Reviews

Salt Of The Earth is best known as a blacklisted film made by many of the artists whose lives were destroyed by HUAC and the complicity of the film industry. While the film's very exsistance is a tribute to the determination of the artists to do the right thing and not be silenced, it is much more than that. It is also a moving film tribute to the underclass of America who suffer greatly due to injustice and inequality. The film portrays the strike of Chicano mine workers in New Mexico. Their demands, which the company took 15 months to meet, included such outrages as safety, equality, and indoor plumbing. The most interesting aspect of the film is the way in which the women of the community are forced to take a leading role. By linking the oppression of the workers to the workers' oppression of their wives, the film becomes not only a pro-union film but also a feminist one. The story is stirring, and the scenes where the women are attacked for standing by their men are unforgetable. Salt of the Earth probably has more to do with everyday American lives than 99 percent of Hollywood films. Its humane portrayal of regular people fighting for their rights cannot help but awaken the common elements in us all.

Hitchcock displays his already developed understanding for visuals in this early silent film. The plot of the film, involving two boxers fighting over a girl, is straight-forward drama without much to recommend it. Hitchcock's talent, though, is found in his stunning use of images. Nearly every shot is filled with visual symbols. Especially memorable is the jewelry that one boxer gives the girl just before she marries the other boxer. He slides it up her arm in a clearly sexual way and with one simple movement Hitch has shown us all we need to know. The boxing scenes are handled well with some interesting point-of-view shots that again prove how far ahead of his time Hitchcock was. The film also gives insight into his later treatment of women. The object of the boxers' desires is driven by money and lust, not reason or love. The only other women in the film are either beautiful party girls who make open offers of sex or old crones who help to destroy happy relationships. All in all, the Ring is a must for anyone interested in Hitchcock's early work and his development as a visual storyteller.

Juliet of the Spirits has become one of my favorite Fellini films. The story involves a woman who discovers that her husband is cheating on her. The forces of family, tradition, the church, and an immoral society all pull at her and force her to make a difficult decision. These forces would be banal in a standard film but Fellini chooses to visualize them as images and dreams. The dream sequences are nearly perfect and create a sharp sense of the hazy logic and unreality of dreams. Other comments (as well as our friend Maltin) have noted that the symbolic nature of the film is a detriment. This is true only if you are constrained by reality and demand that film adhere to the rules you have set down (or more likely had set down for you). Taking the journey with this film is well worth the time and effort. I hesitate to state that a male director has successfully penetrated the inner desires of a woman, but in this case I think Fellini has at least come close to the mark. A film to be looked at, talked about, and enjoyed again and again.

Mad Max is notable as the first Australian movie to break out and become a worldwide hit. It also is a fairly straight-forward revenge movie that bemoans all the excess violence in the world. Like many movies that feel there is too much violence in our amoral, hero-less world, it answers the problem of violence with more violence. It also has some particularly nasty revenge aspects. We do not need a hero. Still, as an early Australian film, as a George Miller film, and as a star vehicle for an unbelievably hot Mel Gibson, Mad Max works very well. The stunts are good, the photography is well above average, and the dream-like future it creates causes the viewer to question the reality of what we are seeing. Is it cops like Max that create those violent criminals? Is it regular people afraid to stand against the violence? Or is it just an inevitable force of nature? Whatever the answer, the film is worth a look. I saw the dubbed version and believe that the original would be superior.

Lavish, well-mounted Chinese epic about the first emperor fails on most every level. To get the positive out of the way, the sets are beautiful, the photography is good, and Gong Li is a wonderful actress. Most everything else, from characterization to narrative to the other performances to the lackluster direction, is below standards. The film's weak commentary on modern China and its supposedly parallel efforts to unite the Chinese world is stupid and insulting. The film has been compared to Ran, but a careful watching of the films would reveal that where Kurosawa knew exactly what he was doing with his camera, his actors, and his dialogue, Chien is lost nearly all of the time. I am sure that the English subtitles did not do justice to the dialogue for no screenwriter would put such cliches on the screen. "I promise...I promise" I promise to never watch the movie again.

