Reviews

This film really makes one appreciate just how brilliant Christpher Guest's mockumentaries are. It also makes one realize that a TV show like The Office is much harder to make than it might appear.

All that naturalistic mockumentary acting looks so easy, but if this film, Lollilove, proves anything it is that mockumentaries can be very hard to make.

There aren't any glaring mistakes in the film's production, but rather none of the elements of the film are done to the level that needs to be done to make these films work. The acting is just a tad overdone, the writing is slightly implausible, and the camera-work is amateur. All those small mistakes add up to bring the entire thing down to the level of mediocrity.

To be fair, the film seems like more of a casual side project than an attempt at film-making history. It seems that the actors obviously knew the film was kind of a lark and not something that should be taken very seriously. In fact, low budget films like this almost never get put out on DVD, so it is pretty interesting from that standpoint.

Even if you are a die hard fan of the genre, though, I would say that you could miss this film without any regret at all.

I rarely like Anime, so the fact that I like this show so much, makes it a real gem for me. I was thrilled to find out recently that there will be a second season released in late 2006.

Unlike most anime, this show is extremely realistic. It focuses on the members of a student activity club at a University in the outskirts of Tokyo. The club is a group of slackers whose sole activity is appreciating anime, manga, hentai, cosplay and other pastimes normally associated with nerds (sometimes called "otaku" in Japanese).

Each episode in the first season more or less describes some new aspect of nerd culture. One episode shows the group getting obsessed about building Gundam models, another one shows the group going to Akihabara to buy erotic manga.

The dramatic tension of the show is created through the character of Saki. She is the girlfriend of one of the club members. She is in love with the guy, but finds all the "otaku" stuff kind of weird and many of the episodes feature her struggling to come to terms with her love of Kohsaka, but her dislike of his hobbies.

The show has very good character progression and many of the characters are allowed a depth to their characters not normal for Anime shows.

In a medium that is too often plagued with clichés and repetitive plot lines, Genshiken is a breath of fresh air that should be viewed by both anime fans and non-fans alike.

"The Comeback" is a well done blending of "The Office", "The Larry Sanders Show", and "Curb Your Enthusiasm". It is a fake reality show about an idiotic TV star that offers a parody of both reality TV and network sitcoms.

The show is composed of reality TV footage filmed during the life of a TV star from the 80's, played by Lisa Kudrow, trying to wage a career comeback by staring in a new TV sitcom. The twist is that rather than showing us a final edited fake reality TV show, the show is composed of outtakes from the fake reality TV show. We get to see the character redo lines that are supposed to be spontaneous reality, we see her continually tell the filmmakers to stop filming -- which they never do. And we even see the filmmakers themselves dealing with some of the logistical problems inherent in making this type of show.

What makes it all work is that Lisa Kudrow's character is a buffoon. She is totally delusional about how big of a star she is and the show asks us to laugh at her vanity and idiocy. She is a lot like the boss on BBC's "The Office", because she is a lead character we are meant to laugh and cringe at. At the same time, Kudrow gives her character just enough empathy that as much as we hate her we also feel sorry for her just a little bit. Knowing that Kudrow was so intimately involved in a network TV sitcom, makes the parody directed at sitcoms come across as very realistic and especially funny.

As long as you know that the show itself is supposed to be bad, and if you like the kind of comedy that is filled with cringe inducing moments of embarrassment, then you will like this show.

This film is an adaptation of one of Astrid Lindgren's more low key books. Lindgren is most famous for writing the fantastic tales of Pippi Longstocking. Alla Vi Barn in Bullerbyn, however, represents the author's lower key style that is more grounded in reality.

Bullerbyn is translated as Noisy Village, which is sort of a joke, because Bullerbyn is just about as small and quiet a village as you can have. Living in the village are only three families. The film follows the innocent exploits of the six children of this village as they pass away the days of their summer vacation.

Since the film was simultaneously filmed to be a TV series, the plot is very episodic. For the 90 minutes of the film we watch the six children go from one low key episode to another. What makes the film special is how each scene is such a well crafted observation of what kinds of things children wind up doing when left alone to their own devices. Much of the humor is centered around the fact that there are three boys and three girls. Since they are all under 10 the play is very innocent. But there is nevertheless a lot of gentle teasing that goes back and forth between the sexes.

For those people looking for another fantastic tale like Pippi Longstocking, this may sound boring and trite. For Swedes, however, this is the cinematic equivalent of milk and cookies. I just recently saw this at a Swedish Film festival in a theater filled with young Swedish kids and their moms and a few childless grown-ups as well. The 4 year old girl sitting next to me was clearly entertained and gentle laughter was heard throughout the theater during the entire film. At the end everyone clapped. It is nice to know that a film so innocent as this one can still generate that kind of response from a modern day audience. 7/10

I have recently seen this at a museum showing of the film. It is a very well made adaptation of the famous Astrid Lindgren book, Madicken.

The movie itself is very episodic. There is no real plot as the story really just follows Madicken, a 7-9 year old girl, and her various adventures in the small village where she lives.

It appears as if the film was originally filmed as a TV series and this film, is just a series of TV episodes edited together to form a complete film. The story is very engaging, as it addresses issues of class, alcoholism, and poverty in a manner that is appropriate for young children. Madicken, herself, is much more of a sweetheart in the movie than in the book, where she is a bit of a troublemaker.

All aspects of the production are very expertly done. The costumes are extremely authentic looking and beautifully crafted. It is filmed on location in a real Swedish village, so the production feels extremely authentic.

While it isn't the most serious film ever. The high quality of its content makes this a very worthwhile film to track down for anyone curious in seeing a snapshot of traditional Swedish life in the countryside.

I was quite disappointed by this show and am wondering if I even saw the same show as all these other people. The show I saw featured poorly written 'trying too hard to be awkwardly realistic' dialog spoken by actors who were trying too hard to be quirky.

Even worse, though, I just found the entire concept of the show to be too dumb to be interesting. Supposedly the lead character is selected to be a grim reaper after her own death, which means she must live on Earth as a walking undead. But for some reason she has to get a job so she can earn money to eat and have a place to live. Um, isn't she dead? Why exactly does she need to eat? Is she going to starve to death ... again?

It just all felt like the producers were trying too hard to create a quirky dark comedy, but I never felt that the actors were able to pull it off. It sort of surprises me how universal the praise is for this show, because the show I saw was at best mediocre. 5/10.

After recently reading and falling in love with the book, I started doing research into the filmed adaptations of the novel. I first watched the BBC adaptation from 2000, which impressed me, but I was somewhat disappointed by the amount of editing done to the story.

I, therefore, picked up this version with great anticipation, because it is much longer (10 hours) and I was hoping would therefore be a more fully realized version of the story.

Unfortunately, I barely made it through the first hour before turning it off and giving up on it.

The whole production felt too staged and unnatural for my taste. The actors looked like English 'thespians' dressed up in stock period costumes rather than Russian aristocrats. And they all more or less spoke in the same loud and clear stage voice making the conversations feel less intimate than I would have liked.

Camera-work and directing was mostly just like that of a noontime soap opera.

I'm sure that in 1977 this was perfectly acceptable, but nowadays, it is just not good enough to spend time watching. It certainly does no justice to what is often considered one of the greatest novels ever written.

If you are looking for a filmed adaptation of this story, stick with the more recent version from 2000. While it is a somewhat edited down version of the story, it is a much superior product that does a far better job of fully capturing the richness of Tolstoy's novel.

This film is simply a love letter to the three writers Allen Ginsburg, Jack Kerouac, and William Burroughs. The film offers no dissenting viewpoints, and provides very little evidence to back up its claims that these three men were somehow 'The Source' for all counter culture movements that followed them.

This is a preposterous claim. The Beats were simply part of a long tradition of counter culture art that began in earnest in the mid 19th Century.

Anyways, outside of some sloppy history, the film does at least seem to capture the spirit of who the Beats were. What it fails to do, however, is convince me that I should still actually care who they were. So, for a fan this film will be a joy ride, but for people, like me, who have always been somewhat ambivilant about the Beats, it doesn't do much convincing.

This extremely boring, rambling film is ultimately pointless. I did not need to sit through 144 minutes of souless character studies in order to learn that Hollywood has a dark soul destroying edge to it.

For the first 2 hours, I was just left wondering where the film was going. All I got to see were a bunch of loosely connected storylines involving characters I couldn't find myself getting interested in.

Then all of a sudden the film becomes a giant disaster film full of bizarre surrealistic energy.

None of it added up to anything very compelling. There were a few moments where you could tell that the filmmaker was earnestly trying to develop some metaphor and symbollism through the visual 'magic' of cinema, but these attempts were so obvious that it mostly just made it look like the guy was trying too hard. I think that in the spirit of the adventurous world of 70's cinema this film must have seemed very daring and compelling, but today, the film is just dull.

I first saw this movie in College, 2 years after it came out (1991). At the time I thought it was delightfully subversive and funny.

All these years I have considered the film a dark comedy, and something of a classic.

But after just now seeing it on DVD, my opinion of the film has changed dramatically. For some reason I just didn't find it remotely funny anymore. I thought the dialog was stilted and unnatural, with too much of an emphasis on 'witty' lines and not enough emphasis on conversational flow between characters. Elements like set design, costumes and cinematography were horribly dated looking and cheap. And worst of all, I just thought the whole concept of the film was no longer surreal enough to be darkly funny. I just couldn't get past the fact that JD, the Christian Slater character, was just a psychotic killer unworthy of any real sympathy -- it was obvious we were meant to think of him as a semi-lovable rebel.

It seems like young people are still discovering this film, and maybe that is the age group that can still find the film fun, but if you are a 30-something who fondly remembers this film, you might want to give it another viewing, because if you are like me, you will find that it definately does not live up to its reputation.

Two of Ingemar Bergmans' most famous works were originally released as TV miniseries: Fanny and Alexander, and Scenes From a Marriage. Finally, after many years, the 6 episode long mini-series version of Scenes has been released in America.

I never saw the original 4 hour movie version of Scenes, but something tells me I wouldn't have liked it. The movie is very talky and most of the scenes are just long conversations between two people. My butt hurts just thinking about having to sit in the theater that long.

As a mini-series, though, it is possible to break the film up into 6 easily digestable parts, as was intended. It wasn't great in terms of cinematography, or exciting plot points, but I don't think it was intended to be.

It was obviously something meant to be watched slowly, so that the characters could get a chance to grow and develop realistically. While it was still a little slow going at times, it is worth checking out if you like probing psychological character studies.

The leading actors Liv Ullman and Arland Josephson give what must be one of the most realistic portraits of a marriage that exists on film. Mostly this is because the actors get 5 hours to depict their two characters. This kind of intense focus almost never happens in cinema, and for this reason alone it is worth watching. Give yourself a week to see it, you will be highly rewarded with one of cinema's most intense character studies.

The original version of Godzilla has finally been released in the USA. I just saw it last weekend at a movie theater in San Francisco. I was quite excited by the prospect of finally seeing the film in its uncut glory, but was just a tad bit underwhelmed by the experience.

Basically I would rank Godzilla with the short list of 1950s monster movies that are surprisingly watchable -- Them, Invasion of Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still -- because they do a good job commenting on a current social malady.

Like many of the films of the era, though, Godzilla, even in its original language, is still filled with too many corny conversations and phony plot points to remain something that could be called a masterpiece of filmmaking as some here are suggesting it is. It will probably be better than what you are expecting from a Godzilla film, but remember, it still basically boils down to a guy in a monster suit stepping on miniature houses and knocking over toy trains. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but 'one of the greatest films ever made' this is not.

In 'Married in America', Director Michael Apted has chosen to follow 7 couples for the next 10 years stopping in for a progress report every 2 years. The plan is to release an update movie every 2 years that will catch us up on the lives of the people involved.

