Reviews

I haven't reviewed a movie in a while but after seeing the 3.4 rating for "The Kill Hole", I felt compelled to respond. I gave it a 10. Not that it's truly one of the great movies like "Apocalypse Now", which it echoes in some ways, but its exceptional qualities are very distinctive. The writing is outstanding. If you're looking for an action movie, then you came to the wrong place. I was ready to turn it off immediately if I found it too slow, but the dialog was compelling and dealt with moral issues central to war: personal responsibility, relationship to authority, how sanctioned violence changes those who act under its mandate and so easily drifts into the indefensible. The acting is superb. Boseman and Kittles give Broadway-level performances and they bring a sizzling commitment to the dialog. It's a true confrontation, filmed with interesting cuts that actually work rather than simply trying to be hip or jarring. Billy Zane is great as the leader of a vets support group and the non-actor veterans who appear in the group speak from the gut and clearly speak their personal truths. The "bad guys" are very much so but acted with pizzaz and, despite being reprehensible, are used to explore the line between punishment and revenge. Landscapes are rendered beautifully, the city scenes are convincing. This could have been a 2-person stage production with the vets group acting as a Greek chorus of sorts; view it as a compelling play fleshed out somewhat for the screen and one won't be disappointed by the lack of action.

I first saw Chushingara in 1972 in Boulder, Colorado on the CU campus. I racked up 3 additional viewings in the next couple of years, one at Boston's Park Square Cinema, long gone and lamented. The Park Square often showed Japanese films and I saw the Samurai Trilogy there as well as some of the other classics. I've since seen in again in theaters and now have the video. I was struck, reading some of the other viewer comments, by how many people felt exactly as I did, remembering each viewing as though it were a superb meal to be savored the rest of our lives, rather than simply "seeing a great film". The other comments articulate the reasons why quite well, but I'll add my two cents. Aside from being perhaps the most gorgeous film ever made, its beauty is integral to the psychological mood of heroism intensified by each moment's transience and each life's fragility. The great trial and seppuku scene, framed by that stunningly beautiful music and the equally intense cherry blossoms, stands as one of the most concise statements of life's tragic beauty as well, of course, as the soul of Bushido. The course of action pursued by Chamberlain Oishi creates the emotional hook and the humorous scenes, highlighted by Toshiro Mifune's wonderful character, keep things barreling along. In the end, though, it is the whole package - the stunning sets, many of them modeled fairly closely on classic Japanese woodcuts; the brilliant acting and direction; the loving detail of so many aspects of Japanese culture; the unfolding of justice; the close relationships and their exacting depiction; the revelation of a code that is so alien to anything in contemporary western life; the self-conscious gamble to make this film a cultural monument that breathes life; and of course, the final battle - wow! - certainly one of the greatest movies ever made. It is a shame that it is not more accessible on the large screen - the bigger the better - but as it sustains multiple viewings, see it on video anyway - it's worth it and you can always watch it again.

I saw this at Boston's (Brookline's) legendary Coolidge Corner Theater and consider it an important film for several reasons. One, it is a very warm, compassionate, humane film - and how often can we say that nowadays. The stars are real people, community members in Brookline, Massachusetts, either elderly people in an elderly housing project or children. While the movie is built around a fictional conceit, its sub-text is the real story - the powerful interaction between the two sets of actors who are 2 or 3 generations apart. The commentary at the end in which the participants talk about the impact that the experience of making the movie had upon them caps a powerful experience; both elderly and children felt the shock of recognition and engagement of two groups that normally have little to do with one another, except intra-family. I immediately recommended this to several friends who teach in the service professions, i.e., social work, recreation therapy, and education, because I can't imagine any viewer coming out of this uninspired or unenlightened by it. The production quality is excellent and the directing and editing highly professional, not surprising, as it was made by top-flight pros. All in all, a wonderful experience and, as noted, a terrific resources for professionals and students in any of a number of service-oriented fields.

This movie is astonishing, a gritty story filmed in an ultra-real style that relies simply on the beauty of lighting and film to achieve its stunning effects. It seems from another world, which in a way, it is. The acting is superb: Montand's Mario is full of jerky movements and intense impulses but always maintains his Gallic savoir-faire, while Charles Vanel as Jo brings, at first at least, a type of macho to the screen that modern movie-makers simply do not comprehend. The rest of the cast, especially the camp chief, Luigi, and Peter van Eyck as Bimba are incredible, as is Vera Clouzot who is incomprehensibly but believably upbeat and innocent - and totally gorgeous - in the midst of the hellhole of a town they're all stuck in. Clouzot's directing is flawless - I don't think anyone has ever squeezed more tension with just a few essential scene elements. The trucks wheeze and grunt as well as they ever have in the movies - the only comparison is Spielberg's early gem, "The Duel", but Clouzot's automotive cinematics outdo even Spielberg. The stripped down existentialism of the characters, the starkness of their shared dilemma, the grim and grimy scenery, and the cinematography itself are all of a piece. The latter is what elevates this movie to the very top rank, including some of the most dramatic and effective black and white shooting I've ever seen. Yet it never becomes mannered or gratuitous - it is orchestrated with the rise - and rise! - of tension in the film. The final scene takes on a surreal as opposed to ultra-realistic quality that has its own logic. One last word about the acting - we don't see anything like it anymore. The self-conscious mannerism of method acting (which has had its own triumphs) and the toxic awareness of everyone from the actors to the audience, the camera, directors, etc. that each actor is a celebrity and potential artiste, has ruined that conviction that actors were once larger than life people before they went on-screen, that they came to acting as an outcome of living rough, unadorned, and yet imaginative lives as opposed to shooting for fame and fortune and celebrity within an artificial corporate star-making incubator.

