Change Your Image
merrywriter
Reviews
Joyeux Noël (2005)
Our Family's Tradition to Watch on Christmas Eve.
This is The Best Christmas Movie to watch on Christmas/Eve. Even better for Christmas than 'It's A Wonderful Life.' It displays the true Spirit of Christmas that the soldiers experienced, ending at the foot of the cross with all its meaning. The Christmas truce actually happened on many fronts in WWI, but it was mainly to bury their dead. The screenplay is a compilation of many stories. In real life there was a cat that went between both sides, but when it turned up with a new collar, it was shot by the other side for spying (typical SNAFU with officers following the letter of the absurd). As always there is just plain stupidity in killing each other which the movie exemplifies along with the contrast between basic goodwill, moral duty and institutionalized hatred.
Hugo (2011)
Scorsece Stimulates Dialogue Between the Generations for the Sake of History
I am shocked at some of the poor reviews; these have to be by a younger generation who do not understand the time, place and history weaved into "Hugo" by the writers, Scorcese, and producer & francophile Johnny Depp. The near accuracy of the film is part of the movie magic.
Before Atomic Clock Time, "Train Time" was the most accurate; Standard Time resulted (to make connections). Thus anyone responsible for keeping time at a train station had an extremely accountable job - too exacting for Hugo's alcoholic uncle who realized his shortcoming and understood Hugo's advanced skills taught to Hugo by his father. The station inspector keeps checking his watch, as if inspecting the job the clock mechanic was doing. Clockmaker" was a respected profession. Knowing the inner workings of clocks was akin to our computer techs today; both considered highly innovative as attested by the pinnacle of creativity, an automaton/robot. Add this to the set designs of the innards of the station clocks, and again, high imagination, creative magic.
I was surprised to be told the film is set in 1931; more accurately it has a 20s feel, especially in costuming. I'm not sure how I am to bridge this gap. My confusion also lies in the fact that Hugo & Isabelle snuck in to see Harold Lloyd's "Safety Last!" 1923. Outside the theater as Hugo picks the lock, we also see a Hal Roach poster with Charlie Chase, another popular comic of the 20s (though my favorite scene of Chase's is in Laurel & Hardy's "Sons of the Desert, 1933). However, 1931 was only 14 years after the Great War and shortly into the Depression; most people would not have been stylish and would have still worn their old clothes of the 20s. Isabelle's dress for Méliè's tribute is straight out of the 20s. Hair styles were also not of the 30s, though today's stylists never get 20s, 30s, or 40s hairstyles accurate, in part because they no longer have the waving machines used then. Also there was no mention of "talkies" (or I missed it) which by 1931 were fairly evolved from the first sound-on-film in 1919 (although Kingsley, a dead ringer for Méliès, states that "People don't want my kind of films any more."). At the scene in the library, the book, 'La Revue du Cinéma,' which features Lumières' "Arrival of a Train at a Station," did have the effect on 1896 audiences as we see - a wonderful touch to be brought back to that time and place of innocence.
The juxtaposition of "Hugo" is of 3D and film origins via Méliès' films. First, we see his glass stage set. (Even Hollywood did not advance that - "inside" sets blow with the wind in many American silents; they were filmed outside for the light.) We also see 1890's traditional theater set design and its illusions of water, moonscape or the slaying of dragons. We see this transition of how Méliès advanced old into new (i.e. filming through a fish tank with real fish) which was surely considered "special effects" back then, amazing audiences to see real swimming fish before the actors in the background.
Because of Scorcese's age, born 1942, he has living memory of film history, a reason he has been so dedicated to its preservation. In "Hugo" we get only the highlights of film history, of the people Scorsese wants to be sure are brought back into public consciousness. I too nearly wept in awe at seeing the brightly colored hand-tinted Méliès' tribute films. I have only seen bastardized hand-me-downs and loved them as movie magic even then. The clips are the climax of the film, and the après film party a tidy tie-up of the loose ends of the characters (Inspector Gustav's "high-tech" brace designed by Hugo, of course).
