Reviews

Controversial? Yes. Accurate? You decide.

The documentarians who made this obviously knew when they were doing their pre-research that such a subject would anger some pretty powerful interests. And thus it did, as evidenced by the reaction on the web published on Reddit and elsewhere.

It's very difficult, expensive and even scary to create and be a subject of an investigative documentary that may piss off certain powerful interests. However, it's easy to post negative comments... especially when it benefits your own pocketbook.

I suggest you watch this and decide on your own.

Many great films of the early 1970s have survived well, but this one is terribly dated and sexist. Instead of wasting your time on this, watch "Patton", "MASH", "Five Easy Pieces", "Catch-22" - all released in 1970.

I just watched the 1st episode thinking I was going to view at least somewhat of a documentary. But no. Instead I was treated with casting and storyline obviously created by individuals well-versed in Shakespearean comedy. Truly outrageous and nowhere near reality, but I loved it!

I chose to show this film in my Intro to Film class based on a recommendation of a friend, a veteran, who said it was a must-see. I had not viewed it myself ahead of time, which led to my wife (also a university professor) telling me, "You're an idiot."

After I made the commitment by posting its title on the class website, I decided to read some reviews, which resulted in my having that sinking, oh-god-I-really-picked-a-dud- this-time feeling.

With this dread I cued up the DVD player. But by the time 92 minutes had elapsed and the credits were on the screen, that dread had been replaced by the satisfaction that I had chosen perhaps the perfect film for this class at this time. Why?

First, virtually all the issues that were present in 2007 when the film was released are today still present: The Afghanistan war, the threat of a nuclear Iran, the integrity of election year politics, the responsibility of the press, the question of academia being a rich kid's playground vs. a disadvantaged kid's chance to get a leg up, and more.

The only two things that have changed in the last five years are that the Iraq war has ended and Osama bin Laden is dead.

So for the students this film was more than pertinent, particularly the discussion between Robert Redford's Prof. Malley and the wise-ass-smart but slacker student Todd (played by Andrew Garfield), which threads, along with the two other story lines, throughout the film. In reality, Malley and Todd are asking the same question but with different pronouns. Malley: "What are you doing here?" Todd: "What am I doing here?" Totally relevant to today's college student.

Because this is a presidential election year, the film also hit the students on another front: Okay, so the system isn't perfect, perhaps even broken, but should I care? If so, should I do something about it? Should I even vote?

And even though most of the students have had no contact with military life, there are a handful of veterans (I would guess) and certainly some ROTC members among the class's 100 or so bodies. For them, there is another level of engagement.

I think many of the initial criticisms of the film were based on the fact that, by the time it was released, pretty much everyone in the country had already formed their opinion on the Iraq war and were sick and tired of hearing about it. Even though the film was not about the Iraq war, it was not-so-subtly critical of its origins and its ongoing drag on the country's psyche.

In sum, although the film is talky, it covers a lot of ground and a number of themes very apropos to first- and second-year college students. The film may not entertain the heck out of you, but I guarantee that it gave every single one of my students something to think about when they went home.

Oh, by the way, like with most films I show, I took an informal poll afterward of whether the students liked it or not. All but one gave it a thumbs up. I praised that lone dissenter for having the guts to admit he didn't.

Those who have read and/or have seen one or more of the umpteen bajillion screen versions of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE will find this film a hoot. It is actually an Americanized version of a Bollywood film, shorter than most the traditional Bollywood films and filled with plenty of the queen's English for any American to understand.

Those who take it seriously won't get the overall humor and pure, old-style Hollywood/Bollywood musical/dancing/simplistic love story enjoyment. Anyone who just wants to have fun at a film: Watch it and be prepared to smile.

WARNING: Best viewed with others who have a light-hearted, open-for-fun sense of humor.

Why this film is so lowly rated on IMDb, I don't know. It is one of my favorite films of all time, and this comes from a guy who, has acted in a lot of Shakespeare.

