Change Your Image
BoboPDE
Reviews
25th Hour (2002)
I promise not to call it elegiac.
I apologize in advance for talking about myself. I have a reason.
Normally, when critics underline a sequence as being particularly impressive, I tend to agree. Or, at the very least, I tend not to think that the sequence in question is the weakest part of the film. Guess where I'm going with this. I've read so many reviews of this film that mention Norton's diatribe monologue that I finally had to write another IMDb review. I had stopped long ago, thinking that my will to criticize was some youthful mistake. I thought maybe the entire process was flawed, that criticism was a shallow and mean-spirited thing. That writing a negative review was self-indulgent and other things I am not allowed to mention here, but mean somewhat the same thing as "self-loving." That I would be unhappy if I had made a film, and had to read a 14 year old call it boring. Well, it is and I would. But then one day, I realized that film criticism was no more self-indulgent, self-loving, or shallow than filmmaking. Probably less so. I've felt much better since. Which leads me to Spike Lee.
I like Spike Lee, I really do. But I'm not entirely proud of myself. I am always wondering if I like Spike Lee because I like him, or because I feel obligated. I loved "Do the Right Thing," but even it was guilty of all the things Lee's detractors often cite. It was uneven, stylized, and self-indulgent. Those were also its strengths. But back to Norton's monologue.
It's uneven, stylized, and self-indulgent. I didn't like the reading, thought it was slow and mannered. I didn't like the notion of showing the various things he was complaining about, thought it was too showy and inferior to an unbroken mirror shot. I didn't like the way it fit into the story, thought it was too early. And finally, I thought it, like everything that preceded it, was too "Spike Lee" for this material. Too loud. Too uneven. Too self-conscious. It was still a Spike Lee joint.
That it gradually stopped being a Spike Lee joint shortly thereafter, and became, surprisingly, a Spike Lee movie, is something that really delighted me. Enough to write my first review in years. The last hour or so is beautifully acted, shot, written, and especially, directed. Gone is the expository dialogue trying SO hard not to be expository dialogue. (Really, just tell me about the Rockefeller laws with a title card, or narration, or a pamphlet, or anything but a cop telling a DRUG DEALER what the DRUG LAWS are. Goodness.) Gone are all the aggressive line readings. But don't think that the film starts being great because Lee "gets out of the way" or any such nonsense. From start to finish, there isn't a moment that feels generic. Certainly. I was leaning forward in my chair for the entire scene at the club, and the last fifteen minutes are mature, sad, and wonderful. All of the five main characters (besides Norton) could be the lead of a film, and I would love to see a film about each of them. Brian Cox is, as always, great without drawing any attention to himself.
This is Spike Lee's best film. And I must congratulate myself...for making it through this review without mentioning the story.
Fail Safe (2000)
The inherent flaw of this type of homage...
I have always thought the process of remaking good films to be one of Hollywood's most ridiculous and ignoble vanities. If the film was good enough to be remade in the first place, the original version must logically be compelling. But more importantly, the original version is just that...original. This is not live theater. Modern audiences are--through the glory of video--able to see the original versions of practically every even moderately significant film of the last 80 years. This assures that the original will exist in the public domain in spite of any remakes. Thus, a remake can do only two things if it closely follows the outline of the original: fail miserably in comparison, or damage the original by surpassing it in some way. Neither outcome seems beneficial to the second version.
Take, for instance, Gus Van Sant's "Psycho" project. We all understand that he loved the original film, but that film was so individual and brand new--both in concept and execution--that his copy was bound to fail. Now, I have seen the original, but not the remake, so I can't comment on it directly. The concept just seems horribly wrong, not to mention self-indulgent and creatively bankrupt.
This brings me to the "Fail-Safe" remake, produced live and in black and white for CBS television. In this case, I have seen both versions. The original is a wonderful film, and would most likely be a respected classic had it not been for its direct competition with "Dr. Strangelove." Regardless, "Fail-Safe" deserves just as much praise as "Strangelove," if not more. So I understand completely why George Clooney loved the original. And I have nothing against live television, either. That said, I found the "Fail-Safe" remake to be a horrible, pretentious disservice to the original film.
First, there is no reason to do this story in black and white, live, or on network TV. It depends so greatly on its buildup, on the tension and sense of inevitable failure, that it has to be commercial-free. All credibility is lost in between "Acts." Also, the live filming is an unnecessary gimmick. The remake just wasn't tight. It wasn't claustrophobic, and it wasn't clear. (Much of this depends on the acting, which I'll get to.) Let it be known that I love black and white. And when the original was made in black and white, color was available, but b&w was still common. It no longer is, which means that for the remake b&w was a specific choice of the filmmakers, and that is a serious pretension. They were trying to show off. It wasn't even particularly well-shot.
But the main flaw of this remake was that this new script (by the same screenwriter) is very similar to the original script, but not as good...not to mention inappropriate for live television. And the acting suffers for this, especially in comparison to the original. There is not a single performance that even matches the original performances, let alone surpasses them. And some of the new actors came off as either unprepared, miscast, or both. The role of Blackie is vital to this story. And any resemblance between the way Harvey Keitel (usually a good actor) read the part and the way actual human beings speak is strictly coincidental. The pacing of lines for everyone was never better than average, often horrible, and occasionally so unintentionally funny that the group of people I was with laughed uncontrollably. Dreyfuss was decent, but miscast, and could never hope to match Henry Fonda. Wyle was also decent, but his is the easiest role. Also, the Congressman went from being a reserved, conscientious doubter of the military to a laid-back, Southern light-comedy character lost in the wrong movie. Brian Dennehy was similarly miscast...not serious enough. Clooney played Clooney rather well, but the script ruined his character... ...which gets me to the script. (SPOILER-lite...) The MLK, Jr. scene was a silly addition, too self-consciously topical. Replacing Clooney's wife with a kid is, on the other hand, much too modern and manipulative. Not to mention the fact that the bomber's conversation with his wife in the original was never specific enough to make him certain of her identity, but the catch phrase in the remake damages the credibility of the climactic decision. Also, the Professor's big early scene is taken out in the remake, and his philosophical speeches, essential to the film, are almost used as background noise...that is, when they aren't just cut entirely. This was very disappointing, since I really liked the function of Matthau's character in the original. Similarly, the Colonel Cascio in the remake was (in addition to being a bad actor in terms of line delivery) robbed of the scene with his parents AND his breakdown scene...which was such a great, scary moment in the original. The remake just isn't as deep and the characters aren't as developed or interesting. And as a final injustice, the Matador dreams were removed, and with them went the wonderful final line...which Keitel probably would have read poorly anyway.
I really wish that when decent Hollywood professionals wanted to pay homage, they did so with applause or by actively promoting the original work. And when they want to make remakes, I wish they remade movies that had good ideas but were horribly executed. For instance, leave "Fail-Safe" alone...and remake "The Blair Witch Project"...leave the concept alone, add a budget, a script, a few payoffs, and a point. Actually, don't bother. They'd just end up casting Harvey Keitel as Heather.
On the other hand...they might cast Harvey Keitel as Heather. :o)
Cannibal Holocaust (1980)
the fine line...
When I clicked on the button to grade this film, I wasn't quite sure which number to pick. I mean, I refuse to give any film a 10, because I would never be able to give anything a higher score, and I want to wait for that one film to come along that will, without a doubt, demand the perfect 10. And one would assume that this would not be that film. I mean, it's disgusting, boring, reprehensible, obvious, and unoriginal. It actually shows animals being killed and ripped apart. So it deserves a "0," right? Well, I think so, but I am not sure.
What is a movie supposed to do, if not show us something we haven't seen before. This plot is so stupid, these characters so disgusting and flawed, and this murder so indefensible that I am forced to wonder if this is the worst or greatest film of all time. In real life, the plot isn't always interesting or brilliant, the people aren't always good or useful, and animals die by our collective hands. AND there are actually people in this world who eat people. This film is so stupid it's actually realistic. It is bad, but so are we, and as the only film to be evil enough to actually show how bad we are, it must be great, right? It must be the greatest film of all time, to show us something like this...something with no story or conventional filmic technique that dares to be as horrible as we are. There, it gets a "10." Or does it?
By the same logic, all pornography is equally brilliant for being willing to show us how graphic and lusty we are. Now, I have nothing against pornography, but there is quite a bit of it, and by my own argument, there can be only one "10." How do we pick which one? Not only that, but what if someone comes along and actually makes a sicker movie than this? Does that then get the "10," or do we call it unoriginal for failing to be sick soon enough? That is the problem with film criticism. We never really know what we should look for. And I don't know the answer, but I have figured out what to give this film...
