Reviews

I stand by my theory that there are no worse movies than unfunny comedies. That being said, this wasn't totally unfunny (i.e. the cameos were nice, especially BK), but it was about 80% unfunny, which 80% of it utterly excruciating. Who thinks that in going to see an Adam Sandler movie we have to sit through his hysterical confession of love to Marisa Tomei in Yankee stadium? Gag me.

I'm sorry. I can't quite say I LIKED this movie. But, if nothing else, I... appreciated it. NO ONE can accuse Cassavetes of being unoriginal in any aspect of the production. Every frame of the film is remarkably unconventional. And furthermore, the performances were so starkly real it makes the prospect that there even WAS a script seem impossible to me. Now, I don't know any back story about this movie, but I'm sure there had to have been some script involved somewhere. What I'm saying is that the way the actors played it, the lines seemed... unwriteable. It's as if we were watching a documentary, but one where we can be certain those involved didn't know they were being filmed.

Basically, except for the poor dubbing that makes literally MOST of the dialogue in the film incomprehensible, I can't say there's anything about any individual sequences in the film that I disliked. HOWEVER, what I did have a problem with is this: the vanguard style of filmmaking, the characters, the situations they are in, the dialogue (if you want to call it that): does it all really come together to SAY anything? I didn't come away with any kind of an interesting or coherent message from the film. Which is fine if the scenes flow nicely together, but they really don't. Each scene as an entity unto itself is wonderful, but their juxtaposition together gets especially tiresome. I mean, for roughly 80% of the film, ALL of the characters onscreen are inebriated. Now, this makes it extremely difficult to get to know the characters beyond their buffoonish drunken altar egoes. Maybe, that was the point. I don't know. What I do know is that Cassavetes stubbornly refuses to reveal to us anything that even approximately resembles, plot, forward motion, or even... any kind of... an event... a happening until the last twenty minutes of the film when some interesting stuff finally happens. And this definitely alienates most audiences. Do you want to know why this movie has such a high rating? Because the people that didn't like it left after twenty-forty minutes. I know in the theater that I saw it in (a student film organization that watches intellectually stimulating independent fare weekly with warm response), the crowd of twenty people had been reduced by the end of the film to me, the president of the club (who was reading), and one other guy (whom I have a suspicion, fell asleep during at least part of the film) in the theater. EVERYBODY else got frustrated. Draw your own conclusions.

"Memento" is quite possibly the most amazing film experience I've had in a movie theater (I've seen "Citizen Kane" and "2001" only on video). I daresay (though there is not much risk involved) I will not see a better movie this year, and I say this even with my excitement over the upcoming "AI" and "Fellowship of the Ring." "Memento" is a remarkably complex, beautiful, blistering, masterpiece of a movie. I would recommend it to anyone and everyone everywhere in the world. I am not even going to comment on the plot, because I think you should go in totally fresh as I did and willing to take an active interest in the movie. This is not your typical popcorn machine movie, where the plot is easy enough that you can fall asleep through half of it and still know what's going on. "Memento" transcends what going to the movies is all about: its complexity and method of storytelling make it almost some kind of a revolutionary audience participation spectacle. It's twists and turns are not gimmicky like "The Sixth Sense" and "Fight Club" but gradual and calculated. I can not possibly sing this movie's praises enough, so now I am going to give a word to its detractors: LEARN TO THINK AT THE MOVIES. Stop watching Candycorn Crap like "Bring it On" and "Charlie's Angels" and invest in a movie that has ideas and wants to challenge you.

ALSO: a major complaint (read no further if you want to go into the movie fresh) is that the film's method of backwards storytelling is just a gimmick and that the movie would not be as interested if it went from start to finish in regular order. Well, gee, thanks! I didn't realize that watching a movie the way it's intended to be watched is more entertaining than watching it backwards. You can also make the argument that watching "The Bicycle Thief" in rewind isn't as entertaining as watching it the way it was filmed. DUH! Of course, the backwards chronology is essential to the plot: the idea is to distort reality and confuse identity. The movie is like looking in a mirror where everything is distorted and backwards. You're not supposed to grasp all this in one sitting. Just think about it a while after you leave the theater and you should understand. For those of you who haven't seen it, though, GO SEE IT NOW! I beg you.

Px

I have never been one to complain that movies are too "boring," but, my GOD, this movie could put crickets to sleep. It was just so self-important and slow, not to mention the unquenchably pasty characters, that it was literally unbearable to watch. Even in a year that featured "Patch Adams," this movie was still the worst of 1998.

This has to go down with "Some Like It Hot" and "Gone With the Wind" as one of the MOST overrated movies of all time. It has a so-so message (of which it's really proud of itself), with the exception of George Sanders' cynical triumph it has terrible acting (especially Anne Baxter's ridiculously unconvincing portrayal) and, most of all, it is SO melodramatic. I have never seen a movie beat around the bush as much as this one does. I it weren't for some very clever dialogue I would have given this movie a two or three. The most frustrating thing is that it was not only voted to the AFI top 100 list, but also it was named best picture of 1950 over the likes of "Sunset Boulevard" and "The Third Man": two spectacular, unforgettable films. I will never understand how people can say that this trash was anywhere near the level of those masterpieces. What a convoluted mess!

Even before "Citizen Kane," Orson Welles, was Hollywood's favorite little prodigy and no one could wait to see how he would fare with his first shot at motion picture directing. At 25 years old, with his directorial debut, he made the greatest movie of all time.

There just isn't anything that you can't like about "Kane." The story is compelling and timeless, the visuals spectacular, the artwork enigmatic and gothically beautiful, the ensemble acting an unsung triumph, the score haunting and suggestive, and through it all we can feel Welles' deft touch weave this powerful tale of a man's lifelong battle with himself like no other director could have dreamed of doing.

The amazing thing about Charles Foster Kane, himself, is we only see him as others did. The only things that we, for a fact, know that he said or did were either included on the newsreel or the classic opening scene, where we know that he uttered "Rosebud." Rosebud. What a fantastic imagining by Herman J. Mankiewiecz. An entire man's life is about to be judged because of a childhood memory he utters as he dies. As touching and heartbreaking as the best parts of the movie.

The best part, however, about "Citizen Kane" is the effect it had on American movies. As if this wasn't a great enough film to begin with, it had such a strong influence on future filmmakers that one can sometimes pick out Kane-esque shots. In short, see "Citizen Kane" once or three hundred times and you will agree that nobody ever did it better than this kid did on try #1.