Change Your Image
PenOutOfTime
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Il divo (2008)
Terribly flawed in any language
It is a testament to this film that it leaves enough of the voice and actions of its protagonist, that you can see another way of looking at the man, underneath this film's message. At the level of craft, this film is also quite strong with cinematography and especially, soundtrack which stand out, and could be used as an example in film class.
Ultimately however, this film fails in that it is a biopic, but one that places us almost in the shoes of its protagonist, without at all attempting to look at things through his own eyes.
As an example of this, when Andreotti walks about in the city normally even though there is security accompanying him, rather than riding in a motorcade, this is treated as if he is caged in misery, rather than Andreotti simply being used to the situation, and not paying much mind to the security, or for that matter, considering that perhaps he enjoys the power of an armed entourage.
Now here I want to be very careful, because it is perfectly possible that Andreotti did regard the security as a burden, but this very same approach is taken with every other distinctive characteristic of Andreotti's, including his own personality.
Andreotti was famously straight faced and calm in his demeanor, but famous for his clever and witty remarks. Instead of treating him as interacting with others as a "straight man" like Oliver Hardy or Bob Newhart, Andreotti is portrayed as being entirely expressionless, trapped inside a mask.
Indeed the actor playing Andreotti plays the man as being ENTIRELY expressionless, and adds to the artificial effect by hunching and walking in a spastic way. This effect is impressive in its consistency, but entirely fails to seem natural, even to the point of being the believable gait and demeanor of an injured or disabled person.
This same approach, where the emotions and priorities of a person decidedly not the protagonist are projected upon him, utterly shapes what is shown in political terms as well. Andreotti was a devoted retail politician, who loved to meet with constituents and solve their problems or provide help. The film is good enough to show us a trace of this, with Andreotti doing constituent service every weekend, but overall, the focus is on good or evil actions as an almost abstract exercise of power. Since the abstract use of power was not at all what Andreotti was focused on, or motivated by, the content doesn't connect.
Whether one knows Italian politics or not is not a key to deciphering the film; rather one needs to understand Italian politics ahead of time because what is being shown to us has very little cause and effect relationship.
Altogether, there is a great deal of talent on display, but the effort seems to be wasted. Many people saw Andreotti as a sort of enigma, and this film seems to have attempted to preserve that impression to leave a "realistic" image of Andreotti based on only superficial impersonation.
Who Killed Nancy? (2009)
Informative and engaging, if a touch amateurish
This film is structured around the question of who killed Nancy Spungen, companion to Sid Vicious. The weakness of the film is that the filmmakers have not structured the film in a rigorous way to make their case questioning the conventional wisdom on the matter.
The actual effect of this lack of strict focus, is paradoxically, a masterpiece in capturing the character and spirit of both the people involved, and of the music scene that they came from.
Punk was, and is, purposely confrontational, and many punk documentaries are effectively impaled on these clashes; stuck on the 'spikes' of punk, and never really capturing a complete image of either the people or the scene. In setting out to chronicle a death, this film has actually captured that life.
It would probably be foolish to imagine that any film can actually tell you all about punk; who has seen a documentary that actually even had all of the important bands in it? This film is not all of punk by any means, but it is one of the best documentaries to have come out of it, and that is what really matters.
If you are focused on the film from the perspective of the mystery however, this film is still a great success, at least if you would like to make up your own mind. Most films of this sort would have the filmmaker smacking away with remark after remark, all up and down the length of the film, like a cook tenderizing a piece of meat. In this case, it seems like such remarks had to be pasted onto the end of the film, but since both sides of the evidence are presented relatively naturally along the course of the film, the effect is to create overall, an unusually unbiased presentation. This documentary is rough around the edges, but it is great.
Hitler - eine Bilanz (1995)
Rather long winded......
There are two notable strengths about this documentary about Hitler, as compared to others. First, it has very good access with its interviews, talking to many people who are not commonly seen elsewhere. Secondly, it similarly has very good access to original footage.
The problem with this is that much of the original footage is in fact propaganda footage, and this series, while reversing the evil message, does not give one as much historical information as would be desirable for so long a program.
Basically these shows are making a great point of showing you that Hitler is bad. Perhaps this is very useful for less informed people in Germany, but for well informed people outside of Germany the effect is repetitive, long winded, and while true enough, propagandistic.
