Reviews

This was an opportunity for some truly biting satire, but it was instead a rather pedestrian and forgettable bit of fluff. Reading a description of the plot- "An ethically-challenged anthropologist concocts a completely fake tribe and fools the whole world"- it should be a brilliant send-up of the goofier aspects of anthropology. Perhaps a digression is in order.

Anthropology is a strange field. In their zeal to become as "objective" as the scholars of the natural sciences, anthropologists have sometimes forgotten that their subject of study is homo sapiens, a species which frequently frustrates attempts at "objective" scientific analysis (except where quantitative measurement is possible). Because of this, anthropology, during its long history, has seen more than its share of hoaxes, frauds, and rank nonsense (George Psalmanazar, Vilcabamba, the Tasaday, Margaret Mead and the Samoans, "The Third Eye", etc). Sometimes anthropologists are taken in by the wild tales of tribesmen playing a grand practical joke on gullible foreigners. Sometimes anthropologists exaggerate local peculiarities, ignoring the great similarities between the locals and Westerners- or, trying to prove that differences are only skin-deep, they do the opposite, ignoring obvious biological differences in favor of cultural explanations. At other times, anthropologists are taken in by complete fraudsters whose elaborate nonsense confirmed those anthropologists' preconceptions.

Undergirding and feeding nearly all such hoaxes is one constant- Western observers who project their own fantasies and pet theories onto strange and distant peoples about whom they have insufficient information. Whether it is Rousseau with his "Noble Savage", credulous 20th-century advocates of "free love", communitarian socialists, earnest anti-racism crusaders, or people desperate to explain away the differences between men and women as nothing more than "culturally constructed", anthropological frauds always find a fertile market among people who are more concerned with critiquing their own societies than with learning about strange ones. (None of this, by the way, is meant as a dismissal of the work of serious and sober anthropologists who study and analyze the human animal).

This constant is exactly what is missing in "Krippendorf's Tribe", and its absence means that the satire never bites or cuts, but only gently prods. As far as the film is concerned, the only thing driving the popular interest in "Krippendorf's Tribe" is simple prurience- part of the equation, no doubt, but only one aspect of a much larger issue in real-life frauds.

A better approach would have been to highlight the way that intellectuals could use a phony tribe to serve as a justification for their own crackpot theories about human society and human nature. "Krippendorf's Tribe" dances around this slightly, but we don't see much of it. Part of the problem is that Krippendorf himself remains more or less fully in control of whatever information comes out about his concocted tribe, the "Shelmikedmu". He only invents things on the spot, based on aspects of his own life. It would have been more pointed to see the Shelmikedmu tribe taking on a life of its own, with other hucksters, fraudsters, and over-zealous academics contributing their own (equally bogus) information and theories about the Shelmikedmu. Surely, someone with experience of backbiting and jealousy in academia could have helped sharpen the rather dull-edged satire here.

Another part of the problem is the film's attempt to manipulate us into looking at Krippendorf as a sympathetic character, despite his lies and fraud. The movies uses most of the classic techniques- his wife died, he was under stress, and one lie just snowballed into another in true Fawlty Towers fashion, until other, more sinister people started manipulating him into bigger and bigger lies. We have seen all of this before, and it's not very convincing. A better approach would have been to portray Krippendorf as an unalloyed con artist, morally dissolute and positively eager to tell any whopper to keep the fraud going. This would have opened up many more opportunities for the kind of first-rate satire that this film should have had in spades, but didn't.

At any rate, one does not wish to judge the film too harshly. The sexual jokes are crude and not nearly as funny as the filmmakers seem to think, but in most other respects, this film is adequate entertainment for a rainy afternoon in front of the TV.

Frankly, this movie left me slightly annoyed. I am not speaking as a fan or even a casual reader of the "Ghost Rider" comic books (I've never even seen one). I simply felt that the plot was poorly organized, unfocused, and fairly dumb. It wasn't a horrible story, just one that consistently fails to deliver on any of the expectations it creates. It feels almost as if "Ghost Rider" was filmed with an unfinished first draft of a script, or that half of the important scenes ended up on the cutting room floor.

The film is also hampered by what appears to be a complete lack of "rules" for the operation of the supernatural in the film's world. One minute demons are pronounced unable to walk on "consecrated ground", the next minute they're waltzing in and out of churches (this is only one of the most glaring inconsistencies; there are plenty of others). I'm not demanding that a movie depict demons accurately (since I must concede that real demons are probably not very visually interesting), but a little consistency would be nice. As a side note, I am getting a bit tired of movies that depict demons and the like, but don't bother depicting their logical counterparts, such as Angels. If there were no Angels, there could not be any demons.

On the plus side, the movie at least has decent visuals, and the atmosphere is sufficiently interesting to keep one looking at the screen. The special effects are nothing special in this world of CGI wonders, but neither are they laughably stupid. All in all, "Ghost Rider" is dull and idiotic, but it does not begin to plumb the depths of true cinematic awfulness (trust me on this one- I own "The Beast of Yucca Flats" on DVD). You probably have better things to do with your time, but there are also plenty of worse ways to spend it, I guess.

Although I am glad that this movie was made, and I certainly think the result is a more than adequate family film, I can't help but feel disappointed by the result. In making the transition from book to film, it feels like the filmmakers jettisoned what they thought were minor details of C.S. Lewis' original work, and replaced them with typical Hollywood-style action sequences.

While none of this was bad in itself, many of those "minor details" were, in fact, central to the themes and ideas of the book. It's not that things were changed that bothers me. Some of the additions made to the story were quite good. What bothers me is that certain things were changed or deleted that shouldn't have been.

For example, the initial encounter between Aslan and the Witch was meant to demonstrate Aslan's absolute superiority over the Witch, and her fear of him. She was terrified of him, mirroring the way that, in C.S. Lewis' world-view, evil is absolutely inferior to good.

The film, however, was interested in making the Witch seem like a "credible" villain, and took away much of her fear in that scene. It's a mistake. C.S. Lewis' point- that evil is much weaker than good- gets lost, and very little is gained from the change.

Similarly, in the book, the Beaver specifically states that Aslan is neither tame nor safe. Lewis put this in to mirror his ideas about God. The movie, in the interest of keeping Aslan's status as a Lion as a surprise, drops this element, opting instead for a few seconds of surprise for anybody who, say, didn't read the title of the film (are we really supposed to be surprised that Aslan is a lion when "The Lion" is right in the title?).

There are numerous other instances of this. Please don't misunderstand- I'm not some mad purist who can't stand it when the slightest change is made transitioning to the screen. I don't mind changes per se, it's just that C.S. Lewis was a very talented writer exploring some very complex themes, and he didn't include small details randomly or without thought. In a nutshell, I feel that excellent elements have been removed and replaced with merely adequate ones.

This is not to say that this isn't a good movie. It's an excellent family film, and certainly ranks head and shoulders above most the the garbage people take their children to see. It's a rousing adventure story, the visuals are magnificent, and Lewis' works shines through despite the misguided changes. This movie is entertaining to both children and adults.

This is a very good film. That's too bad, though, because it could have been a great one.

For something that's allegedly a "horror" movie, I have to say that the only feeling I get that remotely approaches "horror" when watching this film is horror at how boring it is.

"Beast" is not, however, the kind of mind-numbingly bad endurance test that one might expect from something like "Night of Horror" or even Coleman Francis' other film, "Red Zone Cuba". "Beast" might be described as a low-level workout, to help you build up to watching the really bad movies.

For one thing, it's pretty short. For another, the plot, however idiotic and threadbare, does manage to hold together, for the most part. There is also some genuine entertainment value here, in the form of the outrageously absurd lines of narration, delivered with absolute deadpan seriousness by Coleman Francis- "Boys from the city, not yet caught by the whirlwind of Progress, feed soda pop to thirsty pigs".

As far as the acting, I don't think we can really class it as "acting". It's more like "moving about in a vague and nondescript way without saying anything" (the dialogue was added later). The best actor in the film, by far, is the bunny rabbit, who was not even a professional actor, but just happened to wander onto the set. His performance was the most moving and realistic one of the entire production. It's a pity nobody in Hollywood tried to contact the rabbit for further roles.

This is by no means great cinema, to be sure. But even though the film views everything through green-tinted "oirish" spectacles, there is considerably more here than one might expect. The performances are excellent, and the dialogue, whatever its faults, is quick and clever. If you're looking for entertainment, rather than education, this is a safe bet.

"The Majesty of the Law" is a great segment marked by VERY strong performances. The plot is simple, but it's actually quite emotional, particularly near the end, when the policeman finally takes the guilty party away. The dialogue here is very well-constructed, and the themes, contrasting a man's principles, old-fashioned nature, and stubbornness with the modern world's demands, are moving.

"One Minute's Wait" has no doubt drawn accusations of playing to popular stereotypes of Ireland and the Irish (which it does), but this doesn't change the fact that "One Minute's Wait" is hilarious. I laughed particularly hard at the exchange in which there is a confusion over bishops.

Finally, there is 1921. Probably the weakest of the three films, it is still pretty good (certainly better than most of the dreck being made today). The camera shots used when entering the prison create a wonderfully eerie mood, and the atmosphere is strong throughout.

There is also quite a bit of nostalgia here- not because it somehow depicts "the old Ireland", but because it was a regular TV special on St. Patrick's Day, and numerous families grew up watching it every year.

Ultimately, I wouldn't advise anyone looking for some sort of insight into "the soul of Ireland" to watch this (frankly, I'd advise any such person to stop wasting his time), but anyone looking for an entertaining, funny film need look no further.

"Escanaba in Da Moonlight" has some serious flaws, but it's still worth the watch. The first half of this movie is gut-bustingly hilarious in ten different ways, and there is a real sense of heart that runs throughout. The film does start to lag for a while- mostly after the card game, and some of the sequences after about the 2/3 mark can be hit or miss (the "Bearwalk" is particularly dull and somewhat stupid). Near the very end, though, things come together again, and the finish is satisfying and warm.

I should mention, just to warn anyone planning to watch it, that much of the plot hinges on some kind of goofy Native American spiritualist conceit, though it's played mostly for laughs and not taken very seriously, and there is considerable toilet humour, though most of it isn't TOO disgusting, as toilet humour goes.

"I think I look forward to Opening Day {of hunting season} more than any other day of the year- It's like Christmas, with guns!"