Change Your Image
Critick
Reviews
The Bounty (1984)
This is a special film for me.
So being a sailor and having been deployed many times, watching this movie has become a bit of a tradition. Not just because I have considered mutiny to stay in the tropics, because its a fantastic study into bad leadership at sea. I showed it to my guys and they loved it. Warning though. Contains topless scenes of women. So I wouldnt recommend it for small children.
However, the incredible cinematography, and location shooting make it worth watching alone. You also get young Daniel-Day Lewis, Mel Gibson, Liam Neelson, and several other early career cameos.
The Golden Compass (2007)
god awful adaptation
I cannot exactly express in words how disappointing I found this film. NORTHERN LIGHTS is book 1, in the 3 part trilogy. I really hope people read the books instead of taking this movie as how the books really are. They totally changed nearly every major element pertaining to the discovery of dust. It sanitized death and nearly every moment of suspense contained in the book. It also changed the nature of nearly every pivotal scene. Lyra's escape from London, her journey from England to the arctic seaboard. There is also some bizarre decision to change the names of characters, combined, and eliminate some totally. It also simplifies aspects of the book about Lyra's character. Not to mention the exposition ISN'T REQUIRED. Actions speak louder than words.
The next two books get very heavy into the metaphysical mysteries. Introducing Will Parry and the subtle knife. But its just a travesty that the studio changed so much of what made the book good.
At Play in the Fields of the Lord (1991)
**excellent film** underrated
I really really enjoyed this film. I had to watch it more than once to really understand the subtext of what was going on (its biggest weakness was its incoherence). I can't even begin to explain EVERYTHING going on in this movie. Watch it yourself.
Essentially the film revolves around 2 families of evangelical missionaries trying to "passivise" a tribe of Indians in the Amazon by converting them to Christianity. The Catholics had tried unsuccessfully to convert them and it had resulted in their deaths. The reason they have to be converted is their land is valuable and the people want them to leave it.
I felt that (Kathy Bates) as Hazel Quarrier was absolutely mind-blowing in her role as a fearful fundamentalist who suffers destructive self-hatred. Her agony and her unhappy marriage to her husband Martin Quarrier played by (Aidan Quinn). She feels that she is too ugly for him and that he is in love with another man's wife.
I didn't really like Aidan Quinn in this role. I felt there would have been better choices for casting. He doesn't really convey his shaken faith or his sorrow when his son unexpectedly dies from Blackwater Fever. It just wasn't buying it. He did have some good scenes but none of them really felt like they belonged in the film. The tone didn't match very well.
The Huben's played respectively by (John Lithgow) and (Daryl Hannah). I was surprised at well Daryl Hannah acted. I think she was more subtle than Aidan Quinn was. John Lithgow was okay. Normally I am a huge fan of his. I have seen him on Broadway a few times and I have really liked nearly everything he's done. I wasn't a huge fan of this performance - he seemed to be phoning it in. Then there are times when he just was like its too hot and I don't give a $hizz.
Then there is (Tom Berenger) who I think was the real star of the film. He was Luis Moon the half-Indian who goes the village of the natives to try to repel the invasion. His journey there was the most interesting sub-plot of the film and was not given enough screen time. But that leads me to the biggest problem with the film.
The screen play is littered with half-formed subplots, unnecessary characters, and incoherence. The screen play doesn't seem to know what it wants to do or be. Is it a love story? Is it a story about exploitation? Its is a story about relationships and loss? We don't know most of the time because it bounces around so much.
The multi-thread approach works as long as all the threads come together at the climax. But it doesn't all quite happen. But I still enjoy it despite its flaws. The cinematography was amazing. The best part for me was the soundtrack. It was perfect.
Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985)
for people who compare it to the book
One of my all time favorite films. One of the major complaints people have is that its "not like the book." Its a screenplay, and it was filmed in 1984. There's a reason its called an adaptation. I agree there are some problems. But take it for what it is. An amazingly well acted and compelling piece of cinema gold! The added bonus of having Raul Julia in one of the titular roles was a great bonus! He was a little old for the role in my opinion. But he did great none-the-less. I didn't really like William Hurt so much because I felt he didn't know how to portray a closeted homosexual man in a culture of heavy masculinity. Hell, he may as well have decided to go full on "queen bitch." It would have been more convincing if their roles were switched.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
A failure in direction and screenplay
The new "apes" film begins with a surly James Franco (in his most cardboard performance yet) trying to convince some drug company that his new compound can cure alzheimers. So our ape-like hero's mom dies after the new drug was tested on her. So Franco takes the baby chimp home to John Lithgow (who is not so ironically suffering from alzheimers are well). In a major ethical lapse Franco gives the same untested possibly dangerous compound to his dad. It seems to work. Yay? I could go on but the amount of plot holes that begin to form at this point would make a donuts shop jealous. Plus I'm sure everyone can guess the end.
The problem with this film was the direction. Franco wanders around looking lost and confused the entire time. He doesn't convince me that he is a scientist (why do all movies think scientists use Macs?). His delivery is so understated that I almost forgot he was there. He also had some girlfriend but since there was no back story about her, who the hell cares. There was also an odd appearance of Brian Cox and Tom Felton.
Felton is sadly going to be type-casted as a typical British go-to villain. Unfortunately he doesn't have the talent or charisma to do it particularly well, so we'll see how long he lasts in the shadow of the aging (but great) character actors still out there. That leads me to the next gripe. Why do actors like Cox and Lithgow continue to sign up for these things? The only explanation is money. I doubt they are fulfilled when they get to cut their teeth on lines like, "I'm going home for the day." There isn't much explanation into who Franco's dad is. Nothing about why Franco is so obsessed with curing his alzheimers that he would risk his life. Then we have Cox, who appears for 2 or 3 scenes. He was poorly used and I don't know why he was even in the movie to begin with.
The main problem here is whenever you remake something your inevitably going to compare it to the original. This movie simply doesn't hold a candle to the 1968 "apes." Beneath this new version's glitzy surfaces and state of the art CGI there is nothing there. What is missing is a theme, a moral, anything. At least the Burton movie and the later sequels tried to venture into man's destructive nature and made a raw connection with the audience. Here none of the characters have believable motivations or convictions (including the apes). Yes, they wanted to be free from captivity but why WHY WHY are they "rising up?" In the original it was explained that the apes rose up in the place of man. The movie was low on action and dialog heavy. We still love it because of its mystery and the questions it posed. We follow Heston on his search for answers: what happened to the people? The answers were frightening. It may not have been beautiful to look at by today's standards but the "old apes" really trumps the new one in pretty much every way. If you haven't seen it, watch it. I also recommend "beneath planet of apes."
You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger (2010)
The problem with multiple threads demonstrated by Woody Allen
First, let me say that this movie left me with a look of both confusion and a shrug. I found myself totally disengaged by all the mess that ensued.
I won't do a synopsis because there are plenty available already. I will jump right to my "bone to pick." Six excellent actors of extremely high quality and what does Allen do with them? Nothing. Hopkins, of whom I am a big fan, despite his very questionable project choices over the past few years. I was pretty excited to see him do something worthwhile since he made "slipstream" & the "human stain." Very disappointed in how he was used. Very bit part. Gemma Jones was absolutely wonderful, but again, poorly used.
Watts and Brolin were about as interesting on screen as watching paint peel. That is nothing new - if you have been privy to any other Hollywood abortions they have starred in. I suppose they were there to add to the visuals. But really a 2'4 nicely polished up with a funny voice could have been a better stand in for Watts or Brolin. The rest of the performances were well done if a bit cardboard.
The plot was a total mess. I am a firm believer in coalescence in film. If the threads of the individual stories don't meet for a climax or meaningful conclusion the filmmaker has failed in my estimation. That isn't to say this technique cannot be done well. It is simply very difficult to get right. Allen has done it in the past, "Hannah and her Sisters" being a good example of the muliverse that works right. Its hard to tell here if its a screenplay problem, directing, or shitty editing. It could be all of the above as far as we know.
This was certainly not one of his best films. It would have been better if he cut out some of the junk in the forest and simply focused on a few of the trees.