Change Your Image
gyrogypsy
Reviews
Cleopatra (1934)
That's it DeMille! To hell with history and remember, women are airheads!
While I acknowledge that over the course of his extensive film-making career DeMille did manage to produce a good film every now and then, but this was the worst epic I have ever seen (and trust me, I've seen a lot). Clearly having no respect for Cleopatra, he reduced an incredibly intelligent Queen to an airhead floozy bitch. Not perfect and being very young, Cleopatra did pretty good, especially with the entire Roman Empire and surrounding countries opposed to a woman ruling Egypt. I hate to do this (because I think the term is used all-to-often all-to-unjustified), but DeMille was a sexist pig who wanted to make every man who came into contact with her a martyr. Like the Romans, he just couldn't handle portraying a powerful woman as respectable or intelligent. He found more satisfaction instead to make her snappy, impulsive, and stupid. But he could sell tickets as long as he made sure she was in the latest fashion. Was this DeMille's way of telling the ladies to stay in the kitchen?...oh yeah, and that the penalty for not bending over was death.
Not intending to promote another film while reviewing this one, I highly recommend the '63 version. While complaints rise and rise about the length, DeMille's version is less than two hours long and I find myself dozing nearly every twenty minutes. I have watched the '63 version multiple times and still rarely blink, it's so spectacular. Not just the set or the soundtrack (with the annoying saxophone), but the portrayal of Cleopatra herself. I acknowledge that version wasn't perfect, but it was relatively historically accurate and the casting, directing, and especially the writing (by the amazing Mankiewicz, one of the few men who understand women) were sublime. Hopefully somewhere in the near version, a better version will be made and hopefully it won't be as big of a financial bust as in '63.
I would never recommend this film to anyone (except maybe as a joke to a Women's Studies professor). It degrades women and completely insults Cleopatra, not understanding her at all. Just to get a feeling--imagine Elizabeth I portrayed as the illiterate castle whore who passes all governmental responsibilities and duties to Robert Dudley. Then you'll get a real picture of this film's meaning.
Domino (2005)
A truly wicked two-hour trailer
This is a very difficult review to write because I really don't want to write it. However, I feel obligated to share my acquired wisdom because I saw it before it was released. I'm reading a lot of other comments accusing it of being too Tarantino-style. This is what my boyfriend thought as well, however, to me, it reeks of Oliver Stone cinematography...I hate that. About halfway through the screening, the reel got off the track and we had to take a pause. This was the highlight of the film because I could rest my eyes. This is only a preview of the next generation of the whole strobe-light headache thing present in most horror movies. Honestly, the movie felt like a two-hour trailer. You walk in knowing only what you saw in the preview and nothing changes. Honestly, I think this movie could have been pretty good if the cinematography didn't suck so much. I mean, it was really BAD. The soundtrack just didn't go with the action--Tarantino can make any music work, but not Scott. The story itself was raw and I liked it--even though watching was difficult, it felt like it could have really happened. But the other Oliver Stone type weakness was its random sleaziness. Granted, I knew walking in that it was going to be a pretty sleazy film and I was right. Not exactly the type of sleaziness I expected, but the random sex in the desert--sex built up on a believable romance, but not acknowledged until both characters were tripping. The actors did an appropriate job, but don't expect any nominations. I wouldn't be surprised if Razzie jumped on the bandwagon (the same as they did with "Alexander"), but, like I said earlier, you can't accuse any shortcomings on the actors. They really don't *say* enough. Overall, I'd say it wasn't as bad as I had expected (nor as bad as most people are writing), but it requires a lot of concentration. It's definitely not something to watch with someone you are not comfortable with. "Domino" could possibly be a very guilty pleasure to some audiences (and I am one of those). In the end, I really wanted to hate it, but so many parts of this movie made me smile. I typically don't do the whole cheap slang thing, but this movie was truly wicked.
Cruel Intentions (1999)
Adaptation from exquisite to superb to excellent to...borish teenage crap
My rating of 6 out of 10 is a generous one. However, my opinion has become quite biased over the course of the past few months. When I first saw this film, I liked it very much--not just because it was a good story but because I considered it an adequate adaptation of a truly exquisite piece of literature. This opinion was poorly based on account that not only had I not actually read the novel, but because my only knowledge of the original story was a blurred memory of the first half of "Dangerous Liaisons" with the glorious Glenn Close. In the opening credits, it is announced that it was adapted from the novel "Les Liaisons Dangereuses" by Choderlos de Laclos. What it should have said was, "Loosely based on the film "Dangerous Liaisons" by Christopher Hampton based on the play "Les Liaisons Dangeruses" by Christopher Hampton based on the novel "Les Liaisons Dangereuses."" Cruel Intentions completely misses the point of the book. Sebastian's relationship with Annette is shallow and based entirely upon his lies. His character does not change at all beyond falling in love with Annette and Katharine is a poor adversary. This isn't a grandiose story of a man who changes his life and dies in sincere repentance, it is a pathetic tail of spoiled rich brats who had it coming. If you have no desire whatsoever to understand the meaning and purpose of the story, enjoy this film with my blessings. However, if you have any respect for the dignity of one of the greatest novels ever written, please restrict yourself to the film "Dangerous Liaisons" or be content with the book and/or play.
Alexander (2004)
in this case, fortune will not favor the bold
"Alexander" may very well have a big opening, but the fans will be very
disappointed. This film is drawn out, boring, and seriously weird at times. I tried desperately to watch this with an open mind. My reaction may very well have
been affected by the surrounded viewers who chuckled every time Alexander
displayed affection to one of his male companions (about every five minutes). But despite their immaturity, the movie was quite funny during its attempts to be serious. When everyone dies in the end, you really don't care. Neither
Alexander, nor his male sex toys were particularly worth mourning for. The
performances were stressing--reasonably good actors trying too hard to work
with a crappy script. Jolie's performance is probably the best, but no doubt also the most clichéd. Bottom line, save yourself eight bucks and three hours of your short time on earth and don't see this. Short summary: THREE HOURS OF
CRAP.