Reviews

There's no doubting Fellini's strength as a director and storyteller with this fable about a society reporter in search of some kind of meaning. Beautiful cinematography coupled with great acting and several jarring, absurd scenes makes this an epic film to be reckoned with.

(Spoilers)

I must say that I sympathized with Marcello in his search for something substantial in his life. He is stuck in the meaningless, dull, morally corrupt existence of a gossip writer who's life is one party and sexual conquest after another. He yearns for something substantial; a new life, a family, another job, anything to get him out of his rut. He idolized an older friend who is a professional with a majestic house and an adorable family, but is warned against such routes in life, being told that happiness and the life he wants "doesn't lie within four walls." The tragic outcome of his friend's situation forces Marcello to make a decision and abandon his quest for meaning, falling back into a hedonistic lifestyle of debauchery and frivolous escapades. And, after reading other reviews, I understand the character of the girl on the beach and why she was there. Interesting, because at the time I was thinking 'what the hell is this about?'. All in all, a great film, maybe a bit long for some or too challenging to grasp at first, but great none the less.

I can't believe I waited so long to write about this film. I had heard some 'Entertainment Tonight' stuff about this film before it was released (due to the Ryan Gosling character and his abrupt shift from kid's shows to this), but then I heard nothing about it until I saw it on the shelf at Blockbuster.

I'm glad I picked it up! A powerful film, definitely one of the most controversial films I've seem recently. The contradiction of the main character, along with his youth and background, makes for a screen presence that will not soon be forgotten. I hope Ryan Gosling continues to do non-mainstream roles. There are so many scenes in this film that affected me in one way or another, but none more than the black & white flashback scene from one of the Holocaust survivors, who told of how his young son was impaled on a Nazi bayonet and hoisted into the air. At first, the Danny character, thinking from the view of a neo-nazi, pictures himself as the bayonet-wielding Nazi. Then, as the film progresses and Danny become more conflicted as he re-embraces his Jewish heritage, he begins to picture himself as the bespectacled Jewish father who's son is being killed. Very heavy stuff. I'm glad some film makers aren't scared to make movies like this, because we need film like The Believer.

<spoilers> The ending confused me at first. I wondered why he stayed in the temple while everyone else evacuated, but then I remembered the pledge he gave to the reporter in the restaurant, about what he would do if his true religious orientation was revealed. Then I saw the ending as being very haunting, as he runs up the never ending stairs towards....? In the director's commentary, it is interesting to note that this film was based on a true story from the '40's, I think. What surprised me was the real neo-nazi's reaction to the secret Jews' 'outing' by the press. Their response was to talk it over and work it out! The individual in question did not take that route, however. Still, very interesting.

If you're reading this, chances are you've seen the film - so there is little point describing the plot. Okay. Why do I keep revisiting this film, and why do I hold it to such a high regard? Two words - acting and directing. If this is the first 'real' horror movie, or the first slasher film, it is the best because it doesn't fall into the traps associated with later (and cheesier) horror films. For one, all of the characters are 'real' and intelligent. Sure, Norman Bates is weird, and Marion Crane is scared of him, but she's also sympathetic to his plight. It isn't like he's waving around butcher knives and she says, "Hmm, well, I think I'll go take a shower now!" The conversation in Norman's parlour ends on a pleasant note (after having navigated through some very dark material) and she leaves to go prepare for bed - she couldn't have suspected what was about to happen or the audience would have suspected it too - the killing wouldn't have been a shock at all. Another thing about these 'real' characters. Arbogast starts out hard-boiled, but his conversatin with Norman in the motel office seems so real to the point where I suspect that the dialogue was ad-libbed. But of course Hitchcock wouldn't have allowed that. But the dialogue doesn't sound scripted at all. It's all in the delivery - very effective, we get to see that Arbogast is very good at his job - not an amateur at all. When Sam and Lila go to the motel to do their own investigation, there is inspired dialogue that you wouldn't hear in a conventional horror film. For one thing, when they enter the bathroom, the scene of the earlier carnage, Sam matter-of-factly remarks "there's no shower curtain". It's just a coment, and neither character dwells on this miniscule of details - how could they have guessed that it was used to wrap Marion's body with before she was dumped in her car trunk? As well, when Sam decides to occupy Norman while Lila searches the house, he says "If you find anything, anything at all, don't stop to tell me". See? Again, this wouldn't have occurred in a regular movie. The characters are intelligent and think out their actions before they act on them. And while Lila is put in the position of choosing to either run out the back door of Norman's house or down the flight of stairs and into the basement, she chooses the stairs (famous horror movie mistake) not because she is stupid, but because she is curious and wants nothing else but to find out what happened to her sister. It's one thing to have a main character massacred halfway through the film, but it's a much different movie that show's the intricate clean up of the crime scene - the mopping up of the blood, the wiping of the floor, walls and bathtub, the careful disposal of the body, etc, etc. While the murder last for less than 30 seconds, the clean up goes on for 10 minutes, and makes the scene far, FAR more disturbing. Watching dutiful Norman clean up his 'Mother's' mess, looking at the blood on his hands, smiling happily as the car sinks below the surface of his backyard swamp...well, it reaches a level of 'disturbing' that most movies hope to achieve but never reach. And the last line: "Why, she wouldn't even harm a fly...." Enough said.

