Reviews

A six-year-old who feels her parents ignore her to the point of invisibility decides to test the hypothesis by simply not getting into the station wagon's back seat, slamming the door without getting in when the folks depart back to Paris from the family's every-weekend country retreat.

What starts as a somewhat petulant (if amply motivated) dare of sorts turns into an adventure in the forest, filled with sly lessons for both her and her parents. It is all handled from the child's perspective, with a marvelous performance from the girl (the director's daughter) and subtle overtones of Jack and The Beanstalk, Hansel and Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood and even Huckleberry Finn. The mood is both sweet and suspenseful, and the humor is uncloying and avoids cheap laughs. (Well, one involving a creature she dubs The Beast...but it IS funny.)

The only way I can figure out the low user rating for this splendid, simple, yet deeply thoughtful film is that the tempo is somewhat slow, perceptively paced to the way a perceptive child takes in the world. Suitable for kids? Sure, if they're not hyper and understand French..or can read the subtitles (almost all the "dialog" is her inner thoughts).

And not to worry, Mom and Dad: the original title translates to "No Wolf".

Clever mini-budget comedy/drama that wickedly probes real truths about screen writing and, more seriously, explores the lies we tell each other and ourselves and the costs and rewards of absolute truthfulness.

Consisting of eight dialogues (comic or serious and sometimes morphing from one to the other) beautifully (and non-statically) shot in various locales around LAlaland, it manages to be about not just creativity but the basis of friendship and--most importantly--about whether we can ever avoid trying to be what we feel others want us to be and do and follow our instincts about what WE really want out of life. It may feel much like a play, but the strong visuals and uniformly excellent acting make that an asset rather than a liability. (Karen Black as a strange, expensive script consultant is especially good.)

The writer/director calls this "Rohmer lite"...and if you get that reference, you'll probably like the film.

Two words: THE IMITATRIX

(Gosh, what a shame that IMDb doesn't allow a user to dismiss with a pithy two-word comment a quite mundane and by now quite hackneyed display of special effects enlivened solely by the magnificent, if wasted, presence of Miss Jolie. Instead, it requires that I go on blabbing about a movie that really doesn't deserve the effort it takes to type this out, solely because "the minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text." Well, in order for this not to be classified as padding the comment "with junk words" and "being blocked from future submissions", I guess I'd better mention that the film managed to leave out the only remotely interesting aspect of the comic-book mini-series upon which it was based, the fact that the gang of assassins into which out hero is dragged is a satiric comment on the super-villains faced by Superman and Batman in the DC Universe, substituting them with sometimes obscene or scatological versions. "Clayface", for example, becomes "S**thead". You get the idea. Fan-boy fun, sure to please the fan-boys...the ones who probably hated the movie, I'd imagine.)

There. Have I said enough now? Sigh...

An entertaining take on a different kind of fantasy, with dark overtones that work to heighten rather than detract from the fantasy. Tho far from a great film, it's 1) generally well-acted (and this from someone who thought Freddie Highmore's voice work in GOLDEN COMPASS was among that film's weaker elements), 2) has a hilariously ironic final twist that I shoulda seen coming but didn't -- and 3) is that rare film that could have and should have been a 1/2 hour LONGER, for character development and a chance to fully look at some of the fascinating design work. That's three reasons more than most films give one to wile away a few hours.

If you liked STRANGER THAN PARADISE (1984) or BAGDAD CAFE (1988) or enjoy the stunning color photos of Joel Meyerowitz, you have the qualifications necessary to enjoy SCHULTZE GETS THE BLUES. True, it's somewhat slow, but its slowness allows the willing viewer to appreciate the subtly perfect ways the characters move within the mostly static compositions Michael Schorr serves up. True, it's quirky and has a sudden and unsettling if ultimately lyrical ending, but like the two films mentioned above, it gives us a splendid "outsider" view of America that makes us appreciate unique qualities we might otherwise overlook. Its humor is filled with love for the differences which make us human. Come to think of it, anybody who's watched NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) more than once might well enjoy SCHULTZE's journey, too. Join him for the trip.

While I hate to deprecate any low-budget effort that actually gets made, BLOOD DINER, like the refrigerated body parts it delights in, stinks on ice.

I delight in pop culture and can appreciate a good horror spoof more than most, but the whole idea of a satire is to be FUNNY, even if only in silly ways.

I saw this film at a "Grindhouse"-series screening with the equally bloody but vastly superior LA HORRIPILANTE BESTIA HUMANA {NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES}(Mexico-1968), which had the audience in stitches. The writer of BLOOD DINER, who then introduced his film, said BLOODY APES would be "a tough act to follow". His fears proved all too well grounded, as the audience got a master-class on the difference between a hilariously inept film that actually WANTS to be scary and a disastrously inept one that tries for Troma-style archness through gross laughs and mega-splatter but fails to generate a single guffaw.

When the writer, along with a producer and one of the stars, reminisced before BLOOD DINER, it was obvious that they had a wonderful time making the film, despite the difficulties they each had with the reportedly touchy and humorless director, Jackie Kong (who wasn't even TOLD of the screening...lucky lady). Their "we-survived-Jackie" repartee was far funnier than anything in the film itself, which overflows with amateur attempts at comic overacting and with gags, both verbal and visual, that consistently overestimate their ability to shock, amuse or even generate a blip on the audience's EEG. (If this EVER comes out on DVD and someone forces you to watch it, choose the commentary track -- if they're bright enough to record one; the film's actual sound is as poorly recorded as it was written.)

