Change Your Image
brad_and_ethan
Reviews
Sleepy Hollow (1999)
Not Sleepy, but Hollow to be sure...
Having just watched the Canadian production of 'The Legend of Sleepy Hollow' (the full and correct title), I was eager to see what Tim Burton had done with this classic American tale. What a disappointment! This movie falls down in nearly all departments, especially the screenplay. First of all, what is the point of making Ichabod Crane into a detective? Exactly where is the mystery?!! Hello! All the beheadings are just too much; come on... And what's with the witch character? It's as if, 'Mr. Crane! Mr. Crane! I happen to know that a witch lives in that cave over yonder... She has no purpose in the story other than to let the SFX crew indulge in some CGI bug-eyed antics.' Really... Heck, that Disney short film from 1972 is better than this...
Viskningar och rop (1972)
Overrated Bergman - Autumn Sonata is better...
Not being familiar with Bergman's chamber films, I was eager to see them. I had seen 'The Seventh Seal' when I was a teenager, but had never seen his films past 1969. I just watched this film on DVD the other week. I must say I was fairly disappointed. It's a beautiful film no doubt, but there's a lot of ambiguity in this film. Karin's masochism stands out in this respect. I read several other reviews on this board (most of them take a superlative attitude about it), and something struck me: They can't explain the film on a thematic level; all they talk about is how visceral the film is. This film simply doesn't play enough cards. Last night, I finished watching 'Autumn Sonata'. I thought this was superior to 'Cries and Whispers' simply because there's more going on (certainly between the characters!). I think the people who love this film are mainly Bergman fanatics who feel he can do no wrong. I had a friend who was a Kubrick fan, but this director has his limitations as well... Wake up people...
There Will Be Blood (2007)
Blows "No Country" Out of the Water!
I finally saw 'No Country for Old Men' on DVD, after it won Best Film at the Oscars. I was outraged at how shallow and idiotic this film was. Then, I was curious to see the other contenders. I just saw 'There Will Be Blood' last night on DVD. This has to be one of the best Hollywood dramas in the last 5-10 years. It makes 'Old Men' look like crap! There's much more going on in ONE SCENE in 'Blood' than the entire 'Old Men' film! The main dramatic conflict in the film was Plainview vs. Sunday. I thought that this would be developed to the Nth degree, but for some reason they put Sunday on a train to some mission. I think they should have had them locking horns throughout the entire story. However, their conflict generates some important themes that the film is wrestling with. I can't wait to see this film again, and again, and again... Shame on the Coen Brothers! Let's take that Oscar back from them!
El espíritu de la colmena (1973)
So overrated...
I don't know, some people just love to jump all over certain minor films and exalt them. "Spirit of the Beehive" is one of them. I read all those theories about the allusions to Franco, Spain, etc. Come on, there is no emotional/spiritual reward for suddenly connecting Frankenstein to the father, or Franco, etc.! And what was that pointless anatomy scene in the school? There is a hint of drama between Ana and the refugee, and also the father, but it's not enough to hold this film up. One of the best films about childhood?!! Oh please, this film can't even touch other masterpieces like The 400 Blows or Pixote. I'm sorry but this film is simply too aloof and disconnected to merit further discussion/interest.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
RE: Yep, It's Official - It's OVERRATED...
I had a bad feeling when this movie won Best Film at the Oscars. I hadn't seen it yet, but there was a sobering article in the L.A. Times alluding to this film as a simple chase movie. And that's about the gist of it. The only humanity in this film comes from Llewelyn's wife and the sheriff. Beyond that, there's just no depth to this film. I was a film student at Maryland. I'm 43, and I have seen some of the greatest films ever made - foreign and domestic. I have also seen everything in between. Some reviewer said this was a 'brilliant examination of fate'. Huh? Really, how much depth is there in a coin toss to determine if the killer slays his victim or not?! The saddest part of the film is Tommy Lee Jones' character. He hovers around basically doing nothing, and just mildly investigates the crimes. He never encounters the 'good guy' or the bad guy until the good guy's dead. He misses the bad guy, BTW. Unfortunately, I didn't see the other candidates - but I figure at least ONE of them has to be better than this slick B movie...
Scarface (1983)
Cheesy - PERIOD.
I love how people try to defend this film. The problem is, they can't come up with any valid arguments for it. What this ends up being is a flimsy melodrama with nothing to say. Yes, Al Pacino delivers an incredible performance - but a great performance can't save a bad script. The only redeeming character in the piece is Tony's mother, but she barely has any screen time. The production values are high because it's a studio product. The relationships are never developed to any significant degree, and most of the lead characters simply fall in line with the life of crime and excess. I haven't seen the original, so I can only criticize on its own.
El orfanato (2007)
Can't Use Superlatives with This One - SORRY!
Don't be fooled by other reviewers throwing out these 10 out of 10s; this film is decent and easily passes the time - but it adds nothing new to the genre. Alas, it is full of all those typical horror clichés we've seen throughout the years; i.e., things that go 'bump' in the night, shock cuts, etc. On the plus side, there's no denying the production values, including the acting. The one thing that's kind of mysterious (or a letdown if you will) is when we realize that Laura is dead, and has joined her son and the other children on the other side. We don't know exactly when she died; we assume it's down in the basement - where Tomas used to be kept. The Innocents (1961) is STILL the best horror film ever made - SEE IT!
Frankenstein: The True Story (1973)
"The Process is Reversing Itself..."
What can you say about one of the best TV movies ever made? I want to apologize in advance because I wanted to talk about the novel, which although I read just a few short years ago my memory is failing so I apologize in advance for inaccuracies. First of all, this has to be one of the greatest stories ever written. It's just so rich in themes, and I think when someone takes the novel on, the closer they adhere to Shelley the better. The clichéd Frankenstein's creature the lumbering, mindless killer just can't hack it on a thematic level. This version's creature is not exactly verbose, but his emotions and feelings toward his creator are never in doubt, and vice-versa. To be honest, the novel was far from perfect, and curiously gave the creature a first-person dialogue in many chapters. In lieu of this, the novel I think begs to be adapted to the cinema because its premise is so strong and the drama alone between Victor Frankenstein and his tragic creation effects a lot of dynamism. The only problem I had with the adaptation is Polidori. I don't recall him being in the novel (forgive me if I'm mistaken), and his motives are not that clear in the story. Hence, he really does feel like a fifth wheel in many respects. Witness the fact that he happens to be on the same ship bound for America as the Frankensteins. After the death of Prima, one could say that Polidori's role should come to an end. I think the disintegration of the creature in this version is a novelty, and I think it worked very well.
Alice in Wonderland (1966)
Hardly a Masterpiece... PLEASE!!
I recently bought this DVD, and finally had a chance to sit down with it - and also with the director's commentary. You know you're in trouble when they get the film's director to do a commentary; they're more often than not extremely biased toward their 'baby' - and Mr. Miller is no exception. Okay, the 1972 version is not perfect, but I could watch it again and again - as opposed to this ambitious misfire. Miller defends his postmodern interpretation with something like, 'Well, Alice in Wonderland is basically melancholy, and that's why Alice is sullen, etc.'. That's a pretty general statement about this work of fiction, isn't it? It's a lot of things, Mr. Miller. It's absurd, humorous, ironic, ridiculous - not just melancholy. The scene at the Mad Hatter's tea party nearly put me to sleep. The scene from the 1972 version is far more dynamic and entertaining. The problem with champions of this film is that they mistake form and style as heightened content. Some filmmakers understand this relationship and make it work better, filmmakers like Antonioni. This director is just trying to be different for it's own sake. Sorry, I give this a 6 only because of the great talent he assembled.
