Change Your Image
joeorewan
Reviews
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Holy Overrated Movie, Batman!
Let me start with a little autobiographical information. One day, I wanted to see "A Clockwork Orange" because I heard it was an awesome movie. But, I decided it would be more spiritually rewarding to read the book before I watched the movie. At this same time, I was assigned a research paper for English class, and I decided to do it on "A Clockwork Orange". So, I read "A Clockwork Orange" in detail, studied the Nadsat language of the malchicks'. I read criticisms, more criticms, analytical essays. And then, I decide, ah gee, I'm going to watch this movie. And yes, I am an avid movie watcher and I claim to know what I'm talking about when I say this or more correctly write this. Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" is a perversion of the novel. He deep down wanted to make a porn and decided he's going to interject it within the story of "A Clockwork Orange". What was the point of the sexually explicit material? There is no connection between it and the novel by Anthony Burgess. There wasn't sex in his story, there was rape and the ravaging of innocence. There was nothing sexy about it. So why then do these big chested, curvy Playboy bunny-type women "get raped" with little to no struggle (I think one assisted in taking her clothes off) and in the book they are 10-11 year old girls who have yet to have big breasts and gorgeous hips. A minor detail overlooked by a director's arrogant vision. And then there's the old lady who is brutally attacked (then murdered) by Alex. Very old and decrepid in the book with no capability of defending herself except with her copious amounts of cats (I think I saw five in the movie, in the book there was like twenty). In the movie she is limber, probably early 50's and is killed by a giant phallic symbol. In the book, it was a bust of Beethoven. It was so significant to have the music destroy this lady, not this huge phallus. What is the point? The point is, o my brothers, is that Kubrick I believe is a sexist man who wants his victimized women to be dominated by large maleness (aka ceramic phallus). I will admit one thing good that this movie accomplished, the comedic tone of the book. The lightness of the language and Malcom MacDowell captured the humor well, BUT he was too old to be Alex. Alex is fifteen which makes it all the more CREEPIER. The actors were too old to be playing a gang of teenagers. Hmm, what else....oh yes the violence and the underlying theme of freedom of choice. The violence, not at all shocking, but then again I've grown up to "pulp fiction". Not that I need the in-your-face style, but I think that's what Kubrick was going for. He doesn't leave it for the imagination, but fails at providing grotesque imagery that would make you feel sickened by the violence. And the freedom of choice, yes the prison chaplain has his famous line, but I think the ultimate point of this movie is lost in once again Kubrick's obsession with sex. If you want Kubrick-directed naked people I suggest "Eyes Wide SHut". At least then I get the point. But here, he fails. He doesn't do enough justice to the book. He strays from the Anthony Burgess's vision too far. Sure, it's more faithful than a lot of Hollywood's book adaptations, but it could have been done so much better. This book was practically begging to be made into a movie with it's already picked-out soundtrack. But I honestly feel that if people read the book before jumping on the hype band wagon back in the '70's, we wouldn't look at this movie with such awe.
Eye of the Beholder (1999)
Ugh
I've repeatedly watched this movie to find redeemable qualities in it and I've found them. I really like Marius De Vries musical score and I like some of the scene transitions through the snow globes, and there are few raw acting moments between McGregor and Judd (like in the cafe or when he puts a charm in her hand as she is sleeping). But that's it. The story...is there a story? Is about a surveilance expert who becomes obsessed with a serial murderer after seeing her kill someone. He feels a connection to her because he lost his wife and daughter because he's too into the isolationism of high tech equipment and Judd's character was abandoned by her father. What follows is just plain imagery not connected by logic, story, or character development. What makes it even more annoying is that director Stephan Elliott thinks he made an awesome film. NO! Maybe on a technical level it's kind of cool because the editing and use of CGI was kind of neat to look at. The costuming was neat to look at, but I keep feeling like I missed something. I think the overall error in this movie is that this should have never been a movie. Eye of the Beholder was a book and should have stayed in a book. I believe that the book can make more sense out of the pretension in this movie.
The Serpent's Kiss (1997)
It's a nice movie but would have been better in a different form of media
This story is about a young, Dutch landscaper, Meneer Chrome (Ewan McGregor), who plans to create an extravagant garden for Thomas Smithers and his wife (Pete Postlethwaite and Greta Scacchi). His real plan or the real motive of this garden is to bankrupt Smithers so the not-so nice Fitzmaurice (Richard E. Grant) can seduce Smithers's wife. But Chrome begins having second thoughts about completing the plan after he becomes fascinated by Smithers's daughter Thea (Carmen Chaplin). I think people who have criticized this movie are far too harsh. I found it to have an excellent story with a talented cast. The performance that I felt most touched by was Carmen Chaplin's. Her struggle to find disorder in a world that wants to have order is an interesting element to the story. What I didn't like was the movie's pacing. I felt the message the movie was conveying that you can not control nature. I think this theme would have been better expressed in a short story or a short movie, not a feature length film. A part from that, I can sit through the hour and fifty minutes and feel glad that I saw this movie.
