Change Your Image
CanadianBeaver
Reviews
Fremde Freundin (1999)
Excellent
I saw this show at the closing of the Vancouver Queer film festival, and i must note that there is nothing that makes this film "queer fringe". The reason its shown as part of the festival is because our leading lady is a lesbian. Beyond that, this movie contains little sex. Of what little sex it does have, none of it is explicit nor graphic (i don't even remember any nudity).
This film was extremely well done. The construction of the story is done so flawlessly that the intermixing of two timelines (one in the present, and one in the past) is fluent and fascinating. The leading lady is excellent, and very subtle.
If there's one complaint of mine, it's that there wasn't enough german techno. Unfortunatley, not all german films can be Lola Rennt, now can they.
Magnolia (1999)
READ THIS REVIEW PLEASE!
Magnolia, an interconnected film to say the least. I'm not gonna offer my own opinion, just the objective truth:
1. CREATIVITY LIKE NEVER BEFORE: The first segment of the film before we get into the characters lives is so gripping and creative and well filmed that it sucks you right in! Anderson's stories and camera play are also excellent and divergent. Thumbs up to Anderson for his daring and originality!
2. AMAZING CHARACTERS: Congratulations to Anderson and his entire cast for producing some really convincing characters, that are real and interesting to watch.
3. TOO MANY OBSCURETIES THAT WERE AT THE HEART OF THE MOVIE. This is a quote from Anderson: "F@&# it, I'm making a three-hour movie about everything I want to make a movie about, and it's going to have Ammie Mann songs in it". In order to understand this film you have to go look up bible passages in exodus, and listen to Ammie Mann's songs and untangle her lyrics. If you're well versed in these areas than this movie will probably make a lot of sense to you, but not having that knowledge leaves you totally disconnected from the film. A good film should be able to ride on its' own accolades and not borrow so heavily off other peripheral material. WITHOUT THIS OTHER INFORMATION THE FILM DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE A POINT OR MESSAGE! AND ONCE YOU DISCOVER THIS OTHER INFO THE THEME OF THE MOVIE IS THAT THEIR LIVES ARE A PLAGUE OUT OF THE BIBLE! Anderson is way too pretentious to expect his viewers to buy into it.
4. THE TITLE OF THIS MOVIE ISN'T REALLY MAGNOLIA IT'S ACTUALLY: ANDERSON'S CINEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE SONGS OF AMMIE MANN. (I'm not joking, he wrote the screenplay in and around Mann's song "wake up") P.T. Anderson took the wrong direction by making a film that is an interpretation of Ammie Mann's songs. I don't know about most movie goers but I can't watch a film's visual intricacies, and listen to important dialogue while untangling 10 interconnected stories and analyze Ammie Mann's songs all simultaneously!
5. THREE HOURS IS TOO LONG: Generally I'm an enthusiastic movie goer who has patience for anything (even blade runner) but after 2 1/2 hours I'm starting to ache really badly. If you bring a pillow to the movie you'll probably do way better than I did.
6. MOVIES NEED A CLIMAX: One could say that the "plague" of frogs was the climax of the film, but I felt that all the characters singing simultaneously was more climactic. The point is that there should be a defined climatic moment, a point to which the entire film has been building, and that time never really came clearly into focus.
Overall: Anderson is getting ahead of himself and employing too much creative juice and not enough coherence to make the film really solid.
Short Cuts (1993)
Succeeds beautifuly because of its' universality
Where Paul Thomas Anderson's film Magnolia failed is where Short Cuts shines: the pressence of an easily recognizable central theme. Short Cuts is exactly that, a collection of short segments of all these peoples lives, and the theme running through that is life (listen to the songs that the old lady at the bar sings...subtle message). I've reached a greater understanding of Magnolia because of messages that other people have left about the number 8,2 and the whole exodus thing...but that connection is so convoluted and pretentious compared to the simple beauty of Short Cuts it completely failed for me.
