Change Your Image
knarlysheila
Reviews
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
gun awareness good
Moore's film is a documentary look at guns and gun control in the United States. I found this movie to be extremely enlightening. He presented facts on crime rates involving guns for many countries, and presented the current issues surrounding guns very well. The tragedies that occured at Columbine and other schools in the U.S. have raised many concerns about the use of guns, and responsible ownership of them. The disourse of fear that he presented also rang some truth. The media and politicians contribute to the fear Americans have of others being more powerful than they are. And perhaps it is done on purpose. It was interesting that on the same day of the Columbine shoting, the president of the United States dropped more bombs on Kosovo than they had ever done before. This fact is overlooked becuase of the tragedy in Littlton, but it is important for him to mention this. They types of events do have an impact on the behavior of the citizens of America. Moore's depiction of American society was not so much an eye opener for me as a Canadian, but it should be more so for those who live in the United States. Awareness of the use of guns and the attitude towards the use of guns by Americans was depicted, and it is hard to see this when you are living in it. However, the view of those in only a few States was presented and this cannot be taken as a generalization of how all Americans view guns. I believe he should have explored the views of a variety of American citizens to fully understand the state of gun use in America. His comparison to Canada I found particularily interesting, being from Canada. We too have had our share of tragedies involving guns, think about the Montreal Massacre, but it was downplayed in the film. However, it is true that Canadians think differently when it comes to guns and are a lot less fearful generally. We do, after all leave our doors unlocked on a regular basis. Generally, this film has made me think about policies regarding gun use, as well as Canada's relationship with the United States. After seeing this movie I see the news in a new light, and I also see Canada in a new light. I highly reccomend people go and watch this movie, it is sure to stir up issues and make for interesting conversation.
RKO 281 (1999)
for those who like Citizen Kane
This film is the story of how Citizen Kane was made. There was much controversy over the production of the movie and its release in 1941. Citizen Kane is based on the life of William Hearst, publishing mogul. The intimate details of his life were showcased by Orson Welles, the director. RKO 281 follows Welles (Liev Schreiber) and his writing partner Herman Mankiewicz (John Malkovich) as they struggle to make their movie. It also follows Hearst (James Cromwell) and his lady friend Marion (Melanie Griffith) as their financial situation dwindles and the release of the film approaches. Orson Welles has some nerve making Citizen Kane as some will say, and others would suggest that it is a masterpiece. The controversy over the film is well presented. The viewer sees both Welles's side and Hearst's objections. The audience is able to see just how personal the film is to Hearst's life. I know I would object if someone threw my life on the screen for everyone to see, especially the comprimising stuff. Welle's justification for this was that Hearst has a monopoly over the newspaper business, and uses those newspapers to promote his own political beliefs. It was well know during this time that Hearst was not just a business man, but a politician, and a corupt one at that. Welles wanted the world to see Hearst for who he was, and what he was actually doing behind closed doors. RKO 281 gets to the root of this, and to the emotions felt by both Hearst and Marion with the making of the movie. An interesting film that goes along with both RKO 281 and Citizen Kane is The Cats Meow (director, Peter Bogdanovich, 2001). This film tells the semi-true story of a murder that took place at a gathering on William Hearsts Yacht in 1924. This film shows how powerful Hearst was, for the murder was covered up and never to be spoken of again, on Hearst's orders. These two movies give us some insight into the life of a very powerful publisher, and they do compliment each other. However, in RKO 281 we do not see the realtionship between Hearst and Welles, and what history drives Weles to make Citizen Kane. Of course he does give some reasons, like to give Hearst what he deserves, but why there is animosity between the two goes largely untouched. I also found it interesting that Welles's friend, Mankiewicz, who actually colected the information on Hearst's life and wrote much of the script for Citizen Kane, was never really given any credit. The boy wonder Welles was given all accolades for his film. RKO 281 shows the viewer the tensions between these two men, which contributed to the making fo the film. Overall, I found this film to be interesting. It was by no means the best I have ever seen, but if one is interested in Welles or Citizen Kane it is a must see.
