New Weekly Discussion Theme
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up

CinemaRian Blog

  • Silent Running (1971, USA, Douglas Trumbull) **1/2

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Silent Running  (1971)

    Silent Running joins Soylent Green in a duo of ecologically minded sci-fi films from the early 70's.  Both movies are about the end of the natural habitat on Earth, and serve as a warning to us that we need to care of the environment and not take it for granted. 
     
    While few can disagree with this message, this film needs to explore it more.  The picture works best at the very beginning- Freeman Lowell (Bruce Dern) is one of a crew of four on a legion of spaceships that maintain the very last of Earth's forests.  He lectures the other men on what the planet has lost- organic beauty, the pleasure of watching things grow, harmonzing with nature.  The others just laugh at him.
     
    One day, the group recieve a message that continuing the forests is no longer economically viable.  They are ordered to destroy the biomes and return home.  Lowell cannot stand to see the last surviving planet life from Earth destoryed, so he kills his fellow crewmembers and goes on the run from the company's other ships who are trying to track him down.  He has only two robots, whom he nicknames Huey (Mark Persons) and Dewey (Cheryl Sparks) for company. 
     
    Up until the point where the rest of the crew are killed the movie is pretty interesting and effective at making its ecological points.  It works on the level of a fairy tale or fable, and we identify strongly with Lowell as he desperatley tries to save the last bit of beauty left. 
     
    However, at the start of Act Two, the movie becomes a conventional thriller.  The ecological content is mostly abandonded for a fairly standard thriller plotline, as Lowell and the robots try to evade their inevitable capture.  It's hard to invest much in this story, because we've seen all of the plot machinations before.
     
    The movie is directed by Douglas Trumbell, who assisted Stanley Kubrick with special effects for 2001.  The effects in Silent Running is no where near as a good as that film, and look so fake that it's laughable in a bad way.  Trumbell and cinematographer Charles F. Wheeler find a great way of photographing the forest, making them look both natural and artificial at the same time, and the production design of the spaceships are quite good (It looks like Gerry Anderson took notes when he did Space: 1999). 
     
    The music, which intermixes excellent original compositions by Peter Schickle with lame folk songs sung by Joan Baez demonstrate the main problem with the film- an awkward shift in tone from the sublime to the cliche.  Silent Running has it's moments, but not enough for a reccamendation.

  • Kurt & Courtney (1998, Great Britain, Nick Broomfield) **1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Kurt & Courtney  (1998)

    Nirvana and the memory of Kurt Cobain exist in that horrid netherworld of hip- too old to be new, but too new to be retro.  The band's influence on popular music was huge, and Cobain was to become in death a rock and roll folk hero on the level of John Lennon or Jimi Hendrix.  But right now, it's just not cool to admit that yes, the band was really, really great. 
     
    With the exception of The Sex Pistols, it's hard to think of another band who had such a huge influence with so small a catalog- Nirvana's entire recorded consists entirely of three studio albums, a rareties collection, two live albums (one released posthumously) and a box set of substandard outtakes for hardcore fans. 
     
    I give this introduction to defend the idea that Cobain is worth making movies about- he was a serious artist and was a great chronicler of his time- no other audince in any medium captured the horrors of early 90's world as strong as he did.
     
    Nick Broomfield's documentary, however, is not about Cobain as an artist, and is only tangentially interested in him as a man.  The movie is mostly about his 1994 suicide and the alleged charge that he was murdered by his wife, Courtney Love.  No one contends that Love pulled the trigger (she was documented to be in another city the day he died) but Broomfield manages to find a lot of people who claim that she asked them to kill Kurt, threatened to kill him or, at the very least, wanted to him dead.
     
    I am not giving anything away if I say that responsible journalists have found zero evidence for any conspiracy theories in Cobain's death.  He was a heavy herion user, chronicley depressed since childhood and going through a difficult time in his life.  He had also attempted suicide once before, during a Nirvana tour in Italy.  His death was tragic, but not surprising. 
     
    Broomfield is a responsible filmmaker in the sense that he himself come to the conclusion that there is at least no evidence that Courney tried to commit murder.  But he spends far too much time on the murder red herring and fails to ask the real question- why do so many people hate this woman?
     
    The most astonishing segment of the film is where Broomfield interviews Love's own father, who has published a book where he contends that Courtney tried to kill Kurt.  It is not hard to see that he really hates his daughter- he can barely contain the insults that fly out of his mouth.  When we learn that the couple bonded partially over the mutual pain of their abusive childhoods, it's not hard to beleive.  We see many, many other people who cannot stand Love's presence and by the end of the film Broomfield himself makes a speech at a ACLU benefit dinner accusing Love of censorship of the media, partially because she tried to prevent Bloomfield to having acess to her and Nirvana's songs to make the film.
     
