Reviews

12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The 400 Blows (1959)
10/10
Truffaut's Bulls-eye
29 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The 400 Blows is a film that every teenager must see. When I was 14 (Antonie's age in the film I suppose), I hated everything. I hated school, I hated living with my parents, and I didn't want to be subordinate to society on the whole. To put it simply, I wanted to just get out there and live my life instead of being picked on by school teachers and essentially be an outcast amongst my peers, who were spoiled rich white males thinking with their you know whats instead of their brains. Antonie Doinel is a character who used his mind and what did he get? He was sent to reform school. He possesses the traits of every average adolescent male. He wants to expand his mind (he reads Balzac), doesn't do his work, riles up the teacher, doesn't really get along with his parents (although his father seems to have more vested interest in the boy), defaces classroom walls, and looks at and defaces pinups. Quite simply, his character is one of the most complex to ever be created.

In short, The 400 Blows is about an unwanted teenaged boy who submits to the world of petty crime when the rest of the world has turned his back on him. There's an interesting line that Antoine's father says to him at the beginning of the film. The boy is running back from the grocery store with flour for his mother and he runs into his dad coming home from work. "Always running son, eh?" And that's what we see for the full 99 minutes of The 400 Blows. Sure, Antoine is actually running (especially at the emotional climax) but he's psychologically running away from the very people holding him back from breaking out in the world, be it his parents, the authorities, and so forth. There is so much other things that we see that cannot be fit into this review. Antoine and his friend Rene skip school one day and go around town. Antoine goes into a gravitron, which is an amusement park ride that spins around in circles. And that's what his life is doing: he may enjoy the ride for the time being, but he's ending up where he started from.

The film is not without humor, though. One cannot help but laugh when Antoine tells his teacher after skipping class that his mother died. "Personal preference obviously," his father says in response to the mother venting about such news. Also, Antoine's letter to his parents explaining why he ran away sounds like an adult wrote it, but there is some humor to it. "We'll discuss all that's happened" it says. Even Antoine getting expelled from school after plagiarizing Balzac is pretty humorous and he decides not to go home and live with Rene. They end up stealing little things such as posters, clocks, and they go to the movies. However, when he pinches a typewriter from his father's office, that's the end of his little rebellion. He is sent to a correctional facility (and this is an emotional scene, as the boy is placed in a police wagon and cries as he takes a look of the streets of Paris at night). Perhaps the most emotional scenes take place in the final portion of the film. Antoine is placed under psychiatric evaluation, where he reveals he was born out of wedlock and his mother wanted an abortion (this is hinted at in the beginning when he runs in on a conversation between two old ladies talking about forceps and a Cesarean section...perhaps they were indeed talking about an abortion procedure. Antoine feels uncomfortable around this conversation and we can see it). He can't see Rene when he visits, and his mother tells him he's on his own (although I wished Antoine would've told her "I hate you").

After briefly listening to a young delinquent who was caught trying to escape, Antoine decides to do so and bolts during a soccer game. We just see Antoine running, and running, and running. There's no music at first until he gets to the ocean. Truffaut pulls the cameras back and we see an endless horizon, endless opportunities for our young protagonist. The musical score plays and this is where I continue to get misty eyed with every viewing. Antoine, who has never seen the ocean, runs within the current, but has nowhere to go. The film ends in the famous freeze frame with a closeup of the boy's face. Either he's been caught, doesn't know what to do, or this mimics the mugshot sequence that we saw before he went into the correctional facility. The ending leaves a lot to the imagination, but there's one thing that cannot be imagined: The 400 Blows is easily the most touching film I've ever seen. I don't think I'll see another one quite like this.

Everything seems to lock into place here. The acting superbly executes brilliant dialogue. Truffaut has some innovative camera movements (the darkening of the corridor while Antoine takes out the garbage and the final shot are examples of this) throughout. The musical score is beautiful. And, France isn't portrayed as this very romantic country. No, it is dark, it is gloomy. This is the dark side of this very storied nation. Here, Francois Truffaut tells his story to the viewer. When I first bought 400 Blows, I didn't know what to expect. I figured I'd pick it up because 46 years after its initial release there was still a lot of critical buzz around it. I'm glad I spent the 30 dollars on this film, easily my favorite of all time next to 2001: A Space Odyssey.

I only have one complaint: I wish I'd have seen The 400 Blows when I was 14. It probably would have saved my life more than the music I was listening to.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw III (2006)
1/10
Crap is Crap is Crap
29 October 2006
Maybe it's just me, but the horror genre has no real artistic merit. The only horror films that matter are Rosemary's Baby, Rosemary's Baby, Rosemary's Baby, Night of the Living Dead, Psycho, The Exorcist, Halloween, and even Evil Dead (not the other two, it became a parody of itself like the other long winded franchises). Otherwise than that, how could anyone feel confident about the American cinema today after seeing garbage like this? I certainly can't, as Saw III (just like its predecessors, possibly the two worst films ever made) takes the title as worst film of 2006.

The reason why the Saw franchise is considered great by the fans that believe in it because there is essentially no difficult content: there's blood, guts, and gore right in your face, plastic dialogue, screaming, yelling, and predictable plot twists explained at the end of the movie instead of having the viewer feel free to interpret things on his or her own. This is the sad status of mainstream Hollywood today: the executives notice a trend and exploit it. The horror genre was never good to begin with from its inception unlike the comedy genre, which was very intelligent in the beginning, but now we get films such as Employee of the Month with that jackass Dane Cook. An interesting film genre was exploited by the studios many years ago. Sure, they were in it for the money, but one little movie caused an uproar. It was called Citizen Kane, and it was a major player (not the only one) that kicked off the film noir genre. While film noir was not the most uplifting of genres, it had different narratives, was cleverly written (see no further than the Maltese Falcon or Sunset Blvd), and effectively reflected the mood of the times. So, I suppose the pointlessly bloody gorefest flicks with possessed children and stupid puppets in videos serves as expressionism of people's frustrations over America's status in the world? No, absolutely not. What 14 year old kid is going to think about this stuff when seeing Saw III? The only thing I was thinking about was how much money I wasted over seeing this crap. I could have seen a relatively unknown picture (with a lot of critical buzz) such as Brick or good mainstream fare (The Departed, even though it has the pretty faces of DiCaprio and Damon present).

The sad thing is that Saw III will be so much of a rousing box office success this weekend that studio execs will be pressuring for a forth one, but real film fans know full well that 2 sequels to the original were definitely unnecessary.

The only things that uplifted my spirits after seeing Saw III was that I will not have to see it again because it was so bad, Borat comes out next week, and that I went home and watched a real work of cinematic art entitled 'The 400 Blows' by Francois Truffaut. If you think Jigsaw teaches a valuable lesson to ungrateful people by torturing them, Francois Truffaut teaches a lesson 10000000000 times more worth the value: you don't want to be a punk kid wandering the streets of France without parents who don't love you.

See that instead or any foreign film for that matter instead of Saw III.
6 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Caché (2005)
9/10
The Best Film of 2005
28 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Cache is one of those rare achievements in French cinema: it was actually allowed to be shown in the United States, given the fact that the French government places a cap on how many of its movies can be imported. The bad thing is that it was virtually unknown in our native country, although it earned $4 million, less than its $8 million budget. With that said, this film is definitely powerful storytelling, more so than the celluloid stories of Truman Capote, Edward R. Murrow and, of course, racism in Los Angeles. It is a reminder to not just French citizens, but to any member of a former colonial power of the horrors of colonialism. In an interview with director Michael Haneke on the Cache DVD, he expressed his disgust in the massacre of 200 Algerian citizens in 1961. The whole story goes on further than France (and other countries) of having an ugly past with the people they conquered. Cache teaches a valuable lesson: at the end of the film, regardless of how you want to interpret it, the incubation of better relations is taking place through our parent's children. They have not seen the horrors of Algeria or Vietnam and so forth. Unfortunately, they are living through tumultuous times in the post Sept. 11th world, where the West is "at war" with Islam. However, the images of of the Algerian and the young French child serves as a reminder that maybe relations with old foes may improve. That is something contemporary cinema in the US has failed to comment on. Even when they attempted to do so in Crash and Brokeback Mountain, one couldn't help but feel these films were being too political in their content. Cache addressed the issue in a near perfect matter, and the fact that the stubborn United States Academy failed to recognize this work of art is truly... inhumane.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Death comes to Life
14 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
What an excellent surprise for 2006. After seeing the brilliant Cache at an indie film center in New York City, I decided that my best bet for seeing new releases was to actually go to more of these small theaters dispersed around the Metropolitan Area (since I live in NYC). After reading a review for Lazarescu in the New York Times, I knew I just had to go see it. It was playing at Cinema Village for a while, along with other foreign and domestic indie flicks. The nice setting and complete removal from the commercial multi-plexes enhanced the viewing experience for me, and two and a half hours later, I officially came to the conclusion that I will never see a big budget Hollywood film in a major theater ever again (unless it is something worth seeing, or my mind has reached the point to which it can see a film that'll kill a few brain cells). Oh yeah, and Lazarescu is one hell of a film at that. You're looking at (so far) the best picture of 2006. It feels like actual events are being placed on to film, that's how powerful the camera work, editing, and most importantly, the acting is. The film is part social comment, part allegory. The social comment concerns respecting your elders and the frailty of human life. This applies to things seen (the neighbors complaining about Lazarescu and the cruelty of the doctors) and the things unseen (Lazarescu mumbling about his daughter as his health furthermore deteriorates). The allegory comes in with Lazarescu's death being both a reality and symbolism for a man who's been abandoned by everyone. He is dead, even though he is alive. There are a few funny moments, but the humor is subtle. This is far from being a comedy. Do you think your death is going to be a funny one? Thought so.

Post Note - I saw a preview for the film Cavite when I saw Lazarescu. It looks great, and it, along with Lazarescu is just one of those films that should be released in the movie theaters instead of the array of horror flicks, dull action films, and stale chick flicks.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The Best Picture of 2005
4 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
While I rate Good Night, and Good Luck with an 8/10, that is because it is not perfect, nor were the excellent films (except for Crash) that were also nominated for best picture. Good Night and Good Luck is definitely an excellent educational piece for aspiring journalists and politicians. It is good to note that Murrow defied the advertisers and the executives by offering his opinion in an intelligent matter, unlike using 'comedy' or exploiting the woes of others (Michael Moore, the hacks at Fox News). Murrow had a sense of dignity about him, and was able to take down the ruthless McCarthy. If Murrow can use his wits to take down that jackass, any journalist can abandon dependence on technology's excesses to bring down the criminals that run this country today. But, we are fat and comfortable, as Mr. Murrow said.

As for the film itself...

It's not perfect. While I offer my Kudos to George Clooney for integrating actual footage of McCarthy and so forth, sometimes you can't help but feel such a method causes an uneven balance between the actors in the film and archival footage. But, this is only minor, as it is more effective than having actors play McCarthy and his cronies.

The good parts obviously outweigh the minor problems: Straitharn should've been the best actor of 2005. The writing is top notch, as the length of the film is perfect to get an adequate message across. George Clooney did not deserve Best Director at the Academy Awards (as Ang Lee, a more experienced director, won this award), but watch out for him in the future. After seeing Good Night and Good Luck, it certainly seems bright.

How Crash, with its horrible portrayal of race relations, won Best Picture over this, well I don't know.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Crash (I) (2004)
4/10
So this is what it's come down to.
14 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
In 1994, there was a little film called Pulp Fiction which almost had the sort of concept. Within a 36-48 hour period, everyone's lives would collide. Maybe Pulp Fiction appealed more to pop culture interests, but Tarantino did the job effectively (as Pulp Fiction is the only film of his I genuinely like). Now, flash forward to 2005, and this concept, already explored 10 years ago, is the darling of critics. For what reason? Crash deals with prejudice they say. Wow. I guess To Kill A Mockingbird doesn't. The writing is poor, and the acting is simply lousy. At the beginning of the film, Don Cheadle says something about everyone's lives crashing together. No kidding. A white guy starts a verbal fight with a Muslim by calling him Osama. And really, when you see the film, the fight was instigated for no reason. Matt Dillon pulls over an African-American couple because the wife was performing fellatio on her husband? Who comes up with this stuff? Then, to make it worse, he feels her up. What is going on here? One of the most hysterical parts was when Sandra Bullock fell down the stairs. The way they made it out to be was as if she died or something. Don't even get me started with the Muslim man "encountering an angel" that he shot with blank bullets. I guess he'll be like Samuel L. in Pulp Fiction and try to find God. Or how about the hideous banter between Ludicrous and his partner? Again, Paul Haggis tried to make this look like Pulp Fiction. And I knew right from the get-go that Ludicrous' partner was Cheadle's brother, although there is no mention of this until the middle of the film. And what about the Chinese lady who got into the car accident with Don Cheadle's partner? It just doesn't add up. I know everyone on this website is going to chastise me for tearing this film to shreds, calling me "an idiot" or I didn't see "the significance" of it. This was not the best picture of 2005, as the Academy has once again stooped to a new low by picking this garbage over actual art.

Best American Films of 2005: Good Night and Good Luck 8/10 Brokeback Mountain 8/10 Capote 8/10 The Squid And the Whale 7.5/10 and yes... Pride And Prejudice 7.5/10

Best Film of 2005: Cache 8.5/10
4 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
meh
18 March 2006
revenge of the sith is the strongest installment of the final chapter of the star wars saga, but it just doesn't deliver everything i expected. given the negative reviews that were given to the phantom menace and attack of the clones, it seems that george lucas was more than ever trying to make a movie that would appease critics and critical fans alike. while acting is much stronger this time around, i felt the notion that natalie portman was simply useless in this one. and too, vader's turn to the dark side seems too swift. we could have seen more interaction between the chancellor and vader throughout clones and this one, but it just didn't happen. and more than ever, the battle scenes, especially the planet of mustaffar, just seemed like nicely computer generated sets, unlike the original trilogy, which took actual locations and limitations of technology, and made something great with them. well, that's it. the only time one can actually watch these is if you're watching all six star wars films together. but even then, i'd recommend the viewer to just watch nos. 4-6 then 1-3. it just seems better that way. i haven't turned my back on star wars, but this saga is something that has developed, along with my taste for movies. i saw the first movie 10 years ago as a young boy and fell in love with it. i went through a period of not watching many movies, star wars included. now, as a man, who has gotten back into cinema, i have a totally different perspective of the whole thing. over the last few years, i've opted for classic cinema, including old Hollywood and foreign films, the very ones that influenced lucas' creation. they clearly stand head and shoulders above this saga, as they all don't need any flashy special effects to advance a plot. it sounds sad, but that's the thing. star wars has made its mark, and now it is time to move on. all of you.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
sub par
18 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
i really enjoyed the phantom menace when i first saw it, way back in 1999. i was 12 years old, and of course at that time, star wars was my favorite film. however, there are differences between a film and a movie. this is just a big budget popcorn flick, and while george lucas has tried to make an attempt at telling the first three events of the star wars saga, it just doesn't work - on a technological scale and on a scale of substance. first off, the most obvious thing is that the film employs the usage of computerized special effects, which points out a horrible continuity gap between the new trilogy and the old one, even with minimal computerized effects added in those. as far as the acting is concerned, the only ones it seems to be natural for is liam neeson and ewan macgregor. i personally would not have had obi wan kenobi as a 'padawan learner' in this trilogy, but rather as a reckless jedi who is eager to train someone under his wing (think anakin in episode III). the writing just doesn't work, and the storyline is simply too damn long. and a trade war? what's that about? it is simply too complex at times. i also would have had anakin older, say between the ages of 16 and 18. the good thing about the original star wars movies was that they used adult actors to appeal to the kid in everyone. here, it isn't working; something is missing. one cannot help but feel cheated, as george lucas rereleased the original trilogy in 1997 not because it was the 20th anniversary of the original star wars, but because it was preparing for the release of the new movies. the new ones, as it seems, have simply tarnished my view on the originals, but you cannot blame george lucas at all. this is his story, and however he wants to tell it, he should just do it however he damn feels like it. but my suggestion is to get your hands on the original versions of the original trilogy, and eat those up. fast.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tokyo Story (1953)
10/10
This is Japanese Cinema.
18 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
even seven samurai is getting too commercial, because it is so western. while i love the seven samurai, there is another aspect to Japanese cinema besides kurosawa. that other half includes yasujiro ozu, who is probably one of the most unconventional filmmakers on this side of the Atlantic. there is no side swipes nor fast paced editing. instead, ozu pulls the camera back, has very little movement, and we just observe what is going on. the dialogue in tokyo monogatari may seem a little pretentious with a stationery camera, but this, in a sense, is sort of capturing life as it is. i'd say in the final scenes of the film where the dialogue is its best, for it is here where we see the power of this simple story. what was very interesting for this new comer to ozu is how he actually kills off one of the main characters throughout the plot, and i think it is his usage of dialogue and editing that has this death of this main character impact me more than the death of - oh, let's say obi wan kenobi in star wars. that is because he comes back in spirit. star wars is fantasy, while tokyo monogatari is not. i want to show this film to my parents, as a message for them to respect their elders that they take care of and complain about. but, they'll probably tell me i'm either ungrateful or that the movie was boring. but, viewers such as the ones that share the same feelings about tokyo monogatari as i know better. this is an excellent film, and i am grateful to have seen it.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Citizen Kane (1941)
10/10
Rosebud
18 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The greatest film of all time. Who ever knew that the greatest American film could be so... European? Rumor has it that Orson Welles saw Le Jour Se Leve, and the fotogenie of that film influenced him to adopt some of the camera techniques that were used for this landmark of cinema. It is infused with minimal comedy (seeing the young Kane starting a newspaper is perhaps the most lighthearted moment in the film), epic drama, detail, detail, detail, a powerful storyline and message (money doesn't buy happiness), brilliant writing, dialogue, camera work, and acting, especially on welles' part. the greatest thing about citizen kane? welles has given us the key to figuring out the enigma that is the title character through the revelation of rosebud. i had a huge grin on my face when this was pointed out to me in my film study class. However, we can sit here and praise Kane for all we want, but the point is that works of art such as this are being ignored by many people who are my age (19). many will opt for stoner flicks, cheap horror movies, and mind numbingly dull action movies. too many people are stuck in the star wars state of mind, and i've moved on beyond that. years ago. if people are serious about cinema, they'll take exactly two hours of their time to view citizen kane. you may not catch on at first, but with subsequent viewings, it flows much more easier. but this is merely a pipe dream of mine, but i'll give you my testament. i just decided to see citizen kane one day, because i felt it shouldn't be voted as the greatest film of all time. i was wrong - dead wrong.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
My Fair Lady (1964)
8/10
My Fabulous Lady
4 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I never liked My Fair Lady when I was a young lad. For me, the films starring Julie Andrews were perfect to watch as a kid (you know, the Sound of Music and Mary Poppins). I do remember watching Lady once when I was four, and I remember the first scenes of the film, Higgins' drawing room sequences and the Ascot Gavotte number. It wasn't until this year that I actually got down to watching My Fair Lady for the first time, really. After getting back into musicals in my Musical Theatre course in college, I was reading my textbook and was dumbfounded that this musical, which was hailed by the book's author as the last great musical of the 20th century, wasn't even mentioned in my class. Rather, we covered much more inferior plays such as Hair (shudder) and Rocky Horror. I purchased the Original Cast recording with Julie Andrews as Eliza Doolittle, and I enjoyed it immensely; I could visualize what was going on in the movie, and I decided I had to watch it. All I could say was after 170 glorious minutes was that My Fair Lady was easily my favorite film. It is the best adaptation - the most faithful one, for that matter - of a Broadway play. Yes, I may be shunned for saying Lady is better than West Side Story and the Sound of Music, but tastes differ I suppose. The cinematography is glorious, filmed with lush colors and bright textures. The acting is superb and the music is to die for. Yet, there are flaws. I Could Have Danced All Night was in a different key and it just didn't sound as cheerful as the version from the play. Get Me To the Church on Time is doubled in length in the film, focusing too much on Alfie Doolittle a bit too much (although his character is a very dynamic addition to the plot of Lady). You can tell where Marni Nixon dubs Audrey Hepburn, especially in Just You Wait, but that's not a huge distraction. The sets may seem stagy at times, especially with Ascot and portions of Higgins' drawing room. Yet, all of these nuances are minor and they won't deter you from enjoying this film overall. My Fair Lady won 8 Oscars including Best Picture, although I do feel Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove should have won the big awards. Yes, even Peter Sellers had a better performance than Mr. Harrison, who gets Henry Higgins down to a 'T.' Audrey Hepburn delivers the performance of her career, and you'll be saying 'Julie who?' after watching this. She deserved to be nominated for the Oscar and more importantly, she deserved to win. Even if it didn't take top awards, My Fair Lady is one of the best motion pictures ever made. It is also a great spin on one of the greatest stories ever told. Watch this, and it'll make you say, 'They don't make 'em like that anymore!'
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
In defense of Attack of the Clones...
17 May 2005
i give it only has a 5/10. Why? The acting is very wooden, and of course the CGI was terrible. But, I can only deduct 3 stars because of this. Why? First off, acting was NEVER the strong point of Star Wars (Remember Princess Leia in the first one, talking in a British accent in a few scenes? Jesus!). The cast here is assembled of good actors. With the exception of Ewan McGregor and Ian McDirmid and Christopher Lee(Who pull their roles off brilliantly), Hayden Chistensen and Natalie Portman overacted to actually make the horrible script sound good. They tried to hard - if you saw them in other films they did, I think you'd get a different perspective on their acting. But it was the writing. As for the computer effects, well it looks too cartoonish in many places. Even Yoda's sword fight didn't impress me. So, what was good about this movie? Well, you do see traces of Vader every now and then. You see the Clone Wars unfold and the 'plans' for the Death Star. I give Attack of the Clones 7/10 because it must be deliberately weak to pave way for Revenge of the Sith, which I am sure will be far more superior to this one. You could only wish that George Lucas would have had a plot line that would have accommodated the more superior special effects of the original trilogy. That's right - I do believe the effects from A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi are way better than these. Oh well, you can't win 'em all.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed