Change Your Image
thinkbach
Reviews
Shingeki no kyojin (2015)
Visceral Cinema
I had an amazing time at the Fantasia showing of this. The audience went wild. The visuals blew me away. If you like classic Godzilla, or better yet, any of the director's Gamera films, this is for you.
Classic film effects ratcheted tension to the breaking point. The cheesy characterization was flawless and intentional. Superb experience on many levels. Also loud, but wonderfully loud.
Remember the first tingling of fear when you saw Jurassic Park on the big screen? This is that good.
If you are not comfortable with anime rules of exposition and emotional outpourings, you might find the human performances awkward, but the lean story moves things along and all the information you need to know about what kind of vividly portrayed vision of hell is going down is amply provided.
This is a funhouse horror show.
Most of us at the screening loved the melodrama. That's what sometimes works with giant monsters eating human beings and gobs of blood and flesh raining down and oozing out the windows.
This movie is dark and grinds away into some truly discomforting terror moments, even as it careens around spiral roads of goofiness at dizzying speeds.
If you liked the throwback elements of Fury Road, the classic effects techniques of this giant monster nightmare might appeal. Visually and sonically it was a huge thrill and totally unique. See it big.
Does everything work? Who cares. I don't go to the circus for Shakespeare or some huge subtext feast on Netflix.
I go to the circus to feel my heart pound as my head explodes.
Thank you big screen for staying real.
(PS. I think everything works, but I'm no pickier than I need to be to enjoy the ride, and this one's worth it.)
Better Luck Tomorrow (2002)
Better See More Like This
I have so many good things to say about this movie, like great acting, great story, great dialogues, great everything. This is an honest effort and yields a genuine feel. Someone made a comment about the racism in the film that is not central, but a feature nonetheless. I think this is key to the mood of the film, and I think the reaction of some of the commentators reveals this kind of racism. Sad indeed, as the movie delivers what a great movie should. More like this!
Daredevil (2003)
Ho-Hum, More angst and eye-candy...
Ever notice how most superheroes, except perhaps Superman, are sad and angry because of some deep-rooted pain to do with either losing their parents, or being maltreated by their parents, or being maltreated by society? If you are tired of this theme, skip Daredevil. As eye-candy goes it's fine. I still do not like computer-animated people leaping around buildings, they look like frogs or bugs - fake. The action is fun sometimes, the dialogue is fun sometimes, Ben Affleck is neither good nor bad, and the mask helps, because without it he is not exactly credible. All in all, it's more of the same, the story hits all the beats, and there is absolutely nothing new. The best part about the movie is probably the in-jokes for anyone who knows anything about comics, and the cute meet is kind of cute, though it ends up a little too hokey. The worst parts? Over-the-top melodrama with an extremely bad case of poor-me-ism, enough to give us an itchy rash, and a truly annoying voice-over narrative that at times sounds a little too patronizing for comfort. My 8 year old thought it was better than Spider-Man (not hard to do), and he didn't seem to mind that this superhero was a bit of a cold-blooded killer, however I heard one little kid nearby in the theater crying because of some of the later scenes, no doubt menaced by Colin Farrel's a little-too-over-the-top take on Bullseye.
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
The Movie That Isn't There
It has been a long time since I loved a Coen brothers movie. Gone are the days of Raising Arizona and Blood Simple. Somewhere along the way something warm seeped away from the films. Everything since Fargo, and including Fargo for my money, has more seemed an advert for how clever the filmakers are this time, instead of how compelling the motives and drives of the human beings within the film.
This latest film, The Man Who Wasn't There, for me walks into the same shallow water as Lebowski, Brother, and Fargo, the water of slick style over substance and meaning, of self-congratulatory cleverness. No doubt about it, the Coens are doing their homework, because intellectually it all hangs together rather nicely, enough to please most critics at least.
I loved the black and white camera work in this, and I can't say anything against the writing. It was tight. The acting was seamless, although I find Frances McDormand always seems the same in a Coen film: no surprises.
For me it was a soul-less exercise in smarts, lacking blood. When I remember Miller's Crossing I recall emotions, mine engaged with the characters'. When I think of Barton Fink I remember the feelings I had identifying with the characters. Blood Simple gave the hairs on the back of my neck a tickle. Raising Arizona tickled me all over from the belly out.
What I got from The Man Who Wasn't There was a big so what? Who cares? A nice looking bit of wooden characterization moving in a fog through a polished gem of a story that says nothing about love, fear, hope, or much of anything, except film itself.
Their movies used to be about more than just movies. Nowadays they're just chokin' the story-making chicken.
Psycho (1998)
Hilarious! And the reviews too!
I feel compelled to comment simply because there are so many STRONG reviews about this film. Personally I am not enjoying this movie. I'm about half way through. I'm glad I paused to see what others think, because I will be much more interested in the second half. Obviously the film is an act of love. it defies expectations in the most peculiar ways. It certainly does not seem interested in offering entertainment. From what I can see, the biggest offense to viewers is the peeping scene, although there have been several renovations of the orginal, all sly, and all of the kind of slyness that Hitch would have loved. Hitch loved to shock. He thought Psycho was the funniest film he ever made. If you have watched Psycho by Hitchcock and tried to see the humor in it, watching Van Sant's with a flexible mode is not impossible. I do believe Hitch might have gotten a laugh out of the audience reaction on this site. One thing Gus didn't do was try to imitate Hitchcock's direction, and there's a lesson right there. I probably won't suggest anyone watch this film, however I am now going to go finish it and enjoy it so much more in the knowledge that it provoked such a vehement response in so many viewers.
