Change Your Image
sQuint
Reviews
Kundun (1997)
Why bother reading IMDB . . .
. . . when semi-illiterate Ebert wannabes will slag off a great and underrecognized picture like this? My belief is that this will be remembered as one of Scorsese's greatest, most beautiful and resonant epics. Criticisms in the main have bemoaned the lack of a voice-over explaining everything, or the "snail's pace" of the man's life story, forsooth, or the fact that the filmmakers should tryo to "make it fun."
This is a film which grows richer with each viewing, an extremely well-crafted work of cinema. That's right, cinema -- telling stories with pictures, from a particular point of view, using words and sound when necessary. Martin has brough us a rich tapestry of a vansished Tibetan world, and marvelous acting performances from Tibetan non-actors -- particularly from the men playing the Dalai Lama's regent and (especially) prime minister. Warm and thoughtful efforts all. It should be remembered that this film is noit meant to be a sweeping history of Tibet -- it is the story of the Dalai Lama told from his point of view. Critiquing a film because it's not written from the point of view YOU'D have writtent it from really negates the thrust of one's arguments.
Please, if you are a fan of cinema and don't demand that you be spoon-fed the plot a la 7 Years in Tibet, enjoy this fine film, alas in a cheap DVD presentation (like almost all of Marty's flick(.
The Quiet Man (1952)
Ah, the dopiness of many a poster
Hard to believe that this harmless and witty little low comedy, John Ford' comic valentine to his birthplace, can engender any negativity amongst IMDB dwellers. But, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
Among the negative comments are things like "John Wayne has never been in a movie that wasn't corny and hokey" (ahem -- "The Searchers" or "Stagecoach" to name but two), "the Irish accents were terrible" (with the exception of Wayne, almost all the principals were born in Ireland), "it's only funny if you think brutality to women is funny" (says nothing of the repeated right hooks aimed at Wayne's jaw by Maureen).
This is a funny picture with, as another poster pointed out, a very Ford-esque subtext. Often beautifully photographed, it plays on Irish (and Irish-American) stereotypes knowingly and deliberately to achieve its effect -- which is to make us laugh. So lighten up, people.
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
The brightest minds in show business
People can "Shrek" about it all they want. Here's the real deal: "Shrek"-style cynicism and sarcasm are easy. The ability to look at the world with a childlike sense of wonder and creativity is a gift. It's a gift the Pixar guys and gals are copiously endowed with. There are more clever, witty ideas in any given five minutes of any Pixar flick than there are in the entire running time of 99% of the crass Hollywood rubbish being foisted on the movie populace. It's a small miracle that these folks are able to do what they do, to say nothing of the technical advances they achieve. To those who say there's no difference between the flicks, please, watch "Toy Story" and its sequel. The advances in fabric motion, just to name one small aspect, are amazing, and take another step in "Monsters."
It's the attention to detail that makes the Pixar movies so great -- detail in the nuances of how a character behaves or what his life is "really" like, detail in the background of scenes, even in small supporting characters. These films are a long time in the making and it's time well-spent. What a treat to be able to sit in a theater with people of all ages and backgrounds, laughing and having a great time. There are few movies for children that adults can abide, much less enjoy. Most of them are insults to the intelligence of the average two-year-old, much less Mom & Dad. This movie, full of life, good cheer, and sincerity, makes the likes of "Pokemon" seem even more like the drab, lifeless and uninspired toy commercials they are.
The French Connection (1971)
A great and important American film
I swore some months ago that I would never post a comment to IMDB again after reading some of the dunderheaded comments made about great films versus the lionizing of pitiful, off-the-shelf Hollywood.
But let me just state here that each and every negative comment here regarding this film either completely misses the point of the film (comments like "I don't know why I'm supposed to care about this awful Popeye Doyle guy"), gives the movie thumbs down because it isn't what the commentator expected ("I expected another Bullitt and got a grim police movie"), or is a cheap excuse to throw around lines like "fundamental nugacity."
I am appalled that this important American film can be relegated by an entire generation of filmgoers to the dustbin because it didn't have enough action, didn't have what THEY wanted it to have, wasn't the movie THEY would have made. That so many of these same filmgoers will praise "Armageddon" or that stinking pile of refuse and reheated Hollywood leftovers, "Gladiator," which are simpleminded, manipulative, base and shallow, says more than any comment of mine can say.
This film was the first attempt to create a documentary view of police work, to present its dark shadings, to illustrate the thin line between the law and the criminal. Its near-verite style was almost revolutionary, certainly for a major release, and it was one of the best and first films to respond, in a sense, to the French New Wave. The performances are top-shelf, the often-improvised dialogue has the ring of authenticity that only months spent with the actual officers the film is based on can provide.
To people who bitch about this picture being boring, I truly pity your limited attention span. To those who criticize its plot, folks, IT'S A TRUE STORY.
Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
Aggressively stupid, and thus, hilarious
J&SBSB is Kevin Smith's aggressively stupid finale to his tales of New Jersey. It's as dopey as it is on purpose, and Kev manages to satirize not only everything he's ever worked on, but just about every excessive, formulaic and asinine thing Hollywood has produced in the last 30 years. I laughed a lot, and although some bits didn't work for me, I enjoyed myself quite a bit.
Since (no big surprise here) most IMDB (and AICN, etc. etc.) commentators seem to judge the film on how well it lived up to their expectations and needs (rather than on its own merits) let me set yours if you haven't seen the picture: it's something on the order of "The Blues Brothers" in which the laws of physics and logic are routinely suspended so the protagonists can make dick and fart jokes (rather than do song and dance routines) at the expense of egotists in Hollywood and on the 'net. You're invited to come along for the ride if you accept that. If you don't, or can't, you won't like the film.
Wo hu cang long (2000)
The parsimony of spirit amongst moviegoers
It's bothered me for some time, the sort of superficial slagging off this movie has received from some commentators here. Having just watched it again, I feel compelled to add to my (much) earlier comments on this picture and respond to a couple of other comments.
First, I would like to address the issue of plot. Some have described it as "paper thin" or "cliche." The extreme over-reliance on plot over story is the Achilles heel of many a film. I realize some people like a complicated plot, but in the language of cinema plot is a framework. Many films today -- I daresay most -- are not made in the language of cinema, and are made in the language of expository prose, including many pictures I like quite a lot. Many films have a complex and intriguing plot yet fail to tell a compelling story.
My point is that the simple "plot" (love stories, stolen sword) and indeed the genre trappings in the picture serve as the framework for a story that is told almost exclusively visually. Almost all of the emotional punch of this tale is told visually, in cinematic language rather than clunky exposition. And what is this story about? Simply, about letting go of who you are, in the face of the fear of who you might be becoming, in order that you might become whom you need to become. The plot is simple, the story, complex and mutlifaceted.
If that sounds like hokum to you, perhaps it's best that you move on to a standard chop-socky picture. Chances are you will not enjoy this rich and wonderful film.
Also, I'd like to comment on the supposed "woodenness" of Michelle Yeoh as remarked by some negative posters. Ms. Yeoh's performance is, in my view, a tour de force. Her character has a world of things happening within, but her culture imposes restraint in so many areas, restraint eloquently expressed by Ms. Yeoh with simple gestures and expressions. It is for precisely this reason that the fight scenes between Ms. Yeoh and Ms. Xiyi have such an elemental and raw power to them. It is as if all that has been repressed is released with extraordinary focus.
Finally, I would like to address two painful comments made by other posters. One opines: "If you want to see a good plot, watch Gladiator." "Gladiator" is a good example of "all plot, no story," and as hackneyed and recycled plot as has been seen onscreen in many a year. It seems to have been assembled, as so many have commented, from old "Spartacus," "Fall of the Roman Empire," and "Ben Hur" screenplays. The dialogue is ludicrous and even the critical plot points dazzle in their banality. The incredibly paranoid, wimpy and unskilled Roman emperor will get into the ring with the deadliest gladiator of all time? Why? So the plot can continue to grind its way forward, clockwork-like, and the emotions of you, the viewer, can be manipulated with appallingly predictable results. Are you not entertained? And yet, what is the story about? There really is no story. Only plot.
Another poster offered: "If a movie had great special effects, but terrible acting and a paper-thin plot, the average 2000/01 moviegoer would scream about how terrible Hollywood was getting. " Cf. my comments re: Gladiator above, and the screaming of every cineaste I know when viewing "Pearl Harbor" or at least 75% of the tripe that is rehashed, assembled from a kit, reheated and served up lukewarm, with a cold and manipulative calculation, to willing audiences who at least appear to lap it up.
CTHD is a unique and heartfelt work that works on levels well below (and above) the superficial level of plot. That people who disdain it do so because of the "paper-thin" plot yet extol the virtues of "Gladiator" explains the ascendance of plot over story, of simplistic exposition over visual storytelling, and ultimately, the slow demise of film as a legitimate popular art form.
Many people, it seems, don't want to be bothered looking below the surface, in art or indeed in their lives. They would much rather have things spelled out and spoon-fed to them. It's so much easier that way, isn't it? One doesn't have to think too much then.
How we feel about art is often a good indicator of how we feel about ourselves. Are you not entertained?
15 Minutes (2001)
Hackneyed and cliche
Finally, a film that dares to speak the truth that none of us will utter: violent tabloid TV is bad for society! One can only hope that soon, films will be made which dare to expose the unrecognized evils of child molestation, drinking and driving, and cheating at Boggle.