    Well, I might too if someone was making a film that could potentially accuse me of murder!  Aside from spending to much time on conspiracy theories that the director himself admits are phony, the other big problem with the picture is that Broomfield commits the Michael Moore sin of documentary narcissism- he's on camera far too much, and seems personally offended that anyone might not want to appear in his movie.  He comes off as a deeply annoying and arrogent.
     
    But, I must concede that he is a strong director.  This movie is never boring, even when its pointless.  If you want to learn something about Kurt Coban and/or his relationship with Courtney Love, I suggest you consult Charles R. Cross's excellent biography Heavier than Heaven.  If you want to watch a lot of weird (but interesting) people lie to the camera, see this movie. 

  • Dance Party, U.S.A. (2006, USA, Aaron Katz) ****

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Dance Party, USA  (2006)

    No, I was never a part of the social group portrayed in this film, but I knew it existed, and I hated it. I hated it for because I saw that it was self-destructive and damaging and I also hated it because admission into it meant social acceptance, something that I could never really have in high school.

    The world portrayed in Dance Party U.S.A. is not the typical one portrayed in high school movies, where the kids spend a lot of time worrying about pressing issues such as Prom King and Queen or winning the big football game. It's not an entry into the Heathers genre either, about the revenge of the outcasts. It's a movie about normal people, the people you forgot after you graduated.

    The characters this film are neither smart nor stupid. Like most high school studends, grades are not that important to them, but the social scene is. That scene is packed to the brim with sex, alcohol and pot, and for some, stronger substances. They are all still figuring themselves out, but they know that like to feel good physically. It's one of the few things human beings can be sure of. The plot of this very naturallistic film is about the awakening of Gus (Cole Pessinger) who is just beginning to wonder if there is more to life than a non-stop party. He is also struggling with concepts of masculinity, knowing that he cannot continuingly emulate his debuchorous friend Bill (Ryan White) but is afraid to show a more sensitive side as well. The movie bills itself about Gus coming to terms with a secret, but the secret is not at all what you would expect (it's not that he's gay). He can only confides it to Jessica (Anna Kavan) a girl he has just met, almost on a whim.

    The scene where the secret is revealed, coming halfway through the film, is an example of the film masterful understanding of its characters. Gus begins by trying to seduce Jessica, not even because he really wants to but because he merely knows nothing else to do. She resists, and he finds a self respect and sensitivty to her that enables him to reveal the secret. The scene unfolds like it would in real life.

    This film reminded of me of such pictures as Umberto D. or Bubble in its unfailing reach for realism. What happens after the secret is revealed I will not give away, but I watched the rest of the film in genuine suspense. Dance Party, U.S.A. was shot in and around Portland, Oregon on a miniscule budget, but it could be set in any American town where there is a high school. This is a movie that moved me on a personal level. It's not often that you see characters that seem so real that you could meet them walking down the street once the movie is over.

    Dance Party, USA (2006)


  • Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008, USA, David Filoni) **

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Well, it starts like a Star Wars movie- "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away…" and then the familiar crash of the title card and theme music.  But then instead of the majestic expository crawl the movies are so famous for, we get what sounds like a 1940's radio announcer racing through a lot of stuff about the Old Republic and the Separatist Army on some planet we've never heard of. 

    I've seen Attack of the Clones twice (and I'm not sure what that says about me) but I still didn't get what was going on here.  In fact, most of the expository scenes in this movie are so rushed and incoherent you'd need a PhD in Star Wars mythology to get most of the references.  Anyway, we eventually get to the planet were we find our friends Obi-Wan Kenobi (voice of James Arnold Taylor) and Anakin Skywalker (Matt Lanter) trying to hold out against a bunch of robots until reinforcements arrive.  Despite the fact they are currently in the middle of a war zone, they find enough time to meet Ahsoka Tano (Ashley Eckstein) a young Jedi trainee who has been mistakenly assigned to Anakin. 

    Based on what we learn from subsequent movies, it's apparent that Anakin is not really the best person to train Jedi, but, like The Color of Money, the two will go through mistrust, grudging respect and finally mutual understanding.  They'll reach that point after they get off the planet (which takes so long you'll wonder why the characters just don't move there) and go looking for the son of Jabba the Hutt (Kevin Michael Richardson) whose been kidnapped by members of the Separatist Army.

    The stuff involving the Hutts is by far the most interesting thing in the film, as we also get to meet Jabba's distinctly feminine uncle Ziro (Corey Burton) who seems like a cross between a slug and Hermione  Gingold.  I wouldn't mind seeing a film called Hutt Family Reunion, where all the charming family get together in a gymnasium and are sleazy together.

