Reviews

This is a film that really delivers entertainment. The producers deserve credit for heavily investing in the cars and special effects that are truly exciting to watch. Death Race has been criticized as being nothing but senseless violence and the negative remarks are not without merit. It would have been a challenge, but feasibly the same action could have been encased in a more meaningful scenario. Still, the film, for what it is – and that is extreme action – achieves its goal admirably. It is riveting to watch from beginning to end.

Jason Statham is fully convincing as the violent hero with a soft touch. He's bad, but sometimes good, and one can't help but like him and care about him. Ian McShane, a distinguished British character actor, has the two best lines in the move and delivers them so that not a nuance of juicy meaning is missed.

The action sequences are wonderfully staged and edited to intensity. The audience at the Circus Maximus would definitely give this film a thumbs-up! Everything the characters do with their cars is outrageous, impossible, completely thrilling, and a real treat to watch. One feels satisfied after the crazy races, as if something has actually been accomplished! The DVD has interviews with some of the actors. It is fun to see how different they are from their brutal characters in the film.

The dialog stands out in this funny film that is primarily about teens approaching young adulthood, but which is also about a few adults with lackluster lives that are both a warning and an inevitability to anyone young and steadily aging. The conversations with their unfinished sentences, over-emoted thoughts, confusion, and complexity are accurate representations of America teens. The odd, often hilarious situations mix well with the dialog and create a movie that sustains its humor throughout.

Ryan Reynolds in a non-comedic role establishes a solid character whose charms and faults contribute to clarifying the storyline. Mr. Reynolds, who is so very good at comedy, demonstrates another aspect of his talent in this film through his quiet but determined depiction of a young man who is basically a good person but still manages to bring a lot of conflict into his friend's lives.

The other actors also give solid performances. Jesse Eisenberg, as the virginal hero with great ambitions for both his personal and professional life, is confronted with disappointing parents, hapless bosses, hypocritical adults, and unstable peers. Through him and others in the film we clearly see how even the most successful must compromise with life in order to succeed, or sometimes just to survive.

Of the ten films Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers made together "Top Hat" is the one that best demonstrates their many talents and which presents a memorable impression of their unique, inspiring partnership. Although they were great dancers, they were really so much more: Their work represented a standard of excellence, it conveyed an image of exciting, beautiful romance, and they made it seem as though the fantasy world of Hollywood was accessible to everyone.

The story lines for all ten films are weak. Some have more credibility than others, but even the pseudo-biographical films made later in their partnership are contrived, overly sentimental, and trite. RKO cranked-out a script like "Top Hat" simply to accommodate the hot team of Astaire and Rodgers. They didn't allow time to do better. In addition to the stars, good direction and fine work from both the supporting actors and the various technical people transformed the lean script into satisfying entertainment.

Ginger Rogers brings a great deal to the shallow women she is asked to portray. Her acting accounts for much of the success of the Astaire and Rogers movies because she approaches every line, every idiotic incident, every emotion with the same professional integrity she would give to the finest material. She is a hard working, disciplined actress, always completely in character, and in turn, completely believable. In great part, we believe the stories simply because of her.

Her singing and dancing skills are excellent, although not as dynamic as her acting ability. Fred is definitely the lead in singing and dancing. That she is able to follow Fred's dancing with both technical and artistic agility attests to her talent and even more to her professionalism. She earned a reputation as Fred's greatest partner because, on many levels, she can approach his greatness. They work as one toward a common goal.

Fred Astaire was an established Broadway star when he began working in Hollywood. He had already defined his artistic persona and had concentrated on three major areas: Demeanor, Musicianship, and Dancing. Fred is a most unlikely romantic lead. He has comely, but ordinary looks that diminish under close examination; too high a forehead, too large features, too pale and small-framed. Yet, on the screen, he projects a charming, elite image that more than compensates for the banality of his physical person. These qualities derive from Fred having developed the most exquisite manners. He is the most poised, the most polite, the most confident of men. Those fine traits, combined with his everyday looks, make him a romantic lead anyone can believe in, by association as well as by example.

He also developed an exceptional ability to interpret music. He finds everything the composer has written. It's not just a matter of reading the notes or of keeping the right tempo. He finds the essence of the song, its deepest meaning. He has a pleasant, small voice with which he sings splendidly. Every word is given full value, both musically and literally. The music is fully appreciated and fully communicated. In "Top Hat" his excellent musical talent is beautifully demonstrated in the song, "Cheek to Cheek." Written in a high register, Fred scales the music with impressive virtuosity, never failing to convey the full meaning of the song.

His gift with music extends with perfect appropriateness to dance. As a choreographer and dancer his work is one hundred percent original. His ability to find the very core of the music creates interpretation that is never obvious, never expected, and seeded with a genius that is unparalleled, highly aesthetic, and always inspiring. It is unfortunate that he has been labeled a "perfectionist" because it is a misunderstanding of his objectives. The word perfectionist tends to have an underlying negativism. It suggests triviality, fanaticism, rigidity. None of those factors exist in the work of Fred Astaire. His objective was, perhaps to some degree unconsciously, to achieve a level of quality that equaled his genius. In order to get to that point, it was necessary to rehearse and rehearse, to make everything just right, in the same way that all the stokes of a Matisse are as they need to be, or all the chisel strikes of a Michelangelo create a unified artistic achievement.

In "Top Hat," when Fred finishes singing the lyrics in the "Cheek to Cheek" scene he and Ginger segue to an open area where they perform a beautiful, fascinating dance. It is a highly romantic sequence, performed with impressive technical skill. At the end, Ginger's reaction clearly shows how it wasn't just dancing, but a type of love-making that satisfied the mind and the soul. It is notable how much they were able to communicate symbolically through movement.

For me, "Top Hat" showcases the many talents of Fred and Ginger more fully than the other nine films they made together. It also has excellent production values. However, it should be noted that the other films also have exceptional dance numbers of equal, and sometimes, even greater merit than those in "Top Hat." It is definitely worth seeing all ten of the Astaire and Rogers films, preferably in chronological order.

Skilled early film makers, like D. W. Griffith, made the most of the technology available at the time. Way Down East, produced in 1920, is an exciting visual experience with dramatic views of natural hazards like snow storms and ice strewn rivers. There are also romanticized pastoral settings that serve, in one way, to evoke the past, and, in another, to make the harsh environment scenes seem even harsher.

A title tells us that the film occurs in the recent past, but most of the film looks like 20 to 30 years before 1920, or about 1890 or 1900. Lillian Gish's costumes are deliberately old-fashioned, and Richard Barthelmess's character seems based on the ideal 1900's man: strong but sensitive. Cars, telephones, and electricity are kept to a minimum. In the United States in 1920 many rural areas were 30 years behind, but Griffith's intention is not accuracy as much as mood. Setting the story in the vague past suggests a nobler, more romantic era.

Griffith does not seem to be an actor's director. A few of the supporting performances are hideously exaggerated, while some of the stronger performances, like that of Mary Hay, give the impression of originating from the artist. Lillian Gish's naturalness and inherent screen magnetism are well-suited for such a directorial environment. She gives a believable, appealing performance.

This was a popular, culturally influential film. It is easy to understand how thrilling it must have been to 1920 audiences.

This famous 1921 movie is skillfully directed by Henry King. Richard Barthelmess is energetic, complex, and completely likable as the title character. There are a number of other fine performances as well which contributes greatly to the success of the film, the reality of the portrayals drawing us into the simple, mildly interesting story.

The action takes place in a rural setting in a romanticized America of the past. Filmed in the state of Virginia, the natural locations and produced sets evoke a twilight zone between the uncivilized old west and – what may have been considered in 1921 - the too civilized modern world of the Roaring 20's.

Splendid, sometimes exciting images and heart-felt performances make the story come alive on the screen. It is easy to identify with the character's joys and sorrows and, in turn, to find satisfaction in their achievements.

Latcho Drom, or Safe Journey, is the second film in Tony Gatlif's trilogy of the Romany people. The film is a visual depiction and historical record of Romany life in European and Middle Eastern countries. Even though the scenes are mostly planned, rehearsed, and staged there is not a conventional story line and the dialog does not explain activities from scene to scene. Instead, the film allows the viewer to have sometimes a glimpse, sometimes a more in-depth view of these people during different eras and in different countries, ranging from India, Egypt, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, France, and Spain.

The importance of music in Romany culture is clearly expressed throughout the film. It is a vital part of every event and an important means of communication. Everything they do is expressed with music. Dance is another important activity. Like Romany music, it is specialized and deeply personal, something they alone know how to do correctly. We are provided glimpses into their everyday activities, but the film is not a detailed study of their lives. Rather, it is a testament to their culture, focusing on the music and dance they have created and which have made them unique.

Mr. Gatlif portrays the nomadic groups in a positive way. However, we also witness the rejection, distrust, and alienation they receive from the non-Romany population. It seems that the culture they have developed over countless generations, and inspired from diverse countries, will fade into oblivion because conventional society has no place for nomadic ways.

The other films in the trilogy are Les Princes (1983) and Gadjo Dilo (1998).

This is a unique film that uses both fiction and reality to tell its story. It is the third film in Tony Gatlif's trilogy about the Romany people, more commonly referred to as Gypsies. The other films in the series are Les Princes (1983), which, so far, I have been unable to purchase or rent, and Latcho Drom (1993).

Tony Gatlif elicits some fine performances from the non-actors in the cast. The direction and editing of the film are excellent and provide the needed support for the documentary aspects that are intertwined with the fictional narrative. The viewer feels very much involved in the fast paced, often changing activities of the characters.

Holding everything together is an endearing performance by the popular actor, Roman Duris, who is the protagonist in the film and whose open-mindedness and adaptability allow the story to be viewed objectively. There are many funny scenes, and, as in Latcho Drom, a great deal of original, entertaining Romany music.

To appreciate this film, which was made in the early 1960's, it helps to have some knowledge of film history. The director, Jean-Luc Godard, was a prime force in the French cinema's New Wave movement. Many of his techniques were imitated to such an extent that they have been standards for a number of decades. Today, the film does not seem at all radical, but when it was released in 1963 it was very different from contemporary work.

At that time Bridge Bardot was a major international star, admired for her beauty as well as her scandalous on screen behavior. Her appearance in a film, especially one co-produced by Hollywood, generated a lot of excitement. Wide screen techniques, with features like Cinemascope, were still being perfected. Its development is successfully displayed in the vivid look of LeMepris, particularly the bright colors. The noted German director, Fritz Lang, portrays a director in the film and Godard, in an act of homage, portrays his assistant. It is an expression of the new acknowledging, using, and overtaking the old.

All these factors contribute to Les Mepris. The one major element not yet mentioned is the story. It deals with the complex, deep emotions individuals can develop. On the surface it is a simple story about a husband and wife. However, the turmoil of their emotions is a destructive, angry force.

This is the only film Godard made with Hollywood co-partners. Their heavy hands are obvious. Yet, his individual talent comes through stylistically and literally in the brightly lit scenes that coyly disguise the darkness in the character's souls.

The story is sometimes overwhelmed by the physical aspects off the film: the enormous horizons, the violently bright colors, the naked light. The generally good performances and the interesting, sometimes unexpected activities help to keep the story focused.

The Criterion Collection DVD release includes a number of interesting interviews. Especially good is the interview with famed cinematographer Raoul Coutard.

Edward Norton's characterization of the title character provides a great deal of the credibility for this highly romantic mystery film. The illusionist, Eisenheim, is a confident, arrogant man who reserves and guards his emotions for the things he really loves. His self-assuredness does not derive from insecurity or some other psychological weakness, but from his achievement of perfecting his skills to an extremely high level of mastery. He creates magic that baffles the mind and only he fully understands the science behind his illusions.

Overall "The Illusionist" is very enjoyable. It is also unsatisfying. That is caused by cliques in the plot and in the behavior of the characters. It is sometimes all too clear what will happen, and the characters sometimes do things that contradict their otherwise insightful personalities.

"The Illusionist" is a good looking film, with good performances and smooth direction. The magic is especially enjoyable, and the mystery, though not imponderable, is enticing.

"Two Hands" is an entertaining, funny story about Australian lowlifes. The screenplay contrasts the world of fast money and deadly acts with the inexplicability of fate and circumstance. In a subtle way we are asked to ponder the concept that major events in our lives are sometimes generated without our being fully aware of the root causes. The forces of fate and circumstance take Jimmy, the main character, into situations that bring about the realization of his shallow dreams and, ultimately, an understanding of a more personally promising world.

The clueless Jimmy, portrayed with acumen by Heath Ledger, is a kid who grew up without opportunity. The high paying world of crime offers the greatest appeal to his blunted senses. The love and help of friends guides him to a higher plateau.

The film is well-directed and well-acted. The band of criminals teeter between likable and despicable, keeping us interested in their crazy antics all through the film.