Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Marred only by one thing
11 August 2007
Sometime between 1979 and today, filmmakers have lost the ability to tell a suspenseful story, to flesh out characters, so that today we see more style than substance, more gore and mayhem than plot development.

The Day of the Jackal, Marathon Man, Eye of the Needle, The Boys From Brazil and others will be labeled boring by many here because they must wait for something to happen. A typical example from Odessa is the reunion scene. Voight infiltrates the meeting of old German soldiers, make that old devoted Nazis, gathering in a beer hall. He snaps a photo of the speaker, shouting what sounds like the words of the pre-war Deutschland uber Alles. One man comes and begins his eviction from the hall. In the next scene we see him nursing his wounds, which are far more serious than the pushes we see. Tell me that today we would not witness a brutal beating punch by punch, kick by kick.

Films then used violence to advance the plot, such as the "Is it safe?" interrogation in Marathon Man. Seventies films are no shorter than today's masterpieces, but so much more intricate plot is compressed into their time frame.

Three Days of the Jackal is a perfect telling of a Forsyth book; we never become involved with the characters but watch in fascination. Here we follow Miller (Voight) giving us a horse in the race. I have reservations about the final confrontation with Schell and Miller's motivations but I have none about the story in general.

Only in the score does Odessa fall short; the music sounds almost if it was added as an afterthought and does nothing to enhance moods or foreshadow scenes. Worse, the score seems the beginning of a pattern that continues to this day where in some scenes the music is the main character. Only the bier-hall singing of the old Nazis sounds appropriate.

I rated the film 8 of 10.
59 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Affliction (1997)
8/10
What did you expect?
23 June 2007
A walk in the park, a fine romance, a Indy Jones and the Last Crusade. Come on, a combination of Russell Banks and Paul Shrader, the author who explores a school bus accident and the writer/director from Taxi Driver, or The Comfort of Strangers. Did you really expect a happy ending? The film is a dark side vision of Richard Russo's Nobody's Fool, which Paul Newman and Robert Benton turned into a tale of redemption on screen in that same part of the world. No redemption here. As Wade's brother's final voice-over lets you know that Wade is still out there, reliving his father's life, you are relieved to be permitted to leave this claustrophobic world.

Painful scene after painful scene are piled on each other, none more so than the painful rejection of Wade by his little girl. Children go through periods where their parents are embarrassments to them, but in this case, it is more of a fear than a shame of Wade that makes her want to be in her mother's arms.

This is a great film of uncompromising realism. It is a modern Jude The Obscure, but at least you were allowed to see Jude when he had hope and some happiness, and at the end he simply wore himself out. At the end of Affliction, all that you know is that Wade is out there in the world, his angers banked.

The film works because of Nolte's performance. Coburn has an easier job, but he carries it off. The sub-plots mean little, but show us Wade/Nolte in a field of action, and demonstrate that it is not only his personal life that is a mess.

Odd that Banks' The Sweet Hereafter locale was moved from upstate New York to British Columbia, and this film of bare rock, flinty New Hampshire was made in Canada also.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hollywoodland (2006)
9/10
Reeves as Maguffin
16 June 2007
Hollywoodland is really a tale of the redemption of Louis Simo. The death of George Reeves is the Maguffin that takes our eye off the main story. Simo could have been investigating the auto accident that took James Dean's life, or he could have been transplanted to an earlier or later age, but his finding himself is the main tale of this film.

When we meet him, he is sort of the Sammy Glick of PI's, an almost obnoxious man who knows how to get his name and cases in the papers and knows all the tricks, though little good it does him since he has no idea what is really going on. With his sloppy clothes and his two day beard, it is hard to imagine anyone hiring him. He almost croaks when he realizes he has to put on a sports coat to meet Reeves' mother.

He has this cocky self-confidence and the chutzpah to carry off his role as the rebel detective, but like Jake Gittes, in the end he realizes he is in over his head and that all his play-acting has only resulted in a husband killing the wife he suspects of philandering, and to no definite answer in the death of Reeves.

In the last scene, he is dressed in a suit and tie, sitting outside the house of his estranged wife and child. ostensibly waiting to resume a regular job being the child's father. The fool of a woman looks like she is going to take him back. His days of detection, of being a cut-rate Sam Spade are over.

Brody is interesting in the role. He is like Nicholson but without the edge in his voice. Often his lines are blurred, purposely, so that close attention must be paid. Brody/Simo is acting at being a private dick.

The actor in the film, Affleck as Reeves, never stops acting whether in public or private life. His insecurities are only revealed to Diane Lane, or Jeffrey deMunn, his agent, who gives a wonderful turn to the role. Bob Hoskins comes straight out of his Harold Shand in Long Good Friday. Any minute you expect him to descend to Shandian rage.