As the premise would suggest, this first part of the series that aired in 2002 introduces us to the various couples telling us how they met and showing us their wedding days. It is a fairly tame film as far as documentaries go, except that the variety of couples is quite remarkable. While there are a few young blushing couples, there are also a few pairs who are already enduring a rocky road due to substance abuse problems and the like.

Anyone familiar with Apted's previous long term project (28 Up, 35 Up, and 42 Up) will know that this series is going to get more interesting as the years go by. Since the filmmakers and couples have agreed to participate in the film even if the marriage breaks up, the film promises to provide a very thrilling glimpse of marriages.

So, while this particular episode was quite interesting, don't worry if you missed it as this is one movie series where the sequels are going to end up being MUCH better than the original.

The problem with this film is that the 'thespians' involved in this production are all acting as if they are on a stage, when, in fact, they are acting for the camera. With the exception of Jenny Agutter, everyone involved just comes off as being overly melodramatic as they shout their lines out to make sure that the back row can hear. Scene after scene is staged in a very staid manner not fully utilizing all that cinema has to offer in the telling of a story. I think that a lot of people respond well to this film because at root it is a fairly odd story that references all sorts of standard clichéd 'importanct subjects' like religion, sex and parents. It also has a very strong moralizing message about the trappings of everyday life that I had a very hard time identifying with.

My problem, though, was that despite all its ideas, it just wasn't put on the screen in a way that made it interesting.

Anyways, with the exception of the final 20 minutes, which were fairly interesting and engaging, for the bulk of this movie I was just sitting there looking at my watch wondering how much longer it was going to take for the movie to finally get somewhere interesting.

In perhaps the worst sign, Burton gave a series of rambling 'deep' speeches that actually made me think most of the crazy speeches Bela Lugosi gave in Ed Wood's infamous 'Glen or Glenda.' Not that Richard Burton was as bad a Lugosi, but it certainly was not a good sign that his performance was reminding me of what is arguably one of the most famously bad movies of all time.

If you love horses, though, you might like this movie, as the one topic it really covers well is that youthful 'horse loving phase.'

While I thought the original mini-series was great, this follow up only ranks as a fun trip down memory lane. I doubt I will ever watch it again after having just seen it on DVD.

In the original we watch a band of revolutionaries form a secret underground resistance to the alien visitors. It is a very thinly veiled allegory to Nazism, but that is what makes it so effective.

In this second part, we basically follow the 'incredible' adventures of the underground resistance as they perform various deeds. The plot just seems to be treading water and not going anywhere for the first 3 hours. As others have mentioned, the ending feels quite abrupt and unsatisfying.

The biggest problem is that the resistance fighters seem capable of pulling the most amazing feats, slipping past security with amazing ease, and hiding out in a 'secret' hideout that would take the aliens about 10 minutes to find. The bottom line problem is, how can an alien race that is capable of travelling 65 million miles through space not also have a proximity detector that tells them when resistance fighters are rustling around in the bushes outside of their 'security headquarters'? With the credibility strained, the action sequences just feel repetative.

As in the original, the human sub-plots are what remain the most interesting. The most interesting is the story of the girl who was impregneted by an alien in the first series. Watching her come to grips with being the mother of a possible alien is pretty good.

If you remember seeing this when you were young, get it for fun, but don't expect too much from it.

Basically Quentin Tarantino is the Jimmy Page of our day. Page was a great musician and Led Zeppelin made some great songs, but that doesn't mean I have to praise his 30 minute 'Dazed and Confused' guitar solo. In a similar vein, it is not an insult to Tarantino's skills to say that Kill Bill 2 is about 30 minutes too long. There is genius to be found, but unfortunately this is one of those 'Dazed and Confused' moments where QT's self indulgence is trying the patience of fans such as myself.

