leeroy711 Blog

Under discussion:

Z  (1969)

The Patriot  (2000)

Thirteen Days  (2000)

Jeepers Creepers  (2001)

Carnivàle [TV Series]  (2003)

Deadwood [TV Series]  (2004)

Munich  (2005)

John Adams  (2008)

John Adams (2008)

*** 1/2 Stars out of 5

Directed by: Tom Hooper

Starring: Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson and Stephen Dillane

Running Time: 201 minutes

Rated: NR

Released: 2008

Language: English

Review:         

Something dawned on me as I was watching this series. At one point we watch the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Another shows the inauguration of the first President of the United States.  We also see the depiction of the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party early in the series. I came to wonder: Why haven’t I seen this before? Aren’t these some of the most pivotal moments in the shaping of our nation? I’ve read about them in books, and I probably seen some of this stuff re-enacted on the History Channel or public broadcast. But, never on the big screen or a major production cable special such as this. I’ve seen some pretty good political thrillers that are based on historic events, such as Thirteen Days, Munich or Z. But none of those events took place in what could be argued as the most important period of the forming of our nation. The Patriot takes place during this period. But that movie was much less about the events taking place than it was about the characters involved. So why is it that some of the most riveting, philosophically provocative and emotionally charged real life stories have been confined almost solely to the pages of a history book or bad re-enactments on PBS?  I have my own speculations but I will quickly remind myself that this is supposed to be a review of the series and not the incessant ravings of a libertarian mind.

            So, let’s start off where I typically like to, with the cinematography. In the first couple of episodes, I was very taken by some of the beautiful scenery and use of color pallets. A lot of the shots I enjoyed the most were filmed in the winter with a thick bed of snow on the ground contrasted with all of the earthy tones of the various structures and fauna springing up from the ground. Much of these gave a very Norman Rockwell-like impression.

There were also plenty of shots that I not only didn’t care for, I was ultimately annoyed with. This series is filled with one technique that was completely overused. What I’m referring to is when the audience is subjected to watching a scene unfold from behind an out of focus obstruction or obstructions. Imagine watching something happen as you are peering through weeds or grass. This makes sense, if you are being laying down in an open field and being chased by Jeepers Creepers. This makes no sense however, when you are watching a heart to heart conversation between a 90 year old John Adams and his beloved son. Why are we hiding in the grass? Are we waiting for a plot twist in which Mr. Adams takes his big walking stick and beats his son to death? (SPOILER ALERT: This does not happen) This series is completely filled with these shots and every one seems very out of place. I removed a half star just for that.

Moving along, the cast was quite good. I was a bit worried simply because of my lack of affection to Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney (Mr. and Mrs. Adams, respectively). I was a bit surprised at how much I enjoyed both of their performances. Giamatti put down what I would call his best performance thus far with passion and fervor. Linney played the more patient and reserved, but still passionate counterpart to the team. Tom Wilkinson was very good as the pragmatic yet somewhat frivolous Benjamin Franklin. And Stephen Dillane was Thomas Jefferson. He was a very integral part of Adam’s story. He established himself as Adam’s closest friend and ally. Later, politics would try their friendship to its very brink. He may have been the best performer of the series. It was certainly one of the more challenging roles. One of my favorite scenes is towards the end when John Adam’s doctor says that while some wrote or spoke or fought for this revolution, it was Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson who thought for us all. Rufus Sewell, I believe clearly established himself as the series’ only true antagonist, the empirical Alexander Hamilton. His character was one of the most interesting to watch because it showed (assuming historical accuracy) how quickly a revolution spawn from ideal, philosophy and principal could be infiltrated and sullied by politics and partisanship.

The only other problem I had with this series was somewhat inherent in the nature of a miniseries. A decent 2 ½ hour long movie may have a lull that lasts 45 minutes or so. A series that spans about 9 hours however is subject to a much longer and less forgivable lull. The first couple of episodes really pulled me in. We are treated to very well put together depictions of both the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party. Unfortunately, we must very quickly shift to a much slower gear and remain there for the rest of the series. I recall thinking to myself, after watching the fourth or fifth episode, that if I had to wait another week for the next installment, I very likely would have given up on it. I’m glad that I didn’t, because once you have gotten used to the slower pace, you can more easily take in and process the deep rooted philosophical banter that is thrown about between the founding fathers………..and still today.

In summary, I will give this series my recommendation. It is more than likely, the most historically accurate telling of the events that took place in New England during the late 18^th century. Although, the story is primarily about its namesake, John Adams, it is just as much about the American Revolution as a whole. This story has been sugarcoated and hand fed to us practically since it was current events and any history buff that’s interested in a more candid look at the founding fathers would do themselves justice to pick this one up.

