Change Your Image
Andrew!
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
A Man Called Horse (1970)
Flawed...
BIG TIME SPOILERS HEREIN!
I will start by giving credit where credit is due. This was one of the first films to ever deal with a realistic point of view of the American Indian, and I think that alone is worth a lot. But...Check out Arthur Penn's "Little Big Man" instead. Although not perfect, I think he captured a much more sympathetic Indian on film, and I think you get a better feel for the period it takes place than you do in AMCH.
For starters, I didn't really find the Richard Harris character very likable or frankly sympathetic. He states early in the film, that he's basically a rich spoiled English aristocrat, bored to death with his life. And does he have a life redemption when he is abducted by the Indians and sees a whole different point of view? No, he simply yearns for more power, to take one of the best wives of the tribe for his own, and declare his superiority. This tale has more in common with Tarzan (white-man crashes into jungle, overcomes the wilderness and the primitive savages to become king of the forest) than it does with reality. There seems to be an underlying message that the white people, and the European lifestyle, if simply applied to the Indians, would have somehow redeemed and saved them from anilating themselves.(see the absurd scene where he tells the warriors to form a European style (Archer) skirmish line-and how amazingly effective this was with their clueless army of Indian Neanderthals)The entire effectiveness of Indian warfare was their Gorilla tactics against their enemies on either side, of which in 1970 the U.S. was still unfamiliar with (see the Vietnam conflict) even after fighting the American Indian a hundred years prior in the 1870s. Also, it was not common practice for an enemy tribe (the Shoshone in this case) to amass a ridiculously large war party (or maybe I should say army) to attack a nearby village. Contrary to the way Europeans and whites in general thought, warfare was a healthy part of life, and generally consisted of a small group of warriors (5-10 were typical) who would attack or sometimes simply steal horses, women, count coup, kill other warriors, etc. There generally were no armies of Indians, locked and loaded, hell bent on killing every man women and child and leaving the enemy's village in total burning cinders. This was the white way, and part of what brought about the end of the Indian way of life.
And what's with the Rambo-style headband Richard's character wears once he's gone tribal? The Sioux were not generally known to where this ridiculous style of dress. Also, there is the usual Hollywood problem of casting some non-Indians in Indian roles (but in all fairness, there were a lot of real Native Americans cast, including the always great Iron Eyes Cody as the medicine man).
One last comment. The Sioux were not sun worshipers, and never does the film come right out and say this, but seems to suggest that as a Neanderthal-like people who believed in primitive ideas such as worshiping common things in nature as a deity. This was the common European (condescending) view of the African natives. One could write pages and pages on the depth of Native American spirituality that existed in the time frame of the film. They were much more than an evolved caveman society.
I cannot recall any other films that have attempted to show the sun ritual as this did. Again, I will give them credit for this, but the scenes are fatally flawed because of inaccuracies and motivations. This was a deeply spiritual and profound act for a warrior, and I somehow doubt some stupid white man spouting off disrespectful, condescending challenges to the chief would be welcomed to try it. The process lasted a matter of DAYS, not minutes, as shown in the film, and there's hardly any way that someone with a pish-posh background could have stomached it so matter of factly.
Ultimately, in it's time, this may have been a very relevant film. Now it seems to be a small mile-marker on the long road of historical story-telling in movies.
The Contract (2000)
Unique attempt, with an interesting story...
I really wanted to like this little short animated film. I am a big fan of (western-non-japanimation)(see heavy metal, heavy traffic, allegro non-troppo, fantastic planet)work, and it was with a lot of curiosity that I stumbled on this piece in a pawn shop. The DVD is divided into 9 chapters, each with a new piece of the puzzle that makes up the "treach" character's life. I loved the realistic street dialogue, with all the curse words and some nudity. For a very brief moment or two, I actually felt the fearless pulse of a Ralph Bakshi work. But unfortunately, this animation itself, can not even hold a candle to his work.
In fact, that's my only real complaint about the whole thing. Many of the backgrounds in the animation appear to be pixelated (!)or overblown, and at time we're reduced to a comic strip like approach where the characters are talking, but nobody's moving. This project looks as though, they had some good ideas, script, and voice talent, and then ran out of money or backing for the project, but put it together anyway.