"0"...if we are to praise extreme cinema, we have to do so with a different set of rules. When reality is all around you and there is no escape--even though the limits of cinema are being stretched--the value of cinema is being lost. Because what is the magic of a movie? The ability to shock us by showing us what is all around and scary and shocking and sadly true? Or is it that more refined and useful ability to play off that reality and give us something in which to escape, and then something in which to find ourselves again? As soon as someone figures out how to make a movie that is completely realistic and completely cinematic, then we must revise our views. But for now, it is enough to give this film a "0" and condemn it for failing to redeem itself after it made its point.
Ai no korîda (1976)
Well, if nothing else, it has guts...
Sure, everyone (or most everyone) has heard about "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" and its remarkable statement about human sexuality. However, it is unlikely that as many people have heard about this film, which in a totally different way makes perhaps as profound a statement about that topic.
In fact, if you see an uncut version of this film, you are in essence watching pornography. That is, you are watching incredibly graphic sexual content that simply would not be allowed in an American film. I won't spell it out for you, but I will say this...do you know what they can't show you in American movies? This one shows that. And quite a bit more. This is not the type of sex you would see in a film like "Sex, Lies, and Videotape" or "Bliss" or some of the other decent American films about sex (though I can't think of any others). This is more like the sex shown in "Last Tango in Paris." The characters are so self-destructive and dangerous that the sex (one of the most inherent of all human practices) becomes an expression of their inhumanity. This is not easy stuff. But if you are willing to find an uncut version and experience the true power of this film, you may find yourself moved by the things you see.
This film blurs the line between pornography and art, and I believe that it stays one inch to the art side, but decide for yourself. Either way, I think that it is about time for American films to truly explore that distinction.
The Exorcist (1973)
A common mistake...
For all of those people who don't believe that this is a scary film, I think you must not understand the word "scary." See, the horror/sci fi genre throughout the years has branched out in two separate directions. The old movies in the 30s, 40s, and 50s were scary in the traditional sense. They were creepy and played off of traditional human emotions and storylines (good and evil, love and death, guilt and redemption). But then a movie named Psycho came out and suddenly it was no longer enough to make a creepy movie about an evil monster. Now you had to make a shocker about pathological crimes and sexual repression. "Halloween" continued this tradition of serial killer shockers, and it in turn led to the "Fridays," "Nightmares," "Screams," etc. What happened is that people thought that the only real scare was one involving a surprise. There isn't a single scary moment in any of those films, in the sense that the audience doesn't have a sense of terror that lasts past the moment that the image is on the screen. The only thing they offer is a set-up, release, and surprise formula that is now so much of a cliche that I think the entire genre needs to be eliminated. How often do we see the naked girl walking around in the dark, just to be startled by the cat, and then to get her head cut off just after the "scary" music stops? That is not a horror movie. It is a stupid little child yelling "Boo" at the top of his lungs.
The Exorcist is a scary movie and a horror movie. It is about the three most horrific of all inherently human topics--the existence of a benevolent God, death, and human weakness. We see intense, pained people struggling with these topics. And we see a world of ever-increasing evil and moral decay. The character of Karras alone could warrant an entire discussion. And how about the subliminal shots? I don't know if I have ever seen anything as scary--or as inherently cinematic--as those demonic subliminal shots in the middle of scenes that were already upsetting.
Despite for some weak (not boring, but unnatural) dialogue in the first hour, a masterpiece of filmmaking and storytelling...
Blow-Up (1966)
Over"blown"...
In a recent film course, I watched this movie as an example of a perfect use of symbolism and existentialism in film. I was expecting some subtle but wonderful metaphysical theme. What I got, though, was this muddled mess.
I believe the word "pretentious" (not to mention "self-indulgent" and "self-important") was created to describe this film. I don't particularly care that the plot here is thin. The plot of 2001 is thin, and yet, that is a brilliant motion picture, one of the absolute greats of all-time. The difference, you see, is that Kubrick understood that there is a certain method to including large amounts of symbolic meaning in a film. And the most important rule is that a director should never stray from the narrative content of the film for the purpose of an important symbolic concept. A film is not an editorial. It should be, in some sense, a story. The conventional plot doesn't need to be large if there is a lot of symbolic content, but if the conventional plot is so lifeless and rambling that the film has no narrative flow, the symbolic plot will be lost in the process. I mean, 2001 doesn't have much plot or dialogue, but each image helps to tell an underlying story WHILE keeping the viewer involved in the conventional conflicts of the "plot."
