Change Your Image
saturdaze
Reviews
Helen of Troy (2003)
Koulda Been A Kontender...
It's good to know I'm not the only one who didn't appreciate the way the miniseries left out and/or distorted aspects of the legend. Here are some other distortions:
1. Achilles killed Hector during the NINTH year of the war, not the 10th and final one (and Achilles killed him mainly out of revenge for Hector's killing of Achilles' friend Patroclus, who was no where to be found in the miniseries); 2. Clytemnestra killed Agamemnon when he got back home from the war---the miniseries seemed to show that Clytemnestra actually CAME TO TROY to murder Agamemnon; 3. I liked the touching way in which the miniseries depicted the relationship between Clytemnestra and Iphigenia, BUT I always thought Iphigenia was older when she was sacrificed (I thought she was like 16 or 17, not 6 or 7, as she was in the miniseries); 4. I could've sworn that it was MENELAUS, not Agamemnon, who killed Paris in the final year of the war.
And the miniseries' disregard for the REASON why Achilles died from a arrow-shot to the heel is inexcusable. I mean, the explanation is actually a VOCABULARY PHRASE, part of our lexicon ("Achilles tendon", "Achilles heel"). Would it have killed the filmmakers to have one of the characters mention the fact that Achilles' heel is his single weak spot? Leaving out that important piece of info made his death last night look laughable---I mean, here's this giant, fearless guy who dies from a single shot to the heel???
Also, where were Ajax, Nestor, Diomedes?? (Actually, I thought the guy who played Achilles would've made a better Ajax---I've always pictured Achilles as more boyish-looking).
I also wondered why the filmmakers left out the gods' participation in the war. I feel mixed about it. On the one hand, it would've been fun to see how the gods tried to influence the various soldiers [and it also would've been a great opportunity to showcase Diomedes who, in my opinion, was the COOLEST soldier in the whole war--he wounded not one but TWO gods (Ares and Aphrodite) and the guy STILL made it home from the war], but on the other hand, maybe the filmmakers felt the gods' presence would've made the miniseries a bit too abstract. Perhaps they're right. It's more interesting to show the soldiers being brave on their own, and making their own decisions--it adds to their characterization. Plus, some psychologists have said that the gods' presence in the war was none other than the subconscious minds of the soldiers. I think that's a valid theory which deserves further exploration.
All in all, it was okay--the performances were great (especially the actor who played Agamemnon, and the woman who played his wife), and the scenes were well photographed and directed--the Trojan Horse scene being a standout. It's so hard to find a movie about this legend--let alone a great movie--that even one which falls short is still welcome. Ideally, the Trojan War should be a 6-hour movie, on the scale of a "Rich Man/Poor Man"--it has so many great stories, involving both the main characters and even the more minor ones.
Saturday Night Fever (1977)
A lot better than you'd think... (*a couple of spoilers within*)
There are some people who, at the mere mention of the words "Saturday Night Fever" giggle or smirk or give you a "You actually watch that movie?" look as if it's a piece of celluloid which people only took seriously from 1977 to 1979. Most of the people who have that attitude either have never sat down to watch the whole movie (these people probably think Travolta wore the white suit throughout all 120 minutes of the film and think that the whole thing took place inside the discotheque), or they've never seen the movie at all and have relied on what others say, or they just loathe disco music (and for these latter people, there's not much that can be done).
But if you look at the movie in its entirety--the R rated version, preferably (the PG version is too watered down and isn't the Real Thing)--you will be surprised at just how genuinely involving and worthy the movie is.
You will also be surprised by how great Travolta is. Yes, he plays a character similar to his Vinnie Barbarino TV character in that both are Italian, working-class, and native to Brooklyn, but the similarities end there. While Barbarino is shallow and awkwardly cool, Tony Manero is deep and smoothly hip; while Barbarino is happy-go-lucky, Manero is seriously troubled and doubtful about many things; while Barbarino is dim-witted, Manero is not only street-smart but also people-smart: he sees right through his dance partner Stephanie's refined veneer, and through his father's superior facade.
The point here is that Travolta proved in "SNF" that he's the Real Deal--not just a pretty face or a good dancer or a comic actor but an ACTOR, period. And the Oscar nomination he received for his performance is evidence of that. I personally don't think Travolta has given a performance since then which is as consistently on-target, nuanced, and powerful as the one he gives in this movie (and yes, I'm including "Pulp Fiction" when I make that statement).
I won't say much about the music because everybody knows by now how great and attention-grabbing it is. But what doesn't get as much credit are the movie's director and story. John Badham nicely captures the energy of the disco, especially in the Line-Dancing/Hustle scene at the half-hour point: he gives the scene a dreamy quality complete with camera Dissolves and smoke, and he's not afraid to take his time and let the scene play on. Anyone who's ever been on the dance floor knows that sensation: the feeling that time has stopped and all that exists are you and the music.
Many people have said that the movie's weakest aspect is its story. They say it's unnecessarily sordid, ugly, and disturbing. In fact, the movie's original choice for director--another John- John G. Avildsen--declined to do the film because he felt the story was too downbeat. But I think the downbeat quality is just as necessary an ingredient of the story as its disco music. One of the movie's points is that Disco is an escape, a multi-colored paradise in which Tony Manero and everyone else for that matter can forget about the ugly, unfair world patiently waiting for them outside. That's why Tony flips out toward the end at the dance contest when the Top Prize unfairly goes to him and Stephanie instead of to the more deserving Puerto Rican couple. He sees that the injustice of the outside world has pierced through the silver walls of the disco world---a world which he had always thought was too special, pure, and innocent to allow that inside; and now, that world has been tainted...with Reality.
Another quality of the film that tends to get overlooked is the supporting acting. I'm surprised that most people have cited Karen Lynn Gorney's performance as being among the movie's weaknesses. I think people say that because Travolta's presence is so charismatic and overwhelming that her contribution has gotten eclipsed. But if you take a good look at her performance you'll see that she creates a convincing, impressive portrait of a woman fiercely struggling with what she wants to be, what she is, and what she used to be. Gorney's Stephanie is a fascinating character: a woman with a goddess' face but a Brooklyn-gutter-girl's voice.
I saw "SNF" when it first came out--I was 5-years-old; now I'm 30, and I will always remember the powerful effect the movie had on me. Even at age 5, I was surprised at how great Travolta was and how engrossing the story and music were. And that's why I keep coming back to it--to relive that experience over and over and over...like a favorite record.
Waking Life (2001)
Beautiful sloppiness; an excellent mistake
Imagine a man who shows up for a job interview wearing a torn T-shirt, sneakers, and sunglasses. The manager interviewing him can't believe that someone would have the audacity to show up like this but he can't help being impressed by this guy's intelligence, charm, sensitivity, and work-ethic...skills which every employer desires in a potential employee. Well, "Waking Life" is like that smart but sloppy man showing up for the job interview, and the employer is us, the audience.
I've read the other User Comments and the common complaint among those who hate this movie is the fact that it meanders, is filled with seemingly endless, tedious philosophical ramblings, and has no characters we can connect with in a deep, emotional way. And to those people I have to say this: You're absolutely right. This movie is all of those things. It also happens to be one of the most exciting, inspiring, eye-opening and haunting experiences I've had at the movies in a long time.
For me, the movie ultimately succeeds in spite of its long, non-cinematic, abstract discussions because it's a movie about a DREAM. And aren't dreams the ultimate abstraction? How can you make a movie about something as abstract as dreams without also being abstract to some degree? This is a legitimate case of the Form matching the Content. And I truly feel that this movie accurately--very accurately-- illustrates the landscape of dreams. Some people have felt that the rotoscoping animation grates after a while but I feel that it's probably the movie's greatest asset: the live-action painted over by computer animation results in images that look both real and unreal, that look more to be based on something that's real than being real itself--and that's exactly how images look and feel in dreams (at least in my dreams).
That said, I won't go so far as saying this movie is a cinematic masterpiece, as some people have asserted. Long, static, philosophical discussions and a bunch of Talking Heads don't really belong in a movie, which needs developed characters and a consistent conflict that runs like a thread throughout the story. On that level, the movie falls short.
At its best, though, the movie works on two levels: On one level, it's the story about a guy who's trying to "wake up" from a metaphorical sleep of ignorance and unawareness. On a second level, which is more speculative and ambiguous than the first, it's the story about a guy who has just died and is experiencing nearly 120 minutes of post-mortal consciousness.
Some might disagree with the second story possibility, but I personally believe that it's the movie's Real story. There are some hints scattered throughout the film which seem to indicate that Wiley Wiggins' character is dead (spoilers ahead): 1. early in the movie, right before Wiggins gets hit by the car, he gets a ride in a boat-car which has a skull-and-crossbones banner hanging from it; 2. there are three scenes where Wiggins rides on a train, which implies that some kind of transitional Transportation is taking place--he's moving from one realm (life) to another (death); 3. the film starts in the daytime and gradually builds to nighttime where it ends--in literature (which this movie alludes to several times), night has always represented Death; 4. in the scene where Wiggins tells the red-headed woman that he believes he's dreaming, he ends by saying "But this dream is different--it's almost as if I'm being prepared for something": RIGHT AFTER he says that, we see him briefly on the train again, and right after that, we see him on a bridge which, like the train, represents transition, a change from one state to another; 5. in the Night scenes at the end, random people pass by Wiggins, making cryptic comments about death (i.e.- "Kiergegaard's last words were 'sweep me up'."): it's as if these people are trying to tell the Wiggins that he's dead.
Seen from this latter perspective, the movie plays almost like a tragedy: a man, about to die, looks back on his life (just like the old woman whom Julie Delpy mentions early in the movie) and realizes that he has been none other than an observer, a watcher, a listener rather than a Doer. And by the time he realizes this, it's too late--he's pulled into the sky/Eternity/Death.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Definitely no gutter balls here. (**a couple of spoilers**)
This film is the BEST movie I've seen so far this year. This is the first Michael Moore film I've watched and I was pleasantly surprised at how funny, sad, powerful, quirky and insightful both he AND his film are. It's primarily a documentary about guns in America but it's really about so much more than that. The film's recurring question is: Why does America have more gun-related deaths than any other country? There's a staggering moment in the movie where it compares the number of gun-related deaths in other countries with those of America: Canada has like 99 a year, France 150 a year, England 196 a year; but America has 11,120 a year! And Moore spends the movie trying to understand why.
The film's closest answer is that America, more than any other country, has always been paranoid and afraid. There's an amusing but disturbingly accurate cartoon midway through the movie that depicts the evolution of America from the time of the Pilgrims to the present and how fear is the main underlying factor responsible for the violence and wars that shape America's legacy.
Two major surprises in the film are Michael Moore's interviews with Marilyn Manson and Charlton Heston. In spite of Marilyn Manson's blatant weirdness, you have to admit that the guy had some valid, sensible things to say about the Columbine incident. And concerning Charlton Heston, I never thought he could be so chilling and misled (after all, this is Moses!).
Regarding some comments here lambasting Michael Moore for his unorthodox approach to documentary-filmmaking: I think that this is his strength. He's an American original who's not content to just point his camera and roll film. In a world where you see more talk than action, it's touching and commendable to see Moore take a pro-active approach at the end of the film and get Kmart to stop selling bullets and firearms. Moore is like that naughty-eyed, restless kid in class who managed to get the teacher to hold class outside one particular afternoon or to not give homework over the weekend one Friday; your parents tell you he's no good and even the teacher doesn't like him, but you harbor a secret admiration for him: because he says the things you want to say but don't quite know how, and he does the things which you wish you could do but don't quite have the guts to.
Put another way: Michael Moore is Robin Hood with a pot belly; maybe even Alexander the Great in jeans.
Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Definitely no gutter balls here. (**a couple of spoilers**)
This film is the BEST movie I've seen so far this year. This is the first Michael Moore film I've watched and I was pleasantly surprised at how funny, sad, powerful, quirky and insightful both he AND his film are. It's primarily a documentary about guns in America but it's really about so much more than that. The film's recurring question is: Why does America have more gun-related deaths than any other country? There's a staggering moment in the movie where it compares the number of gun-related deaths in other countries with those of America: Canada has like 99 a year, France 150 a year, England 196 a year; but America has 11,120 a year! And Moore spends the movie trying to understand why.
The film's closest answer is that America, more than any other country, has always been paranoid and afraid. There's an amusing but disturbingly accurate cartoon midway through the movie that depicts the evolution of America from the time of the Pilgrims to the present and how fear is the main underlying factor responsible for the violence and wars that shape America's legacy.
Two major surprises in the film are Michael Moore's interviews with Marilyn Manson and Charlton Heston. In spite of Marilyn Manson's blatant weirdness, you have to admit that the guy had some valid, sensible things to say about the Columbine incident. And concerning Charlton Heston, I never thought he could be so chilling and misled (after all, this is Moses!).
Regarding some comments here lambasting Michael Moore for his unorthodox approach to documentary-filmmaking: I think that this is his strength. He's an American original who's not content to just point his camera and roll film. In a world where you see more talk than action, it's touching and commendable to see Moore take a pro-active approach at the end of the film and get Kmart to stop selling bullets and firearms. Moore is like that naughty-eyed, restless kid in class who managed to get the teacher to hold class outside one particular afternoon or to not give homework over the weekend one Friday; your parents tell you he's no good and even the teacher doesn't like him, but you harbor a secret admiration for him: because he says the things you want to say but don't quite know how, and he does the things which you wish you could do but don't quite have the guts to.
Put another way: Michael Moore is Robin Hood with a pot belly; maybe even Alexander the Great in jeans.
Staying Alive (1983)
Another example of why the '70's were better than the '80's
The people who made "Staying Alive" (yes, including you, Sly) made it for all the wrong reasons. For one thing, they probably thought that Travolta's presence alone would guarantee strong box office. After all, that's what happened with the first movie, right? Yes, and no. "Saturday Night Fever" wasn't a hit JUST BECAUSE of Travolta. Think of "Saturday Night Fever" as a pizza: Travolta was the cheese, but of course cheese alone doesn't complete the pizza; there has to be a nice crisp crust, and there has to be a zesty sauce. In the first movie, the crispy crust was the genuinely worthy storyline--a young man uses music/dance to escape his dreary existence; and the zesty sauce was DISCO!!!!!!! In 1977, Disco was on almost everyone's mind; it was the Place To Be. And the filmmakers were shrewd enough to capitalize on that and smart enough to depict it truthfully and respectfully.
Flash forward to 1983, and all "Staying Alive" has to offer is the Cheese. No crust this time, no sauce. No worthwhile storyline, no interesting characters, no reflection of any societal fixation. Let's face it: in 1983, society wasn't going crazy over Broadway dancing. "Staying Alive" has always struck me as a vanity movie, much like a lot of the movies of the 1980's: Let's give the people a Bang For Their Buck. Style over substance.
So that's the main reason why "Staying Alive" didn't stay alive at the box office, or in critics' hearts. Granted, the Cheese in the guise of Travolta is still good. He gives a solid performance and remains true to Tony Manero's character. Plus, I agree with the movie's notion that Manero probably would be an aspiring Broadway dancer 6 years after the events of the first movie--he loves dancing AND show-boating so much.
But that's as good as this movie gets. Most of it is just too ordinary, while the first movie was anything BUT. "Saturday Night Fever" is that cool, funny, exciting, talented kid down the block; "Staying Alive" is that kid's dull, quiet, clueless, ordinary younger brother.
After Midnight (1989)
A Guilty Pleasure (*A few spoilers*)
Yes, it's cliched (a couple stopping at a "haunted house", girls on the run, a crank caller) but still, it works. And I think it tried to be creative and original when it could. For instance, the Haunted House story ended with a nice twist which I honestly didn't see coming. And I liked how all the stories are sort of tied together near the end when the Allison character is running through the various scenes from the stories (she runs through the Haunted House which was part of the first story, she runs through the gasoline-barrel Warehouse of the second story, and she runs through the Flickering Hallway of the third story). I had never seen a horror movie do that before, and it was refreshing in its own way and added tension and a sense of uneasiness.
The movie also made some valid points about Fear--how there's a correlation between fear and knowing that a scary situation CAN occur; the more possible and plausible a situation is, the more you're likely to be afraid of it. And each of the stories presented works because they're all plausible and possible.
Of all the stories, my personal favorite is the 4 Girls in jeopardy. Granted, it's probably the least original and ingenious of all the stories, but it worked especially well for me because of my own fear of dogs. I also liked this story the best for a more shallow reason: all 4 of the girls are very easy on the eyes. ESPECIALLY the one playing Jennifer. And I agree with the comment below that the actress playing Kelly is a dead-ringer for Renee Zellweger. I even thought she WAS Renee in an early role. But the actress is Penelope Sudrow--no relation at all to Zellweger. Plus, I liked how all 4 of the girls prove to be resourceful when the chips are down; usually in horror movies, girls are helpless, passive victims; but these girls--especially Lisa and Kelly--emerge as heroes (or rather, heroines), coming up with a brave and clever way to thwart the dogs' Master and then the dogs themselves.
I guess I also have a soft spot for this movie because I first saw it back in '91 on a lonely, boring summer night and it rescued me with 90 minutes of genuine entertainment and even a handful of genuine scares. Sometimes that's all you need.
Heat (1995)
"Heat" should've been called "Lukewarm" (**ONE SPOILER AHEAD**)
I saw this movie when it first came out because I, like most people, couldn't wait to see Pacino and DeNiro finally act, FACE TO FACE, in a movie together. And I also figured that the story was probably poignant and powerful if it was able to attract those 2 heavyweight actors. So my expectations going in were very high; when the closing credits were scrolling up the screen, I said to myself "Hmm, well, okay, it was good, but was that the best Michael Mann could do???"
You see, any movie starring PACINO and DENIRO can't just be good--it has to be freakin' AMAZING, EXCELLENT, RIVETING. And this movie was none of those things. Let's face it, "Heat" is really just a cops-and-robbers TV show padded up with fancy, swirling cinematography, a high-wattage cast (also including Voight, Kilmer, Judd, Portman, Levine, etc.), a big budget, and epic treatment. How many times have we seen movies about an obsessive cop going after a hardened, seen-it-all bank robber??
Mann tries to disguise his trite, cliched story by trying to have us believe his version is somehow "different" or deeper by providing subplots involving Pacino's unfulfilled wife, DeNiro's tentative relationship with Amy Brenneman (whose character is the least interesting and most thankless of all the roles), Kilmer's hot/cold marriage, and other little subplots that seem to exist for no reason other than to create filler so that this simple cops-and-robbers story can seem Epic, Grand. The problem with these subplots is that each and every one of them are not particularly compelling or original: Pacino's wife wants him to spend more time with her, DeNiro wants to settle down with Brenneman but not before one last score, Kilmer's wife decides not to rat on him because...gasp...she loves him so much.
Don't get me wrong--I liked this movie more than I disliked it, but I'm being very hard on it because I feel that Mann didn't take full advantage of the opportunity he had. I feel like he was given the ingredients for a cake, and instead he gave us a cookie. And to add insult to injury, there's only ONE substantial scene between Pacino and DeNiro. Hey, that would've been fine if the movie was 1 hour and 40 minutes long, but the movie is 3 HOURS LONG, and the best Mann could do was give us a 5-MINUTE scene with two of the most legendary actors of our time???
There are at least half a dozen writer/directors who could've done the Pacino-DeNiro union better justice than Mann, especially in regard to the writing. (In fact, Mann went the lazy route and simply dusted off an old script he wrote years ago--"LA Takedown"--and updated it. How dare he!!) Mann's script is full of cliches and wooden dialogue. Can you imagine what a more talented writer/director like Tarantino could've done with a Pacino-DeNiro pairing?
So once again, I'll say: the movie was good, but not the "masterpiece" that a lot of people have proclaimed. For me, what makes this movie watchable is not the story, but the performances of the two leads. Some people have said that DeNiro's performance is better than Pacino's, but I think that both performances are equally worthy. Yes, Pacino's acting does get a little weird in a couple of places, but his character was the harder character to portray. Actors rarely admit this, but playing the Villain is easier than playing the Good Guy. Good Guys are boring...unless you try to give them texture and added dimensions to make them just as eye-catching as the Villains.
All I can do at this point is hope that Pacino and DeNiro agree to act together again in another, better movie.
Clockwatchers (1997)
A movie about stagnance, paralysis... (**TWO SPOILERS AHEAD**)
This is one of those movies whose brilliance sneaks up on you. I saw this movie when it first opened in theaters 4 years ago and I distinctly remember not being able to take my eyes off of it...in spite of the fact that its pace is languid and at times meandering, and its main conflict starts rather late in the movie. Nevertheless, those elements didn't bother me, because the film's primary purpose is not so much to be a conventional film as it wants to be a mirror reflecting the hell that is corporate life. And it accomplishes that goal flawlessly.