The film draws you in, so that by the end you accept the lack of resolution as to the fate of Reeves.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Thoughts in Passing
23 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I liked this film a lot. In four years Gene Tierney went from being Laura to Mrs. Muir with a stopover here to play the disturbed Ellen in "Heaven." Vincent Price lost her in both Laura and Heaven, and in Laura her 'death' almost led to him being arrested for her 'murder.' Her voice always has a rich, creamy sound to it, even when she tries to make it cold in "Heaven." A number have commented on the inadequacies of Cornel Wilde, but to me he is near perfect for this role. Tierney's character is close to Scarlett, with that same obsessive mind that carries the latter through her troubles. Rhett gets wise at the end of GWTW and leaves after fighting her tooth and nail the whole three plus hours. Heaven does not need another Rhett to try to cure Ellen, but rather the story demands a hopeless sap who gets sucked into marriage, and Wilde has just the weak streak in him to do so.

Another parallel that comes to mind is Danny's death and the murder of Mr. Dietrichson in Double Indemnity. Ellen hides her face behind the dark glasses, while Phyllis does not even watch as Walter kills her husband. We watch Danny drown, but only hear Porter Hall's demise.

The trial is a little ridiculous, both in terms of prosecution bullying of witnesses and the fact that Wilde opens his mouth and the case disappears, poof just like that. Had Ruth been convicted, she would have been granted a new trial because of her lousy lawyer.

The film is a lot of fun and well worth watching.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
It's the economy, stupid!
22 October 2006
No dreary long expositions, no lengthy bonding scenes, no reaction shots of the masses waiting to find out what happens; just take your music case down those steps into the subway and wait for your train. My God, what an hellacious way to make a movie. And there is one other miracle here: the funny quips are thrown into the noise, and come across as what people under such stress might say, rather than being snarky lines given to Mr. and Mrs. Pitt or Bruce or Mel and Danny. The latter spout dialog usually complete with a smirk; Matthau and the rest are in too big a hurry to deal with the problem at hand. Read the quotes in the header above; none are followed by a reaction shot but rather the film flows around them. And how nice it is to see the head cop not be a rogue, but rather a simple slob just doing his job. He doesn't out-sherlock them and if it was not for one undercover man, he would be a failure, but he gets the job done. Great flick.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Game (1997)
5/10
Where's Dickens?
28 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The original script for The Game was written back in 1840. Seems this guy is rich, has everything, but is cold as ice. His poor assistant lives on crumbs, and in the first scene he chases those with charity in their hearts out the door. That night he eats some spoiled gruel and has this dream that leads to his salvation.

This script floated about for 160 years. Several tried to make a film of it but were defeated by all the treacle it summoned up. Then Fincher came along and realized what the film needed. Take San Francisco instead of London, wet streets, dark night, threatening music and do the whole thing up again and Voila! The Game.

Douglas plays Douglas and is impressive doing so. Sean Penn is wasted in his part and the others go through the motions. The suspense can grab you because you are not sure if Fincher is going to have Douglas reprise the suicide of his father in the script, a plot device Fancher punched up by use of old home movies. Then you realize Fincher only kills off good looking heroes like the Bradster; he couldn't possibly do this to that A-1 pr--k Douglas, so he will grant him redemption and all will live happily ever after. Btw, the home movies were used to better effect in Michael Powell's Peeping Tom.

I will give Fincher credit: he started to borrow the bloody toilet scene from The Conversation but decided to let us see water. And he must have loved the demise of Malkovich's assassin from In the Line of Fire, but he permits Douglas to survive his fall.

So it is a fairy tale or a fable which is worth an evening's entertainment, but not much more. And seeing it again time is truly a waste of time.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
King Lear has no worries
23 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
from his three children in this film. Art Carney/Harry Coombes talks about the tribulations of Lear, but Harry is the only one of his immediate family who has any life force in him. Son Burt (Phil Bruns) sputters and rants while his wife runs his life and his two sons take off on opposite courses. Number Two son Eddie (Larry Hagman)drives a big car, lives in Hollywood, but hasn't a dime in his pocket while daughter Shirley has been on the marry and divorce merry-go-round though she seems to enjoy the bookstore she runs. Harry must see the futility of dividing his world between these three losers. His desire is to find a new home and go on living a meaningful life.

The story is not plot-driven, which probably accounts for the scarcity of reviews here. The film places its main character in a field of action. Greenfield and Mazursky's script owes a small debt to 'The Idiot' as they take Harry's eviction from his apartment to set him loose in the world at large. Like Myshkin, he meets various people all with their own agenda, but unlike the Russian hero, he does bring about change in some of them.

