Change Your Image
arlev-1
Reviews
Le procès (1962)
Feel the Frustration
The surreal atmosphere and feel to this film is what makes it, in my opinion. Filmed in large, almost derelict, buildings at times, the atmosphere of the film adds a fitting backdrop to Anthony Perkins, a man who's accused of a crime is never told him.
I was left totally frustrated and angry at the end - and that's exactly what Perkins' character must've been feeling throughout for, no matter how hard he tries to deal with the accusations, he only gets further and further away from a solution.
You'll probably either love or hate it - I hate it in the sense that I won't watch it very often, but I love it because Welles has made the film to be so unique that you 'feel' it rather than 'see' it.
Finally, you've no need to know the plot except that Welles turned Kafka's saved manuscript into an indictment of the legal system.
Levity (2003)
Views of Redemption
I've seen this three times now and it gets better each time I see it. It's a bit strange for me to give *any* film '10' but I do so because the strength of the film is in the viewer's participation in the analysis of the film - that is, it's something that you have to take away and think through.
The film displays different characters living out the reality of the way they understand the concept of 'Redemption' and 'Forgiveness'. Without adding spoilers here, let me try and define the characters and their own concepts: To Holly Hunter's character, there's no absolute redemption or forgiveness. To Thornton's character, redemption is something that has to be worked at. To Freeman's character, redemption is almost meaningless because 'what's done's done'. To Holly Hunter's son, redemption is 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. To the kids that Freeman knows and looks after, there's no forgiveness for a wrong, only retribution.
These differing ideas of redemption intermingle throughout the film and reach a climax where pasts catch up with the characters. Although a bitter-sweet, happy/sad ending, the film gives more hope than despair.
The film could be criticised for being slow - as judged by other films. But the slowness adds to the complexity of Thornton's character and adds space for the viewer to think about what's going on.
There! I hope I haven't given the plot away - or the conclusion. The film is most definitely for the person who wants to be challenged to 'think'.
Ignition (2001)
Nice build up, ridiculous ending
When all's said and done, the suspense build-up and chase has been done a thousand times over but it seems to work in this movie until the last twenty minutes when I have two gripes. First, the special effects ain't all that special - that's a real let down for a film that has some well shot action scenes prior and decent suspense. Second, the most implausible action finale (which I won't relate so i don't spoil it for anyone). Surely something more probable could have been thought of? Not to mention the contradictory threat which couldn't have occurred. For what began as a decent film, it was a real shame to be let down so badly at the end.
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
The Racism of 'Birth of a Nation'
Other people's comments about the film should be read - my brief summary is that the film, for its time, content, cutting and so on deserves a '9'. Lillian Gish's performance was, for me, simply sensational while Mae Marsh's character of the 'young, hyperactive teenager' was Oscar-winning material.
That said, I wanted to challenge each and every one who watches this film and who looks at the obvious racism (although it tends to be overly stated by many) to do some research for themselves on the circumstances surrounding the time setting of the film.
Many will shout long and hard (as is their right) that the film is racist - that it makes generalisations about people and groups that can't be substantiated. I would tend to agree with them.
However, I have not yet seen *anybody* research the setting of the film and say 'this is the way it was' and 'this is why the film is wrong'. To be honest, in spite of my research into the matter myself, I have also been unable to determine just what exactly 'happened' and what the 'truth' was.
To see the insertion of the KKK in this film immediately gets one's back up (it did me) - but it wasn't til I did some research that I found out that the original sect ceased to exist by 1871 and was only reformed along *different* lines in 1915 (and partly as a result of this film).
I have no doubt that Griffith misrepresented many of the 'facts' of history but my appeal to each watcher here is to research the matter for themselves - especially those interested in studying film-making - and to see what the true state of affairs was in post-Civil War America, compare it to that portrayed in 'Birth' and see where Griffith chose to re-write history.
Film making is influential. This film was more so than most.
Intolerance: Love's Struggle Throughout the Ages (1916)
Poor
I was kinda forced into watching this film having started reading through 'American Silent Film' by William Everson (a very good book, I hasten to add on, er, well the title says it all) and encountering an entire chapter on, first, 'Birth of a Nation' (which I duly watched) and, then, 'Intolerance'.
I was already a fan of the Silent Screen so I approached it with a great amount of expectation, especially as Mae Marsh and Lillian Gish were in it whose performances in 'Birth' I thought were two of the finest I'd seen in silent movies.
However, in my opinion, the film is as poor as 'Birth' is brilliant.
Sure, there are a great amount of high spots when you look at film technique (such as the moving camera in part two that zooms in over the heads of the crowds - and the grand sets of Babylon are stunning to say the least) but the film is a mishmash of ideas that are forced into employment as examples of 'Intolerance' when you could view alternate characters as equally displaying the trait.
The film started life as the 'Modern Story only' prior to 1916 which was then used as the basis to have the other two main and one rather sketchy story cut into it (the Jesus narrative is, to be honest, not a story but a series of excerpts from the life which support the other three stories at certain points). To me, it shows - it's just *too* chaotic a film to be enjoyable (even by 1916 standards).
A couple of other points - Mae Marsh's performance is semi-decent although there appears to be a bit too much over-dramatisation at points while Constance Talmadge's character (the Babylonian Mountain Girl) although sometimes implausible is a nice humorous insertion (I used to know a girl like that!).
Why Griffith gave Lillian Gish the sole acting role of rocking a cradle throughout the film with no other input, I can't imagine (there must've been some good reason for it) as her acting ability was, for me, the highlight of 'Birth'.
If you're a movie-buff, this film is a must-see. Don't miss it! But, like me, you may wonder 'Why?'.
One lighter point - did anyone notice that where the train stops is the same place that Keaton used in 'The Goat' for the shot of him riding the train?