Change Your Image
Simon_Bocanegra
Reviews
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
All these reviews and nobody gets Tim Burton by a mile here
This movie titled Alice in Wonderland is not about the book or previous movies titled Alice in Wonderland. Not in the slightest.
Burton has created another alchemical Grail story, and it holds up quite nicely. Think about Mozart's Queen of Night in The Magic Flute, the 2 beasts of the Apocalypse in the Revelation of St. John, King Arthur's sword Excalibur, Alice's disengagement from being Alice, and her insistence that it's all a dream she can awaken from anytime she wants- and you get where Burton wants to go with this.
He is creating a modern cinematic myth, and does a nice job with it. That's all I have to add.
Personally for sheer nostalgic purposes only, I would have enjoyed seeing cameos of Edward Scissorhands doing the gardens off to a corner when Alice first reenters Underland....and Captain Jack Sparrow as the Ship's Master at the end, but that would only have confused movie-goers even more....
Harry Brown (2009)
I see all these positive reviews out of the UK and think
well, Michael Caine doesn't make bad movies, does he? *Answer below.
Granted, the notion of a vigilante pensioner is already a stretch, but Clint Eastwood pulled it off to perfection. They're about the same age, Eastwood and Caine, aren't they? But Eastwood's war was Korea in the 50's and Caine's was supposed to be Northern Ireland in the 70's. Okay, whatever.
Then I read "Oscar for Michael Caine" and "everything Gran Torino was supposed to be" and wonder, because frankly Gran Torino hit the note that this sack of garbage totally misses.
There is no plot, no plot development, no character development....well, the Gollumesque dealer is a pretty spooky advertisement against that sort of lifestyle.
It's basically a mindless rehash of vigilante movies of the past few decades, except it's maybe supposed to appeal to retired folks and those getting on in years. Which, I suppose, there's quite an audience to tap there.
So, really, I've got to wonder what is bothering all these UK viewers that they think this is gold. No, I don't want to wonder because I've already wasted an hour and a half of my time watching it and that was too much. I'd like to know Sir Michael's opinion of the film, if he thinks it adds to the celluloid canon in any way....
*Yes, Michael Caine made a bad movie here.
Kardia (2006)
An average to mediocre student project
Like someone ran out of money, interest, or just died writing it- It looks like the writer/director intends to say "examine your life for deeper meaning, then get back and inform me" while it actually says "because I can't write a coherent story and don't really know what I want to say, everything I say here is meaningless". If that's its intent, it breaks new ground as the artform of time-waste.
Kinda like an interesting looking car that it takes an hour and a half to start up, and it sounds good, then dies. Well, how do you feel about that?
Numb? Exactly. The writer dithers with some story and character development, has the main character shlep around in her office, dictating pathetic musings into a hand recorder while looking soulful, recurring flashback, and voila- the punchline. Hope your popcorn isn't stale, so you'll at least have something to smile about as this waste of time fades to black.
Gee, is that the writer's message? "Madeja watch!"
The Wind That Shakes the Barley (2006)
Loach lays a wooden egg
With a talented cast, gorgeous scenery and cinematography, and a sure-fire conflict story based on recent history, one would think this film would be a sure-fire smash hit....especially if one goes by other IMDb reviews. Maybe I just watched an alternative-universe version, or my chair angle was wrong, but what I saw did not nearly do justice to a story deserving of being told, and told well. It missed, not by an inch, more by a mile, Padraic.
Perhaps Ken Loach is trying to portray a tight-lipped, understated desperation among his characters, but all I got was a lot of screaming, shooting, and screen hostility, like a college production. I never really saw the tension. Sure, there's the senseless beating death in the beginning that catalyzes the village boys to take up arms....but it's impersonal, boorish, and over way too quick, and never gets near the evil impersonality of, say, Ralph Fiennes in Schindler. And the sentiment in Southern Ireland was exactly akin, that the British saw them as inferior, unruly savages to be treated as such. The historical occupation says at least as much about the British as it does the Irish. And of course, English viewers will be naturally uncomfortable, because what they remember most is the brutal IRA bombings of recent history.