As a slice-of-corporate-life, this movie is so accurate that it sometimes seems like a docudrama. Being an office worker myself, I was impressed by how many details it captured: from the cold, impersonal cubicles to the monotonous overhead music to the arrogance and possessiveness of the person in charge of the office supplies (he'd have you believe he's in charge of planets instead of paper clips) to the secretive, whispered suspicion of and curiosity about new hires, and even to the way bored workers use the up-and-down feature on their swivel chairs to help chase away boredom.
Some people view this movie as much ado about nothing since it deals with office life, which, on the surface, seems least likely to offer anything in the way of drama or entertainment. But the movie uses office life as a metaphor for the world we live in and how some of us feel overlooked, unappreciated, or just plain invisible. And the only way to succeed in the corporate world, as in life, is to take action, to make a move, to stop the stagnance. And that's why Toni Collette's character ultimately emerges as a hero. The way she finally takes action by helping the recently (and wrongly) fired Margaret get a recommendation is both touching and inspiring.
The cast is great--each player has mastered the mannerisms, the attitudes, and even the blank stares that result from working in an office 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year. But the standout is Parker Posey as the opinionated, defiant, in-your-face Margaret. I've always had reservations about Posey who--in other movies--has struck me as a little too self-consciously cutesy, but here she delivers, and there's almost never a false note as she creates a character who is simultaneously ambitious, hopeful, cynical, upbeat, and sad.
Having seen this movie about 4 times thus far, I tend to regard it as a special little friend whom my other friends don't quite understand.
Summer of Sam (1999)
Please, baby, baby please give me my money back!!!!
What has happened to Spike Lee!!!??? The last great movie he made was "He Got Game" and that was 4 years ago. Ever since, he has churned out two unwatchable movies, the first of which is "Summer of Sam". I distinctly remember watching this movie in the theater 3 years ago and not believing how truly horrid this alleged piece of celluloid was.
It's a shame because I actually looked forward to seeing this movie. I've always liked Spike Lee, I've always found John Leguizamo to be a creative and inventive performer, and Mira Sorvino is always interesting (not to mention very easy on the eyes), PLUS, having been born in New York, I've always loved movies about NYC, and I've always had a fondness for the 1970's--the music, the fashion, etc. So how could a New York movie about a 1970's event disappoint?? Keep reading:
The movie takes a great premise--a serial murderer's killing spree creates a climate of paranoia in a small Brooklyn community and turns the townfolk against each other (sort of like an urban update of that excellent "Twilight Zone" episode where an alien has invaded a neighborhood and the neighbors turn against each other as they try to find out who the alien is)--and leaves it to rot on the shelf while it instead focuses its attention on sex orgies, stereotypes, cliches, and uninteresting characters. The movie does a worthy job with the What--the killer, the 1970's details, the music, the fashion--but craps out on the Why. Why tell this story? Why these particular characters?
To this day, I'm still wondering what Spike's--and the studio execs who greenlit the picture--intention was. To me, it seems almost as if Spike's heart wasn't really into this picture. In some ways, it all seems slapped together without apparent concern for plausibility or quality. I mean, JOHN LEGUIZAMO as an Italian?? That's like Woody Allen as an Irishman. And in the role as a TV reporter, Spike Lee is embarrasingly bad--even slurring his speech at times. You can tell he didn't even bother to research the mannerisms and gestures of authentic TV reporters.
The film does have its moments. I liked how it showed the way dark-haired women dyed their hair blonde so that they wouldn't be the next targets. Also, the scene where one of the neighborhood knuckleheads tells his friends why he believes Reggie Jackson is the Son of Sam (Reggie's number being "44", a la the .44 Magnum, being one of the reasons) is hilarious and brilliant. And the closing credits showing each performer's name as newspaper headlines is ingenious. (Spike has always been great with credit sequences).
But any movie where the closing credits are one of the three great things about it is doomed. So again, I ask: Spike, what the heck has happened to you!!?? What happened to that guy who gave us consistently on-target, mesmerizing movies like "Do the Right Thing", "Malcolm X", "Jungle Fever", "Mo Better Blues", "She's Gotta Have It"!!?? We want that guy back!!!!!! Pronto!!!! We NEED that guy back!!!!!