect was to be as moved by the human story. Several people have asked why Cameron felt he had to include a fictional love story in a story about a real-life tragedy. First, the Jack-Rose love story gave the moviegoer a chance to see most of this great ship while exploring the different worlds of first-class and steerage. Secondly, and most important of all, Cameron felt that if he made you care about the fate of two fictional people,it would make the fate of the 1500 real people who died on the Titanic seem more tangible and concrete.
I can understand if a lot of people resent Leonardo DiCaprio. (In my opinion, he got too much of the credit that should have gone to Kate Winslet.) But I don't understand why people think this movie is badly written. Some of the lines do have a contemporary ring to them, but the characters are vividly drawn, and the screenplay is much better than is given credit. A beautiful example of good writing by Cameron occurs in the scene where Rose almost jumps off the stern of the ship. Jack tells Rose what it feels like to fall through thin ice and get immersed in freezing water. Not only does this serve the practical purpose of getting Rose to want to come back aboard the ship, it prepares the audience for what Titanic's victims will feel when the ship sinks. Other versions of this tragedy watch the ship from a distance and makes the audience feel they are safe in the lifeboats. In contrast, James Cameron makes the audience identify with the unlucky ones left on the ship and dying in the water. And as in Seven Samurai, because the audience recognizes and comes to know several of the passengers and crew, their deaths have all the greater impact when the ship finally sinks.
I can understand if a lot of people resent Leonardo DiCaprio. (In my opinion, he got too much of the credit that should have gone to Kate Winslet.) But I don't understand why people think this movie is badly written. Some of the lines do have a contemporary ring to them, but the characters are vividly drawn, and the screenplay is much better than is given credit. A beautiful example of good writing by Cameron occurs in the scene where Rose almost jumps off the stern of the ship. Jack tells Rose what it feels like to fall through thin ice and get immersed in freezing water. Not only does this serve the practical purpose of getting Rose to want to come back aboard the ship, it prepares the audience for what Titanic's victims will feel when the ship sinks. Other versions of this tragedy watch the ship from a distance and makes the audience feel they are safe in the lifeboats. In contrast, James Cameron makes the audience identify with the unlucky ones left on the ship and dying in the water. And as in Seven Samurai, because the audience recognizes and comes to know several of the passengers and crew, their deaths have all the greater impact when the ship finally sinks.
Seven Samurai
(1954)
Quite possibly the best film ever made.
2 January 1999
I have several laserdiscs at home (I only recently purchased a DVD player)and many are films that I see occasionally when I first buy them, then never see them again for a long time. The CAV version of Seven Samurai is a film that draws me back time and time again. It's a damn shame too many people refuse to see it because it isn't in English! I taped a copy for my cousin in New Jersey, and although I gave it my highest recommendation, he still has not seen it to this day.
It's easier to focus on the few flaws of this film than to try to pinpoint what makes this film great. Katsushiro still seems incredibly wimpy for a samurai, and if you see this film in an art-house theatre the subtitles may not be as good as the ones on the Criterion version. It disturbed me that Rickichi's wife would rather commit suicide than come home to her husband--it wasn't HER fault the bandits kidnapped and raped her.
But that's about it for naysaying. Not only are the action scenes terrific, but Kurosawa does a great job establishing the character of the samurai and peasants. You don't see a villain with a dynamic personality (as in "The Magnificent Seven") but Kurosawa is more interested in the relationship between the samurai and the peasants. One of the things the viewer learns is that many peasants think of samurai (in general) as merely bandits with higher breeding. The villagers are not saintly victims in this film, and the samurai are not superhuman swordsmen. Because the viewer gets to KNOW the characters in this film, their deaths have a greater impact than they do in the American version.
If you haven't seen this film before, I both pity and envy you. I pity that you haven't been fortunate enough to see this film before, but I envy the fact that you will soon see it for the first time.
It's easier to focus on the few flaws of this film than to try to pinpoint what makes this film great. Katsushiro still seems incredibly wimpy for a samurai, and if you see this film in an art-house theatre the subtitles may not be as good as the ones on the Criterion version. It disturbed me that Rickichi's wife would rather commit suicide than come home to her husband--it wasn't HER fault the bandits kidnapped and raped her.
But that's about it for naysaying. Not only are the action scenes terrific, but Kurosawa does a great job establishing the character of the samurai and peasants. You don't see a villain with a dynamic personality (as in "The Magnificent Seven") but Kurosawa is more interested in the relationship between the samurai and the peasants. One of the things the viewer learns is that many peasants think of samurai (in general) as merely bandits with higher breeding. The villagers are not saintly victims in this film, and the samurai are not superhuman swordsmen. Because the viewer gets to KNOW the characters in this film, their deaths have a greater impact than they do in the American version.
If you haven't seen this film before, I both pity and envy you. I pity that you haven't been fortunate enough to see this film before, but I envy the fact that you will soon see it for the first time.
Tell Your Friends