What is interesting in this volume and film is the political intrigues along with the prophetic dimension of the plot. The political intrigues revolves around the Greek sounding Atreides, the honest ones from a planet of oceans and rain; the Germanic sounding Harkonnen, the rotten (actually rotting) polluting industrial ones who are violent, vicious and sadistic, slightly vampiristic too; the Persian sounding Emperor Shaddam, bringing together the Shah of Iran and all the Saddams of the Arab world; the Spacing Guild that controls the universe by controlling travelling in that universe; and finally the Fremen, an underground free species of human beings who believe in a prediction of a Messiah and are mostly invisible on the planet Dune. The Bene Gesserit is also present with their plan to produce the perfect new Messiah, God, Savior through genetic manipulations by guiding the reproductive schemes among the powerful from whom the Messiah can only come. He will nevertheless come for sure, but by accident and thanks to the alliance of Paul Atreides, the last representative of the Atreides House, his Bene-Gesserit-trained mother and the Fremen. Some will see in it the caricature of the world in the Cold War. Of course we have to know one thing that is not immediately clear: the fact that this world is the heir of the Butlerian Jihad that destroyed all thinking machines and then banned the construction of such machines, forcing human beings to develop their skills at calculating and thinking to keep the control over things. But this vision is slightly short. It goes beyond and it reaches the level of a reflection on what politics are: a fight among a very few superior leaders who are essential born as such and vaguely accepted by some managing more than governing council. Democracy is the value that is totally absent from this story. Even the Fremen are not democratic since they believe in a supreme leader, a messiah, and their actions are mostly mass-reactions, extremely collective methods of governing and controlling their own people. That future world then will not be different from the old feudal world of six or seven centuries ago. The people, the mass of people necessary for those constant wars and feuds, are nothing but pawns that die on the screen and in the sand of Dune without any kind of concern for their lives or even simply life. They are non-entities, including on the winning side of the Fremen. That world is dehumanized and does not defend any kind of ideal or principle. The film is perfect though with its special effects and its immense cosmic and desertic scenery. The film is very dense and thus the suspense is quite effective. The film then is nothing but an action film with good situations and interesting characters, be they heroes or be they monsters. This vision of the world remains rather primitive though and maybe even lower than what could be normal expectations. It satisfies though the desire for survival and victory over danger that lurks in the circumvolutions of the human brain. That's probably why this film, and the books behind, still have a positive life in our culture. Messianic characters and situations contrasted to apocalyptic treachery will always be a favorite of the human mind.
Reviews
5 Reviews
The Untouchables
(1987)
Mamets finest
19 November 2021
I grew up on "The Untouchables" and as a slice of cinema it was one of my earliest memories of true directing and style - watching De Palma's famous train station sequence used to always leave me in awe, but it wasn't until I was older that I understood and recognized some of De Palma's trademarks. Looking back on "The Untouchables" now I view it as a different sort of movie - it seems somewhat less operatic and more of a tongue-in-cheek, over-the-top, exaggerated mob movie with all of De Palma's typical touches.
But then again, it isn't. Because this is really the second of two times only that De Palma has totally proved to audiences that he's able to construct a masterful thriller/drama _on his own_ without copying (or "referencing") Hitchcock. "Blow Out" is a good movie, as are many of De Palma's others, but "The Untouchables" and "Scarface" are arguably the only two he's made where it's really a De Palma movie, and not a De Palma-Hitchcock homage.
"The Untouchables" seemed a lot better when I was younger but it's still a classic and due to my fond memories of it I'll probably always have a soft spot for it. However I do now recognize flaws I didn't used to - De Niro's Capone, for example, is a great portrayal but given awkward screen time...it works as a sort of convenient interlude to Costner and co.'s adventures - Costner kills some people, flash to De Niro yelling "I want his head!", flash back to Costner...it's not exactly a perfect balance as many of it just seems out-of-place...De Niro is wonderful but would losing his scenes harm the film? Not much. Instead, studying his character more would have been a wiser choice - De Palma could have easily made a three-hour epic that studies both men's stories and motivations and as a result the overall story would have been much stronger and the film better.
As it is this is sort of a "Godfather Lite" - it's not an incredibly strong film, it has some flaws, it could have had ideas expanded, but at the end of the day it's a really great piece of entertainment with some marvelous set pieces, convincing performances and a legendary and iconic turn by De Niro, who totally steals the show from everyone else.
The baseball speech scene is a classic - that's the type of stuff that makes me wish they had spent a bit more time focusing on him along with Costner, rather than just Costner.
