Change Your Image
rmikec
Reviews
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
One of the greatest films ever.
Obtuse, inaccessible, deliberately paced... in short, one of the greatest films of all time!!!! Forget the stunning visual achievement, the masterful and incredibly influential score, the sublimely subdued acting, the brilliant direction and camerawork, the poignant (lack of) dialogue, the bits of disconnected and reconnected narrative, and the patently Kubrickian humor... the stances taken and the questions posed are amongst the most profoundly philosophical to ever appear in film!
This is probably the only film that subjugates plot' in a traditional sense for that of sustained metaphor whether visual or musical, scene dependent or 2.5 hour film wide. Something like 80% of the film is carried without dialogue and more successfully than any treatment could that featured dialogue. For that reason, most people don't get' it.
In fact, there's not a whole lot to get' if you're looking for one or two unified master threads of narrative, an answer to a question, a continuing plot. This isn't like "The Usual Suspects" where everything gets all wrapped up in a tidy package at the end, rewarding you for sitting through 2.5 hours of non-linearity and confusion. Kubrick provides no answer, no goal, only a journey. Confused? You're supposed to be! Is that not a valid effect one can create in a film? Like Bowman releasing the physical body of Poole from the mechanic grip of B Pod, you too must let go the assumptions and expectations created by viewing a lifetime of largely jejune films. Once you start to recognize and appreciate the metaphoric subtleties (i.e. birth/baby/birthday metaphors; tool use and eventual dead ending of a consciousness that relies on that physicality 4 million years later; eyes of perception; conceptual twinnings; macro and microcosmic conjunctions; etc.), Kubrick's statements become so obvious that it's hard to believe you missed them before!
Every single detail in this movie was intentional. It is a completely conscious work, it is art. It's (loosely, though primarily) a film about the next step' of evolution in a transcendental rather than physical sense, and about the consciousness and reflexivity that, despite every other conceivable difference, is universally at the base of all intelligent beings in the universe. But characteristically, Kubrick paints many many threads, some of which lead in different or even opposing directions. This is intentional, this is genius, there are no answers in this film. That's the point. You can't appreciate this film in one viewing. You may start to appreciate it at 5 viewings. Does that bespeak a failing of the film or a failing of the average American viewer? I think the answer is obvious
The sheer scope, achievement, and courageously non-linear treatment of such an audacious set of topics has never and will never be duplicated! One of my favorites! I had privilege to view a fresh print of the film at the AFI Silver Theatre, and I can say with absolute confidence you have not truly seen it until you've seen it on the big screen and involuntarily covered your ears at the volume of the Monolith's radio emission! Kubrick!
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
A black masterpiece of postmodern pastiche
Brilliant. The film contains typical Quentin Tarantino hallmarks of black humour, ultraviolence, improbable story narrated and populated by over the top, absurd, flawed (and ultimately totally human) characters, and unforgetable action sequences.
What really impressed me was the detail. The film is bricolage writ large. Postmodern pastiche. Tarantino is a brilliant postmodern semiotic architect. Deconstructing is the wrong word here, though it's always used incorrectly in this context; disassembling is better. Tarantino excels at disassembling low culture film and media - from Star Trek to McDonalds, film noir to Anime, from Hong Kong Action/ vintage kung-fu to kitsch pop music - painstakingly dissecting each into it's most elementary form, and then reassembling these symbols with new coherence and meaning into his own film. Each element, form, or style he lifts from B movie culture becomes an isolated symbol removed from it's original context. Moving it into a new context, it retains some, all, or none of it's original meaning, gains new context dependent meaning, and becomes part of a new gestalt - that of the Quentin Tarantino film. Tarantino's comprehensive understanding of his low culture source material and the mechanics of his narrative allow him to populate his film with excessive richness but with total economy and consistency. What you get is a Disney World effect - thrilling, stimulating, richly detailed, and at times disorienting - but fabulously entertaining. Academically and personally I enjoy and appreciate this type of work - which makes this one of if not the best film I've seen in the last 3 years. But I don't expect most to agree with me.
Can't wait for the second one, can't wait to see this one again.
Edward Scissorhands (1990)
Brilliant and touching
This film still would place in my top 100 of all time. Burton's musical and visual aesthetic alone has been highly influential, and this is the film that made it salient. The direction, story, score, and aesthetic is typical gaudy, nostalgic, satirical, yet brilliant Burton - but it is also a very touching film that resists oversentimentalization.
Not unlike Shelley's Frankenstein - this is the story of an inwardly benevolent outcast who doesn't fit because of the way he looks. His hands are razor sharp - in a painfully delicious twist his creator dies just short of upgrading him to the real thing. Edward therefore has the potential to mangle anything he touches and bears the scars to prove it... Though there have been other wonderful treatments of good/outcast theme (Frankenstein, E.T., The Elephant Man), Burton's postmodern look at insipid modern American suburbia / teenhood rings truest for me. Somehow Burton has managed to tap an emotional nerve that is still raw in a staggeringly large group of us.
Concert for George (2003)
Touching
This was a heartwarming film by way of Harrison's music. The musical production was top notch. The film production was simple and functional. I expected more auteurism - more interviews, personal tidbits, more of a developed documentarian style...and more (some? any?) George Harrison - in person. This aspect was understated (at least compared to my expectations). George (almost) never appears in the film. A somewhat surprising choice considering how magnetic each of the Beatles are/were... and how much photo/film documentation they've undergone. Aside from merely two or three photo stills and a brief voice recording after the credits, George was represented totally via his music (and almost hauntingly by his son who shares many of his same unique mannerisms on stage). And a few short remembrances/personal interviews that always pertain to his music, not to his life.
In the end this makes sense. This film wasn't about George. It was a film about his friends remembering George in the best and most moving way they know - through the depth of Harrison's music, and through the love and respect apparent in performing his music. This was much more affective than any amount of personalized interviews. It was, after all, a Concert for George, a reminiscence by way of his songs - not by way of documentarian interviews. It becomes almost a meta work - the film documents with relative detachment a concert that documents George's music and life. Such a film necessarily lacks the same punch as the live concert - but it does not compensate by fully exploiting the advantages and accessibilities of the film medium. However, in the end this approach is not only more subtle and disciplined (directorially), but infinitely more poetic. The music and the performances tell the story. As I said, the choice worked but is somewhat unexpected, and may keep some wanting more George.
Aside from Eric Clapton's meandering and jejune guitar god solos, the musical performances were absolutely top notch. Although many stood out, my favorites were Joe Brown and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
H.R. Pufnstuf (1969)
Frightening and traumatic
This show, and many other Krofft programs (i.e. Lidsville and Land of the Lost), scared the hell out of me. In 1979 HR was deep in syndication, but that didn't stop a 4 year old from finding it. You'd sit down and watch, allured by the surreality, the "stranger in a strange land" themes and the larger than life puppet-like characters. You'd expect a benign Sesame Street-like program full of soft freindly characters. But in the land of Krofft all things are slightly twisted, mysterious, surreal. Just look at the expressions they've sewn into the faces of the characters. Dark man, dark. You'd be a little tense for the first 15 minutes, but then Freddy the Flute would bite Witchiepoo on the finger or some hitherto inanimate object would turn around and talk and freak the hell out of you, push you right over the cliff into full throttle terror... I remember crying hysterically and trying explain to my grandmother the freaky stuff that just went down on TV. She probably thought I was crazy. This stuff permeated my dreams and nightmares for years. I deeply repressed all things Krofft and then around age 20 learned that this show actually existed. Boy was I relieved, I hadn't made it all up. Absolutely priceless program, I've got some on tape.
Remember the sleestak? Enik? Chaka? That's a whole nother source of Freudian terror.
Step Into Liquid (2003)
"The feel good movie of the summer" (sorry, couldn't resist)
Not a brilliant piece of film making by any means, but like related films (i.e. Endless Summer), it captures the incapturable - the eternity of youth, motion, summer, and even a little of that indescribable feeling of being out in the waves, at the point of articulation between ocean and land.
I was a little surprised by the emphasis on big wave surfing, but I'm not complaining. The film was inclusive and focused on surfing's positive aspects. The film just makes you smile, but not necessarily with humour and levity. Considering "localism" and a fair amount of exclusivity that can persist in the sport and lifeway of surfing (probably overblown yet reactionary to the hoardes that are flocking to the breaks more than every), this inclusivity and positivity was very welcome.
Like Endless Summer, I will see this film again, and probably again and again.
I was surprised at how full the theatre was. Given how popular surfing has become, I shouldn't be.
28 Days Later... (2002)
Surprising
I went into the theater knowing nothing more than "it's a zombie movie".
Having no expectations usually makes a film more enjoyable, it allows you to be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps this is no exception. Regardless, I found this film to be very well done. A scrappy, smart, small studio (read non Hollywood) release that does not overextend itself and achieves a very intense and lasting effect.
The lighting and set work was stunning. The pace and suspense was very effective. My favorite thing about the film however was the realism. I don't fault a film on the details of it's portrayal of zombies. That's not the point of the film here. While some action was implausible (i.e. changing a tire in the tunnel!), I found the conviction of detail, theme, and story very realistic. The many details of post-apocalyptic Britain were intriguing, creative, and chilling. These details also made the film more believable and compelling (`the end of the world is f'ing nigh', Jim's parents' death, his headwound, irradiated apples, etc.)
Most importantly, the film's plot winds in smart, unpredictable, and thoughtful ways. The story does not explore the horrors of zombies, a killer virus, or the apocolypse so much as it explores the unknown and the evils inherent in man - a very real, primal, and criminal horror that already exists and is not dependent on zombies or the end of the world, just a minor breakdown in society. It is a chilling Hobbesian exploration of the social contract.
The propensity toward animal/mechanistic one-on-one killing (or other sexual and violent crimes) demonstrated by both protaganists (Jim's transformation at the film's end, Selena's instant dispatching of Mark) and antagonists (the soldiers) in the film is chilling. Shifting the conflict from man against monster to man against man was a beautiful development. This twist is refreshingly unpredictable and smart. It would have been effaced or inadequately explored if this film came out of Hollywood. There would have been a lot more shooting and machismo. Jim would have been played without subtlety by some hot property like Collin Ferrell.
Instead, the protaganists NEVER picked up guns - except to use the bayonnet. The action of this film kept the frame of resolution tight and uncomfortably man-to-man. Certainly the duality of the protagonists was explored, but the killing remained personal and uncomfortable (yet animalistic) for them. It remained responsibile, conscious, self-defense - a necessity awakened by the circumstances. This contrasts the detached mechanical use of bullets and violence employed for personal gains in power or sex (i.e. the soldiers). In a clever inversion, the one soldier who considers using the bayonnet find himself in an argument with his partner, allowing Jim to escape. It is this reluctance to take moral and social responsibility that separates the antagonists from the protagonists, the animals from the humans, the soldiers from the non-militants, and (almost) the women from the men.
I was happy with the acting and found the characters moderately well developed.
Though the film loosely borrows some concepts, themes, and action from other post-apocaloyptic sources (Romero's original Night of the Living Dead, King's novel The Stand), I do not fault this as a weakness. Overall I found no particular weaknesses in the acting, direction, cinematography, etc. In that respect I disagree with many of the reviews here.
Bamboozled (2000)
Affective.
I've only viewed this film once and it was probably two years ago. I thought it was excellent. I've only seen a few Lee films, but they all make you work a little to take something away. You can't just sit back and expect to be spoon fed.
Lee's points are frequently contradicting, renegotiated, re-evaluated. This means his film(s) may suffer for lack of a unified poignancy or thesis. Lee instead strives for affectation. I'm not sure you can fully "get" a film like this in a single way, it's layered such that conclusions may vary widely. You laugh at scenes where other viewers feel uncomfortable. You are outraged at scenes where others laugh... etc. Lee is perhaps much more interested in the source of these reactions than with content or a political, social, or cultural agenda.
Lee's films are most successful when they face full and without compromise politically and socially hypersensitive topics. This film demonstrates the mastery with which Lee can toy not only with stereotypes, but make you evaluate your own perception, experience, and perpetuation of stereotypes and racism. In other words, the attentive viewer is constantly manipulated intellectually and emotionally. Lee zeroes in on the point of articulation between intellect and emotion, in both personal and social consciousness and conscience. Lee demonstrates how racism is institutionalized and perpetuated in Americans - not just white Americans. This is not what we expect. The effect is unsettling yet poignant. Lee has the ability to approach an emotionally charged issue with utmost calculation and logic, such that his treatment is not compromised by uncontrolled passion. Part of his intent, however, is to spur a passionate reaction. Lee is not afraid to tackle an issue or a explode a causality that may be enraging, not "politically correct," offensive, or perhaps overlooked. Lee invites you to consider what emotions cause these reactions, and perhaps what portion of the "collective conscience" (Durkheim) is responsible for such emotion.
The effect of Lee's meandering is a very relevant film that hits you on a gut level. The genius is that it is unsettling not only through the content of the film, but also through the intellectual and emotional considerations that immediately follow your preliminary emotional reactions. Sort of a meta-reaction.
Barry Lyndon (1975)
Kubrick's epic on the irony and absurdity of humanity
The first time I saw this film I was intrigued. The second time I was blown away. Barry Lyndon is a gripping story of debauchery and eventual redemption. However, it is Kubrick's subtle crescendo of irony, contingency, pacing, direction, and cinematography that makes this film a masterpiece. Like all of Kubrick's films, Barry Lyndon benefits from repeated viewings. The detailed and meticulously constructed universe of each of Kubrick's works are nothing short of astounding
Barry Lyndon included.
Kubrick is rumored (and documented) to routinely shoot 30, 40, up to 50 retakes of a single scene. You can tell, and the quality, action, and aesthetic he achieves through this practice is completely unique. One of the most memorable scenes was the first interaction/contact between Lady Lyndon and Redmond (at the candle lit gaming table next to the Reverend). So much is communicated without any spoken lines. This is not that profound or even uncommon, but the portrayal of unfiltered humanity, in all it's uncomfortable fallibility, absurdity, and clumsy, unabashed emotion is uniquely Kubrick. The action and actors seem to enter a sublime deliberateness full of subtlety and meticulous detail. It's hard to describe but every scene and every shot seems encumbered by some varying degree of `heaviness' and import. Kubrick somehow captures the absurdity of humanity in every shot. Action is belabored, paced, and deliberate-some people find this unique quality of Kubrick's films painful and slow. It is painful at times, but when it is, that is the point being affected. In such films as 2001 or The Shining, this dynamic strengthens the affect of later scenes and is part of the creshendo of the film's entirety. The same is true of Barry Lyndon. Kubrick has said that any subject worth consideration can not be viewed head on. The audience must make it's own discoveries rather than the film making the action or concept explicit.
SPOILERS
Kubrick is noted as a master of contingency and irony. As one of Kubrick's mid-career films, Barry Lyndon is one of the simpler expositions on this theme. Though Barry starts his life as a hard-headed but seemingly noble, romantically idealistic, and perhaps somewhat misguided youth, he soon learns a hard series of lessons which imbue him with a resolution to never be treated less than a gentlemen. To achieve this, Barry spends most of his life perpetuating exploitative lies, schemes, and general debauchery to further his social and economic position. However, Barry eventually begins to acquire more redeeming characteristics. He gives up womanizing, becomes an excellent father to his son, and channels his energies (and his wife's savings) into more socially accepted and expected forms of cheating (bribery) to acquire social positioning. A delicious reversal or mirroring (Kubrick loves these) appears as Lord Bullingdon begins to closely resemble (in character and action) a young Redmond
Barry's redemption leads to his eventual downfall and is crystallized in the duel between Barry and Bullingdon. Interestingly, the uncertainty of the film's ending perhaps illustrates Lady Lyndon's ignorance of the scheming of her own son and a semblance of remaining devotion to Barry. This implies that the only thing separating them is a sheen of lies contrived by her own son.