noilie Reviews

The Black Dahlia (2006)

An exceptional parody of a "good" film

[10/10 · 6 November 2006]

I give it ten for being one heck of a pastiche (film-noir; Hitchcock; overwrought "textbook" style from the handbook of classic cinema). It's never boring and, I would argue, willfully infuriating. While it's by no means an "objectively" good film (whatever that means), it drowns the viewer in its crazy, almost parodic, overwhelming style. De Palma goes gleefully over the edge here; it's hard to think of another film that looks this good, has moments of brilliance, and simultaneously lacks all pretensions to making sense in terms of plot and narrative cohesion. It's (sometimes) awfulness is part of its charm, I think. It's not neat in the way "L.A. Confidential" is, but you'd be hard pressed to find another film that relishes style for its own sake (especially in an age of bland, unimaginative, style-less, "functional" cinema and television fodder).

It falls apart at various points, but who cares, really? De Palma-as-auteur certainly doesn't. All his notable films (and even the truly horrendous ones) are a pastiche of scenes from better films, ratcheted up ten notches and with almost no care about such "secondary elements" as plot consistency. It's what he's known for. This one is pure chaos - mainly because there's so much plot mayhem whereas most De Palma films are terminally short on plot - but I enjoyed it immensely, warts 'n all.

If you're an Ellroy fan, steer clear. If you loved "L.A. Confidential" for it's narrative consistency and fluency, steer clear. If you like "well made films" in the traditional sense, steer clear. It's, as I've suggested, a film that, in a sense, sarcastically lampoons "well-made films" - it has all the trappings of a "well-made film" but adds an infuriating, to some, dose of pure narrative chaos and stylistic frenzy. The topsy-turvy, plot-heavy, but senseless script is itself a parody of a good script. Even the use of Vilmos Zsigmond, who shot some beautiful-looking films from Hollywood's second golden age, seems a wry nod at those classics. In that regard, the overkill sepia effect – signifying "classic noir" - seems to underscore my point.

"The Black Dahlia" elicits either a wildly positive or utterly negative response from most viewers, the latter, admittedly, being the majority. So, taking this into account, I threw caution to the wind and gave it a ten (although it strictly deserves a six, I suppose).

Morocco (1930)

Luminous

[8/10 · 11 April 2006]

My favourite Sternberg-Dietrich vehicle will always be "The Scarlet Empress", but all their films are worth more than a cursory glance. They're, to my mind, the most interesting thing to come out of the early thirties (and, although dated, far less so than more recognized classics of the era because of their unadulterated FUN).

Sternberg made art department COUNTRIES for Dietrich to languish in, true in all their Hollywood films, and still dazzling today. Plot, narrative are shaky, sometimes almost nonexistent, allowing for spectacle to take over, and what a spectacle it all is! Dietrich is probably one of the most macabre, knowingly lewd feminine manifestations ever to grace the silver screen (well, at least Sternberg was knowing, Dietrich herself....?). Highly recommended.

Munich (2005)

South-African accents !! (& other observations)

[4/10 · 2 February 2006]

There seems to be a lot of blathering about this film's topicality... Yes, Hamas won, YESYESYES the world is going to end..... Well done to Steven Spielberg for releasing the film now (obviously a calculated box-office move) My critique is - slightly - different (I am not going to bore you with questionable information or "leaked" documents about the "FACTS" or with some tired pro-or anti- Israel rant).

Spielberg was either confused, thoughtless or lazy with the Daniel Craig character, a South-African-Afrikaans-Blonde-Blue-Eyed-Zionist-Assassin (phew!). EXTREMELY improbable. With a film that claims to be as resonant and is as "messagy" as "Munich" does, he can't afford to make (BIG) mistakes like this.

I think it comes down to this: Americans (for whom this film was primarily made) don't know what a "Jewish South-African" would look or sound like. Nor would most of the world. They might have SOME (vague) idea of what a "White South-African from the 1970's" looks like: a blonde haired- blue eyed, violent, chunky lookin' fella with a thick, gruff Apartheidy-type "Afrikaans" accent. Jewish South-Africans were classed as "White" in South-Africa under the old dispensation….

So, in my view, Spielberg merely subsumed "South-African Jewishness", an entirely unknown type in the realm of the International Cineplex, under the International Stereotype of "White Oppressive Afrikanerdom", a recognizable, almost "parodic" category. This is troubling for reasons I won't get into here but which should be obvious. Spielberg has sacrificed sense in favour of easy intelligibility or, rather, recognizability for his audience.

Or maybe Daniel Craig is just a rubbish, crass, nuance-less actor who, here, gives a broad, obvious performance? No, this is harsh. I think it calamity is the fault of Steven Spielberg, an arch-enemy of nuanced cinema. This is a calculated, but lazy, move on his part.

Same goes for the accents, generally, in this film. Wouldn't Israeli Jews (Avner, his wife, P.M. Golda Meir & her officials, etc.) speak in Hebrew amongst themselves & not in broken English? (But subtitles for monolingual Americans is box-office poison, right?) Anyway, to start on this would drag into question a number of (improbable & impossible) things about this film that irk me… These include that senseless flashback to the massacre from Avner's perspective. He wasn't there, so Spielberg has to make a narrative booboo in his quest to FORCE us, to COERCE us into caring. He exonerates and whitewashes all of Avner's ethical self-questioning - that we've had to sit through for the duration of the movie - by showing us the disparity between the Israeli group's ethical action, their patriotic, hence "necessary" crimes, as opposed to the "Arab" group's heinous, brutal, senseless crime. Why does doesn't Spielberg "flash back" to some of Avner's sins? Because that would tarnish his "hero" status and Spielberg wouldn't have a -RA-RA-, rousing ending. In Spielberg's worldview, it seems, there needs to be a hero. For all the film's "Violence is not the right way", "violence begets violence" rhetoric, for all Spielberg's claims to equivalence, to "showing both sides", we are never in any doubt as to who is RIGHT, morally and ethically justified. And anyway; "Homely", self-searching assassins who dine and laugh with one another; their common, self-less cause? Ahem... Assassins need to be clinical, exacting, to negate conscience. That wouldn't fit in with Spielberg's project: we HAVE to like them, we MUST care for them, believe in their JUSTNESS & it it is they that are invested with conscience & high-mindedness, not the other side (Avner's shakiness on the first kill; they only kill their targets & there's a big, sweaty, tense moral cadenza when this goes wrong; the "What have we done" speeches, etc.

If you haven't guessed by now, I HATE this film: It is far too shallow and insubstantial; its argument is simplistic (witness "Golda Meir's" "grandmotherly" proclamations & the silly scene between Avner and a Palestinian); its message is clunky and hollow; its perspective on "THE SITUATION" is utterly conventional & bland. It is not nearly as controversial as some people seem to think it is (or it wouldn't have been nominated for a "respectable" Oscar).

It DOES contain a few nice cinematic touches, amongst other details, but on the whole: "so what?".

This is a conventionally thrilling "Boy's Movie" badly melded onto a "real life" or "topical" situation. The film shows the limitations of Hollywood's narrative conventions (finely honed & market researched "frivolous entertainment") when dealing with "serious" global, political subject matter.

Anyway, suffice to say that Spielberg is cleaver to explicitly preface his film with a "BASED on real events". He should start, if he can, making films for grown-up people.

Hotel Rwanda (2004)

Excellent Film

[7/10 · 12 August 2005]

I really wish people would stop gushing about how GREAT this film is, how it made you CRY, MOAN, WEAP, GENUFLECT, etc. YES, I agree that the film is brilliant. It GETS one's attention. IT is a story powerfully told. Unfortunately, it also inspires a general sense (to my mind, and after reading some of the posts here) of armchair philanthropy. Stasis. Inactivity. It is great that there is a film that takes Africa and individualized Africans figures, seriously as its primary Subject, tells the story from an African point of view. This is the first mainstream film (to my mind, that has done this). Africa, as a concept, is most often seen as a massive, dirty, backwards "Heart of Darkness", unexplored unless by prying, objectifying news cameras (starving children with snot running out of their noses etc.) The fault doesn't lie with the film (it is quite firm about its contempt for the "West's" strategic lack of agency). The problem lies with people like YOU, quite happy to sing the film praises, but not much else. There is a post further down that (flippantly) refers to this film as "This year's Schindler's List". What a cheek! Yes, this may be one of those "never forget what happened film's", but while the Holocaust recedes ever further into history, atrocities of similar proportions still happen on this continent (I am a South-African). The speed and force with which the "Rwanda" happened forced the West (retrospectively) to sit up and listen. Although slower, other protracted battles/hotspots(a misnomer no doubt coined by that beast CNN) continue to shock the mind out of comprehension. Angola, for example only recently (three years ago) ended an over twenty year civil war (see, in Africa its "on again: and "off again: so no-one really knows how long these things last and whether or not they ever truly end, case in point: Sudan. The list goes on. To list "issues", rant-style, here would be counter-intuitive, to my mind. Go find out.