This picture is as heavy-handed as they come. The point of the film is to satirize the cultural obsession with violence and celebrity, but the framing gimmick -- two hoods from Eastern Europe film their crimes and plan to get off on an insanity plea, cashing in on their videos -- is so asinine and paper-thin it can't sustain the plot.
A satire should reflect the reality of what it's satirizing, and play off that reality. The villains' plot is so absurd and unrealistic that anyone with the slightest familiarity with the object of the satire will realize that it's implausible -- thus blunting the force of the satire's observations.
The screenplay is disorganized and rambling and although it does provide a couple of shocks and surprises, we don't really care all that much by that point in the film.
The acting is pretty poor as well. In this picture, the two villains get nearly half the screen time. It's a pity, then, that they can't act. Karl Rodin, as the brains of the operation -- what few brains there are -- seems to have researched his role through repeat viewings of Gary Oldman's scenery-chewing performance in "Air Force One." His physical resemblance to Oldman is rivalled by his similarly over-the-top style. As his musclebound partner Oleg, Oleg Taktarov has a thankless task -- mixing mindless brutality with bright-eyed naivete. His chops are not up to the task, and the screenplay paints him into such an absurd corner that his comeuppance is literally laughable.
DeNiro, reliable as always, delivers a decent performance, marred by an unfortunate, pointless and goopy subplot involving his fiancee. Ed Burns, cast here as a piece of wood, is a bore. He's not helped by a screenplay that hands him more stock cliche cop lines than an old rerun of "Police Woman." (My teenaged sisters-in-law liked him plenty, though.) Avery Brooks, best known as "Deep Space Nine's" Sisko, has a bit part that's surprisingly credible. Kelsey Grammer seems to enjoy a role where he can say "f**k" half a dozen times in his first few minutes onscreen -- perhaps a bit too much. And mob attorney Bruce Cutler appears in a pointless and lame cameo.
There are many, many self-indulgent moments in this picture that don't contribute one whit to the plot or the satire. The editing is so inept that it frequently causes unintentional guffaws.
Overall, the film is prententious and tedious; it has pretensions to biting satire but, ironically, in the final analysis it's just another predictable, violent cop melodrama. In fact, in the final moments, a key character gets punched in the face. I literally could count the seconds until it happened. It's that predictable.
Wait Until Dark (1967)
The best Hitchcock movie Hitchcock never made
This is a very enjoyable and suspenseful picture and quite frightening in moments. Well done cinematically, although it is often a bit too obvious that this is basically a stage play. However, many of the most suspenseful moments are more suspenseful because they are in the language of cinema rather than stage. Frequently the composition accentuates a sensation of claustrophobia which contributes a lot to the suspense.
I refer to this picture as "The Best Hitchcock Movie Hitchcock Never Made" because it has many hallmarks of the master's work. First, a quick story summary: recently blinded woman unwittingly comes into possession of a doll which an evil criminal and two henchmen are after. The criminals create a rather involved plot to wrest the doll from the blind woman's possession and mayhem ensues.
First, we have the doll. This is a classic "MacGuffin" in the Hitchcock tradition. A MacGuffin is an object on which the plot hangs, which drives the characters' actions. It could be anything -- a box of chocolates with diamonds inside, a slip of paper with incriminating evidence -- it doesn't matter what the item is that pushes the story along, and indeed we don't know what the doll contains until the last couple of reels -- precisely because it is inconsequential to the workings of the film.
Second, we have the central suspense-building technique of the film, which is that the audience knows what is going on while the protagonist does not. The blindness of the central character affords wide latitude in exploiting this idea. It is a technique often used by Hitch to manipulate the audience, memorably for example in Sabotage and Rope, to name only two. It works here to great effect.
Third, there is really only one "jump out and say boo!" moment in the movie and it is extraordinarily well-timed. After the suspense has been built to a fever pitch and artificially deflated there is an almost cathartic moment of leap-out-of-your-seat-and-scream shock before the last suspenseful moments. Compare it to Psycho, for example, and the final moments in the basement in that picture -- a similar effect on the audience.
Fourth, yes, as some other comments have said, the criminals' plot is a little too involved to be realistic. But like the doll it exists only to produce suspense in the audience. On this level it richly succeeds. Hitchcock by and large dismissed credibility as key to a plot (read Hitchcock/Truffaut for many interesting thoughts on this). If the film is to engage the suspense of the audience on a cinematic level, to such an extent that they suspend their disbelief, the plot's purpose is to provide a framework in which this can occur. Again, the picture works on this level.
Richard Crenna is as wooden as ever, though. His range and depth make me think of what Andie McDowell would have been like if she had been born a male tough-guy. Hepburn does a fine job with difficult material. Arkin convinces as the psychotic criminal.
While not on a par with Hitchcock's best work one would have liked to have seen what the master would have done with this material.