The Paradine Case (1947)
Passable Hitchcock with some Pretty Precarious Penmanship
I recently picked up Hitchcock/Truffaut (my other copy was in the basement of me mum's home in Maryland) again, just having seen this film. I have seen many Hitchcock films, most of them the more popular, cited ones. I agree with Mr. Moreno's review (the first review?) in that you don't need a lot of whiz-bang or heavy-duty suspense in a film; pure dramatic suspense is enough for any cineaste. However, I think Mr. Moreno goes too far in extolling this film. It has several handicaps. The most outstanding one for me is Mrs. Paradine's seduction of Keane. Deep into the trial during an adjournment, Keane finally says something to the effect of, 'And to think I was an idiot to fall in love with you'. I just didn't 'get' her seduction of this man! I just didn't see enough evidence of any possible love/lust relationship. I mean, they didn't even KISS once during their meetings. If he were really being seduced, I think we need more evidence to believe in their 'relationship'. And this is caused by an insufficient screenplay. Also, as Hitch himself pointed out, it's hard to follow the trial because we don't see the house/rooms well enough to orient ourselves when the attorneys cross-examine the witnesses. It might've been interesting if the audience were privy to what actually happened that night, or at least an INKLING of what happened. I think the best thing this film has going for it is the question of conscience and dramatic situation of Keane. I'm glad I finally saw it, but I'd rather watch 'Vertigo' again...
Topaz (1969)
More for Fans of Hitch...
I give this a 'Seven' instead of a 'Six' only because I'm a huge fan of Hitchcock, and the film has possibly the greatest death scene/shot in movie history (the death of Juanita). The other reviewer hit the nail on the head when he/she wrote that most people are used to 'faster' or more 'suspenseful' Hitchcock, and truth be told, I believe that is how he should be remembered (I mean, is there anyone else who came close?!!). However, 'Vertigo', which many claim is his masterpiece, doesn't really fall into the staple Hitch canon, although it does produce its own kind of suspense because we don't know what's going to happen with Scottie and Judy/Madeleine.
The production values are high of course, being a studio export. And, if you didn't know Hitchcock directed the film - and then watched it, you would know soon enough. Why, the flower shop scene or the bribing of Uribe - are classic Hitchcock tactics.
Overall, this story is not that suspenseful despite the incredibly dire historical context. Things get a little more interesting with scenes like when Parra's lieutenant recognizes Devereaux in the Castro speech crowd - but it's Devereaux's Cuban contacts that suffer for his probing, not him. In light of this, a felt the film generated a good degree of pathos for freedom fighters the world over - especially when Mrs. Mendoza is holding her dead? husband in her arms, just before she gives up Juanita to Parra.
And for what it's worth, I think Hitchcock's cameo is one of the best he ever had - hilarious!
The Desert Fox: The Story of Rommel (1951)
Haphazard Rommel Bio
I bought this film on DVD recently. I probably saw most of it, or at least bits of it while growing up. Being an avid war film buff, I watched any/every movie on WW2 I could get my hands on. Aside from the military history interest, and the great general Erwin Rommel, I was looking forward to see James Mason interpret the historical role/character. Unfortunately, the results are mixed to say the least. The opening 'teaser' scene, which is based on historical fact, is very good. Going on very little dialogue, the final line from the dying commando, "Did we get him?" is superb. The film then adapts a semi-documentary style, telling of Rommel's stature and exploits. It then picks up after the Allies took back Northern Africa, when the seeds for the plot to assassinate Hitler were sown. And, the inner conflict regarding Rommel's decision whether to take part in the plot forms most of the drama. However, this is dramatized too mildly. The characters who're at stake for Rommel namely his wife and son Manfred are almost non-entities in the film. The brilliant actress Jessica Tandy is shoved to the background for the most part. It might've made for incredible drama to see them discussing the morality and inevitable consequences of taking part in the plot. In lieu of this thought, it might've been more suspenseful for his wife to know ahead of time about the plot, rather than 'drop the bomb' on her at the last minute. In hindsight, her most emotive moment comes at the end of the film, where she whispers 'Goodbye my darling' as they take Rommel away to his fate. Manfred's character is reduced to a simple hero-worshipper, with a complete 'gee-whiz' persona. Hence, his character is almost a total waste of time. This was yet another chance for the screenwriter to exploit the situation, develop their relationship, and hopefully touch on supporting themes for the story. The only scene with Adolf Hitler is far too clichéd. The Fuhrer is portrayed as a frothing maniac, who's of course looking down on all his generals. Of course, Hitler sometimes appeared just like that but for the purposes of this drama and/or situation, the scene demanded to be written differently. The way he wrote Hitler was the easy way out for the writer. It just makes Rommel's decision to take part in the plot more easy but if anything, it should be DIFFICULT for Rommel to help push the button. The D-Day invasion sequence is spoiled by a lot of American patriotic songs playing in the background, i.e., "Anchors Aweigh", the Air Force's signature song, etc. These songs are simply out of place. The denouement of the film is another letdown. A simple scene with the staff car riding into a forest, disappearing, and then a single gunshot ringing out would've sufficed; but instead the film goes back in time to recount Rommel's exploits and quote Churchill.
Decision Before Dawn (1951)
Not As Good As Others Claim...
This is yet another mediocre entry into the post-war war films genre. Being a war film addict, I was eager to watch the film because of the cast, which included such fine actors as Richard Basehart and Oskar Werner. The story/script starts off well enough, because I found the premise so interesting: What if German prisoners were sent back into Nazi Germany to spy on their own country? After a lengthy setup, perhaps too casual and lengthy the suspense starts when the three soldiers, Happy, Tiger, and the captain are inserted into enemy territory. However, for the rest of the film, the story mainly follows Happy as he tries to verify the status of the 11th Panzer Group, one of the divisions that faced the Allies on the Western Front. Unfortunately, the story doesn't get any more suspenseful. The whole question about Happy which is put toward him before he leaves in a sort of prophetic omen is whether or not he will succumb to his German-ness and betray the mission. However, this possibility isn't really developed or entertained much. The blonde girl in the bar where Happy and the SS courier spend the night offered an opportunity for Happy to get distracted from the mission, thereby giving the story some much-needed dramatic suspense. Unfortunately, she disappears almost as soon as she enters. Another opportunity for him getting distracted is Happy's father, who's a surgeon still serving the Reich. However, we never fully understand his relationship with his dad. He manages to call him one day at his hospital, but Happy merely goes silent and hangs up on him. So, their relationship remains a big mystery to us. We assume they might be somewhat close, since they're both doctors, but alas, we may never know. Perhaps the novel shed more light on their relationship. Also, the voice-over flashbacks which haunt Happy at bedtime don't really garner much pathos, or force him to take alternative action in the plot. Other reviewers claim that Happy is 'challenged' by his native land to betray the mission but where is the evidence in the film? I think a much better example of someone going AWOL is Peter Falk's character in another mediocre WW2 film, 'Castle Keep'. He falls in love with the baker's wife and actually starts baking bread in lieu of his lieutenant's orders! Perhaps if the mission kept the three men together and in conflict (Tiger and Happy never saw eye-to-eye, so there's some drama already) this may have been an answer. On the plus side, the production values are good, and it seems like they must've used actual postwar Europe to film some of the exteriors: Destroyed buildings are just that; and the realism/scenes are incredible. Also, the acting is nearly first-rate. However, as usual you can't make a good film from a mediocre/bad script.
Don't Look Now (1973)
A Very Pleasant Discovery!
Oh brother! I can't believe I'm 43, a big fan of horror films, and only now saw this film! This was a fascinating film from start to finish. I had no idea where it was headed, and the writer/director did a good job of keeping a great sense of mystery throughout the film. The great thing about the 'girl' in the red mack is that you think Sutherland is hallucinating when he sees her in Venice. And, after you see/hear the psychic give the final warning - you think he'll meet his fate accidentally. (They set this up very nicely with the almost-fatal accident in the church). The visuals add a lot of dynamism to this work, and halfway through I knew I'd have to see this film again to catch the allusions and references it was making. My only criticisms are that it does drag somewhat, and some of the direction is a bit haphazard at times. But this can't detract the fact that this is easily one of the greatest thrillers of all time.
Guns at Batasi (1964)
Competent and Intelligent Film
I enjoyed this film considerably. The production values were nice, the acting good, and it had a good sense of humor I wasn't expecting. The Sergeant Major's character was obviously clichéd, but they rounded him out enough to save him from being a mediocre character. There are some really nice touches in the script, and many of them are humorous. I though that the wounded captain's collapse just as he's giving himself up to his African countrymen is a bit coincidental, but dramatically speaking, he needs to be kept in the mess hall. And for what it's worth, and although I've never been a big fan of hers, Mia Farrow has never looked hotter.
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
Imperfect, Populist 'Must-See Classic'
Being a film student, I have known about 'To Kill a Mockingbird' for ages. My father had a copy on our bookshelf while I was growing up (he was a voracious reader). I was always puzzled by the title, and had no idea what the story was about. And, I had known about the film for many years, but had put it off - even though I'm a fairly big Gregory Peck fan. So I finally bought the DVD, and I must agree with that gentleman from Troy, NY. A lot of his comments are right on the mark. However, I disagree with his attack on the Finch legacy. Yes, their ancestors probably owned slaves, and that was no doubt the base for their family economy and fortune. But to fault them as being hypocrites; this is unfair. Can you say that all liberals in the South are hypocrites? No! Someone has to turn the tide in such a racially volatile area. However, the film takes its sweet time developing, and there is a severe lack of conflict in the first half, and even the second half. I think much of this is due to the smarmy portrayal of the children, and the obvious idyllic life in their small town. Also, the characters on both sides are too black and white (no pun intended!). Although James Anderson does a SUPERB job playing Bob Ewell (He made me hate that character so much!), this is a stereotype. Also, the blacks in the film are southern stereotypes too. They're all humble, forgiving, obedient, etc. It would've been nice to see an angry young man or woman amongst them. Also, I thought that in the novel Mayell finally confesses she committed perjury, but there's no evidence of this in the film. So, I give this a '7' for the acting, production values, and direction. I enjoyed it somewhat the first time, but now I feel I watched it more out of duty than anything else.
The Mouse on the Moon (1963)
RE: Good Sequel!
I disagree with the other critics who say this doesn't live up to the original. I think that even without Peter Sellers, that this sequel stands on its own two feet. The script was incredibly funny, from start to finish. There are so many nice touches by the screenwriter; it's hard to list them all. However, the touch of having the astronauts and cosmonauts being forced to return in the Fenwick rocketship - is just brilliant! The major drawback with this script is the lead's love interest, the blonde girl. She really feels like a fifth wheel throughout much of the film, and her subplot isn't dynamic enough. However, overall there are plenty of jokes strewn throughout the story, and the direction and editing is also spot-on.
Apocalypto (2006)
Better than The Patriot or The Passion...
Mel Gibson has finally made something fairly admirable. Whereas in The Passion, where all the violence went for naught and was incredibly gratuitous, here it is put into a much better context. The scenes in the Mayan city, with the leaders taking advantage of the solar eclipse via bloodletting - are very sobering. Now you know how Americans got duped into invading Iraq, i.e., smoke and mirrors. The Mayans did foretell their own demise, so the film has a nice coda with the coming of the Spanish ships. There isn't anything terribly deep here. The film doesn't really delve into Mayan culture, philosophy, or their incredibly prophetic calendar. What it does offer is basically a chase movie with high production values. The only thing that really bothered me was the little girl and her prophecies. Are we led to believe that this was the village shaman, and by her illness she's able to foretell everything? Oh well, nothing's perfect...
Night of the Demon (1957)
A Classic of the British or any Cinema...
I just watched this film again last night, for about the 4-5th time. It's always been near the top of my list for horror films. The demon doesn't bother me at all. I think it's great, and it's used sparingly. And quite frankly, I'd rather have a corny model which was crafted by hand, rather than some 2D CGI facsimile!! I think in retrospect the script is a bit heavy-handed, and perhaps the seance scene is superfluous. But the moment when Hobart goes under hypnosis, kills himself, and finally convinces Holden - it really is a great moment. I like the fact that Karswell's character performs for children, and is also just as afraid of his black art as the female lead. These kinds of touches don't go unnoticed by cineastes... Don't miss this one!