Dawn of the Dead was one of the most enjoyable movies I've seen recently. George Romero knows how to put food on the table with his films, and this one is probably the best (with the exception of the wildly popular but far less slick 'Night of the Living Dead'). When Philadelphia (and everywhere else) is overrun by flesh-eating zombies, a news woman, a helicopter pilot and two swat team members escape to a massive shopping mall in rural New York state. After cleaning out the zombie riff-raff, they turn the mall into their new lavishly-appointed world. What I like is that Romero doesn't waste our time by plodding the film through the how's and why's of the situation. The film starts towards the end of the zombie crisis, when there are already precious few living left. There's a bad situation occurring, and the characters need to deal with it. No unnecessary plot building. *spoilers!*

Another thing that sets this film apart from its sub-par horror brethren is that it lets its characters have fun! Fun going shopping for once-expensive-but-now-free items, fun while driving around the mall mowing down zombies with rifles, fun playing games by outsmarting the slow-moving-yet-ravenous mall infiltrators. Each of the characters is likeable, and there are few cliches (like the character that you know from the beginning is going to be the first to die, or the lady gets into trouble and people have to die saving her, etc). There is also great social commentary going on in the film - people mindlessly returning to the mall to wander aimlessly after rising from the dead. I really liked the ending, because it left the storyline still moving and intact - the girl and sole surviving member of their party escapes the mall in the helicopter, low on gas, facing an uncertain future. Where are they headed? Even they don't know. Definitely a great movie - fun and scary, gross and engrossing.

*spoilers within*

When I first saw this film on late-night TV, I was glued to the screen! Up until that point, it was the most suspenseful film I'd ever seen. It was also the most infuriating film I'd seen, due to what the character of Jack Goddel has to endure - you'll be p***ed-mad! This is my favourite Jack Lemmon film - his performance as the safety-concious and ill-fated nuclear plant worker can't be matched. I really felt for his character. Granted this is not a 'perfect' film - it does take some Hollywood liberties - but it is extremely good and very well acted, especially by Lemmon, may he rest in peace.

I hoped that this movie would have more action and less (reality?), well, less of what I saw. Every cop's on the take and some are cold-blooded murderers, and no one man can make a change, and the whole borough is going straight down the ******* with no hope of redemption. It's very pessimistic, but you could look it as being a slice of reality, if things were really ever that bad (I wouldn't know). It's sad seeing Pam Grier cast as a psychopathic crack whore, too. And Paul Newman's wholesome, beautiful girlfriend on smack, as if she doesn't have a choice in the matter? Some drugs, maybe, but would this smart, family-oriented girl really get herself dragged down into heroin abuse? Call me a moron, but I just don't see it happening. And the inevitable ending, is, well, depressing. See it if you want.