We all(in America) know of the dogged determinism of Winston Churchill rallying England against the Germans, but we are never told the sobering fact that Churchill and Downing Street and the British Crown were so hated by the Irish that many were neutral when it came to World War II.
Cillian Murphy, as Damian- the same actor who pulled off a 2-hour intensely captivating monologue in Breakfast on Pluto- an almost unthinkable acting feat- turns in a mostly wooden performance in this, seemingly going through the motions of the passionate would-be doctor turned patriot, as do the rest of the cast. No close-ups to reveal thought and emotion processes, although the fingernail-pull is plenty close.
We're not sure or maybe even aware that Teddy and Damian are brothers- where's the buildup to all the relationships? Gone is where. Where's the history of their dads and granddads being crushed generation after generation by the Crown? Of the rich Knighted landowners ruling their lands, "gifts of the Crown for services rendered"- oppressing the locals-? Of the Catholic Church and its conflicted role in the Irish misery? missing, missing, missing.
The story seems like a gimme, but I don't know- maybe it was the direction or pace, or maybe Ken Loach presumes that the rest of the world knows the story like the Irish do. Probably a combination of the above, because it never captures the gut passion of so many levels of conflict that the original story has to offer. And that is a shame.
The ending is anti-climactic and I wonder if Loach is aiming for a documentary-drama style. That misses also.
I think of Mickeybo and Me, shot in a time-frame 50 years later, and in Belfast- but utterly grabbing the viewer with its presentation of childish innocence and even studied escapism amidst tragedy.
Everyone seemingly walks through their lines, perhaps convinced that such a passionate story will tell itself- maybe the director told them all exactly that, but guess what? You still have to go out and play the game, as they say, and I think this one was lost.
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)
The only possible way I could see to maybe improve on a great film
like this one would be to show the entire thing in a flashback timeview of a middle-aged Mike Norton, a thoughtful, decent cowboy(or whatever honest tradesman) 25 or so years later who finds himself being asked by a young vaquero if there's any work. And then thinking back to the turning point of his life, the Three Burials.
It shows a soulless, young creep, Mike Norton- played by Barry Pepper- who is doing no one on this earth any good, taking a soulful man's life, and then having his own life redeemed at gunpoint by the purgatorial ride to Jimenez, enforced by Pete(TLJ)
At first Pete is the ruthless, avenging demon prodding him on through hell, even going so far as to run across a blind man who has "almost paid his dues in hell", then, finally with the gift of Mel's horse- and calling him "son"- did you notice that? Tommy Lee becomes the benevolent angel.
I'm very impressed with the writer, Guillermo Arriaga. This is a vivid depiction of man's soulfulness and truth amidst violence and lust, much like 21 Grams was.
The Constant Gardener (2005)
Unfortunately, I read the book first, and
the director, Fernando Meirelles really drops the ball with this movie. LeCarre is truly one of the great storytellers of our time, and he paints an unforgettable canvas in text replete with smell, Africa's brawling conflict and misery, the heat, the passion. Meirelles has the challenge of translating that to the big screen, and I really feel his injection of his own message weakens an already powerful message.
He has two great actors to work with, and never during the movie was I convinced that Rachel Weisz was Tessa Quayle- I blame the director. This part is a hard one because Tessa is a modern-day female Christ figure- charismatic, gifted, sensual selfless Earth-mother who gives her life to improve that of the helpless and downtrodden of the world. So, even if Ralph Fiennes pulls off the much easier role of the loving disciple who follows Her, which he mostly does- I felt the Rachel Weisz character lacked the charisma and the dignity of that character. And I felt that Fiennes' transformation was not really developed effectively. The cinematic flashbacks weaken it, even if he has them in the novel as well. This is a man who changes within a few weeks from a wimp of a career diplomatic yes-man gardener to a man who will follow his Love to his own destruction, and freely chooses to. The director or screenwriter attempt to change the story to a more understandable and palatable version of a scandal at the end brought on by the purloined letter...and they change the character of Lorbeer to a different sort of Judas from the novel- failure, failure. This tells me they didn't understand the book's message from the start.
Finally, the few little extra politicizing events the director tosses in on top of LeCarre's story: the commentary on Iraq and the Sudan raiders, are blatant, feeble attempts that weaken a powerful story.
I would be curious to read what the author, John LeCarre felt about the movie version.
The Girl in a Swing (1988)
Girl in a Swing is a sleeper film of the first water- I'd call it perfect,
but that would imply Ebert, Maltin, et al. are morons. And that's not what I intend to write about. ;-)
This film is one of my favorites because it deals with animistic archetypes as living essences of Nature- and they're all around us all the time, even in our stultified modern lives......invisible to all. It's really perfectly pagan with a dash of the ancient gods, nymphs, etc., which is what the Girl really is- like Venus born of the foam of the Sea- and hints at exactly what Powers lie sleeping within...all of us.
Our hero, Alan is a typical well-behaved English plodder, utterly predictable and boring, even a boring name- with only one passion- and it isn't love- or so he thinks. It is for his antique business and finding obscure and rare pieces.
Like Ali Baba, he does just that, and somehow unleashes a Genie that in turn will unleash the passionate, loving Man lurking, sleeping in him- which will awaken him from his walking sleep.
It's been a good 10 years since I've seen this film. I hope it is available in DVD at some point. It really is a superb piece of work.
Ggot seom (2001)
Kkotseom, Flower Island starts strong and bold-
and then fizzles into an insipid pretense of resolution. I believe the film makers are trying to show that in the midst of a suffering world, there can be magic, acceptance, healing and resolution. They do very well at depicting the pain these women have landed in, and brief vignettes of what brought them to a journey of faith and desperation. And the random bus drive to snowy Northern provinces shows much promise. But after that, the idea-well runs dry, and in the rest of this film, the journey is definitely not the destination.
There is nothing magical in the film-work about the Island nor its angelic resident, and there needs to be. It is only more banality, but banality shown in a positive light.
The singer, Jun In(?), who opens the film with a great powerful narrative, never gets back to that level of feeling. She drifts, mysterious and silent in the background of the action, until she finally disappears.
It is very obvious what the filmmakers are trying to do with her character, but it's lame- it just doesn't work. She's the pathetic, almost irritating ghost, where she could be a tremendous character of conflict- a woman who has reneged on the unique gift that was given her, and is desperate for redemption of some sort before she leaves this earth.
That golden opportunity is squandered by the directors, and the film sinks....somewhere toward her inexorable fade, she needs to burst into a dramatic death song from La Boheme, or what in God's name is the use? Have these people never seen opera? That's the pity, that this film could have been a relentless tear-jerker that draws an audience into these women's lives, but the directors squander chance after chance.
The other two characters are bland and forgettable, and that is not forgivable. There is nothing of interest about them in their ordinary and crappy lives- a thing that a good filmmaker must make happen, or why bother turning on the camera? And the gay band with their emotional wallowing and self-pity? Puh-lease, spare the audience. If those guys aren't the messengers of death of a film by cancer or boredom....the sad final note is that this could have been a great film.
Bingwoo (2004)
Beautiful scenery can't save this loser
If you want to waste 2 hours watching predictable and boring cliché'd movie, this is the one. That's the spoiler.
I suppose I've gotten spoiled myself, by some great and sensitive Korean flicks that have come down the pike lately- ha, ha- Sassy Girl comes immediately to mind. Bingwoo cures that with every mistake a movie director should avoid.
The plot is a typical love-triangle with some mountain-climbing tragedies, people dying conveniently, and no one in the audience is fooled or taken in by any of it. The emotions are false, the acting is wooden, even the soundtrack is kitschy and trite, so the poor movie never gets a chance to be properly delivered. Verdict: stillborn. And the majestic mountains don't care. Fittingly enough.
The Merchant of Venice (2004)
What better thing can a director to do-
than give the Bard his long-deserv'd Due?
This may be Shakespeare's most complex, toughest play to get right. Culture-clash issues and standard mini-dramas swirling left and right, as usual, and the crowning piece of advice Shakespeare gives with biblical proportion is on the quality of Mercy, from the lips of pure Portia.
Radford gets it excruciatingly right. Portia epitomizes not just a witty and perfect damsel personifying a judge, but Justice herself descended to render same. And the young Ms. Collins hits her note.
She asks Mercy and forgiveness so eloquently from poor Shylock, who has never sought or received the same- in a sad indictment rendered on those Jews, and by extension all Humanity. Those who strive only to live by the letter of the Law- will surely die by the Law.
Can a leopard change its spots? Can a man scorned and never shown mercy or tolerance be expected to be merciful or tolerant? It's a monumental peer into the human heart, and all the miseries we perpetuate.
Portia's few lines are finer by far a gospel than the 4 books of the New Testament and all Paul's ramblings. Give mercy and it shall be shown you. Simple enough.
Pacino's Shylock accepts his fate, lives by the Law- and like Victor Hugo's Javert is a bitter, broken man at the end because of it. Antonio, played nobly by Jeremy Irons is likewise nothing special, he's undeserving of forgiveness and mercy, but because he asks for mercy, he is given it. And Shakespeare says something about how Christianity is supposed to behave..... "supposed to behave"...and then has his Christian citizens of Venice revert to their monstrous behavior, spitting, reviling, and cursing the unfortunate Shylock out the door.
Antonio is, as well, totally reprieved and restored at the end. Whether he's deserving or not is rendered irrelevant. We know he's not deserving. He knows it. He still is a jerk of a man when he persuades Bassanio to part with the wedding ring. Which reminds me of a lovely antique English ballad revived by the Pentangle of the Lady who tests her Lover by dressing up as a highwayman, robbing him, and demanding the rings she has given him. Precious last line of it goes something like: "if you'd given me the ring, I'd've shot you dead."
I wonder if Shakespeare knew the song.....
Could Shylock possibly have shown some heart if his Jessica, the apple of his eye, had not bolted his dry abode for love, leaving the faith as well? Maybe, but we wouldn't have a play then, would we?
Michael Radford and all these fine actors are to be commended, not because they understand this play so well, but because they portray that understanding so well. Verily, the Bard of Avon would be will, pleased.
Love and mercy, say Shakespeare, go together, and even are above the Law. That rascal. How did he know?
Chingoo (2001)
Right up there with The Godfather, but I liked it better
I am surprised and encouraged by the quality films I've seen out of Korea. Chingoo is a touching first-person story about 4 boyhood friends and the way their lives unfold from carefree boyish cluelessness to the inevitable.
There are flashy, chaotic,violent films like Pulp Fiction which become instant cult classics because they are not chaotic at all, but crafted immaculately. But the characters in Pulp Fiction are just that- unreal, comic-book lowlives who inadvertently display a few human characteristics while going about their destructive, pulp-fiction lives.
Chingoo comes from the other direction, although it too is crafted superbly. No flash. Instead of the cool junkie Vincent portrayed by John Travolta, Joon-suk ably evokes a glimpse of the personal hellworld of addiction...and later wryly comments that he found the will to clean up after he saw he was losing ground in the gangster corporate hierarchy. Very much the CEO material. Yes, he coulda been a corporate contendah
.and 500 years earlier he would have been the Korean equivalent of a Samurai daimyo
if only..
These are real human characters growing up in a society that is rigidly disciplined, yet dynamic- and their paths take them literally on an escalator of fate to adulthood with just a whimsical struggle of will by Joon-suk, the protagonist, the main toughguy. He evokes the late Lee Strasberg's famous line from The Godfather, "These are the lives we've chosen," in the stolidity with which he accepts the horror of being a gangster. But he's a better man than the Godfather or the Pacino Godfather. He shows loyalty goes both ways.
Thirty minutes after Pulp Fiction, you're hungry- in fact, there's no story to digest at all. It's a fairytale as it intends. Chingoo sticks to your ribs (spoiler pun) by building real characters and taking real themes and hinting at issues that torment great men. Unfortunately, the film is true to the clime, and there are no great women characters. I suppose that's true of the Godfather too. Gangsters just aren't chick-flick material.
Chingoo delivers a supposedly autobiographical story by the director which tells me yet again that life is stranger, realer, better than pulp fiction. Well worth viewing.