chowjoe Reviews

The Last Movie Stars (2022)

Slacker Hack Job

[4/10 · 25 July 2022]

This started out so well. Ethan Hawke gives his mission statement, shows some beautifully restored movie excerpts and I actually didn't mind the voice acting of his fellow thespians. Paul Newman is so much more significant a player in my mind than George Clooney that I didn't peg the latter as himself but rather a reasonable voice facsimile of the legendary star, much as Laura Linney was an acceptable stand-in for Joanne Woodward.

And the first couple of episodes were great because you really see how great Woodward was right off the bat (Three Faces Of Eve, The Fugitive Kind) and how Newman was gradually coming into his own as well (The Hustler, Hud). But then the Zoom clips started to pile up and grate - Vincent D'Onofrio's retch-inducing explication of Method was an early warning sign. And one couldn't help noticing the drastic flip-flop of video quality jumping from the beautifully restored movie clips to the Zoom moments, although the latter adequately represents participation from the Newman family. Still any self-respecting, self-editing director would've known when to hit the stop button. But not Hawke. By the last couple of episodes, I wanted to throw things at my TV every time he showed up.

And yes the music. How dare they insert some annoying folkie guitar fingering into Newman's brilliant summation scene at the end of The Verdict? And God only knows you don't need to ram the Beach Boys down our throats while showing the climactic garage scene at the end of Mr. And Mrs. Bridge. Especially while summing up the stars' lives with onscreen text at the same time.

I can only assume that Hawke doesn't have the patience or thoughtfulness or sense of perfectionism to see the project through from beginning to end, and left music supervision to the usual hacks today that are so ignorant as to screw up something so obvious and simple instead of leaving well enough alone.

This gets 4 stars out of 10 just in case younger, uninitiated viewers happen to watch some of this and get turned on to many of the amazing titles featured in the course of the 6 hours. A significant number of them are available to stream on YouTube, Classic Reel and HBO Max.

What a missed opportunity!

In the Heights (2021)

In The Middles

[5/10 · 14 June 2021]

I'm old. My favorite movie musical is MY FAIR LADY, not because of the music, a lot of which was memorable, but because of the exquisite production values, the great lead performances and the play upon which the musical is based - PYGMALION, one of the greatest pieces of writing in (and about) the English language.

So now we have the film version of IN THE HEIGHTS. I never saw the original stage production, so I have nothing to compare it to. I did see the "movie" version of HAMILTON, which was very impressive, although I was a little bothered by what I thought was Lin Manuel Miranda's limited melodic vocabulary. This is again evident with his score for ITH. After spending 140 minutes watching this production, I fail to remember a single tune or even line of lyric. Every song was big, vibrant but...ehh. Was there even a tune sung in a minor key? Was there anything acoustically pared down that projected a sense of intimacy, even for intimate scenes? I'm afraid not. As typical of today's Broadway, there was a sameness to the vocal performances and even performers' voices. If I closed my eyes, I wouldn't be able to tell any of the singers apart, aside from whether it was male or female. Even the abuela character in her solo number sounded young and brash rather than wise and soulful.

A number of songs were well staged. I especially liked one where Benny and Nina are dancing on the side of the building (an homage to ROYAL WEDDING?). But all in all, I found the whole thing lacking in substance. There was almost no conflict in the story. I don't get why all the critics are falling over themselves in praise of this mildly passable entertainment in which nothing and no one really stands out. Then again, LA LA LAND was no great shakes either. Hope Spielberg does better with WEST SIDE STORY, though I'm not holding my breath.

The One-Armed Swordsman (1967)

Good DVD restoration, lousy extras

[7/10 · 3 November 2009]

I just watched the Dragon Dynasty DVD release of this movie that I'd last seen over 40 years ago as an impressionable pre-teen in Hong Kong. The restoration is quite stunning. The colors are vibrant and the print is mostly scratch-free. You also get to appreciate how director Chang Cheh in the late 60s/early 70s was a cut-above-the-rest storyteller with his camera placement and some fluid tracking shots, thereby transcending a lot of the hackneyed scripting, stilted acting and the studio-bound sets. However, I also took exception to the fact that the DVD did not contain commentary by Quentin Tarantino as promised by the box notes, and the 2 "film students" who did provide commentary left a lot to be desired. Surely Tarantino would have remarked upon the fact that the most noticeable parts of the musical score (including the entire end title scene) was lifted lock, stock and barrel from the 1966 Ralph Nelson western DUEL AT DIABLO. (Composer Neal Hefti's estate should sue!) And at another dramatic moment, a very familiar John Barry suspense motif from the Connery Bond films makes a 3-second appearance. It's really pathetic that these "film scholars" completely missed these cultural touchstones that make Hong Kong movies from this era such crazy-quilt pleasures.

Electric Shadows (2004)

How the heck...

[3/10 · 28 October 2006]

...does a pre-adolescent girl who'd lost her hearing manage to run away from a small village and in 10-15 years end up living in a big city high-rise apartment complete with a storage room, a well-equipped private screening room that seats at least ten and a balcony that just happens to overlook the hutong inhabited by her long-estranged parents...in contemporary China (population: 1.4 billion)? I know one is supposed to suspend disbelief at the movies, but this is beyond ridiculous! And how about the fact the the young man she injures in the present-day part of the story just happens to be an "adopted" childhood playmate from whom she was separated dozens of years before, hundreds of miles away? And the fact that she doesn't even recognize the guy whom she thinks has killed a beloved pooch and yet trusts and sends him to look after her fish, so that he can conveniently discover their childhood connection that lasted, what, maybe a week, which is more than enough time for an enraged father to locate his errant son in a small Chinese village? This is probably the worst-written Chinese film to make it to western arthouses and festivals in many a moon. It is an insult to the pre-Communist and Communist movies about which it waxes nostalgic. And shame on the critics who bestowed even an iota of praise on this wrongheaded and sentimental hogwash!

Syriana (2005)

Overrated

[5/10 · 24 August 2006]

Yes, it's confusing. It made me work harder than ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (but without the rewards of that fine film) to sort out the plot threads. Just because a movie deals with an important and topical subject matter doesn't make it good. So everyone is comparing this to TRAFFIC which won Stephen Gaghan a screen writing Oscar. However, that superior film owes its merits to Steven Soderbergh's far sharper direction and the original source material, the BBC mini-series TRAFFIK, which told a far more fleshed-out and nuanced story than its American "remake". Left to his own devices, Gaghan meanders and flounders. The whole Jeffrey Wright thread of the story is tedious and has been better told in countless other movies. (Try ENRON: THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM for a far more compelling, truth-is-stronger-than-fiction take on the corruption and abuse of power.) It's the first time I've seen Wright give a dull performance. Christopher Plummer's turn borders on caricature. And William Hurt puts in one of his patented squinty-eyed cameos that almost negates his uproarious work in A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. Ultimately, I think Gaghan is guilty of mistaking a confusing overstuffed narrative for a intriguingly complex one. And his directorial abilities (as evidenced by his underwhelming first effort ABANDON) need honing. The scene with Matt Damon's kid at the pool was so ineptly executed I still don't quite know what transpired, although the tragic outcome was clear. The downbeat ending was realistic but it felt extremely contrived getting there. Where's Alan J. Pakula (RIP) when we need him? And as for why suicide bombers become suicide bombers, go rent PARADISE NOW.

Transamerica (2005)

Not quite there

[6/10 · 24 August 2006]

The kid (Kevin Zegers) was great - a real natural - so much so that I was always conscious of Felicity Huffman's ACTING in juxtaposition. Two thirds of the way through, I turned to my friend with whom I was watching the movie and said: This would've made a great Johnny Depp movie. I agree with another reviewer who found fault with casting a woman as Stanly/Bree. Huffman's inadequacy is particularly glaring in the scene where there is a gathering of trannies, and many of the other former males are played by males (or former males). Their awkwardness, behavioral and physical idiosyncrasies seem so much more believable in comparison, and really shows up Huffman's very transparent devices and mannerisms. I still think it's a courageous performance and the film is mildly enjoyable as a road movie (doesn't hold a candle to 70s classics like HARRY AND TONTO though), but the main problem is I never for a moment bought the fact that this actress could ever have been a man, even an effeminate one.

The New World (2005)

The "If it's Malick, it's poetic, not lousy" Syndrome

[3/10 · 23 July 2006]

In early 1974, I saw Martin Scorcese's MEAN STREETS and Terence Malick's BADLANDS within weeks of each other at the same theater in Providence, Rhode Island, and changed my college major to film shortly thereafter. Which is my way of saying that I'm not trashing THE NEW WORLD because I know nothing about Malick or film in general. So many reviews I've seen in these pages talk about Malick only in reference to THE THIN RED LINE, which in my humble opinion is another bloated blunder that meandered more than it moved. If you actually go and rent BADLANDS (or to a lesser extent, DAYS OF HEAVEN), you will see Malick's true poeticism at work in both sound and imagery - voice-over narration that enhances story and character motivation, rich moments of stillness contrasting with jarring, eruptions of action and remarkable choices in staging and composition - all of which are absent in the new film. Instead you get mostly mumbled or whispered narration that is either barely audible or laughable when audible. (Why do actors whisper so much and so inaudibly these days? Is it lack of vocal training that ill-prepares them from projecting properly or are they so embarrassed by the lines given them that they don't want to be heard? It's definitely not my hearing because I can put on an old Orson Welles or Alfred Hitchcock flick and hear every line that's whispered, that is when those often radio-trained actors were called upon to whisper.) And the beautiful, poetic photography everyone is raving about? Only in the National Geographic or 70s shampoo commercial sense, I'd say. How many times did we need to see Pocahantas smile and back away from them camera into a field? When you can't integrate action and storytelling into your imagery, then it's just postcard pretty, as is the case here. And where's the historical authenticity people are going on about? Q'Orianka Kilcher actually shows up in her first couple of scenes wearing a buckskin bikini/halter top, for Pete's sake. Shouldn't most or all of the "naturals" be au naturel to begin with? Or was Mr. Artsy Malick compromising a bit for the sake of a PG-13 rating? And speaking of compromising, I agree with the reviewer who found fault with the casting of nostril-flaring Colin and smoldering Christian in the two male lead roles. That's throwing period authenticity out the window right there. (Again, if one compares this to the casting of a pre-CARRIE Sissy Spacek and the then under-exposed Martin Sheen in BADLANDS, one sees how compromised Malick's NEW WORLD vision has become.) As for Kilcher, she may have the makings of a terrific actress, but I don't think she is really old enough to portray the full psychological and emotional arc of her character. She handles the early innocence of Pocahontas well, but halfway through the film she seems to sink into the funk of a sulking child and never quite snaps out of it. And the way Malick fixates on her physicality feels less like directing to me than some kind of cinematic pedophilia. I stopped counting the number of times shots hone in her buckskinned torso in the first half and her exposed cleavage in the second half (once she is in "civilized" dress). I can't believe that more people aren't as disturbed by this as I was. The girl was 15 when they shot the movie! Finally, IMDb Trivia notes that over a million feet of film was exposed for this Malickian misfire. And no fewer than 4 editors are listed in the opening credits. One needs no further evidence beyond those facts that THE NEW WORLD is a self-indulgent fiasco from a former wunderkind gone senile. P.S. Both BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN clocked in at under 100 minutes.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

Drama = Whispering?

[5/10 · 18 December 2005]

Peter Jackson handles spectacle well but doesn't know when to stop. The homoerotic subtext of the Frodo-Sam plot line is kind of amusing if not so very repetitive. I keep waiting for them to kiss (or at least rub each other's grubby little feet) and get it over with. Viggo Mortenson seems to play a character in desperate need of a bath, especially when standing next to his comrade-in-arms Orlando Bloom, who looks like an Ivory Soap model. But aside from all that, since when has delivering dialog in a whisper become a shorthand for drama and intensity? Granted, Hitchcock and Welles had their actors whispering in moments of high drama as well, but they were usually justified by context. Maybe the likes of Viggo and Liv Tyler (and that barely comprehensible Gollum dude) just lack the vocal chops for high drama. That's probably why Ian McKellen is the standout actor in this whole mess. I enjoy the flick much more when he shows up. He speaks clearly and looks like he bathes regularly.

Major Dundee (1965)

Flawed and no masterpiece

[9 April 2005]

I just saw the newly released "extended version" of MAJOR DUNDEE and must report that I was very disappointed. Having seen the "butchered" version several times over the last 30 years, I'd hoped that the restored 12 minutes (out of a missing half hour) would improve or flesh out the so-called "flawed masterpiece" that everyone has been referring to. Well, it turns out that the restoration actually highlights the film's flaws even more - shockingly stilted writing that the actors bravely but ineffectively try to conceal, glaring loose ends (the Slim Pickens and Dub Taylor characters literally disappear halfway through the film), poorly thought out and even more poorly directed exposition scenes (the restored minutes with Heston in his Mexican bordello purgatory are embarrassingly bad), and the fact that Peckinpah's staging and composition in action scenes went AWOL somewhere between his 2 real masterpieces - RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY and THE WILD BUNCH. Revisiting the final two set pieces - the defeat of Sierra Chirriba and the confrontation with the French - I came to the conclusion that Peckinpah shot these scenes with very little idea of how they were to be edited together, which is certainly not the case with the now-notorious "blood ballets" of THE WILD BUNCH. Perhaps he needed to work with cinematographer Lucien Ballard and editor Lou Lombardo; but I am now of the opinion that even if the full half-hour of missing footage were recovered, MAJOR DUNDEE would be nothing more than a interesting footnote in the Peckinpah oeuvre. By the way, I love Richard Harris and I think he gives the best performance in the movie, but what was it with the guy and eye-shadow during that period of this career?

Amnesia (2004)

just one thing (SPOILER)

[25 October 2004]

I just watched this very well-made show on BBC America, liked it a lot, and 5 minutes later started scratching my head and went: Wait a minute... (SPOILER AHEAD) If John Dean does turn out to be such a baddie, why did he turn himself in as an amnesiac to begin with? Doesn't that open him up to investigation and getting found out? I think that, entertaining as this was (it was especially good to watch through in a 3-hour program), there may have been one too many switcheroos (good-bad-good-bad---) for the 2 main characters. For a change, wouldn't it have been nice if both ended up being decent blokes and lived happily ever after with their respective spouses, had double-dating barbecues together...

Wild Rovers (1971)

Unsung Gem

[8 July 2004]

I saw WILD ROVERS when it first came out - in the early 70s. It had been butchered by the powers that be at MGM. Still there was a lot to recommend the western: William Holden at his post-WILD BUNCH grizzled best, Jerry Goldsmith's classic, Copelandesque score that somehow manages to be lyrical, evocative but not a bit cloying (learn something, James Horner and Hans Zimmer), and the stunning cinematography. I saw it again in the late 80s restored to its original length (on a double bill with the restored PAT GARRETT AND BILLY THE KID, also butchered by MGM in the early 70s). I found more to like about the movie: the unexpected spurts of humor, the observations of the connectedness between cowboy and animal life, and Blake Edward's staging of the scenes of violence - he never does the same thing twice, and the barroom shootout is an object lesson in blocking and editing. (If there is any complaint one can level against Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN was how uninterestingly the action scenes were staged.) Anyway, I just caught WILD ROVERS again on HD.Net Movies during 4th of July weekend, and its virtues have actually grown with age. And it looks gorgeous on a 16:9 Hi-Def screen. Give it a few more years and it might attain classic status.

Ghosts of the Abyss (2003)

Exploration = Desecration

[7 July 2004]

Yes, the moment the shadowy wreck first looms into view sent chills up my spine. But what else was there to this mindboggling waste of time and money?

Bill "Mr. Erudition" Paxton's embarrassingly vacuous comments? Unfinished thoughts and pronouncements from that motley crew (What rock, uh, wreck, did these people crawl out from under?)? Then there was the shameless co-opting of 9/11 for dramatic value. And worst of all, there's the bumbling, near-vandalizing of what the filmmakers purport to view as hallowed ground. I cringed whenever the 2 robot-cams raised dust (or is it bacteria or some other form of oceanic life as the marine biologist claims?) squeaking their way through some small opening that real scientists would probably leave unbreached. The climactic moment when they send Bot 1 back to retrieve Bot 2 reached the height of sheer lunatic insensitivity when the rescue rope got caught on something and Cameron panics he may have lost his second robot baby... instead of worrying about how he might be desecrating this relic he so worships. How self-serving can this scumbag be? And what did we learn from this crummy excuse for a movie that we didn't learn from that tearjerking behemoth 6 years ago? There was a recent news story about how the discoverer of the Titanic wreck was bemoaning its exploitation and vandalizing. Now I know who he was referring to.