Change Your Image
wrsgold
Reviews
GATTACA (1997)
I appreciate it more with every viewing.
As Ebert says in his review, it is about ideas. In fact, this film and "Blade Runner" have that in common. They are films about ideas, the human condition and where our folly and arrogance might lead us.
The world in Gattaca is already upon us. In India female fetuses are aborted to get a male heir. In Western societies blue eyes and blonde hair are often requested. We have practiced genetic engineering by purpose breeding in plants and animals for some time. In plants we seem to have done very well. In animals not well at all and some of the intended results have been dangerous rather than funny. Still, we press on. The question centers around whether or not we are right to meddle with genetics to engineer a "better product". The movie is filled with good people relegated to servile status because they were not engineered. Even Jude Law's character, a arrogant product of that engineering who became flawed by accident, becomes quite sympathetic as the movie progresses.
"Blade Runner"s future is further off yet we are headed there with reckless abandon. That question is even more troubling. Having engineered a sentient machine superiour to ourselves and intelligent enough to create an assembly line to reproduce itself do we have the right to destroy it? Taken together they are a frightening indictment of where we are headed.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
There is a line in Ebert's review that sums up my view
He says that "I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done . . . It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a single minded urgency." Few films succeed in their goals like this one. Apocalypse Now, perhaps. Field of Dreams, perhaps. Remember, some goals are lofty, some are not. But the fact is that Passion has some of the loftiest goals imaginable and meets them in the main. It should be controversial, it should be tough to take. The fact that it comes from miserable sinner only enhances the point.
It is a film I will never "like" but a film I consider a "must have" in my collection. I truly consider it a great film; but not an easy film. Not easy at all.
Ivan Groznyy. Skaz vtoroy: Boyarskiy zagovor (1958)
Ivan, and Boris Godonov (the Opera)
Eisenstein's use of light, shadow and poses to create what was essentially a moving frieze was converted to the Opera Stage in the 1970s by the Metropolitan Opera who scheduled "Boris" with Jerome Hines who had studied Eisenstein intently. The effect was stunning visually as well as vocally. It remains one of the best Met presentations as a whole (visuals, dance, music acting and singing) I have ever seen. I have one friend who called it at the time the closest thing she had seen to a great drama on the Opera stage. Usually that almost precludes great singing, but that was not true in this case.
Thought you might have an interest. All performance eventually ties together. Somehow.
Conan the Barbarian (1982)
Better than most thought when it was released
Though I am not fond of agreeing with Ebert, who liked the movie a lot, both he and I liked it when it was released. The Widescreen Laserdisc was not bad at all and, of course, Ahnold is perfect for the role. The new DVD is excellent.
I want to comment on something in the cinematography of the movie. What few people mention is Milius's obvious homage to Eisenstein. Add snow to the battle scenes and they could easily be from Alexandre Nevsky. The film is good on many levels and may be the best example of the genre ever made. For that reason alone, it is a keeper.
I am happy to see that time has corrected the sneering of self anointed sophisticated critics. They may still sneer at the sequel (as do I), although Grace and Wilt made a lotta money.
Bronenosets Potyomkin (1925)
Seminal, yes; great, yes; the Greatest, no!
Eisenstein himself didn't even consider it his greatest film. He preferred "Ivan the Terrible".
However, If one takes Eisenstein's three acknowledged masterpieces, "Potemkin", "Alexander Nevsky" and "Ivan" as a group it is difficult to come up with another director who deserves mention in the same breath.
His cutting techniques were revolutionary and his visual compositions were pirated by everyone from Orson Wells in "Citizen Kane" to Milius in "Conan the Barbarian" (er, pardon me for putting it on the same page).
Fight Club (1999)
A stunning, but intellectually flawed film
The most telling exposition is Pitt's line that we are ". . .two generations of men raised (sic) by women." This is a notion that one would expect that pudgy, wussie "moma's boy" Roger Ebert to fail to get. And Lord, does he fail to get it! (The review is available on the imdb) The notion that the problem is only two generations old is way off base, however. This started when boys ceased to be taught the arts of hunting and war, about the time farming became the mainstay of our economy. However, it became its most insidious when men left home to work and left their sons in the tender, tearful care of their mothers.
En fin, the film is saying that we are taught that the world revolves around women and the business/government cabal . . . and that nothing else matters.
The film's positions are that: 1. We don't know who we are because we are wired one way (aggressive, testosterone stuff) and taught another way (tender "no fighting", conniving manipulation, pretend to love each other stuff). I agree
2. This was brought about by the business/government infrastructure who support the structure because it makes it less likely that they will be challanged. I disagree, though, by removing men from the rearing of their sons it has made a bad situation worse. At the very least it has certainly heightened the internal conflict in men. I do agree that business/government are happy with the status quo, for this and other reasons they scarcely understand.
3. That the need for this kind of physical outlet for men is so serious that virtual "violence drones" can be created. I agree, anyone check the growing membership of right and left-wing militias recently?
4. That the solution is the destruction of the economic infrastructure. Brad. . . as much as I like you as an actor, you wouldn't last 5 days in the environment this movie would create.
The solution is far more complex and relies on our ability to find a way that will allow boys to be reared as men rather than women in drag (or men who are old well before their time).
For provoking these thoughts, and for getting the (always hilarious) wussie response from Ebert and for being well filmed and acted the film is highly recommended.
Oh, one more thing. Ebert is also wrong about the injuries incurred in fight club. Bare knuckle fights went on for 50 rounds or more, some one had to be knocked out. And until fighters donned gloves to protect the squeemish from the sight of blood, no one died from a brain injury (a little known fact that was a favourite of James Cagney's and which he would drop whenever people started talking about). There were far fewer broken bones than one would expect, noses and fingers being the most common.
The Matrix (1999)
A better film than its fans believe and great entertainment.
By that I mean there is far more to it than the average 13 year old appreciates. It is actually like Flip Wilson. Obvious, but with much more underneath than his fans ever knew. Nevertheless, its special effects have been borrowed by other films (without the logical underpinnings for those effects), but not its various premises (e.g., humans as a virus {not original but well expressed} and the world as a virtual reality {ditto}). Even Keanu Reaves seems less wooden than usual (how anyone can interview so well and act so stiffly is beyond me!). I doubt that it will be as influential as Blade Runner and it certainly isn't as beautifully shot, but it is quite good nonetheless. Even its fascist amorality is interesting. If one dies in the Matrix, one dies period. How many unsuspecting humans do they kill? True believers always think the lives of the ignorant are of no consequence. However, it does give one pause to think how easily this was ignored by the legions of fans.
Highly recommended, though not exactly for the reasons most often expressed.
Field of Dreams (1989)
One of, if not the best baseball film(s)
The film is, of course, about much more than baseball. What sets it apart for me is the wistful lyricism of the film and its delineation of baseball as a means to discover one's self. The game no longer exists in this form, with no music between innings, with no glitz and hype, just the smell of grass, leather and oil, chewing tobacco and the sounds of the game. It is this game that is so beloved of "intellectuals" because it combines speed, power, individual achievement and failure within a team framework much more loosely structured than other team sports. If you are less than 30, the game was really this way once. And that game was the dream of virtually everyone who ever had a game of catch with his Dad. This film, more than any other, captures those qualities. Highly recommended!
The Cell (2000)
Tarsem Singh's debt to Jodorowski
. . . and Leone. The opening shots could be inspired by (lifted from?) El Topo, and there are scenes that parallel Santa Sangre.
On a different front, is it coincidence that the detective chasing D'Onofrio looks very like D'Onofrio in "Salt on Our Skin"?
I shall have to see it again, the story was obscured by the visual images he borrowed and by the subtle references to obscure cinema. Those images, borrowed or no, were stunning and that alone made it worth the viewing. I was very (pleasantly) surprised.
Stargate (1994)
There are good movies and then there are good DVD's/Lasers
. . . and they often are not the same. Whilst not a bad movie, that is the case here. In DTS, on a high quality front projector this movie is a feast for the eyes and ears.
If one wishes to analyse story line (predictable), characters (Spader plays himself, Russel seems a bit at sea and Jaye Davidson is having a load of fun) there is a bit more difficulty, but it is better than (and more inventive than) many films of its genre and the quality of the video and sound make for a very enjoyable evening.
Shaka Zulu (1986)
A great . . . and awful man
The Story is told based in the writings of Edward Fox's character, an adventurer named Francis George Farewell. Therefore, the more savage side of his nature is undubitably exaggerated.
To the best of our knowledge the salient points are correct, even to Henry Cele sharing the same basic build as Shaka, both of them quite imposing. There is some European romanticism tossed in, but it should be must viewing for anyone who loves history. Pooh-poohed by some critics as preposterous (as was Ghost in the Darkness, also an essentially true story), it is no more amazing than Napoleon's rise from obscurity to absolute power. They parallel in so many ways, in fact, that Shaka is oft called the "Napoleon of Africa". Though many Zulus consider Napoleon the "Shaka of Europe"
The production was fraught with controversy (it was filmed in South Africa before sanctions were lifted) but tries to convey a complex and fascinating story set in a tribal Africa steeped in mysticism with ideas about life and death that were very different from Europe. It manages to convey those ideas, and Shaka's formidible intellect, quite well. On top of that, it has as its star the perfect actor for the part.
Highly recommended and worth the time it takes to view it.