    The problems with The Clone Wars are obvious and have been pointed out by other critics.  The animation is sub-standard.  Despite the fact that the movie is CGI, a lot of the characters have a clay like appearance.  The dialogue sounds like it was written by George Lucas himself (although it wasn't).  The action scenes are also a problem.  Part of the appeal of the Star Wars films is seeing something that couldn't actually happen in real life presented in a realistic way, and Lucas and his associates were indeed proficient at directing action sequences.  When everything looks fake to begin with, the fights aren't nearly as impressive.  Finally, the dialogue is on an Attack of the Clones level of banality, as bad as if Lucas had written it himself.

    It's telling that only three actors from the live action films (Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Daniels, and Christopher Lee) returned to give their voices for this installment.  Hayden Christensen will probably be remembered for the rest of his career as the guy who played Anakin Skywalker, but he correctly determined that The Clone Wars would not be a valuable addition to his legacy. 

    Star Wars: The Clone Wars (2008)


  • The Straight Story (1999, USA, David Lynch) ***1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Straight Story (1999)

    Now here’s another movie where the director makes all the difference. Based on its screenplay,  The Straight Story would be in precarious danger of becoming a dreaded Clever Comedy.  Virtually everyone in the film is in some way quirky or eccentric, and a lot of the humor is based on the strange things they do. 

     

    But The Straight Story is directed by David Lynch, who at first glance does not seem right for this material.  His films tend to be about the dark underbelly of humanity, with a lot of content that might be considered to be creepy.  There’s nothing creepy in this movie, but there’s a lot of great stuff.

     

    The movie is based on a true story of Alvin Straight (Richard Farnsworth), a 73-year old Iowa man who learns one day that his brother (Harry Dean Stanton), who lives in Wisconsin, has had a stroke.  The brothers have been estranged for years, and Alvin knows that he must see him and make amends, as he may not have much time left to make up.  Unfortanley, he has trouble seeing and doesn’t have a driver’s license.  His daughter (Sissy Spacek) who he lives with, can’t drive take off from work to drive him, but that’s okay- he wants to go by himself.  So he decides to go on his riding lawnmower, maximum speed: 5 mph.  This means a trip that by car would take a two days and a night becomes an endeavor that takes months.

     

    This is could very easily descend into a “hip” Little Miss Sunshine type-road movie with a cranky old man getting into amusing hijinks.  But although the movie is episodic, it’s appeal is based on Lynch’s real sympathy and affection for Alvin, realized by Farnsworth’s wonderful, Oscar nominated performance.  Occasionally, this the movie falls into the trap of treating the old man like a sage, such as the scene where he comforts a teenage runaway (Anastaia Webb).

     

    But most of the time The Straight Story is an easygoing, beautiful film.  The Midwest has rarely seemed more beautiful, and I was surprised at how much reverence Lynch has for the area and these characters.  The Straight Story is not David Lynch’s best film, although it’s very good, but it’s his most honest and straightforward. 

     


  • Hamlet (1948, Great Britain, Sir Laurence Olivier) ***

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Hamlet  (1948)

    Sir Laurence Olivier's Hamlet is a brilliant, difficult, and to a degree, unreasonably dark movie. It's hard to deny that the picture works, but by the end, you wonder if the journey was really worth taking, as this must be one of the most effectively gloomy films ever committed to celluloid.

    It's impossible to watch Olivier's film and not compare it to the numerous other screen adaptations of Shakespeare's most famous play, most notably the 1996 masterpiece by Kenneth Branagh. Branagh is not a better actor than Olivier (only Marlon Brando could possibly hold that title), but he made a movie that was brimming with the energy of life, one that fully explored the metaphysical concepts in the original play.

    Olivier's goals are more mundane- he's most interested in the psychological and archetypical elements of the play, so the movie is far shorter than Branagh's and its smaller in scope. More than one critic has referred to the settings as claustrophobic. It's as if these characters exist in an entire world unto themselves- an interior world, with a lot of fog and humidity. There is no escape from this dysfunctional family- there is literally no where to go.

    Despite the opening narration, Olivier interprets Hamlet's problem as not so much being unable to make up his mind as much his being unable to function as an adult. He has genuine love for his mother Gertrude (Eileen Herle) and late father (significantly, voiced by Olivier). But it's the love of a young child who worships his god-like parents. Hamlet's problem is not that he's poorly negotiated the inevitable separation trauma because he's never separated- at least while his father was still alive.