I think that Altman's amazing skill as a director shines through in films like this and Ready-To-Wear, MASH. The commonality being that you don't have to worry too much about catching a specific daunting message; Altman is so much more subtle. And through that subtlty emerges a wonderful insight into people. Wonderful in its simplicity!
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
READ THIS REVIEW PLEASE!
A lot of people had some great things to say about this film, i'm gonna lay them all together:
1. This movie rode on the battle scenes! Although the reality and brutality shown is unprecedented in the war film genre, the actions scenes aren't supposed to carry the movie, although apparently they can and did for SPR.
2. Any depth? I find it funny that Kubrick and Speilberg were close friends, because Kubrick is an intellectual and an artist where Speilberg is just a very succesful hollywood director. I can't help but compare Full Metal Jacket with Saving Private Ryan. The main difference is that FMJ is lacking the same number of barrels of blood, and it replaces that with irony, cynicism, and black comedy. The final message of SPR "Earn This" is powerful but not very intellectually challenging, compared to all the messages flying through FMJ.
3. Being a Canadian (we fought the hardest beach on D-Day and got the farthest inland) I find it difficult to but this whole "I'm an american and that makes me a rambo!" The flag waving wasn't excessive but the ending "rambo" scene seemed contrived: "Good thing that god sent 7 americans to guard this bridge!"...I don't buy it!
4. It is deplorable the way that Speilberg lacked any compassion for the enemy; he made no attempt to humanize them. I watched as germans who were surrendering were shot, but I hated them so much that I was glad they were. And for that I'll never forgive Speilberg. It is commendable that he could make me feel such strong emotions, but these Germans are people too! Everyone walking out of the theatre is getting this subtle message "Look what the Germans did to us!" That's not right and that's not a good anti-war message!
Overall I commend Speilberg for leaving a record of WWII (and normandy) which will stick with us forever.
Romeo + Juliet (1996)
READ THE PLAY!
This is my message to director Baz Lhurman. Shakespeare's text is studied in high school english for good reason...there is DEPTH! I don't think the director knows what a tragic flaw is, and even if he did, did he make any effort to present that? Advertisements for this movie always spoke to the 'star crossed lovers' aspect. Once again I wonder does Baz know what FATE is?
I won't say something subjective like: DeCaprio was great or DeCaprio stank. I say objectively that his raw emotion that he brought to the screen was excellent, but this emotion does not replace understanding for the lines he's saying (i.e. he had no understanding of the lines he was saying). The director is the one responsible for this lack of comprehension... if you're going to do shakespeare, you have to know what it is you're talking about.
To be blunt this movie was the worst interpretation of shakepeare's play that I have ever witnessed. Shame on Baz that he botched it so badly. My advice to him is READ THE PLAY!
A Simple Plan (1998)
A movie that makes you think!
I am disappointed by the people who believed that this "downer" ending is a point of weakness for this film. The whole point that this film is trying to get across, is what money and greed do to people. One of my favorite scenes is when Bridget Fonda is pleading to Bill Paxton that he cannot burn the money; her excuse is that she doesn't want to go back to the way things were, and how unhappy they were being poor. But the whole point is that they were happy before...what did greed do to her i wonder?(hmmm)
Something to think about!
L.A. Confidential (1997)
Take it as it is, a great film!
People seem to feel the need to compare this remarkable film with the film noir genre as well as with the time honored classic Chinatown. Although they are not wrong in their comparisons, LA Confidential should be taken as a great film in its own right.
Some reviews have referred to the excessive violence, the movie being different from the book, and other "flaws" that set it apart from an excellent film noir movie. The point they miss is that LA Confidential is not film noir (the fact that it's not in black & white is a good indication!) It may have elements of that genre inherent in it but this film was obviously made for a 1990's audience.
Excessive violence is a required element in all modern films, and I can safely say that the violence here was the most exciting and well done action I've ever seen (if you don't beleive me watch the ending again; CLASSIC!!!)
LA Confidential is a beautiful movie, and director Curtis Hanson was right on the mark with everything he did. After all he is catering to a 1990's audience not a 1950's one. Therefore LA Confidential should not be compared with movies that were aimed at a different target audience.