Carney is wonderful, though too young for the part. He looks like a man in his fifties who has dyed his hair gray and needs a haircut, but once he speaks his words are those of the aged. Listen to his speech, and that of those he encounters. Watch how Mazursky and Greenfield do not take the easy way out. Harry's first encounter is with Jesus, the clerk, who tells him how bananas give him sexual prowess. Harry remarks on this to his friend Jacob, but never again does the writers use bananas as a punch line.

Instead Mazursky lets Jacob take over the film for a precious few minutes, and then uses his death to show us that Harry has more to give the world. "I want to bury my friend," he tells the bureaucrat at the morgue, in an almost angry tone.

Mazursky does this again and again, letting each character give their motivations and fears an airing. Each gets their five minutes to strut and fret their time, and some are allowed more. Melanie Mayron is excellent as the teen girl who picks up with Harry east of Chicago, but from the little we see of cabdriver Muriel Beerman as a taxi driver, we'd like to see her tell us more of her life. Then there is the still beautiful Geraldine Fitzgerald, playing an old flame of Harry's. Her mind is beyond the pale now, but we are not embarrassed to see her, nor is Harry.

The only characters I have quibbles about are Josh Mostel, not because of his acting, but because his character-type has been seen in other films and we can see what is coming a mile away. Chief Dan George is the same Native American stand-up comedian he is in Josey Wales and Little Big Man and adds little to the story. By the way, how does Harry get out of jail in Vegas?

Tonto is a silent Greek chorus, a sounding board for Harry and a plot device for the scriptwriters so Harry does not have to fly. Once he has seen Harry to his new world, it is time for him to go. Good job, Tonto, Art, Messrs Mazursky and Greenfield and everyone else involved.
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The Way Back Machine
14 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I believe I read the book and I'd seen this film when it came out; then two weeks ago I found the DVD was available so I snapped it up. I'd forgotten the ending, more than likely because everyone doesn't live happy after conclusions would never see light of day today. In fact I can't imagine a child of 2006 watching this all the way through. I am not sure if it is because of the window scene in Tampico, or the children's reaction later on the ship to their brother's tragic death. This assumes the kids did not leave earlier when the drunken pirate crew comes to have the governess.

Because of videos and DVDs, children of today want to see the cartoon violence Kevin inflicts on Pesci and Stern, to the sound of "YESSSS" rather than the unplanned mayhem visited on the pirate crew by the Thornton gang. And they would never accept Chavez' fate, done in by Emily's non-intervention and by the stupidity of his crew. Worse yet in today's storytelling, there are no villains, even among the crew. They are not bad men, just superstitious.

I'd forgotten how much of the dialog is in Spanish, as it should be. The film is definitely not dumbed down; it is beautifully shot but do see if in widescreen, else some of the magic is lost.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bittersweet
11 September 2006
That is the quality imbued in this film by Brest, through the writing and direction. It would have been so easy to make a caper film, or a male-bonding buddy picture, but Brest does it the hard way so that we care about the characters and not the story. He fills each role with actors who look real, not pretty, like Charles Hallahan as Pete. He looks like someone who's worked all his life, not a person sent down by central casting.

And he is unafraid to let silence play a roll. How many directors would find 'suitable' music to waft in and out of the soundtrack as the three amigos occupy their bench? Here they sit in blessed silence until we wonder who will speak next, since Willie does not seem to want to open his mouth. When they get to Vegas, it would be so easy to do quick cuts of their winning streak with appropriate music blasting, but Brest stretches the scene so that we are not sure if they will keep their gains.

Any sentiment comes hard earned, like watching Joe stumbling around the apartment after the death of Willie, finding his own album of photographs and reflecting, only to have nature spoil the mood.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
How can I write a spoiler
11 September 2006
when the writers seemed to be making it up as they went along, so that there is little to spoil. This film must have been conceived as a vehicle to get Ms. Goldberg in front of the cameras doing her shtick, raunchy comedy. Vehicles usually have minimalist plots; their purpose is to show off the lead's best qualities. Good,if not great, vehicles are Lucy and Desi in The Long, Long Trailer and Peter Sellers as the immortal inspector in A Shot in the Dark, which as it turned out was the second of the series. JJF made me not care if I saw Ms. Goldberg again. In fact when I noticed her as the center box of Hollywood Squares, I mourned the death of Paul Lynde even more. She operates on the machine gun comic principle that if she hurls enough comments and insults into the mix, some will be funny. She is right; some are, but not worth sitting through the noise level of the soundtrack.
3 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed