Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Torture of the Christ
15 June 2009
Exhaustingly Gibsoneon as it is (in that Hollywood way), the film helped humanize, or at least make properly newsworthy for me the torture and execution of 'Jesus' (Jeshua? Jehova? Yeshiva??) in a way all those passionate paintings Hadn't.

(Such paintings, especially the Italian ones, are so much more about the artist, the skill, the belabored moment of everyone's frozen drama, than the subject. Film is of course a far more fluid medium with vastly more motion, imagery, scale & realism, as far as graphics goes these days).

That film reenactment of the militaristic, insane, bloodthirsty, Mediterranean Italian blackshirt gangster empire (I don't care how many nice mosaics their slaves made!) and the direct cruelty which seems to so easily illicit from some (especially Mediterraneans) unspeakable tortures and excruciating slow deaths, and who have no scruples carrying out the most horrific orders… Right now I'm not blaming those Nordic barbarians one bit for blowing the Romans and their lead-toxic brain-disordered Nero-esquire horrors into the 'dark ages' for the next thousand years!! (And perhaps architecture benefited in the end, for a time they stopped building everything outa roman concrete and rubble, and went back to carving and fitting stones, making incredible cathedrals and timber arches– which makes one wonder… since nowadays they're back at building everything outa friggin' concrete again, any relevance to the doomed romans perchance?) For Gibson, perhaps this was an allegory of good/V/evil, in a biblical sense, but not sure.

I was left feeling that this re-enacted modern depiction of this condemned peaceful man, this spiritual visionary leader, who certainly believed (it does seem sages often come from the desert, have visions/hallucinations and such, Jeshua wasn't the only, nor likely the first), was more a human-scaled analysis of cruelty and militaristic dictatorial colonialism, then an interpretation of spirituality.

For me the message is about the torture and death of the people's spiritual leader in a time of domination and misery by invading tyrannical force (human consequences of which horrible beyond concept).

It is at least an allegory for all tyrannical torture prior and subsequent (my god, they made lampshades out of human skin, they shot Victor Jara as he sang, with 'bloody stumps'…).

War and sadism (this pleasure at the pain of another, what's that really about????), are the cutting edge of evil.

I wonder if, had He not been tortured and executed by the romans in this most traumatically unforgettable way, and had not the tragedy and grief of his followers, disciples, his Mother (plus Paul) been thus not so shocked to their cores, would his story have reached so many for so long? (and would it have indoctrinated so many with the self-righteousness to commit similar acts against similar innocents even in modern times, as have others who subscribe literally to ancient texts constructed around various other self-proclaimed prophets?).

Difficult to tell… Always in motion the past is….

IMO: I think the roman torturers knew exactly what they were doing They don't get 'forgiveness' from 'father' or anyone else (nor did 'father' forgive).

Each and every torturer, orderer of torturers, and societal strong-man, whether state-sponsored or criminally controlled, who orders (or unleashes in the hearts of the sadistic willing), torture, murder and death– These are evil.

The answer, at least here on earth, is not revelation, ascension, sins or purgatory, the answer, here on earth is PROSECUTION, RESISTANCE & REVOLT against those who would subjugate, by force, a peaceful, peoples movement, that seeks only love and a way to live in love under the toughest of circumstances, while harming nobody.

All (typical?) Mediterranean earthquakes and seaside squalls the movie later proposed as perhaps attributable to this unspeakable torture and death of this person (alongside two others, can we now come to consensus about the death penalty at least???) And absent the appropriate lightening strike to smite the evil on the spot (which it never seems to do), it is up to us, the peace-loving, life-preserving good people to see to it that, at the very least, the criminals in government and society, who would commit aggressive violence against others, are to be held accountable, extricated from society, and the we go forward with our foremost solution to our foremost problem: TEACH PEACE.

~
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Fountain (2006)
Can you say "Overwrought"?
17 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I rarely criticize. But I find this piece completely overdone. It's like every shot is intended to promote critics to say "beautiful cinematography" or "so symbolic".

It would be one thing to include visual references once in a while to universe, spheres, continuum, death/rebirth, etc. But truly, I find all this is so overdone it's simply patronizing.

All the shots within symmetrical architecture, the references to circles, all the visual mathematical patterns which try to be symbolic of it's theme, it's like someone designed this just to provide fodder for a dissertation abstract.

This is what's wrong with the New Age: All this effort to be intense, meditative, conceptualizing the spiritual cycle of life/death/growth/rebirth, references to ancient failed religious cultures and civilizations, etc. It all becomes Kitsch (loosely defined these days as an attempt to over-sentimentalize and communicate canned spiritual platitudes through digital quasi-religious imagery in an attempt to be philosophical, profound and intense).

The problem is that this sort of imagery, which is rampant in computer graphics these daze (the lotused guru centered in the explosion of enlightened universal nebulous self/god discovery, etc. etc.) is completely anti-art, anti-emotional, anti-intellectual, not even based in reality of revelation of any kind, just visual pablum, like something you find on a greeting card or CD cover in a scented store in Woodstock, with no genuine human fallibility, funkiness nor truth to any aspect of human reality (nor even spirituality).

True he fails to cure her in time, but his extremely over-acted tearful intensity, the vague crutch-like references to history, religiosity, spirituality, it just all seems so contrived, posed, and for lack of better words, patronizing.

True the skill and presentation is amazing, but this is not new. When craft completely outstrips content, this creates a phenomenon called "slick".

This is a very slick, overwrought attempt at extracting applause for visual brilliance and spiritual profundity, but in the end becomes just a perfectly blended, photo-shopped faux-philosophical platitude, like some poster or card with some deep introspective quote or other from the Dalai Lama, (except no Buddhist could ever be so shallow and predictable).

I find I resent all the Catholic and other religious references, just more effort to add contrived intensity to an already canned theme.

It's also as if the movie can't transcend any of it's points, but just states them over and over and over, attempting to make a hypnotizing mantra-like dream about spirituality, life, death, fragility of life, the continuum, etc. but rather than stating it once, or subtly, it fairly beats you over the head with endless perfectly framed symmetrical shots of every symbolic reference it could muster.

This kind of thing is better done in one image, one frame, a post-card which you are free to toss or file or forward, but not something which you have to watch over and over and over for hour after hour, as if you didn't get it the first time.

This is exactly how you make something which could and should be really deep into something cheap, sentimental and silly. This is how you do Kitsch. I for one cannot accept Kitsch without camp. To take oneself as seriously as this movie attempts to do is nothing but, I hate to say it, bad taste.

Excuse me while I go rinse the stevia and wheat-grass from my teeth, and purge my nostrils of the bad incense and uncrimp my knees from the absurd pose of enlightened philosophical faux-religiosity the imposed lotus-position of contrived spiritual and emotional profundity has self-flagellated me into. So sorry guys, you worked hard, but this is just a bunch of extremely well-done schlock.
152 out of 217 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Paycheck (2003)
Uma's Eyes <()> <()>
17 September 2006
Lots of due respect. An interesting premise, and lots of hard work and certainly lots of pyro-dollars spent.

HOWEVER...

1: For a techno-cyberthriller, the 'techno' was very much lacking-- cool robotic arm that does bionic moves with a hard-wired gantry-crane hoist controller. You'd need to be wired into that thing like Spiderman II to do any of that--

2: With all due respect, we've seen much unbelievably baroque fighting choreography-- careful not to put great actors to use making Sunday matinée martial-arts sequences.

3: How does it come to pass that a stack of ship containers has a tunnel thru it, dierectly leading to a series of ship-containers that have open ends, and line up perfectly with the mysterious sewer-pipe all perfect for a motorcycle to zoom thru-- not even McGuyver coulda worked that set out.

4: Let's spend less on the predictable action-sequences and play more upon these great actors, and whatever story can be salvaged. Save the techno-dollars for explaining this amazing machine, thus sparing us the crunching of set-cars we've all seen so many times.

5: The great stars of this film were: Uma's eyes. She knows to use these huge expressive organs with devastating effect. Those who cast UMA, or manage her, lease try to find projects worthy of her talents, and her dangerous eyes... <(0)> <(0)>
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bush could have used one of those....
24 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
If only Bush could have had one of these done instead of that obvious transmitter thing during his debate, it might have saved him some controversy... but then, was there controversy? Did anyone really care? The movie was great, extremely well done, but had one fatal flaw, which is that the FBI would have anything to do with combating this sort of activity.

Here we live in a 'Wag the Dog' reality', elections are proved to be rigged, collapsing of towers proved to be imploded, invasions based on proved false pretense, Vietnam now admitted to have been based on a fabricated gulf of Tonkin incident, tons of coke brought in by CIA and Ollie gets a TV show...

These plot lines are good for action-adventure stories, but when it happens over and over in real life, does anyone complain? Not a wit. The goal of movies like this is to warn us about the destruction of our democracy by malevolent corporate interests, and yet this is exactly the reality we live in.

But do the propagators of these crimes come forward and come clean? Does Rove admit to stealing the election, to outing Valerie Plame, of course not, because people who run corporations (which includes politicians) are by definition sociopaths bent on dominance and control. The pursuit of political and corporate power is a social Darwinist mechanism that apparently selects for the worst sociopathic liars our species can produce-- they are not like the rest of us, or we'd all be them.

The conscientious power of will that our protagonists display, collaborating to shoot the bad people despite brainwashing, is a false sign of hope. Such individuals would surely be marginalized, Wellstoned, Rathered or otherwise disappeared.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
London (I) (2005)
The boy who didn't know when to stop, and the girl who couldn't cope
30 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
On second viewing there are a few items that ring true, in that young NYC angst-ridden way. Sid can't stop with his angst, his misery and his cranked-up thoughts, but London can't handle that she's wrong, and shallow, and lives to hear 'I love you', and lies, and drifts, etc. London is cute but definitely not worth the time.

London is a very shallow poser and liar with that ridiculous hyper-loyal friend (thank goodness for that bartender and her normalcy! that one was the catch, NOT London!). Typical. it would be nice to see a powerful woman who can come up with more to the god question than sweet-talked rice, or rabbits.

Sid can say all sorts of provocative and thoughtful and passionate things (with very imposing delivery, but according to this film you have to be a guy to be able to take it, I hope that's not true!)

Typical young man can't say this one required phrase, what else is new. London can't stand he's got philosophy to discuss, and ridicules Sid for this. He drives her away with his aggressive points, and pointed inquisition for her fraud. Of course she's too shallow to handle this.

Sid is in love with a shallow, beautiful, immature liar, and is so attached to the addiction of her presence, and so controlling that she can't stand the intensity of it all. Sid is unpleasant, but he is not a liar. He says what has to be said and hides nothing (too bad only tact prevails, not honesty). Must have been a ton of autobiography in this flick.

Though Sid refuses to play a shallow game, insists on asking the hard philosophical questions of most angst-ridden NYC 20-year olds: Does god exist, is 10 & 1/2 inches such an overwhelming philosophical concept it's worth doing piles of drugs over, etc, London is happy with prayer, looking pretty, seeking further shallowness on the west-coast, easily pleased with designer dresses, etc.

But they are heartbroken, both of them, for silly reasons, as most heartbreak is. That is sad, and real. There is no way to win back a shallow woman, as loved and in love as she may have been, if she's shallow and he's determined to get real points across-- no matter how addictive the intimacy.

The disconnect with reality started at the impotence scene, and prevailed with the 'I'll miss you' scene. The sort of love young-love desperation demonstrated here simply does not resolve with such maturity-- give it a couple/few years, mate, and maybe you'll have that kind of perspective, but those who've been through that kind of love and loss know better...

This impotence issue, really, who does it 4-5 times a night? Is that worth feeling "foresaken, cheated, lost in the big game"? "If you can't hack it in the game of love and sex you are sh--, my friend..." This is 'failure? Jeez, take three viagras and an adderall and your failure is fixed-- these guys sure know how to take drugs!

So much shallowness so passionately delivered, jealousy, penis-size, drugs, dresses, prayer vs. existentialism-- all these things that divide and destroy the one simple, uncomplicated thing, the beautiful and passionate love shared by these two-- silly. All delivered in the shallow world of NYC, in the fanciest bathroom around.

This was a guy-flick, clearly written by a guy, shot by a guy, imagined by guys. Guys have a thing for bathrooms, impotence, penis size, drugs, self-destructiveness, remaining broken-hearted over nice-smelling shallow 20-something chicks-- enjoy this bit of a window into the sorts of conversations guys have, in bathrooms especially-- The main thing about being a guy is to blockade your emotions, show no cracks, reveal no sensitivity, let yourself be traumatized by themes of dominance, self-indulgence, and daft intransigent numb-headed hostile pain. It's really a sucky existence-- but there you have it--

The car scene was just the ex-girlfriend's wishful thinking, or every jilted boyfriends wistful desire to replay the final scene in a breakup properly-- but we all know-- ya just don't go from that level of escapist angst to talking sense--

I felt a bit taken in the end, this man never would have been so cool. I get the feeling that some outside director stepped in to make cinematic sense of the end, which surely would never have ended this way had the autobiography concluded honestly, but that's movie-making-- got to give something to the girls to weep over.

But really, I felt closer to M.J. Fox in the end of Bright Lights Big City as he was teaching himself to eat again, than this suave pretender. The acting and duologue lost the convincing thread it started with. But it was still fab. Enjoy it, if only because you'll never see such a bathroom in real life.

A good stab at honesty, an admirable bit of acting all around, well done. Congratulations. Yikes-- One could get very bitter about love...
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Prime (2005)
Not a hint of reality in this scenario...
9 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Gorgeous impossible older well-connected blond woman meets younger, plainer, Jewish NY artist, etc. been there done that, and exactly at that age of 23! believe me: there is simply not a hint of reality in this entire presentation.

All respect to all actors here, it is Uma's brilliance that saves the chemistry here. But other than that, it is not even an accurate fantasy in any regard. Movies like this are what brings hordes of new NYU students each fall to water down whatever grit and realistic romance NYC ever had. Nothing like this happens in this way, and the scenery is completely misrepresented to the point of mockery. It just doesn't smell right at all, in fact doesn't smell at all (I always feel a mark of a great film is its ability to project 'smells' amidst it's audio/visual depictions).

Beautiful women are taught to be very arrogant and aloof here. Models don't throw themselves at plain-looking guys at clubs, well-connected blond beauties (and Uma is a star among stars in this regard, almost a category unto herself) are not open, accessible and expressive, they would be completely trod upon. The art/fashion/money scene is a hideous, selfish arrogant back-stabbing dog-eat-dog faux-world of attitude and ladder-climbing excess and hidden hostility, NYC is a gritty, dirty place of immense inequity, shallowness and jealousy.

23-year-old NYC guys are simply not nearly that hip and cool in such circumstances, and despite well-sculpted, scripted one-liners befitting a major charmer, nothing presented by this boy could possibly illicit the sort of love projected by UMA, not even a pheromone-drenched sweater. I was impressed, however, at Umas expressiveness at times, her past roles are often so limiting in their violent film-noir weirdness, she's not allowed to express love in her face, which she learned to do here impressively.

This film is carried completely by Uma's radiance (not to mention great jewelry which no-one seems to mention) and Meryl's utter sheer brilliance in every part she plays. Together they created an engaging effort. But other than that, this story really got everything completely wrong in every regard.

My apologies for the critique, I did enjoy Uma and Meryl, tried hard to be swept off by this NYC romance fantasy, but it was just so utterly far off the mark in every possible realistic way, in any circumstance let alone NYC and these characters. I must warn: While movies are usually fun, and great actresses are always a sight to see, that is all there is here. Suggest viewers be careful not to expect any sort of honest eye regarding the subject and scenery here, and if unfamiliar with NY or real high-flying romance, do NOT allow yourself to even think for a moment this represents anything to do with any sort of realism in any way! It's at best a very sugary, flavorless, inaccurate fairytale that seems to sell itself purely on the repeat sex-scenes with Uma.

I find I resent this whole effort to a degree, it's a scene i learned so well over many, many years, here was a chance for real art and a genuinely honest eye, and it seemed to so utterly miss the mark at every possible point of story, camera, ambiance, it seemed such an intentional and unbroken attempt at mediocrity.

Sorry guys, I love you all, just please, no matter what they pay you, be sure to check the script and the camera-man before signing on for stories like this! Here was a chance to show a real true picture of passion and NYC reality, and it came across as not even worthy of one of the city-scenes in those snowy globe paperweights.

But Uma, Meryl, you are truly great! Thank you as always for lighting up our screen!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A miserable existential urban hell where it sleets and rains and not even a mil a year makes it fun
9 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The best of Nick Cage is always well done, but please, if it's all so bad, why live? Exwives hate your legs, people throw pies. If anything this flick debunks the miserable myth of celebrity with gruesome detail. Nick would know that well.

But what to tell the true sufferers of the real vicissitudes in life, that fortune and 'American' urban success is the worst existence ever? Tell that to the forces that wold inflict misery untold on impoverished masses to protect this 'miserable' way of life. Take a pill! This is really not funny.

How is it that the most miserably existential dull mediocre concept of existence gets the most critical acclaim. Is that really the artistic truth worthy of such praise? If it is so bad, stop following and lead, to a new reality, not the one left to you, but the one you create with each OPTIMISTIC moment! I resent being told the best of what we have is the most miserable life can be.

Sing in the rain, reality is not necessarily so grim, unless you're just a miserable depressive, in which case, get with the reality that you're sick, and need help.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed