pogostiks Reviews

Eastern Boys (2013)

tense and realistic

[7/10 · 30 May 2014]

This is a very well-told story about a young illegal Ukranian immigrant boy called Marek, who is cruised by a 40-ish gay male at Paris' Gare du Nord train station. This has been a place for men to pick each other up for decades... and has now - at least according to the film - been taken over by bands of illegal immigrants from Eastern Europe.

Daniel makes a date to see Marek the next day, but he gets a lot more than he expected when the entire band shows up and basically takes everything of value. He doesn't dare try to stop them, nor does he call the police afterwards. Strangely enough, however, Malek returns a few days later and they begin to see each other for sex on a regular basis. Little by little, the film becomes a discussion on love, trust and loyalty, not to mention a realistic portrayal of the problems faced by a lot of illegal immigrants trying to eke out a living in Paris through whatever means possible. The film is well paced, although a touch slow at the beginning, and the tension continues to mount until near the end when it becomes almost unbearable. The actors are all fine, especially Olivier Rabourdin as Daniel and Daniil Vorobyov as Boss, the leader of the pack.

The main problem with the film is that it occasionally lacks credibility for some of the characters' motivations. Why doesn't Daniel originally call the cops to report the theft of his things? More important, how does Daniel know where to find Marek when he goes looking for him? This is a major problem as it is not explained at all, and even worse, when Boss returns to Daniel's apartment, the surprise that awaits him makes no sense at all as it would have been impossible to prepare in advance. (I am being vague on purpose here). These are major errors in scriptwriting, but do not really take away from the emotional truths that the film is based upon. So it is a very good little film in its basic premises, but flawed somewhat in its execution. Nevertheless these flaws will not stop people from enjoying it on many levels, and it is definitely worth seeing.

Nicholas Nickleby (2002)

Total garbage

[4/10 · 2 September 2012]

How this version could have received a score of 7.2 is almost beyond imagination - except that nowadays the young people have such crap to watch generally that they are perhaps incapable of judging properly! So they vote with their eyes for Charlie Hunnam and are impressed by the list of well-known actors who generally do a good job... and who all should hang their heads in shame for being part of this enterprise. Christopher Plummer is wooden, Jamie Bell is wasted in this as his character is barely developed, Mr Hunnam is woefully miscast as he doesn't have an ounce of credibility in any of his scenes. The only ones who come out of this without damage to their reputations are Tom Courtney, who plays his role believably at least, and the duo of Nathan Lane and Barrie Humphries (basically recreating his Dame Edna Everage personage)... these two succeed where everyone else fails because they are never to be taken seriously anyway, but are simply characters in the theatre of the absurd, and so fit in perfectly with the rest of this terribly terribly feeble attempt at bringing Dickens' characters to life.

If you want to watch an excellent version of this story, watch the 2001 film with James D'Arcy in the title role. Everything that is wrong with the 2002 film will become evident in watching this far superior version!

Phoebe in Wonderland (2008)

first impression - ick!

[3/10 · 19 December 2010]

I have not yet watched the entire film, and I suspect that I won't. After about twenty minutes I was already bored, irritated, and angry. Angry? Mainly because this film is so much of a sop to "childhood"... especially when it is an upper-middle class variety (as if Hollywood couldn't interest itself in any thing less except once a decade....)

The opening is pretty much stolen from To Kill A Mockingbird, exhibiting the "magical" toys of childhood... except that in Mockingbird the toys had more significance to the plot and the music was haunting and set a perfect mood for the story. Here, all it is is filler... it's supposed to be "magical" (yes, that word again... ho hum.)

Then we have Elle Fanning... who the camera loves and unfortunately the director does too... which is OK if you aren't being asked to play every cliché in the book. The ideas are telescoped, the "suspense" is unwarranted because we KNOW (SPOILER? Ya gotta be kidding...) that Phoebe will get the part (after all look at the title) and even something like walking in front of the sign-up list, wondering whether or not to do it, is drawn out, like many other sequences, more than it needs to be.

And Patricia Clarkson, in the first twenty minutes, seems to playing everything on one note. Miss Zen for the the decade. One child asks "Are you asleep?"... She may not be, but she certainly is putting me in Slumberland.

The only surprise to me so far is that it was written by a guy... it seems to be so female-oriented and chick-flick-ish that it really IS a surprise that the director/writer is a guy; hmmm maybe he's gay? That might explain it...and a few other things in the film which I won't give away. (Ha! Just looked him up and I was bang on... not that his being gay is a problem in any way - I am too - but it explains a few things immediately.)

I guess what irritates the most is that it is playing too much to the PC crowd...he is almost certainly going to hit on every acceptable liberal theme. Again, this isn't a problem in itself - hell, I'm on the left too - but it is too formulaic. Where's the edge? Imagine if the script had been written by someone with real imagination like John Cameron Mitchell (of Shortbus).

Need I go on? No, because the people who will like this film are exactly the ones it was made for. It isn't challenging us. At least not for the first 25 minutes. I guess I'll go back and see if it makes me eat my words, but I doubt that I'll need Kleenex, except to perhaps wipe up after I've up-chucked.

L.I.E. (2001)

The ending was terrific

[8/10 · 21 November 2008]

I just want to comment about the ending, which many people ( Roger Ebert among them) didn't like.

SPOILERS!!!

First off, we must realize that Big John is not really a "pedophile"... that is a lover of boys. He is a lover of adolescents... the proper term would be "Ephebophile". However, since common usage has taken over, I will use the term "pedophile" here although it is not correct.

There are two things I thought were good about the ending. First, it reminds us of the negative possibilities to Big John's way of living his desire for young men - in that he leads young men on, but ultimately will ditch them when they become too "old" for him.

It is interesting to note that the young man who kills him does so out of rage from jealousy. He LOVES Big John, and wants his attentions for himself.

Now this is already a major point to drive home to the movie-going public. Generally, they have been brought up to think that these boys are VICTIMS... they forget that the boys sometimes are HAPPY to be in the relationship (as long as it is working). The fact that they might get ditched for someone else is NOT just a problem with pedophiles; it happens at some point in almost any love affair. People seem to forget that often what keeps these kids with the older man is love... plain and simple.

Yes, Big John is exploiting the kid who kills him - but that's not why the kid does what he does.

Second reason why I think the ending is good: Most people generally think that the Big Johns in this world deserve to die. What they forget is the effect the imprisonment, or simply the end of the relationship might have on the kids in question. Here, Howie has just learned that his Dad is in jail. His mum is dead. The only person who seems to want to help him is Big John... in fact, the only STABILITY that Howie might just find in this world (now that his best friend has left him) is, once again, Big John. When Big John gets shot dead, my first reaction was "Omigod, NOW what will happen to Howie?" I think that this is an amazing ending, because despite all the negatives we might have about pedophiles in general, in THIS case we are suddenly forced to admit that Big John's death will be BAD for the kid, rather than good.

I think that this is the first film that has ever managed to portray a pedophile in a fair light. It makes for reasoned thought as opposed to knee-jerk reactions. Bravo!

Lovely & Amazing (2001)

Junk food or just junk

[3/10 · 12 November 2008]

I read the pretentious mumblings of the director for this "work" of total junk. She's a "feminist", she thinks that worrying about her fat ass is not superficial... and if you think THAT is bad - go and see her film. It is an insult to women, an insult to feminists - and an insult to the intelligence of its supposed audience. There is not one single redeeming feature about this film; badly acted, badly written, badly filmed. Completely unbelievable. And not one shred of charm.

The director has a Black brother so she thinks she can write a film with a Black adopted kid in it and make it interesting. She can't. In fact, the only thing I noticed about the Black kid is that she was a total brat and that no-one - I mean NO-ONE - tries to teach her either manners or responsibility for any of her actions. She gets away with everything she does and gets hugged for being bad. Yeah, right! Just what we need. another Black kid with attitude... (don't blame me for that last crass comment - it's the director who wrote the kid the way she is and also wrote the women who supposedly "take care" of her by NOT teaching her anything worthwhile. (By the way, the Black kid is about the best thing in the film - she's the only one who I actually believed. All the other actors are sleepwalking through their roles. But I don't blame them. There isn't a single person in this film that I would want to know - they are all completely self-involved and tiresome.) Which is the real problem here. You don't care about anyone. One of the sisters tries to make "art" - little cutesy miniature chairs and wallpaper. They are not particularly good, and no-one wants to buy them; she in fact has no real talent at all. This sister is obviously an allusion to the director - and the film shouldn't have been able to be sold any more than the chairs were. This is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. God knows how she ever managed to get it made. She must have friends in very high places - who also don't dare tell her the truth about herself... and even more extraordinary is the number of people on this site that actually seem to have found something positive to say about it. Well, hell, America voted twice for George Bush, too. This film is even a greater flop than he is. Avoid it like the plague.

The Hanging Garden (1997)

Overdone, overblown pastiche of dysfunctional family life

[5/10 · 31 October 2008]

I think what I disliked the most about this film was simply the fact that I didn't like ANYBODY in it...not really. The father is a bully and a drunk. The mother is ineffectual, and doesn't even stand up for her children when they are being badly treated or even hit by her husband.she spends her time pursing her lips or waving her arms in frustration. The sister is vulgar as hell and is so completely dislikable in her opening wedding preparations scenes that it is difficult to warm to her later, although she ALMOST managed to break through my reserve for her in a few later scenes, mainly when she is being loving and protective of her older brother. The grandmother seems to be played on two notes only - sweetly senile or bossily mean, convulsed with religious intolerance. The youngest sister/daughter is just a rude, uncontrollable brat. And "Sweet William" is ...well, so sweet that he seems to more or less forgive everyone and never get really mad at any of what is going on around him. The only person in the entire film that I could sort of warm to was Fletcher - who is luckily not a part of this family and actually seems human and decent, if a bit selfish.

Now, I have seen dysfunctional families before, on and off screen - but here there is no indication that anyone is capable of simply being "normal" for even two minutes. Except for William, every one of them is murderously mean, nasty, muck-mouthed, intense and twitchy in all situations. ALL THE TIME! In the end, they come across as cardboard cut-outs rather than real people, every one of them (except William and Fletcher) overacting like crazy.

There were a few moments in the film that were touching and/or calm, but they were few and far between. In real life I would try and get away from these people as fast as I could. In other words, watching this film is an exercise in masochism. Thanks, but no thanks.

Ten times better -if you are into Canadian film - is C.R.A.Z.Y... a film with real people, real performances, humour and other emotions besides the "dramatic" ones... and a much surer director's hand. It will make up for the ennui and gruesomeness of The Hanging Garden.

Wild Tigers I Have Known (2006)

in the mood for...what?

[4/10 · 7 August 2008]

About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...

Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).

Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.

The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.

All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys?

Rock Haven (2007)

Omigod

[5/10 · 16 June 2008]

I gave this film a 5 - but really don't know WHAT to give it. I think the problem is with the director/writer, in that I don't think he ever really knew what he wanted to do here. The opening lines were so trite I found myself talking back to the screen... Then the two boys meet and I began to wonder if it was just bad acting/directing, or whether somewhere between the lines the director was hoping for parody... at times it was so embarrassing that I thought he HAD to be attempting comedy. The overlong pauses made me wonder if it was bad acting - or bad editing - or both. The lead character , Brady, played by Sean Hoagland, was filmed almost always in close-up - where he seemed to think that he had to project at least three different emotions all at the same time... He seemed to be twitching through his role too much of the time. And his mother seemed to be channeling some very uptight drag queen...All of this was my first impression.

Somewhere about halfway through though, I actually found myself enjoying the film - mainly, I think, because, despite a certain amateurish quality to the acting, the two boys really did have a sweetness to them that was almost impossible not to like. And they both have charm - so it made it easier to let myself get drawn into it. Although most of the script seemed ineffective, there were a few lines that did ring true and make some sense. Oh, and Owen Alabado, who plays Clifford, is definitely worth watching - he has a screen presence and a hot quality to him that is very promising. In fact, under the right director, I think both of these boys could end up making waves.

But then, near the end, suddenly it all came apart. First of all, two lines from the Bible are not enough to find a solution to such existential questions as those presented by the situation; Second - the priest - played by the director - reintroduced a fuzzy unfocused dissonance to the proceedings - which is why I think most of the blame for what doesn't work in this film comes directly from him. As the priest - he comes across as a very possible gay priest who can barely control his desire for his young charge, and can't seem to keep his paws off him, caressing his shoulder as if he were touching Christ himself. His performance (if you can call it that) adds an entire subtext to the film that never gets resolved, and only manages to complicate things without adding anything worthwhile. And it doesn't really make sense that if the priest was that positive and tolerant towards the boy, how come he didn't take any time to try and help the mother?

The only part of the movie that truly worked well for me was the scene where they make love for the first (and only) time. They both seemed mesmerized, so lost in each other's eyes that as they strip off they don't even take a moment to appreciate each other's bodies (but the audience does, I'm sure!) Someone will certainly write that it wasn't necessary to show full-frontal nudity, but I think this was the most honest thing in the film; the two boys were finally letting down all the barriers between them and offering themselves up to each other without the slightest artifice. There is an innocence to this scene that makes it truly beautiful... and the nudity only underlines the sincerity that the two boys bring to it.

So there it is - a mishmash of a film which shouldn't be totally dismissed, even though there are many things that could have been done better. Worth seeing, nevertheless, for the moments of un-jaded sincerity and sweetness.

Lord of War (2005)

Another Lord of the Flies

[8/10 · 21 May 2008]

This film caught me from the opening credits. Visually stunning and innovative, it is anchored in its cynical but all-too-true black humour... and is one of the best ensemble casts I've seen in a long time. I don't think there is a bad performance in the entire film: quite the contrary, you believe everyone. Yuri (Nicholas Cage) is from the very first a fraud... masquerading first as a Jew and then as a shipping magnate... he is in fact an arms dealer who is particularly good at his work. His brother (played by Jared Leto in one of his best performances ever) is a lost coke-head who, despite everything still manages to have a sense of humanity that has escaped his brother. Saddest of all is the "good guy" - Ethan Hawke, who is trying to do some good in this horror story called reality; he is incessantly idealistic - but, as we see in the most cynical (and possibly true) final minutes ever put onto the screen, his idealism is shown to be totally ineffectual when faced with "raison d'état" power and greed. Despite moments of almost flippant humour, the underlying feeling that runs through this film is the unrelenting desire for power, which as we all know corrupts. The jovial menace of an African warlord is one of the most chilling performances I've seen on film in decades... mainly because it is so underplayed but reeking with the banality of evil. Played by Eamann Walker - recently of OZ fame - they couldn't have found a better person to play this part.He has a charisma which makes him riveting and all too believable. Perhaps the most telling thing about this film is that it leaves you with a sinking feeling that not only are the events on screen pretty much true, but that there is no way to stop or improve the situation. We are all headed to oblivion with such men loose in the world - and this film makes it all too plain that it is only a matter of time before chaos will reign supreme, and that there will be not much hope left in the world for the future. Lord of the Flies, indeed!

Savage Grace (2007)

Ho-Hum

[3/10 · 17 May 2008]