Recommendations:

            If you have already seen this one and enjoyed it, I would suggest checking out other HBO series. I would say Deadwood and Carnivàle are good choices.

Under discussion:

This Is Spinal Tap  (1984)

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

I'm not sure how old these are but they're new to me.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Under discussion:

Summer Palace  (2006)

The Year My Parents Went on Vacation  (2007)

***** Stars out of 5

Directed by: Cao Hamburger.

Starring: Michel Joelsas, Germano Haiut and Daniela Piepszyk

Running Time: 104 minutes

Rated: PG

Released: 2007

Language: Portuguese with English subtitles

Synopsis:

The year referred to in the title of this film is 1970. Brazil is being held by a totalitarian regime. The great soccer player, Pele has just scored his thousandth goal and the national team is preparing for the World Cup.

Mauro (Joelsas) is like any 12 year old Brazilian boy at the time. He thinks only of soccer and girls. Unfortunately for him, his political parents have to leave him with his Grandfather while they go “on vacation”.

Review:

I can’t really say anything bad about this film. It seemed interesting from the box and I had pretty high hopes for it. I am very pleased to report: it did not disappoint. The only challenge I had to get past was the fact that I am not particularly familiar with the history of the backdrop of this film and it doesn’t do much to fill you in. I believe I made a similar comment about Summer Palace, but in the case of this film, you don’t really need to know the history behind the struggle. I actually think it may have worked out better knowing less in this movie. Keep in mind, you are trying to empathize with a 12 year old that knows and cares nothing about politics.

            I tend to make a comment about the cinematography of every film I review so why should this one be any different. It was actually shot beautifully. We never see the same camera angle twice throughout this movie. And, I really liked a lot of the angles that this was shot from. Many times we see what’s happening from behind an obstruction of some sorts, giving the viewer almost a mischievous “peeking in” feeling.

            The acting was very well done as well. The lead character, Mauro was played by Michel Joelsas. I wasn’t sure about him at first, but by the end of the movie, he had convinced me. This performance was by far the most critical to the film. On several occasions, he gets his heart broken and the audience really needs to feel that with him for the film to be even remotely successful. I also really enjoyed the performance of Hanna, as played by Daniela Piepszyk. She was the street wise, neighborhood girl that befriends Mauro.

            One of the themes that runs through the veins of this film is that of a community pulling together when someone is in need. This is another reason that it felt unnecessary to get into too much depth in regards to the politics of the conflict. Within that neighborhood, it just didn’t seem to matter which philosophy you subscribed to, everyone was in the same boat and the compassion they showed the new Mauro took precedent over everything. Well, everything except soccer of course. I think the country’s passion towards the sport was the one true common philosophy of Brazil.

            My favorite aspect of this film was that although the underlying plot was heartbreaking, there were plenty of subtle comedic moments designed to break the tension and keep audience light hearted. I laughed out loud at one particular scene in which Mauro is being served breakfast by one of the old women in the building. He has to constantly reposition his plate and cup because she is apparently blind as a bat and is spilling everything onto her kitchen table.

            This is the type of film that grows on you as you watch it. At first, I was only mildly interested but as I got deeper into it, I fell more and more in love with the characters. I would give this one my full recommendation.

Under discussion:

Winter Sleepers  (1997)

Run Lola Run  (1998)

Heaven  (2002)

Perfume: The Story of a Murderer  (2006)

    This was the fourth film I've seen by Tom Tykwer and until watching it, I was still unsure as to whether I could consider myself a fan of his. I thought Run Lola Run was brillian but was worried that he may have been a one-trick pony. Winter Sleepers was the next film I saw by him and was pretty dissapointed. I gave him another chance with Heaven and although I didn't fall in love with it, it still reminded me of his talents and to keep an eye out for his future work.

     Perfume...... sealed the deal for me. I am now squarely on one side of the fence. This was a fantastic movie. The acting, especially by Whishaw was superior every scene. The screenplay was well written, keeping the story moving at a fast enough pace as to not loose my attention while still allowing for an entire life story to unfold.

    What got me more than anything was the use of color palettes. It forces you to use the term: "brilliant" in it's most literal sense.

Under discussion:

Rope  (1948)

            I haven't seen a movie that has blown me away like this in a long time. Hitchcock's idea was to make this film in one continuous shot. Unfortunately, this was not possible at the time because the cameras back then only held about ten minutes worth of film. In an act of pure ingenuity, Hitchcock used a technique that made it seem as though this was only one shot. About every ten minutes, your attention is directed to an intimate object for about two or three seconds and then back to the story. This is the point at which the film is cut and reloaded into the camera. The editing is done to make this transition seamless and the audio track never cuts, giving the impression that it was one camera movement.

