Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Casanova (1976)
4/10
Not pretty
12 August 2006
In a way this is the disaster Fellini has been working towards all his life. The line between absurd masterpiece and free association bullshit is very small, and what category a film will ultimately fit in will often just depend on personal feelings. That said, "Casanova" left me in cold admiration for its sets and little more that cannot be summed up more adequately by Bukowski:

"Casanova died too, just an old guy with a big cock and a long tongue and no guts at all. to say that he lived well is true; to say I could spit on his grave without feeling is also true. the ladies usually go for the biggest fool they can find; that is why the human race stands where it does today: we have bred the clever and lasting Casanovas, all hollow inside, like the Easter bunnies we foster upon our poor children."

As far as I could make it out, this is the position Fellini takes regarding his subject; granted, with more empathy, but disgusted nonetheless.

Casanova's environment is made from decay and incestuous behavior, themes Fellini dealt with more pointedly in "Satyricon". The succession of plot is characteristic of soft porn, just without the coherence; and Donald Sutherland is ugly and slimy to the point of distraction.

Yet, there might just be a point in portraying Casanova as an unsightly fool. And I challenge anybody to formulate this point without being obvious; Fellini couldn't. More than ever he seems here like a dirty old man - a maestro, for sure, but one whose impulses satisfy himself more than anybody else. I find it hard imagine an audience who enjoys this film. It was a story not worth telling.
14 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lower City (2005)
4/10
A subplot stretched, including depressing sex
19 May 2006
The words "steamy" and "sultry" are thrown around and placed on the cover of the DVD, but while this movie does have its share of sex scenes, most of them come across as desperate and depressing.

It's a sort of underworld these characters inhibit (therefore "Lower City") and when sex isn't dealt with in terms of business, it's motivated by primal lust. But really - after decades of porn taking over the mainstream, are there still filmmakers left who hope to get some mileage out of this? "Y tu mama tambien" worked because the sex was hardly ever just about the act of doing it, but about an innocence lost and about well established rivalries. Here, the drama reaches the complexity of a bar fight.

There is actually something of a bar fight that marks the climax of this movie - about 10 minutes in. From here on the momentum is grinding downwards, slowly. The rest of the story consists of one guy looking jealously at the other guy making out with the girl. Reconciliation. Repeat. And some routine CRIME! thrown in to spice up the hot hot hot, um, boredom.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Brilliant, probably Woody's best and most focused
12 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
"Crimes and Misdemeanors" (1989) was the masterful culmination of Woody Allen's dramatic period in the 80's, in which he made brilliant movies like "Hannah and Her Sisters", "Another Woman" or "September". In these movies he tried his best to play with Ingmar Bergman's narrative and aesthetic preoccupations, which are incidentally also Allen's. He has also always been successful at incorporating wit and comedy into the dramatic arc. In "Crimes and Misdemeanors" he confronts two philosophies of life with each other. And once the two story lines are set into motion, almost every scene plays off the theme of the movie.

We meet Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a successful and beloved doctor. Coming home with his family from a gala, he finds a letter from his mistress Dolores (Angelica Huston); addressed to his wife. Judah meets Dolores in her apartment, where she explains her deep dissatisfaction with the current situation. She wants Judah on her own, whereas he feels that this affair is getting out of hand and wants to end it. Consecutively Dolores begins to threaten him with uncovering a fund theft he was involved in and with admitting their affair to his wife. Judah cannot see out of this predicament and calls up his Mafioso brother (Jerry Orbach) to help him getting rid of her.

Cliff Stern (Woody Allen) on the other hand is a struggling documentary filmmaker, married to a woman who stopped having sex with him a year ago and who would rather see him work than not. So Cliff goes against his principles and takes the job kindly given to him by his wife's brother Lester (Alan Alda), a millionaire TV producer. Cliff has to follow Lester around New York to document his visions for a TV program. On the job he meets Halley Reed (Mia Farrow), an associate producer, who gets interested in his work of passion, a documentary about a Jewish philosopher. At the same time Cliff begins to take interest in Halley.

Cliff is portrayed by Allen as a humble, wise and cynical man, who never managed to connect his aspirations to the demands of the real world. He has nothing to offer except his love and knowledge. This enables him to be a mentor to his young niece, but does not profit him in his relationship with Halley. The little girl also works as a stand-in for Cliff's conversations with his conscience. This device is made clearer in Rosenthal's segments, where he confides himself to a rabbi.

So we have a dual storyline, where one section is morally repugnant and the other one is idealistic. The rabbi tells Rosenthal that their conversations are always about two views of life. One believes in a harsh world, empty of values and with a pitiless moral structure, while the other sees meaning and forgiveness and a higher power. Rosenthal has heard similar things before, since he was raised very religiously. "The eyes of God are on us always", advised his father. And when it came to the question of God's existence he would add: "In case of doubt I will always choose God over truth." But Judah cannot let God interfere when he plans to kill his lover. He feels guilt, alright, but people get used to circumstances. We deny and try to forget.

When in Cliff's segment the Jewish professor commits suicide, it comes as a shock. Suddenly a philosophical system has been taken away. Isn't that one of the things we fear the most? To realize that our beliefs are incomplete and wrong. This understanding only tightens as the movie progresses. The rabbi is going blind, morality has lost. In the end the film is a sobering account of how immorality, deceit and its more harmless companions prevail.

I feel Allen had to let the downbeat ending happen, to express a fear of his. In the 90's he would often return to lighter themes. This expresses his curiosity in all aspects of existence. Light and darkness coexist. Tonally "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not a dark movie. Allen repeatedly breaks up an emotional scene with a punch-line. But Allen is always consistent in his tone, whatever subjects or periods he chooses. He is a tough worker, who has made 33 movies since 1969, which amounts to roughly one movie a year. "Crimes and Misdemeanors" is the clearest in its vision and among his very best.
94 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Oldboy (2003)
5/10
A rather disappointing effort
29 September 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Old Boy sucks! No, wait, let me rephrase that: Old Boy is a stylistically challenging, highly innovative, but ultimately hollow and repugnant exercise in genre film-making.

And just to let you know where I'm coming from – 'Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance' was brilliant; an unforgiving and touching descent into doom. In that movie everything that happened somehow had to. One action triggered the next one and we experienced a vicious circle of violence and revenge. The characters seemed trapped in their situation.

In Old Boy our protagonist is also trapped, but you know the story, so I won't tell you again. So he's in this room and there is great sound design and camera work. But once he frees himself, the complications and problems multiply. The plot is at first close to incomprehensible as he stumbles from one situation to another. When the villain explains his schemes at the end and brings enlightenment, I just couldn't care anymore. The intriguing premise is destroyed by the revelation that it's all a contrived revenge plot by the bad guy.

And contrived it is. The story only works by inserting endless flashbacks (full of bad pathos) and explanations. To keep the audience interested, we get gruesome scenes of murder, self-mutilation and general mayhem. As others have remarked, these scenes are well done, but serve no greater purpose. It's all a so-what comic extravaganza.

Out of 'Old Boy' I got small pleasures and a lot of disappointment, courtesy of one of the most interesting directors working today. I liked (among other things) the infamous hallway scene, the actors, the fight with the bodyguard, the revelation of the Secret and the sequence of Oh Dae-su leaving his bad self behind at the end. Small pleasures, indeed.
677 out of 1,317 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Is Rodriguez really such a bad director?
25 October 2003
I'm really curious whether or not anyone can make sense of this mess. I know that Rodriguez has achieved a certain cult status in the 90s. And I'm the first one to admit that EL MARIACHI and DESPERADO are fun; flicks that I revisited again and again as a teenager.

But the 3rd part of this trilogy feels like yesterday's news. I don't know what this movie is about, if it takes itself serious or not (probably not, but then it'd have to be much funnier) and why so many fabulous actors are wasted. Johnny Depp is the only reason to see this at all. Damn it, see it for him. He stands out in every scene he is in and gives his role pathos to cherish. His CIA agent/ killer/ renegade/ whatever he plays is the only new idea this movie has; the rest is inexplicable at best.

Why do we get to see Salma Hayek only in ridiculous flashbacks? Why is Enrique Iglesias in more scenes than Willem Dafoe and Mickey Rourke? Why was this flick made when it didn't want to tell a story that would follow up on something that happened before or enhance the characters? Yeah, I know it's an "action film" in an exploitation genre, but a guitar that can fire bullets and flames and people jumping through the air is just not enough. And Antonio Banderas is making one bad movie after the other (just try to watch IMAGINING ARGENTINA and don't come out laughing.)

And concerning the use of digital cameras: Especially in action scenes where there is a lot of movement, you can mistake the pictures easily for something that was shot on a regular DV camera. I see that you can work faster on digital cameras, but they are just not ready for the big screen. ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO wouldn't be a better film if it was shot on 35mm, but it would look like one.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Heartbreaking stuff... very well made
25 October 2003
One of the many things film does, is giving us firsthand information on real life events. When we see a film based on historical facts done well, it moves us stronger than any government report or history book ever could, because we feel that it really did happen.

In 2001 director Phillip Noyce (Dead Calm, The Quiet American) went back to his native country of Australia to tell the story of another people. Based on the book "Follow the Rabbit-Proof Fence" by Molly's daughter Doris Pilkington it is the true story of "half-caste" Aborigine children who in the 1930's were forcibly removed from their families so they could be "advanced to white status". This removal was official government business under the supervision of Chief Protector of the Aborigine Populace Mr. Neville (Kenneth Branagh) who actually thought he was doing a good thing. He thought he could provide them with an adequate "white education" while at the same time secure them from attacks of full blood Aborigines. The movie does not judge him in too obvious a way.

As we enter the Australian outback we get to know the Aborigine community of Jigalong and three half- caste children: Molly, who is 14 years old, her sister Daisy, who is 8 and their cousin, 10-year old Gracie. Soon they are transported to the orphanage of Moore River, 1200 miles from Jigalong, where they have to learn the traditions of a normal white Christian child. But Molly, as the most independent of the three, soon realizes that have to escape if they ever want to see their family again. They flee and as a way to return home they head towards the rabbit-proof fence, which stretches north-south across nearly all of the Australian continent, while being constantly pursued by a tracker.

Noyce tells this story in a simple and compact narrative. We experience the journey mostly through the eyes of the three main actresses, although the film occasionally cuts away to present us to Mr. Neville's Point of View. Combined with the fascinating, harsh cinematography by Christopher Doyle and the tribal inspired music by Peter Gabriel, the journey unfolds into a moving human drama.

A lot of dynamic comes from the girls, all of them untrained actors, whose powerful performances are more the result of perfect casting and individual attitude than real acting. Their eyes convey all of the emotions, perfect filmmaking does the rest. The final images in "Rabbit-Proof Fence" are among the most harrowing in recent cinema. They bridge a gap between fiction and reality as the viewer suddenly realizes that the journey he just experienced was real and that the heartbreak of these people does not end with the credits.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed