Lorenzo H. Reviews

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Warmed over TV Pilot served a' la mode'.

[6/10 · 22 November 2002]

Before damning or praising MULHOLLAND DRIVE one should first understand its background and what the director's original intent was. Roughly the first 90 minutes of this film are composed of footage from a 1999 TV movie that was to have served as a pilot for a proposed series on ABC. They apparently did not like what they saw, or perhaps felt that the story line --- "small town girl goes Hollywood, meets bizarre characters, gets embroiled in mystery", was just a bit too odd for the sedated cop/medical/sitcom/reality crowd. Either way the film languished in the vaults for over a year. Director David Lynch however, found a way to salvage his project --- simply tack on an hour of typically Lynchian sex and weirdness, then release it theatrically and hope that audiences worldwide would embrace it as a viable, multi-layered, groundbreaking work of art.

Well, to me that sounds a bit like micro-waving a piece of old apple pie, serving it up with a large dollop of cherry vanilla ice cream and hoping no one notices. Recently there have been lots of user comments stating that the film's first half should be viewed as an extended dream, and its second half as actual reality. The problem with that interpretation is that it has been embraced 'after-the-fact' by viewers who think they see some artistic master plan on the director's part. This could not be further from the truth. The scenes from the pilot had been shot with no such thing in mind. Even if the dream angle was something Lynch was going for in the refurbished theatrical version, those early scenes still come off as too firmly grounded in reality to seem convincingly dreamlike. No, I don't buy this dream angle at all. In the end, I believe that the reason many of us are drawn to this movie is not because of the bland pie underneath, but rather the rich, intoxicatingly sweet ice cream that's been dumped atop it.

Let's get down to brass tacks. There are basically 2 reasons most of us are fascinated by this movie. First and foremost, the lesbian sex scenes. Make no mistake about it boys and girls, many of us in living in these modern, liberated times have come to appreciate the aesthetically titillating aspects of watching two beautiful women making love to each other. If you disagree with me, simply try imagining yourself being as enthralled with this movie as you currently are had 2 'guys' played the lead roles. Well, now that we've established (surprise) that sex sells, we should ask ourselves if that in itself makes something great art? I certainly don't think so, --- If it did, half the pornographic films out there would be considered works on par with CITIZEN KANE.

Now for the second reason this film seems to fascinate us --- those amazingly disconcerting and typically surreal Lynchian moments that abound in the movie's final hour. Of all those moments, the most hauntingly memorable, in my opinion, is the scene at Club Silencio featuring the Spanish rendition of Roy Orbison's "Crying". Moments like that, coupled with the aforementioned scenes of sapphic bliss, build an atmosphere of brooding mystery and exotic sensuality that is quite alluring indeed.

It should come as no surprise that those scenes were part of the new material shot to help sell the film theatrically. Unfortunately, they simply feel like colorful afterthoughts --- material that was never truly part of the director's original vision for the film. Knowing this, at least for me, makes the overall experience of viewing MULHOLLAND DRIVE somewhat less than satisfying. In the end, its a bummer to think that there was never truly an artistic intent on the director's part other than to salvage a failed project by injecting moments of signature weirdness and steamy sex into it. Judging by the reviews on this site however, I'd say he'd managed to convince most of you otherwise.

This film gets a 6 out of 10 because I have a 'soft' spot for David Lynch. Not surprisingly, when it comes to Laura Elena Harring, the exact opposite seems to be true.

Blow-Up (1966)

FUNERAL for a FRIEND.

[7/10 · 1 February 2002]

I am in mourning. I have lost a good friend. Twenty-three years ago, as a college student, I caught my first screening of Michaelangelo Antonioni's BLOW-UP. I remember exiting the theatre in a state of pure bliss, stunned and mesmerized by what I had just seen. Surely this was the most profound and imaginative film of all time, I told myself. Subsequent viewings over the next dozen years just served to confirm my first impression. When last I saw it in the early 90's, I was still quite convinced that it deserved a spot on my top 10 list of all time favorites. For over two decades I have carried it in my head, not just as a great movie, but as a sort of philosophy. Yet something quite disconcerting happened recently after my latest viewing of the film. It suddenly dawned on me that BLOW-UP, though still quite fascinating in many ways, definitely fails as a motion picture. This is due mainly to an extremely slow and almost insubstantial first half in which nothing really happens. The film's decided lack of truly compelling characters does help the situation either. So why such a radical shift in my opinion now, after all these years? Perhaps the main reason for this is that in my younger days I tended to measure a movie's ‘greatness' by its arty cinematography and moody atmosphere. I would become so enthralled by these qualities that I would often blind myself to the other aspects by which a film should also be judged, such as its acting, script and characters. Twenty-three years of subsequent movie-going has allowed me to understand that a truly successful motion picture is composed of many key ingredients, most of which come together, whether by accident or design (or both), to form a truly satisfying whole.

BLOW-UP, nevertheless, does have its virtues. The film's dreamlike second hour contains some of its finest moments, among them a raucously bizarre concert scene featuring the Yardbirds and a truly lyrical finale that is totally devoid of dialogue. This last scene, involving the main character, a mime troupe and an imaginary tennis match, culminates in one of modern cinema's most quietly devastating moments of revelation. To this day that scene is as symbolically poetic and existentially haunting as anything I've ever seen on film. In fact, I believe that BLOW-UP's great reputation among many critics and viewers (including that young college student of 23 years ago) comes in large part due to this memorable ending. Overall however, and mainly because of the 2 reasons cited above in paragraph one, Antonioni's hypnotic film does not consistently work its magic from start to finish and therefore fails, despite moments of greatness, to be a completely satisfying experience.

Rest in Peace dear friend. There will always be a special place in my heart for you. It's just that regretfully, from now on, I shall be visiting your grave a lot less often.

FINAL VERDICT: ` 7 ' (Down from my original 10).

Jacob's Ladder (I) (1990)

Haunting and memorable film will stay with you long after you've seen it.

[5 March 2000]

JACOB'S LADDER, once seen, is not easily forgotten. The main character, Jacob Singer, is having terrifying flashbacks to his Vietnam War days. Even worse, he is apparently being pursued by demonic figures that are after him for some unknown reason. We do find out by film's end just what Jacob's terrifying dilemma really is. I'm sure that like myself, most viewers have their own theories on the exact meaning of everything leading up to that point. I won't go into mine however, since I do not wish to ruin the experience for new viewers. All I will say is that the movie is somewhat reminiscent in tone and structure to 1962's cult favorite CARNIVAL OF SOULS, although the ending is not nearly as dark and is far more memorable and moving. Getting to this ending though, can be quite a disquieting and unnerving task. Certain parts of this film, such as an extremely eerie scene early on in a subway tunnel, and a later scene in which Jacob ends up in what could only be described as the `Hospital from hell', will leave an indelible stamp on your brain. The acting is excellent straight across the board. Tim Robbins is quite sympathetic as the haunted main character. Elizabeth Pena, as Jacob's live-in lover, exudes a perky sexiness that is very appealing. Finally, lets not forget Danny Aiello, who does not have much screen time, but is quite likeable in a pivotal role.

Before concluding, I'd like to comment on a point made on February 13th by a gentleman from Alabama regarding how totally unnecessary it was to include a certain ‘plot-element' which ultimately explains the truth behind Jacob's Vietnam experiences. Those who've seen the film know what I'm talking about. I totally disagree with this view. Try to imagine the plot implications of what ‘might' be causing Jacob's visions without this element and you will see that the viewer would then be left only with the biblical interpretation, thereby lessening the power of the film's ending and rendering it more obvious. By including this extra plot element, and occasionally bringing it to the forefront, the writer kept the audience on their toes and constantly thinking till the last moment.

My final rating for this film is a 7 out of 10. The reason it is not higher is because the overall viewing experience of JACOB'S LADDER can be quite an uneasy one. Like the discomfort you'd feel sitting in a totally dark room, hearing noises you couldn't explain. Nevertheless it is a film well worth the time of any serious moviegoer. I say this because it is almost a certainty that 10 years from now you'll still be able to recall some of the scenes and emotions connected with this film. That is something you'll probably not be able to say about 90% of the movies you'll see in your lifetime.

Angel Heart (1987)

Supernatural Film-Noir - disturbing, unsettling and flawed.

[6/10 · 4 March 2000]

This motion picture will stay with you long after you've seen it. It has a tendency to leave you feeling quite disturbed and unsettled. This can be attributed mainly to the films last 15 minutes, wherein the lead character Harry Angel, a private investigator (played by Mickey Rourke), learns the emotionally devastating truth behind the case he has been working on. Rourke is quite good throughout the entire movie, lending his character a certain sleazy-cool charm, but it is in the films last few moments that he shines best. His harrowing display of pain in these scenes is so intense and believable that you truly feel his despair. Robert De Niro who appears in only a few scenes (in a key role), also does good work.

Now for the down side. Director Alan Parker from the very beginning imbues his film with such a heavy atmosphere of impending doom that we hardly have a chance to breathe. If he had perhaps lightened up a bit in those earlier scenes, the ending would have slowly crept up on us and been even more shocking and disturbing than it was. Also he attempts to combine the horror and detective genres with only moderate success (especially in the later case). What usually thrills us about classic film-noir detectives is their sarcastic wit and hip dialogue. This verbal element is sorely lacking in ANGEL HEART, so the audience tends to latch onto the visual aspects of the investigation which are not enough to keep us totally riveted for the first two thirds of the film. On occasion the director also loses his sense of subtlety and allows sex, blood and gore to steal the show (as in the bedroom scene with Rourke and Lisa Bonet).

The above complaints aside, ANGEL HEART is an unforgettable and haunting film which though not a totally pleasant experience, is still worth a look, especially if you like films dealing in psychological horror.

Final Verdict: 6 out of 10.

American Beauty (1999)

THIS MOVIE HITS TOO CLOSE TO HOME FOR SOME.

[10/10 · 3 March 2000]

I can go on and on about the great acting, directing, music and cinematography that can be found in this film. I can cite examples of why I think it is a modern classic and a movie for the ages. But that has already been done in hundreds of previous posts hasn't it. So instead I will ask those of you who have already seen this motion picture a couple of important questions:

Can you take constructive criticism? Can you avoid the natural human knee-jerk reaction of shutting off all rational thought when confronted with things disturbingly familiar? If you can, then you probably walked away from this film marveling at its message and realizing that there is an entire world of truth and beauty beneath the surface of the everyday things we think so important. If you cannot, then you are probably reacting to these words the same way you did to the film, - with loathing. Truth hurts. But you know something, -- it need not.

I went into this movie with an open mind, not looking for reasons to hate it or put it down simply because the vast majority seemed to love it. I sat back and allowed it to work its ethereal and insinuating magic on me. The truly beautiful thing about this film is that it will strike chords within you that will resonate throughout your soul, -- as long as you allow it to. The movies main message is that we are NOT perfect (nor should we try to be, regardless of what society says), --- only by accepting this fact in ourselves and in others can we truly reach peace and happiness. However, before we in the audience can do this, we must first learn to get over the fear and embarrassment of having our naked souls bared before us, of seeing our own reflections in this disturbing but ultimately transcendental mirror known as AMERICAN BEAUTY.

10 out of 10.

Much Ado About Nothing (1993)

Energetic and highly entertaining film marred only by Keaton's performance.

[7/10 · 28 February 2000]

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING is a virtual feast for the eyes and ears. From the beautiful Tuscany landscapes and wonderful music score to the great performances of Kenneth Branagh, Emma Thompson and Denzel Washington, this film's high energy and good spirits will effortlessly sweep you off your feet. For close to an hour this movie can do no wrong and has some great visual and comedic moments. It is around this time however, that we are unfortunately introduced to the character of the constable played by Michael Keaton. His scenes in the middle third of the movie seem quite incongruous with the rest of the film. Every word out of his mouth is virtually unintelligible. To make things worse, his performance is so `Pythoneseque' and over-the-top that it actually feels like slow torture watching it. Its as if Beetlejuice had suddenly invaded the movie. Director Branagh's mistake was not in casting Keaton in the role, but in having him play the character as he did.

The Film happily does rebound in its last twenty minutes and concludes in a moving and joyfully uplifting celebration that is extremely well choreographed. This last sequence consists of one long, continuous tracking shot which is truly amazing. The camera starts at ground level and weaves in and out of courtyards, buildings and dancing revelers to end up not only a good city block from where it started but what actually seems to be ten stories high looking down on the proceedings with a gods eye view. It is a fantastic end to a flawed but extremely entertaining movie. I recommend it to all lovers of not only Shakespeare, but of ‘feel good' movies as well. Had it not been for Keaton's sour note performance, I would have given the film an 8. As it is, a 7 out of 10 will have to suffice.

Naked (1993)

David Thewlis IS the film.

[6/10 · 27 February 2000]

This movie was well on its way to becoming an unforgettably devastating ‘angry young man' classic. What a shame that it lost its balance half way through and squandered it's potential. What makes this film worth seeing are the incredible verbal histrionics of David Thewlis. He imbues his character with such satiric and cynically scathing wit that he leaves the audience reeling from his machine-gun like existential rants against humanity. Many of the early scenes are funny and mesmerizing thanks to him. The rest of the film unfortunately does not fare as well. It is somewhere shortly after Thewlis' scene with the night watchman that the movie begins to lose its momentum, but it is the last third of the film which truly drags thanks to Director Mike Leigh's unfortunate decision to concentrate too much on the character of the deviant landlord. This character was not only one dimensional and uninteresting but totally unnecessary. His arrival throws the film's mood and energy way off.

David Thewlis gets a 10. The film itself rates an unfortunate 6.

The Matrix (1999)

A film whose visual appeal far outweighs its intellectual appeal.

[6/10 · 21 February 2000]

You'd think THE MATRIX was a very special movie indeed based on all the extremely positive comments preceding this one. I must admit that it is quite entertaining and has no boring moments. It features some great special effects and is visually exciting. But these adjectives could also be used to describe an MTV music video. In fact, it seems music videos, along with Japanese animation and the slow motion action scenes from John Woo movies, were the main inspiration for this film. Throw in a science fiction plot containing lots of pseudo scientific jargon and you have a movie that is not only action packed but seems quite intellectual as well. But it is this intellectual aspect of THE MATRIX that I feel has been overrated. The film's central question, -- `Just what is reality?' is drowned out by all the action and not examined in any great detail. A motion picture that tackles this very same question in a much more fascinating manner is 1998's highly underrated DARK CITY. Both films explore similar territory, but because DARK CITY was not geared towards the mainstream by incorporating a modern music score and a shoot-em-up sensibility, it was not as popular. Like little children fascinated by bright colors and loud noises, modern audiences tend to be transfixed by films like THE MATRIX. But this movie's lasting power (like last months number one pop hit) won't be long term. Entertaining – yes, great or meaningful – No.

Final verdict: 6 out of 10.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)

Entertaining and sexually aware horror film suffers from overacting

[7/10 · 21 February 2000]

Modern filmgoers catching 1931's `DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE' for the first time, are often astonished that a movie so old could be so sexually frank. The fact is that this relaxed attitude towards sex was commonplace within the film industry at the time. Early sound films quite often included sensual scenes and racy dialogue. Some, like 1934's `TARZAN AND HIS MATE', even contained outright nudity. All this came to an end in the mid-thirties however, with the creation of the `Hays Code', which was in essence a set of moral guidelines and restrictions which all major studios were forced to adhere to. This version of JEKYLL of course predates all this. The reason it is so entertaining is because of this ‘sexual awareness' as well as some very inventive direction and camerawork.

The film however is not without it faults. It's main drawback, in my opinion (and one that was common in early talkies), is the entire casts tendency (from Fredric March down to the smallest bit player) to overact. Secondly, unlike Spencer Tracy's portrayal of the same character in the 1941 version, there are no gray areas to this Mr. Hyde. He is portrayed by March from the outset as nothing more than a violent Neanderthal and he basically remains one throughout the entire film. The less than subtle ape-like makeup used on the leading man simply heightens this impression.

These points aside, this film is I believe still more entertaining and thought provoking than all those slow-moving Universal Studio horror ‘classics' of the same period. To this day, even with its faults, it remains arguably the best all around movie version of the classic story. For this reason alone it should be seen.

Final Verdict: 7 of 10

Medium Cool (1969)

Interesting but flawed depiction of a tumultuous era.

[6/10 · 20 February 2000]

MEDIUM COOL is a documentary-like motion picture that contains actual footage of the Democratic National Convention and anti-war demonstrations, which occurred in Chicago in 1968. This gives the film, which is actually a work of fiction, an ultra-realism not usually found in Hollywood movies. Unfortunately, the excessive use of this footage near the film's somewhat extended conclusion helps distance us to the story of the main characters, which up to that point we had been following with great interest. Quite often in real life, major news events and the inevitable sensationalistic media coverage of them, tend to drown out all individuality and humanity. Perhaps this was the director's point. Still, by concentrating 'too' much on surrounding events, he allowed his characters to become only half-realized, and as a result the viewer only half cares what happens to them.

The movie does have its share of positives, from Robert Forsters thought provoking ghetto interviews with African Americans to the quite jarring and ironic ending. In between, we see the very attractive Mariana Hill in her birthday suit, and are treated to some cool guitar music by "The Mother's of Invention". These aside, my overall reaction to the film is "Medium Cool".

Final Verdict: 6 out of 10.

Fight Club (1999)

"Being Tyler Durden" --- Beware of blind devotion to this film.

[5/10 · 5 February 2000]

Not many of the young men praying at this movies alter seem to realize that the film's ending totally derails its entire philosophy up to that point. Till then, this somewhat intoxicating rant against consumer society and the emasculation of the modern male had at least been consistent. The 'surprise' twist and 'happy' ending seem to negate everything that had come before and make it nothing more than a succession of stunningly filmed images surrounded by the character study of a psychotic. The protagonist is basically a loner who needs not only society's recognition, but also the love of a woman. When he can't get these, he turns to violence. TAXI DRIVER explored this theme much better. He also has the need to be someone else, see through others eyes, -- role-play a little. That aspect is explored much better in BEING JOHN MALKOVICH. In the end, though FIGHT CLUB looks great and has some great moments it just does not work well as a film. Many have called this movie the "CLOCKWORK ORANGE of the 90's". Not a chance. In twenty years Stanley Kubrick's film will still be viewed as a classic. FIGHT CLUB will by then be nothing but a distant memory. Final rating, a disappointing 5 out of 10.

Another thought. For over two hours (before the quick-fix happy ending), this movie advocates violence as a way that men can re-establish their place in society. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of things that could stand improvement in this world and even American society. There's certainly room for change. But not this way. This film's message is a dangerous one that might be taken to heart by many angry and impressionable young men everywhere. Think about it, ---what makes Ed Norton's character here any different than the skinhead he played in AMERICAN HISTORY X? At least in that film his conversion into a tolerant and decent human being was far more gradual and believable. Those who have blindly embraced FIGHT CLUB's philosophy without seeing these underlying faults and contradictions should view it again from this new perspective. It will give you food for thought.

Lastly, I'd like to point out that I'm perplexed regarding the very high ratings this film seems to be getting from female voters. This is somewhat surprising considering that it is quite anti-female and condescending to women. Perhaps this has something to do with the magnetic presence of Brad Pitt. But then again, that's 'another' form of blinding oneself isn't it.

All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)

Powerful, but dated World War I epic.

[7/10 · 25 January 2000]

Many early sound films are at a great disadvantage when it comes to pleasing modern audiences. This problem stems mainly from two causes. For one, actors and actresses were still using the exaggerated mannerisms of the silent film school. Today, this results in what we would call embarrassingly bad acting. Secondly, it is painfully evident that an effective combination of sound and music, which should have complemented the onscreen images, was back then an as of yet unmastered technique. These rough edges were eventually smoothed out by the mid to late thirties when actors and filmmakers began acclimating themselves to the art of sound film. Unfortunately, "ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT" is one of the films that falls into the above-mentioned category.

HOWEVER, This having been said, every serious film lover should still attempt to catch this movie at least once in his or her lifetime for it does contain many unforgettable moments. What will keep the film in your memory years after viewing it are its well-staged battle sequences, its pacifist message and of course its haunting final images which are pure poetry. Dated, yes - but also worthwhile. 7 out of 10.

Modern viewers can experience all the same emotions and issues tackled by ALL QUIET without any of its drawbacks, by viewing Peter Weir's memorable "GALLIPOLI" released in 1981. It also takes place during WWI but it is a more character driven film, which benefits from excellent direction, cinematography and music. Of the two, I believe it is the better motion picture.