This is one of the most exuberant, wild comedies ever, with Jim Carrey turning in one of the most absolute comic performances ever seen on screen. Sure, there's the make-up to help him along, but it's all nothing without his incredible body language (yeah, I know he doesn't really hop around like that) and his Carrey-esquire ability to push each gesture to the limit without violating the viewer's confidence in Carrey's underlying intelligence. Cameron Diaz's entrance must be one of the most amazing film debuts in history and, being a terrific actress anyway, she sustains the impact throughout. The supporting cast is great,especially Peter Greene in the critical role of Dorian, Nancy Fish as Carrey's landlady, and Richard Jeni as Stanley's buddy. What really elevates this film beyond simply being a great star-vehicle is - well, actually, a few things. The sets are suggestive of "Edge City" - the name of the city in the movie - but nothing like the wasteland of Robocop or the Gothic urban-scapes of Batman. Sometimes, understatement works better - the movie has a comic book element to it, of course, but the sets themselves, while hinting at a sinister zeitgeist, don't fall into comic book sensibility. But the element that raises this to a 10, for me, is that it's simply a very well-told story with a great script. It's filmed tight, things make sense emotionally, the pacing is varied and compelling, and one cares about Stanley (Carrey) and Tina (Diaz) from the beginning of the movie. I am surprised at the rating this film receives from IMDb'ers - I would have thought it'd be higher. But maybe it's because recent first-time viewers are used to Carrey and Cameron, and even the tone of the movie itself. I saw it when it came out with one of my kids, and have watched it numerous times thereafter with them - and by myself as well. Catching 10 minutes of it on TV is still a treat some nights. It hit me like a thunderbolt when I first saw it and I still love it. If there's anyone out there who hasn't seen it, what are you waiting for?

I really enjoyed this movie because Kathleen Turner and John Waters just let loose with the demented psychotic energy of a parent who takes many legitimate parental urges to the next level - or maybe the next 5 levels. She is protective, proactive, and supportive where her family is concerned, just a bit more so than is good for her or the rest of the world. The movie is funny and Turner is superb. The various strategems she uses to distract witnesses at her trial are delivered with the precision of a knife and she does more acting in the defendant's chair than most actors manage in a typical Hollywood flick today. I gave it a 7 rather than something higher because the action around her is okay but delivered more as a set-up for her various exercises in family values, and the plot itself doesn't seem driven by anything other than her proclivities for a particular problem solving approach. But it is a very entertaining film, though I wouldn't watch it with a kid under the age of 15, however jaded by the media today's youths may seem to be.

Above all, this is a great thriller, so you can always watch it from that perspective and enjoy it. And the superb cast - especially Lemon, Bacon, and Sutherland (Donald, not the CTU scion - if Jack Bauer had been around in 1963, maybe history would have been different) - keep the intensity level going. As for the politics, I think there's a lot to recommend it, especially if one applies the Discomfort Litmus Test, i.e., just note how many howls of outrage and dismissive splutterings were aimed at Stone and the movie. It touched a chord. "JFK" has been unfairly painted as a conspiracy nut's fantasy. But Stone was making a movie, not a documentary - although heaven knows there's enough material out there in real life to make Stone's movie seem pallid. I believe that Stone's purpose was to show how smoothly and competently an assassination of the president could be carried out by the powers that be, how they could simply view it as a necessary step in advancing their own interests, and how expendable any individual is in the scheme of power politics. Stone certainly used a lot of material that is fairly well vouched for, and if he fictionalized the meetings at the upper levels of government, he was really saying, "This is how it could have happened. It may not have been the same people as I'm showing, but if not them, then others. If you look at the evidence, it could have been something like this." Viewed through that lens, "JFK" is a provocative thriller that should be seen in a double feature with "The Parallax View", which also dissects the mechanics of conspiracy and presents it as "business as usual" for those who deal in that currency.

The last time I saw this film was about 40 years ago when I was a kid. My sister and I would watch movies on Channels 9 and 11 in NYC and we saw Make Mine Mink about 3 times, I figure. Since then, I have unsuccessfully sought it in movie stores, like a man wistfully returning to the haunts he frequented with his first love, hoping against all odds to catch another glimpse of her. Part of my curiosity is determining whether I would think it as funny today, and my sister wonders the same thing. Terry Thomas was an absolute favorite of mine back then, too, and I haven't seen anything of him on TV for a long time. So what's this got to do with the movie itself? Well, it's just that kind of film. There's such a combination of comedy, sweetness, surprise, and intelligence in it that it sticks with you for a long time. The combination of the odd British major living in a rooming house with an extraordinary collection of women, the craziness of their plans and the situations they get themselves into, and the smart understating of the comedy that was such a British specialty before they became so self-conscious about that particular gift, make it a rarity in more ways than one.

I was surprised at the low rating this film got from viewers. I saw it one late night on TV and it hit the spot - I actually think it was back in 1989 when it first appeared. Yet I remember it pretty well, with a nice twist or two, and an interesting ambiance on a windmill farm. Michael Pollard looks suitably seedy for his role which pretty much sums up the unfulfilled early promise of his career, and everyone else plays it pretty straight ahead. I definitely recommend it as a rental, although some of the themes, which might have seemed a bit edgy in 1989, now may seem tame, which is a shame, considering that contemporary "edginess" is often just used as a necessary marketing tool, sort of like clamoring just to get noticed.

Enough has been said in the comments about the use of lighting, directorial and editing techniques, etc. I love this movie and each time watch it enthralled. The plot moves along brilliantly, and while many of the techniques have been applied by countless filmmakers since, there's still something about seeing the trailblazer in all its glory - especially as it still holds up. But I just want to give Welles due credit for his acting. I think part of the absolute magic and impact of this film is Welles' ability to transmit a sense of someone larger than life in every way. When he's caught up in the chase of a great story - or the creation of it - his intelligence and vision and sheer conniving brilliance emanate from his every gesture and word. He is expansive and dynamic, he was incredibly handsome, and he seemed to burst from the screen when playing the young Kane. The figure of Welles himself creates a powerful internal tension within the film because he lights up an otherwise dark, morose palette. In many ways, his character has nothing to do with Hearst - Welles himself was a force of nature, and in some ways Citizen Kane is a prophetic vision of his own fate in Hollywood. Welles was a great actor, as was his co-star, Joseph Cotton, one of the great understated actors of the screen. Cotton is a perfect foil for Welles - as he is in that other absolute masterpiece (not directed by Orson), "The Third Man" - because he hints at his own uneasy depths which are always being stirred up by Welles, whether as Kane or Harry Lime. I also see the end of Apocalypse Now, with Brando's dark, isolated, ruminating semi-madman as an homage of sorts to Welles alone in Kane's castle at the end of Citizen Kane. The two greatest burn-out male geniuses of the American silver screen, both gorgeous in their time and both expanding into bloated ruins, their "potential" often seen as unrealized - but both perhaps having transcended even those expectations of themselves.

Okay, I know it's supposed to be one of the all time epic movie masterpieces, but is it really that good? I'll give the characters a two-dimensionality - barely - but they all play through to type. You can argue it doesn't matter with this movie, that film doesn't have the same responsibility as a novel to explore the nuances of its characters' emotions. But if a film is going to make a claim to be one of the greatest all time, it should show some greater development than Scarlett turning into a spunky survivor. Ultimately, I know the movie is beautifully done with many wonderful scenes, but it's an exercise in sentimental glorification of a world that was far more brutal, ugly, and hollow than the film even hints at. I don't expect a cinematic monograph on the evils of plantation society from a 1939 Hollywood epic, but I also don't have to swallow its assumptions wholesale. The gentility moaning away on their soulless spirituals recalls the "pastoral scene of the gallant south" that Billie Holiday sang of in her anti-lynching song, "Strange Fruit". The irony is that the lynchings didn't simply date from the Civil War era in which the film takes place, but from the very year and decade in which the film was made and released. So sorry, I give it a 6 for all it does so well, but thematically it has aged very poorly.

May seem slow but draws you in. Hackman is fantastic and Coppola's direction is hypnotic. Some great filming of obsessive techies before computers and FX made it easy. Minimalist yet vivid plot. Fun to see Harrison Ford in first of his two minor roles in Coppola masterpieces. The theme of the movie is particularly apt today - the ability of surveillance technology to access our innermost secrets - we've come a long way and yet nothing quite shows its spookiness the way this movie does. I wonder if Hackman's lab in Enemy of the State is a sort of homage to The Conversation - I truly doubt it but would like to think so. Of course, there's also Lex Luther's laboratory in Superman, with its even more obscure entrances. Then there's Hackman as powerful politician who kills girlfriends (two movies, both times near the beginning of the film)...hmm...I wonder if he also has recurring dreams.

Movies don't get any better than this. The difficulties in filming it show how limitations can inspire the most profound creativity. Like "Casablanca", there is no obvious reason why this movie should have turned out so superbly, but everything from the crowd scenes to the interactions among the characters is riveting. The way the four male leads, each a male archetype, spin around the incredibly sexy Garance can serve as a model for how to structure a dynamic plot. Brasseur, whom I believe was Cocteau's lover at the time the movie was made, plays the master lover as gracefully and with as much flair as has ever been done on screen, Arletty has the grand manner down, and Barrault is superb. The theater within the film aspect works even more magically than it did in "Shakespeare in Love", to use a recent reference point. Just see it and let life hang suspended for 3 hours.