It is reasonable, as a historic matter, to mention Hitler's repetitive schedule for example, and it is reasonable to surmise that this reveals something about the character of the evil dictator. Nonetheless, it seems somewhat ridiculous to use horror movie *shock/reveal* music scoring when one is describing a breakfast of toast etc., no matter how often someone eats it.
This series has a paradoxical combination of drawn-out footage that would be interesting to someone out of Germany only if they are very interested in the subject, but a message and information density that is aimed at someone with little knowledge of the subject. The combination will not appeal to everyone, and many history buffs will want to explore other documentaries on the subject first.
1612: Khroniki smutnogo vremeni (2007)
Historical drama in the spirit of Die Hard
This is a film that aims to create action entertainment, with great historical costumes to be sure, but it is not a "serious" historical drama. Broadly speaking, the action is not less realistic than say, many of the James Bond movies, and it is not intended to be. The hero protagonist and his "ethnic" sidekick really draw on cop buddy films as much as anything else, and it is modern action/adventure films with which this movie should be compared.
There are not an enormous number of films with which this movie compares, but in general, if you wouldn't like Zorro, you wouldn't like this one.
I would argue that where this film really excels is in its use of tragedy and the mystical/magical. Neither of these elements are dominant, but the elements are well done, and they add weight and a touch of meaning to an otherwise light film, without desecrating religion or the folk traditions of Russia.
If I was a person who normally watched this sort of film, I would rate it higher, but as a matter of taste, I am simply giving it a 6, meaning that I think it is objectively, a bit better than average.
The crucial point about whether you should watch this film is really whether or not you like fairly light entertainment of this sort. This is a movie that has the costumes, but not the spirit or atmosphere of the average American or British costume drama.
A Rainha Diaba (1974)
More accurate in its setting than entertaining to watch
As mentioned by other reviewers, "A Rainha Diaba" is striking in its visual design, costumes, and sense of place. These elements are one of the film's clear strengths.
Another great strength is in the film's understanding and depiction of the underworld. A vast percentage of the world's film and television is based on crime drama, but very little is realistic in portraying the social dynamics of crime. "A Rainha Diaba" is a great exception to this, and is realistic and believable in building society.
There are two big problems with the film as well however.
In the first place, the plot of the film is basically not compelling, and fails to engage the viewer. The ending in this regard is particularly unsatisfactory, being both emotionally unsatisfying, and unrealistic.
In the second place, much of the acting is unconvincing and fails to engage the viewer. Some people may be able to overlook these flaws, but those looking for a great story or absorbing entertainment should look elsewhere.
Once Upon a Time in Norway (2007)
Doesn't capture the atmosphere of Black Metal, but informative
Once Upon A Time In Norway is one of a few films that try to address the history and meaning of Black Metal.
This film is not a masterpiece by any means. Any definitive film about Black Metal would have to address the meaning behind a movement that was substantially aesthetic in its philosophical tendencies. The "just the facts" approach taken in this film is arguably unfair to Black Metal, and unfair to the audience in that they will not necessarily understand WHY; the film arguably trivializes the whole scene.
Nevertheless, this film is very useful when viewed with better known documentaries on the same subject, like "Until the Light Takes Us (2008, which failed to give any real idea of the actual history of the Norwegian Black Metal scene.
Armadillo (2010)
A good film to show someone with little military knowledge
Reading reviews of this film, I noticed a lot of extreme praise, lauding this documentary as being perhaps, the "best war documentary ever made". With the praise so high, it is tempting therefore to look for the film to be the most dramatic, or visually compelling sight ever.
Looking at the film that way, it is quite possible that you will be disappointed. This is not because the film is bad, far from it, but rather, is because the film has distinct and particular strengths.
One of those strengths is paradoxically, the reasonably low casualty rate of of the protagonist unit, and reasonably low level of "blood and guts." Holding down the level of gore is very important because a lot of people watching war documentaries become too shocked and revolted to be able to draw much meaning from the film. This documentary shows enough for someone with little experience in such matters to be able to "get it" without being so shocked that the horror overwhelms everything else.
The second strength of this film is in its being in the right places at the right time to capture a good sense of events. In contrast to some reviewers, I cannot say that the photography is absolutely the best; an experienced war photographer might be able to film things better in combat, but the camera is at least, generally in the right place, and the confusion of war becomes something understandable to the audience.
The third big strength of this film is in capturing the way that morality for someone fighting a war is often experienced differently than a person who is not in that situation would expect. This is the outstanding feature of this documentary, and I am aware of no other that comes close to explaining this situation to a civilian or person unfamiliar with conflict.
