Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
9/10
A Portrait of Humans Living Without Conscience
19 March 2024
THE ZONE OF INTEREST offers a stark warning from history about how easily humankind can normalize even such monstrous acts as genocide while acting as patriots to their motherland.

It tells the story of the family of Rudolf Höss, who was the commandant of Auschwitz. While living in a house adjacent to the concentration camp, the family seem almost completely impervious to the horrors that are occurring daily right next door to them. In many ways, their patriarch bore the greatest responsibility for the cruel efficiency of this operation. Meanwhile, Mrs. Hedwig Höss tended to their children and garden, while coveting the spoils of their operation, such as the clothing and jewelry her husband had taken from their Jewish prisoners.

What makes this movie so chilling is that it is told from such a cold fly-on-the-wall perspective that illustrates the banality of evil. The worst of the Auschwitz experience is mostly obscured from the view of the family and movie audience., as we instead regard the different flowers or vegetables they've planted. Still, you can see the top of the concentration camp over the garden wall, while occasionally hearing shouting or random gunshots. As the movie progresses, it becomes clearer that the Höss family will not be able to fully insulate itself from the horrors right next door, although they still maintain an obliviousness that seems almost unfathomable.

The presentation is almost done Cinéma vérité style, as the story is told in such a matter of fact way, but also from the perpetrators view. The judgments to be made and lessons to be learned are laid almost fully upon the viewer. This is not your typical Hollywood film where the morality play is obviously crafted for a foregone conclusion, although I would hope most would come away from this with the right message. It caused me to wonder what sort of process is necessary for any human being to live their lives without conscience for their actions? That is one of many questions the viewer might come away after viewing this unsettling, but important movie.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
LET IT BE sessions: Bittersweet, intimate, revelatory and restored in astonishing 4K quality.
26 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I've just finished the first part of Peter Jackson's long awaited miniseries, GET BACK. This program debuted this evening on DisneyPlus. The majority of this footage was captured during the January 1969 sessions that spawned the LET IT BE movie and album. But with 56 hours of video footage and over 150 hours of unheard audio to work with, Peter set about creating a brand new expanded reinterpretation of these historic sessions. The original film stock has been perfectly restored in 4K resolution and distills these reels down to over 8 hours of viewing time.

This may sound overwhelming to the casual viewer, but it's an absolute godsend to anyone who truly loves the Beatles. I even watched this with my wife, who isn't always keen on watching expansive musical documentaries. Even she found this presentation to be riveting and worth the time investment (156 minutes) required for watching part 1 this evening.

Peter Jackson chose to begin the program with a brief retrospective reel to contextualize the footage and it's relevance on the Beatles timeline. Although some fans may already be well versed in the history of the LET IT BE sessions, there were certainly plenty of new things for them to learn in this chronological retelling of the story. The original plan was for the Beatles to write and rehearse brand new material for a planned live TV performance that same month.

What really makes this so much more revealing than the original LET IT BE movie from 1970 is the astonishing picture quality which serves to make the experience ever more intimate in it's sheer clarity. The extended footage from each day's session leading up to the legendary Rooftop Concert is very much in the spirit of 'cinéma vérité.

We're being given a privileged view into their songwriting process, as they birth such classics as "Get Back", "Let it Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (just for starters). Some songs came more easily than others, yet each was gradually pruned, tweaked and caressed until they took the form that we've become familiar with today. Most musicians watching this will find this process to be a familiar one, but other viewers may learn that most classic songs aren't born in a day. In this case, The Beatles only had a few weeks to carve these raw ideas into fully realized compositions.

Michael Lindsay-Hogg's fly-on-wall camera work captured the band's interpersonal dynamics in more vivid living detail. By this point in time, Paul assumed more of a leadership role that often required some very careful diplomacy with his bandmates.

*** There are many spoilers below, so read further at your own peril. ***

Musically, the band shuffles through dozens of old originals, covers and even several songs that would later be used for their respective solo projects. All of these jams seemed geared towards keeping them motivated and inspired to come up with the 12 to 14 songs that they'd settled upon having for their planned show.

Gradually, the band relaxes and seems to forget about the cameras just long enough for a more truthful intimacy to emerge. Very quickly, we begin to recognize the personalities and dynamics between the each of the band members.