What disappoints me about the study of Shakespeare is how narrowly the "traditionalists" have boxed him into an acceptable academic definition. Their knowledge, while expansive, still confines them into a incestuous body of research wherein one source feeds upon another ad infinitum.

I prefer the broader approach taken by this film — from one of the most marvelously crafted screenplays ever — portraying Shakespeare as almost an accidental genius. And yes, the world has experienced many.

I haven't read all the comments on the film but can only assume that those who dislike it do so because it challenges the status quo of the Shakespeare myth and canon. Yet Shakespeare IN LOVE is not meant to be history: It's meant to be entertainment.

And this is what Shakespeare would have wanted.

I have shown this film in my classes at Minnesota State University Mankato and offered it as an assignment and extra credit. Either way, it is perhaps the only film of the dozens I've shown that my predominantly Midwestern students have universally liked. For some — maybe even most — it may be the first non-English language film they're ever seen.

And for a bonus it is a great educational tool: Yes, it demonstrates vividly that great films are made outside of the U.S. Yes, the cinematographic and editing choices offer a cornucopia of styles. Yes, the music and soundtrack are not secondary but help drive the film in its relentless pace. Yes, the ensemble cast, many of whom are amateurs from the favelas where the film is set, bring each character to life with compelling definition.

Yes, the film exemplifies the classic three-act structure with hook, plot points, Shakespearian-style midpoint, climax and denouement. Yes, it sails thru its 130 minutes yet ends at just the right time. And all this in one film.

With an educational tool like CITY OF GOD, my job as a film professor becomes astonishingly easy.

THE DEEP SIX made a big impression on me as a kid. (I don't recall seeing more than bits and pieces since then.) At that time, World War II movies were big, as were afternoon matinees. After watching this we turned a friend's backyard tree into a submarine conning tower, which gave us hours and hours of play.

Two scenes I particularly remember:

One is when the Japanese, on the pretext of surrendering on a beach, have a machine gun hidden on the back of one of their soldiers. Suddenly he bends over and the guy behind him opens fire with the machine gun, mowing down the helpless and gullible Yanks.

And of course the key scene is when the conscientious objector, played by Alan Ladd, finally fires his gun in defense of his fellow soldiers.

8 out of 10 for the fond memories of youth....

First, the bad news: Some of the interviews go on a tad too long. And yes, Michael Moore gets a little ponderous on screen. He could have minimized himself a bit.

Now the good news: Like so many of Moore's films, watching SICKO is like hitting your funny bone — you don't know whether to laugh or cry. That's the kind of reaction one should get from any good film. Great comedies make you laugh till you cry. And great tragedies sometimes force you to laugh, albeit weakly, just to relieve the tension they produce.

Moore gives us both in spades in this documentary, which speaks very, very frankly to the ridiculous and totally inefficient way we deliver health care in the U.S. If anyone wants to learn more about this issue, I strongly recommend reading Kip Sullivan's THE HEALTH CARE MESS, available online at authorhouse.com.

THIS FILM SHOULD BE SEEN BY EVERY POLICY MAKER AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL. Unfortunately, not all will. And undoubtedly, the ones who most should see it won't. That's too bad for this country.

My wife loves this film. This is a woman whose favorite films include any woman whose last name is Hepburn. Yes, she is a romanticist from the past — understandable since she has a Ph.D. in medieval history.

Because she's played the film enough times, I've had the opportunity to watch it both in its entirety and in bits and pieces. And there's really a lot to it that most viewers are missing.

Why?

I think it's because it grows on you. The parts are all incredibly well played — certainly expected of mature actors like Maggie Smith, Fionnula Flanagan and Ellen Burstyn. But here even Sandra Bullock is enticing not just in her looks but in her expression of her character.

Some films you like right out of the gate. We all know which ones they are. Others have to grow on you. And unfortunately too many films are never given a second chance. YA-YA SISTERHOOD is one.

