skytomm Reviews

The Man Without a Past (2002)

A strange (and wonderful) media cross!

[9/10 · 1 January 2005]

A trailer seen at our local art-film house caused me to put this one on our "films-to-see" list. After a year's wait, we found it at a local video store, and began to view it with eager anticipation. For the first ten minutes, we were befuddled with the static camera-work and framing, the wooden immobile blocking, the stilted, terse dialogue (even so for Finns)... it just seemed all so amateurish. The film was gripping in its "differentness" - so much so that we decided that it must be a "style" piece.

FASCINATING! (to paraphrase Spock rather precisely).

After a night's sleep - the film's images firmly planted into my brain, I awake this morning recognizing that what I have seen is a comic-book-like "graphic novel" in motion-picture form. You can almost see the "balloons" surrounding the stilted dialogue. The casting is SUPERB in its selection of characteristic sharply-chiseled facial and body-types. No one here has to be an actor, although they certainly may be in real life. The players in this comedy are icons -- comic-book characters brought to living breathing life. The film proceeds static frame by static frame. You just have to see it to believe how well-done it is.

I am no fan of graphic novels, and what little I know of them comes from proximity to and affection for my elder daughter - who is a Neil Gaiman (Sandman, et al.) aficionado.

But to see a talking motion picture pick up the style is ... surprising and delightful - especially considering the expertise and elegance with which it has been done. I mean - considering the vast gulf between the two media presentation styles, limitations and facilities -- "WHY?" Who cares! See it. Enjoy it. Don't get turned off by its apparent comic-book visual straitness (to coin a term). It is - after all - a comedy with pasted-on graphic-novel seriousness. Watch - particularly - for the protagonist to arise from the "dead" and straighten his own broken nose beneath a complete headdress of bandaging before making his escape from... but, I tell too much. Proof - however - of this film's true comic nature.

I have not read any other reviews of this film, so I do not know if my assumption of the filmmaker's intent and style is accurate. But, for me, the epiphany added a wonderful "AHA!" to the earlier puzzled enjoyment of initial viewing. I'm headed to our video system directly after finishing this to watch this film again - something I rarely do.

See it! I award it a 9.5!

The Barbarian Invasions (2003)

Ten

[10/10 · 15 December 2004]

I can hardly add more to what has already been said about this amazing film, except to echo and amplify someone else's comment that "...the subtitles do not do it justice." As is the case with almost all instances of subtitling, much is lost either to screen space restrictions, tempo, or the acumen of those providing the translation.

This film - in particular - cries out to be heard and understood in its spoken language.

This one of the most touching films I have ever seen. (This from one who is seldom touched by film.) Perhaps I brought too much of my own father-son issues to it, but I think - rather - that superb artistry by writer, director, and players is responsible for striking so many resonant chords within me. The fast-tempoed delivery of humor - sometimes dark-black - juxtaposed with the dreadfully frightening imminence of the end of life and love(s) are exquisite.

As I said -- TEN!

Time Out (2001)

"Beauty" doesn't necessarily involve "pretty"

[9/10 · 16 November 2004]

This is a beautifully crafted and acted film that develops characters that I identified with all-too readily. We all know - and perhaps are - characters just like these in today's workaday, employee-as-cannon fodder world. So, what's so special about that? The story has the Faulkner-esquire quality of describing the large through the very small, microcosmic family portrayed here. Vincent's unwillingness to share his grief and his efforts to shield his family whom he loves dearly from his inner turmoil bespeaks a great strength that is plainly evident on the actor Aurélien Recoing's face. And his Muriel (Karin Viard) is just as wordlessly expressive and movingly credible.

This is not a happy film. This is not passive entertainment. L'employ du Temps is a terrific example of the filmmakers' and actors' art. See it, if you are serious about how film can stir your emotions.

King Arthur (2004)

[2 August 2004]

What an incredibly silly corruption of the Arthurian legend! A most absurd attempt to capitalize on the popularity of that other bit of hystoerical nonsense: Gladiator.

Comically, if not impossibly cast (Clive Owen doing his best to look/act/sound like Nick Cage! (!!!Nick Cage as King Arthur?!?!?) Raising the Three Stooges Curly Howard from the dead and casting him as a tough-fighting/talking/wenching pedophile??? Merlin in blackface??? Uma-Thurman-like Keira mostunKnightley with spindly, unmuscled arms as an expert archer??? Stellan Skaarsgaard doing his best (but truly laughable) Marlon Brando "Godfather" impression!!! C'mon! Gimme a LARGE BREAK!)

Gawain as a marshal artist-style swordsman!?!

Lancelot as a dual-sword-wearing peeping tom!?!

A script that plagiarizes from Sunday comics balloons.

"Armour-piercing" crossbows that look like toy-soldier wooden guns?!?

Arthur's changes of armour do not reconcile with the most-un-armoire-like space available on his steed?!?