Am I the only person in the world who has hated everything Julianne Moore has ever done? I never, ever believe this actress, even for a second. She is always too in control, even when she is supposedly losing it. In this film, the first twenty or thirty minutes are excruciating. They are meant to show us the high-living sophisticated world of the super-rich and well-connected... in this section of the movie Moore comes across as cold, phony and irritatingly boring. There is no real class to any of it... no wit either, although everyone seems to be trying so hard. Is it the director's fault, or the scriptwriters, that everyone in this movie comes across as inhumanely cold? Even when he is stabbing his mother to death, the main focus of the story, the son, never seems to be really feeling anything that could make him speak in more than a calm, cool voice. Dysfunction is one thing, total anomie is another.Except once when he can't find a dead dog's collar, and he totally loses it. This is supposed to be the emotional highlight of the film...in truth, it just comes across as overworked. The entire film takes place in a series of set pieces, but none of them seems to be advancing our understanding of the family or the people we are watching - we remain as detached as they seem to be. No - I exaggerate... I actually thought I saw a glimmer of true conspiratorial glee between the son and his first lover... even a bit of passion. If the film had taken twenty minutes to explore their relationship a bit more, it could even have become interesting. Alas, it was the only part of the movie that seemed to have any real connection between the actors... and it lasted all of two minutes. Personally, I felt that this film needed an entirely reworked script in order for it to gel. And a Director who knows how to get in close and show us the grimness of things. There are two scenes where this could have perhaps worked..first when the mother tries to commit suicide, and later when the son kills her. But in both instances the visuals are entirely stylized. The mother is supposed to have almost bled to death...completely unbelievable when you see how little blood is on the bed-sheet. And just a close up of the blade being shoved into flesh when the son stabs his mother could have brought the scene to life. Unfortunately, the Director chose aesthetics over emotion. I kept waiting for the film to take off, for it to make us care, even slightly, about the people whose lives we were watching. But even the incest scene was stylized and passionless. This film, in short, has almost no reason to exist.

Boys Life 5 (2006 Video)

5-star attractions

[8/10 · 13 April 2008]

I was totally blown away by the films in this 5th in a series. I'm afraid I don't remember all the titles, but the images are probably seared in my memory forever... they are all remarkable.

First story:perhaps the most unique... takes place in farming country. A youngteenager who has a pet chicken is drawn to another, older boy who workson another farm. I won't spoil it by saying anything about the story...suffice it to say that there are moments of pure sensuality and one ofthe most fascinating and ambiguous endings I have ever seen. Not forthe squeamish! This short totally fascinated me.

The second: about a young boy who goes to stay with a cousin after his father dies. The older boy is what everyone would wish to have as a brother/friend/cousin... he truly cares about the kid and tries to bring him out of his shell. He also becomes the focus for the stirrings of sexuality (terrific line said by the older kid to the younger one: "it's called a boner. You can have them whenever you want"). This film is remarkable for the tone of the piece...there is a wistfulness to the entire film that is addictive. And you wish that the older boy was your friend too...

Third film: "Time Off"... an Israeli film by the same director for two excellent feature films: Walk on Water; Yossi and Jagger. I was perhaps a bit less happy with thisone, mainly because I had already seen his longer films first and liked them so much that this shorter effort seemed to be less focused, less satisfying in the long run. But it does have a very hot washroom sex scene, where most of what happens is out of camera range but is still hot for all that.

The last story: "Dare": Another mood piece, beautifully acted, simply told, and tense with the possibility of sex. Again, I won't describe it except to say one small defect in the film is that the protagonist - the "light boy" - is supposed to be someone that everyone avoids, who has only one friend, a girl, and who at seventeen has never been kissed in his life. Sorry, but the guy playing him is so beautiful and hot that it is just not believable that this kid would have been shunned by others - of either sex! Quite the contrary; He did a beautiful acting job, but he was just too good looking to fit into the character...rather than being a loner he would most likely have his choice of friends and lovers. Which means the eye candy is terrific, almost as good as the nascent feelings that underlie the main thrust of this story.

Someone else here wrote a very negative review of these films, basically complaining that the content was not politically correct concerning gay politics. Well, if you can get your head out of your a$$, I think you'll realize that all of the films here were thought-provoking, sexy, and more surprising than anyone would have thought. I have seen lots of compilations of gay films - this is one of the best. There is not a single bad film here - and some of the images are just so vividly presented that they remain with you well after the film has finished. I will definitely watch this film again - and it makes me want to see what is in the other 4 of the series.

Yossi & Jagger (2002)

A small gem of a movie

[8/10 · 12 April 2008]

Warning! SPOILERS ahead! To me, the most blatant thing about Yossi and Jagger is the sexual tension running throughout the film. Not only between Yossi and Jagger, but between the soldiers both male and female as well. Which, of course, is normal for young people in their early twenties... and more so when they are in the front lines and could die at any moment. I think that this is the key to the film - for we are reminded again and again that what these kids want to do more than anything is to live at 100 miles per hour... it is the only chance they might get. The best example is just before going out on an ambush, suddenly everyone is dancing flat out with an energy that overflows. They shouldn't be spending so much energy when they might need it in the next few hours, but they can't help it. It might be their last time.

What hit me hardest was the ending, where one of the girls confesses her love for Jagger, and everyone in Jagger's family immediately assumes that he was her boyfriend and that he loved her... everyone except Yossi, who knows the truth. This moment in the film shows so well how lonely life can be for gay lovers... especially when one dies. Many times, if they were not completely out of the closet, the one left behind is not allowed to mourn for his lost lover, or at least not in a way that recognizes his real role in the dead person's life. I remember a friend whose lover had died... but no-one at his workplace was aware that he was living in a couple and had just lost his mate. He just had to show up at work the day after the funeral as if everything were fine. What a horror. And we see this same problem for Yossi...who at least has his memories, if not recognition.

Many people try to pretend that there is no such thing as "gay" cinema... or a gay sensitivity. Yossi and Jagger put the lie to this. Of all the films I've seen, this one is one of the simplest, yet also one of the most effective depictions of gay love that I have seen in the cinema. Honest, direct, tender, touching, funny, bittersweet and beautiful - it makes us like and want to know the protagonists better. Kudos to the director, who deserves a greater renown. This film is short, but it is a gem.

Breakfast with Scot (2007)

Painful to watch

[3/10 · 2 April 2008]

Before I say anything else, I'd better admit that I saw this film in a dubbed-into-French version. Maybe... just maybe... that is the reason this seems to be so flat to me... but I would not want to spend time watching it again - in the original version or any other.

For a Canadian film that some people here have touted as being better than the typical Hollywood junk and a "real family" film to boot - I am wondering if we saw the same film.

First of all, the entire film is predictable from beginning to end. There is NOTHING here that we haven't seen before, done better. Second - it looks and feels more like a television series comedy rather than a real film... all that's missing is the laugh-track (which maybe would have been a good idea, as I saw NOTHING in this film that was even mildly funny...) Third, this is supposedly a "gay-positive" story... yet uses every single cliché imaginable. The kid wears makeup, has a feather boa, and just generally comes across as the most flaming queen since Divine. I'm sorry, but no kid that I have ever known had EVERY cliché down pat. Also, how many gay men who are afraid to let ANYONE know they are gay, would be living with another guy openly in a committed relationship?? You have to have gone through a fair amount of gay-consciousness to allow that to happen... Oh, and the kiss between the two men at the end of the film was the most perfunctory, sexless, emotionless, useless kiss between two guys that I have ever seen on film.

There is NOTHING in this film that is even mildly believable. The dialogue sounds pat and scripted, not lived or realistically felt. The camera work is adequate, but certainly not memorable. Of all the Canadian films I have seen over the years, this one is the most tired, boring, badly scripted piece of crap I have ever seen.

If anyone on this site wants to see truly GOOD Canadian writing and directing, go see C.R.A.Z.Y - a French Canadian film with true heart, honest laughs, a REAL sense of family, and a much better representation of anything gay.

Mary Reilly (1996)

Eerily memorable

[7/10 · 21 March 2008]

OK, so this film was trashed by the critics... and I would bet a fortune that the average MTV generation movie-goer will practically fall asleep watching it - but I posit that their trouble with this film says more about them than it does about Frear's Gothic tale.

There are weaknesses - above all the fact that everyone else (including Julia Roberts ) has an accent but Malkovitch refuses to even attempt one. What's an American accent doing in the middle of all this? Malkovitch also seems to be channeling his own performance in Frear's masterpiece, Dangerous Liaisons - but if you haven't seen that film you should love what he does in this one.

But other than that, I found the slow pace to be totally gripping... The entire story is told from the viewpoint of Mary Reilly, and I have never seen Julia Roberts do a better job than here. She is wonderfully effective... it is worth watching this film only for her performance. But it is also worth watching because of the attention to period detail. You really get a feeling of what it must have been like to live in the 19th century. The manners, the utensils, the class differences...the psycho-sexual straight-jacket.

I will not give any details about the film - I'll let those who watch it discover it for themselves. But I would like to say one thing about the pace. This is not an action film, it is not even a horror film in the traditional sense. It is mainly a story of discovery - dealing with the slow realization of hidden desires and uncontrolled motivations; as such it should not - nay, could not be done at a quicker pace. It's really too bad that fewer and fewer people today seem to be capable of watching something that is subtle and slow. The loss is theirs.

Training Day (2001)

major problem with this film

[6/10 · 10 March 2008]

Warning! SPOILERS galore!

I was genuinely interested in this film to begin with... and I absolutely loved the acting of both Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke.

BUT - about three quarters of the way through this thing I could no longer suspend disbelief.There are just too many things that accumulate for this film to be taken as seriously as it could have been...

Yes, there are rogue cops out there. That is not my problem with this film. It probably comes extremely close to the truth when showing how corrupt the cops can be - and also probably very close to what the streets and their scum are like.

The problem is with what happens to Ethan Hawke during the day in the life ... First problem. He smokes some pot laced with crack. He is totally out of his head... but probably not long enough to be realistic. He should probably have been almost totally knocked out for several hours... but it seems like only an hour or so after being high he is charging down a street and capturing totally by himself two would-be rapists... Not bloody likely. (And while I'm at it, I can't imagine real cops walking away from the perps leaving them with their handcuffs on... they would have at least taken back their equipment!

Please remember that one of the rapists kicks Ethan in the side at least two or three times during their scuffle.

Second: Ethan gets beaten up a second time by the hoods in the house where he is left by Washington. Sorry, but anyone who has been beaten up once by rapists and then beaten up a second time by these hoods would have been barely able to walk or do anything for the rest of the night. But not Ethan... he goes after Washington, and not only gets into a tumbledown fight that should ALSO have left him totally unable to move - but he actually jumps off a roof onto the windshield of a moving car and is STILL able to walk and operate on a pretty high level.

Sorry, but if anyone reading this has ever taken even a quarter of the punishment Ethan does in this film, they would know that he would have been inoperative for most of the day... and certainly not in any shape to get through the last quarter hour of this film; Like, who is this guy, anyway? Superman?

Third: How many 4 year old kids do you know that would trust a guy he's never met more than his own father? How many women who greet their man the way Washington's girlfriend (wife?) does when they stop off for lunch - would abandon him so quickly near the end? She grabs up her kid but does nothing to help protect Washington... and there is no explanation of why.

I could go on - but why bother? There are so many holes in this film that although I liked much of it - and could believe the angle of the rogue cops etc... there is just no way that someone like Ethan would have been able to physically make it through this day.

Oh, and by the way - in a town of how many millions, what would the odds be that the ONE 14 year-old girl who Ethan saves from being raped would turn out to be related to one of the hoods who is supposed to have killed him for Washington? Oh, come on! That is the weakest part of the entire plot. Could anyone who took two seconds to THINK really accept such a corny device? One would have better odds trying to win the lottery!

All of this means that the film is really pretty stupid - or taking its audience for dunces... The only reason I gave this film a 6 instead of a 4 is because it is well-shot and well- acted.

The MacKintosh Man (1973)

too phony in every way

[4/10 · 27 February 2008]

Besides the fact that it barely keeps your interest up until three quarters of the way through the film, one of the worst things about this is that the actors were all poorly chosen. Paul Newman is supposed to play a Brit posing as an Australian - but he can't do the accents right at all. His American accent keeps coming through depending on the scene, and even when he is trying his best it is pretty feeble.

Dominique Sanda is Italian, but her English has a French ring to it. The funniest line in the movie is when she says she is the daughter of someone who DOES HAVE a Brit accent.

There is an amazing lack of energy in this film - there is only one scene that grips our attention - a car chase, which is truly well done. Other than that, this film can best be described as soporific.

The Great Debaters (2007)

Shows by example

[7/10 · 1 February 2008]

The one thing that truly impressed me about this picture was how well it captured the tensions of the time... living as Blacks in Texas in the thirties. I don't think any other film has quite captured the truly shameful way that Black people were treated only a generation or two ago.Many other films (for example, In The Heat of The Night) have touched on similar territory, but none really got to me quite as much. It is in stark contrast to modern times in that, although there is still racial prejudice both socially and economically in America today, nevertheless I wonder how many young people today (both Black and White)really realize just how bad it was on a day-to-day basis. In our modern era where White and Black not only mingle but often date, the strides that have been made in just a few generations is quite literally a reason to hope - especially now that America might even soon have a Black President.

But there is something else that this film does, besides simply relate some Black history. It holds up the sophistication and excellence of these kids in contrast to too many of the Black kids today, who have so many more opportunities to make something of their lives, and who seem to be wasting them by taking the easy way. How many rappers or their audience would even know who Thoreau was - not to mention half the other names quoted in this film, both Black and White? How many kids today settle for reputations based on flashy clothes and street smarts instead of true education? What was most obvious in this film is that the people here were NOT afflicted with a ghetto mentality. Yes, they knew very well who they were and what there history was, but they realized that it is in conquering the world OUTSIDE the ghetto that truly shows character and excellence. In this film the Black debaters beat the Harvard team on their own territory and showed that education and sophisticated thinking are not just the white man's prerogative. In that time, being poor was not a reason to remain ignorant. Today, in the inner-city black culture, it seems that bad grades and a prison record get you more respect than success. I can only hope that this film will help set things straight in some kids' minds, although I suspect that such a fine film might be ignored by those who need to see it the most - after all, there are no rap songs on the soundtrack, no explosions, no quick editing like on MTV - nothing that the average Black kid today can relate to... or am I being too harsh in my judgment? In any case, this is a film worth seeing, not only for its subject but for the wonderful job the actors do - there is not a bad performance in the entire film. Kudos to Denzel Washington as the director, who was smart enough to focus on the characters rather than trying to impress with any fancy technical tricks. An honest film, revealing a story that has been too little known for too long.

Priest (1994)

Oh my God!

[8/10 · 16 December 2007]

For all those who think this film is just an anti-Church tirade - you have obviously missed something here ... it is called "humanity". The main problem of the Catholic Church today is that it is too obsessed with maintaining power and inflicting dogma - and completely forgetting the human element in its midst. The AIDS crisis would be a perfect analogy for this: which is more important, saving people's lives or NOT using a condom? Not only does the Catholic Church preach against using condoms EVEN between husband and wife if one is HIV positive - it actually disseminates lies all throughout Africa by pretending that condoms are not viable in stopping infection.

That said, this film NEVER forgets the human element, even when - SPOILER - the father of the girl is explaining that it is NORMAL for a father to be sexually attracted to his daughter. His arguments, as well as many others in this film, continually point out the dilemma of allowing dogma to run our lives rather than compassion and understanding. The theory is one thing; putting it into practice is another. The most obvious problem is the one of a relatively conservative Catholic priest who, despite all his prayers and faith, still cannot stop himself from acting on his homosexual urges.

Some people in other posts here just say "How absurd - he took a vow - too bad for him blah blah blah". Yes, well, that's the RULES - but what about life? The whole point of the Catholic idea of Communion is based on the idea that ALL men are sinners - and they all must be absolved of their guilt. This should also include the priests for they were men BEFORE they were priests, and sometimes hormones are stronger than any man-made law.

The real problem for any person, and especially a priest, is trying to live according to Church doctrines. In one way or another - they will ALL at some point have to be hypocritical in what they say or do, because the Church demands total obedience and perfection, whereas human life is messy and complicated. I know a gay priest who HAS remained more or less celibate since his ordination... yet he still masturbates and then finds himself in the ironic position of having to tell his teenage flock that they SHOULDN'T masturbate. Well, even if he is not capable of following the teachings of the Church himself - he still feels it is his obligation to tell the kids that they must strive not to masturbate themselves. Once he has passed on the Church's teachings, he has fulfilled his job - and it is up to each individual to decide whether or not he (she) will or CAN follow the rules precisely.

Which is why this film is so good. It deals with all the complications of dogma, but never forgets the human element and the complications coming out of such dogma. The actors are excellent , the script is honest and vibrant, and there is a building tension throughout the film that is beautifully handled by the director. What more can one ask for?

Who Framed Roger Rabbit (1988)

Brilliant - for 15 minutes

[5/10 · 12 October 2007]

It is impossible not to enjoy Roger Rabbit for its inventiveness...but after that, what else is left? You certainly don't care about the characters. Roger himself is extremely annoying for the most part. In fact, the best part of the film for me was the beginning... about 5 full minutes of pure cartoon fun, between Roger and a baby - reminiscent of the kinds of situations that we usually see Wile E; Coyote getting himself into. It was a scream. Bu then the rest of the film takes over, an d after the first few minutes of being amazed at the technical slight of hand...it begins to go downhill. By two-thirds of the way through, I was barely paying attention any more. The only thing that kept me awake was trying to see how many different cartoon characters I could recognize and remember where they came from originally.

So all in all, I couldn't find myself capable of giving it more than a 5... if I were voting on the first 5 minutes I would have given it a 9; if I were voting just on technical merit i would give it a 10... but as a whole? I much preferred Peter Pan or Mary Poppins or Ratatouille

Valmont (1989)

nothing too "dangerous" about Valmont

[4/10 · 11 October 2007]

What a disappointment. When I saw Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Stephen Frears, I left the cinema totally horrified by the self-defeating destruction left in the wake of its two main characters, Madame de Merteuil and Valmont. I don't think a single other film has ever seemed to depict such pure evil and immorality quite so well. But when I finally got to see Milos' Forman's Valmont, I was thunderstruck by how he had missed all of the main points of the story.

Annette Bening spends most of the film with the same smile on her face - you never know what she is really thinking because she almost never changes her expression. Even more disconcerting is the fact that her timing was all off - a two second pause before almost every reply she made to anyone. It was almost as if she hadn't quite learned her lines.

Colin Firth was handsome, I suppose, but the script never made him seem ruthless. More important, I couldn't fathom for the life of me who he OR Bening really cared about. Both performances were flat and on a single note. No bite, no passion, nothing worth getting excited about. Even the costumes seemed to be colourless and unimportant.

I guess what disappoints me the most in Valmont is that the subtle,y, the underlying viciousness and scheming seem to have been replaced with a kind of gentle flirtatiousness. The only tension in the film came at the point where Valmont is fighting a duel... the two swordsmen suddenly move out of camera range and we see a look of horror and fear on the face of a lackey. But this is just facile technique... the REAL tension should have been between Merteuil and Valmont...but it just wasn't there.

Apocalypto (2006)

adolescent but gorgeous

[6/10 · 10 October 2007]

I wouldn't call Mel Gibson intelligent, but he is certainly crafty. He knows how to make films that will sell well. He gets every Christian imaginable to come to see his Passion of the Christ - and even gets the Jews to come to see whether it is as anti-Semitic as some have said.

Here, in Apocalypto, Gibson has decided to make a film which will appeal to that most important of demographics - the teenage male. As such, it needs two basic things. A juvenile attraction to everything sexual - especially the male genitalia - and, of course, violence and gore.

Something else about the film - which could also be said about the Passion of the Christ - is that it is highly homo-erotic. Underneath all his machismo, I wonder if Gibson even realizes this fact. The main leads are, almost to a man, stunningly gorgeous and sensual. And of course, given the fact that they are almost completely nude makes this film a gay man's dream come true.

That said, I think that the film has to be divided into two parts. First comes the peaceful everyday life of the Mayan villagers - which I must say came across to me as so completely juvenile in its attempt at humour that I wonder how Gibson can hold his head up in public, never mind be a father to children. Eating tapir testicles, making jokes about a man's concerns about not being able to father children - and giving the same man a supposed cream to help him which in fact burns his genitals (and his wife's mouth)...get it? har har...)is adolescent in the extreme. The second part is made up principally of blood and gore, as people are sacrificed with their hearts ripped out, their heads severed - and during a chase scene just about every manner imaginable is used to kill the trackers of our hero.

So - sex , blood and gore. What more do you need to get those young kids to come into the theatre?

I have given this film a vote of 6 out of 10. If I am less than happy with the facilities of the script, I have to admit two basic things about Apocalypto in general. It is cinematographically gorgeous... it is a visual cornucopia that fascinates from beginning to end. Secondly, it has some of the most striking make-up and costumes to have ever been put on film; head-dresses, tattoos, body "armour" and jewellery, piercings, hairstyles - the imaginative delights never seem to stop. To hell with the story - I could watch those beautiful and expressive faces and body trappings for hours and never be bored.

So the film gets a six - for the visuals despite the pathological subtext.

Prizzi's Honor (1985)

Great performances for a stylistic exit

[6 October 2007]

Many people refuse to believe that this is a comedy. They are wrong. Just watch Angelica Huston's screamingly funny moment as she brings in her father's dinner. She is walking towards him behind his back... calm, cool, suave - and suddenly transforms herself into the pitiful, broken, submissive daughter that her father is expecting her to be. She has the hunched martyr's pose down pat - and it is brilliantly funny.

That said, the problem with Prizzi's Honor - which I enjoyed immensely by the way - is that too many things just don't gel. For one thing, Nicholson kills someone in California, and we discover (at the same time as Nicholson) that his (Nicholson's) major love interest, Kathleen Turner, is in fact married to the man he has just killed. And they continue their lives as if nothing has really happened. They continue their love affair and the body in the garage is completely forgotten. But wouldn't the police or someone have found out that he is dead? Wouldn't the police have wanted to speak to interrogate his wife? None of this happens. .. which, is, of course, nonsense.

Many people have complained that they can't believe in the characters - and I agree with them. But I am not complaining - just agreeing with their statement. I don't know if the director, John Huston, was totally up to making this film, as he was deathly sick and probably knew that it would be his last one. But I suspect that Huston decided to make Prizzi's Honor and go out in style - for that is really what this film is about - an exercise in style. Nicholson is the arch stereotype of the dumb hoodlum; Turner is the vamp of all time; the Godfather of the entire Prizzi clan couldn't be more brutal or ghoulish, especially when he is smiling - all done with a certain camp flair. And Huston's daughter Angelica plays the long-suffering "wronged woman" with proud, wicked vengefulness. These are all well-known types, yet here they come across as hysterically exaggerated stylized versions of what we have seen in other movies. Huston is too good a director to have done this by accident. He wanted to go out in style - and with Prizzi's Honor - he did so, most honorably.

Empire of the Sun (1987)

insufferable

[29 September 2007]

At one point in the film, an American says to the young Christian Bale "You're beginning to get on my nerves". Well, that just about sums it up. The kid babbles incessantly and all I wanted to do was stuff a sock in his mouth. Not only that but there is very little that is believable about this child. Yes, he likes planes, but how many kids, in the middle of a crowd hysteria scene are gonna be playing with a toy plane rather than trying to escape like everyone else? Or how about when he goes back to his home and finds it empty - he just takes up residence until all the canned food is gone before even thinking about trying to find help. There is something so insufferable about this child that, try as I might, I never cared about him at all. He seemed totally self-involved - even concerning his parents. I'm not putting down Christian Bale here as much as I am the script that he is forced to follow. Same problem in a sense with John Malkovitch. He is basically a scurrilous character - but it is difficult to decide exactly what we are supposed to think about him. At one point he just completely abandons the kid - but that doesn't stop the kid from thinking they are "friends"... doesn't hold together at all. Children understand disloyalty... instead of mistrusting him the kid does everything he can to please him. He finds a far more suitable mentor in the doctor - but is continually drawn back to Malkovitch. Not very believable at all. In the end, I only watched half of the film before a glitch in my copy stopped me from seeing the second half. I was relieved rather than peeved.

Easy Rider (1969)

Like, man, you know, man...

[4/10 · 15 September 2007]

I first saw this in 1969 and hated it violently; I swore that if Dennis Hopper said "man" one more time I was gonna walk out of the theatre. Fortunately, Jack Nicholson showed up and saved the film from total ruin. I guess what I disliked most about it was that it seemed to have been made without a script... and the ad libs were so lame for most of it that it bored me to tears. Now I read in the trivia section that they were mostly stoned and drunk for the filming... and ad-libbed their way through half of it - so I am vindicated.

Now, almost 40 years later, I watched it again... and my basic feeling about it hasn't improved. The only character that the audience can care about is George...played by Jack Nicholson. He has charm, he has wit, his acting is creative enough that you KNOW that this man will go on to bigger and better things. He is the only saving grace in the entire film. Peter Fonda spends the entire movie looking "cool"... and his pronouncements sound like pretentious crap. Dennis Hopper has to be one of the most over-rated actors ever created by Hollywood. In this film he comes across as an insensitive creep. It is no surprise that many of the people working on the film quit because of his drunken and paranoid rages. When he gets killed, it is -in my estimation - a mercy killing... The main mystery here is why so many people seem to have loved this film. I suspect that this is because everyone likes to feel like a bit of a rebel. It is almost yelled at you from the screen that the only people who can appreciate the "heroes" of this film are people "in the know", people who are cool, people who "get it". If you DON'T like the characters portrayed (or the film by extension...), it is subliminally suggested that you are a Neanderthal; so how many people are gonna stand up and say this is junk? Yes it has some good music, yes the landscapes are often majestic and beautiful, and yes, the scene where Nicholson talks about how the concept of freedom is a dangerous one to be bandied about is a nice insight. But is that enough? Maybe for a fifteen minute short...but as far as I am concerned, Easy Rider has always been a disappointment, and it doesn't look any better now that it did originally. Some films never lose their freshness, and can be seen again and again with pleasure. This film is done with such pretension that even one viewing of it is more than enough.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007)

low-brow entertainment for adolescents

[4/10 · 3 September 2007]

I'm gay but the stereotypes didn't particularly bother me in this movie...except for the Asian man who weds them. I have not seen such a blatantly unacceptable stereotype like that in years.... it reminded me of Jerry Lewis pretending to be Asian... with buck teeth, a horrible accent and coke-bottle glasses. Totally insulting, to my mind.

The main problem with the film is that it is so completely juvenile that for most of the running time it is almost unbearable to watch. About three quarters of the way through, I actually began to like a few minutes here and there... especially anything done by the black gay fireman - he was truly funny - but for most of the film all I did was pray for it to end soon.

One cameo role surprised me - Richard Chamberlain...who IS gay. I think that anyone who wants to put the film down for stereotypes should ask themselves why, if the film is truly offensive to gays, Richard Chamberlain would have accepted to be a part of it.

My main beef, therefore, is simply that it is not funny. Unless you are a ten year old... or totally indiscriminating in your taste.

For anyone who wants to see a truly gay film that is screamingly funny...rent out Another Gay Movie. It is a total parody of American Pie... but is done so well that I cannot praise it too much. It makes I Now Pronounce You... look like a cheap shoddy affair in comparison.