Brassed Off (1996)
I felt this movie suffered from an identity crisis
When I watched Brassed Off for the first time, I felt disappointed. I was expecting as I had seen from the trailer a funny, small-town British movie about a brass band and their dealing with competitions and a mine closing. But it wasn't funny, or the funny parts of about it were few and far between. This movie wanted to be a misfit-gets-the-big-award movie, an inspiring-leader-is-dying movie, a comedy, a romance, a drama, a government-keeps-the-people down movie. But by trying to overcome the conventions of all these preceding genres, it becomes conventional and misguided I felt. It didn't get the best out of the actors (except for maybe Pete Postlethwaite who adds flair to gusto to any performance). Ewan McGregor and Tara Fitzgerald can offer more to a movie and the story didn't allow them to progress their characters all that much. AND I didn't feel a whole lot of chemistry between Fitzgerald and McGregor so I didn't feel a whole lot for their romance. The only thing I felt for was the story of the man who was busting his butt to get food for his family because the mines had closed. This part of the storyline had me thinking, is the romance really that important? Shouldn't they focus on the gut-wrenching fact that this mine were these people's lives and once you took it away, what could they live on? But it didn't focus on that, so I could only have so much feeling for this part of the story. And by the time Pete Postlethwaite's character was in the hospital, I had little feeling for that because it was another tragic thing piled on more tragic things. Had the story smartly balanced the comedic factors and the dramatic factors (so that by being funny and then turning sad, it makes the sad parts sadder) I think it would have been an excellent film. But please, I have seen better misfit-films and romantic comedies, seeing this one does not make anyone the wiser. If you want a better political films combined with comedy I suggest "The Full Monty" and "Billy Elliott".
Blue Juice (1995)
Silly but not terrible
This film is not a great film. On some accounts, it's not even a good film, but it has a silliness to it that is kind of endearing. It's a grade more serious and better than Beach Blanket Bingo, but throughout it I was hoping they'd break into song or do the swim or have Frankie Avalon or Annette Funicello appear. It's a film I'd recommend for a party. It's not too "smart" but it's not too "stupid" and you could walk out of the room for a moment and still know what's going on. The film's story deals with J.C. who's having a heck of a time with facing the fact that he's thirty. His girlfriend Chloe is trying to tell him that you can be fun and carefree, but still be mature and responsible, but this message is somehow not hitting J.C. over the head. Trouble starts brewing more when J.C.'s best friend, Dean, comes into town. Dean needs to have J.C. surf a gigantic wave to make an interesting news story so he can get some money because Dean has had some financial and drug troubles. Then J.C. is faced with the problem of choosing between his friend or his girlfriend. I'd recommend it to someone who wants to watch a fun, silly movie.
Scarlet and Black (1993)
Entertaining period drama
I'm not usually attracted to BBC dramas. That tends to be something I find more suitable for my mother, but being a recent Ewan McGregor fan, I was intrigued by this series. I find it quite entertaining with excellent acting. The story is about Julien Sorel's journey through his young adulthood. He goes through his life imagining himself being mentored by Napoleon, and he "conquers" his love interests as the world presents challenges for Julien's love affairs. Alice Krige and McGregor have a wonderful chemistry together. I like the tension in Rachel Weisz's and McGregor's chemistry because it alarms the audience of the danger this woman could lead to. I enjoyed this love affair show more than most because it also makes aside comments on religion, politics, and upper class versus lower class. I would definitely recommend this movie even to people who don't believe they could enjoy a "costume drama."