Hopefully there will be more films about African SUBJECTS in the future.

Most of the major supporting actors are South-African (and they all give performances as good as Cheadle's). It was mainly filmed in and around Soweto (in Johannesburg, where I live).

Calling this film "this years Schindler's LIst" is, to put it lightly, unconscionable. Think "historically specific" next time, hey? Rant Over.

Do something from your end. Find out how. Avoid condescension.

The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)

South-African Cinema......

[8/10 · 27 January 2005]

This post is not explicitly about "The Motorcycle Diaries" (although it is about the state of cinema in the developing world- Southern South America has quite a prodigious output these days). I just didn't want my (I think) worthy message board post (which is what the post that follows originally was) to get lost in the madness down there....

About the lack of an Oscar nomination for "The Motorcycle Diaries": "I am a South-African and I am personally hoping that, as far as "fringe world cinema" is concerned, one of our films, "Yesterday" (2004), wins (it has been nominated). What a condescending term "fringe world cinema" is, eh? It's more a patriotic thing than a statement about the film's excellence. It is very good, but manipulative. It is about HIV/AIDS in rural Kwazulu Natal (the province in our country most severely affected by the virus- I could get you some stats but you'd probably weep). South-Africa gets a great deal of good press throughout the world. We do, in print, have one of the most 'liberal/ democratic', for lack of a better term, constitutions in the world- it even seems likely that legislation on the right to legal gay marriage will go through sometime in the foreseeable future. It is still, however, the country with the highest prevalence of HIV infection in the world (you've seen the sappy, self-aggrandizing Oprah episodes, yes) despite multi billion rand (our currency) awareness campaigns. Sad, huh? Anyway/.... see the movie if you can. It could have been better, but its still worth a watch.

Forget the dismal rating it got at IMDb.com (from an equally dismal 38 votes!!). It REALLY is not at all THAT bad (who the hell are those 38 morons anyway??). It is well filmed (good budget) and a very thoughtful (if small) film. Seeing that HIV/AIDSs in Africa is a touchy question for the 'elite', a broad term again, including those wealthier personages in our own country who can afford movie tickets who choose to ignore the problem as a rarefied poor/ township/ 'dirty'/ black/ oversexed youth problem. the film has not found itself an adequate distributor in the "West" and it only got a limited, art circuit release over here. It is strange that an Oscar nominated film with an African subject should be seen by so few people at what a site that is touted as "EARTH'S BIGGEST MOVIE DATABASE" See also, if you can "Story of an African Farm" (2004), based on Olive Schreiner's book (1886). It glosses over many pertinent questions the book (mostly unselfconsciously and implicitly) raises about Colonialism and hybrid etc. and is "cute", and worth (slightly) less of a look than "Yesterday", but 'tis okay. It is slight, but if you want a window on one of the most stunning desert landscapes in the world (the Karoo), this is it.

That film (again well crafted and made with care) got 7 votes IN TOTAL on IMDb (despicable). The world ignores African films, seems to have an aversion to them. There aren't many out there (lets be realistic 'n all), but it is a market which is trying to emerge, one which will never be able to emerge if people carry on ignoring it. Which is just bloody sad. There are many worthy subjects, subjects as worthy as that depicted in "The Motorcycle Diaries", that our continent has to offer. There are those that would say that oral narrative cultures adapt the best to the film format, but I won't push a point.

The Story of an African Farm (2004)

Olive Schreiner's book outdated, slight??

[8/10 · 27 January 2005]

According to Philip-ct, the book is outdated. The same can be said for most "old literature". Forget his "balanced" report. The book is a classic of world literature and rightly so. The film is slight, but entertaining, very well made and has been criminally overlooked internationally- 7 votes at IMDb- (and nationally). South-Africans just don't seem to take well to cinematic subjects from their own back yard. Our "Top Ten" at the box office reads like any other across the world. "Story of an African Farm" made the number 10 spot in it's opening weekend and then dropped off the charts. But its part of the ravages of commodity culture. "Yesterday", a now Oscar nominated film has been seen by a slight few in this country and has a total (as of this entry) of 38 votes at IMDb "EARTH's BIGGEST MOVIE DATABASE". These are thoughtful, well made films and do not deserve such treatment.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

# 117??

[1/10 · 11 August 2004]

So sad that this awful, clumsy pastiche of clichés should generate so much sycophantsy in favour of that horrid little man Quentin Tarantino. This film has not even been out for five months and already it is at #117 on the list of IMDb top films of ALL TIME (!?!). If you want to watch a REAL Western as opposed to a facsimile of a Western, go and watch "ONce Upon a Time in the West" or even "The Searchers" again. Those films are difficult, trying, multiple meaning-generating masterworks. Those films still seems fresh, this one is tired and show-offy, without having a real sense of CiNeMa about it. "Pulp Fiction" (Tarantino's only good film in my opinion) is worthy, watch that again and tell me that this is not a vastly inferior work. Tarantino's cinema has always been plastic, self consciously fake, but at least Pulp-Fiction dares to have fun with its genre-bending tendencies. This film is merely a compendium of spot-the-film-references, with a couple of snide, jokey one liners to compensate. It is a fashion magazine-like tour through the landscape of the Western and other less respectable genres (as observed in terms of the 'centre', that dreary institution known as the AFI).

Granted, it is nice to see interest generated in older and less-known genres by younger generations, but all this does is to highlight how much better those films are and how intellectually bankrupt endeavours like this are. It is for this film to be informed by the history of cinema, but not for it to merely lift from that past willy-nilly without adding a iota of insight or critical meta-commentary of his own. QT, in my opinion, is a brat who deserves a spanking with a large wooden paddle. He may embody the Northern Californian ideal; a proud loudmouth, not coy about much, self consciously playing a role to his adoring fans, a natural entertainer, the grand high poo-bah of all film nerds (or "cineastes", whichever is preferable). That would be fine, if the films were any good. They're not (beyond "Pulp Fiction" which, as I have stated, is an unqualified masterpiece). There is a lot of myth-generating riding on the quality of that ONE film. Unfounded. And no, dear fans, I am not 'just jealous' (a childish retort which seems to be bandied about quite often at sites like this).

The Last House on the Left (1972)

It's okay.

[1/10 · 12 April 2004]

The graininess of the visuals and the bog standard direction/ acting.... do give this film an anxious, claustrophobic edge. It is a seminal film from that era of so-called exploitation flicks, and should be seen for this reason if nothing else. It certainly reflects the darkness and cynicism that is a huge part of the socio-political "myth of the American seventies". I actually wish that filmmakers these days would (perhaps) be allowed to be a fraction un-p.c., and also not take themselves too seriously; the people who made this film, pretensions aside, obviously did not.

Certainly not on anyone's "top ten" list, but worth a watch just to see what all the fuss was about.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

Complex, but not a 'masterpiece'.

[1/10 · 8 April 2004]

I concede that the film is well made and quite intricate in its structure (and that it takes time and patience to attempt to come up with an explanation for the unfathomable gray areas in the screenplay). Leone evidently had an eye for detail, composition, lighting and camera movement. I am sure that no-one will deny that the technical side of the film was handled with care and it does show.

The screenplay is a mess. I expect to be lambasted by angry fans that will claim that I am an unimaginative watcher and would like all aspects of plot and character explained to me instead of having to think and immerse myself. Fine. I also know that art defies easy definition, and that all the best art in the world offers itself up to multiple interpretations. Fine. I maintain that Leone is being wilfully obscure in his attempts to cover up the head-scratch-inducing narrative techniques that he conjures up. He does so by claiming an opium/dream logic: some kind of remembrance of childhood and prohibition (an immutable, fixed past) as well as a progressive imagining (regarding the "future") on the part of the focaliser Noodles as he lies in the opium den. This may not be the case as he could not possibly know of the exact styles, decor and music of the sixties without having lived through them to some extent. So here we have an organic problem with the screenplay: claims to dream logic to confuse and inspire debate regarding the plot's many unsure points (e.g. was that Max in the dumpster? How Why? What does that wry smile at the end mean? Etc. Was it all a dream of the past and possible future?) counterpoised with the impossibility of this evident in the physical and cultural environment presented to us in the visuals. This, to me, is just vague and sloppy. It is not just a case of great art being unfathomable, it is a case of sloppy art trying to be unfathomable. Take that incessant telephone sound and its related imagery. Did Leone himself know what effect he was trying to achieve when he put it in there? I would say yes in one respect: in order to mystify his audience. I do not think that it stands for much more than that. Perhaps also to establish the confusing and ultimately untenable nature of the film's time structure (he is literally 'calling into the past') and it's relation to Noodle's 'dream' (which the film quite clearly can not be).

Also, the film's attitude towards women is just plain nasty, containing two of the screens most unapologetic rape scenes. We could claim that it is merely the nasty attitude of our enigma focaliser Noodles. He most obviously is not a very nice guy when it comes to women and the film does present itself as an exploration of his singular consciousness (if it is a dream). To put it crassly: he is nasty to women so the film has also got to be nasty to women if it claims to be deeply related to his attitudes and point of view. If it is a film of dream and imaginings, then certainly Noodle's dream is mutable (as we know all dreams are) and what he 'does' to the characters played by Tuesday Weld and Elisabeth McGovern is heightened by his desire and imagination. This is the only way in which to explain why Tuesday Weld's character seems to enjoy rape, that it is Noodles imagining her enjoying the rape. This is vague, but it at least validates the epic romanticization that pervades this ugly world (of which rape is only a part) when the main character is an absolute lout: it is him who romanticizes it. This is a sneaky way around a touchy subject. But, as has been established by many, this world may not be a dream- back to that inconsistency in the plot. Is it? Isn't it? If not then there is not much of an excuse for the rape sequences.

The dialogue is also slightly off, too often it sounds stiff and mechanical, and it is too self-consciously scripted to sound like naturalistic street parlance. Ennio Morricone's score is alright. It is evocative in places (when he sticks to the minimalist piano melody) and far too saccharine in others (that pan pipe stuff I find grating and kitsch).

So to be sure, it is a complex film. It is a rewarding film. It requires more than one watching. It falls far short from a masterpiece, though. Too inconsistent when it should be incisive. It bears the marks of a troubled production and evidence of Leone himself not quite knowing what to do with the beast he had created.

Elephant (2003)

A simple matter.

[5/10 · 29 February 2004]

I have two things to say about this film: 1.) All those people who enjoyed the film, its detached artiness, its unwillingness to settle for any expected banner waving or socio-political stance (etc., etc. see other reviews) have filled the 'empty space' of this artifice with just what the filmmaker wanted: an insight without insight. The 'empty space' has been filled with the kind of emotionality that the film doesn't put forth (for evidence of this, see the number of positively emotional responses the film has elicited). Great. 2.) All those who did not like the film, who came away feeling as though they'd been duped by the avant-garde'isms' of filmmaker bent on selling fluff as art, who had no patience for the lugubrious tracking shots, the inane acting, the very lack of a point or raison 'd etre (or however that is spelled)(etc., etc.), you have also filled the 'empty space' which you complain of with a kind of emotionality that is perhaps not all that dissimilar from those who liked the film.

The film seems to elicit strong *feeling* (yes, that word) from both sides of "the fence", a very broad term, just as broad as the issues which this film encompasses (or does not encompass depending on your *feelings* about it). That's just it: the film IS so plain, un-involving, without the things we expect from a film like this, that it forces us ('us' being based on the reviews I've read) into these two broad camps of (social?) awareness based on some kind of *feeling*. And, getting back to my point, that is what stirs us isn't it? The more or less primary emotionality that a subject like this wells up: I have not seen a single review which goes beyond the more or less simple "I loved it" or "I hated it" fissure.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Blushingly, embarrassing bad film.

[1/10 · 16 November 2003]

The film is a piece of junk. FOr the real word on this film, see David Thompson's 'New Bibliographical Dictionary of Film', the essay on Kubric contains my general sentiments about the man and his whole misbegotten oeuvre although his assertions are more eloquently put than what I can muster. Kubric basically conflates sheer lugubrious (read: deadeningly slow) length of film with 'depth'(of meaning). He is more concerned with the perfection, exactness and pioneering of lenses, focal lengths and shots than with the necessary concerns for character or coherent narrative. His films are vacuous, he is myopic in his views and this film is the most overrated rubbish this side of creation.

Ran (1985)

Rubbish film, okat transfer on DVD

[10/10 · 13 November 2003]

Some people should really stop knitpicking. Get a life, really. All this moping about the destruction and disregard for Kurosawa's unfailing and precise "vision" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean).

The man's ouevre isn't that wonderful.... there's nothing too terribly Japanese about the films (except for the uneasy superimposition the traditional lore, pomp and pageantry). Also: no American director would get away with filming only battles and their contexts. It's no surprise that vacuous 'thrill' artists like John Sturges and George Lucas used K's films as 'inspiration' for their empty Hollywood confections. There' just nothing else there. Would it surprise you to know that his films were despised and UNPOPULAR in JAPAN (!!). Patently overrated. That's how Kurosawa's unfathomable influence started, with a bunch of pseudo-art conscious Americans in the fifties confusing 'exoticism' with blatant and planned pandering to American tastes.

Watch Ozu's "Tokyo Story" out on Criterion (at least we won't have too much moaning about THAT transfer, he?). Stop wasting your money on Kurosawa's one-note junk.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Rubbish.

[1/10 · 12 November 2003]

Just plain cheesy and vacuous. Nothing more to be said. No more please!!!! -300000/10. This sucks. Its the most awful film. I rate it right beside "Gigli" for being the year's biggest BOMB. No one cares about the 'message'. There is no bloody message. It is a big pile of steaming pantomime slo-mo pseudo-modish techno-obsessed mumbo jumbo offal. Not worth anyone's time. A more pleasant and "mind bending" experience would be getting a digital enema probe from Toothless the smiling dentist. The absolute pitts (with a capital "A". And what's up with you people's pseudo cyber nicknames: Cyberchild, Flowerbyte, Geoffwhizz..... get real. Grow the hell up. READ A BLOODY BOOK.

Umberto D. (1952)

Good Neo Realism but...

[6/10 · 12 November 2003]

The problem is that it shows up all the problems and paradox's of the neo-realist doctrine. While attempting to record unfettered "reality" (real world locales, un-trained actors) it makes use of constraining dramatic devices, such as the ending on the train tracks- "highly emotional" and all, but in a way utterly false, pretentious and manipulative. Reality claims and artifice sit side by side uneasily in this one. It seems that age has merely shown up the films unabashed pandering and teasing of the audience now that the shadow of world war two seems so 'light' and temporally removed (itself having become the subject of a far more virulent and counter-intuitive form of artifice: Hollywood doctrine). Deserves a look, but for a better example of how this general film ethos could work look up some of the 'cinema verite' of the following decades. 5.5/10

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Hopefully this is the nail in the coffin...

[1/10 · 8 November 2003]

What utter piffle. I have never in all my life experienced such plodding sci-fi piffle. This film finally and unequivocally shows up all the staid wooden (sub) acting, modish pandering and vacuous excess of the series which wasn't evident the first time around when everyone seemed so unabashedly wowed (!!). Besides the tiresome mumbo jumbo and AMAZING SPECIAL EFFECTS (t.m.) there doesn't seem to be much of substance here (as if there ever was to begin with).

Abysmal twaddle. 1/10

*Has anyone recently re-watched the embarrassment that is the original. Who could have though? When the over zealous mob subsides there is not much left but a party hat and a broken hard drive.

Contempt (1963)

A distant call for 'balance'.

[7 October 2003]

I have nothing to say about this film, as I have not seen it. I would like to see it, however the deluge of (highly) contradictory reviews at this site hinder any attempts at closure as far as my decision is concerned. Be lucky that you may expend time lamenting (or praising) this film for the mere price of three of your American dollars (rental). The rest of the world (i.e. Us) have to buy and then decide whether or not it's a pile of celluloid offal. Do not complain so vacuously so often. criticism and/or praise is good, but if your intention in writing a review is directed at helping other people 'sift out' their cinematic choices (as opposed to showing off the little grey cells or alternately becoming reactionary toward other people's snotty intellectual vanities etc.) then at least bother to write something balanced (ish) and less pontificatory. Thank you so much.