A Fish Called Wanda is a funny British-American comedy. It is clear that screenwriter Cleese was beginning to lose his touch for sublime comedy, but he had enough left to cobble together a fast-paced and funny film about four bungling thieves and a lawyer who somehow gets involved. Does one ever think that maybe he wrote the entire film just to get some play with Jaime Lee Curtis? Anyway, she is very sexy in the film and an attractive female character: she knows just what she can use her sexuality for and does everything willfully. She is no plaything for men. When Cleese asks her to behave at the end of the film, you simply know that she will not. Palin is wonderful, and of course Klein is great, although not as funny as I remember him. I guess that his later performances have watered this one down a bit. He is talented, but somewhat repetitive. All in all, a good film, and an even better one when compared to the dreck that was coming out at the time (Funny Farm?)

I just finished watching West Side Story for the first time and was left with mixed feelings. The dancing is excellent, some of the best ever filmed. The music is very good, although not the best ever. Since I am young and not familiar with the songs, I approached them fresh and found many of them flat. Certainly, Tonight and America are great songs, but many of the other ones, especially the love songs, grew tiresome. The acting by everyone but the leads was good; however, Natalie Wood is TERRIBLE. Rule #1: When casting a Puerta Rican, find a Puerta Rican. Tony is also a weak lead who, despite his physical presence, never is convincing as a former gang leader.

That covers the good and some of the minor bad. After all, great films can overcome bad performances. However, this one does not. The love story couldn't possibly be any flatter. Since the leads are so wooden, the audience is left wondering why anyone would fall in love with them. Their dialogue is straight from a high school love letter, which one may argue is fine except we all wrote better letters than that, didn't we? Even worse is the film's overwrought violence. The ever-lingering threat of deadly violence mixed with the dream-like reality of the dance numbers creates a disturbing atmosphere. All of he whimsy and fantasy are wonderful. A whole new world is created and nurtured by the dancing. However, the violence is real, and the film never even tries to balance the blood with the light-as-air feel of the rest of the piece. I find it to be a distinctly American film, one that even in its creation of an alternate world must include hideous violence because a world without it is too foreign to be imagined. I also found many of the images to be dull. Yes, we know they are caught in cages, and no, I don't need to see another chain link fence. Yes, we know their Catholicism binds them, and no, we don't need to see another cross. The heavy-handed message that the older, prejudiced generation has wrought the violence falls flat too. Let's face it: the Jets are a bunch of cretins. Nothing is stopping them from doing what Tony does: fall in love and listen to his heart (I understand why they don't want the job). The Sharks strike me as quite a conservative bunch. In the end they just want to fit in, especially the women. One can see them sacrificing their culture in order to fit in. By trying to elicit sympathy for both, West Side Story leaves you feeling nothing for either. I believe it has much to do with Robert Wise's direction. He always was a sloppy director, and this film reeks of his touch at its worst moments. At least Robbins provides some wonderful dancing that ranks with the Red Shoes and Singin' In The Rain as some of the best ever put on film. In the end, West Side Story falls short of classic status by any criteria other than that of the fond memory.

Pinocchio is the most developed of Disney's classic animated films. The artwork, character design, narrative, and plotting all work perfectly. The film is much more adult than the modern Disney tales. Many of the things in it are quite frightening, especially the sequence where the boys turn into jackasses. The temptations that the young wooden boy faces are as realistic as any in a Martin Scorese movie. It is an excellent allegory for growing up and taking moral responsibility for one's actions. Even with all of the advanced material that it contains, it still appeals perfectly to children. Walt Disney was an almost unmatched genius when it came to presenting enlightening entertainment to children. I cannot imagine the world of animation without this film.