    This is made exceedingly clear by the film's most dominant relationship, between Hamlet and his mother. It's significant that Herle was born thirteen years after than Olivier. The fact that Gertrude is so young and that Hamlet feels such affection for her is made obvious, and this makes his hatred of Claudius (Basil Sydney) even more basic and primitive. This was an interesting approach to take, but it means that Hamlet's relationship with other characters suffer. The quasi-romance between the prince and Ophelia (Jean Simmons) is DOA, and his friendship with Horatio (Norman Wooland) is undeveloped as well.

    And although Olivier's performance is of course brilliant (you can bet he deserved the Best Actor Oscar he won), I was ambivalent about many of his directorial choices. The intellectual tone of the picture, combined with the sadness and angst in the movie's atmosphere, make for a movie that is obviously made a genius, but also one that is at times difficult to sit through. The movie is rarely boring, but after spending more than an hour with these super-serious people and their Freudian problems I was ready for it to lighten up a bit and it never did.

    This is where Olivier's film suffers the most in comparison to Branagh's. The contemporary film had such an energy to it, that even in the more tragic moments you felt that at least the characters were really alive. In this picture, it's as if they are hypnotized, waiting for their psychologist to wake them up and send them to a more lively world.

    Hamlet (1948)


  • Secrets of a Soul (1925, Germany, G.W. Pabst) **1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Based on the title, you should expect a lot from Secrets of a Soul. After all, hasn't mankind been searching for the secrets of the soul since time immemorial? But alas, the "secrets" we find are actually just a lot Freudian psychobabble. A better title would be Secrets of the Id.

    According to the helpful special features that accompany the Kino DVD, Ufa studios and director G.W. Pabst were genuinely interested in making a film based on Freud's theories and even tried to hire the shrink himself to be a consultant on the picture, but Siggy declined. They did manage to convince his disciples Karl Abraham and Hans Sachs to serve as consultants, and, according to some sources, even rewrite the script. I find that idea plausible as the movie is structured more like a case study than an actual narrative.

    After an intertitle informs us that "no important factual information has been changed", the story begins. Martin Fellman (Werner Krauss) is a seemingly typical middle aged chemist who is content with life. His wife (Ruth Weyher) is good catch- she genuinely cares for him and is a lot younger and hotter than he is. One day he receives word that his cousin Erich (Jack Trevor) will be visiting. That day, Martin is shaving the back of his wife's neck when they hear a commotion from the street- someone is murdering a young woman with a knife.

    From that point forward, Martin has serious problems. He is unable to hold a knife, even to cut food to eat with, and when ever his wife is around blades he has an overwhelming desire to kill her. Finally, this interferes with his job (as he starts dropping beakers with chemicals in them) and he visits his local psychologist, Dr. Orth (Pavel Pavlov), who of course solves his problem.

    Howe exactly Dr. Orth does this I am not sure. A movie like this is essentially a mystery, so we expect a lengthy explanation from the good doctor that will probably include a reference to Martin's mother. However, all we are told is that the problem is somehow tied to Erich. Okay, but how? This is somewhat like Sherlock Holmes identifying the criminal, but never explaining why or how the bad guy did it.

    The movie alternates between a fairly classical style in which Martin goes through his daily life and his nightmares and memories, which are shot in a very metaphorical, expressionist style. These sequences are kind of weird but also kind of funny, which is how a lot of modern psychologists think of Freud's theories, making the movie a period piece that has little relevance today. And am I the only who finds it ironic they hired a guy named Pavlov to play the therapist? Woof, woof.

    Geheimnisse einer Seele (1925)


  • Man of a Thousand Faces (1957, USA, Joseph Pevney) **

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The life of Lon Chaney, Sr. does not easily lend itself to a biopic. For one thing, a great deal is not known about his personal life, and little of what we do know is not dramatically interesting enough to make a movie. The actor was genius, perhaps the greatest of the silent era, and certainly it's greatest makeup artist, but he apparently had enough self-awareness to not believe his own publicity and buy into the movie star myths that destroyed the lives of so many other stars.

    The fact that the life of a man so talented could be apparently so mundane is a problem for a biopic, so Man of a Thousand Faces feels free to add typical biopic cliches and pointless subplots. It milks the two really interesting things about the personal life of Chaney (played here by James Cagney) for all their worth. The first is the fact that his parents were deaf, which was certainly helpful in the training of a silent screen actor. The second is that his first wife, Cleva (Dorothy Malone) attempted suicide, which prompted Chaney to relocate to L.A. just as movies were beginning to be accepted as an art form.

    But although this movie is about an actor, it doesn't demonstrate any real knowledge of acting. We are told repeatedly that the movie's Chaney had a sympathy for people who were "born different". Why? Because his parent's were deaf? Although growing up in an environment of visual communication must have helped him (and it would be interesting to see how), lots of people have deaf parents they are all not brilliant actors. What made Chaney so great?

    The movie does not even try to answer that question and instead spends a ridiculous amount of time dealing with his parents and their deafness, and according to this film, being hearing impaired is about one step above leprosy. An early scene shows Cleva so shocked and embarrassed at being around Chaney's parents that she runs out of the room at Christmas dinner and considers aborting her baby because he/she might be deaf. Come on! Does Joseph Pevney really expect the audience to sympathize with her?

    There's also all the obligatory Hollywood biopic scenes- the talent agent (Jim Backus, Mr. Howell from Gilligan's Island) suddenly comes up with a brilliant marketing campaign, hence the title of the film, Chaney stays late after midnight working on a makeup, hurting his marriage, Cleva comes back to talk to his second wife (Jane Greer), the deathbed reconciliation between father and son (which never happened, as they were never estranged).

    There are other problems with the movie too. When you are casting someone as a truly great actor you have basically two plausible choices. You can cast another truly great actor (Sir John Gielgud bore a resemblance to Chaney and would have been a great choice) or you can cast a total unknown the audience is unfamiliar with. Cagney was in many way a great actor, but he was not in Chaney's league and he was nowhere near as versatile. Cagney could never loose his frantic, speed-of-lighting energy, so it's hard to accepting as someone who apparently an introvert in his personal life. It's been written that Lon Chaney, Jr. was interested in playing his dad, and that also might have been an interesting choice.

    Finally, demonstrating just how great a makeup artist Chaney was, the recreations shot thirty years later are nowhere near as good Chaney's original designs. Watch the unmasking scene from The Phantom of the Opera and compare it to the version here you'll be stunned at just how good Chaney a makeup Chaney was able to do in 1925.

    Making a film about a great actor is not a bad idea, but Man of a Thousand Faces was ill conceived from the beginning, and the mistakes continued right through post-production. The final film is not terrible, but it's predictable, maudlin, a few steps below mediocre, which is the kind of movie that the real Lon Chaney, Sr. would have had nothing to do with.

    Man of a Thousand Faces (1957)


  • The Dark Knight (2008, USA, Christopher Nolan) ****

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    The Dark Knight  (2008)

    The Dark Knight is easily the best superhero movie ever made, surpassing even the original Superman. It manages to walk the tightrope of having a weightiness of tone and purpose without falling into the ridiculousness often found in comic book movies that take themselves too seriously- and very few summer blockbusters are as serious (or profound) as this one.

    I believe that with this picture Christopher Nolan is asking a question regarding the nature of goodness. There is no doubt that the Joker (the late Heath Ledger) is evil, but is the Batman (Christian Bale) really heroic? Or is the real hero D.A. Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckert) who uses the law to capture the bad guys, in the open, and who is also capable of carrying on normal relationships with other people?

    The fact that the Joker is evil does not mean that he is a one-note character. There has been a lot of talk about Ledger getting a Best Supporting Actor nomination for his performance here, all of which is certainly deserved. It is instructive to compare Ledger’s performances to Jack Nicholson’s in Tim Burton’s 1989 version. There is a key difference- Nicholson was great, but it was a movie star performance. He was essentially playing his own persona as the Joker. Here Ledger creates a psychologically realistic portrait of what the Joker must be in real life, were he to really exist. He’s funny, but you laugh in spite of yourself, because the character is genuinely menacing and unnevering. You laughed along with Nicholson, but there is no cutesiness here, only a psychopath. It is a truly brilliant performance.

    The same psychology can also be applied to Bale’s Batman. It is a portrait of total obsession. He does so much good as his Batman persona that he is unable to be good, or much of anything else, as Bruce Wayne. In the end, I feel that this movie’s Batman is truly altruistic and heroic, but others who saw the movie with me disagreed. But the title is accurate- Batman is always one step away from turning a need to help others into revenge to help himself.

    Aaron Eckert has never been one my favorite actors, but by the end of this film his Harvey Dent grows on you, and the tragedy that occurs (Batman fans will know what it is) becomes truly devastating. The rest of the cast, which includes big named like Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, and Michael Caine, are also great. The one weak character in the film is Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Rachel Dawes. I felt that this character was poorly conceived in the first movie, when she was played by Katie Holmes, and the same is true here. Gyllenhaal is given even less to do, with less convincing motivation and she has hard time making the character real, or at times even interesting.

    But the one underwritten character is the only real flaw in what is clearly the best film of the year so far. Some may complain that the movie is not much fun, but this is a serious film, essentially an epic drama. There were many ways for The Dark Knight to fail, but it avoided all of them, and instead is a great work of cinematic art.