Watching it a second or third time is like sitting around a campfire and telling the same story over for the umpteenth time. We've all heard it before, but we still want to hear it again.

For those who have dissed this film, give it another chance. Perhaps when you're older. Perhaps when you're in a romantic mood. Perhaps when you're tired of stupid comedies, disgusting horror films and over-the-top action thrillers. Then I'm sure you'll see it in a different light and think, "Well maybe YA-YA SISTERHOOD is indeed a little hidden gem."

This is a very nice little film that I saw (I think) in 1980 when reviewing short subjects for the now defunct FILMEX in Los Angeles. It was certainly among the best of the bunch for that year.

It is unfortunate that a talented, sensitive filmmaker like Firstenberg — as evidenced by his work in FOR THE SAKE OF A DOG — has been stuck with doing action/ninja/karate films. He deserves better. Film audiences deserve better.

I am convinced that with the right opportunity and material Firstenberg could be recognized for what he deserves — as an outstanding, quality filmmaker.

A film-making tour de force of style, "Requiem" is ultimately exploitation masquerading as art. Apart from the glitz and glamor of the cinematography and editing, where is the character development? Where are the twists and turns in the story? Where are the delightful surprises that great films always give us?

Were it other than a straight linear, chronologically ordered record of four characters' steady descent into hell, it might be more than a simple diary of the times.

Students wanted me to show this in my film class this past semester. Sometimes I will show films I have not previous viewed. This time I chose not to—I'm glad I made the right decision.

Like "Citizen Kane", this classic film is very much showing its age. And even though it was produced only three years before "Casablanca", it seems decades apart. While Michael Curtiz's camera in "Casablanca" is often moving, as are the characters, Frank Capra's setups and blocking are static and theatrical.

Jimmy Stewart, the Tom Hanks of that era, is consistent as usual. But Jean Arthur's Clarissa Saunders is like a cardboard cutout compared to Ingrid Bergman's fluidity, especially when she's trying to play someone who's inebriated.

Worthwhile as a fine moment in film history, "Mr. Smith" nevertheless bombs when played to younger audiences in 2005, who have come to expect a heck of a lot more from their film experiences.

I have shown "Citizen Kane" several times to my film classes, and the result is universally the same: So what?

And they're right. While the film may have broken ground in its day, like Kane himself it's aging not-so-gracefully in the 21st century.

The acting is stilted — especially Joseph Cotton's. The scenes sometimes go on way too long. The music is ponderous.

As film history it's still a gem. But as measured by current cinema standards it's getting a bit senile. I look forward to the day it slowly slides from "10 best" lists so that I no longer feel compelled to show it to introductory film students.

UPDATE (12/26/07)

That day has come — that is, I know longer show "Citizen Kane" to introductory film students, though sometimes I allow them extra credit for viewing it on their own. The film I show instead from the same era is "Casablanca", which receives much better reviews from this generation of audiences, especially young women.

This may once have been a great film, but it's aging badly. The film would have been much better had it dealt wholly with Kim Novak as Madeleine Elster, but throwing in Novak as Judy Barton is a barely believable add-on to what should have been a wonderfully mysterious plot about a woman obsessed with her deceased great-grandmother.

It's also unfortunate that Barbara Bel Geddes was totally wasted in this film. Perhaps pining quietly for a guy who doesn't have his act together (Jimmy Stewart) was the way liberated career women acted in the 1950s — I don't know — but I kept hoping that she would punch him in the face and tell him to grow up.

Compared to "Rear Window", which is still strong and fresh, "Vertigo" seems like it has one foot in the grave.