There are peaks and valleys throughout, just as one might expect there to be in real life. You can tell that the first few days were a bit of a grind for them, but the pacing of these sessions does begin to pick up. Some of these days are more inspired than others, yet many of the giddier moments look as if they probably benefited from some chemical inspiration. Occasionally, they find the need to find some release in just being silly to offset the drudgery of the task at hand or even the palpable tension between certain band members.

It's clear that Paul McCartney was the prime mover for this project, both motivationally and creatively. It was largely his sudden strokes of inspiration and melodic genius that really offered the band their strongest songs here. You could literally see Paul pulling these ideas from his grey matter on the fly, while doing his best to map out all that his muse was feeding him. It was the quality of these ideas that was truly stunning.

John Lennon shows only mild interest in the proceedings at first, while also having the added distraction of Yoko there to contend with. Yoko seems ever present on nearly every day of the session, often clinging to John like a koala bear. (To be fair, George Harrison also invited several of his friends from the Krishna movement to also bear witness to some of these sessions.)

While Yoko's presence does rather intrusive, but Paul likely realized that this issue was probably non-negotiable and wisely opts not to confront it head on. Instead, he seems to appeal to John more as an old friend by revisiting older songs they had written years ago. Paul's approach seems to inspired John to at least have some fun with the sessions, as he wields his quick wit and acerbic humor to elevate the mood - at least between John and Paul.

However, it's George Harrison that winds up feeling like a bit of a third wheel while watches Paul & John bond over these jams. Paul seems a bit lukewarm about George's offering of the unfinished "I Me Mine", but does agree to give it a go. While Paul is desperately trying to keep the band on schedule, George begins to take some of his suggestions more as criticisms. All the while, Ringo sits behind his drum kit with a hunched posture and poker face throughout.

While Paul is zealously trying to conduct and arrange the guitar parts for "Get Back", George visibly begins to bristle at this unwelcome coaching and suddenly decides he's had enough. Not only did he walk out of the session, he also announces his intention to quit the band! I believe it's Mal Evans who asks whether the cameras are still rolling before they respectfully go black, while George seems to underline just how serious he is.

Recording resumes the very next day with only the three remaining Beatles - and Yoko. Their decision to continue the sessions may have seemed a little cold of them at first, but they also may not have been certain how seriously to take George's sudden temper tantrum. Their solution was to get to get a little inebriated and raucous in the studio to cope with these anxieties. While this sessions was probably their least productive one, it's also bit of a hot mess listening to Yoko wail over the instrumental chaos. They do attempt to arrange a few songs as a three piece (with John playing more of George's bits), but even this seems half hearted.

So... the cliff hanger ending for part 1 leaves us with a failed weekend negotiation with George at his home and a grim outlook for the project - and may even the future of The Beatles? Of course, most of us already know how this turns out, but GET BACK allows his to watch the beginning of the end as it happened.

It was also interesting to witness The Beatles reacting to many of the same political issues we're still wrestling with today. After reading the daily newspaper, Paul felt inspired to inject some of his own feelings about the anti-immigrant sentiment in the U. K. at the time with some off-the-cuff alternate lyrics for "Get Back" and the hilarious outtake "Commonwealth".

Peter Jackson's very clever editing style footnotes selected footage in a very helpful and unobtrusive way. One of the moments that I loved was when Linda Eastman is shown taking photographs of Paul while he's composing "The Long and Winding Road". He actually managed to track down the actual photos she took to visually incorporate into the timeline and movie itself. It's these very clever and informative visual touches that enrich the viewing experience, while either highlighting the back story or foreshadowing the future.

So much of this movie is achingly bittersweet in recognizing all those onscreen who are no longer with us. Seeing the late Linda Eastman McCartney so young and lovingly in thrall of her husband while he crafts musical history is very moving to watch. But of course, seeing John Lennon (at age 28) and George Harrison (age 26 at the time) in the prime of their lives is even more a reminder of what a gift this series truly is. Thus far, I've been having the time of my life watching this series and am much looking forward to tomorrow's episode.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Dirt (2019)
6/10
Trashy fun for when you have nothing better to do with your time
23 March 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Deciding whether or not me and my wife both wanted to watched a Motley Crue related video was something of a Déjà vu moment. It transported us back to 1995 when that leaked sex tape of Tommy and Pam (who isn't mentioned once in this pseudo-documentary) was released. Should we watch this or not? Both times, we decided it should be at least good a laugh or two, given that their IQ's combined were that of an average sand flea. But we also experienced that same feeling that's akin to post meal indigestion where one questions why they ate at the Varsity (if you live in Atlanta), Checkers or McDonald's in the first place. You knew what you were going to get, so don't complain too loudly afterwards, right?

