Reviews

So sorry to lose one of our great actors. I especially loved Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance in "The Master". I thought it one of his best. I found the video of "Back Beyond" on You Tube and it is great to watch if you're a fan of the film and the actors. It fills in some holes for those familiar with the film and of previews of the film which included scenes not in the theatrical release. The scene at the very end with Hoffman and Phoenix is sweet, funny, and now so poignant . My thanks go out to Philip Seymour Hoffman for his wonderful work. My sympathies go out to Mimi O'Donnell, and to their three children. He has left us with an impressive which we can watch and cherish .

I feel fortunate that tickets were available at the last minute and I was able to see the Kevin Brownlaw 5 1/2 hr restoration of Abel Gance's "Napoleon". The hype after the first weekend's performances made it irresistible. The film was accompanied by the Carl Davis score, conducted live by Mr. Davis, and played flawlessly, by the Oakland East Bay Symphony, at the beautiful Paramount Theater in Oakland, California. (Eat your hearts out Manhattan and Hollywood.) It felt a special occasion and the audience was primed for the event.

I've wanted to see "Napoleon" for a very long time and somehow as I've gravitated toward DVD I hoped that I could watch it at home. Wait, wait, wait and nothing. Luckily, the DVD option never happened.

When I heard that the San Francisco Silent Film Festival intended to show the Brownlaw restoration over two weekends in Oakland. I never thought that a regular film buff, like myself, would be able to get tickets. Fortunately I was able to do so.

I traveled to Oakland, arrived an hour early for what was, in itself, with intermissions and a dinner break, an eight hour commitment. I've attended films with similar demands ("Our Hitler" comes to mind) and I only hoped it would be worth the commitment.

At the dinner break, about half way through the film, while I was impressed with the production values and the seemingly modern shooting style what most impressed me was the live symphonic accompaniment. But, based on my own expectations, I was a bit disappointed in the film itself. But that feeling was soon dissipated by the beauty and the power of the last half of the film. The cinematography seemed even more modern (lots of hand-held shots and special effects), plus the frankness of the sexuality, the humor, the romanticism, and beautifully paced scenes of great sensitivity.

By the time of the "Three Screens," wonderment, (Gance called it "Polyvision") I'd been won over, completely by this Masterpiece. There is no way to describe what Gance was able to produce. It must be witnessed first hand. One can only hope that somehow it will receive further exposure to those who love the greatest art form, Cinema. I'd see it again in a heartbeat.

Oliver's first cinematic Shakespeare, David Lean as editor, J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan author) credited for "treatment" of the play, Jack Cardiff (the great cinematographer) as camera operator. With all of that talent it should be great. I'm not some kind of purist when it comes to cinematic Shakespeare.

Given that "As You Like It" is not one of my favorite plays this experiment of bringing the Bard's work to the masses could be enough to keep this viewer away from ever wanting to see any more of this. The most damaging part of this version is the poor choice by director Paul Czinner of turning over the pivotal role of Rosalind to his wife, Elisabeth Bergner. For me the thickness of her German accent bleeds all of the life and poetry out of the production. She is quite attractive but just not right for this part. The beautiful photography, the fairy tale sets, the play itself, and the beautiful Oliver (whose performance is far from classic) can not salvage this abomination. It's everything Shakespeare should not be.

I remember seeing the Belmont Stakes on TV in '73 and knowing I had seen a remarkable achievement by an equestrian (or any) athlete. Since that day 37 years ago the mystique of that horse, "Big Red" has only grown in my heart. I still cannot watch Secretariat run that day, without tears coming to my eyes. Thank god that U Tube exists and I can watch every race that wondrous stallion ran and see footage of him running in his paddock, filled with himself and his power. I don't know about Man of War but I do know about Secretariat and I have a hard time believing there was ever a greater Racehorse than he.

When I learned that a film was coming out about Secretariat, I could only hope it would do him justice. I am not a great fan of the genre of sport films, with 'Raging Bull' being one of the few exceptions. All I felt I could hope for was that they would not demean the memory of the great Secretariat. I have waited until the film showed at my favorite local cinema to view it.

I was planning to see it on the day that the equally wondrous filly Zenyatta was attempting to conclude her remarkable racing career by winning the Breeders Cup Classic for the second year in a row a feat almost as remarkable as Secretariat breaking the record for a 1 ½ mile race by 2 2/5 seconds, a record which still stands and which will not be broken, at least, in my lifetime. I would like to think that Zenyatta is a candidate for another equestrian cinema biography.

When Zenyatta made another of her great stretch runs from far behind (not unlike Big Red's usual mode of running) but this time came up a nose short I found myself again in tears and unable to go see 'Secretariat'. But the next day I decided to see 'Secretariat..' I'm glad I saw it and while it is certainly not perfect, and is a Disney product with designs to sell it as a Christian media event, the story is actually accurate from what I know, to the achievement that Secretariat, Penny Chenery, Ron Turcotte, and Lucien Laurin were able to pull off.

Diane Lane and John Malkovich were really fine. I wondered how Secretariat would come across. In the film he's a cipher just as he was in my mind in real life. How was he able to accomplish what he did in the Belmont Stakes? We'll never know.

So here's to the film makers for not totally screwing up Secretariat's life as they did with that Seabiscuit film..

Long Live King Secretariat (Big Red) and Long Live Queen Zenyatta!!

Males and females at IMDb both rate this film equally at 7.8 (but as usual it's 10 to 1, male raters to female). Then the other interesting demographic is males and females under 18, which is also skewered way toward males to females by 8 to 1, but both of these gave the film the highest approval rating at 8.3 of any demographic. And therein lies my objection to this film and especially to the fact that this film even was nominated, let alone won, best picture from gollywood. The academy, the industry, the military industrial complex all helped honor this film with the "supposed" highest award.

I was suspicious from the very beginning of Hurt Locker and as it went on, and on and on without any cinematic competence I began to compare it with "Apocalypse Now" which did NOT win best film, best director, best supporting actor , best writing, best editing, best art directing, but managed 2 awards for sound and cinematography. Hurt Locker won 6 of the 9 awards for which it was nominated. I am saddened here that the first AAward given to a female director is given to a film which I believe to be a most unfeminine film. Women have mourned for centuries the loss of their children and husbands to war, yet we in the midst of two of our nation's longest war, Ms. Bigelow is put to the task of enticing under 18's to this violence as something they might want to take part in so they can, "Be all they can be" as the film informs them more than once.

We were and are in the midst of a severe financial crisis in which "I'm lucky to have a job" is a phrase I hear often. These sub 18's are facing an uncertain future. But the a Huge growth industry, which has continued for decades now, in this nation, is the Military. The military will not go unfunded in this, the most violent society in the world.

I don't believe that is any conspiracy here. But the message sent by this film is "war is romantic." I'm disgusted in the nation in which I live.

I saw "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" in '57 when I was 15. I loved movies, westerns, Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas. I remember loving it back then and it has held a fond spot in my memory. So here 53 years later I revisited it. Westerns are not a genre I'm overly fond of anymore and O.K. Corral didn't hold up to my memories of it. It has an excellent cast, but it felt a bit clichéd and Tiomkin's score and Frankie Lane's singing were a bit much. (Dimiti Tiomkin also scored "High Noon" and the drama of that film warranted the score but O.K. lacks the drama of "High Noon".)

In '57 I think I preferred Burt Lancaster to Kirk Douglas. But seeing it again I preferred Kirk Douglas' performance. This caused me to muse about which of the 2 actors had the better career. Their careers were so parallel. Both began acting in 1946 with both appearing in about 90 productions. Lancaster received 4 Oscar nominations as best actor and won 1, while Douglas was nominated 3 times and he received an honorary award from the Academy for "…50 years as a creative and moral force in the motion picture community." They both appeared in truly great films with their acting contributing to the greatness of those films. Just a partial list includes for me: "Champion," "The Bad and the Beautiful," "Come Back, Little Sheba," "From Here to Eternity," "Paths of Glory," "Sweet Smell of Success," "Spartacus," "Elmer Gantry," "Birdman of Alcatraz," "The Leopard," "The Swimmer," "Atlantic City", and many others.

I have to say watching "Gunfight" brought back a bunch of great memories about two wonderful actors and I didn't even mention Dennis Hopper. Thanks and kudos to them all.

I saw "It Came..." at age 11 in 3D. It was at a time when a spat of films were being released in that format. We were into horror films and there was little else to watch but film, as TV was offering Howdy Doody and Beany and Cecil to stimulate us. Howdy and Beany were great and stimulating but... The horror and Sci-Fi films really captured our attention and this film captured our attention about UFO's and alien invasions.

Well, now we're still gnashing our teeth about "Alien Invasions" and the center of that is Arizona. All I can say is that this was and (in many ways) still is effective Sci-Fi Hollywood fodder.

For thirty years Woody Allen was one of my two favorite directors. I saw all of his films and if possible I saw them the day they opened. During the span from 1969-1999 he literally made a film a year. Of those 30 films I consider a dozen of them great films, and 2/3rds were certainly above average. Over the course of time I watched those 20 or so films over and over never tiring of them.

Then came the new millennium and something went sadly awry. "Shadows and Fog" and "Manhattan Murder Mystery" were early warning signs. Then a trifecta of awfulness hit, "Small Time Crooks," "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion," and finally the first Woody Allen film I walked out on "Hollywood Ending" were released. Thirteen films since "Shadows and Fog" and over half were just not very good or outright stinkers. At the time "Anything Else" was released I stopped going to see his films in the theater and I had never seen "Anything Else" at all until yesterday. Of the six films he's released in that time, only "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" rose above torpid.

But I was reading an interesting film blog and the obviously intelligent reviewer said that "Anything Else" was Woody's most underrated film and he also praised another film I hadn't seen, "Whatever Works." Perhaps, I thought, I've been throwing out the baby with the bath water. I put both films in my queue.

"Anything Else" is Woody Allen for Gen Y. Is Woody aware of just how repetitive this film is? Characters, setting, scenes, jokes, music, etc. consist of Woody retreads. There are many laugh-out-loud lines but if you've seen Woody's movies as many times as I have, then this was a sad, sad effort. Watching it was not unlike seeing Van Sant's scene for scene remake of Psycho. Van Sant did his film for Gen Y because he was afraid that generation would miss the great Hitchcock "Psycho" because they're averse to black and white films. That did not justify the effort and I have a hard time imagining this effort being so repetitive.

This film's cast was able to get down the yammering delivery of Woody and Diane Keaton, and Mia Farrow in those countless films but they did not serve the project well. I'll not be sorry if I never see Mr. Biggs and Ms. Ricci in a film again and it's really not their fault. If someone had never seen or seen only a few of Woody's earlier films then maybe stealing his own jokes wouldn't seem so clunky and not funny. I felt sorry for Diana Krall having to do Bobby Short in the post Manhattan nightclub and no one should ever feel sorry fro Diana Krall.

I want to pay respect to Woody Allen for the many great films he has made. But now, he is several years past his prime and he is continuing his film-a-year pace without having any real reason or ideas with which to work.

"JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America"

I was 22 when President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas and remember where I was when I learned what had happened, and remember watching Lee Harvey Oswald being assassinated live on television. Those events and the subsequent events shown in this remarkable documentary hold a vivid place in my memory. I understand that memory is a tricky thing ("Memories are interpreted like dreams." -Leo Longanesi) and for that reason watching this documentary was spellbinding.

I thought the lack of narration, especially in the first half, was a stroke of genius on the part of the film makers. I have my bias about whether there was a conspiracy in the President's murder. And to watch the events depicted in this film of the events of November 22, 1963, my feeling of conviction about the conspiracy was completely verified. To watch how quickly the Dallas Police gather evidence and draw conclusions about their certainty, while at the same time completely mishandling of the events of that weekend scream "frame-up." I didn't need any narration to explain what was happening and am grateful for the chance to relive so many of those moments with the advantage of hindsight.

I do not pretend to know who was responsible for President Kennedy's death. I would like to know before I go to my grave but alas I will not. Once again, I am grateful that this film is in the record just as I was when Oliver Stone released his "JFK." This injustice must not be forgotten.

I'm always trolling for movies. Sometimes a film will arrive in the mail and I'll have no idea why I rented it. When I got "Goodbye Solo" I checked its rating at the Metacritic site and instantly realized why I'd rented it. It was a small independent film with a super high (89 average) approval rating. I expected to be moved and entertained. I'd seen "The Taste of Cherry" a few months ago and thought it was stunning. "Solo" had a similar plot line.

I watched "Solo" and waited for it to work its magic but nothing happened for me and I felt the end to be no end at all. What will happen to all of these characters after the film ended? Worse I didn't really care. As I read the critics and users reviews here I can understand how someone might be very moved by it all and feel the ending profound but it left me cold.

I believe a hint of why I reacted that way to "Solo" lay in an experience I had last year with "Happy-Go-Lucky," another independent, quirky film that interested me because of its critical reception. I watched it and loved it and gave it the highest rating and recommended it to friends. Then one night I watched it with a couple of friends I was sure would like it. I began watching "Happy" with them and was laughing in the spots I had laughed the first time though until I noticed my friends weren't laughing in the right spots or at all and eventually I realized they were really disliking it. We stopped it a couple of times to talk a little about what wasn't working for them and by the end of "Happy-Go-Lucky" I was agreeing with them and couldn't figure out why the film had such an impact on me the first time. Poppy just didn't work for me after it was pointed out to me how unrealistic here character was.

I'm not usually a film buff whose opinion is easily swayed by others. But now I'm wondering if my friends may have ruined the quirky independent film genre for me. It's possible based on my experience with "Goodbye Solo," but I sure hope not.

I saw this in '68 when I was about in the same place Harold Fine was, in his social development. I was already married and had kids though. At the time of its release this seemed like an important movie. It was funny and satiric but it ended in a positive note for someone ready to drop out. If we'd only known where that was going to lead, but it was fun for a time.

I'm so glad I revisited this over 40 years later (yikes!!) Some of the film I remembered as if I saw it yesterday. Some scenes I had no recollection of. Peter Sellers is marvelous and the rest of the cast is fine. It is a time capsule of a film and really blends film styles. It has a definite TV flavor. Hy Averback mostly worked in TV so that's not a surprise. The film though, is authentic to the time and it was fun to watch for this old hippie.

"La ventana," Carlos Sorin's beautiful film from Argentina deserves a wider audience than is evidenced by the responses at IMDb. This is a very sensitive and beautiful look at the coming of death. Nothing is overly stated, overly done. It reminds me of "Mother and Son" by Sokurov in it's beauty, quiet, and lack of the need for narrative. The cinematography is beautiful. There are many characters who greatly add to the authenticity of the story yet the film does not get distracted by trying to do more than is necessary to tell a universal truth about the human condition. This film has an audience but it is probably very limited. I highly recommend "La ventana."

This news item appeared in my newspaper today:

"Spielberg to remake 'Harvey' rabbit classic Friday, August 7, 2009

Steven Spielberg has a giant rabbit on his mind for his next film.

Spielberg is directing a remake of the James Stewart classic "Harvey," the story of a bighearted eccentric who's branded a crackpot for claiming to have a 6-foot-tall invisible rabbit as his best buddy.

Casting is just getting started, with production expected to begin early next year.

The new version will be a contemporary update of Stewart's 1950 film, which was based on Mary Chase's Pulitzer Prize-winning play.

The film is a co-production between Spielberg's DreamWorks Studio and 20th Century Fox. A release date has not been announced, but a Fox spokesman said the studio is looking to have the film in theaters late next year.

Associated Press" My response to this news: (and please pardon me for quoting meself) "Richard Kelly already effectively did this with "Donny Darko", the "Harvey" for the 21st Century. I don't have a lot of faith in SS not making something sappy starring the new Jimmy Stewart, Tom Hanks. Yuck!"

I haven't seen "Donny Darko" for a while but this remembrance insures I will watch it again very soon. A Remarkable Film.