Change Your Image
CharlesCalthrop
Reviews
Under the Skin (2013)
Visually good but obscure with contradictory assumptions
I saw this movie based on Anthony Lane's review. One of the frequent problems of science fiction is that characters have abilities or technologies that are inconsistent with their behavior, problems, and situation. This problem does not necessarily make a movie bad, but when such inconsistency is combined with a lack of clarity in the plot and action it indicates an incomplete vision that is impossible to make intellectually or emotionally whole, satisfying, and functional. Scarlett Johansson is watchable, as always, and the picture is visually compelling. The problem is that the movie is so obscure that I had no fear that I was missing something. Some movies require thought and reflection to understand and appreciate, but in this case what is clear is that a convincing concept of what was happening was absent. To me a 6 means I wouldn't mind having missed it, but I don't regret seeing it as a 5 would indicate.
Melancholia (2011)
Beautiful, self indulgent, autobiographical, and delusional
My inclination while watching the picture was to give it a 6, then a 5, but afterward I held off rating while I thought about it. The initial scene in which we meet Justine was obviously intended to fill the viewer with an overwhelming feeling of frustration and achieved that goal. OK, I can take frustration and discomfort for a good cause, but nothing about Justine, one of the two main characters who appeared in the scene, was revealed. Then the picture got underway in setting up Justine's background. She has a horrifying mother, a flaky father, an annoying boss, and a new husband who just bought what he claims is their dream property without consulting her. She snaps, destroys her marriage, her career, and sinks into a deep depression. She starts to come out of it when the end of the world approaches and when the end comes she is the only person who behaves sensibly. I include these spoilers for a purpose. With the help of Wikipedia I learned the following. Justine is von Trier. "I think that Justine is very much me. She is based a lot on my person and my experiences with doomsday prophecies and depression."
http://www.festival-cannes.com/assets/Image/Direct/042199.pdf
Depression is not just a part of the movie. It is the basis and motivation for it. "The idea for the film emerged while he was in treatment for the depression that has haunted him in recent years. A therapist told him a theory that depressives and melancholics act more calmly in violent situations, while "ordinary, happy" people are more apt to panic. Melancholics are ready for it. They already know everything is going to hell."
The link is not allowed here, but is available on the Wikipedia page.
Now there is something interesting to think about. If depression is something like an impedance mismatch between a person and the universe then a depressed person is stuck in thinking about how the universe sucks or stuck in thinking about how they suck, or a combination. To Justine (and Trier), the universe sucks as the following quotes from IMDb show.
Justine: All I know is, life on earth is evil. Claire: Then maybe life somewhere else. Justine: But there isn't.
Justine: And when I say we're alone, we're alone. Life is only on earth, and not for long.
What von Trier says in this picture is that it is a good thing that the world is ending and he shows the end to be beautiful. The sentiment is: I don't like the world the way it is, so it would be beautiful if it were destroyed. That sentiment may be the basis for the attraction of all apocalyptic stories to those who are attracted to them. I can think of no other. However, von Trier goes beyond the misanthropy of apocalyptic yearnings to wish away all life in the universe, which is a grand delusion. In summary, von Trier is annoying and delusional, but honest and he knows how to make a movie.
Drive (2011)
Boring, long, annoying, and too stupid to live
First the good: Drive is cast with excellent actors. Now for the bad. Based on this picture you would not know that most of the cast could act at all. Gosling's performance makes wooden seem lifelike. This must be due to direction because Gosling has been in several recent pictures and has acted up a storm in all of them. Gosling, Mulligan, Cranston, Brooks, and Hendricks are all interesting, accomplished actors. My question is: how did they get sucked into this horrible picture? Either the script that was shot was different from the script they read, or they had guns pointed at their heads.
Every plot element of Drive was so unrealistic that I found it impossible to suspend belief. The characters are equally unbelievable. Less than an hour into the picture I knew how it would end. The only question was whether Gosling's character would survive, but by that point I didn't care. All the characters were too stupid to live. Violence has its place in film, but it is not a substitute for characters, a plot, and a story even when the stupid are getting their just deserts.
Nothing in this picture hasn't been well done in other movies. Drive is derivative of Layer Cake, for example. If you want to see what Drive was trying to be, rent Layer Cake.
One Day (2011)
As good as An Education— excellent
I almost didn't see this picture because Anthony Lane trashed it in The New Yorker. Lane is always a superb writer who is devastating when he doesn't like something and I usually agree with him. In this case I did not agree. My wife and I were thoroughly captivated and moved. This is not a long picture and I felt that it told a complex story very quickly. The theme of both life's rewards and wrong paths, mistakes, blunders, regrets, bad breaks, and how to cope with them was profoundly articulated. We discussed it for the rest of the day off and on.
This is definitely a weepy chick flick, but has enough of the ring of truth of real life to have universal appeal. I have not read the book so I cannot compare it to the movie, nor do I think that is useful to do so. The picture stands on its own.
Hathaway is wonderful, as always. All the acting is top notch. My congratulations to Lone Scherfig for making another great picture. Don't take my word for it, see for yourselves.
An Education (2009)
The essential problem of growing up
The essential problem of growing up is to learn to distinguish between taboos and conventions that are important and those that are nonsense. This picture hit this topic surely and deftly. A number of women I know were creeped out by this picture, others found it uplifting. I agree with uplifting. Peter Sarsgaard does creepy really well. I was hesitant to see a depressing movie and am glad to report that it is quite the opposite. Hornby's script was as good as I have seen. Hornby must know some bright young girls— his creations were authentic and convincing. Even the dull ones were sympathetic and interesting. All the acting was excellent. Alfred Molina and Emma Thompson are as excellent as ever. Olivia Williams and Rosamund Pike both showed chameleon like versatility. I am pleased to see that we will be seeing a lot more of Carey Mulligan. I hope that her choices continue to be this good.
