Change Your Image
greenerjeff
Reviews
Murasaki Shikibu: Genji monogatari (1987)
Familiarize yourself with the culture first
I had to watch this movie in my class, and I had a hard time getting through it. This is primarily because I wasn't familiarized with the Buddhist concepts throughout the film until after viewing it, which hindered my ability to understand the film, thus also my enjoyment of it. The Tale of Genji is based on 13 chapters of the Japanese epic novel by the same name, a novel that happens to be the first novel ever written (some time around the Seventh Century). Because the story is so old, and the language is so different, the novel becomes something comparable to Shakespeare to contemporary audiences: difficult to understand and almost unrelatable to some. That is why it was modernized into this animated film, with the physical character of the prince modeled after a contemporary rock star and the language updated to contemporary Japanese language.
However, if you are not familiar at all with The Tale of Genji (which is taught in Japanese schools), then the basic story of this film can be difficult (and downright confusing) to get through. It's basically about a young prince who suffers from the Oedipus complex without really knowing the nature of his obsession. He wanders around the film, fornicating with his wife, stepmother, and even lusts after his early-adolescent cousin. The morally twisted, yet slow-to-develop plot, is thematically justified by its Buddhist undertones, which, if is gone unfamiliarized before viewing the movie, can only further one's confusion. A good way to quickly familiarize yourself with this tale beforehand is to read Enchi's classic novel, "Masks." Otherwise, this ends up being a slow, twisted, and confusing film that will make you check your watch throughout its length and surprise you when it finally ends. My rating 6/10 (but only out of ignorance).
Medicine River (1993)
nice try, but incredibly weak
I actually had to analyze this movie in class(it was similar to Momaday's book The Way To Rainy Mountain). Here's what's wrong with it: the most obvious is the production quality -- the video and audio are both rough (just try to understand that answering machine in the beginning).
Here's mainly what's wrong with the story: it's predictable, its jokes are often weak, as well as its characters and their development and the dialogue, and the conniving made to keep Will in the town -- while meant to be cute -- is obvious and weak. It's a story of one's discovery of his cultural self, a return to his tribal family, and it's almost a good attempt, but it really falls short because it never explains why Will left in the first place and it doesn't demonstrate much connection to the tribe's culture by the community. In fact, the residents of Medicine River (such a lame name!) seem no different than those of any other small-town community, they just happen to all be Native American. And how the hell could a basketball team that bad get into any championship?!
Lastly, the acting was dreadfully amateur, with the exception of Graham Greene and his love interest (the supposed symbolic character of Will belonging with his people and not the "white man"). They both did their best with the material, but still fell short.
The only redeeming quality of the entire movie is the woman who wants to raise her baby on her own. This is incredible multi-cultural radicalism, for even today the issue is somewhat controversial. Still, overall this is not a recommendable piece of Graham Greene's filmography. In fact, you could almost blackmail him for it. 4/10
Kôkaku kidôtai (1995)
a great contributor to the philosophical dialogue
I don't know how anybody can so strongly disrespect this movie as many who've commented here have, but I do agree with the comments made by "a guy who likes movies": anyone who criticized it negatively must not have understood it.
This is a really good movie and I'll tell you why: it IS extremely intelligent (doesn't just try), entertaining, and imaginative. Most importantly, it takes the dialogue on artificial lifeforms to a whole other level. It asks the questions "If one can create a soul, then what is the importance of being human?", "What defines humankind?", "What constitutes life?", and "Once artificial life forms are able to become sentient and procreate, where do we -- WE pertaining to both the human species, as well as our technological advancements -- go from there?". These are serious questions that are really difficult to provide answers to, but are really interesting to ponder over. Just remember: the movie opened by saying "Some time in the not too distant future." As you watch this movie and mull over its philosophy, think about that. 8/10
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore (1974)
A movie that should be respected
I just analyzed this movie in my class and I have to say a few things about it here in case someone ever reads enough of these comments to find mine. First of all, this is a hilarious movie that has many lines worth quoting (e.g. don't look back or you'll turn into a tower of s**t). But it's also important in that it portrays a "normal" woman, who doesn't look like a supermodel. And it shows this woman shaving her legs in a sink, with the bathroom door open and her son right around the corner, as well as applying skin lotion. This may not seem like a big deal now, but back then it certainly was significant to portray these "everyday woman" activities. Spoiler alert! To say that Alice did well on her own would be an inconsideration of the fact that she was able to leave only because her husband died, and that she kept getting involved with men. Sure Alice was a strong, fiesty woman, but she still had problems with men (notice when she says to Ben she doesn't need a man, but quickly reaches for his hand and kisses him). This isn't to say Alice isn't a positive protagonist, only a flawed one, which heightens her plausibility. And she's not the only realistic character. David, played by Kristofferson, demonstrates his flaws when egged on by Tommy. He eventually spanks Tommy in the butt, which demonstrates a similar flaw Tommy witnessed in all the other adult males. But David is also willing to give up his ranch for Alice and understand Alice, which is something that Alice never had with any other man.
The only really troubling aspect of the movie is the end. David and Alice get in an argument at the diner, and David demands Alice to explain herself to him, then proposes his support for whatever she wanted to do. This came only minutes after David and Tommy fought and Alice left David because he hit Tommy. Therefore, it can be viewed that not only does the resolution become schmaltzy and hurried, with a loving embrace as well as applause by those around them, but Alice seems to cave in to a dominating and potentially abusive man. This would explain why the feminists became upset and disappointed with the film. However, by proposing he give up his ranch, David did submit to Alice's terms. What is really to be made of this ending? What was Scorsese and the screenwriter doing here? It is important to remember that the final shot was not of Alice and Tommy in Monterey, California, rather of a restaurant in Tucson named Monterey.