Change Your Image
kennethpitchford
Reviews
The Brothers Karamazov (1958)
A terrible movie
This is not a review. See other comments of those who liked this film. For me, it is one of the two worst films of literary masterpieces I have ever seen, the other being The Sound and the Fury. The actors were all fine. The father is wrongly characterized but well played by Cobb. Brynner is excellent as Dmitri. They are less ambiguous and so more easily screened. There is no way that anyone could capture Ivan, though Basehart does his best. And Alexei? It's not Shatner's fault that this role is written so terribly. As you can see, I absolve the actors of the crime committed by the film. Perhaps it is not Maria Schell's fault, either, that she mugs and grins her way through her ridiculous part. But I kept wishing she would stop smiling, just once stop smiling whatever emotion she thinks she is conveying. I felt this intensely both when I saw the film in 1958 and 2010. If anything Schell is worse than Joanne Woodward in the Faulkner film when the latter says, "And this fine old house just falling to wrack and ruin about our ears" Nothing in the film Karamazov, of course, about how the "miraculously preserved" corpse of Zosima starts stinking in short order. And predictably, of course, not a hint of the Grand Inquisitor. The worst omission by far, however, is the boys shouting "Hurrah for Karamazov" at the end of the book. Critics once voted that line the greatest single line in all of literature, second only to "Look up Nicholas, look up!" in George Eliot's Middlemarch. It's not that I expect a film to capture anything but glimpses of a great work, but this film is a travesty. Marilyn Monore would have been a big plus, as she was in The Misfits. The first time I saw this film, I hadn't even read the book, which I've since read many times and tend to think is one of the world's greatest novels. Well, what can one expect from 1950s middlebrow Hollywood? It's like penciling a mustache on the Mona Lisa to make it more accessible. No thanks.
Infamous (2006)
The Better Version
I just saw Capote again, and was duly impressed by Hoffman's Oscar performance. But something was missing. Then I recalled the incredible performance by Daniel Craig as Perry Smith in this version. No comparison! Item by item, the Capote version proved less memorable, less shattering than this one. What terrible luck that it came a year later. Why did Infamous receive less praise, attention, awards? One reason: homophobia. In Capote the love between Capote and Smith was understated to the vanishing point. In Infamous, it was seen for what it was: the major factor in the tragic fates of both Capote and Smith. That is a lot for one movie to capture. On that score, Capote just didn't cut it. Hoffman is superb. Bur just imagine how he would have acted Infamous opposite Craig. Toby Jones is lucky. He not only provides a nearly flawless performance, but can never be compared to Hoffman's heroic turn in the inferior movie. How would it have gone in the best movie with the best actor? We will never know. But Jones and Infamous do the job until the real thing comes along, which is no doubt never.
Eraserhead (1977)
An eerie masterpiece
I'd heard of this movie for ages, but never saw it till now. I watched it in a mood that excluded all its baggage as a cult movie or as pure trash. With no preconceptions, I was completely taken in by its mood. Someone mentioned Kafka as a reason to denigrate this film. I have spent a lifetime admiring Kafka's work, every word of it, and I'm not even through. With Lynch, I had liked 'The Elephant Man,' and a few other films, but had a basically negative attitude toward him as being pretentious. Strangely, this movie just captured my mind completely. I watched fascinated. Those who want to hunt symbols can put equal signs between a detail in the movie and their bloviations, but that's not how symbolism works. I'd say I re-experienced the hideous sleeplessness of the first months of parenting, but I just don't see the worms as spermatazoa. The nightmare family of the 'wife' is right out of Kafka, but the singing lady with the doughy cheeks is absolute;y original - and brilliant. This last image scared me more than anything else in the film. What power that image packed! All in all, I'm still staggered by the demented intensity of the film and find my ignoring it before deplorable.
The Walker (2007)
Subtlety of the finest sort
I, too, had my troubles with this film, but I will not rehash the plot nor evaluate the actors, all of whom were at the top of their form. What amazed me so much is that a film could trust the audience enough to let us infer what remained unsaid by the characters. This is something like a James novel in which nothing happens. Isabel (in Portrait of a Lady) sits and stares at a fire for a whole chapter. Nothing happens. Yet her fate is sealed by the time the fire has burned down.
Of course, the modern movie-goer will find this boring and the film will provoke cries of 'worst film of the century.' But once I learned to trust the movie's reticence and pace, I found that I was able to follow a thought process that became a collaboration between the film- maker and myself. This is so rare in movies that it will invoke fury or yawns in those used to cheap thrills and pat plots. True, the plot in this film is almost nonexistent. But then this is not an ordinary movie.
My collaboration with Schrader and Harrelson resulted in some wry reflections on my own life, on loyalty and disloyalty. And on the mistaken idea that manners and superficiality will be enough to mask "the horror and the boredom" of life.
Intersection (1994)
An inexcusably shallow movie
I honestly found this a deplorably cheap piece of sh*t. How shallow can you get? Gere was disgusting in his pathetic ambivalence. He's supposed to be a principled Buddhist. He can rake in dough for this kind of sleazy grossness? Davidowitch was terrible. The plot was terrible. Stone was the least terrible element in the movie, which is saying a lot. The whole movie is predictable, boring, and without a spark of creativity. That it is about rich people with no concern for the rest of humanity is appalling, especially considering Gere's alleged social conscience. What else can I say? I would rate this movie close to zero. /
Tomorrow, the World! (1944)
A good cast in a shameless piece of war propaganda
Other comments have been spot-on in their comparisons to "The Bad Seed" and even Dennis the Menace. I also totally agree that this is a decidedly unsubtle piece of war propaganda. Having said that, there is one reason I find the film still watchable. I first saw this movie in 1944 when I I was growing up in the Midwest. I found it utterly gripping then. Seeing it again, I can now see how well the excellent cast dealt with the lame plot.
But it set the standard for what became my favorite genre of movies, which I called "Nazi movies" - meaning Hollywood (and British) war films about Germany. Sometimes they were great films and still are, such as "The Lady Vanishes." And sometimes they were closer to being potboilers, like this one. Most are hard for me to decide about, like "This Mortal Storm" - so I just give up and enjoy them all!
Walk on the Wild Side (1962)
A good movie more complex than it is given credit for
Much has been said about the bad casting, but I find it all fitting indeed. The plot is one of the endless variations on La Traviata - the whore with a heart of gold - but it has some twists in it that are original. Stanwyck is great in this first 'out' gay role of any character in films.
Capucine is one the great beauties of film. Her acting is icy - which is perfect. Did you note how she changes her mind depending on whom she's talking to? It's clear the character has no mind of her own - until it's too late. Perfect.
The Fonda-Harvey prelude is terrific. And of course the plotting brings her significantly back in the denouement. There's not a wasted motif in the plot. Stanwyck's husband at the beginning and end. It's easy to cry 'pot-boiler' but that's a vacuous charge against this better than average movie, certainly a milestone of sorts.
Your Friends and Neighbors (1998)
The scene with the three men
One of the most fascinating moments in this film is the scene in which the three men each tell about their most exciting sexual liaison. Jason Patric's anecdote is amazing, both as written and as acted. A virulent misogynist with no empathy for the women he has used sexually, he tells a story in which a bunch of jocks, including him, rape a homosexual to show what contempt they have for him. The Patric character is last in line and in describing his encounter with the abused rapee, he expresses more than a deep empathy for the victim, but in fact something like respect and love. The implications inherent in his anecdote have kept on resonating for me ever since, but the capper to it all is how powerfully Patric tells the story. I wouldn't particularly want to re-see the rest of the movie, but I could watch that scene again and again. Why is Patric so underrated? He was also very good in Incognito.