Queen of the Damned (2002)

Sad.

[29 September 2003]

I recently re-watched "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" (1988) and was somewhat saddened to watch Lena Olin, who's sublime performance in that film was soul shaking, in this piece of cardboard Hammer pictures throw-off trash. What on earth is someone who trained under Ingmar Bergman doing in this saaaad excuse for entertainment (playing second banana to the voluminously vapid Aliyah no less)??

Abysmal.

Irreversible (2002)

One question

[10/10 · 8 August 2003]

Would all the prudes and last Luddites (with a soft spot for gays and women, it seems!) like to answer one little question: Would there be as much slamming of this film (i.e. it is a pretentious, hollow, utterly bombastic effort devoid of any real insight into the tragic human condition which it claims to have 'revealed'; a banal tract serving only to highlight Noe's 'artful' obsession with wrangling in sicko's and putting everyone else off; a pretentious, violent pseudo-'meditation' on the intricacacies of the division between life and art, the worst film of the year etc etc etc etc.)

See it is as easy, if not easier to slander a film that it is to moderate opinion.... the above took me under a minute to type out.

My continued question: Would there be as much slamming of this film (by those wonderful little worms at 'Rotten Tomatoes') if it did not contain any 'nasty scenes'...... their shallow vitriol shows glaringly.

Many of those same critics rate 'The Hours' as one of the best films of the year..... just a little 'insight' into the institutionalized view of all-things-cinematic 'art' and Caucasian 'reality' which they find acceptable to the delicate 'p.c.' palate. Talk about 'featured on Oprah' status quo tugging.

All things critical considered, Noe probably gets the last laugh anyway---- on the way to the bank!

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

An unnecessarily padded and ersatz schlep of a film.

[1/10 · 27 July 2003]

It is high time that American critics and fans alike start to debunk their unquestioned, sloppy veneration of films like Sergio Leone's 'Once Upon a Time in America'. The checkered history of this opulent film (and the grand, fanciful myth associated with it's production and many versions) belies its mediocrity on a narrative level. The film lurches backward and forward in fits and starts, its central figures adrift and seemingly out of place surrounded by the ersatz decadence of towering sets, the minutia of production detail and the, by 1984, cliche'd but gorgeous cinematographic confection on offer to the audience. The plot's time frame is confusing, gimmicky and laboured, leading some critics to imagine the Noodles figure's opium binging to be the antecedent of some future 'dream reality' as well as the sepia-toned remembrances. This ham handed, overly fan boy-apologetic interpretation glosses over the glaring narrative irregularities on display. Even at this full (?) running time, figures appear and disappear with alarming suddenness: the Deborah character is fleetingly established in child form, a cold and unattainable 'trophy' female, not even hinting at the gravity with which she will re-establish her relationship with a post-prison Noodles, the said re-union henceforth rings completely false. The deadening pace is somewhat to blame, certain sequences drag along stagnantly for far too long, signifying very little, hinting at a director with so little restraint and narrative economy that he often feels obligated to usurp every iota of screen time possible in order to show off his production, fatal for a film that contains figures so sullen and aloof. The trajectory of the figures' lives is presented to us as a microcosm mirroring the historical trajectory of America's teens through prohibition and its spoils, ending with the (arguable) ruin of its moribund central figures (save Deborah- a make up department fumble or intentional one wonders). This notion is commonplace, even banal. The cast of characters as imagined in the one note script (written by seven Italians no less) are flatly and awkwardly played by all but the younger actors, who at least venture a few variant facial expressions. This is understandable given the almost unworkable material. Some critics state that the characters may seem so impenetrably self-absorbed, but actively seek their own goals, assuming the compliance of others (e.g. when Noodles gets out of prison, Max picks him up and offers him a hooker without asking him whether or not this is what he desires and later makes deals assuming Noodles will comply). This explanation of their abrupt, abrasive dispositions is unsatisfactorily extraneous and merely serves to highlight the complicated ends the films unwavering supporters will go to to defend their positions regarding a film unfortunately short on sense. Although Ennio Morricone's score is much revered, it is undeniably schmaltzy and repetitive, it gushes with an emotional redolence that the scenes themselves, many violent, just do not warrant. At points it is questionable whether or not Morricone was watching the same film I was so incongruous is his work. As a paean to American Filmmaking, it succeeds in terms of mood (helped by a few strokes of masterful editing segueing between time periods) and visuals (not helped by said score) but lacks narrative cohesion and fluidity.

State of Grace (1990)

Mediocre crime thriller/ mood piece.

[10/10 · 13 June 2003]

Unfortunately, this film is no lost classic. It comes off as completely routine, adding absolutely nothing to an already (by 1990) saturated genre niche (the New York gangster 'slice of life'). Indeed, 'State of Grace's only viable claim to fame is that it is mainstream film which added a third ethnic type to its contemporary Italian and Jewish mob 'vogue' templates set by 'The Godfather' films, especially Part 3, 'Goodfella's' and 'Once Upon a Time in America'. Phil Jaonou, the director who's previous credits included a rather mediocre U2 concert, was up against a deep-set tapestry of myth created by Coppola, Leone and Scorcese: it was inevitable that this film was going to flounder, and it did.

Good mood piece, though. Excellent performances by the central figures (especially Gary Oldman at a time before his rent-a-villain slump set a bourgeoning career into doldrum territory). Any film with an Ennio Morricone score can't be that bad, right? One niggle: when are American filmmakers going to stop exploiting and start debunking that obviously romanticised New York epicentred 'Good ole Oirish, Beggorah!!' myth. Could 'State of Grace' with hindsight be retitled 'Gangs of New York: One Century Later'?

The Mission (1986)

Not altogether cohesive or satisfying

[7/10 · 13 June 2003]

Roland Joffe's "The Mission" can, with hindsight, be seen as the first directoral misstep by a filmmaker who has subsequently been slumming it ("The Scarlet Letter", anyone?). This film has all the individual ingredients of a rousing, heartfelt masterpiece: Ennio Morricone's eponymous, redolent score, Chris Menges' strikingly mounted, symbolically saturated cinematography, Robert Bolt's erudite, literate and high-minded screenplay (apparently penned years earlier as a David Lean project) and a director just off from a round of plaudits for the excellent "The Killing Fields". Although the film has a number of isolated merits, the end product is a resolute dissapointment.

The opening sequence, a missionary attached to a cross making his way towards oblivion by way of a thunderous waterfall, masterfully segueing into Ennio Morricone's majestic theme; Jeremy Iron's Jesuit priest making his way up that same waterfall; the montage conveying the construction of the mission; the well placed use of Ray MacAnnalay's ambiguously doting, melancholy voice over, amongst others. The irony is that the film's major flaws result from these moments: the constant crescendo of emotional peaks, swelling violins, etc. combined with a narrative which contains such an obvious, inevitable conclusion, underscores most of the film's dramatic power.

The ending itself is a mess; it is badly choreographed (the soldier extra's don't seem to know in which direction to point their cannons and guns), with De Niro and Irons (as well as the Indian extra's) temporally confused as if their faculties have been clouded by langorous jungle narcotics. It seems rushed, probably due to its judiciously hurried inclusion in the 1987 Cannes Film Festival roster (it did win the 'Palme D'Or', granted).

Overall, a noble failure.

Far from Heaven (2002)

An Exercise in Style

[1/10 · 12 June 2003]

This is another contemplative, middle-America persona-driven film film for Julianne Moore. Judging from all the hype, I'm sure that I do not have to expound on the facts of the case.

There can be little doubt that Moore is at the top of her form, she is positively luminous on screen. Tod Haynes directs precisely, though with all the zeal of a put upon carry donkey. The cast is fine. The film unfortunately comes off more than a little flat. It is exquisite to look at but this alone is not enough to carry a feature film for 2+ hours, even when coupled with Moore's benign megawatt presence. The film is another one of those overtly revisionist, post modern tracts: a film in subjunction, a complicated lie. It stretches one threadbare premise over two hours with little reward for even the most patient of viewers.

Comes off like a stolid, affected version of 'Pleasantville' for the faux Hollywood cineast crowd, people in love with themselves as much as the film makers are in love with their product. Ranks alongside Moore's other critical success 'The Hours', both films feel stagy and aloof, although 'Far From Heaven' is at least more bearable in that it doesn't try to test our patience with the overwrought histrionics of three generations of priviledged white women.

** (out of *****)