It is vitally important in our America-centric culture that educators expose other points-of- view whenever possible. That is why I'm showing CONTROL ROOM in the film classes I'm teaching at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

This documentary is not nearly as one-sided as FAHRENHEIT 9/11, nor as emotion provoking. In fact, the filmmakers seem to have edited their work with anticipated criticism it would receive from the right-wing elements of the American press. Perhaps that is why it seems to have been greeted with somewhat of a "ho hum" from both ends of the political spectrum. Since it succeeds in steering a middle course it has not attracted the controversy, nor the attention, received by Michael Moore's work.

This said, CONTROL ROOM is a fascinating work that treats the American Marine who is the U.S. Central Command spokesperson with the same sympathy as the Arab staffers who work for Al-Jazeera. Compared to most of the plonk that is supposed to entertain us in theaters or on DVD today, CONTROL ROOM easily soars above the crowd.

George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld could learn from this film. As Yogi Berra might say, our slow and unending fall into the quicksand that is Iraq is "déjà vu all over again."

John Frankenheimer's "Path to War" chronicles the series of unfortunate decisions that Lyndon B. Johnson was forced to make that led to the enormous buildup and commitment of troops, money, and destruction in Vietnam during his presidency. The film portrays LBJ in a sympathetic light almost like a flawed but essentially good Shakespearean protagonist who succumbs to bad advice, becomes trapped by it, and almost descends into complete madness from it.

I vividly remember the moment when Johnson announced he would not run again. He had become an enemy to many of us at the time, and thus the news that his term would end in less than a year gave us hope once more for the country.

What is key to this film, and what opened my eyes, was his strong objections to the war itself. At each decision point he wrestled with the morality of escalation, and ultimately was led to believe that escalation would bring an end to the fighting. Indeed, history proved otherwise.

What is regrettable is that this country is going through "déjà vu all over again," the only difference being that George W. Bush seems totally immune to the suffering and costs his war in Iraq has begotten. Do we see him agonizing over the injuries and deaths? Perhaps he does in private, but if so he keeps it repressed in public.

Whether or not you are a supporter of President Bush, this film should be required viewing for anyone who cares about America's recent history and current position in the world.

There are two ways to assess this film. One is objectively as cinema; the other is subjectively as a religious and cultural event.

As a film, "The Passion of the Christ" is only mediocre. It has a thin plot, no subplots, and virtually all the characterizations are uni-dimensional. For example, the two Marys are always grief stricken; the Roman centurians are all laughing, drunken, sadistic buffoons; the rabbis are all determined to get the blasphemer; and Jesus is perpetually suffering, except in the flashbacks in which we see a glimpse of someone who is other than a victim. Ironically, the only two characters that show some range are Pontius Pilate and his deputy, Abenader.

The two bright points of the film as cinema are Caleb Deschanel's cinematography (if you discount the excessive use of slow motion) and Keith VanderLaan and his crew's marvelous make-up effects.

Despite this, as an event it is well worth seeing. No doubt, many have come away from "The Passion of the Christ" truly moved and shaken. Others may have come away shocked at the graphic brutality.

Inasmuch as I grew up with this story, I long ago came to grips emotionally with the series of events depicted in the film. Today I choose to view the legacy of Jesus as love, goodness, and sharing, and wish all of us in this world would practice what this man has taught us. Unfortunately, many who most loudly profess Christianity spend more time proselytizing and politicizing their beliefs than actually living the life exemplified by his teachings and acts.

So much for the Christian way....

I rarely contribute to imdb.com. However, I teach film, write, and consult on scripts. I caught "The Green Mile" on TV the other night and was stunned. I had seen it before, yet the power of its story, especially personified by its characters, was mesmerizing.

Prison films are inherently a tough sell. Yet some of our best cinema has come from this very specific genre: "The Shawshank Redemption", "The Usual Suspects" (partially), "Cool Hand Luke", and, in fact, "A Man for All Seasons".

"The Green Mile", with its mix of realism, magic, and spirituality, represents the best in classic storytelling. That it could be captured on film so well, defying by modern marketing standards an instant attraction to young audiences and yet succeed in capturing them, gives testimony to great writing, filmmaking and acting.