If you're a big animation fan, or a fan of the the Urban gangster genre, check out this little piece. Maybe somebody can re-make this one day, or make some other material in this same vein, and be able to put the creative work deserving of a story like this one.
Caligola (1979)
Flawed, but unique...
(Spoilers Herein) The infamous Caligula. Labeled as "the most controversial movie in history". Even it's actors were allegedly appalled by the film (did all of them even see it?). And there are reviews a mile long all over the internet about how "rediculously bad" this film is. Here are my thoughts; Although I have mixed emotions about it, I liked it. I can say with all honesty, that I have never seen anything quite like it, anywhere before.
(SPOILERS)The premise is as follows; a young budding man takes the already corrupted throne of power from Tiberius, who is sick and dieing. He makes the love of his life (his sister)his unofficial "queen", and allows the power of his new found authority to go to his head. After running the might empire into the ground, a conspiracy conspires against him and he is assasinated (along with his family). Another page in Roman history is turned.
I feel it's "king of bad cinema" reputation is highly overrated and incorrect. Is it revolutionary in idea? Not really. Is it the worst film I've ever seen? No way. This type of period piece has been done many times before. The 'power corrupts' story and the 'decadent portrait of the pagan Romans' theme is pretty much a universal theme in the sword and sandal epics of American Cinema (see Ben Hur,Gladiator,etc.) But the Excesses of Rome were never quite as in your face as they are here. Although many would disagree, I feel I can take this film's plot line somewhat seriously. It has a story-structure in which I must admit, does grow dimmer by the end of the film, but has wonderful actors, all giving a very serious and credible performance. It appears to have a budget, with gigantic sets, hundreds of extras (mostly Italian I believe)and it has a heart, of sorts, in the caligula character, and his control over Rome and it's plight. This alone is more than most Arnold Schwartzenegger(sp?) movies have, but nobody seems to spend a lot of time bashing these flicks. Although Caligula the character, is despicable, and does some pretty terrible things, I felt as though, in the film, he was only the product of the society that gave him that position. Malcom Mcdowell(sp?) portrays an eagerness, to his soon coming of power, at the beginning of the film and then lets his grasp on reality immediately start slipping when he takes the throne. I enjoyed seeing the softer side of Caligula at the beginning (when he is shown frolicking in the forest with his lover).
Much of what you heard about the sex in this movie is true. The sex is real and all of it seems to be shot as though the director (Bob G.)wasn't even aware of censorship laws. In terms of intensity, you won't find anything here that you didn't see in "In the Realm of the Senses", in which many, including myself, deem as an artistic classic. For those of you who haven't seen that film, this means real penetration, real mouth to genital contact etc. In terms of content, I saw a lot of shots that by themselves, look like they were shot by someone who deals in the business of sex (and fetishisms; the urination scene for instance). Personally I did not even really feel the excess of sex scenes in the film until the final orgy scene, where I admit, it did seem slightly gratuitus. Sometimes I felt the director was trying to use the sex scenes as metaphors for the story line as we realized the full excesses of Caligula's corrupted reign. And that we the viewer were also indulging in Rome's excesses with Caligula, and we were supposed to feel uncomfortable about that.
There seems to be myths about the film that go unchallenged; First, there is no 210 min. print in commercial existence. Only the "unrated cut" (which is the one I have seen), and the "R" rated cut. Second, contrary to many user-posts on IMDb, there are no scenes of bestiality (although he's uncomfortably fond of his horse), there are no scenes of pedophilia (child-sex)(although there is a verbal reference to it in the line: "do you like little boys?" "No, big boys-my soldiers")and there are NO scenes of necrophilia (although it is perhaps suggested with Drusilla).
All in all, Caligula's flaw seems to be excess, and a lack of control over something that was too big for anyone to hang onto. But then again, that could be said of the Roman Empire... And whether the film is historically accurate or not, there certainly were rulers of ancient Rome who were capable of this kind of behavior and probably did act this way. Not for the squeamish, but for those who are used to contemporary sex and violence, give it a shot. Also check out "Queen Margot" for another view of a different corrupted empire.