            The acting in this film is fantastic. I have always maintained that Jimmy Stewart has the most powerful screen presence in all of film. His characters demand attention, simply by virtue of his demeanor. What makes this film great however, are the subtleties portrayed by his character. Keep in mind; it is not until the very end of this film, that he actually vocalizes what he has been thinking. But we are all very aware of exactly what is going on in his head from the moment his first suspicions arise.

            I can’t really say enough about this one, I’ve only seen a handful of Hitchcock and none have ever disappointed me. But this is the one so far, stands out above the rest. It pulled me in from the first scene and kept me thinking about it several days later.

Under discussion:

Brick  (2005)

Overall, I liked this film. It had an intelligent plot, better than average camerawork and a couple of pretty descent characters. I didn’t have a problem with the jargon, per se… I only had a problem with the backdrop.

I generally think that this would have made an incredible film had it not been told from a high-school student’s point of view. This film has all of the classic clichés and nuances of a great piece of film noir. We have the classic femme fatale, the lead characters spends most of his time getting beat up, and oh yeah, the jargon. The problem with these things is that the fact that these are high-school students playing them out. It really gave me the impression, much of the time that I was watching an elaborate high-school play in which the kids were portraying adults. Unfortunately it was more of the other way around.

I really didn’t see any aspect of this story that hinged on the age of the characters. It makes me wonder why it was made in this way. Overall I liked it but I did find myself laughing at some of the parts that (because of the inappropriate backdrop) just delved into the silly spoof realm of film.

Under discussion:

The Cry  (2007)

The Cry (2007)

* ½ stars out of 5

Directed by: Bernadine Santistevan

Starring: Christian Camargo, Adriana Dominguez and Carlos Leon

Running Time: 80 minutes

Rated: R

Released: 2007

Language: English

Synopsis:

The Cry is a modern telling of an old Hispanic folk legend. La Llorana (the crying woman) is somewhat of a ghost in Mexico, Central and South America. In some versions of the story, she was a woman scorned, who got her revenge by drowning her children in the local river.

This movie takes La Llorana to New York City’s Central Park, where an epidemic of missing children is putting the city into a frantic state. We follow a pair of detectives (Camargo and Leon) as they investigate the disappearances and a young mother (Dominguez) who has visions that drive her to investigate the legend and the abductions herself.

Review:

            I don’t watch a lot of horror movies and this one illustrates why. It seems to me that the line between cliché and parody keeps getting thinner and thinner. To clarify for any aspiring horror director reading this: Parody is an over-exaggeration of an idea or technique that is a serious attempt to be funny. Cliché is an over-exaggeration of an idea or technique that is a funny attempt to be serious. This film was full of the latter.

            Any movie that has the typical (see cliché above), person drawing scary pictures while in a trance scene, is going to have to work pretty hard to regain my interest. I can’t recall how many times I’ve seen this done and it is just getting sad.

            The second cliché I saw was the ever-so-popular super scary whispering voices heard in the heads of the main characters. This too is neither original nor frightening. It has been done more times than the previously mentioned scary picture drawing scene and with less of an affect.

            The third and most egregious stereotypical, low-rate horror tactic used in this film was the quick flash of scary images on the screen while no one is expecting it technique. This serves the film two purposes; it saves the budget when longer shots of quality gore special effects cannot be afforded and it also allows the editing to create the startling scene as a substitute for real suspense and horror.

            When I received this screener, I was a bit intrigued by the folk lore of La Llorana so I decided to do some research on it before I watched it. There was nothing extraordinarily interesting about the legend but I did take note in the fact that throughout different parts of the Hispanic world, there are vast differences in the original story of La Llorana. I was very interested in seeing which of the several versions of the story this film decided to adapt. Unfortunately, I was very disappointed when, rather than picking one, it simply garbled all of the versions together. This really ate into the entire concept of the legend. The film makers even went a step further and added their own aspects to the legend. In one part, the detectives are explained, “she gets her power from the water.” I think they borrowed this idea from another folk legend from the East, his name was Godzilla.

I can’t really say much of anything good about this flick. The acting was not horrible, but it was not very good either. The ending was both disturbing and predictable, but not satisfying. I could point out that the character of Maria (Adriana Dominguez) was nice to look at throughout the film and I enjoyed the music performed by Del Castillo. But I won’t.  Overall, there was no aspect of this movie that made it worth the time I spent watching it.