Comedian (2002)
funnt look at comedians
This film follows two comedians as they bounce from comedy club to comedy club testing new material. The comedians we follow are Jerry Seinfeld and Orny Adams; Seinfeld being the veteran and already successful comedian, and Adams being the young new comic trying to get his big break. Each comedian is at a different stage in their career and is on a different quest. Seinfeld is trying to reclaim his fame by going out with all new material and trying to make it work. He reveals to us the inner struggles of being a comedian and also of being famous. Adams, on the other hand, gives us a glimpse into the life of an up and coming comic, and the trials and tribulations that come along with it. The film is done in documentary style. It is very raw. That is part of the appeal of the movie, along with a star like Seinfeld becoming vulnerable to the camera and the audience. The setting of the film is mostly shot in comedy clubs accross the United States. The lighting and technical aspects of this are natural and subject to the environment that they are in. The natural, dark environment of the comedy clubs adds to the atmosphere of the life of a comedian. The documentary style used for this film is very fitting. It is a usual way to capture the true life of anyone. I also found it interesting that a big star like Seinfeld would essentially start all over again with new material. He runs the risk of, and does, not making people laugh, which is uncharateristic of an accomplished comedian like Seinfeld. He placed himself in the shoes of the common comedian, to challange himself. He is welcomed with open arms into all the comedy clubs that he goes into, and the audience laughs at jokes that are and are not funny, as well as his blunders in missing the punch line or forgetting a joke. It must have been a humbling experience for him to put himself out there like that, and in front of cameras, to capture his every moment and thought. As a viewer, it was nice to see the other side of a celebrity. He was very human in this film, and we often lose touch with that. The movie itself is very funny. There are shots of both comedians doing their stand up act, and by the end of the film Seinfeld has worked out most of the kinks in his routine and he is hilarious. Many other celebrities make cameo appearances in the film as well, namely Jay Leno, Bill Cosby, and Ray Romano. They converse with Seinfeld on their views of their profession, their idols and their own weaknesses as comedians. Adams on the other hand is not quite so humerous. His act has some amusing jokes in it, but his off stage personality in not fun to watch, it is actually annoying. At times he even seems to get on the nerves of Seinfeld. Overall, I would recommend this movie; it is an interesting look at the life of stand up comics. On more than one occasion I laughed out loud, and this has proven to be an excellent guage for a good comedy film.
Chicago (2002)
curiosity for crime
This film is set in the early 1900's, as is evident from the costume and set designs. The story revolves around Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) and her fantasy of becoming a Broadway star, and her criminal record. She is accused of murder and winds up in jail with her idol Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), who is in jail on the same conviction. In jail she is introduced to the head warden, Matron "Mama" Morton (Queen Latifah) who guides Roxie, and the other inmates, through jail while also profitting off them by way of favors. While in jail she is accompanied by other women on death row and enlists the help of the famous lawyer, Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), who has a reputation of getting female offenders a not guilty verdict. A twist in the plot pits Roxie against Velma in a fight for their freedom and their fame. Chicago introduces the world of the female criminal, and also the fame and media attention that often follows high profile cases, and how those cases become high profile. The director used the medium of musical to portray this story. The musical aspect of the movie is set in the fantasy world of Roxie and the other characters. In one scene, the inmates reveal how they had gotten to jail through song. The setting for the musical section is a stage, elaboratly lighted. The costumes were also reminiscent of the era and of Broadway shows. Chicago was originally a Broadway show, and the director did a fantastic job of bringing this classic to the screen. The costumes and set were phenomenal, but the singing was magical. These actors took on the challange of singing and dancing, even if it was not their strong suit in the past. Thier performances were outstanding, and from the point of view of a amateur movie watcher and critic, it was surprising and impressive to know that is was their own voices, not an overdub. With Queen Latifah having the only background in music, it was refreshing to see the actors expand and explore their own abilities. As a viewer it was most enjoyable to watch on screen. The content of the movie I found very refreshing also. It was a humorous look at female offender crimes, and the hype that some offenders recieve. Roxie enlists the help of a high prfile lawyer, Billy Flynn, whose apprach to law is to make the offender famous, and appeal to the peoplpe's curiosity of criminals, especially female criminals. This sentiment rings true in our society, and other films, such as Natural Born Killers (Oliver Stone) have addressed this very issue. We have seen many murder cases on the news, and have followed them intently; this film expresses the curiosity of us all of criminal acts and those who enact them. Overall, I found this movie to be very entertaining and would recommend anyone go and see it.