When we see old films, we have a connection to our ancestors, what they saw and felt. Though the written-word is a first connection, it can lead to misconceptions because tone can be lost. No other mediums except film and sound have brought us into such direct contact with the past. Scorsese purposely accomplished bringing generations together for conversations that kids can have with grandparents. Then we have the revival of the actual train derailment at Gare Montparnasse in 1895 in 3D. Scorcese wanted today's audience to feel that which the 1896 audience felt with a train coming directly at them. The past brought to life through restoration, juxtaposed with the most advanced film-making to date.
Trying to make a film for everyone can get dicey, but there should be something for everyone to bite into in this juicy film, especially since it has state of the art 3D, and especially for students of film and film history, though I pray that young costumers will not take it as gospel that the clothes are those of the 30's. I am sure that Scorcese's 12 year old daughter is well schooled in film history to have brought Selznick's book to her father's attention. Just as the fictional character René Tabard was influenced as a child upon meeting Méliès to have kept track of all things Méliès, I can also safely assume that Scorcese, the writers, Depp and all others involved with this labor of love hope that "Hugo" will ignite the interest of younger generations to study and help preserve past generations of film.
============== Recommendations of important films quickly cited in 'La Revue du Cinema': 1)Griffith's "Intolerance" 1916, told in four stories, it is one of the first statements on social injustice (and his reaction to audience (mis)understanding of "Birth of a Nation"). 2)"The Thief of Bagdad" 1924, Douglas Fairbanks (advanced special effects and set design). The scale of both sets have not been seen before or since. 3)Anything Hal Roach. I know, I left too much out.
What the Daisy Said (1910)
View 'Daisy' as a Student of Film History
Good vs Evil is and always has been the plot of a good story. Stereotype or not, in this case the gypsies do not have good intentions and are willing to beat up an old man. You have to get over PC brainwashing to view the film (or any Griffith film). It's 1910! And it is a short.
When I view silents I am seeing the birth of film. Knowing there is not going to be much of a plot I look for scenery, set design, costuming/hairstyles, and cinematography/composition. Since there is not much costuming in the film, except for the gypsies (with the wagon being real), we see what the people and places of 1910 looked like. Since filming took place outside on a windy day, housing, gardens, fields, waterfalls are all on location and are as they existed then. There is the beautiful Delaware Water Gap falls for a fantastic romantic backdrop which must have feasted the eyes of national movie goers who never saw the likes. And the waving field of wild flowers on a hillside amazed me it did not get trampled to death which tells me Griffith did not do many takes.
Then there is Pickford and Robinson who do not overact their parts as sisters, however Graybill the gypsy did - but that is what was expected of silent actors. This makes Pickford and Robinson all the more accomplished early on in their careers because they were able to get their feelings and longings across without much exaggeration. Griffith for his part shows how tight he can edit his films. View the film as a student of film history.
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
History is Never Politically Correct
You cannot judge this film by today's cultural standards - don't put your own value system on this nearly 100 year old film. JUST BE THANKFUL WE HAVE EVOLVED. It's shocking today to see such a view point because victors (re)write the history books where the ravages of Reconstruction have been all but eradicated. Only 50 years after the war, Griffith had reasons to choose and Dixon had reasons to write The Clansman.
The movie wasn't made for the glory of the clan, but of the "necessity" of the FIRST clan as a response to the stealing of lands by Federal Officers, as the Kentucky Griffith family well knew. How Reconstruction went in your southern neck of the woods depended on who your Officer was. If he wasn't bought off by Carpetbaggers and Scalawags, you might keep your house by paying semi-inflated taxes; if he was bought off, God help you- you were out, (that's why so many houses had GTT painted on them - Gone To Texas). Lee said he never would have surrendered if he had know what Thad. Stevens (Stoneman in the film) and Edmund Stanton had planned with misnomered reconstruction. The bitterness from the vengeance of Reconstruction is what precipitated Jim Crow which never would have happened if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede. The Confederacy never would have lasted more than 20 years because of in-fighting. For economic reasons each state would come back into the Union one by one. To be reinstated each state would have had come in without slavery which was on its way out due to the industrial age. Thus there wouldn't have been the loss of life or bitterness against blacks that Reconstruction itself precipitated. With only a few other places, it was mainly in South Carolina where the legislature was taken over by blacks who in the main did not have any education and were the puppets for the Scalawags (white republicans). Historical fact: South Carolina was purposely made the most to suffer (including Sherman's March which was worse in SC than GA) for leaving the Union first.
According to Griffith's film, Birth of a Nation was born in that little cabin when North and South had to defend themselves from a negr0 takeover (the film's words) - thus the clan to the rescue. (Being thrown out for taxes was more common.) Unfortunately the film, shown for 44 straight months in New York alone, caused the rise of the second KKK which had the most members in Ohio and Indiana in the 20s and 30s. After a scandal with the Imperial Wizard of Indiana, clan membership decreased with hold-outs in the South into the 50s and 60s. It was smashed in the 70s with today's off-shoot of ne0-Nazis. You can be sure the KKK is dead because they never would have allowed today's Mexican immigration into the USA and there have not been vigilantes throwing them out with cross burnings, hangings and the like atrocities.
To see the variety of plantation life read Frederick Olmstead's tour of and titled book 'Slave States,' to understand plantation politics. This dedicated abolitionist in today's terms would be considered blatantly racist. But you have to remember that the 'rebellion' started as fight to leave the Union and Northerners were fighting to keep the South in the Union, the fight was not about Slavery. Lincoln emancipated the slaves - a campaign promise he went back on, he said he wouldn't - and only in the South, not for (Grant's) slaves in the North. In 1863 seasoned Yankee fighters left in droves when their 2 year enlistment was up because they were fighting for the Union, not for abolition. Scorsese covered the riots that happened in New York because of the Lincoln's draft in 'Gangs of New York.'
Southern California in 1915 was not very populated, especially by blacks. The film industry had just moved there. "Holidays" were instituted for whole populations of nearby towns to be extras in films. (If you've been an extra you know that where you get placed in a set does not give you a clue as to what's going on in the movie or the script.) There were still a few minstrel shows left, black face was still semi-popular, even blacks put on black face to do their own minstrel shows. It was from this tradition that the not rare black face was used in the film, but also know that these were seasoned actors who knew how to take direction and "act," it wasn't because a black person was excluded, even though it would have been too much for audiences to have seen a white woman falling into the arms of a real black man in 1915 (only 50 years after the war) note: mammy's were OK, but this film's mammy was a man in black face in order act in "her" fight scene (Hattie McDaniels was not in Hollywood yet, there wasn't even a Hollywood yet). Even integrating real blacks in the film, rather than just whites in black face was considered controversial in 1914.
I'm a historian from ultra-liberal San Francisco, so don't call me a racist. History is never politically correct, but it IS written by the victors. That is why it is so shocking today to see this view point, which by the way was then banned in several places, including Boston, and there were plenty of protests at the time. Griffith's father, a colonel in the confederate army, had seen first hand the ravages of war and reconstruction. Only because Griffith was the first director with the ability to produce such extensive film, was he able to decided what to put on film.
Griffith's next film, 'Intolerance,' was his reaction to 'Birth's ...' criticism. If you would see 'Intolerance' before 'Birth...', by today's standards you would say, "What foresight!" (against the death penalty - of the innocent) and much more, his best film).
Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
All America Manics
To not like "Back in Action" is almost unAmerican.
Toon fans will get the joke.
Toon fans will also get keeping up with past events, current events and the Joneses, especially Jones himself who invented manic crazies. It's loaded.
No doubt, this movie will be some film student's dissertation.
Beyond Borders (2003)
Not a Travelogue or Road Trip
That evil and greed exist could not be made more apparent in this film. True evil, the Talibans and the Khmer Rouges of the world, will take their turns in power grabs. Know your enemy. That is how you defeat him. But after this movie, you think: not in this lifetime, as you sit snuggly in your theater seat.
We are in the lap of luxury, and 'Beyond Borders' gives a teleoscopic view into the world of the have-nots. If they could look back at us in those comfortable seats, they may hate us, although it seems to be religious fanatics who are doing that at present rather than jealousy for the abundance we have. Still our blest circumstances are nothing to wave infront of the rest of the worlds' faces. Here is how millions in the world live.
Jolie gives a better and more daring performance than Laura Croft, but her huge lips are still distracting. Clive Owen gave an excellent performance. Owen, who was trained at Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (and it shows), I first saw in 'Croupier' ('98), and enjoyed him in 'Gosford Park.' But 'Borders' is the best movie to suit him so far because he himself considers the dangerous characters far more interesting to play - in this case a doctor who has to 'deal' to get supplies to his relief camps, relief camp being an oxymoron.
If these were not real starving people in real wretched conditions, then hats off to make-up and set production. Whichever. It is likely to quell any starry eyed volunteers or do-gooders. As an ER doc is a particular brand of doctor, so must be these tough-as-nails relief workers who have a stomach and heart mutated for strength and sadness to roll off their backs like water off a duck.
The subject matter will not produce a blockbuster. It is too depressing. But thanks to those brave enough to spend their millions to make the film anyway in order to focus the spotlight on the conditions that exist beyond the comfort of home.
Gods and Generals (2003)
Finally The South Has Some Say
G & G mostly fulfilled expectations. The naacp had a hissy-fit, as did every uneducated American outside the South - so we know the movie has presented the truth. The movie is getting slammed for it.
Victors write the history. They don't want anyone to know the complicated reasons why the Confederates fought. It was not a true civil war, one group trying to take over the government, but a rebellion - called such in the movie. It has been distilled down to only fighting about slavery. This makes me realize how far apart we still are. How deeply entrenched this stupid politically incorrect business has become.
We are still fighting the reasons for the war. The naacp's Southeast Director, Reverend Charles White said, "if it were up to the majority of the people of the state of GA, slavery would still be legal and lynching the law of the land." Talk about politically incorrect!!!! The upcoming flag vote is about the injustices on Georgia during Reconstruction, our heritage, not loosing the war, let alone being about something so obnoxious as slavery. As Lee later said, he never would have surrendered if he had known what "Those People" would do with their victory.
The media and sanitized school books have everybody brainwashed, except those who comprehend Reconstruction. Most would not dare to question if Lincoln was our best President, even though he could have avoided the bloodshed of 600,000 deaths that is not counting the maimed). current war protestors, vocal against Bush, would never think to speak out against Lincoln and the incredible slaughter he backed.
Education is the key here. The difference in education then and now was grossly apparent in the movie. The Yankee critics and self-righteous could not sit through it, because they do not have the background to understand it.
These people actually think that not one family in the South had a good relationship with their slaves. They have obviously never been to a Southern courthouse to read old wills. No matter how often repeated by the Confederates in the movie, that they were fighting invaders and for their country, the minds the self-righteous were closed.
The other problem is that the screenplay was almost Shakespearean. The script was written in arcane language. This is quite a feat. Direct quotes of the generals were there also - the language was "flowery." It would have been impossible to switch from today's dumbed-down language, to the more exact language then.
If there is ever the glare of truth on the lack our education today, this movie exposes it. If you don't have a vocabulary beyond Rap, then the film reveals how much has been lost through the generations. That in itself makes the movie worth going to.
The generals and even a Maine sergeant (Kevin Conway) knew their ancient history - a matter of general conversation then, because there was living memory of Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Washington - all vanishing w.a.s.p.s now - including their reasons for setting up our government.
Then there was the "problem" with the movie's central character, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, well played by Steven Lang. As with "Pearl Harbor," the love story of Jackson and his wife "interrupted" the fighting. Jackson, a professor at VMI, was a strict moralist and truly God fearing man. Tall, lanky and geeky, he always quoted the Bible. If anything will drive the politically correct crowd crazy, it is bringing the Bible and Christianity into the picture. But there it was, an unusual sight to see and hear. That he always wanted to die on a Sunday is true; and his last words on his death bed, "Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees," are exact.
Lt. Col. Chamberlain was well played by Jeff Daniels. He provided good balance, the Yankee reasons for invading the South, and for supporting Lincoln's emancipation when his fellow soldiers wanted to leave because they were no longer fighting to save the union, but to save the "darkies" (arcane).
It involved a cast of thousands of re-enactors (some too paunchy for starving Rebs). But the battlefields were bloodless. If ever a place was a bloody mess, a Northern invaded battlefield was it.
I know this would have been hard to arrange, but the Battle of Fredericksburg took place during a winter of deep snow. The movie did show it was so cold the aurora borealis was seen in the South. Yet never did we see anyone shivering.
The real Battle of Chancellorsville was truly ghastly. As the soldiers fought, the woods caught fire and the wounded burned alive. Considering all the violence we see in movies, I guess this was even too grisly to re-enact.
I have to say "thanks" to Ted Turner. Historical movies are rare - accurate ones harder to find. It is a pearl, an opportunity that has been wasted on the politically correct because, what the Bible says not to do is throw your pearls where they are not appreciated. The uneducated cannot appreciate that which they blind side.
Although this was Stonewall's movie, Robert Duval played R. E. Lee -the best Lee ever, but not seen much which is disappointing. Lee was right, "It is a good thing war is so terrible, or we would grow to like it too much." Here's to seeing Duval calling the Yankees "Those People" - as good a moniker for the naacp as any.
The War was about slavery, state's rights, preserving the Union, defending your state, avenging your buddy, etc. This film presented all those concerns. It's view of the conflict is not a contrivance. "Gods and Generals" does what it was set out to do which was to give an epic portrayal of the war's first years. Overall, it is a good film but not a spectacular one. At three and a half hours it is "The Longest Day" meets "Gone With the Wind." Nine Stars to counteract all the Yankees
Door to Door (2002)
Transformation as Complete as Rain Man
I was sorry that Bill Macy did not take the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a TV movie for his role as Bill Porter. His transformation as a man "only" afflicted with cerebral palsy was as complete as Dustin Hoffman in "Rain Man." Cream rises and Macy portrayed Porter's optimism and determination that brought this door to door saleman to the height of his small world. As jaded as Americans have and continue to become, Porter proves how one does succeed in life. or that "Door to Door" is an inspiration.
Black Knight (2001)
Funnier Than I Thought It Would Be
The best of comedy involves a fish out of water. This movie qualifies with a bumbling black guy from a ghetto of LA time-warped into lily white 14th century England. 14th Century England seems to be popular this year as with the jousting `Knight's Tale' seen in May.
Surprisingly, the gags were not overly repetitive and gross. I absolutely detested Martin Lawrence as `Big Mama.' Einstein's theory of relativity comes into play here, since I didn't find `Black Knight' anywhere near as crude. There is a lot of old time physical comedy and this helps span generations without a lot of bathroom humor.
As with `For the Birds,' the short before `Monsters, Inc.,' the opening scene of Martin Lawrence taking care of his morning toiletry is worth watching alone
and funny without being too gross. It reminded me of something Stan Laurel might do. It also helps that Lawrence has a plastic face like Jim Carrey.
I was surprised to find myself laughing a lot and felt the film is better than I thought it would be. But be for warned, some thought this was the worst movie they have ever seen. I just may have been in the mood for a pick-me-up.
The Curse of the Jade Scorpion (2001)
Retro and Semi-Screwball
Set in 1940, the costumes and set design were a joy to see. The only mistake was the Veronica Lake hair on Hunt and Charlize Theron, that was years later ... and everything was a little too brown. I would have liked it filmed in black and white.
It was not as really nutty as a ''30s screwball comedy, but written like one. Thus the audience was treated intelligently and MADE to listen to the quick dialogue.
If you are complaining that movies today are too violent and vulgar, then this is one to support.
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
A Pinnochio Retread
A.I. is a combination of genres, science fiction and fairy tale, about an abandoned robot on a seemingly hopeless quest to be reunited with his human mother. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. One thing it will do is enrage adoptive parents who also have biological children. Interestingly, Spielberg too has both.
Despite the fantastic settings, animatronics and the super-marketable "Teddy," the movie is an uneven and disjointed mix of Pinnochio, Snow White, Wizard of Oz, E.T., Close Encounters, 2001 and Blade Runner.
Haley Joel Osmet is showing his 13 years, yet carries the film like the pro he is. But his performance does not save or make the picture.
For die hard film fans, Kaminski photographs each scene as a little jewel. However, like the Energizer Bunny the film goes on and on ... it seems a lot longer than its 2 and a half hours.
This is a risk taking film that is in no-man's land between mainstream and independent. It will not be hailed as Spielberg's best, but it has his indelible mark all over it.