It wasn't all bad and there was just enough nostalgia value to keep me from turning it off. One funny moment has Vince Neil briefly acknowledging what a piece of trash THEATRE OF PAIN was. Oh, I'm sorry. I shouldn't be giving all of the best parts away here, since there aren't all that many moments that will impress their hardcore fans (or detractors).

Still, there were also few actual surprises for those who'd already the book or already knew the Motley Crue story. For me, it was more an exercise in seeing how awkwardly they navigated each key piece of their mythology. The simple fact that Jeff Tremaine (JACKASS) directed this tells you pretty much what you're going to get. All of the juicy, sordid bits get tossed together to make them look like Hair Metal superheroes. They got light on the accuracy and supporting details, just so no one with severe ADHD (their target audience) might get bored. I've seen worse, but I'd recommend spending your Friday night doing something else. Save this for when you truly are bored. 6 out of 10 (at best).
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gimme Danger (2016)
7/10
Long overdue documentary on The Stooges is worthwhile, but not quite definitive
11 February 2017
GIMME DANGER is worthwhile and interesting look at those perennial underdogs of rock music, The Stooges. Long time fans of the band should be mostly satisfied with this documentary about their rise, fall and brief rebirth in the 21st century to a far more appreciative response.

The Stooges primal proto-punk was certainly before its time in 1969 and really wouldn't be embraced more fully until several decades later. The simplicity of their musical ideas may have evolved from their limitations rather than some grand design. The dark and confrontational sound they created together utilized into those basic elements that can make rock music so compelling. Jim Osterberg's transformation into the iconic Iggy Pop gave The Stooges an absolutely perfect front man. While the Stooges rhythm section hardly moved on stage, Iggy's spontaneous, lanky, almost awkward physicality gave their live performances a sense of danger and unpredictability that made their shows so captivating.

Overall, this is an enjoyable enough film, but it does possess some notable shortcomings. One of my main criticisms is that there isn't quite enough focus on the music. There is ample time spent on the songs for The Stooges 1969 debut album, but the songs on FUN HOUSE are discussed only briefly. Even less is said about their landmark RAW POWER album, although though there is some discussion and audio from the early sessions at Olympic Studio. Besides "Search And Destroy", any meaningful discussion about the album or its release are virtually absent here! Instead, the story quickly moves on to the demise of The Stooges and release of Iggy & James KILL CITY project. Although the movie time is approximately 1 hour and 46 minutes, another 15 minutes of musical discussion would have been well worth the time spent.

Early live performance footage of the band was either in short supply or the producers just didn't have the budget for the rights. For whatever reason, many clips are repeated throughout the movie, mainly the classic Cincinnati Pop Festival footage showing Iggy wandering off into the audience, smearing peanut butter on himself while being hold aloft by an adoring (or fearful) crowd. More vintage footage would have made this documentary a bit more compelling.

Given that this movie is focused on the The Stooges (or Iggy & The Stooges), Iggy Pop's solo career is mentioned pretty sparingly. I respect the reasons for this decision, but it would been interesting to spend a little time talking about Iggy & David in Berlin or even just some highlights. But given how little time in the spotlight the Asheton brothers, Dave Alexander and James Williamson have enjoyed, it is admirable that Iggy's celebrity isn't allowed to completely overshadow their contributions.

It was also a good decision to limit the interview sections to the band and a few insiders. Many rock documentaries are overfilled with a parade of contemporaries, critics and talking heads whom usually only add limited insight and too much hyperbole. Danny Fields slightly overstates the importance of The Stooges during his interview clips, but this is forgivable given that he was the person that basically discovered them. The newer interview sessions with Iggy back home in his parents trailer and James Williamson holding his Gibson Les Paul Custom Pro Black Beauty are each quite interesting and enjoyable.

All in all, i would rate GIMME DANGER 7.5 and would recommend to anyone who wants to learn about the band. I applaud the spirit and well meaning intent of Jarmusch, but wish he'd not moved so quickly through certain eras. It's a very nicely done film, but also a missed opportunity in some ways.
11 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
What would Ayn say?
13 October 2012
After paying $11 to see ATLAS SHRUGGED at a local Cineplex, I felt compelled to write this review for IMDb. The earliest review for this movie I read for this movie appeared to have been written by someone who hadn't even seen the movie yet! (It was also posted the day before the theatrical release) In fact, the extreme polarization of the majority of IMDb users appears to be strictly along political lines, since most gave the movie either a 10 or a 1! It seemed obvious to me that neither perspective was likely to be accurate or helpful in assessing whether this movie would be worth seeing.

For full disclosure, I would consider myself to be a political moderate and a longtime fan of Ayn Rand's work. While I do agree with many of Ayn's sentiments about socialism, I do also resent the fact that her work is now being appropriated (and attacked) as some sort of political manifesto. Therefore, the film should be judged solely on its own merits and faults - NOT because you're a liberal or a conservative.

The original 1957 novel was intended as Ayn's most extensive statement on her philosophy of Objectivism and is considered by many followers to be her masterpiece. I would instead judge it to be an important, but flawed masterwork. ATLAS SHRUGGED is her love letter to the America that inspired Ayn to become such an advocate for individual freedoms, liberty and capitalism. It can also be viewed as a dire warning that allowing more government and socialist policies could transform our nation into the Russia she so bitterly left behind in 1925.

The main problem I found with the book was that the characters were unrealistically polarized in their attitudes about the individual's role in society. As a result, I often found them a bit rigid, cold and lacking in any sort of personality that the reader might empathize with. Instead, Ayn entirely expected her readers to embrace the heroes in her work for their ethics, virtue and idealism alone. What she didn't anticipate were the mediocre actors that would wind up portraying her heroes and villains This "character weakness" in her original writing is greatly magnified in this theatrical rendering,especially with the B and C list acting talent that was enlisted. To make matters even worse, budgetary constraints forced the producers of ATLAS SHRUGGED: PART 2 to recast almost ALL of the main characters?! Having watched PART 1 over a year ago, this wasn't entirely bothersome since most of the original actors weren't all that memorable to begin with. However, I can see this change being a bit more perplexing if I were to view both parts back to back. Samantha Mathis did an acceptable job with the Dagny Taggart role, but most performances were fairly unmemorable. The only semi-familiar faces I could pick out were Diedrich Bader (best known for The Drew Cary Show) and Arye Gross (from Ellen).

Many of the core ideas of the book, such as "The Strike" that part 2 covers, are presented awkwardly. Therefore, the reasoning behind the actions for the strike might seem hokey or incomprehensible to those who are unfamiliar with the original book. Also, the story has been given a bit of a modern face lift which I don't necessarily take issue with. The signs advertising gasoline for $42 a gallon at various points in the movie are both chilling and somehow humorous at the same time. I say humorous only because the story seems so fantastical at some points that I couldn't help but question the credibility of this ominous vision of the future. But more often I found myself struggling to remember what was originally in the book versus what was added by the screenwriters. Regardless of who is to blame, the results are a blemish upon my memories of the original book.

The decision to chop the book into 3 parts with widely staggered release dates has only served to make this controversial and often difficult book into a confusing mess. And by presenting the story in such delayed and mismatched parts, it's far less likely anyone other than a devoted Rand fan would bother to see all three parts. I actually made a point to see the movie during its opening weekend for fear that it would leave theaters quickly. (ATLAS SHRUGGED PT. 1 lasted only a few weeks in Atlanta and was next to impossible to find on the Internet for the following 6 months.) ATLAS SHRUGGED PT. 2 (and the series as a whole) is a disappointing and confusing representation of the original book. While I was initially thankful that someone finally managed to bring this book to celluloid, that feeling has now turned to regret. I felt very conflicted about the movie after leaving the theater and my friends (who were less familiar with the book) were fairly negative, even though they were politically sympathetic to the ideas in the movie.

Although I will probably watch part 3 (IF it ever gets finished), I can't see giving this movie anything more than a 4/10 score. I can't really see a casual viewer with little knowledge of Ayn Rand's work or the original book getting much out of this production. This alone should be considered the film's most grievous failure.

But as Ayn Rand would say, don't trust anyone else's mind before your own. If you are a fan of her books, then take the time to see these movies and find your own perspective. Her ideas alone are worth discussion and maybe someone else can be inspired to do this book justice.
103 out of 144 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed