Peter Pk Reviews

Empire State Building Murders (2008 TV Movie)

A wonderful mockumentary/pastiche/homage to the film noir of Hollywood's Golden Age

[8/10 · 16 October 2012]

I'm still not entirely sure why this film made such an impression on me. Perhaps I'm just a bit of a sucker for film noir...

Karel's mash-up mockumentary of clips from a host of classical Hollywood films and "interviews" with actors (in character) is used to tell a very noir'ish story of forbidden love, gangsters, undercover cops and lots and lots of murders.

It's not a hugely surprising plot, almost cliché, but there's something about the blending of old clips and "interviews" that just plain works.

I also think the decision to keep it to a fairly brief 88 minutes (well, the version I saw was actually 82 minutes, incl. credits) was the right one. Any longer and the clichés would probably have gotten too thick.

The Take (2004)

A bit over-artistic and a bit long in coming to the point

[4/10 · 3 March 2005]

First of all I'm personally left'ish, so I was not completely bulletproof to the message in "The Take"

What annoys me about this movie comes in two categories: 1) Form 2) Content

1) Form is "relatively" unimportant as it is a documentary. Never the less I found it annoying with all those shots of statues against a red sky with sad background music. Also the intro was extremely long and dragged on forever. I felt like screaming "Get on with it!!! What are those poor workers doing now?!?!" as the zillion'th shot of abandoned factory halls rolled across the silver screen. And the speak (Argentina's fall from grace + hubris + neo liberal heresy) was to theatrical for my taste. Finally the constant repetitions of a few key messages (with variations) gave a kind of TV-commercial-feeling which didn't help the film's credibility.

2) I found it disturbing that the film was very vague about the "hardcore" economic angle. Especially when the political angle was so clear. This gives an aura of "things not being told because they don't fit into Lewis&Klein's view of the world". I don't know if that is the truth, but i was the feeling I was left with at the end of the film.

All in all not a very good film. It lacks as a documentary (simply too many loose claims that were never proved). As a political statement my notion is that it "preach to the believers" e.g. it targets those who agree on the agenda and confirms their opinion. On the upside though, it does try to set a positive agenda in contrast to for instance Michael Moore's eternal gloom. But they lack Moore's sharp irony and satire which at least would have made this picture entertaining.

The central problem about this movie is this: "Is it a documentary or is it a political statement?"

I rate it 4/10 as it wasn't a total disaster as a political statement (though a bit boring and quite predictable) but neither was it good journalist/documentarist craftsmanship

Spider (2002)

Promising but something is missing

[3/10 · 22 May 2003]

I'm very sorry to say this, but I have seldom been as bored as when I saw this film. The story seems promising, but as the plot is quickly guessed, I expected a twist or change of events. Instead this movie continues practically without any change in pace - it reminds me of a VERY monotonous lecturer. Of course I thought that this was some kind of build up, but if it was it was a build up to nothing.

***SPOILER ALERT!!!*** To find out that it was Clegg himself who killed his mother, didn't come as a huge surprise to me. The characters are generally uninteresting (including Clegg - he's just weird & crazy & BORING) and the film is (as already stated by several reviewers) WAY TO LONG & SLOW!!! I liked eXistenZ and though that had a plot that wasn't totally new or surprising it had a certain charm. Spider's plot is - well - pointless. So he killed his mother... and? We see an emotionally stunted boy who's grown up to be a more or less dysfunctional adult, but I don't feel like I'm "inside his head". Because of the extremely slow pace I was constantly reminded that I was in a cinema. I agree with the reviewer who wrote this should have been a short film. As a such I'm certain it would have been excellent. As it is it feels way to overstretched. ***END OF SPOILER ALERT***

As to those who claim this is a thriller I have just one question: where is the suspense??? A thriller is supposed to put you on the edge, to tickle your nerves (and if it's really good your intellect). This film just mumbles: "Critics please love me. I'm weird, I'm alone and I'm DEFINITELY not mainstream.' Of course a director don't have to kiss the ass of the mainstream audience, but this - well this seems to me as a movie designed to do some heavy duty film critic ass kissing.

I don't know if the film is missing a vital part of the book, but instead of being dark and sinister it's just dark. Didn't move me at all. Sob I had high hopes, when sitting down and left with a feeling like - well nothing to be honest. It was like having seen a mainstream action movie, but you hadn't even been entertained. Personally I had expected to leave with some kind of feeling.

Sorry Cronenberg, redo this as a short - 3/10