And the horses' armour!!! The headgear alone is worth the price of admission! (see last line)

Even the strong aroma of popcorn couldn't mask the stench coming from the screen. This can only be high comedy. Go to it with that expectation, and you may be mildly entertained. Otherwise... stay far-frigging-away. Everyone involved in the production of this mockery of a farce of a travesty should be mightily embarrassed.

In a word... FEH!

(Costumes are good. Prolly the only redeeming feature of this ridiculous sham.)

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

Worth every penny!

[29 May 2004]

We used a coupon for a free "rental" in order to see this just because we have seen art, style, craftsmanship, and entertainment value in some of QT's other flix. It turns out that we got exactly what we paid-for with KB. Except, we're in the hole for the time we wasted on this "Fistful of Crouching Matrix." Yeah, it was good for a few laughs as the send-up (some would say "oh-maj") that I'm certain must have been intended. Start here: Uma Thurman as a Samurai-type swords-person??? Give me a compound fracture!

zero out of 10 - NOT recommended. And if you even mention Kill Bill 2 to me, I'm gonna retch all over your shoes.

Someone else said it best. To paraphrase and elaborate: "Quentin Tarantino, shame on you, you self-indulgent idiot! Back on the wagon with you!"

Troy (2004)

Homer's bones roll in his grave

[18 May 2004]

Oof! What a waste of time and money! Too many others have recounted the clangorous discrepancies with the original Iliad (and Aeneid) that formed the bases for this Hollywood "ballbuster" for me to recapitulate.

But, I just *had* to see it; to see what any cinematic realization of a classic of western literature would look like. From the standpoint of what one might expect of Hollywood, this film does not disappoint... sadly.

I must say that having been a Peter O'Toole fan ever since his '60s "Lawrence..." and "The Lion in Winter," his was the best acting in this travesty. His scene with Achilles wherein he begs for his son Hector's body elicited from me the only instance of poignancy associated with the original story. Even Pitt rose to the occasion.

The fact that I had just seen "Last Samurai" may have influenced my dislike of Troy. I am just about sick of seeing slaughterific battle scenes accompanied by glorifying martial musical themes. I'm quite confident that there was no such music around when Rwandans were slaughtering each other a decade ago.

If you have extremely low expectations and no sense whatsoever of what Homer is all about, loved Braveheart and Last Samurai, then go see this film. It will certainly meet those expectations - and possibly, in certain scenes - exceed them.

The Piano Teacher (2001)

"Beauty" isn't necessarily "pretty."

[4 April 2004]

Definitely NOT for the faint-of-heart or for those seeking passive entertainment, this film is a masterpiece of portraiture of a highly talented and disturbed artist – a perfect illustration of the idea that genius is considered but a short step from insanity.

It has been many months since I viewed this film, and I find myself turning the film over in my head quite often. That – to me – is the mark of a well-done film – or any work of art, for that matter.

I have never since seen a prodigiously talented performer without wondering what their day-to-day life and relationships must be like. This film stayed with me despite my revulsion to its "ugliness" – the discomfiture it engenders.

Highly recommended!

Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)

An extremely beautiful film with many layers

[24 February 2004]

This film is exquisitely set, costumed, and shot with each frame a painting in itself. The acting is superb - beautifully underplayed - by everyone. It's difficult to believe that Peter Webber has done little big-screen work (mostly TV up until this film). Girl with a Pearl Earring was made with a most discerning eye; but – even more importantly - it was made with great intelligence, too. Webber has taken us from our theater seats and plunked us down in Vermeer's world, home, and studio. Of course, the story-line is pure fabrication, based upon a novel as it is, but it doesn't get in the way. It works.

In order to see through the extremely fine veneer, to be in a position to have the film make you catch your breath, or smile with a tear of joyful recognition in your eye, you must be quite familiar with Vermeer's works and have read Philip Steadman's

Vermeer's Camera: Uncovering the Truth Behind the Masterpieces ...and David Hockney's

Secret Knowledge: rediscovering the lost techniques of the old masters

...BEFORE seeing this film. Of course, the film stands quite well on its own merits without these resources, but without them, you will be blind to an entire deeper dimension of this cinematic work of art. I found this film to be truly breathtaking. But, then - Vermeer has always been one of my favorite painters. (I must also admit to having recently become quite enamored of the talent and skill of Scarlett Johansson, having seen Lost in Translation (highly recommended) recently, as well.)

Hideous Kinky (1998)

A visual and aural feast

[10 December 2003]

While I can understand the negative comments which abound regarding this film, I feel sorry for the nay-sayers. They have missed the point of the film. Midway thru my first viewing, I realized that my discomfiture with the film's plot while being inundated with exotic images, colors, and sounds (AND the shenanigans of two incrediby believable young ladies) was a perfect parallel to Julia's escape, frustrated spiritual quest, and self-imposed flighty existence abroad. MAGNIFICENT!

Splendid casting and acting by an eclectic ensemble of professionals and locals! Kate Winslett has a certain je-ne-sais-quality which is reprised in the intelligent flightiness of her later (2001) role as the young Iris Murdoch.