A strange mix of high-flying action, terse drama, and Hollywood star vehicle, Only Angels Have Wings leaves the viewer feeling out of sorts. Cary Grant stars as a misogynist pilot running a mail service in Latin America. The film begins as Jean Arthur arrives to stir romance and trouble. Early in the film, when one of Grant's pilots crash, he blames her for the accident, because he wanted to have a steak dinner with her. He later apologizes, but the theme of the film-that nobody can take responsibility or make promises for another-is established. Men cannot have love for one another, only respect or hatred. The job is all there is, and women are not even worth speaking about. It is an adult film, with open sexual references and plenty of drinking and smoking. In spite of all its serious themes and numerous injuries and deaths, the film has a real rip-roaring pace to it, at least some of the time. People will mourn for a minute, then sing and dance, and then get back up in the air. The film does establish a wonderful sense of uncertainty. Life can fall apart at any moment and we should be ready. Sadly, it doesn't realize that preparation involves growing closer to others rather than pushing them away. Still, it is unique in its time and setting as well as its characterizations of lost Americans late in the depression. It has a certain kinship with the Wages of Fear. The highlights are the beautiful aerial photography, which at times even follow a plane as it races along a canyon. Hawkes was one of America's great directors of intelligent, adult films, but the misogyny and general antipathy of this film leave it a notch below his strongest work.

If you really think about it, has any rock band ever mattered other than the Who? I know that may sound silly, but they are the only band to have gone through all the stages of development that are necessary to gain a true perspective on what rock music is. They started as the reckless youths of the mid-1960s, concerned only with image and loudness. They turned into a "serious" rock band beloved by the masses and critics alike. Then, they spent the rest of their career criticizing their earlier actions and trying to find relevance in an art form that by nature, passes the old by. The Kids Are Alright shows all of these phases. By putting them next to each other in intelligent ways (especially My Generation and Won't Get Fooled Again at the end), the film actually manages to expand the Who's impact. Having just watched all ten hours of the Beatles Anthology, it is painfully clear that the Who were superior both musically (easily) and as a social force. Keith Moon, RIP.

Well, at least Cassavettes was never boring. How many directors can say that? This is the oddest of his films, a strange riff on gangster/noir pictures that starts at the end and takes us right back there. The night club manager, player by Gazzara, has just finished paying for his joint, as he would say. He goes out and loses some money gambling and finds that he has to kill someone in order to pay off his debt. A normal Hollywood film would make the owner an anti-hero, one to pity. This film just lets him be the slime he is. In one scene, he tries to tell a woman that his mother and father didn't love him. She tells him that she doesn't care and he should leave. That is, in some ways, the point. He doesn't have to be a louse and a loser, but he is. Ironically, he gives a speech later about choosing who we are and being comfortable, two things that he has failed at miserably. Like all of Cassavettes' losers, Gazzara is easy to hate. The painful part for the viewer is that we see the pain in their lives too. Most films, even great ones, leave you feeling one way or another about a character, but Cassavettes' films leave you stumped. I guess that that is great, but it is very odd and hard to understand.

Dr. Strangelove is purity of cinema. Contrary to popular opinion, Kubrick never made a bad film, and this is one of his best. The performances are certainly the best that he ever got from his actors, The photography is typically brillant, and the script is better than some of his others. The film has so many layers that one viewing simply isn't enough. It is about the Cold War. It is about masculinity. It is about insecurity. It is about insanity. And in the end, I think it may even be about hope. Sure, Kubrick points his camera at his subjects as objectively as possible, but I believe that his films always have some element of hope in them. In this film, the hope comes from the song over the closing montage of destruction. Even if we destroy each other, the human spirit will continue on. Kubrick's obvious hatred for the military is never given a better display than here, and his attacks on research scientists should not be ignored either. We must all remember that a system that man has set up must still be run by man. When good sense vacates a system, the system will fail. This pattern happens over and over in his films, and Strangelove is no exception. The military is a rational set-up, but if one part goes wrong, it can detroy the whole thing. Of course, I think that Kubrick feels that the "rational" way the military is set up is a lie and that it is made that way so that men can forget that they are killing other humans, just like them. In the end, all of Kubrick's films are fighting against inhumanity. In fact, Kubrick's greatest legacy will be his humanism.

Brute Force is just that...a swift late 1940's kick in the head. The characters are gritty, determined, and rough. Sure, all the prisoners are slightly stereotyped, but the performances carry the baggage of the typing and things end up working quite well. The story, involving an attempted breakout, is pure fantasy. What compels are the people and the messages of the film. Prison is shown to be a place where criminals are only made worse. Politicians, concerned only with order, are forcing the situation to get even more brutal. When faced with brutality, the men respond in kind.