I could easily name 3-4 scenes that could be removed or shortened considerably -- scenes that added almost nothing to the story and served only to slow the pace of the film. The film itself might have been a dreadful bore if not for a sensationally choreographed showdown between Elle (Daryl Hannah) and the Bride (Uma). The scenes of Uma's kung-fu training were equally entertaining and were beautifully integrated into the story as a whole.

Too many times, though, we are forced to sit through another one of Tarantino's signature 'Royale with Cheese' moments: meandering conversations about trivialities that are meant to draw out the tension by delaying the action scenes. Well, the technique is starting to feel like a schtick and just doesn't work so easily for me anymore.

I am disappointed, because within 220 minutes that make up Kill Bill 1 & 2 are two sensational 88 minute films that coupled together would represent a great moment in stylish moviemaking. As it stands now, though, we have Tarantino standing on stage playing his triple necked guitar with a violin bow -- we are mightily impressed Tarantino, but just so you know, you had me already with the double necked guitar.

This film gives what feels like a realistic depiction of the medieval europe described in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. This is a world where the priest seems to have slept with all the women in town, the main Inn in town is also a brothel, and an animal could be hung for sodomy.

Stepping into this mess is a city lawyer intent on finding some peace and quiet in the country -- think "Northern Exposure" set during the 1450's.

There are some funny bits and a lot more sex than I was prepared for. In addition to the fact that animals could be tried in court, other bits of history are thrown in. The plight of the Jews, influence of landowners, corruption of the church and spread of the plague are all thrown in making the film something of a greatest hits of 1450, and that is ultimately the problem. While the film is busily touching on so many issues, it fails to deeply address any single one to the level I would have liked.

Another problem with the film is that everyone seemed to be wearing costumes that had just arrived fresh from the drycleaners. I mean its the middle ages! People back had only 1 or 2 outfits in their wardrobe. They were dirty, but this film doesn't give any of that, and that reduces some of the realism. It just never felt like anything other than a bunch of actors playing dress up.

So, while I learned something from the film, the lack of real dramatic tension, and a feeling that everyone was a little too clean cut meant that the film never engrossed me enough for me to fall in love with it.

The concept is great though, and I was left feeling that if this movie got the same treatment as the current HBO series 'Deadwood', it would make a great TV series.

This movie is structured in such a way that the 'climax' appears to occur much earlier than one would expect. I was left wondering what in the world Argento was going to do to keep the action going. I was eventually thrilled by the result, but I still must admit that there was a 15 minute stretch in the middle when I just couldn't figure out at all where the movie was headed. In this way, the structure reminded me a bit of Vertigo.

Unfortunately, the one thing that is usually the best in Argento's work -- the cinematography -- is obscured by an unbelievably bad DVD transfer by Troma. Compared to Anchor Bay's treatment of films like Deep Red and Phenomena, Troma's release of Stendahl Syndrome looks like a 3rd generation VHS. If you care about your DVD transfer quality, you definately need to preview this one before buying it. Movie 7/10, DVD transfer 2/10.

As much as I love the sets, costumes and two main leads of this film, I can't get over the fact that the film just doesn't move me as much as I hoped it would.

Surely, everyone should see this film once in their lives, but I worry that some of the massive praise being given this film will lead first time viewers to expect something greater than what this film ultimately delivers.

For me this film satisfies my intellect and thirst for visual stimulus, but it doesn't really engage me -- getting me to sit on the edge of my seat with excitement -- on the level I was hoping for. Whenever I have seen it as an adult with others people walk away talking about how x,y, and z are great, but there is rarely a great deal of excitement in people's voices as they talk about it. It is almost as if this is a film that you know you are supposed to like, but never end up falling in love with to the extent that its reputation would lead you to believe.

This is quite an accurate adaptation of Tolstoy's 800+ page novel. While there were obviously many changes and omissions, overall, the whole film rang true to the spirit of the book, and I found it very a very satisfying viewing experience.

While most people are aware of the love triangle plotline featuring Anna Karenina herself, the book's main focus is on the life of Konstantin Levin, and what I think this film does so well is to provide more focus on that character and his relationship with Kitty than previous adaptations have done.

