Change Your Image
michaelsgrant
Reviews
86 Melrose Avenue (2021)
Layered Story Telling
What I like about a good independent film is that with no fancy effects or star power to hide behind, you are left with a much more raw, and potentially real emotional experience. Maybe it's my background in theatre and belief in the idea that 4 boards, 2 actors and a passion can tell a story. It's even better when that story challenges your preconceptions or expectations and gives you more than anticipated. "86 Melrose Avenue" is an Indy film that did this for me.
When you go into a hostage or disaster movie (more on that) you have certain expectations which more or less amount to: I'm going to be introduced to a group of different people with just enough time to learn something about them to differentiate them and hopefully care if they make to the end credits. In a hostage movie you can throw in the variable of whether or not you feel for the antagonist due to their motives or bad circumstances that set up the situation - I generally don't root for the fire/volcano/iceberg in the disaster movie.
"86 Melrose Avenue" starts out with this formula and appears relatively straight forward. PSD leads antagonist Travis to a moment of violence that sets in motion a hostage situation at an art gallery. We are introduced the artist, gallery staff and patrons and given a chance through their interactions to learn something about them. Now the first minor twist comes along to change expectations - all of the characters show some character trait that makes it difficult to fully like them, be it self-absorption, drug addiction, over active libido, overinflated sense of themselves, hints of racism etc. Now the next twist on our understanding. The hostages and the hostage taker begin to have moments of self-reflection on their lives and through flashbacks we begin to learn why each of them has the issues, character traits we have witnessed and they become more fleshed out, real and ultimately likeable. Then, BAM, at the 2/3 mark the hostage situation is resolved in what would normally be a final reel moment and we move into a third act that explores the aftermath. Through a clever ploy of having the police question each of the survivors individually, we get to hear what the experience was like for them specifically and how it has affected or changed them. As the characters are diverse each experience and perspective has its own value.
Now back to my disaster movie note. Usually a hostage movie is either about foiling a hostage situation, or it is told from the hostage taker's perspective and they are the hero trying to right some wrong. "86 Melrose Avenue" doesn't take either track, instead it follows more the disaster movie formula of a group (both hostages and the hostage taker) trying to "make it out alive". A new layer is added to the formula with a look at "how did it effect you" look at the survivors. There is one further layer which is explored and has its own payoff of hope at the end and that touches on Middle East relations. I suspect there was more to that story line that may have been reduced in product to become more of a character layer as the focus shifted to the group as a whole.
I enjoyed the film very much and enjoyed the reflecting on it afterwards. What the film may lack in spit and polish (inherent in a smaller budget and doubtlessly short shooting schedule) it makes up for in layered story telling. The director/writer has a unique story to tell and tells it well.
The Alamo (2004)
Good, Could have been Great
Ok, I've given myself some time to think about what it was that really bothered me about the film. I can't fault the performances; they were all excellent (would have liked more Juan Seguin). The slow time of the set-up to the battle also worked for me as there was some interesting character establishing moments. I think I enjoyed the film up until right before the big battle.
Now I know the difference between entertainment and history, however, so much was talked about this film being the "definitive" portrayal of events that I wanted a wee bit more accurate moments on screen. Length of the film did not seem to me a problem and these few key elements would not in-fact have required much more screen time.
*spoilers*
Several minor inaccuracies didn't bother me Travis left his wife for her infidelity, what's with the thatch roofs on the set, why are the cannon facing the main gate below ground and not on the ramp they are suppose to be, the well was finished in time as Santa Anna cut off the river flowing into the fort, etc) but I think these were important to the story:
*Travis also sent someone to meet with Santa Anna under parlay when the army arrived. His cannon shot was in answer to the terms of surrender with discretion, not a childish temper tantrum to Bowie
*Bowie and Neil had already made the decision to "die in these ditches" so it wasn't Travis's prompting of Bowie that makes him admit the place should be defended
*During the siege, the Texans didn't make only one sortie, but actually made several through out. In this film we just have people huddled down during cannonade.