The head guard in the film is a great 1940's character. He is painted like Hitler throughout the film and is clearly meant to be seen as a homosexual. The film subtly hints that this will send him to hell at one point and that it is the source of his rage at others. The prisoners are all completely straight, but if they are ratted out, they respond with violence. In fact, ratting seems to be equivalent to consenting to sexual relations with the head guard. Only the prison's doctor is a friendly face. Sure, he is a drunk, but he cares about men in a way that society must not if they let prisons go on the way they are. The film has some parallels with the Shawshank Redemption, with the sadistic guard, setting, record player, and breakout plan, but its view of the world is the polar opposite. As the doctor says at the end, we never escape. The film reflects the hopelessness that followed WWII in light of the holocaust. It was a time when it seemed that men could be unimaginably cruel to each other everywhere, not just in the prison. In fact, the prison is our creation and one that just brutalizes us. An interesting message today, where most conservative politicians simply want to send everyone to jail.

For a film as old as Nanook of the North, it might be expected that some cultural imperialism would seep into such an anthropological venture. Amazingly, this is hardly the case. The lives of a band of hardy eskimos are shown with little added or taken away. We see them fighting for food, playing, building shelters, and cowering in the dark winter. All of these elements are shown without undue sentimentality. We are amazed at the lives we see because they are so different from our own, yet we realize just how human they are when they smile at us and engage us. The sequence where the igloo is built is truly remarkable, as are many of the hunting expeditions. However, just when we start to think that the life we are seeing may be perfect in its purity, we are shown the other side of eskimo life. The bleak ending of the film forces the viewer to come to terms with his romanticized view of eskimos that the first part of the film creates. A great film experience.

Frankenstein is one of the most famous films ever made, and rightfully so. The monster is beautifully realized by Karloff, the direction is excellent by Whale, and the pacing is so well done that modern filmmakers should be forced to look at the film. The main problems are some of the performances (besides the lead and Clive, the rest of the cast is typical of early talkies) and the dialogue, which is laughable in the dramatic scenes. Still, the film carries some real power and has pointed the way for every horror film made in the past 70 years. Interestingly enough, the sequel is better.

Bowfinger leaves you in the middle. It is terrible some of the time, mundane most of the time, and brilliant occasionally. It's not a great combination. The stars are...Hollywood stars, working hard on being themselves. It's a Hollywood satire...that in the end says Hollywood does great things, even if the means are evil.

Since the film is so average, so Hollywood, I'd like to point out how it portrays women and minorities. The only two women in the movie are actresses. None of them work on the production of the movie. Heather Graham has to have sex with everyone to get to the top, but we are actually led to dislike her because she screws over some of the sympathetic characters. "Isn't she a heartless bitch!" says the viewer. Eddie Murphy is the big star, but he is portrayed as paranoid, foolish, aggressive, and is always surrounded by a posse. "What a typical rich black guy" says the viewer "never appreciating all we have given him." Some of the crew are Mexicans just over the border. They are being shot at when Martin recruits them. "Well, at least we were shooting at them and not just letting them in" says the viewer. By the way, this can be done with almost any major studio production and is the end effect of a system where all the decisions are made and all the art carried out by middle-aged white men. Just start paying attention and it will all become clear.

The Iron Giant is the best surprise film of the summer. Intelligent writing, comedy that is actually funny, and a strong message all come together to create a good film experience. The film loses its way a bit at the end by going a little too over the top with the boy's relationship with the giant, but otherwise it is even-handed and emotionally restrained.

The best part of the film is that it is not afraid to state its political beliefs. The Cold War was a waste of people's lives and times. The boy is fatherless, in fact, because he was a pilot who died in Korea (we can assume). The methods that our government provided us for protection were all lies, such as the Duck and Cover film that must be seen to be believed. Best of all, the film is strongly anti-gun. The giant, like all of us in our insane country, can be a gun. He chooses not to be and chooses not to hurt others. It is a choice we can all make by saying no to guns and gun violence. The military and government officals suffer some well-deserved put-downs, and the hero's friend is a subversive beatnik artist. What could be better than that? The real reason that Warner is not promoting this film is that it fears that its strong political message could create a backlash against the company. Instead, they put their money into Wild Wild West and its humor based on race and disability. Better to reaffirm those who hate than encourage us to love.

