Change Your Image
csjlong
Reviews
Solomon Kane (2009)
What was the point?
I realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it "Solomon Kane" in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.
It's always a bad sign when any superhero/fantasy/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).
With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say "From the creator of Conan" and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new "Conan" movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three "boss levels" at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.
If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.
Multiple Maniacs (1970)
To Heck With Method Acting
A lot of people look at the performances in Waters' early films as crude but I think both Multiple Maniacs and Pink Flamingos (and, to a lesser degree, Mondo Trasho) are a testament to the talent the Waters' troupe really had. Divine has probably been discussed enough though I think she remains sadly underrated as an actress but what stands out for me in Maniacs is David Lochary's performance. He steals the show and improbably manages to provide some genuine soul to a contemptible character, perhaps because he looks positively saintly compared to Divine. Lochary is funny, sincere, scared and ultimately empathetic as the helpless, brainwashed victim of the implacable force which is the Lady Divine. You couldn't just hire regular actors to play the Lochary or Divine roles - you had to have the real deal and the magic of these movies does come from the superior casting.
I think Waters' early films are by far his best, the movies he made before he learned "how to make movies." Some of his later work is cute but never as engaging and fresh as Maniacs and Flamingos. How exactly did Waters manage to combine slimy depravity with wide-eyed innocence in equal doses?
The rosary job is perhaps the finest scene Waters ever concocted and then there's Lobstora, one of the most inspired moments the cinema has ever brought us.
I don't think of Maniacs as mere camp. I think it's genuinely great film making with far more verve and inventiveness than most of the so-called "well-made" Academy fare.
Gerry (2002)
For want of a nail
For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
We've all probably heard that before. It's been adopted as a metaphor for mdoern chaos theory. And I think Gerry has a wonderful and funny take on this idea. Affleck's rambling speech about his computer game is an updated version of this poem though he (his character, I mean) undoubtedly doesn't know it. He talks about how a volcano destroyed his sanctuary to Demeter and then she got mad and he couldn't grow wheat and then the river flooded out his docks and he couldn't trade and because he couldn't grow wheat or trade, he came up one horse short (I needed 12, I had 11) when his vassal attacked and then he lost. In other words, "for want of a nail..." We get to see a decidedly unphilosophical person not given to introspection manage to stumble upon a bit of common wisdom all by himself, even if through trivial means and without full realization of it. It's both touching and funny.
This and other fine touches make Gerry a worthwhile experience for me. I got to laugh and I got to see a few things I never saw before (that "bobbing head" shot is truly startling.) Cinema is a quest for new images and Gerry provides them.
I don't really think it's a terribly profound film and fans of the film need to be careful about feeling all smart and righteous about their keen perception. It's simply a ruthless exercise in aesthetics and rewarding for some viewers. But it's certainly not "wrong" to dislike the film.
Angst essen Seele auf (1974)
An actor's director
I'm going to limit my comment to one aspect of this brilliant movie: the acting. I think Ali: Fear Eats the Soul may be the single best-acted film in the history of cinema. It's a simple story told simply but the unique and realistic performances create an emotionally charged, unforgettable experience for the viewer. Ali is completely Ali. Emmi is completely Emmi. There is not a hint of artifice in either performance. The only other performance I can think of which is similar is Bjork's dazzling turn in Dancer in the Dark.
There is so much to discuss in Fassbinder's work but what always strikes me in his films is the performances. No director has ever produced a body of work with actors who act the way Fassbinder's actors do. And not always in the same way. Ali features completely natural acting. Despair features highly stylized acting - pure artifice to counter the pure guilelessness of Fear Eats the Soul. The American Soldier - well, you have to see that film to believe it, especially the ending. The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant displays what might be identified as a "typical" Fassbinder type of performance with passive, languid characters merely posing - or rather posed by Fassbinder.
When we think of auteurs, we think of writer/directors but the actors and their performances are the tangible realization of that auteur's vision. Fassbinder knew how to manipulate this dimension of the medium of film as well or better than any other director.
Hana-bi (1997)
For Editing Students
This film should be taught in all editing classes. Unique, masterful editing choices drive the story and transform a fairly average narrative into an evocative, memorable experience.
The way the card game in the car is revealed. The magnificent use of the dreaded flashback. The Godard-esque deconstruction of fight scenes. It's a lovely work.
Just check out the bank holdup. So simple. So perfect.
Amateur filmmakers pay attention. There's no reason you can't make something like this. Other than that you're just not good enough. How's that for a challenge, huh? :)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Stupid is... anyone who thinks this is a good film.
Only saved from all-time worst status by a good soundtrack and Tom Hanks' best effort to turn a truly awful character into someone vaguely palatable.
This movie is an insult to the audience, its own subject matter and to anyone operating on something higher than basic brain stem function.
Oh, look at the funny retard - he's a moron but he has a simple wisdom that can redeem us all. Fortune cookies are sophisticated when compared to the message of this film. Ugh.
It is a sad commentary on the Academy's milquetoast voting standards that Gump is not the worst film to ever win a Best Picture award.
Jalsaghar (1958)
The Greatest Film You Never Heard Of
At the time I post this, only 123 people have cast a vote of any kind for The Music Room. What a shame.
Satyajit Ray is one of the greatest directors of all-time and The Music Room is his masterpiece. Correction: The Music Room is a masterpiece of world cinema.
How to describe this movie? In Hollywood lingo, you could call it Citizen Kane meets Black Narcissus with a big dose of King Lear. Of course, if you called it that, they'd shelve the project and spend the money on the sequel to XXX.
Pity poor Biswambhar Roy, a king in a lonely castle. He's lost not only his family but his entire way of life. He is a mistake. A forgotten man waiting in his empty shell of a world.
He spends the last remnants of his once vast fortune on a final, lavish musical performance in his crumbling home, a last-ditch attempt to connect to the pride and joy he once felt in his life.
Not that he is innocent. He is proud and oblivious, spoiled and selfish. But surely not a bad man. Merely a displaced man. So we can cheer as he is granted one last moment of happiness and weep for him as he meets his inevitable end.
How is that Satyajit Ray remains unknown even to many die-hard cineastes in the States? I hope one of the companies will come along soon and release some of his work on DVD.
Fitzcarraldo (1982)
Kinski's greatest role
Perhaps Aguirre is the better film but Brian Fitzgerald (Fitzcarraldo) is an even better character. We love dreamers and Fitz may be the greatest dreamer ever created on film. Kinski in his white suit with his "Hair by Charlie Manson" manning the turret atop the Molly Aida, firing volleys of Caruso at the native tribesman. Ah, unforgettable. Herzog is a truly unique voice and has never been afraid to experiment. Fitzcarraldo is one of the experiments that succeeds.