The Omega Man (1971)
Another one. . .
I am another one who watched this movie back when I was 12 years old. Back then, it blew me away. And the truth is, the movie has heart, and some neat symbolism, and it has interesting characters, and without a doubt one of Heston's noteworthy roles, and for some, the soundtrack is infectious.
I recently watched this with my kids, two boys, aged 12 and 8, and they liked it. The emotional appeal of the main character, his sad plight, the Christian symbolism, and the idea of sacrificing oneself to save the world, all come together in a meaningful way.
If you take that away, however, you have a movie that gets a little lost along the way, with some awkward dialogue, histrionic acting, slow plot development, and a general lack of credible tension. The bad guys are, for me, not bad enough, and they suffer from character inconsistencies that are glaring (the mutants in Beneath The Planet of the Apes were far more credible). For example, there is no reason given as to why people stricken with such awful syptoms resist the idea of healing themselves with serum, or why Mathias the only one who doesn't chant in monotones.
There are other worthwhile elements, a few excellent touches, especially at the beginning, before Neville meets the others, as when he roams the city and watches old movies. The end sequence is tense, but the internal logic of the film was never attended to, never worked out, and so the middle sags, which is too bad.
In the end, as a piece of retro fun on a slow evening with some popcorn, this one is a good fit with the Apes movies from the same era, among others.
TB
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)
Dear Steven Spielberg
I just watched your beautifully sad film for the second time, this time with my sons. My 12 year old cried like me at the end, and the 8 year old was confused. When I first saw this in the theater I was a bit confused, and I rejected the final ending. But I also rejected the ending of Schindler's List, balking at the emotion, seeking the experience of a documentary. Then, upon home viewing, I learned that Schindler's List was a great film. Not too long ago I watched Jaws with the kids, and I was impressed with how much more than a mere scare movie it was. I saw it when it came out in the theaters, with my father, no less.
Artificial Intelligence is extraordinary in part because it is so personal, I think. Anyone familiar with enneagrams will see David for the four that he is. Being a four, by the end I was in accute pain, pain for David, pain for all loss, for those in this world who feel that they never quite arrive, never quite regain that lost golden love that haunts us all our days. This is a difficult topic and for this reason I think so many people were not swept away by this film. It is not Indiana Jones. I think the story of someone as unseen as David, set in the context of a big budget picture is truly jarring, and splendid all at once. And for all the sadness, and irony, there is humor in there, if you dig beneath the ice.
There is a reckless integrity to the film, defying the odds of all accepted norms. I for one am grateful it was made, and I understand, I think, the reason it was made. To be seen.
The In Crowd (2000)
Fascinating Gunk
Sloppy, bad movie. But, and it's a big but, it is a curious glimpse of how mind-bogglingly oblivious some people can be to how lucky they are, of how treacherous young women can be when it comes to their territory, of how stupid young men can be, of how a social group can be seen as responsible for the abuses of one individual within that group, especially when that group is the one in power.
But, and this is another big but, there are far more satisfying explorations of such topics, that offer something beyond prurience.
Too bad, because I have been hopeful of Mary Lambert ever since Pet Sematary which, though not a highwater mark in any genre, did explore in a gratifying way how deep people's needs and wants can run, and how that can sometimes manifest in absolute and utter resentment within and between the sexes.
It also had a neat sense of humor underlying it all, which does not always balance well in a horror flick.
Come on, Mary, where's the good stuff?
Beyond Rangoon (1995)
A Story of the Brave
John Boorman, I like your movies. Your movies are cerebral, but do not rely on symbolism or language to convey thought. They seem to rely on emotions, sometimes clichéd (not always a bad thing, and you do handle it well, in that your people say what one would expect a person to really say in that situation, even if it has that feel of a cliché), and lots of water and green vegetation, mud, earth, breath in the cold, dragon's breath, stuff like that.
Your films remind me of David Lean and David Attenborough, which makes sense, but, as you would probably agree, more dreamy.
A possible misgiving is an expectation set up with your stuff that right away tips me in a certain direction, and takes away possible surprise.
Not so with Beyond Rangoon, which I found was beyond the others you have done that I am most familiar with (Emerald Forest, which I need to see again, and Excalibur).
Beyond Rangoon is the story of one woman set against the backdrop of events in Myanmar (Burma). The story makes no attempt to give us a comprehensive picture of those events, just an introduction, but it is a solid introduction. I feel I know a lot more, and I have a sense of connection with those people that I did not have before, however tenuous from my place of privilege.
Overall I found the story moving and filled with meaning. I always like Patricia Arquette, and her leading man in this film is just great. Actually, she's the lead in this film, and that is what is great.
So much of the film is told with film language, that is, images, that I can see some critics being a little impatient with it, but it is probably because they overanalyze and find it fearful to feel anything too deeply.
Anyone out there wondering if this movie is worth it should watch it to find out. It will not be a waste of your time, whether you like it or not.