*The lull that seems to be inspired by Crocket playing the fiddle and one upping the Mexican band, was in fact a part of Santa Anna's plan to lull the defenders into sleeping after over 10 days without sleep. He knew they would be slow to wake.
*Mexican soldiers shivered on the ground for more then 1/2 hour before the cry of "Viva Santa Anna" started going up, rousing the defenders before the actual assault began
*Come on guys, what about the defenders stopping 2 attacks so that the final one happened in light not darkness. We have one single assault caring the fort here, ignoring the 2 botched 1st attempts and the chance to display the bravery of the Mexicans having to cross the bloody ground 2 times
*If you are going to take from Pena's diary, it wasn't just Davy that surrendered/was captured
*What about the man who didn't stay? You can leave out the line if you want, but one man wasn't inspired by Travis to stay to the end. What about James Bonham coming back through the lines with word of Fannin not coming?
*Not a single mention of Goliad? Hello, almost 400 men shot in the back on Palm Sunday? Seems to me that the cry at San Jacinto was "Remember the Alamo . . . Remember Goliad".
*San Jacinto - the Mexicans weren't surprised by the Texans suddenly being there. They were camped facing each other, and waited for Siesta time to attack. Also Castillion was shot not clubbed when he crossed his arms. Santa Anna put on a disguise and tried to escape, his own men gave him away later when they recognized him.
*Santa Anna just a bit too much of a cartoon villain here. A little hard to believe this is the strong man who was elected again and again president of Mexico.
There, I've vented what bothered me. On the bright side the film does have great performances, surpasses all the other films in accuracy (still the above needle me), and the battle scenes are directed very well - VERY well for an inexperienced action director. In spite of my complaints, I look forward to the DVD, and hope it is the Director's cut - and may have a few of the above in it.
Die Wannseekonferenz (1984)
Fantastic
A fantastic film that needs to be released domestically on DVD. For the people who don't mind reading subtitles, this is a very, very good version of the more recent "Conspiracy". There is something more to be offered here by the fact that German actors are playing the roles. I do very much like Kenneth Branagh's performance as the manipulative Hydrich (most captivating since David Warner's double performance in "Holocaust" and "Hitler's SS, Portrait of Evil").
The film, which covers in real time the conference at Wansee where the framework of the "Final Solution" was set, is amazing. The methodical way in which it is handled, shows the real danger of evil when it it's perpetration is done on in a methodical/business like manner.
I think this film is a lesson for whomever thinks that the sins of the past can not be repeated in a modern society!
Genesis and Catastrophe (2000)
Hair prickling wonderful short
I saw this short film when it played at the Hollywood film festival. Appropriately enough it played before a packed house and was the preface for the Marlene Dietrich biography.
The thought of the film still sends a shiver up my arms, and it has the same effect on the people I have described it too.
Wonderful simplistic concept. Like Hitchcock's "Rear Window" which made the audience a voyeur and then made the audience guilty for their pleasure, this film makes you feel sympathy for the protaginist mother and child, and then sends a cold chill down your back when you realize the result of the off sprint. You should see this film as I did, with no concept of the end. It's a bit like knowing the end of "Psycho" and then only appreciating the work, not feeling the effect.
I hope this isn't the last of the film makers we hear. This is the type of fresh talent we in Hollywood need.
The film should be chosen to be a preface for an appropriate big budget film. I won't say what type of film because it would give the story awasy. If you've seen it, you know exactly what I am talking about.
SPOILER - for your sake, do not read this if you haven't seen the film, or it will ruin you enjoyment:
When the lights dimmed after the film, there was a good 1/2 a minute of silence, then a thunderous applause. This came in Hollywood, where a large contingent of the audience was Jewish, and could of all people appreciate the true heart rendering blow of the film.
Well done!