If you love world music - especially the exoticism of North African rhythms, vocalizations, and instrumentation - this film will be as much a feast for your ears as for your eyes. Even the interspersal of well-chosen western pop hits works to advance the on-the-edge/off-balance feeling of the entire film. This is cinematic art at its finest! While not for everybody, this is a film for those who wish for more than simple, passive "entertainment."

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)

Good enough if you haven't read the books

[29 November 2003]

(AHOY there, matey! Spoilers and much ambivalence dead ahead.)

Being a Patrick O'Brian fan (two of whose twenty-book series were conflated to make this screenplay), my expectations were cautiously high. Story- and character-wise, I was disappointed. Jack Aubrey, (Crowe) isn't nearly the ebullient figure of the books, Steven Maturin (Bettany) is simply all wrong; much too "touchy-feely" personable and nowhere near as self-absorbed as the O'Brian character. (You'd have to know the books to understand that last.) The other characters are much too superficial (except for Ingleby's Hollum); but then Weir didn't have twenty book-lengths in which to develop them.

Failures of detail involve a shot of the Surprise from above and behind in which she's making 4-5 knots, and the sails are dead flat; Jack Aubrey's favorite saying, "There's not a moment to be lost" replaced by Crowe's "There's not a moment to lose" (picky-picky! <G>); and Capt. Aubrey's two gold epaulets instead of the one he should have been wearing (he wasn't yet of Post Captain (two-epaulet) rank).

Given all this above, the attention to details of ship's life among the crew and officers, the ship itself and its rigging, sailing depictions and details, battle action, damage, weapons, etc., were EXCELLENT; I found myself visually absorbed in every exterior scene. Sound (effects) was incredibly believable without ever getting in the way (having never been in a sea battle situation, I cannot comment upon accuracy), although the musical soundtrack pretty-much sucked. The use of Vaughan-Williams' Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis for every "dead and dying, or burial-at-sea" scene was inappropriate as the scenes were more maudlin than the accompanying music which is simply gorgeous and not quite elegiac enough for the scenes in which it was employed.

For those unfamiliar with the O'Brian Aubrey/Maturin series (who won't be as persnickety as us "swabbies") the film is a good enough sea-going swashbuckler that they will feel entertained to a "good value" level, and will prolly recommend it to their friends.

For me, the deus-ex-machina at the very end which discloses the ruse played upon Aubrey by the French captain (the French ship's surgeon had died months ago - how did Maturin know this?) was ridiculous in itself, and cheapened the film by leaving a too-often-seen cliffhanger of sorts upon which Weir or others will base a series of sequelae.

I have to wonder what Patrick O'Brian himslef would think of this effort. I have a feeling that he's spinning dizzily in his coffin.

Cannery Row (1982)

Steinbeck must be rolling in his grave

[23 October 2003]

Unlike other films made from Steinbeck novels (the 1939 Hal Roach version of "Of Mice & Men," starring Lon Chaney and Burgess Meredith, is the best, IMHO), this one is only loosely based upon the novels and omits important characters and scenes and invents others dispensing entirely with the comedic flavor of the original stories.

*This* travesty is simply a vehicle for the interaction of a actress with an interesting voice but no talent with an actor who only came into his own a decade after this film was made.

Don't be tempted - especially if you are a Steinbeck admirer/fan.

The Magdalene Sisters (2002)

sadly, all too real - but beware...

[27 September 2003]

Others will tell the details. I just wanted to add that the Magdalene Laundries were another exploitative "dirty little secret" swept under the rug by the catholic patriarchy. 'Tho raised a catholic, I was unaware of this abusive institutional subset until Joni Mitchell brought it to my attention with her 1994 song "The Magdalene Laundries."

As a fallen-away catholic who survived 10 years of brainwashing by priests, "brothers," and "sisters," I found this fictional depiction all-too-believable and enraging.

<SPOILER COMING> The film was based upon interviews with victims. But it is important to keep in mind that it *is* fictional in its particulars. Therefore, the tail-end accounts of the remainders of the featured characters' lives are lies designed to falsely augment the authority of the film. Sadly, they have just the opposite effect of mitigating the film's authority and causing one to question its total veracity and intent. Moreover, the scene depicting Margaret's retribution: Father Fitzroy's public humiliation and "exposure" of his sexual exploitation of Crispina - while deliciously satisfying - is just too cinematically pat for a film that presents itself as a "documentary exposé."

Intacto (2001)

A roller-coaster ride in complete dark!

[24 June 2003]

The story line is cockamamie, the conundra will baffle, and plotholes will tear your tires off. But, if you like Disney World's Space Mountain (i.e., if you like being whipped around in unexpected directions and dimensions), this is the cinematic equivalent. Expertly edited, the two hours zips by even thru the fermatas, which are just long enough to be effective. The cinematography/design is outstanding; dark like the story and unsettling in the camera angles/pans. The script, acting, and special effects are good enough to stand up to grand-old-man von Sydow's remarkable performance. Treacle on your hair? Just what will that whizzing thing do when it lands? What's all the hugging and kissing about?

This is definitely not passive entertainment. You're gonna hafta' bring a lot to this film. Pack up and GO!