The recently released THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVERA proves that a well-conceived horror satire can be a howl, just as the classic THE REANIMATOR shows that "the-bloodier-the-better" philosophy of film-making can have take an audience beyond fear into helpless laughter. Despite its smugness, BLOOD DINER merely feels desperate, like a 5-year-old trying to tell gross jokes to get attention and failing to make enough impression to even be sent to his room. (Though if he was in the back seat of the car, I probably WOULD say, "Don't make me turn around...!")

On reflection, maybe the smell coming off this film had nothing to do with all the body parts. It was just the collective flop sweat of some seemingly nice guys who wasted their chance by aiming too low with too much contempt for both their subject and their audience. When will people learn that MST-3000 humor actually requires the filmmakers to have more than a collective IQ-80?

I can hardly believe that this inert, turgid and badly staged film is by a filmmaker whose other works I've quite enjoyed. The experience of enduring THE LADY AND THE DUKE (and no other word but "enduring" will do), left me in a vile mood, a condition relieved only by reading the IMDb user comment by ali-112. For not only has Rohmer attempted (with success) to make us see the world through the genre art of 18th century France but, as ali has pointed out, has shown (at the cost of alienating his audience) the effects of both class consciousness and the revolution it inspired through the eyes of a dislikably elitist woman of her times. The director has accomplished something undeniably difficult, but I question whether it was worth the effort it took for him to do so -- or for us to watch the dull results of his labor.

An audience hit at the Flickpaloza Film Festival in Santa Monica, California, THE WISE ONES, from Portland, Oregon, is a perfect example of successful regional independent film-making. A smart, talky script and wonderful acting from the male and female leads (both local actors) overcome a low budget and lack of such niceties as a score (unless you count the hilarious songs in the musical production that is the focus of the final 30 minutes).

It's sort of a cross between ON A CLEAR DAY YOU CAN SEE FOREVER, the TV series FRASIER, and WAITING FOR GUFFMAN, shot in a style reminiscent of STRANGER THAN PARADISE. Recommended, if you can find it.

A great short, one of the two best created by Canadian auteurs to serve as Preludes for the 25th Anniversary of the Toronto Film Festival. (The other MUST-see from the group is Guy Maddin's "Heart of the World".)

It is not a two-character piece (as misstated elsewhere), but a somewhat rambling, splendidly written monologue "filmed" by an intriguing on-screen crew of unlikely film makers. Warm, funny, ironic and profound (not qualities normally associated with Cronenberg), yet a wee bit little creepy (and with this director, could it be anything else?), it will haunt your memories. Inspired by a dream, it captures the irrational clarity and lurking unease of the dream state in a way that may remind you of Altman's "Three Women" or Lynch's "Eraserhead". This feeling of lucid drifting is a feat that many films attempt but few achieve.

All in all, "Camera" is a splendid few minutes of film, not easy to find, but well worth seeking out.

I can't believe the tone of the external reviews linked to this entry...these guys didn't get this film at all!!! What in god's name did the bozos expect from a film adapted from a novel in French by an author of obvious Eastern European descent?

"Julian Po" is a fable, folks, about life and death and all the states in between. It's funny and sad and bewildering and tragicomic in the way good European fiction can be and even good American fiction rarely is. It's beautifully cast with people from some of my favorite TV series, from "West Wing" to "Homicide" to "Remember WENN" and from some damn good films such as "Fargo" and "Kill Bill". It also has Christian Slater's best performance since "Heathers" and manages to be "quirky" in a way different from those generic indie films that equate quirkiness with quality.

It IS a little slow, because it moves at the pace of life, but this allows it time to fill each moment with the stuff of life. It misses being great because it doesn't have the final twist that takes it beyond our expectations, but it is nonetheless the best surprise I've come across in several years -- a genuine small, unheralded, lost gem.

Please don't read too much about it before you see it. Judge for yourself, with your heart and your head. This film should appeal to both parts of your anatomy.

The surprise is not how good this film turns out to be. With Willis coming off of "Sixth Sense" and Jean Smart and writer Audrey Wells following up on the underappreciated "Guinevere", I suspected there just might be something going on here. The surprise is how what is being pushed as a Disney kid's film is actually a funny, moving and rather mature fable about losing touch with the child you were and the adult you wanted to be. The kids in the audience were restless. The parents were laughing...and a few even sniffling. Not a great film, but a darn good one, with a message that will probably go over the heads of anyone under 30.

Goes neck and neck with "Pat" as the absolute worst film to be based on a SNL character. I'd call it a monumental waste of talent, but that would be an exaggeration of both the word "monumental" and the word "talent". Perhaps best summed up as "Showgirls" without the laughs.

Had I known beforehand that this was a film about a nun who finds a baby in a park, I probably would have avoided it like the plague. Yet, from this premise that promises only the worst kind of sentimentality came the best film I'd seen in years. There is sentiment, to be sure, but it is earned -- superbly so -- by the honesty and intelligence of the performances, script and direction.

This film lets us spend time with ordinary, unforgettable people facing the simple, terrible problems of everyday life, first alone, and then together. It shows us that even those who think they are "not of this world" are bound to it by the humanity we share. It will make you smile in recognition, laugh at our follies and, I dare say, sniffle a bit as well. You may well find yourself lusting for a life-affirming, earthy experience at the end and, like one of the main characters, tearing into a bar of chocolate.