An American Carol (2008)
How do you miss a target as big as Michael Moore?
This picture had more than two good scenes, the first requirement for a good movie as set forth by Hitchcock. Unfortunately there were a lot of bad scenes. The opening terrorist scene was great. The scenes in Cuba were great. I was hoping for a running satire on Moore's movies. The picture could have focused on what a phony Moore is, the fact that his staff hates him, his offensive, idiotic quotes, and his underhanded socialist ideology. For example, the premise of Roger and Me was that Roger Smith refused to be interviewed by Moore. One of Moore's staff finally spilled the beans that Smith granted Moore an interview that was conducted by Moore, but that fact didn't fit, so Moore left that detail out of his picture. There was no need to exaggerate to debunk Moore. I was hoping for a knockout punch to Moore, but they barely laid a fist on him.
Becoming Jane (2007)
A movie for Jane Austen fans
In part due to the mediocre IMDb rating I had low expectations for this picture. I expected a movie picture fantasy about Jane Austen. What I got was an entertaining film that managed to be true to her work. The story has an actual historical basis and vividly depicts the harsh environment out of which Austen's work came. All of her fans, at least one time, when facing injustice, adversity, personal errors in judgment, or difficult decisions, have asked themselves what would Jane Austen have done? Her characters rely on reason and, well, character to get them through life's slings and arrows. Her work is keenly concerned with the consequences of actions. She counsels doing the right thing in spite of immediate adverse consequences because the alternatives lead to worse consequences. Austen instructs in the efficacy of grasping the nettle. All of this is captured in the film. I have a few quibbles, but given the film's accomplishment at getting Austen right, they are not worth mentioning.
I Heart Huckabees (2004)
Amusing, refreshing, misunderstood
I'm too late with my review to help "I Heart Huckabees" at the box office, but I hope I can convince someone to rent the DVD. This picture is based on the ideas of Alan Watts. Good and evil are different sides of the same coin. Life is theater. We are all part of and continuous with each other and the entire universe. All of this was done artfully and entertainingly. Watts would have approved. The cast was perfect. For example, Isabelle Huppert played a French intellectual femme fatale with a calling card saying "Cruelty, manipulation, meaninglessness". How much better can casting get? The narrative has been criticized as weak. There are overlapping stories of people passionately immersed in their personal lives and causes. Some see beyond the theater of life, some don't, just as Watts would have it. I left the theater amused and refreshed.
Elephant (2003)
Hollywood Vampire exploits murdered kids
When a tragedy like Columbine occurs we want some insight into what happened and why. Anything less simply exploits the emotions of the public to the detriment of everyone except those selling the exploitation. Van Sant has made a movie based on Columbine, but tells us nothing about what happened at Columbine or why. Van Sant has made a fiction out of made up stereotypical nonsense. The killers have homosexual issues. The young women have eating disorders. The killers receive a mail order gun delivered to their door after purchasing it on the internet. Imagine how many lives could have been saved if only we prevented kids from purchasing mail order guns. Oops, mail order purchase of guns has been illegal for forty years unless the purchaser has a federal firearms license.
Why make a movie based on Columbine which has nothing to do with Columbine? Columbine has a powerful pull on our curiosity, emotions, and the need to find the meaning in a tragedy. Critical acclaim is guaranteed if a movie is both edgy and politically correct. It could be the next Blair Witch Project.
The only good thing I can say about Elephant is that it has motivated me to buy some books on Columbine to find out what actually happened and, I hope, why it happened..
Magnolia (1999)
My hostility toward the film matches the hostility of the film toward the viewer.
Like many people, I saw Magnolia based on Anderson's work with Boogie Nights. Boogie Nights was a well made picture despite its priggish sensibility, which may have been necessary to get a commercially viable rating. Magnolia, however, is one of the most boring, obscure, pretentious, self-indulgent pictures I have ever seen. This picture is for people who buy Jaguars and like rude waiters. Magnolia is a complete waste of great actors who do a terrific job with characters who have no context in a non sequitur plot. Elements of magic realism are appropriated to juice up a flat story. I will bet that 10 years from now my view of this picture will be vindicated. The real mystery is how this sort of nonsense becomes the flavor of the month. I suspect that the popularity of this picture is based on the desire of people to be in the in crowd, which "gets" avant-guard film even when there is nothing to get.
Elephant (2003)
Hollywood Vampire exploits murdered kids
When a tragedy like Columbine occurs we want some insight into what happened and why. Anything less simply exploits the emotions of the public to the detriment of everyone except those selling the exploitation. Van Sant has made a movie based on Columbine, but tells us nothing about what happened at Columbine or why. Van Sant has made a fiction out of made up stereotypical nonsense. The killers have homosexual issues. The young women have eating disorders. The killers receive a mail order gun delivered to their door after purchasing it on the internet. Imagine how many lives could have been saved if only we prevented kids from purchasing mail order guns. Oops, mail order purchase of guns has been illegal for forty years unless the purchaser has a federal firearms license.
Why make a movie based on Columbine which has nothing to do with Columbine? Columbine has a powerful pull on our curiosity, emotions, and the need to find the meaning in a tragedy. Critical acclaim is guaranteed if a movie is both edgy and politically correct. It could be the next Blair Witch Project.
The only good thing I can say about Elephant is that it has motivated me to buy some books on Columbine to find out what actually happened and, I hope, why it happened..