Velvet Goldmine (1998)
Well written and acted characters
When I first saw this movie, I didn't like it. I didn't understand the heightened world of glam, the sexuality, and the people in this movie. But then I saw it a few days ago for a second time, and this is a truly beautiful movie. The story begins when Oscar Wilde is left on a doorstep of a house, with a green jewel pinned to his blanket. He introduces the sexual revolution to the world. But it still remains quiet. The jewel is passed to one generation to the next. Then Jack Fairy inherits the jewel, gets beat up in the school yard, but smiles as the blood on his lips looks like lipstick. He can't wait to take over the world. Flash ahead to the early seventies, where the revolution is in full swing. The head of it all is Brian Slade with Curt Wilde and Jack Fairy as his supporters, but Brian lets it all go with a fake assassination. Ten years later, the revolution is forgotten. The color and wonder is gone. Arthur Stuart, a reporter, is asked to do a story about Brian Slade and where he went after the fake assassination. Through interviews of people, Arthur not only goes back to the past of Brian Slade, but to his own past. Arthur tried to forget his past, but realizes he should have embraced it. Jonathan Rhys Meyers was excellently cast as Brian Slade, an ego-maniac, yet beautiful and mysterious pop star. He's just so wonderful to look at and he can reflect so much feeling in his face. But his character, I believe, is the most despicable. Ewan McGregor is also excellent as the kind of hilarious and over-the-top Curt Wilde. I think that Curt Wilde is one of the more tragic characters of the movie. Heroin was his "main man", but once he was off it, Brian was his main man, but Brian's ego became too huge leaving Curt scarred. There was a love between them, but the commercial side of Brian destroyed it from ever becoming more than just a publicity stunt. Curt is the only character that ever stayed true to himself in the end. Toni Collette's Mandy Slade is also another great character. She is Brian's American wife who puts an act on as a London hipster. She's all glammed up until Brian's ego and drug addiction snaps her back to reality, and the walls she had built up are torn down and she feels hurt like Curt. And then Christian Bale's Arthur Stuart is like the icing on the cake. His is the character that goes through the biggest change. He's a wide-eyed innocent teenager who embraces glam rock and loves it because it speaks to him. He leaves his oppressive world and lives it up in London and loves it all. But the scene dies, and so does the person Arthur was. When he looks back into his past, he finds himself again, but he doesn't don make up or glitter, he wears a smile on his face and holds those moments to his heart. (Spoiler) Which is why the jewel is passed on to him in the end. He embraces the past and remembers the glory, and carries on the torch of it in his heart. That is the true revolution. Finding yourself and loving yourself. And I felt that there was a story to this movie. That the stylish images had more meaning than just stylish images. And I love it. It's great. I think its a wonderful celebration of glam rock and the world that was moving around it. 9/10
If you like this movie I suggest "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" and "Hedwig and the Angry Inch". "Rocky" because I think it is also a celebration of glam rock and a nice last hurrah of that era, and "Hedwig" because it is about finding yourself beneath the glitz and glamour.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
Snooch to the nooch!
I laughed until I cried, and anyone who didn't, didn't deserve to possess the ticket to this movie. This movie was great to anyone who loves Kevin Smith films and who understands Jay and Silent Bob. Jay and Silent Bob, or Jay in particular, represent the guys in life who have high school way past them in years, but still want to go back. This is the dilemma for the guys in the movies in "Clerks", "Mallrats", and "Chasing Amy". All these guys were in need of growing up, but they couldn't, they wanted to stay in the past. But as so many years go by, they are forced to grow up...leaving the only two males in the Askewniverse who haven't...Jay and Silent Bob. So in the last chapter of the Askewniverse, we are forced to see how Jay and Silent Bob handle the real world. And they can't. They are like a pair of junior high kids stuck in a thirty year old's body. They make fart jokes, offend people, and say what is on their mind because they don't know any better. Or any worse? They speak their minds and they don't care about the consequences. That is why Jay and Silent Bob are celebrated. Why the characters in "Chasing Amy" made them into comic book characters. The reason Kevin Smith focused on them for once is because they are the last children of the Askewniverse. So, Jay and Silent Bob head off to Hollywood because some kids on the internet are dissing their comic book and soon-to-be movie alter egos "Bluntman and Chronic". As they head off to Hollywood, they steal a orangatan named Suzanne. But really, they were scape goats for a jewel heist. Anywho...unlike the male characters of "Clerks", "Mallrats", and "Chasing Amy" they don't have a catharsis where they learn for the worst. They just become famous because they haven't any concerns. They don't need to learn about life, they have their own unique grasp of it. Besides, aren't they the ones offering the guys advice in the previously mentioned movies? Well, this is how I see Jay and Silent Bob. Maybe I thought about it too hard and developed this analyzation of them. But I think they're wonderful. This movie is wonderful.
Snatch (2000)
Guy Ritchie is growing as a writer
After seeing "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" I really enjoyed the twisted (and sometimes confusing and in need of multiple viewing) story line and the mixture of comedy and violence. So when I saw that Guy Ritchie was at it again I was enthusiastic about seeing "Snatch".
"Snatch" is a lot like "Lock Stock" in many ways. The formulas are exactly the same, and we have quirky characters, and scene-stealing Vinnie Jones always ready to slam a guys head in a car door. And of course a lot of underdogs getting to the top by some freak accident. It's differences are the presence of American actors (Benicio Del Toro, Brad Pitt, Dennis Farina) and in some ways it is more American. It's a lot more violent than "Lock Stock" and has more of a darkness to it.>
I'm teeter tottering whether I like the more violence and darkness in this Guy Ritchie project. I don't know whether I'm a big fan of the violence in this one, or maybe I just don't like hand to hand combat. The darkness is attributed with characters who have more depth than the characters in "Lock Stock". Though Brad Pitt's character is very funny, there is a moment, when his caravan is burning down, of a sad intensity in his eyes, there was nothing like this in "Lock Stock".
I think Guy Ritchie's character development shows that he has grown more from his first project. Though he is following the same formulas as his previous work, there is more elements added to "Snatch". I highly suggest if you haven't seen "Snatch" or "Lock Stock", I suggest seeing "Lock stock" first. Because they are highly comparable (as if you couldn't tell) and "Lock stock" will help you bone up on the way Guy Ritchie writes and directs. I also suggest if you're new to Guy Ritchie to get a pad and paper and play connect the dots between all the characters. It's kind of hard doing it in your head like I did when I watched "Snatch."