Reviews

Harry Potter with swear words. Very slow moving and dull. Special effects are impressive, if that's your thing. Honestly wish it had been better. Oh well, not everything can be good. Surely this review is 150 characters by now.

Not sure how fair it is to Welles' legacy to release this clearly unfinished film. As a curiosity, it's interesting to see John Huston playing a John Huston-like character, to see Bogdanovich playing himself. For me, the cinematography was the only thing that kept me watching to the end -- it was superb."Complex plotting and layered editing" says one reviewer. I didn't see it that way; to me it felt like a jumble of scenes and images with little in the way of narrative. It reminds of the posthumous release of Harper Lee's so-called second novel, which was really just the first draft of To Kill A Mockingbird. A bit depressing to ponder the motives behind both.

My Anglican cum Lutheran grandfather was a projectionist when this movie came out and said he hated the movie, complained that St. Francis was a crazy hippie. I finally had a chance to see it last night, and while my grandfather wasn't exactly wrong, I don't think he knew much about Francis of Assisi, the 12th century Italian visionary.

Zeffirelli's depiction of the life of St. Francis is touching and beautiful. The art direction and cinematography are stunning -- the colours of nature and of the Bishop's court are rich and vivid, unlike the clothing of the Poor Brothers of San Damiano and the poor they served. Donovan's soundtrack works perfectly, and Alec Guiness as Pope Innocent III is wonderful. Maybe Francis was a bit of a crazy hippie, but he was just what the Church needed. Inspiring movie!

Emily Bronte's only novel, Wuthering Heights, was declared difficult and scandalous by the few critics who read it. And shortly after it was published, she died at age thirty, in 1848. If she only knew how her novel would live on in the hearts of so many readers; she was far ahead of her time when it came to fiction dealing with human emotion and passion. It is one of my favourite novels of all time, probably what inspired me to become a novelist myself.

So I was a bit sceptical about how this film version would work for me. The Olivier / Oberon version from 1939 was a mess. The story was almost unrecognizable. But this version is very faithful to Bronte's novel. Cathy and Heathcliff come to us in all their wild, pagan glory here. I highly recommend it.

Ian McEwan's novel Atonement was beautiful: spare and elegant, surprising, thoughtful. Excellent writing, in short, like many of his novels are. So I figured a movie of Atonement would have to be at least pretty good. Oh, how wrong I was. If not for the handsome James McAvoy, I would have bailed early on. The only thing that kept me from stopping the movie and finding something better to do was remembering how much I enjoyed the book. The movie is overlong and self-consciously gorgeous, with long, ponderous shots of scenery and the skeletal Keira Knightley that serve no real purpose except to make this movie seem Merchant-Ivory like. Or something.

Along with Mr. McAvoy, Vanessa Redgrave was the highlight, although she only gets a little bit at the end; she was far and away the best actor in the film. Really, Keira Knightley -- she can't act.

All in all, I feel like this is a couple of hours of my life I'll never get back again. Do yourself a favour and read the book instead.

Mauritz Stiller's amazing film The Saga of Gosta Berling is proof to me of just what an edge the European filmmakers had on the Americans. The cinematography here is often breathtaking. The pacing never flags, and when you're talking about a 180 minute film, that's no small feat. The Kino version I watched, which was the recent restoration by the Swedish Film Archive, also featured a beautifully done soundtrack, something I find that makes such a huge difference -- some of the recent restorations I've watched have featured soundtracks that sound way too contemporary, and I just find that annoying and distracting. Not so here.

But the biggest thing I noticed on my second go-round with this beautiful film was the emotional realism that so many of these wonderful actors brought to their characters. They make mistakes, they regret. They love, they hate, they envy. They are real, believable people, something that wasn't always happening in American films of 1924. Garbo, at this early stage in her career, is already showing star quality. And the now largely -forgotten Lars Hanson is handsome and riveting. Don't let the length deter you from watching this fine and beautiful film.

Bert Glennon's amazing cinematography is the real star here. The film considered as a whole...ehhh. No big deal. You'd think with the rich source material -- Catherine the Great's diaries, whoa -- there would be a compelling story at play here. But von Sternberg's tiresome obsession with Dietrich results in a lot of lingering shots of his perpetually open-mouthed (?) star that slow down any story to a crawl. And let's face it, Dietrich was beautiful but her acting skills were limited.

Too bad. It could have been a great film. As it is, an interesting but flawed bit of film history.

I expected to see Flynn looking out of shape, trying to relive his past glories in this 1948 film. Instead it turns out that in The Adventures of Don Juan, not only is our hero still swashbuckling up a storm and almost as handsome as ever -- let's not forget, ten years and many events have now elapsed since Robin Hood -- but he is also man enough to laugh at himself along with the audience. The role of Don Juan could not be carried off by many actors, and casting Flynn in this role could easily end up being farcical. Instead, he pulls off the role with humour and grace.

And he still looks excellent in tights! More than good enough for me.

Flynn's infamous statutory rape trial took place in the midst of filming Gentleman Jim". Very sadly, things went slowly downhill for his career from here on in. I have to wonder if Warner Brothers weren't already letting go of him, in a way. The production is beautiful, Raoul Walsh is the perfect director for this manly picture, and yet... it's just not the same as the pictures done during Flynn's halcyon days, from Captain Blood through Dodge City.

Perhaps it's partly the unfortunate casting of Alexis Smith as the leading lady. Of course, the love story is very incidental in this picture, and that's probably a good thing because there is zero chemistry between Flynn and Smith. She may be pretty, but she's not much of an actress. Every scene with her made me long for Olivia de Havilland.

On the bright side, there's no denying Flynn's a treat to watch in the ring -- not a waste of time by any means. Just don't expect the love story to amount to much.