    The Dark Knight (2008)


  • Mark of the Vampire (1935, USA, Tod Browning) **1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The auteur theory was made for movies like Mark of the Vampire.  Taken as itself, it’s a mediocre horror movie with a few effective moments.  But seen as entry into its director’s larger body of work, it gets really interesting.

    The movie is a sound remake of Browning’s 1927 hit London After Midnight, perhaps the most famous of all lost films.  It’s considered by most to be the first American vampire film and featured a brilliant makeup job by Lon Chaney, Sr., which can still be seen in stills.  It’s obviously impossible to make any real comparison as the quality between the two films, but the basic plot of the original maintained.

    Another Browning film we do have left to compare is his 1931 masterpiece Dracula, which also stars Bela Lugosi as a vampire (here he’s called Count Mora and has a vampire daughter named Luna, played by Carroll Borland).  David J. Skal and others have argued that Browning was disinterested in the Dracula project, and some have speculated by the real auteur may have been cinematographer Karl Fruend, who would go on to direct another masterpiece with a similar style and tone, The Mummy.  I found this theory plausible but after watching Mark of the Vampire I am not so sure that Browning had as little to as Skal claimed, as there many elements of the movie that are taken directly from Dracula, right down the appearance of the female lead, Elizabeth Allen, who not only bears a striking resemblance to Helen Chandler, but has her costumes and hairstyle duplicated exactly.  There is also a Van Helsing like vampire hunter named Professor Zelen (Lionel Barrymore), a sequence where Count Mora rises from his coffin that’s very, very similar to Dracula’s entrance, and film’s comic relief has the exact same brand of humor, as all of Browning’s other films.

    Where Mark of the Vampire and Dracula differ is in tone and quality- the former film is essentially a mystery with a heavy emphasis on plot on rationality, the latter simulates the feeling of a dream more than any film I ever seen.  One is literal, the other is mythic.  Frankly, one is shallow, the other deep. 

    Most viewers will probably feel that the London After Midnight elements (except perhaps for the amazing surprise ending) are the movie’s weakest.  Set in Czechoslovakia (what was wrong with Prauge After Midnight?), the movie follows Zelen and Inspector Neumann (Lionel Atwill) as they investigate the murder of Sir Karell Borotyn (Holmes Herbert), who was found with two bite marks on his throat.  Neumann believes vampires are ridiculous, but Zelen argues that he sure they are to blame, and that Count Mora and Luna are stalking Karrell’s daughter Irene (Allen). 

    The machinations of the mystery are pretty boring, but the film lights up whenever Mora and Luna are on screen, there are some real scenes of great gothic atmosphere.  But then the movie gets too caught up in endless discussions of clues, motives, and other plot points, and after those elements take over, the movie gets boring.  But if you do see this picture, be sure you stay to the end, where’s you’re going to be amazed.   

    Mark of the Vampire (1935)


  • The Cameraman (1928, USA, Buster Keaton/Edward Sedgewick) ***1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Cameraman  (1928)

    The Cameraman is regarded by many scholars as the last great Buster Keaton film.  It was the last movie he made where he had a majority of creative control over the project, even though his new contract at MGM meant the studio was already causing problems (there are no dangerous stunts).  But, to my surprise, I found the film to be very good, but not one of Keaton's masterpieces.

    The director's credit is given to Edward Sedgewick, but it's pretty obvious who the auteur of this movie is.  I have a feeling that, like most of his pictures, Keaton handled the scenes that he felt were important, and left some of the more basic expository stuff to his buddy Edward.  But unlike so many of his work, this does not flow like a perfectly constructed Bach composition.  It seems more like a collection scenes, strung together by a very basic plot outline.

    The basic plot involves still photographer named Luke Shannon (Keaton) who develops a crush on a girl named Sally (Marceline Day) who works as a secretary at the MGM newsreel office.  In an attempt to impress her, he goes to a pawn shop and trades for a movie camera, and attempts to find newsworthy subjects to film. 

    Despite the title, most of the movie involves Luke's attempts to win Sally- obsessively waiting by the phone, trying to share a bus ride when only one of them has a ticket, and so on.  Much of this is funny, but it's not sweet in the way that Keaton's relationships to women are in pictures like Seven Chances or Steamboat Bill, Jr.  

    The best scenes in the picture involve Luke trying to use his camera and making technical errors that cause his films to be unintentionally hilarious, such as a ship floating down a New York street.  Every one who has ever made a film can identify with the scene where Luke watches his footage dumbfounded. 

    But this movie is not as well as edited or structured as the director's (and I'm not talking about Sedgewick's) other work.  The movie doesn't really lead anywhere, and many of the bits could be randomly place throughout the movie and not make much difference. 

