Change Your Image
quim-scd
Reviews
Aleksandr Nevskiy (1938)
Eisenstein's finest
This is, arguably, one of the most influential and best movie pictures of all times. From camera work to acting and plot, nothing was left to chance, all the more so because Eisenstein was one of the most prominent cinema theorists of his time along with Dziga Vertov, another important Russian film maker (mainly documentarist). Unlike many have thought, this movie is definitely about the rise of Nazi Germany and a hymn to the revolution as well as an appeal to keep it true to its original spirit. Eisenstein said it himself as he wrote abundantly on movie making, cinema theory and his own work. Prince Alexander Nevsky was purposely chosen as he had also fought an important war to stop the expansion of southern nations, mainly Germans. One of the precious pearls in this movie is the portrayal of Teutonic knights, with their helmets, medieval in origin, true, but stylized, meaning to represent Nazi troops so as to make it easy for Russian folk to understand the analogy. Not surprisingly, George Lucas would, a few decades later, choose this grim guise to wrap Star Wars' evil personage, Darth Vader. That is precisely why Stalin had some reticence in allowing its release at a time when Nazi Germany was not yet, militarily wise, seen as a real threat. As for camera plans and angles they proved so influential as to pervade the works of the best of later film directors such as Leni Riefenstahl (yes, Nazi Germany favored film director), Orson Welles, Akira Kurosawa or Manoel de Oliveira, the oldest film director still alive today (over 100 years old). From the simplest scenes to the battle ones this film is all about perfection and symbolism, drawing the viewer to Nevsky's side and devoiding some historical elements of its importance as is the case of religion which is conveyed as the fuel for Teutonic aggression and stripped of meaning in the Russian side. Most noticeably when, after winning the final battle, Russians enter a church but we never see a priest in sight (nor during the whole of the film, except the afore mentioned enemy ones), no religious symbols, neither does Eisenstein allows the public to so much as have a glimpse of the church's interior. And Yet Nevsky is a Russian saint which says a lot of communism's perspective on that matter. They were prepared to assimilate historical heroes so as to justify their own demeanor, stripping them of any esoteric or religious aura they might have. Ivan Grozny continues that work. In this particular movie Nikolai Cherkasov steals the screen with impressive energy and excellent acting. 10 out of 10 seems too dry for such a film as it will stay in your mind forever with its beautiful camera work and directing.
Thirteen at Dinner (1985)
Excellent despite some cheesiness!
When I saw this movie for the first time I thought it had a strange feel to it, mainly due to being adapted to the eighties. Hercule Poirot is one of those characters who only seem to make sense in the 20's and 30's. I also felt the American tone given to it to be slightly inadequate. Yet a few classical elements still made it quite enjoyable and not least Ustinov's performance. Do you know that feeling of a particular actor being "the" character and not just playing it? Well, Ustinov is Poirot while, for instance, David Suchet merely plays it (which doesn't mean I dislike him as Poirot). In fact, all his Poirot movies (6 in total) are worth watching mainly because of him. Forget about the exaggerated Albert Finney, in guise as well as in acting, or the bland Suchet and his ridiculous walk. Ustinov portrays an affable yet shrewd man who gets his way through a good spirited disposition and remarkable ability to lead people into believing he can be manipulated. He, then, takes advantage of that feeling to dig in and find, through what is shown to him, that which is amiss. As for other actors I think Faye Dunaway is quite good if somewhat extravagant and Jonathan Cecil almost makes it by doing a slightly soberer Hastings than in subsequent films, "Dead Man's Folly" and "Murder in Three Acts", where he eventually lost his grip on the character by slipping into shear silliness. The plot is a progressive one, intensifying in suspense, all throughout, until Poirot's final disclosure. There are some cheesy bits such as Jake Slago's movie making or some of the music that doesn't sound appropriate to creating the right ambiance (I wonder why CBS won't remake the soundtrack, so as to improve the final result). All in all it still is a "must have" for Poirot fans, with the added curiosity of David Suchet's appearance as inspector Japp. 10 out of 10 may seem too much, but it comes as a tribute to Ustinov's wonderful acting.
Murder by Decree (1979)
Just a notch under A Study in Terror.
This is an enjoyable movie, even if the plot is over the top. Actors perform well although Holmes is shown as an average detective, not using much of his deductive powers. There are pretty good scenes, technically and dramatically, not inferior to, say, From Hell ones. The end is a bit far fetched and it reminds us of contemporary American films with intricate plots, hard to swallow. Scotland Yard inspectors (Lestrade included) seem to be there only for the sake of registering the murders and have little weight on the story, which steals some density to the movie. However it is one to be seen as pure entertainment. The Original Soundtrack is befitting, contrary to the one on A Study in Terror, for example...
A Study in Terror (1965)
Great interpretations! Unfit OST.
This is a wonderful, entertaining film, with one great cast (Donald Houston makes a superb Watson) and a nice plot although a bit Holmes-centered, which will please some people even more anyway, victorian-like dialogues being quite exceptional. The density of the story is acceptable, even if it lacks some psychological details. One thing, though, has been somewhat of a let down - the overdubbed sounds and music. This is one movie that could benefit enormously from sound revamping, original soundtrack included. It would certainly rank quite higher in movie History if that were to be done (Can it?). All things considered, it is nevertheless a must, not just for Sherlock Holmes or ripper fans, but for anyone who is looking for a good movie, in general.
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1988)
Brett is (was) Holmes!
This is surely a great adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles. And without the shadow of a doubt, the best of them all. To begin with, I believe that the way the legend itself is put is quite ingenious and adequate, for being a legend it cannot be portrayed as having happened. As with every such story it is not exactly real and so space is left to viewers to imagine how much of it is true. Of Brett the best that can be said is that he was Holmes! Whilst everyone else merely played Holmes. The same goes for Hardwicke as Watson, although Burke had come pretty close. I top this one along with The Devil's Foot Root episode, and the scene where Dr. Mortimer talks of his phrenological passion along with the one in The Devil's Foot Root when Holmes uses unusual resources to make his deductions regarding the Vicar Roundhay. The mystery is quite dense and anyone not familiar with Doyle's story will have a hard time making any sort of deductions before Holmes himself reveals his own. The pace of the movie is what it should be. I, for one, am weary of Hollywood's fast and action packed movies. This is one to allow yourself to soak in the atmosphere and appreciate the narrative quality of the story. If it hadn't the mystery it would still have some interest of its own. It is beautifully filmed, although one can discover one or two directing tricks. But that's just me who must have watched it some 50 times! On the whole, be sure to see it, better still, be sure to get a copy of it!!!