In addition, Anna's estranged husband, Alexei Karenin, is usually portrayed as a totally evil villain. His portrayal in this version of the story, though is done perfectly. While we may not appreciate his choices, we are also allowed to see his character in a multidimensional light, which helps make the story more complex and less of a simplistic soap opera.

While the sets and costumes all felt very authentic, I think that what was mostly missing from this were large scale sets to help us see the grand setting of Russia. We needed to see pictures of trains steaming across Russian countryside, we needed to see the inside of an Opera house or two, and we needed to see Levin struggling in the open farming countryside. Instead almost every scene is an interior shot, or a small scale street scene. It is a minor quibble, but without these scenes, I was left feeling that as good as it was, this film adaptation didn't reach perfection liked I hoped it would.

This film reminded me how different our current culture is to the one in which this film was made in 1996. Today we have shows like the Man Show and movies like Fight Club and talk show hosts like Tom Leykis to cheer on the 'male backlash' community. Back when this film was released, there was none of that, so this film must have felt extremely fresh and new -- hence it received extreme praise from all around.

I first saw this film today, though, January 19, 2004, and both me and my girlfriend found it hopelessly dated. Dialog that wanted so much to sound shocking and new, sounded clicheed and stilted.

Basically, what this movie was trying to do has now been done so much better by other people that this film just seems lame.

What really stands out now is how poorly written the dialog is. The writer has no ear for the conversation, so we are instead forced to watch two characters deliver long monologues to each other. This gets very tiresome after a point. It actually felt more like a two man play than a movie. Something of a Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern for the modern white collar worker. Throw in bad lighting and a hopelessly contrived plot and you have a film that I found extremely hard to watch or care about. 3/10

I see a lot of people talking about how 'deep' this film is and that you have to watch it multiple times to truly appreciate the overwhelming depth and profoundness of it. Actually, I don't feel I do have to watch it multiple times to 'get' the film. What it is trying to say isn't really all that new, but says what it says with ambiguous plot points and slow-moving profound sounding dialogue, so a lot of people get fooled into thinking that it is some piece of high art.

The fact is, you can pretty much deconstruct any movie made. I remember a class at UC Berkeley where we did a fascinating analysis of 'Robo Cop,' for example. The point is, the mere fact that this is a movie that some people like to pore over with a fine tooth comb looking for answers to the meaning of life, doesn't really say anything about the quality of the film itself.

For me, the film featured an interesting style and had some very 'unique' elements, but in terms of editing, pacing and compelling dialogue, the film left a lot to be desired.

I remember catching this once on latenight PBS in either 1991 or 1990. I was totally engrossed by the story at the time and ever since I have been trying to find it on video so that I could see it again. Unfortunately, it has proved to be a very difficult video to find, as it doesn't appear to have been released commercially in the US. After many years of looking, though, I managed to find a version of the film that someone had made off of the TV.

When I watched it again, I was joined by two other people who were not familiar with the Triffids story. We all agreed that the story was very compelling, and it reminded us a lot of '28 Days Later,' though much less thrilling.

What remains compelling is the depiction of humans struggling to figure out how best to organize themselves in a post-apocalyptic world. Since the show is 3 hours long, it is also able to fully develop themes that a 2 hour movie is not able to show.

Yet, overall, I was a little disappointed. One of my main complaints is that much of the story is told expository dialogue between characters. Too often, 'conversations' are nothing more than extended debates between characters about how best to cope with living in a post-apocalyptic world. In addition, character development is a little clumsy and sudden for such a long film. Characters seem capable of falling in love too quickly and friends and enemies seem to form much quicker than seems natural. And the overall problem that the Triffids themselves are not very threatening never really gets dealt with. They walk too slowly and can't break glass, so in general are a little too easily dealt with by the protagonists.

Still, this version is FAR better than the Hollywood movie version made in the 60's, and I am very glad I have finally had the chance to watch it again. It is definately worth tracking down if it is something you remember watching in the past.