**Spoilers within**

Picnic at Hanging Rock unfolds like a tentatively happy dream that suddenly turns nightmarish. While a group of severely sexually repressed schoolgirls (Victorian sensibilities coupled with an all-girl school is to blame)and their escort travel to a geologic outcropping for a midday picnic, three girls and their headmistress dissapear. One is found days later, not remembering anything about the dissappearence, only that she saw a 'red cloud' and her headmistress dressed only in her underclothes. Her feet show no signs of having walked about in the Australian outback. Searchers find no trace of the other girls. Peter Weir actually REMOVED footage from this film to make it even more perplexing. Viewers will try to reach their own conclusions, but there's no denying that this is a powerful film from a great director at the start of a great career.

It should also be added that this film is one of the most unsuspectingly SEXUAL film I've ever seen. Naturally, all of the sexual undertones and suggestions are implicit, we are dealing with school-age girls in a Victorian school for girls (in the middle of nowhere) after all. However the sexual repression that these girls (and their headmistress) experience screams at the viewer from practically every spoken work and action. To the point that it becomes disturbing, especially when dealing with the 'punishment' of the girl left behind at the school with the principal after she was banned from going on the picnic. Just what was going on between the two remains implicit at best, but here's no denying its presence. Peter Weir's most disturbing film, a quiet movie that makes you think.

This will probably the most challenging review I've ever written. I just saw the film last night and my head is still spinning with a trillion different feeling and conflicting emotions. ***spoilers within*** The opening scene was gut-wrenching - I was immediately filled with a sick dread that this young boy would join the list of famous people, including his mother, who have died on the Long Island Expressway. When the scene goes unresolved, balanced on a shaky rail as it was, the fear and dread of what will happen to Howie when the scene is inevitably revisited later in the film permeates every scene. It is clear that he intends to make a descision, but unclear as to what that descision will be. I had to have a drink before I could continue with the movie!

The controversy with this film is that it portrays a pedophile not as a de-humanized monster, but a well-respected, generally nice guy who has a problem. He is likeable, and the 'right kind' of boys seem drawn to him. We never see him attempting to pick up anyone who isn't in some way 'looking for it' - such as the teen hustlers who populate the expressway rest stop. When Howie enters the picture (a more conflicted and deep character I've never seen) he is drawn to Big John, not only because he is likeable and a potential friend, but also because he needs some guidance and love in his life. Big John is needed to fill a void in his life - a void caused by the death of his mother, the incarceration of his father and the departure of his best friend. He needs to feel loved (to feel love and to be loved back), and thinks he can find it in this most dubious and unlikely of characters. And herein lies the controversy; if the boy in a relationship like this is a willing participant, and even in some ways a seducer (the way Howie glances back at Big John when he's urinating, sharing poetry and inner thoughts), then who exactly is the victim? Roger Ebert was right in saying that a court case would see this subject matter in black and white, but the film itself occupies the darker shades of gray.

The one thing that bothered me throughout the film (besides Howie's other waste-of-air friends, especially the sister banger) was the sudden departure of his best friend Gary. Their relationship is close, intimate, but not sexual. Howie is unaware of Gary's sexual practices until after he leaves, but he is alone in that category. While it is clear that both boys are in love with each other (every scene when they are alone together has an implicit nature - long stares, play wrestling, flattering comments about the other's looks) nothing sexual ever happens, and it is with this regret that Howie enters Big John's life in search of the love and companionship that Gary took with him. It bothers me that Gary left so abruptly and without saying goodbye - didn't the two of them want to go together? - but I figure this is what happened: Gary kept his two lives separate, Howie in one, Big John in the other. When Howie tells Gary about meeting Big John and how he was set up to take the fall for the guns, Gary knew that he couldn't keep his two lives separate any more, and he liked Howie too much to get him involved in that.

I don't know, it's difficult to understand - I just really felt sorry for Howie being abandoned by absolutely everyone (the ending especially, which just didn't feel right). But my fear and dread was relieved in the final scene, thank God, so at least there's that. An incredibly well made film, beautifully shot, endlessly challenging subject matter, but the ending and Gary's departure leaves me feeling unsatisfied - no happiness, seemingly too much for the protagonist to bear.