But then again, it isn't. Because this is really the second of two times only that De Palma has totally proved to audiences that he's able to construct a masterful thriller/drama _on his own_ without copying (or "referencing") Hitchcock. "Blow Out" is a good movie, as are many of De Palma's others, but "The Untouchables" and "Scarface" are arguably the only two he's made where it's really a De Palma movie, and not a De Palma-Hitchcock homage.
"The Untouchables" seemed a lot better when I was younger but it's still a classic and due to my fond memories of it I'll probably always have a soft spot for it. However I do now recognize flaws I didn't used to - De Niro's Capone, for example, is a great portrayal but given awkward screen time...it works as a sort of convenient interlude to Costner and co.'s adventures - Costner kills some people, flash to De Niro yelling "I want his head!", flash back to Costner...it's not exactly a perfect balance as many of it just seems out-of-place...De Niro is wonderful but would losing his scenes harm the film? Not much. Instead, studying his character more would have been a wiser choice - De Palma could have easily made a three-hour epic that studies both men's stories and motivations and as a result the overall story would have been much stronger and the film better.
As it is this is sort of a "Godfather Lite" - it's not an incredibly strong film, it has some flaws, it could have had ideas expanded, but at the end of the day it's a really great piece of entertainment with some marvelous set pieces, convincing performances and a legendary and iconic turn by De Niro, who totally steals the show from everyone else.
The baseball speech scene is a classic - that's the type of stuff that makes me wish they had spent a bit more time focusing on him along with Costner, rather than just Costner.
Sisters
(III) (2015)
Not funny
19 November 2021
I've long lamented the golden age of Saturday Night Live when it was fun to watch and made me laugh. With each passing year it's become less and less funny, opting for safe comedy where edgy once reigned. Now the jokes target not the establishment they once skewered weekly but those who once held more power. They are now the establishment they once made fun of, tossing that edginess aside for comfort and movie contracts. And so many of the movies they make aren't as funny as those old SNL skits were at one time either. Case in point SISTERS.
The set up involves two sisters, the always proper, motherly and safe Maura Ellis (Amy Poehler) and the wild child who has never grown up Kate Ellis (Tina Fey). There parents have just sold the house they grew up in and moved into a condo and expect Maura to let Kate know this by having them show up to clear out anything left behind in the girls old bedroom. Kate, having just lost her job, place to live and what little connection she had left with her daughter is not pleased with this situation.
As the girls go through their belongings, reading excerpts from each other's diaries it becomes more apparent than before that Kate partied hard and hooked up as often as possible. Maura on the other hand was the responsible one opting for trips to help the homeless instead. As they discuss the differences in their lives they decide there is time left for one more big bash in the house, an attempt to mess with the new owners they've met and hate. The goal is to have a huge party with all of their old friends and to do as much damage to the house as possible, to go out in a blaze of glory remembering old times.
The two gather as many old classmates as they can via Facebook and off they go. Of course among the party guests/old classmates are several ex-SNL cast members. None of them do much here to up the ante of their careers. The party involves plenty of drinking, some drug usage and enough use of foul language to make a pre-teen laugh. As an adult I found it sad, as if the actors and writer were doing the same thing they were making fun of with these characters, trying to rediscover their youth vicariously through what seemed more like teen characters than adults.
One of the rules set early by Maura is that Kate be the responsible one this night, the mom figure, the one to remain sober so that Maura can jump the bones of a neighbor she's attracted to and to watch over the guests. Gee, do you think Kate can accomplish this one task? Three guesses and the first two don't count. Will things get out of hand? Do I really need to ask? While I watched this I first felt that this was the kind of story that might be semi-believable were the characters in their late twenties tops. But with two leads approaching 50 I found it a tad off to think that anyone that age would act this way. This isn't ageist or a slam on the two leads, I just found it something I could never quite get my head around. That Kate could remain this way, especially after having had a child, just never rang as something that would happen. That Maura would follow in her footsteps after all these years seemed even odder still.
For me the movie felt painful to watch at times. I know that both Poehler and Fey have done some funny bits in the past as well as decent movies. This is not one of them. WWE's John Cena gets more laughs than either of them as a muscle bound drug dealer and those are small chuckles at best. In the entire length of the movie I found one joke, one sequence, where I actually laughed out loud involving a music box. Other than that I rarely even had a smile crack my face.
I love comedy. I used to love SNL. There are crude movies that I still enjoy and laugh at (PORKY'S for example). I love movies that make me laugh, especially those that can make me do so no matter how many times I watch them. Unfortunately this movie wasn't one that I think I could watch a second time. Even in fast forward it would leave much to be desired. Unless you are a die-hard Poehler and Fey fan my suggestion is avoid this one.
The set up involves two sisters, the always proper, motherly and safe Maura Ellis (Amy Poehler) and the wild child who has never grown up Kate Ellis (Tina Fey). There parents have just sold the house they grew up in and moved into a condo and expect Maura to let Kate know this by having them show up to clear out anything left behind in the girls old bedroom. Kate, having just lost her job, place to live and what little connection she had left with her daughter is not pleased with this situation.
As the girls go through their belongings, reading excerpts from each other's diaries it becomes more apparent than before that Kate partied hard and hooked up as often as possible. Maura on the other hand was the responsible one opting for trips to help the homeless instead. As they discuss the differences in their lives they decide there is time left for one more big bash in the house, an attempt to mess with the new owners they've met and hate. The goal is to have a huge party with all of their old friends and to do as much damage to the house as possible, to go out in a blaze of glory remembering old times.
The two gather as many old classmates as they can via Facebook and off they go. Of course among the party guests/old classmates are several ex-SNL cast members. None of them do much here to up the ante of their careers. The party involves plenty of drinking, some drug usage and enough use of foul language to make a pre-teen laugh. As an adult I found it sad, as if the actors and writer were doing the same thing they were making fun of with these characters, trying to rediscover their youth vicariously through what seemed more like teen characters than adults.
One of the rules set early by Maura is that Kate be the responsible one this night, the mom figure, the one to remain sober so that Maura can jump the bones of a neighbor she's attracted to and to watch over the guests. Gee, do you think Kate can accomplish this one task? Three guesses and the first two don't count. Will things get out of hand? Do I really need to ask? While I watched this I first felt that this was the kind of story that might be semi-believable were the characters in their late twenties tops. But with two leads approaching 50 I found it a tad off to think that anyone that age would act this way. This isn't ageist or a slam on the two leads, I just found it something I could never quite get my head around. That Kate could remain this way, especially after having had a child, just never rang as something that would happen. That Maura would follow in her footsteps after all these years seemed even odder still.
For me the movie felt painful to watch at times. I know that both Poehler and Fey have done some funny bits in the past as well as decent movies. This is not one of them. WWE's John Cena gets more laughs than either of them as a muscle bound drug dealer and those are small chuckles at best. In the entire length of the movie I found one joke, one sequence, where I actually laughed out loud involving a music box. Other than that I rarely even had a smile crack my face.
I love comedy. I used to love SNL. There are crude movies that I still enjoy and laugh at (PORKY'S for example). I love movies that make me laugh, especially those that can make me do so no matter how many times I watch them. Unfortunately this movie wasn't one that I think I could watch a second time. Even in fast forward it would leave much to be desired. Unless you are a die-hard Poehler and Fey fan my suggestion is avoid this one.
Carlito's Way
(1993)
Best Al
19 November 2021
Carlitos Way is a brilliant movie with a very well developed storyline with an outstanding cast that deliver very dramatic performances. The movie is another great from director Brian De Palma and from Al Pacino,while it certainly isn't the best work if either of them,it still is a really great movie that is dramatic and intense. The character development of Carlito is extremely well written and also Sean Penn's character Kleinfeld,who starts off seeming like a very innocent character,but he changes a lot over the course of the movie. Carlitos Way is a great movie that I would recommend to anyone looking for a good crime film.
A criminal is determined to go straight but finds himself drawn back into the world he sought to escape.
Best Performance: Al Pacino Worst Performance: Luis Guzman.
A criminal is determined to go straight but finds himself drawn back into the world he sought to escape.
Best Performance: Al Pacino Worst Performance: Luis Guzman.
Vengeance Is Mine
(2021)
SUICIDE DREAMS
28 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Really loved the fact that this movie had hardly any dialogue, you just are lulled into it and you watch and observe putting the pieces together and after a while you really are into it and the characters , it just shows that you don't need much dialogue for a movie.
I spotted pretty much straight away that it is all a dream in the moments of his suicide which is at the beginning the movie , all the sign posts are there for you to see it right way through the movie.
Great performance by the lead actor also.
I spotted pretty much straight away that it is all a dream in the moments of his suicide which is at the beginning the movie , all the sign posts are there for you to see it right way through the movie.
Great performance by the lead actor also.
Tell Your Friends