    At the risk of sounding like a total Keaton sycophant, this is not what we expect from the great stone face.  For Harold Lloyd, it would be second best film of his career.  For Chaplin, it would be his third or fourth best.  But coming from arguably the greatest filmmaker of his era, a genius on par with his contemporaries Griffith and Eisenstien, The Cameraman is a little disappointing.  But is it still worth seeing?  Most definitely.  

    The Cameraman (1928)


  • Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D (2008, USA, Eric Brevig) ***

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D is the first movie that I can say gave me a headache, but is still good enough for a recommendation.  Unlike some of the other movies that made me break out the Ibruprofen (Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet, Time Bandits), with Journey the problem is with the format.  In other words, it's the 3-D.

    To be sure, there are a couple of 3-D shots in the picture that are cool- a guy at beginning extends a tape measurer suddenly, a translucent fish jumps out the water during an action sequence.  But a lot of the other times the 3-D just doesn't work.  Objects at the edge of the screen sometimes only register in one eye, and other times the editing causes momentary confusion.  The process doesn't really add anything to the experience of the film (which is also being released in some theatres in regular 2-D), as you just get used to once the novelty wears off.

    But the movie itself is good.  It's pretty much what you would expect from the trailer, although the kid (Josh Hutcherson) is not annoying and the screenwriters are smart enough not to slow the movie down with a love story between Brenden Fraser and Anita Briem any more than is absolutely required by the conventions of the genre.

    I like adventure movies like this.  Someday I hope I will discover a lost civilization and find some great treasure that will unlock the secrets of universe.  I kind of doubt that will happen, but it will always stay at the back of my mind as I watch movies like this.  And the picture comes close to doing the impossible- it almost makes geology interesting.  Emphasis on the "almost".

    Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008)


  • Sergeant York (1941, USA, Howard Hawks) *1/2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Sergeant York  (1941)

    Every once in a while as a filmgoer you run into a classic film that is so bad you are dumbfounded by its status in the pantheon of great movies.  For me, Sergeant York is definitely one of those films.  It is so boring and clichéd that it was a major chore to keep from shutting it off, and I only refrained from doing so because I had to complete it for my WWI book. 

    The movie is a classic of example of what happened to WWI in popular thought during WWII.  Instead of being a great international calamity, it became a vehicle for patriotism and propaganda, albeit propaganda which people were willing to pay money to see, as Sergeant York was the highest grossing film of 1941.  It was critically acclaimed, too- Gary Cooper won a Best Actor Oscar in the title role, beating out Orson Welles for Citizen Kane and Humphrey Bogart for The Maltese Falcon, something I doubt too many movies fans today would agree was the correct choice.

    The movie is a biopic about Alvin York, an alcoholic from Tennessee who found religion and turned his life around.  He was drafted into WWI and tried to gain consciousness objector status, but (according to the movie anyway) a stirring a speech from his commanding officer made him realize that Jesus wasn't really a total pacifist after all.  He then became a war hero, and received the Metal of Honor from General Pershing.

    The broad outlines of York's story seemingly they would automatically lend themselves to conservative propaganda, and that's exactly what happens.  The movie's treatment of religion is simplistic in the most ridiculous sense.  There are no real ideas behind the picture, and if it were made today, it could be found in the Christian bookstore next to the Left Behind movies.  There is also a lot of down-on-the-farm country boy stereotyping in the movie.  I know that Hawks probably intended this to be cute Americana in a John Ford kind of way, but he ain't no John Ford.

    Essentially, Sergeant York has all the typical flaws of a movie of its era.  It does not portray America is it, but as it wants to see itself, but is not smart enough to realize it.  As I said earlier, in addition being clichéd, the movie is just plain boring.  It goes on and on and on, with precious little of interest happening on the screen except speeches and the occasional fake action sequence once the war starts.

    The only way that Sergeant York is helpful to audiences today is as a cultural curio.  It helps to show us in some ways how we have evolved as a culture.  There are lots of different kind of portrayals of war in movies, but today very few are as naïve and stupid as Sergeant York.

    Sergeant York (1941)


  • Batman (1989, USA, Tim Burton) ***1/2

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Batman  (1989)

    As The Dark Knight is the most anticipated film of the year, I figured it might be instructive to go back and take a look at the original Batman, made in 1989 by Tim Burton. It was not really the original Batman movie of course- in 1966, a big screen adaptation of the TV show starring Adam West hit theatres, but that was a low budget effort that, like the show itself, was played for laughs.

