Reviews

This short, which is appended to Criterion's DVD release of A Nous la Liberte, is hardly the shining example of surrealist film that its proponents would have you believe. Ultimately, it is by turns overly indulgent and downright boring. Lacking the artistry of L'Age d'Or, the suspense and intrigue of La Jetee or Meshes of the Afternoon, and the joy and spontaneity of Running, Jumping and Standing Still, Entr'acte simply never takes off. Even as a curiosity, it's not all that interesting...

I just don't get it. Every time I read another glowing review for this film (and there are a lot of them out there), I have to shake my head. I don't get it.

This is such a deeply flawed film, I scarcely know where to begin. Is it a crime thriller or a love story? I realize that it doesn't have to be one or the other -- plenty of films have done both well -- but in this case neither prong of the film works. The characters lack chemistry, leaving the romance angle flat. And the thriller plotline is crude and uninvolving. Both move at a stunted pace, in fits and starts.

There's more. This is a new-age art film, right, which means that it has to be shown like a coarse-grained 8-mm work, murkily lit and badly focused, right? Whatever ... There's nothing particularly interesting about the camerawork or editing, and the direction of the picture is uninspired at best.

Finally, this film is French, and plays like so many bad French-film stereotypes. Sur mes levres is unfailingly pretentious and self-important, and for no reasons. It's not hard to see where the filmmaker wanted to go with this material, and it's even easier to see that he failed badly.

Sur mes levres is headed straight for my "most overrated film of the year" list -- so far the competition isn't even close. Unfortunately, I'll probably be shaking my head again early next year when awards season comes around.

In this case, Sofia Coppola has achieved a richly atmospheric film, both in look and feel, but it unfortunately works to the exclusion of everything else in the film. The film's dreamlike mood is impressive, but it never wakes up -- kudos to the cinematography (especially the gas-mask debutante party), the score by Air, and the 70s tracks on the soundtrack, but the film screamed for even the tiniest bit of urgency; as it is, it feels like the cast is sleepwalking through significant portions of the movie.

Additionally, the film suffers by being told from the point of view of the boys across the street -- again, we are distanced what should be allowed to lead the way in the film. But at the same time, the boys are central to the story, and I can't imagine another way to capture their importance; perhaps this suggests a deeper unresolved flaw in the film. We could also use some additional focus on the other sisters -- Kirsten Dunst gives a great performance, and is clearly the dominant sisters, but none of the others ever develop much personality or character of their own.

In sum, a sometimes interesting film, but not a good one. I can't recommend it, but if you were intrigued by the film's trailer, as I was, it may be worth a couple of hours.

By now, most anyone who would go out and rent this movie knows the story behind it. A group of aging Cuban musicians, discovered by a visiting American, record a classic album in the "son" style, and the album unexpectedly goes multi-platinum. It's fairly heartwarming, and the spirit of the music is enchanting.

Here's the problem, though: you can get all of that by listening to the CD. Beyond the music, this film is, if anything, slightly LESS perceptive and insightful than an average episode of VH-1's Behind the Music. Essentially, this film consists of shots in the recording studio, concert footage, and superficial, introductory interviews with each of the band members, done one at a time. If that sounds interesting to you, fine. Personally, I was expecting a lot more from the union of a world-class filmmaker with these marvelous, enchanting musicians.

Of course, none of this will stop BVSC from winning the Best Doc Oscar -- I expect the voters, having failed to actually WATCH the nominated films, judging the film based on only the underlying story, rather than on the film's merits. What a shame.

First of all, this movie is an obvious improvement over the 1959 remake in that it doesn't require you to look at or listen to Charlton Heston. That said, Ben Hur is also probably the most technically and technologically accomplished silent film ever made. The sheer scope of the film is staggering -- particularly in the famous chariot race, but no less in any of a number of smaller moments. If the film (and its underlying story) has a weakness, it is in its character development -- there is distressingly little detail given of the evolution of the relationship between Judah and Messala, and Judah's conversion to Christianity and decision to follow the Messiah is immature and somewhat unconvincing. However, these shortcomings in the story pale next to this film's flawless execution. Miss this vital piece of film history at your own peril.

In response to what seems to be the first thing on everyone's mind: no, EDtv isn't just a remake of The Truman Show -- they're more like flipsides of the same coin. Truman pointed out our need to be an audience -- to attain voyeuristic pleasure from watching someone else go through their day-to-day life. EDtv, one the other hand, aims for our need for celebrity -- the need to be the person in the fishbowl, who everyone else is watching. It's a unique and intriguing idea.

Unfortunately, EDtv doesn't quite live up to its promise. This isn't to say it's a bad movie. Indeed, it's a wonderfully enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours, and it's buoyed by outstanding and charismatic performances, particularly from Jenna Elfman, Martin Landau, and Matthew McConnaughey. However, it's essentially a feature-length sitcom -- good for a few discussions over the water cooler, but forgotten by the time next week rolls around.