Change Your Image
mbhuens1
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Shampoo (1975)
70's movie-making at its best
An almost perfect balance showing at once the beauty and shallowness of Los Angeles and those who live there. The film is famous for being about Lothario, but the film is really about a cultural malaise that is Los Angeles. The movie industry has infected everyone in Los Angeles and as a result, you can't get your car repaired without hearing some namedropping (especially today, but even back in 1968) and velvet rope sightings.
Some people seem content to try and write off this film as a Hollywood porn film, but it's much more than that. Porn is cheap and often mechanical. Shampoo is full of rich characters and the story, as it should, has the tangles of wet hair. How often has you seen a film where you look forward to each scene? To know what the characters will do next? Shampoo at its center, has Beatty, playing both a fictional character, and to some I'm sure, a bit of the ladies man he was in the public eye for years and years. (Actually, the character is based on a real hairdresser who had a sad ending, being murdered in the terrible Manson murders along with Sharon Tate.) The film not only entertains, but deepens with time. (Anyone, whether here or on other sites, tries to compare movies made years ago with movies today, is either naive or terribly arrogant. Would you hold Wuthering Heights next to Saw? Would you compare Nat King Cole to Marilyn Manson? All were or are popular, so what's the difference? Plenty, I doubt most Blacks would like to go back in time and compare the civil rights laws, if even existed, to today's laws.) Besides Beatty, there are many other fine performances, from Lee Grant, Julie Christie, Goldie Hawn, Tony Bill, Carrie Fisher, Jack Warden among others. Restored on DVD, it's a very good watching experience now as well.
Match Point (2005)
Woody, go a different direction, like Manhattan.
I'd read some good reviews for Allen's new film and even seen a few friends who mildly suggested it. I was not prepared for the flat, slow, boring, by the numbers script, that Allen lays out in Match Point.
It's as if a guy suddenly decided one day to write a show about 'rich people', but had never met one outside of a drawing room comedy. Allen simply has no interest in a film noir or erotic thriller or whatever you wish to call this trifle. The lighting is never moody, on the other hand, it's bright and sharply lit. The tension is certainly lacking in the acting. It all seems to be happening on a bad, old TV show. Wow are some people jumping up and down about the film? I think maybe the fact that Allen tells a story, albeit a very structured, limp one that he has no feeling for. It remeinds me of Kubrick's last film, Eyes Wide Shut. Kubrick couldn't or wouldn't shoot in NY, so he just built in the UK. Allen goes to the UK, but he might as well have stayed in NY. It's a crazy movie. The audience is always nine steps ahead of the doddering characters. What exactly is Brian Cox playing? He got rich by constantly giving away his money and having zero ability to gauge character? It's like a character in an earlier, funnier Allen film, suddenly forced to play it straight. In fact, the whole movie is like that, and wow, what a letdown that is.
Allen was once one of the funniest men to ever make a movie. Now, like so many other directors, he's just plodding along, making dopey cardboard ones.
Fort Apache the Bronx (1981)
Good acting, limited story, but worth seeing for sure
I saw this film many years ago, when I was still in high school. It still holds some power. In an era before 'supercops' who rule the TV and film screens now, the cops in this film are just normal guys, and some are even flawed in ways, just like in real life.
Newman is fantastic in the film. Charming, winning and smart, he does what movie stars can do best in films: he carries it. Ken Wahl, as his partner, is very likable and good as a learning cop. And many of the supporting roles are well acted, including Rachel Ticotin as a fed up nurse who's on a trail to a bad end.
What's the rub then? Well, the story is limited in that it only sees a didactic view of the Bronx. Surely, some there must have wanted, even in 1981, to make it better and reduce crime making it a safer area for families and such. And Ed Asner basically represents "the system" the guy who does everything by the book and is shown up for it. What if the new boss understand the area or better, was a minority boss who came from the area? The film isn't perfect, though I hate to use the word dated. Does anyone today think we'll look at a film like, Brokeback Mountain, in 25 years, and say it holds up? Of course not, movies are a very current art form and therefore, cannot stand against all time. The great thing about this is that movies, even Ft. Apache, can represent a past time with some competence and entertainment. The fact that a film ages, is simply common sense.
My summary would be to see the film and make up your own mind, but definitely see it.
Tequila Sunrise (1988)
a very slick and entertaining film
This is a very Hollywood movie, even by Robert Towne's standards. And it's not a pseudo-Oscar pc boredom film either. It's a mishmash of styles and symbols, but it is entertaining. What two guys wouldn't fight for Michelle Pfeiffer if given the chance? That question is the basis of the film. Compound that notion with the fact that the two guys are best friends and you have that Hollywood staple that almost always entertains: the love triangle. The film Against All Odds couldn't pull it off, but Tequila Sunrise does. Mel Gibson and Kurt Russell are both less over-the-top than they can be and that helps. Pfeiffer is very winning and the supporting cast, which includes Raul Julia, Arliss Howard, J.T. Walsh, Arye Gross and Ann Magnuson is very good. Probably a great date movie, since it appeals to women even more so than guys.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
effects orgy, entertainment starved
Considering that George Lucas has not directed a feature in 22 years, it's not surprising that while, SWTPM, has its share (more than its share) of effects, it's very short on plot or acting. Most of the actors looked confused and more wooden than the robots they communicate with. (Samuel L. Jackson looks to be in the wrong movie entirely.) It's a shame that someone with the vision of Lucas has so little ability to see that vision come to life. In two or three years, the film will be completely forgotten. In fact, during the screening I saw in Hollywood, the audience pretty much went to sleep after their initial excitement at the first twenty minutes or so. The loudest reaction was for C3PO and R2D2. Truly a disappointment and not a very worthy sequel to such a film as "The Empire Strikes Back", which was really a breathtaking film.
Welcome to the Dollhouse (1995)
dreary and very narrow minded
An overrated film about a 'misfit' girl. That's exactly where the film is rigged. If the girl was perhaps just a tad less pathetic, it might be believable. But the whole world is against her. It's a martyr role, and one that many young people can relate to, so they respond as if they're watching art instead of the director's diatribe. (Note the girl and the director both wear large, overly-emphatic glasses: to gain sympathy or to seem pseudo serious? You decide.) And, of course if the girl is portrayed as sad and neglected, the only way that everyone - and I do mean everyone - else in the film can off is as thugs, cretins and buffoons. A world that the director may believe exists, but only if you have a big chip on your shoulder.
Everest (1998)
overrated and phony
The film I saw is certainly not the one that deserved to be the most successful IMAX film in history. The film seems boring, with long stretches given to 'surfer' talk by arrogant, not-so-heroic athletes. Macho shouldn't be confused with heroism. Also, why aren't the contributions of the Sherpas (guides and haulers who are Tibetan) shown? Are the filmmakers afraid that the climbers with look like lilies? And finally, when a film gets this much positive criticism and makes a bucket of money, isn't it a bit creepy to learn (in the end credits) that some of the climbing scenes were re-created and shot in the United States? The film is more of a stunt than a valid filmmaking format at this point, and the filmmakers working in it are a long way from Lean or Spielberg.