This film, however, fails in this respect. The first half of the picture is, apparently, a pretentious and lengthy introduction to Antonioni's message about the existential concept of reality. We are shown this photographer in his empty, objective life. But my God, we certainly do see him for a while before anything happens, don't we? This film doesn't even exist until he goes to the park, and even then, the film is so vague and "directed" that we aren't even certain of the murder until the photographer tells us! It would have been much better for us to see the murder clearly and then for the film to take that knowledge away from us, but then we wouldn't have the endless and repetitive scene in which he figures it out. Plus, did anyone not know that she was going to steal the pictures? (Presuming she did...) Oh, and another note on the lack of pictures when he returned...if the film is trying to suggest that reality isn't what it seems to be, that this murder may never have happened, that this great existential mental conflict is unfolding before our very eyes and ears...how come there is obvious evidence that the pictures were there? They were torn from the wall, but parts of them are left! So they obviously WERE there, weren't they? Just a thought...
And finally, a note on the great existential finale...could the "mimemobile" be any MORE contrived? Usually the term "deus ex machina" refers to a narrative solution, but I believe that the mimes are the straightfaced deus ex machina for the symbolic plot of this film. They just drive by and start playing tennis, providing an excellent (and wonderfully convenient) statement about the nature of objective reality. No reason for their being there, no point at all... But it is well directed, and I guess that's all they ever really cared about anyhow...
Nowhere (1997)
"It's nowhere near as good as it could have been."
Nowhere is obviously the work of a director who is certain of his own greatness. There is only one problem...he never checked with the public to see if they agree. Nowhere is visually flashy, surreal, and nihilistic. However, it is also pretentious, incomprehensible, and poorly written. If Fellini had seen this movie, I believe that he would have said, "yes, you can create an inventive visual image, but what's your point, dear boy?"...though he probably would have said it in Italian...
This film is Clueless, with more violence and sex, but less warmth and humor. And it's not even that Clueless was such a wonderful movie in the first place. I suppose that Araki is trying to say with this film that kids are lost and that our hedonistic lifestyles are bound to destroy us. Unfortunately, I do believe that he has already said that in film, as have many other directors. Fast Times at RH and Kids had essentially the same message. The only difference was that those films actually used realistic characters and expressive scripts to deliver the message. Just when Nowhere gets going, the Alien comes back or something equally stupid happens. There is no momentum, no message, no memorable dialogue, and by the end of the movie, more than half the characters were ignored. What happened to Heather Graham, or the younger couple, or the murderer, or ANYONE aside from Dark? I have no idea, and I doubt that Araki would either. Because these characters don't exist...they have no motivation and no soul.
The Breakfast Club (1985)
Prepare to hate me.
I just don't get it. I am a teenager, but I can't imagine why anyone would like the Breakfast Club. This movie treats humanity and high school like a series of social stereotypes that play themselves out to a happy ending. This was, I believe, my least favorite film of the 80s...and one of my 5 least favorite of all time. Let's examine what is really being said in this film...
OK, every high school has a boring jock, a mean and boring bully, a mean and boring prom queen, an interesting-but-flawed "basket case," and a nice nerd. That's the set-up, right? Now, add a completely one-dimensional principal and an overly sympathetic janitor...shake...and serve...The kids will eat it up, but what are we really eating?
As far as I can tell, this film has three messages. Even if a person has a very interesting personality, they must abandon their individuality and date a complete jerk. Ally Sheedy's "basket case," one of the film's two interesting characters, is forced at the end to lose her personality so that she can be an acceptable partner for the jock. Molly Ringwald's "princess," one of the film's five bad characters, is forced to ignore how awfully Judd Nelson treated her, just because he is an abused child. While it is true that Sheedy's character wasn't completely noble or realistic at first, when she put on the make-up and became a Ringwald, she lost every ounce of credibility that she might have kept. I felt awful that someone who had such character would lose it so quickly.
The second message seems to be the fact that adults are stupid and evil, unless they are on the kids' side. The principal and the parents are bad, the janitor is good. Very realistic...
The third message is that even if prom queens can get together with bullies and jocks can get together with basket cases, there is no chance that anyone would ever be interested in the nerd...who happens to be the only nice guy in the movie.
This film is supposed to be the greatest of all American teen angst films, but by stripping away the credibility of its already stereotypical characters, and by promoting other teen stereotypes (the nerd, the adults...), it is actually doing a disservice to the American teen. If you want a good film about teens, throw BC in the garbage where it belongs and watch another Hughes...Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Or better yet, watch a foreign film.