1984 (1956)
Powerful and Shattering
I finally was able to see this film, having seen the 1984 version with John Hurt when I was in college. I recall the 1984 version having some good production values, but I remember being disappointed also. This version was well-cast, and the art direction was also competent. Edmund O'Brien turned in a great performance as Winston Smith. I think that he brought a great quality of desperation to the role; which seemed to run contrary to John Hurt's performance. I'm sure there was a lot left out of the book. But I get tired of hearing people moan and groan about the argument of literature vs. cinema. Come on people, film is time-based, and can't digress like novels can. The screenwriter/director mainly extracts plot points, and can't be bothered with too much exposition (unless of course they have a whopping budget!). I've read many criticisms where more skeptical viewers complain that we don't get to know Big Brother's motives, strategy, etc... What?!! It's Big Brother - an enigmatic and probably non-existent despot....you're not supposed to know his whole story! The love affair, although brief, is very empathetic. In lieu of all the paranoia, Big Brother-cheerleading, etc. - the love between Winston and Julia is a good emotional oasis. Even though I watched a poor copy of this version, it really did make an impression. One of the few criticisms I have is Room 101. I thought the rat shot/scene was truncated, and could've been dramatized more. That's where the John Hurt version trumps this one.
Gettysburg (1993)
Very, very disappointing... a Waste of Time.
Hi - I just rented this the other day. And I must say without reservations that this is one of the worst war movies ever made. I thought that with Ted Turner's backing that something halfway decent would result out of this production, but I'm sorry to say it didn't. I majored in the Cinema at the University of Maryland in 1986. I am also a military history buff, and I have seen 100s of war movies in my 42 short years on this planet. I try to see as many good ones as possible, because I have a life and don't want to waste time. I can't even believe my eyes when people put this in their top-10 list, any top-10 list!! 'Best Civil War' movie yet?!! Did anyone of you see 'Glory'?!!! 'Glory' is far superior drama to this film. In fact, any scene from "Glory" is infinitely better than any scene in this film. God, I had to turn off 'Gettysburg' after a few scenes. A lot of scenes are simply pedantic, and they assume that all the viewers are history morons who don't know jack about the battle. In terms of drama, or lack thereof, let's all remember the scene where Colonel Chamberlain (one of the pivotal figures in the Civil War), takes on those rag-tag, near deserters near the beginning. Where is the drama?! Where is the conflict? The film is simply rampant with a lot of melodramatic scenes such as this. Most of the battle scenes look like they were made by high-school film crew; they lack any suspense, build-up, and suffer from awful direction and editing. The acting is so-so, but these talented actors were burdened with such a mediocre script. If you want to study an excellent war movie script, just download 'Saving Private Ryan'... Again, there is more depth in one scene of that film than this entire movie. The only thing this film has going for it is A) Talented actors and B) Half-way decent production values.
Voyna i mir (1965)
Great Novel - Mediocre Cinema ...
Having read various snippets of this Russian film, I was eager to see it. I was looking for something along the lines of 'Dr. Zhivago' - one of the greatest melodramas ever made. And, after reading Leonard Maltin's rave review (who's usually pretty on-target), I couldn't wait to see it in the un-edited DVD format. After watching all four parts, I felt I had to submit a review here. I don't know why everyone is so elated by this film. With so much run-time on his hands, you'd think the writer-director would develop and detail his characters - but as it stands they are so watered down, which echoes the superficiality of the script. The script is the foundation of any good film, because you can't make a good film from a bad/mediocre script. However, the director goes a step further and diffuses his film with an aloof and erratic style which severely compromises any artistic integrity the piece was trying to build. For example, there's an early scene where a young Natasha leads a gentleman to a greenhouse to steal a kiss. The scene is over before it begins; it has no consequence or context. There are so many tame scenes which may have been pulled directly from the novel, but the director doesn't give them any dramatic power. The director uses the hand-held camera at odd points/scenes, and his cinematic ideas are always muddled by bad editing and quirky camera movements. Compared with Lean's 'Zhivago', this film seems like it was made by a college student who never graduated! With this said, the battle scenes are quite phenomenal. Even though I"m a military history buff, I must admit I do not know the details of the Battle of Borodino (BTW, it wasn't the RED ARMY back then, Riverside - the Red (or Soviet) Army didn't exist until 1917!). However, the sheer number of uniformed extras, cavalry, explosions, etc. - just boggles the mind. And these scenes are where the film scores the most points. Unfortunately, great battle scenes aren't enough for a grand cinema epic...