Diabolique is a good psychological thriller. The performances are, for the most part, excellent, and the director has a sense for where to put his camera in order to create the most suspense possible. The story involves an abused woman who is convinced to kill her husband by her husband's mistress. The most notable thing in the film is the violence towards women displayed by the husband. He is truly an awful guy. Of course, since it is 1955 and the director is the actress' husband, he is never really taken to task for his acts of domestic violence. The mental pressure builds and builds on the poor woman until the inevitable climax. Thankfully, a nice old man comes along and catches the bad guys. Of course, this is only after he has "watched" her sleep in her thin nightgown. Still, if read as an impression of the situation that women could find themselves in and the inescapability of domestic violence in the 1950's, it is an effective statement.

Wow! What a revelation this film is. It examines the life of Jean Seberg and how it is destroyed by her acting career. It is a complex film, one that really defies explanation. It combines film clips from her films and the films of other movie stars with dialogue spoken by Mary Beth Hurt as Jean Seberg. From her early career as a terrible actress in Preminger's Saint Joan to her quick comeback in Goddard's Breathless to her slow descent into madness after being hounded by the FBI, the film examines how the events affected the actress and also what they say about the world of Hollywood. The roles that women are offered are compared with those that men get. The function of the closeup is explained with examples dating back to the earliest films. The parallels in the careers of Jane Fonda, Vanessa Redgrave, and Seberg are shown. Seberg is also compared with Clint Eastwood and the development of his career through closeups is compared to hers. All of this may sound mundane, but it is not.

The film exposes the assumptions of Hollywood and the effects of these assumptions on the audience. An earlier reviewer says that it is revisionist history, but it is simply an honest look at what Hollywood did then and still does today to women. Who are our big stars? Julia Roberts, who played a hooker to become famous. Demi Moore, who is paid to reveal her fake breasts. And about 8200 men. Calling this film politically correct or feminist simply allows the reviewer to ignore the facts that it presents. After seeing it, the viewer will never see film the same way again.

The Last Metro is one of Truffaut's last films, but it is not one of his best. The performances are all excellent and the staging is wonderful, but the film is lacking the emotional impact that it needs to make it great. The story of an actress hiding her Jewish husband during the Nazi occupation is interesting, but we never really get to know the characters. I think the problem is that there are too many major figures...well, three, to be exact. The actress, her husband, and the lead actor all occupy central space in the story. There is some subplot about her not loving her husband anymore and falling for the actor instead, but none of it is really explained. We know who they are, but all of the characters and their motivations are obscured for some reason.

The film is quite good, even with those flaws. The mise en scene is almost as good as in Truffaut's early films, and the acting is great. Also, the sense of hopelessness and powerlessness that the people of occupied France felt is made clear. The blind hatred of Jews is exposed for what it is, namely mindless and pointless. Still, the film never allows the viewer in, and for that reason it is not a classic.

This is one of the classic Soviet silent films. The story is about a family torn apart by a worker's strike. At first, the mother wants to protect her family from the troublemakers, but eventually she realizes that her son is right and the workers should strike. The plot is similar to other Soviet films of the era but does focus more on the individual than some of Eisenstein's films. The mother and son do represent the collective but they are also strong characters on their own.

The best part of the film is the editing. It is always sharp and quick. When there is action, the edits are fast and give the viewer a sense of chaos. The Soviets were masters of montage and this film is a prime example. The acting is also better than in most silent films. It is clear that the actors come from the serious stage and not Vaudeville. The cinematography is somewhat average, though, and the film feels a little flat at times. It is not perfect, but it is worth seeing for all and essential viewing for those interested in Russian film or montage.

What a mess. Detroit Rock City is made by someone who should be making music videos. It consists of about 40 songs that are played along with rapid fire editing and overacted scenes. It is like we are watching MTV if it could be programmed by people who want to rawk rather than teeny-boppers. How fast are we going to demand that movies go before they become incomprehensible?

By the way, I love KISS. KISS Meets the Phantom of the Park is an awful film, but at least it is about them. This film is about these boys and their lame, male-fantasy coming-of-age story. The best part was the opening credits, where we get to hear KISS and see cool stuff from the 1970's. The rest is just awful. Even their performance at the end sucked because it tried to squeeze all the highlights from a KISS show into one song.

The performances were all o.k. Edward Furlong is a fine actor, but he is just earning a check here. The other teens are all unremarkable except for Lyonne, who is always worth watching. The photography is standard while the editing, as mentioned above, is awful, almost as bad as a Michael Bay film. The soundtrack is fun, but I feel like I am listening to a radio station because they switch songs s often. Films seem to have forgotten how to use music. Anyway, not much works.

The great KISS film will be a concert film. It is the only time that Gene Simmons allows the band to not be a marketing ploy. On stage, they are great. Everywhere else, they always come up short.

The Buena Vista Social Club is filled with great music. It is the music of people's lives, and as they often say during the film, the musicians feel the music as well as play it. The way that others talk and think is the same way they create music. It is natural. The scenes of the musicians in concert are great and exciting.

The problem is that the director, Wim Wenders, chose to focus on things other than the music and the people who make it. His constantly spinning camera, while technically dazzling, serves no real purpose here. Sure, there are some wonderful shots that move long distances, but the story is in one place and needs no amplification. It is almost as though he thought we would be bored with the people and the sounds of the film. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The stories the musicians tell are engaging and funny. Their music is rich and timeless. Since it is a film about Cuba, one would expect some political overtones, but strangely there are not very many. Only at the end, when the musicians reach New York, does Wender's seem to interject his political views. The musicians are all awed by New York and the director allows them to degrade themselves by saying that ugly buildings are lovely. The irony-that if these men had been produced in New York there would never be any music at all-is lost on everyone. Also, the viewer may be left with the sense that they have been forgotten due to Castro and the revolution, but this is not really the case. All over the world and all around the USA artists are forgotten in their old age. Only in a nation that loves and understands art are artists given their proper place of respect. Cuba and the US both fail in this regard. And ultimately the film fails too. It misleads and it misdirects are attention and pulls us away from the enchanting music created by older musicians who rediscover life through expression.

Tarzan is Disney's latest attempt at redoing a classic story. In general, they succeed. The film is fast paced and exciting. The messages in the film are not as overdone as they sometimes are in Disney films. Lessons about adoption, tolerance, and the meaning of family are all welcome from Disney. After all, as one of our children's leading entertainment producers it is important for them to include positive messages and role models in their films.

As for the negative parts of the film, one has to start with the music. Imagine how exciting some risk-taking music would be in a Disney film. Some real jazz musicians working on some jungle music, or maybe a little acid jazz. Instead, we get the whitest man on earth, Phil Collins, singing utterly forgettable tunes about topics he knows nothing about. Another bad point was, strangely, the animation, which seemed uninspired. Sure, some of the sequences had an undeniable flow to them, but in general the film felt like it had been ground out in a hurry. As Pixar continues to improve their methods, it will be interesting to see if Disney keeps up. In spite of these problems and the participation of the worst actress in Hollywood (O'Donnell) and the most overrated (Driver), the film is recommended to all who enjoy Disney films and those who believe that film can teach our children well.

Watching the Philadelphia Story is a joy. The script is so literate, so witty, so sharp that comparing it to a current film is almost laughable. So much happens in so short a time without it ever seeming contrived. Characters go through changes and are allowed the space and time to react to each other. Hepburn reconsiders her entire life in a fairly serious way, and the other characters go through changes too. Of course, the acting is great, especially from Hepburn, who is one of our great actresses. The performances given by the little girl and the photographer are also superlative.

I suppose that the only complaints one can have about the film are content rather than form. Hepburn is supposed to forgive her father for his philandering? She is cold and aloof and thus must return to her first husband, who comes this close to beating her? As with many classic Hollywood films, the independent, smart woman is pathologized and must be cured. Marriage is the only real option. At least here, the options are appealing. Still, a film like this, while unquestionable great, makes one wonder what people are talking about when they speak of a return to the good old days. They look like slavery to me.