Reviews

"The Tribe" is a huge step backwards in the history of film: a silent movie without subtitles or music. Somehow or other this film has been hailed as some sort of masterpiece. It isn't. More like the Emperor's New Clothes.

Here are my top ten reasons for avoiding it at all costs:

1. Pointless 2. Depressing 3. Overlong 4. Confusing 5. Slow 6. Badly acted 7. Full of unlikable characters 8. Insulting to deaf people 9. Insulting to non-deaf people 10. Ridiculously violent.

There is absolutely reason I can think of to see this film. You will not gain anything. You will not learn anything. You will only be depressed, and like seeing a car accident, you will wish you hadn't looked in the first place.

"The Tribe" or "Plemya" is simply more evidence that Cannes juries go for anything that seems documentary-like and seems to capture some sort of reality -- despite a lack of sympathetic characters or a compelling story.

And if there are no actual actors involved, no dialogue and no soundtrack, all the better. Congratulations, here's your prize.

"You see, Willard, in this world, things get... confused out there. Power, ideals, the old morality, practical filmmaking necessity. But out there in Hollywood with these actors, it must be a temptation to... be a director.

Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and irrational, between good filmmaking and pointless, artsy-fartsy crap. And good movies do NOT always triumph. Sometimes, the dark side of the screen overcomes what Lewis called, "your best entertainment."

And as you can see, by watching just 30 seconds of this rubbish, Sir Anthony has obviously gone insane."

"Yes, sir. Absolutely. Obviously insane."

The whole problem with the film, if there is one, is not thematic or psychological or intellectual. It's technical. The film alternates between ear-splitting screaming and shouting, as Hopkins erupts into sudden violence -- and quiet, almost silent scenes as Gooding murmurs to Hopkins, or Sutherland whispers to Gooding, in oh-so-dramatic, hushed tones.

Whispering scenes in movies are nothing new of course. Every actor thinks he's doing something profound when he does a whispering scene... speaking so softly that the performance just HAS to be great.

But in "Instinct" the dialogue in these scenes is mixed so quietly that you need subtitles to understand what the hell these people are saying. So you crank the volume up just as far as it will possibly go, or even farther, and then MAYBE you catch a few words. Maybe.

Then next thing you know -- BOOM! -- here comes another god-awful explosion of violence, noise, screaming, things smashing, drums pounding, Hopkins leaping around like an ape on PCP... and you have to race over to turn the damn thing down before it splits your goddamn eardrums wide open.

Sound mixing has really gone down the tubes every since the wonder of Dolby and 5.1 mixes...

I'm giving this a 2 because it was shot by the great Roger Deakins. And even when working with a crappy script like this one, Deakins can't help but elevate the project with his genius lighting and camera-work.

And of course, John Hurt is one of our great actors. So nothing against him. And Richard Burton a legend, as we all know.

The problem with this film is the script and director.

Apparently, Michael Radford, an otherwise intelligent filmmaker, figured EVERYONE knows the book SO well, that NOTHING really needs to be explained. The audience will just naturally connect all the dots and fill in all the plot holes and figure out this complex story on their own.

Big mistake.

This is a confusing, tediously slow-moving and nearly incomprehensible film. All the great craftsmanship that went into it was wasted.

And I don't think Orwell wanted his readers to slit their wrists after reading the book, he wanted them to think. With this insanely bleak and depressing version, you might as well buy a gun before watching. That is, if you don't fall asleep first -- which is extremely likely.

Radford's version can't hold a candle to the 1956 version. But without question, the greatest "1984" of all time is Ridley Scott's Apple Computer commercial. In my view, he's the only one so far who has perfectly captured the look, sound, and spirit of the novel.

If only he'd been hired instead of Radford. Wow! Then maybe we'd have a classic film instead of this disastrous box office bomb that was barely even released. I saw in New York in '85, and I think there were about three people in the theater -- including me.

What n terrible -- almost sinful -- wasted opportunity.

This is a perfect example of what happens when you have a no-talent, clueless director trying to tell a story, working from a decent script, but not having the slightest idea of how to make a good movie out of it.

Jeff Bettancourt's editing is absolutely horrid, too -- hundreds of shots too long or too short -- mostly too short. Didn't we learn ANYTHING from Stanley Kubrick??!!!

Guess not.

But even worse than the incompetent directing and horrendous editing is the vomit-inducing photography from Tom Stern. The courtroom scenes look like something from an industrial video. I've seen porno that looks better than this. There are tons and tons of murky, underexposed and grainy shots. Then there are lots of horrible Shakicam shots, the type Stern would later use to completely destroy "The Hunger Games."

I mean, was someone actually looking at the rushes each day, staring at this garbage, clapping each other on the back and saying: "Yeah! Yeah!! Perfect, Tom! Looks fantastic!!!"

And don't even get me started on how he lit Laura Linney! She should have sued for malicious defamation of image. If Dietrich or Garbo or Monroe had been photographed like this, they would have ended up extras. If'd shot anyone like this in film school, they would have thrown me out of the department after whipping me for wasting precious film stock.

What Tom Stern does -- what he's always done -- is use high-speed stocks, then underexpose them by using almost no lights. I guess that's his attempt to emulate the "Prince of Darkness," Bruce Surtees. Nice try, Tom -- It didn't work. The resulting image is almost always dark, blurry, grainy and horrifically underexposed. It basically looks like someone shot a 16mm industrial film on 20 year-old unrefrigerated ECO stock, then decided to push it five stops. The drag it through mud. Great work, Tom. How much were you paid again?

But I don't put the blame solely on Stern. I blame it on the idiot director -- the half-wit responsible for one of the worst films in the history of cinema, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake.

Somehow Stern did a good job on films like "Gran Torino" and a number of other excellent Eastwood films.

What was needed here was someone with just a fraction of Eastwood's talent and taste, telling Stern what he wanted.

A great cinematographer, like Deschanel or Roizman or Storraro or Zsigmond or Bartkowiac, naturally knows how to do fantastic work that helps tell the story in a dramatic and powerful way.

Stern, on the other hand, is basically a gaffer, thousands of miles away from the brilliance of these world-class DPs.

And when you have a gaffer basically responsible for telling a story on film, you better have a genius director supervising and telling him what you want. Or at least someone smart enough to say, "These dailies like complete crap, Tom -- get on the ball, fast, or you'll be cleaning the studio toilets by tomorrow night."

If someone doesn't say things like this, a film cab get into serious trouble.

Hence, "Emily Rose."

This is an abomination of a movie. Doesn't work for so many reasons, it's ridiculous. A couple of laffs here and there... then 5 minutes of crap that's absolutely painful to watch. These scenes should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Did Ferrell and McKay actually think this garbage worked?!

The dinner scene with the black family is the low point of the entire film. Will Ferrell is doing his usual insane, brain-dead shtick -- except it's so extreme that it's completely unbelievable.

While his outrageous remarks to the family keeps getting more and more and out of hand, the black actors playing the family seem to be in another film -- perhaps a drama about racism. You can see the pain on their faces. It seems to be real. There's nothing funny about these actors. You can tell they're really good actors, too. And when the react to Ferrell's racial disrespect, they seem genuinely outraged and offended. Not funny at all -- more like tragic in this day and age.

I felt sorry for them -- especially one of the brothers, who had tears in his eyes. Real tears. The father seemed to be outraged, too. I don''t think he was acting. I don't think any of them were. I think they were thinking of Martin Luther King and civil rights and thinking that they're right back in the Jim Crow south. No progress whatsoever in 50 years.

As far as some of the other crap that doesn't work, the love interest for Brick was a total disaster. After all the hilarious stiff Kristen Wiig has done over the years on SNL, it's unbelievable that here, her "character" is someone who is supposed to answer an office phone, but doesn't.

Whoa!!! We're talking genius comedy writing here, guys. Move over, Neil Simon! Woody Allen and Mel Brooks -- take a hike! We've got a broad in our picture who DOESN'T ANSWER THE PHONE when she's supposed to!! WHOO-HOOOO!!!!! Pure genius, right???!!!!!!!!!

Must have been the crack. It's the only explanation.

Forget every negative review you may have read. This is a delightful film from start to finish. It's hilarious, first of all, and second of all, it's about people you actually care about. What a refreshing change!

With echoes of "The Out of Towners" and "After Hours," the movie works mainly because of Elizabeth Banks's character. She's funny, she's likable, she's sexy... what more could you want out of a screen heroine?!

The writing, for the most part, is realistic and smart. A well-structured story full of unpredictable events and offbeat characters. Full of surprises. Full of tiny details (like the plastic center in a pizza delivery box... how many times have we dealt with that... yet when has it ever been in a movie??)

But perhaps most importantly, the movie has heart. And taste. It goes so far above and beyond what passes for comedy these days, it's ridiculous. Farrelly Brothers, Apatow and especially Adam McKay -- watch and learn.

So if you want to see a well-written, well-directed, hilarious movie with a great premise that will put a smile on your face for 95 minutes, see "Walk of Shame." I have absolutely no shame in admitting I loved it.

(And normally I hate just about everything these days.)

So do we, Ethan. So do we.

I'm giving this turkey a 2 for effort. I mean any film with Jon Voight can't be all bad... even if you only see his mouth.

Right?!

And Ethan Hawke I've got no complaints with. He's always been a great actor. I think he did his best with the material.

Plenty of cool crashes and stunts, you gotta admit that. Obviously a lot of effort went into this, and I take my hat off to the stunt drivers and crew. 2 months of shooting nights in Bulgaria? Christ! I feel their pain.

The problem here, of course, is with the script. Since the chase begins immediately, we have no time to get to know the characters, to like them, to care if they live or die.

By jettisoning any sort of first act to set up the characters, and plunging us headlong into what should be the third act, the filmmakers have shot themselves in the foot, since action without anyone to root for as simply boring.

In "Speed," another film where a maniac in an undisclosed location forces someone to drive fast and risk lives, we get to know the main characters and appreciate them. Same thing with "Taken" and "Frantic" -- 2 other influences.

Here, with the wife being seen only in flashback, we have no real idea of who she is. Plus, in "Speed," an entire bus full of people was at risk. Here, only one woman. Why should we care if she lives or dies? Especially at the expense of innocent bystanders. (This film also completely steals the "we'll make a video loop of us driving to trick the bad guy monitoring us" gag. Wow! Plagiarism, anyone?!)

Of course, it is possible to make a film that's one long chase, and make it work. That film was the classic "Vanishing Point." "Vanishing Point" works on every single level -- action as well as characters. We learned about Barry Newman's character, Kowalski, as the film progressed... but we absolutely liked him and cared about him from the beginning. And the more we learned about him, the more we were intrigued. And the more we cared.

Not so here, unfortunately. "Getaway" is a good lesson in filmmaking. It seems to be more or less an experiment to see if a chase sequence without a set-up can sustain an entire film. Maybe it can... but the characters and theme and location better be fascinating, and well worth the 90 minute ride.

One last lesson to screenwriters: never put a line in the film or use a title that can have a double meaning... in the worst possible way!

And a quick note to the 27 producers of the film: next time you make a movie in Sofia, Bulgaria, and want to thank the city that made the filming possible, you might want to learn how to spell the city's name in the end credits. Hint:"Sophia" is a girl's name; "Sofia" is the name of a city.

Christ, even I know that... and I've never been to the goddamn place!!