The fourth strength of this documentary is in its capture of the boredom and frustrations of military service.
The upshot of all this is that "Armadillo" is a very informative film, and one that does a great deal to bridge the gap between civilians and the military. For all those guys who have been in the military, and who are frustrated by the fact that other people just don't "get it", this could be very useful.
Cleopatra's Palace (1998)
A documentary focusing on underwater archeology
During the Roman occupation of Egypt a tidal wave swept away portions of Alexandria.
Cleopatra was the last of the Ptolemy dynasty to rule an Egypt free of Roman rule, and many of the buildings in use in Egypt under Cleopatra were still in use at the time of the tidal wave. These buildings included a palace near the harbor, believed to be used by Cleopatra herself.
Underwater archaeologists are attempting to locate and map the portions of Alexandria which the tidal wave took into the sea, particularly Cleopatra's palace. This documentary tells the story of that search in the murky harbor, and uses reenactors to put the archaeological discoveries in perspective.
My rating of "5" is intended to be a neutral rating in between the top and bottom. This documentary is neither better or worse than a standard television documentary of this type, and people with a particular interest in Cleopatra, archeology, or scuba diving might find it interesting.
Chasseurs de dragons (2008)
A timeless fairy tale
Many reviews of this film seem to weigh the mass of content and the quality of the animation.
A better way to evaluate this movie is to consider the quality and purpose of the story elements and characterization, and the artistic vision and mood of the story and its environment.
What is different about the story and characterization of this movie, is not that it tells a tale that is thoroughly unique and surprising, but is rather that a classic and simple quest tale is executed in what you could call an artistically minimalist fashion.
Many animated films aimed at the family market are operating like a three-ring circus, containing a story for the children, veritably bulging with overripe characterization to distract us from the boring or poorly plotted story, and last, but certainly not least, containing a never-ending series of distractions for parents and adults who desperately do not want to be watching the film.
The mass of all this material can give such a film a cluttered appearance, and the swarm of pop-culture references stuffed in the film as jokes are doubly anachronistic, not fitting with the content of the film, and serving as a subtle irritation by constituting either yet another reference to tabloid-not news, or if the film is old enough, being simply altogether out of date.
Dragon Hunters is very different. You have to be able to appreciate a fairy tale; this film will not give you a variety show to go along with the fairy tale that you do not really want to see, but that story is beautifully and cleanly laid out.
In many cases, when evaluating an animated film; the latest Pixar release for example, we marvel, or at least listen to other people marvel, at the quality and sophistication of the animation.
What stands out about Dragon Hunters is not that film looks like it could only be made in a top-secret laboratory on the world's largest computer. This is not to say that the animation is backward either; the film is up-to-date, but what stands out about Dragon hunters is how well the tools of computer animation are used for artistic effect.
The overall look of the picture for example, is very well done, providing plenty of detail, yet lending a somewhat dreamlike quality to the movie that is very appropriate to a fairy tale. Having done a good job, the filmmakers also take their achievement in stride, and do not hobble the production with scenes that only serve to celebrate their own achievement.
Finally, I would note how this production stands out not so much in introducing a brand-new special effect, but rather in that the tools, the 'brushes' as it were, of computer animation, are wielded with verve and to artistic effect. All animated shows are affected by the fact that the characters in their world move in a particular way, which does not wholly conform to reality. In the Dragon Hunters, you feel more like you are watching a skilled marionettist, and less like you are seeing a great special effect that wasn't quite good enough.
So to sum up, Dragon Hunters is a minimalist story, and is a great one as long as you are able to accept that choice. The animation is of good quality, but more importantly, is artistically done within the level of technology in use. Like the Disney film "Snow White" Dragon Hunters is likely to retain its value after technology permits more spectacular effects, unlike say "King Kong" which can only be appreciated if much is ignored. The result, is a classic and timeless movie.
Running with Arnold (2006)
A crude hatchet job. Not worth your time, even if you hate Schwarzenegger.
My expectation of this documentary was that it would cover Arnold Schwarzenegger's run for governor, or political career in traditional "fly on the wall" style.
This was not the case, which would be perfectly all right, but for the fact that this so called 'documentary' doesn't actually appear to have any original research put into it at all. A better title would be 'A Tabloid History of Arnold" with the movie (if I can call it that) being laid out not in the order that the events took place, but rather, being shown in the order that unflattering material was brought to light in the press.
I suppose that it is possible that the revelations are revealed in true documentary style, in the order that the maker found them, but if this is the case, then this film is a history by the California Democratic Party's opposition research department. In fact, the 'documentary' is narrated and constructed like one long and painfully drawn out political ad, and the perspective laid out is so limited and blatantly political that the hyperbole is occasionally the most interesting/amusing thing about it. My favorite narrator quote: "Unlike today, back at the turn of the century (meaning the late 1890's & early 1900's), the 'Golden State' was swimming in corruption".
It isn't necessary to have even the slightest amount of sympathy for Schwarzenegger to be annoyed by this silly production. The omnipotent narrator rants and rants, and even a series of weirdly irrelevant 'talking head' quotes by comedians cannot inject life into this dull and pedantic piece.
Needless to say, the film is not really fair to Arnold, suggesting for example that the only reason that he would oppose banning nutritional supplements was that the makers of some of them advertised in bodybuilding magazines that he edits (as if you could find any bodybuilder who is opposed to nutritional supplements) but bias is by no means the most important criticism of this film.
A highly opinionated documentary can be a good thing, but this is an unoriginal and crude bit of political hackery, and nothing more. It is quite possible that the majority of criticisms in this production are factually true, if for no other reason than that it appears that the filmmakers actually discovered none of them, but any facts found in this film are so smothered in crude invective that its hard to rely on this film for either information or entertainment.
Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (2008)
A history at best, a propaganda film at worst
To grade a film like this, it is very helpful to try to classify what sort of film it is.
From a storytelling point of view, this film cannot hold up as a character study, because scenes that would really allow us to get into a character's head, are replaced by recreations of historical events.
By the standards of a drama, at least some of the characters are well drawn, but with a drama we would also expect to see opposing characters, at least if conflict is important to the story. There are plenty of nameless minions of the state in Der Baader Meinhof Komplex, but dramatic non-RAF characters are limited to say the least. We could say that the drama is limited to the people in the RAF, but if this is the case, then the interactions between RAF characters, while otherwise satisfactory for a different sort of film, are not adequate to justify this production.
If this film were a thriller, we would expect to see an interesting set of facts linked to one another in some revealing fashion, and we would expect to see some dramatic tension, an element that is generally lacking.
Ultimately, we are left with a historical film, and this raises the question of how well Der Baader Meinhof Komplex captures historical events. You cannot fault the film on thoroughness, as it seems to aim at detailing every significant action for a decade.
However, exactly what motivates the radicals/terrorists, and/or what exactly it is that they believe in, is either missing, or must be attributed to various character flaws (which are indeed exhaustively chronicled).
Such an assessment is of limited interest however, even to a right winger, or someone who wants to join GSG9, because the anti-terrorist and police forces are mostly nameless, and are commonly portrayed as somewhat brutal, lacking any particular agency or planning of their own. The one partial exception is an official who pops up regularly to emphasize that the various matters that the radicals are concerned about (for some reason, most of the mentioned issues involve other nations more than West Germany), are indeed important, in some ill defined fashion. One is tempted to believe that he is in the film only to demonstrate that the West German government was 'in touch' and suitably empathetic to 1970's leftist concerns.
Ultimately then, this film seems set on elaborating a particular historical judgment of 1970's Germany, and of Baader and Meinhof in particular. This critical assessment may be altogether correct, or not, as the case may be, but not even one side of the story is really told, never mind both.
The storytelling value of this historical judgment is rather limited, and the resulting film is fairly boring, albeit stripped of serious intellectual content by flash-powder and gory special effects. The film seems to be aimed at leftists, and aimed at deflating any romantic notions about the RAF. Although I suppose non-leftists might take comfort in this unflattering portrayal, the film is otherwise of little entertainment value, and rather annoyingly, its educational value is impeded by not only a lack of motive, but also a lack of clarity regarding the identity of the characters.
Gallipoli (1981)
Not bad, but incredibly conventional
By now, most film-goers know what constitutes a war movie, and this film could be complemented, or criticized as being, really the 'Mother' of all of them. Mingling patriotism and tragedy, this film can make a case for every archetype and trope that we groan over in other films, and for that reason, is a really fine movie.
There is nothing more however, no plot element or characterization that would make the viewer even blink twice. The performances are basically excellent, for what they are, and unlike many a conventional film, the actors do not fall into self parody, but these performances are not really captivating either.
If there is a flaw, it is in the pacing. Rather than a beginning, middle and end,there seems to be a beginning and a middle cut short, but this might also be considered the strongest creative choice in the film, in demonstrating the tragedy of war through life cut short. It just depends on how you want to take it.
The reason that I do not give it kudos, for what it is, is that this film is significantly historically incorrect, relying on faux British mistakes to avoid implying too strongly that the war was an inherent tragedy, and to enhance the Australian sacrifice, without implying additional Australian responsibility, at British expense. You could still draw that conclusion (that the war was simply a tragedy) from this film, and there was plenty of callous wastage of life, and plenty of mistakes, and errors of judgment in the real war to be sure, but this film prefers to fictionalize the story, and so I rank it as no better, and no worse than most films. People who really like war movies should like it, and people that don't, should be forewarned.
Infamy (2005)
The Best Graffiti Documentary That I Can Find
I have seen a number of graffiti documentaries, and have liked many, but this is the best of the lot. This documentary, more than any other that I have seen, can place different types of graffiti in relation to one another, and which can locate graffiti within the larger art world, and within the community at large. That the film is able to do this while telling compelling human stories, and without relying on lectures and commentary, but using only the words of the subjects themselves, takes this film from good to great.
With the other graffiti documentaries I have seen , you sometimes get the feeling that a great deal of work went into gathering up a bundle of information and presenting it to you. That is all very well, but this film does not just compile information, or even cut a core sample out of the subject, but like art itself, manages to capture the essence of the subject itself.
A lot of documentaries are interesting to a person who likes, or is interested in a particular subject, but "preach to the choir" as it were, requiring that the viewer already accept the point that is nominally being made, well ahead of time. By contrast, 'Infamy is a film that you can show to someone who doesn't understand or accept graffiti.
Last, but not least, this documentary does not simply rely on the virtues of the art that is the subject of the film. From production values, to the human dramas of the artists, this is a good film, and upholds the standards of its own medium. A top-notch documentary all the way around.
Bart Got a Room (2008)
Can the whole be LESS than the sum of the parts?
Looking back at this film, there are quite a number of scenes that seem as if they, and the movie that they are in, should be superb. Actually watching the scenes, and watching the film as a whole however, the effect is rather lackluster. Objectively, I can't say that the movie is a bad one, and some people will probably love, it, but for many or most people, I suspect that the film will not live up to its potential. Its difficult to say exactly why, but I can nominate three potential reasons.
1.
Comparative lack of comedic follow-through. In many comedic scenes in film, you can see an embarrassing situation emerging a few seconds or minutes before the specific situation ends. Rather than playing each scene through from beginning to bitter end, 'Bart Got A Room" tends to lay out the scene, and clip off the last uncomfortable moments. This device does not render the scenes unfunny, and it could make the film a bit more subtle. "Bart Got A Room" is not the most exciting or unpredictable film however, and the closely trimmed scene endings make the movie more boring.
2.
A vast proportion of the world's humor comes from people and the world as a whole not living up to expectations. Much humor represents an idealistic implicit criticism of these failures and imperfections.
The creators of this film seem to embrace, rather than criticize imperfection however, particularly in the ending, and not so much by defiantly embracing an alternate standard of perfection, but by saying that "hey, settling for ______ is okay." Obviously the difference between different sorts of acceptance (of imperfection) are subtle, but but this film seems to be more "settle for it" than usual, and the implicit lack of idealism leads to less ideal-driven humorous criticism.
3.
This film has a very clear Florida setting and cultural identity, and ordinarily this would be a strict virtue, adding a bit of realism instead of pretending to a placeless universality. Unfortunately, the film is so subtle/dull overall, that the setting and specific characterization overwhelms the overall story and other elements to a degree. Most likely the filmmakers should have made the story and characters a bit more interesting, rather than make the background less interesting, but something should have been done.
Tunnel Rats (2008)
Not great by any means, but nowhere near as bad as its reputation would indicate
I happened on this movie without knowing much about it, and without knowing much about the notorious director (I don't normally watch the type of films he makes).
Upon watching the movie, I have to say that it appears to be receiving a lot of spillover hate from his other, more schlocky productions. While not really excellent, you could very easily find a lot of well received war movies that are much worse.
Beyond crowd-following hate of director Boll, the film fails to receive any love mainly because it is just flawed enough to alienate those specific and particular constituencies; "serious" film buffs, and war film fans, that such a film would normally draw. The film is grim enough to fit into the antiwar genre, but gory enough to vex those who favor a "serious" film style. The characterization is too favorable to the Vietnamese to lure the jingoistic, but too trite and conventional to draw in the aspirationally sophisticated.
Straightforward war film devotees also tend to be very particular about technical details and accuracy, and while most shots look okay by Hollywood standards, many details will irritate the purist. Some of this is likely due to simple lack of funding; the campsite so different from a Vietnam War era firebase for example, but many details; the Palestinian/Arab neck-scarves instead of Vietnamese ones (the real thing is readily available on Ebay) for example, to mention a flaw not yet noted on IMDb, seem like carelessness.
Despite the many flaws however, the overall effect is not nearly as bad as to justify spoof awards, and some of (not all!!!) the acting is actually rather good.
At any rate, even if mainstream film goers don't favor this production, collectors of silly and flawed scenes might be interested to note this film as containing, in one (or perhaps more, depending on where you draw the line) of the lessor scenes, a portrayal of Americans/Westerners as can't-hit-a-thing cannon fodder, easily gunned down. Perhaps only so hackneyed a director as Uwe Boll could not only set aside this stereotypical portrayal, but could actually reverse it!
Screamers: The Hunting (2009)
Generic B film
Take a look at the picture of the cover, as posted on IMDb. Note the rather generic and jaded design, and note that significant elements of the scary imagery seem to be lifted from other well known horror/science-fiction films. If you accept that the cover does in fact reveal the quality of the film, then you will have little reason to be disappointed.
This movie has a serious case of 'sequel-itis', and many of the outstanding points in the original from (some of) the acting, to the costumes, are seriously degraded, but nonetheless, the overall result is of sturdy B-movie grade. Most elements, from plot to acting are 'bad' in the sense that they are liable to be rated rather low in comparison to many other films you might have seen, but they are not generally provokingly bad in and of themselves.
The simplest way of judging whether you should see Screamers: the Hunting if you are interested in the genre and intrigued by the synopsis, would be to ask whether or not you are angered by all mediocrity in movies. If so, avoid. If you can be more tolerant and watch with appropriately restrained expectations, the movie is okay.
Wonderful Days (2003)
Difficult to rate, but better than many anime films.
Many people have commented that this film has a poor plot, but they rate the film highly anyway. This can be confusing, because it is difficult for a movie to actually be good entirely independent of the events within it.
The trick to understanding this is that in many films with a bad plot the characters are trapped into acting in a grossly unrealistic and contrived manner. In Wonderful Days, the scenarios laid out, and indeed the physical environment are all laid out to create a predictable story arc.
Unlike a number of other recent anime movies however, the characters are not contorted into an equally false shape. The behavior of the characters is not terribly surprising, and they are not necessarily characters of great depth, but such characterization as there is, is fairly well done. Particularly interesting is the use of stock anime characters, even including cute Pokemon type animals, in a meaningful and emotionally mature manner.
The real strength of this film however, is in its animation/cinematography. Visually, Wonderful Days can be placed next to the best Asian animation like the Ghost in the Shell films. The artistic tone is well supported by the soundtrack as well, making it easier to appreciate the film if so minded.
So to sum up, Wonderful Days is visually stunning, but fairly predictable and contrived. Intellectually, and in plot or character development the contrived and sentimental nature and construction of the film is difficult to ignore, but there is no question but that here, as well as visually, it is head and shoulders above Appleseed, or either of the Final Fantasy films. If you adjust your expectations accordingly, and take the precaution of watching the film with subtitles (thus avoiding bad dubbing) you will not be too disappointed.
Global Metal (2008)
Good but not definitive
Global metal is the second Sam Dunn Heavy Metal documentary. The first, 'Heavy Metal: A Headbanger's Journey' is, so far as I know, the standard documentary covering the Heavy Metal scene. It does an excellent job of both detailing the history of Heavy Metal, and explaining its appeal, but it is focused on explaining Heavy Metal to those who do not know much about it, and because of this, might conceivably have less appeal to hardcore metalheads.
'Global Metal" by contrast, is probably better calculated to bring new information to the attention of experienced Metal fans, but is not a condensation of extensive knowledge about the global metal scene, and it shows. This is not a bad documentary, but as exploration on Dunn's part, and constituting a light survey, it is not quite so informative as the first.
I would further note that this is not a comprehensive documentary on metal throughout the world, but is more a "metal is spreading to exotic places" sort of documentary. This fact is not a criticism, but knowing this is likely to be important to at least some of the people looking up the film on IMDb.
A truly comprehensive film covering the history of metal would necessarily be of epic length, considering that this documentary does not cover the US or European Metal scenes in any significant fashion and yet at 93 minutes, the film does not seem to be especially dilute.
AVPR: Aliens vs Predator - Requiem (2007)
How Aliens vs Predator - Requiem, fails.
There are two really great ways of setting up a monster movie.
The first puts a small cast in an isolated environment with the monster, and sets the monster to hunting the people. This setup justifies a great variety of plot twists, as the cast go to great lengths to defeat/escape-from the monster. The first, and great "Alien" and "Predator" movies use this setup.
The second approach, typified by "Jaws", turns a monster loose upon a community. This setup does not justify such convoluted individual actions by the human cast, and much of the drama is drawn from watching the reaction of the society (classically skepticism and cover-up) to the threat. There is a variant of this plot, typified by "Godzilla" that throws the monster in the face of the public, and has lots of crowd attack scenes, but does not rely on the monster being a secret.
"Aliens vs Predator - Requiem" fails in no small part because it fails to fully live up to either of these two major premises. The alien attacks a community, with the predator in pursuit, pointing towards the second monster movie premise, but there is never much tension as to the society's reaction to the threat.
The way that a comparatively small cast is brought together within this large environment is relatively realistic, in horror movie terms, but the viewer never cares about either this small group, or the human characters in general.
The makers of "Aliens vs Predator - Requiem", clearly presume that lifting the violence cap, and making an "R" rated film will add excitement to the film. For lovers of gore, this may be an improvement, but most viewers will find the violence pointless. I have seen very few films with as little tension in the action scenes. Fight scenes between two combatants are also extremely dull and unimpressive, and the crowd attack scenes are the worst that I can remember. Basic plot choices are refreshingly unsentimental, one of the few plusses for this film, but most of the gore scenes are not necessary to achieve this effect.
To sum up, this film is a failure. Better acting would have helped a bit, as the cast seemed as if it were lifted from a cheap daytime soap opera, but the direction is probably the worst thing about this movie. The premise was flawed from the start, but even so, the movie had a lot more potential than we see here.
Jigoku no banken: akai megane (1987)
Original; but is that enough?
This is, for lack of a better term, an art film. This should be said from the start, because while many of Oshii's anime films are of a philosophical bent, they hew closely enough to convention to appeal to mainstream movie fans. This film probably does not.
Judging the film as a whole, it makes some interesting philosophical points and pays off at the end. The question is whether this payoff is enough to justify what went before. I am not sure about this.
Normally one assesses a confusing film that can only be fully grasped at the end by looking at that film's secondary characteristics.
Judged as an art film, the movie's technique is expert, but it is not so innovative or visually compelling so as to justify the film by itself. There is nothing wrong with the acting in this movie, but it is not so compelling that it shifts one's focus from the film as a whole.
Judged as a more commercial or mainstream film, this movie is distinctive for its emphasis on humor. That humor is an old-fashioned form of slapstick however, and while this will make the film for some people, if you do not especially like this form of humor, then the fact that it is placed in a confusing and rather dark movie will prevent the individual bits of humor from coalescing into a funny unity greater than the sum of the parts.
The one thing that cannot be denied or dismissed, is that this film is an original one, and is philosophical without being preachy. If this is enough, then you are certain to be satisfied.
Miller's Crossing (1990)
Good components, but they do not blend naturally.
Tom Reagan, the main character in this film, frequently states that you cannot know a person well, and both much of the appeal, and the weakness of this film lie in just this approach to characterization. The film has an intricate plot, and many people will find that characteristic very appealing, but the many intricate plot twists and character decisions somehow do not seem to spring naturally from either the characters or events on screen.
This disconnect is an odd thing to see, because any, or at least most, individual scenes from the film are more or less viable and reasonable in and of themselves, but taken as a whole, you can see the puppet strings of the movie yanking the characters this way and that to achieve complexity and surprise. Because of this, while much of the acting is good, it feels false in context, with scenes failing to synchronize with one another, and with the only realistic characters, considering an individual performance as a whole, being the simple and somewhat stereotypical ones. If you are sensitive to this disconnect, you may well dislike the movie, but if you are instead, longing for a complex plot, you may love it.
I should note that as usual in a Coen brothers film, the dialog is a treat, but cannot fail to mention that unlike their better known work, you are likely to miss a good deal of it, as the sound quality is not high enough to decipher many a clever comment.