Ai no bôrei (1978)
A haunting, poetic tale inspired by true incidents...
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** First, let me state that I am a huge film buff, but unfortunately somewhat new to Japanese films. I also want to clarify something that seemed unclear in previous reviews I've read here. The English title "In the Realm of Passion" appears to be truly an exploitive maneuver (probably by the director or studio executive) to lure the viewer into thinking that this is somehow related to "In The Realm of the Senses". It has nothing in common except that it's set in feudal japan, the plot involves a scandalous affair, starring the same leading male actor, and it's directed by the same director. the story and characters are not directly related in any way. I expected tons of steamy sex scenes, possibly involving the "in the..senses" characters.This is not that kind of movie.That having been said, I still liked it, and found it to be very haunting and disturbing at times.
BIG-TIME SPOILERS AHEAD In a nutshell, the story involves a boring, ignorant, (but diligent) husband who who goes about his daily business of providing for his family, which includes 2 children and a wife-who happens to be having an affair with a much younger man. Together their foolish passions ignite a ridiculous plot to kill her husband, after she gets him drunk on saki. They dump his body in a well and try to live their life as though nothing had happen. It isn't long before the village starts to doubt the wife's story about her husband being "out of town". Shortly after his death, the slain husband appears as a desolate, confused ghost, which tortures the now going insane wife. Soon an inspector arrives and probes deeper into the lover's tangled web...SPOILER END Even though the story is somewhat of a cliché, I feel it hasn't really dated. I found the tale truly creepy, and to me gave me a unique window into life in feudal Japan. I felt the undertone of a silent thriller, that would lead up to jagged little moments of shock, and suspense. I was slightly annoyed by the lead actress's "whiny" nature but thought, overall, everyone pulled it off. An interesting movie, that quietly grabs you, and slowly pulls you in. This may sound bizarre, but I kept feeling the same creepiness of "the Ring" ("Ringu") The well scene, themes of the undead, the ominous forest were all themes in comon with that thriller. Check it out.
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
"Reservoir Dogs" is the birth of a new CINEMA
An incredible piece of work for it's time. A true inspiration for new filmmakers and even veterans of the art. I am still amazed at the myriad of details behind the making of the film. Originally slated to be a $35,000 movie (profits earned from Tarrantino's sold screenplays-"Natural Born Killers" & "True Romance"), it was given a shot in the arm by Harvey Keitel, who somehow managed to get a peek at it. he liked the script so much, that he helped raise the $400,000 budget (while taking a huge cut in pay himself). This is a movie with such ENERGY. A film that screams out for repeated viewings. Try it sometime. Watch it over the course of a month, 3 times, and you will see something new every time. There is a layer of details under almost every sentence. *(SPOILER AHEAD!!!)* For instance, at the opening scene, when they're sitting around the table talking. Each individual's character is revealed totally by what they say. Keitel's character conflict's with "Joe" (by taking away his book and stubbornly NOT returning it), this is a clue to the end confrontation. Michael Madsen's character seems slightly trigger happy ("should I shoot this guy over here?"). And Steve Buscemi's "Mr. Pink", is the only one who strives to stick to his personal creed of professionalism ("I don't tip-I don't believe in it"). Also watch for the "rat" amongst the group. He's the guy who tells Joe who wouldn't leave the tip. It only ten minutes into the movie and all of the characters are completely defined and played out like a card hand. But you don't notice this. And even if you do, you don't care, because you're so enthralled with these crazy, colorful guys! Then there's the FINAL shootout, do you really know who shot chris penn's character? DID Mr. Pink get away? What does the orange balloon mean? *(SPOILER FINISHED)* There are a ton of "hidden" details and stories behind the characters and motivations that make this movie so rich with life, but this is not the place for them all. If you are interested in more, I urge you to find the literally dozens of well put-together fan sites out there filled with much more than i could ever write here. Also, i have to say, I love the new take on the contemporary mafia.
I could talk for hours about this film, but if you haven't seen this one-I encourage you to go get it,see it, and if you're a fan of Quinten Tarrantino even in the slightest, you won't regret it. A superbly written, well edited & intensly acted, mind-blowing blast that you won't soon forget!!!