    But the 1989 Batman was different- it was huge film, made on a big budget (Jack Nicholson alone cost $60 million), and made to compete in what was the most intense summer of blockbusters at the time. And it worked- it was the highest grossing film in America that year, beating out other big movies like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Ghostbusters 2, Star Trek V, Back to the Future Part II, and others. It also spawned three direct sequels (none of them any good), the Christopher Nolan reboot, and the surprisingly good animated film Batman: Mask of the Phantasm.

    And what is most remarkable about the movie is how unlike the typical action or comic book movie it is. In its 126 minuets, there are only three large and one small action sequences, and unlike so many other films of its type, when the characters talk, what they say is actually interesting.

    The movie has got to be tied with Soylent Green as one of the most intentionally downbeat-looking films ever released by a major studio. The movie’s Gotham City (brilliantly designed by genius art director Anton Furst) is the apotheosis of all that’s wrong with big cities- pollution, crime, corruption. If you didn’t know the personal tragedy that happened to Bruce Wayne is his past, you’d wonder why someone with all of his money didn’t move to a more a friendly town like New York.

    As many critics have noted, the picture is built around the struggle of two obsessed men. Batman (Michael Keaton) is struggling to rid himself of his personal demons while the Joker (Nicholson) wants to be a living work of art, and to him, art and death are intertwined. The key difference between the two men is that the Joker realizes that what he’s doing is absurd, while the Batman is unable to laugh at himself or much else. There opposites of each other in other ways as well- the Joker takes pleasure at the suffering or others, Batman suffers from an overkill of empathy. When not suffering from a bout of anger the Joker is essentially happy, whereas Batman is miserable most of the time with an occasional human connection.

    Keaton is not the type you would expect to play a superhero, but that’s why he’s right for the part- Batman is an extension of his psyche, not his physical person. Nicholson is actually kind of boring at the beginning, but after he turns into the Joker the movie takes off an he’s riveting.

    Batman has too many flaws to be a truly great film- the climax goes on for too long, Kim Basinger is bland as Batman’s love interest Vicki Vale (no surprise she was gone in the next movie), the plot is somewhat confusing at the beginning with too many characters. But once the films winds up, you start to believe in its dark fantasy world, and you feel great sorrow for a man so hurt by the past that he feels he must dress as a bat.

    Batman (1989)


  • The Jungle Book (1967, USA, Wolfgang Reitherman) **

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    The Jungle Book  (1967)

    he Jungle Book will always hold a special place in my cinematic heart, as it's the first movie I ever saw in a theatre. Not on its original run, of course, but during a 1990 re-release, when I was six years old. I hadn't seen the movie since then and its remarkable how much of that early experience came back. I guess I have thing for remembering movies I see.

    What I remember most about the movie was how I got creeped out by the python, Kaa (voice of Sterling Halloway). The snake has the ability to hypnotize anyone who looks into its eyes, and I was more frightened that the young protagonist, Mowgli (Bruce Reitherman) would forever fall asleep under his influence than be mauled to death by the movie's real antagonist, the tiger Shere Kahn (George Sanders). Not that I wasn't a little disturbed by Shere Kahn as well, but I remember congratulating myself for not getting too scared and running out of the theatre.

    Had you asked me immediately after I saw the movie in 1990, I surely would have given The Jungle Book four stars (if I knew what a star rating was back then, of course). But it is a good movie if you're not six years old?

    Well, maybe it's good at seven, eight, or nine, but beyond that the picture has limited value. For those who don't know, it's based on a series of short stories by super racist Rudyard Kipling about the feral child Mowgli, who is raised by wolves in the jungles of India. The wise panther Bagheera (Sebastian Cabot), recognizes that Mowgli must leave the jungle and return to his fellow humans if he is to escape the wrath of Shere Kahn, and he sets out with the boy on the journey to the man village.

    The setup to the movie is quite well done. There is a real sense of really being the jungle at the character and animation is also strong. It seems the Ralph Bakshi was paying close attention here. But after awile the movie becomes essentially a road film, with one episode after another. The "star" of the film is supposed to be Baloo the bear (Phil Harris), but the character is just annoying. Once the movie abandoned its somewhat serious, naturalistic tone (reminiscent of Bambi) it has a lot of kid stuff in it, which gets grating, long with Baloo, pretty fast.

    Okay, okay, it's a kids movie, but all of the great Disney films, from Pinocchio to Aladdin are great because they can be enjoyed by people of all ages. The Jungle Book is definitely not in the above films league. Although the animation is excellent, the characters are poorly written, the structure lazy, the songs forgettable. Unless you were me at six, and you just can't get that snake out of your head.

    The Jungle Book (1967)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<October 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2829301234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930311
2345678


Categories
 


Advertisement