All considered, the easiest way of looking at this film is to see it as an early effort, pointing to future greatness perhaps, but not a complete and developed masterpiece.
Children of Men (2006)
A picture......... A single picture.
'Children of Men' paints an interesting, detailed, and realistic backdrop. This should be said from the start, because in fact, the film does little else. Having created an reasonably realistic and viable starting scenario, the film contrives, in rather obvious fashion, to drag a small cast over that backdrop, permitting the camera to pick up every detail. The acting of the cast, as it poses with the backdrop, is often, if not universally superb, and if a bit of acting, and that marvelous backdrop are all that you require, the film is a great one. The problem is, that the plot is altogether lacking and incomplete. It is a rare episode in a television show or movie of any sort that does not have more story to it than this film. The lack of plot also reveals a deep and fundamental lack of meaning in the thoughts behind this movie. There is a distilled European angst, a pure and saccharine sentimentality, dribbles of ill conceived piety, and little else.
Rather than using an altered environment to enhance the message, 'Children of Men' uses a novel environment to replace making a considered statement and confronting ideas directly. This puts 'Children of Men' at odds with both Science Fiction, and quality film.
The Good Shepherd (2006)
Nice try......
This film has been praised for its realism and criticized for being boring. Both characteristics are accurately described, but neither is specifically the reason that this film is a failure.
'The Good Shepherd' is built out of the reality of spying, if one is liberal about specifics, but what brings it down is that the film not only views the history of the CIA through the prism of one man's life, it tries to CAPTURE the whole of the CIA's official history, and trap it beneath a petty everyman character. With so much officious history stuffed into one banal character, the film becomes a long series of setup pieces, the minor establishing scenes that set the stage for a film's central, and subsidiary dramas. Rather than effective storytelling, we have an official biopic gone bad, with all the tedium and boredom that this implies. Many of the scenes have a peculiar sort of corpse-like realism, with no element specifically and obviously wrong, but with a truncated cast and petty scale giving the lie to the matter.
This is a film that tells, not shows, and by trying to tell the story of the whole CIA, it ends up with little story on screen. This is poor film-making. The acting is generally to a high standard, but major characters are miscast, and the protagonist, as one example, does not effectively transition from college student, to disillusioned middle aged functionary. The concept for this film probably looked interesting , but the reality is a failure.
Natural Born Killers (1994)
Poor social criticism and excessive caricature.
Sometimes a novel perspective can provide new insight on a subject, and with its proliferation of film techniques and odd camera angles, this film would definitely be pleading for such treatment. Unfortunately, as best as can be determined, the meaning of this film is ultimately just about as twisted and oversimplified as the viewpoint of the films notorious protagonists. "MEDIA VIOLENCE AND MEDIA MENTION OF VIOLENCE IS BAD." Repeat this brutishly simplistic message about 500 times VERY LOUDLY, and you have the movie.
There are inklings of cinematographic talent, probably creditable to Oliver Stone, and traces of interest that appear to have survived from Quentin Tarantino's script, but they are overwhelmed by heavy-handed Stoneoid preaching and farcical acting. Just about any criticized element of this film could be attributed to an experimental approach to film, but this laboratory has exploded and a terrible odor is coming from the ruins. The cinematic viewpoint is stereotyped, gory, and full of self loathing, and this film should stay in the bargain bin where it is likely to be found.
Brick (2005)
A flop.....
Brick is based on the conceit that an old-fashioned film noir movie may be transplanted to a modern high-school setting with plot, and apparently dialog and slang as well, entirely unaltered.
This "concept", if one is willing to call it that, not only highlights every weakness of the noir genre, with EVERY hackneyed convention in full evidence and presenting a near caricature, but also casts all of noir in a unfairly bad light by hurling noir conventions into a time and place ill-suited to them. One is reminded of the slam-bang appearance of the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python sketches.
This is not to say that I dislike noir; in fact quite the reverse, and indeed a modern high school environment might well be used for a complex mystery plot, but the behavior and dialog in this film are false to their time and place. The high school setting is appropriate only in that this film seems like the creation of so youthful a set of creators.
In addition to the enormous creative failures of this film, I would note that the technical aspect of this film is lackluster to incompetent. While miserable cinematography may not prevent some people from enjoying a film, the terrible sound, with dialog frequently incomprehensible, is likely to bother anyone, particularly as slang from the 1930s IS the dialog.