samuliff Reviews

Fight Club (1999)

Remarkable depiction of humanity.

[10/10 · 4 May 2008]

Yes, Fight Club is controversial. It is also violent, gory and deliberately cheap.

Furthermore, it is one of the most poignant depictions of materialism and human nature in film history.

From start to finish, it is loaded with sarcastic remarks on today's society. There are so many visual hooks and catchy thrills that you won't get away with watching it just once.

Essentially, Fight Club is a story about consumerism. The main character, brilliantly played by Edward Norton, is a victim of the society's requirement to make a lot of money and then spend it on furniture and other false delights. He cannot sleep and he doesn't have any real friends.

Once his material fortune is destroyed by a fire, he has no choice but to turn to Tyler Durden, an alpha-male who lives in a dirty squat and makes soap for living. Tyler is the character Brad Pitt was born to play.

Then there's Helena Bonham Carter as the tortured misfit who can't make her mind up on anything.

And that's about everything that can ethically be reveal about the plot. You have to see the film yourself and get impressed, time after time.

There are no guarantees that you will love Fight Club. A load of people have been angered by it. In my opinion, that's exactly the film's forte. Whatever you think of it, you will think something of it, and you will never forget what you've seen.

Some have criticized it for being pro-violence. I have no patience for their point of view. Fight Club is a hugely ironic portrait of human mind taking a wrong turn. If anything, it's strictly against any form of violence, mental or physical.

David Fincher has directed revolutionary music videos for Aerosmith and Madonna, among others, as well as some formidable thrillers, such as The Game and Panic Room. Here, he outdoes himself. He jam-packs the flick with genius visual clues and lines Tarantino should envy.

Risky Business (1983)

A guilty pleasure.

[6/10 · 29 July 2007]

Now here's a handful of ridiculous cheese that still manages to entertain, like it or not.

We've got Tom Cruise in his breakthrough role, with all of his famed mannerisms, such as the toothpaste smile, already in full use. We've got all the splendor of the worst Eighties gear.

Add the then-promising Rebecca De Mornay as Cruise's good-bad love interest, a laughable plot-line about college boy Cruise losing it at home while his parents are away, the tackiest tunes of the decade, and a bottom line so imperialistic and right-wing that it's on the verge of being repulsive.

Yet, there's no denying that Risky Business is entertaining all the way. The plot runs along smoothly, always leaving the viewer to eagerly anticipate for the next twist.

It is all incredibly dated and corny, but let's not be fooled by that. Let us enjoy Risky Business for what it's worth. This was Eighties at its most brilliantly disgusting.

Harper (1966)

One big sleep, indeed.

[6/10 · 21 July 2007]

Do you remember "The Big Sleep" (1946)? Bacall, Bogart, sparkling dialogue, thrilling plot-twists.

Enter "Harper", produced exactly twenty years after. It is a smooth, ambitious spy story, but it never adds up to much.

We see Paul Newman as detective Lew Harper wondering around, trying to find a clue about who killed who. Newman, admittedly a talented actor, never breathes life into his character. He is tragically miscast here.

The one saving grace is Lauren Bacall, who makes an impressive turn as the bitchy wheel-chair bound woman whose daughter (Julie Harris) keeps ridiculing her for her aging. Bacall's delivery is acid and she walks away with every scene she's in.

There are more A-list stars whom Newman has to face while making his way toward the solution. Janet Leigh is his frustrated wife, and Shelley Winters plays an obese has-been film star who has a problem with alcohol.

All in all, "Harper" is a tired repetition of not only "The Big Sleep" but some other classic film noires. Coloured in bright 1960s Technicolour, screened in Panavision, and packed with clichés and faux-funny lines, this spy story is better left forgotten.

What Women Want (2000)

A miserable blunder

[3/10 · 6 November 2005]

What Women Want is comedy at its lamest. The basic idea is that women are from Venus and men are from Mars and that men are usually major bastards. This kind of thinking dates back to the Fifties.

The storyline couldn't be more predictable. Make Mel Gibson goof around a little, add a sugary storyline about father and daughter coming closer, and top the cake with a love-story so overtly tacky that it makes you gag. The few occasional laughs can't save the whole.

Everything that was fresh and imaginative about As Good As It Gets (another romantic comedy starring Helen Hunt) has been replaced with clichés and utterly boring predictability here.

Touch of Evil (1958)

One of the best crime dramas ever made

[9/10 · 14 October 2005]

What's left to be said about the genius of Orson Welles? The Touch of Evil has it all: an aura of mystery, perfectly executed editing, and a performance by Welles that's among the best acting ever on screen. His portrayal of the repulsive, obese, alcohol-abusing officer is so real and true that you can almost smell his breath stink of liquor.

The story never once slows down, and while it's heavy on desperation and tragedy (especially when the pre-Psycho Janet Leigh is trapped in a motel room, something that would become her trademark), Welles peppers it with tongue-in-cheek humor.

Marlene Dietrich's turn as Welles' former gypsy lover is a highlight. The whole works smoothly and no matter how many times you watch this film, it will only get better with time.

Get your hands on the 1998 version if you can, although the other cuts are almost equally incredible.

How to Marry a Millionaire (1953)

Old-fashioned but fun

[6/10 · 26 August 2005]

How to Marry a Millionaire is an average Fifties comedy revolving around three big movie stars. The lazy plot has been CinemaScoped up, and at times it drags painfully. Jean Negulesco was a craftsman, not a director with vision. Had the script been handed to Howard Hawks or Billy Wilder, it could have been turned into sarcastic societal commentary, comparable with Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, the Hawks/Monroe collaboration of the same year. As it stands, it's shallow, even dull.

Ultimately, this is a Lauren Bacall movie. She handles her scenes with cool ease, being sassy and straightforward. And Monroe could do no wrong back then. Her comedic timing is impeccable.

There's some raunchy fun there, especially when Bacall and Monroe get together. Upstaged by the two, in her lengthy scenes Betty Grable proves that she's all surface and no genuine talent.

The story about women whose idea of a career is to hunt rich men is yesterday's news. But for fans of Bacall and, up to an extent, Monroe, it's a treat.

The Mexican (2001)

Underrated

[6/10 · 1 August 2005]

The Mexican lacks focus but has its moments. There are several excellently engaging scenes, but the whole remains uneven.

You would think that when two stars as enormous as Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt are cast in a movie together, they would share the screen most of the time. Luckily, the masterminds behind The Mexican have ended up separating them. In the very few occasions when Roberts and Pitt get together, it becomes painfully obvious that their chemistry simply doesn't work.

In their two separate story lines both do very well, however. Roberts gets to show her flare for snappy comedic timing with the wonderful James Gandolfini as they build an unlikely friendship on the road. Pitt is as hunky and charming as ever in a role that suits him perfectly.

The Mexican has its flaws and it's little more than two hours of rather disposable entertainment, but as such, it works.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Beautiful and engaging.

[7/10 · 16 July 2005]

Shakespeare in Love is a historical film for people who don't like historical films. It's free of the weight this kind of movies usually carry, and full of brisk, engaging comedy as well as painstaking tragedy. The pace never once slows down. In short, it has some of the best qualities of Shakespeare's plays.

Gwyneth Paltrow shows surprising range, Joseph Fiennes is more than eye-candy, and the rest of the all-star cast, especially the great Judi Dench, handle the complicated plot with admirable ease. It looks like the film was fun to shoot, and that makes the viewer feel good as well.

And here comes the spoiler: the ending, despite being unhappy, is one of the most stylish finales Hollywood has seen in the past few years. The approach on Viola and Will's sadness is incredibly light-hearted and smooth. You will leave the movie house with a smile on your face, not weeping for the main couple's cruel destiny.

However, Shakespeare in Love is not a masterpiece (hence seven stars only). What it lacks is the director's "signature style", the unique touch of an auteur. Could it be that John Madden simply doesn't have one? His craftsmanship is admirable, but he's no Cukor.

Marnie (1964)

Not Hitchcock's brightest hour, yet a masterpiece.

[8/10 · 16 July 2005]

Marnie's a great example of Alfred Hitchcock's genius: it fails to live up to the standards set by Vertigo, Rear Window, Notorious and so on, yet it's by a mile better than most of the movies in almost any other director's catalog.

The story of a troubled woman searching for balance by stealing is dynamic and thrilling, and at times Hitchcock manages to handle the subject matter with his golden touch of captivating mystery. That said, there are moments of frustration that fail to impress: take the red-colored flashbacks of blood the main character experiences, for example. They merely seem manufactured: in Psycho, for instance, the same kind of staging was the point of the film and seemed campy and fun instead of pretentious.

Despite its weak points, Marnie is a formidable journey into the mind of a twisted human being. Tippi Hedren builds a character with deeper dimensions than the surface of the legendary ice-cool Hitchcock blonde, and Sean Connery skillfully combines gentleman's manners with pervert lust.

Strongly recommended for anyone into audience-friendly thrillers, but don't expect for another Vertigo.

Shallow Grave (1994)

Vibrant and suspenseful

[8/10 · 9 July 2005]

A great modern thriller containing all the necessary ingredients of a decent suspense story: constantly growing tension, sly humor, and genuinely surprising plot twists. It's kind of like a 90s version of a Hitchcock flick (think "Rope"), and like somebody here wrote, once you start watching it you can't stop.

The plot is deliciously wicked. Just how far are you going to go for money? Will you kill for it? Are you willing to share it? Will you give up your best friends for it? How insane will a large amount of cash drive you? And in the end, and this is the most important question "Shallow Grave" rises, will it make you happy?

If there was any more violence in this movie it would turn disgusting, but Danny Boyle knows how to measure it just right. Though he doesn't quite reach the virtuosity of "Trainspotting" here, his trademarks are all present: the fast pace, the urban background beats, the enthralling camera angles and so forth.

The three leads are all great, but there's no question about who the movie belongs to: Ewan McGregor is energetic, powerful and photogenic in his portrayal of a young journalist. No wonder he became such a star.

The Misfits (1961)

Marilyn shines.

[8/10 · 3 April 2005]

The more I see The Misfits, the more I appreciate it.

Marilyn plays the role of Roslyn. Roslyn never finds satisfaction in living out the ordinary Western world dream. You see it in her face. She's out of place, she's not here to please anybody, she's searching for answers. And the answers don't come easy for her. She's a true misfit. I do identify with that.

See the flick and come telling me Marilyn wasn't the best actor movie history has seen. Look at the expressions of frustration on her face. See how she goes through pain. There's not a trace of dumb blonde (the role she played out so perfectly) there.

The Misfits is not an easy movie to watch. It's not crowd-pleasing. It requires you to focus. But once you do focus it will reward you. Marilyn is the heart and soul of The Misfits. Being a true misfit herself, she knew how to play the character of Roslyn. The nuances she manages to express are beyond comparison.

Jean Paul Sartre said that in The Misfits Marilyn not only justifies her position as a female heroine but also becomes a kind of a definition of humanity in general.

I can't argue with that.