Change Your Image
glub
Reviews
Hardcore (1979)
I beg to differ...
Looking at the relatively high ratings and positive reviews of this film I was very puzzled. It is quite strange to me that the other reviewers praised all the positive aspects of the film (of which there are precious few, if at all), and completely overlooked all the glaring problems in the script, acting, direction, etc. (of which there are plenty.) Here are just a few:
- A highly unbelievable script. Who in his right mind can believe that the various dwellers of the porn underworld would express their suspicion that the main character is a cop in this fashion: "Are you an officer of the San Francisco Police Department or in any way affiliated with it or any other law enforcement agency?" (Note that the creators of the movie apparently found this sentence such a big scriptwriting success that they used it several times throughout the film, spoken by different characters.) Has anyone actually heard anyone, let alone a hard-core criminal, utter something like that?? The members of the other of the two worlds shown (or, rather, caricatured), in the movie, the Bible Belt conservative Christians, including the main character himself, are equally misrepresented. The scene where Jake VanDorn tries to explain the Five Points of Calvinism to the prostitute and porn "actress" Niki is particularly revealing. Where on earth has anyone seen a Bible-believing Christian (or so we are expected to think) starting to present the basic Christian beliefs with the Five Points of Calvinism??? Under the circumstances, Niki's reaction to such an "explanation" ("And I thought *I* was f***ed up!") is completely justified, except that it should really be directed at Paul Schrader, the inventor of this completely implausible scene. And these are just two examples; the movie is full of them.
- The acting and direction are no better. George C. Scott, whom I never really thought to be a good actor (his only good role being the one in "Dr. Strangelove" - the role that *required* gross overplaying,) is no better here than in his other movies. Even in the scene where he first sees his daughter in a porn movie, the scene that is supposed to be the most emotionally charged in the whole film, Scott manages to make his character completely impossible to believe, and, therefore, to sympathize with. The rest of the actors are equally bad, although that may be due to the fact that their characters are so one-dimensional and unrealistic.
All in all, the film attempts to show two completely different worlds, but I couldn't help but suspect that its creators totally don't know or understand either of them, or worse yet, trying to fool us, the viewers. Thus, my rating is 2 stars out of 10.
Hearts in Atlantis (2001)
Could be better...
Right from the start I have to admit that this movie is not a bad one at all (which is why I - somewhat begrudgingly - give it eight stars.) However, it has several very noticeable flaws, which need to be pointed out.
I had rather high expectations for this film - as I will for any film made by the director of "Shine" and/or starring Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins did not disappoint at all; his performance is excellent, even if somewhat reminiscent of his other similar roles. The directorial work of Scott Hicks, however, leaves a lot to be desired. He is a director capable of work that is nothing short of brilliant; yet in this film he seems to overlook (or is it conscious?) such obvious flaws in the actors' performances that one begins to wonder if hasn't lost the touch. It is especially noticeable in the performances of Anton Yelchin (Bobby) and Hope Davis (his mother.) Anton seems to be a gifted young actor, but he constantly switches between playing a sort of 11-year-old adult (most of the scenes involving his mother) and a kindergarten kid (the scene where he crosses his fingers in response to Ted telling him about "The Kiss".) Hope Davis behaves so strangely on screen that I suspect that she never had any children of her own; granted, she is supposed to play a bad mother, but the character she ends up creating onscreen is simply not a believable mother at all, bad or good. One does not need to be a professional psychologist to notice that. Both of these performances are deeply flawed, but in both cases it seems to be mostly the director's fault.
Overall, there would be no harm done if the movie was made a little longer, if that allowed the creators to explore the characters' relationships and especially certain obscure parts of the story (of which there are plenty) a bit further.
Having said all that, I need to say that I enjoyed the movie very much, and it really is "a breath of fresh air" (as one reviewer put it) among the great hordes of mindless, pointless and useless flicks that Hollywood insists on producing. It really is a fascinating story, the cinematography is breathtaking, and all in all the film is truly beautiful, in the fullest sense of the word. It's just a little sad that something that had a great promise was simply underdeveloped.
Priklyucheniya kapitana Vrungelya (1976)
A classic of Soviet animation!
Easily one of the best Soviet cartoons (and that's in a country that was big on cartoons!!) A funny, exciting adventure story with quite a few jokes that are clearly directed at an older audience. Twenty years later, it's still fresh and hilarious - like any true classic. If you understand Russian, or if you happen to stumble across a translated version (I'm not sure if they exist) - definitely watch it!