Change Your Image
urbisoler
Reviews
King Arthur (2004)
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda.
Most of your reviewers did not know what to expect going in. That's unfortunate. They should have realized that this was meant to approximate a "possible" historic Arthur, not the Arthur of legend. I have tried to keep abreast of the latest research surrounding the Arthurian romance and I was looking forward to this treatment with anticipation.
I was really into this film for an hour. It could have been this way, I reasoned. The music score greatly helps to enforce this feeling. Then I began to realize that Clive Owen was not emotionally charged for the action, nor the love scene. I also had a hard time envisioning Guinevere as a warrior. There is no way she could compete with a towering man twice her weight. Besides, I don't know if women in battle is historically accurate. (Joan d'Arc being a remarkable exception).
I really wanted this film to succeed but it obviously hasn't. Nevertheless, it is a step in the right direction (hence my 6 rating) and should prepare future film makers for something meaningful. It should be obvious to ALL that Arthur is not going away; not the historic Arthur nor the Legend. The tale is just too good to lose.
Wuthering Heights (1992)
I give this flawed film an 8 because . . .
I recognize that this film is flawed, nevertheless, I will give it a rating of 8. Why such a high number? I cannot compare it to Emily's book as others have done because the film industry cannot be expected to encompass WH in the span of 2 hours or so. I must, therefore concentrate on its forebears. And, I might as well pick on the considered classic WH, William Wyler's 1939 version.
Here is what is wrong with 1939. It is a Hollywood romance and only tells half the story. 1992 at least TRYS to tell the whole tale, flaws and all. More importantly, however, is that Emily did NOT write a romance. She wrote a tale of obsession and perhaps even of evil. Even tho' Fiennes is not physically dark enough to portray Heathcliff, he does come across as the cruel and obsessive character Emily intended. It is also significant that Steven Spielberg (who apparently can do no wrong) chose Fiennes as his concentration camp commandant in "Schindler's List" based on Fiennes' WH performance. That should tell you something.
Also, remember that this story is essentially Heathcliff's story, not Cathy's. That is why half a story cannot do it justice (and probably why Hollywood chose to make it a romance).
P.S. I also like the music score by Ryuichi Sakamoto. It is fittingly haunting. And, I must say, the Sinead O'Connor cameo as Emily Bronte is quite effective theater.
Hart's War (2002)
Social Agenda of Roger Ebert
I often check Roger Ebert's Movie Reviews AFTER I have seen a film to see how I measure up with the expert. After a few years of this activity, I am convinced that Mr Ebert has a social agenda which is clearly reflected in his reviews. ie. Hart's War. Mr Ebert rates this a 3 star film. I would have rated it 3-1/2 stars. Not much difference you say? The difference is significant and can be measured by the last paragraph of Mr Ebert's review:
"The movie worked for me right up to the final scene, and then it caved in. [The writers and director] put the plot through an awkward U-turn so that Bruce Willis could end up as a hero."
After telling us how "awkward" this plot twist was, he goes on to say:
"How and why he does so, is ingenious . . ."
It is not important to my argument to know what that plot twist is. But it is of major importance to read how Mr Ebert would have improved(?) the plot ending:
"I would have liked it better if the far-off bugle had been playing under a black character at the end and not a white one."
So, it looks like Mr Ebert would have preferred the continuation of the racist message the film has portrayed up to that point rather than let a white man be the hero. But, of course, if they had done so, the result would have been "just another military courtroom drama" instead of "an ingenious one".
Make no mistake. Mr Ebert sees this as a film about racism, which it is, and resents the altogether too rare plot twist that makes this film a winner. He would rather we left the theatre moaning about the plight of the black man which has been done endlessly over the last half century and, perhaps, done better elsewhere (ie. To Kill a Mockingbird).
Gladiator (2000)
Here's why I liked "Gladiator" . . .
I grew up in what is called a simpler time. Motion pictures then are considered milksop today because they didn't deal with "real life". I'm glad I'm not a kid today. They have had to deal with destructive drug use, vulgar sex, disgusting language, unredeemable violence, disease, rape, incest . . . name it, it is part of today's culture. And, it IS destructive. Motion pictures in the 40's and 50's left us with a set of values about how one should live our lives. They were idealized. They were about duty, honor, courage, justice, etc. and if they were about the opposite of those values, they reflected the consequences of a wasted life. Gladiator is "old-fashioned" movie-making. I liked it because it reminded me of my youth which was a great time to be young. But it ought to be an important movie also. Just imagine all the impressionable young minds glorying in the heroism of Maximus. I'm not a religious man but a picture like this makes me wish I were. I have a hard time believing that there are rewards in an after-life for a heroic life. That is why it is so important for our young people to have a valued childhood; so they can grow to be a valued adult. The rewards of a good life may only be realized in THIS life. Gladiator goes beyond our time but movies like that didn't harm me as a youngster; no more than the fantasy stories we grew up with. If the fantasy of an after-life is deemed destructive then I suggest you don't see the current Harry Hopper films; nor the Lord of the Rings or even It's a Wonderful Life. Actually there is a long list of films that may be milksop but I don't think there's enough of them, especially these days.
As for Russell Crowe being a "poor" actor, I think those critics will have to reevaluate their positions when they have seen "A Beautiful Mind". Russell just might win ANOTHER oscar.
The Brontës of Haworth (1973)
If you know the story, then this is THE dramatization!!!
I look at this film in two ways. First, by comparing it to the real life story of the Bronte family. As a member of the Bronte Society, I think I qualify as a Bronte family partisan. This British production is remarkable in every respect. It is television at its very best. It follows the story as well as it possibly can without over-dramatization or sentimentality. The acting, sets, costuming, photography, etc are all professional done. A slight drawback might be the musical accompaniment which is rather insignificant. Secondly, there is the comparison to the 1946 Hollywood version of the Bronte story, "Devotion". Don't think the pretty ladies, Olivia de Haviland, Ida Lupino, and Nancy Coleman, add an iota of class to this insipid, silly, ridiculous bit of fiction. It is a travesty on the Bronte name. If it is ever shown in television reruns, it should carry an apology and a warning that what you are about to see in no way is representative of one of the most remarkable literary families in our history.