parkermenn Reviews

Tsotsi (2005)

great movie with subtitles

[9/10 · 29 April 2011]

I was almost crying for half of the movie. At first I was really scared for the baby, but fortunately Tsotsi started to like the baby and do his best to care for it. Tsotsi was a runaway child. His childhood was cut short. He lived a hard life starting from a very young age. He face a lot of grim realities. The tough life he was forced to live killed all the decency he once had. His only way to get money was to steal. His lifestyle made him a thug and it caused him to be the way he was. As a child he had decency. For example, as a child he cared for his sick mother and his dog. He was now numb to the world. The baby somehow thawed him out. He actually cared about the baby because it was so innocent. It showed him that he could care for another human being. He discovered that he did have a heart after all even if it was very damaged. Doing good for the baby was his chance to do something good for himself. He saw the baby as himself. He even names the baby, David, which is Tsotsi's real name. Tsotsi wanted to hang on to the baby because it was his connection to his old self or his hidden self. One that he can feel good about instead of just blocking out the pain. This is really important to him. Throughout the movie he takes a journey to find his lost decency. At the end, he is crying uncontrollably as he gives the baby back to the parents. He has reached a critical breaking point where all the pent up and repressed emotions of his life seem to flood out all at once. He has now journeyed all the way back to his childhood and his life with his mother and father and his dog. Before he ran away, before he was alone for so long.

The Whole Shootin' Match (1978)

great movie

[9/10 · 22 April 2011]

The Whole Shootin' Match is a great film. What was even better was that after the screening we were treated to a Q and A with Sonny Davis who played Frank. Davis has never had big roles in big movies so a lot of people probably don't know who he is unless they are familiar with Eagle Pennell's The Whole Shootin' Match and Last Night at the Alamo. It was really neat to listen to Davis talk about his career in the movie industry. He was in Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Thelma and Louise. The Shootin' Match has been hailed as the first true regional cinema. The actors, the director, the scriptwriter and the crew were all from Austin or Texas. They were on the "inside". They were not outsiders (Hollywood people) trying to making a movie in or about Texas. The movie correctly portrayed normal life in Austin at the time (1978). Everything in it was authentic. The Texan accents were natural. In fact, everything in the movie seemed very natural. This may be do to the fact that they were encouraged by Pennell to improvise the script. There was a script, but they only loosely stuck to it. The movie was made out of love for the craft. Everybody had day jobs during the week because they weren't getting any money from the movie. They would shoot on the weekends. They barely had enough money to make the movie without paying everybody involved a salary. Lou Perryman and Sonny Davis play best friends in the movie. They were actually best friends in real life so it came across on the screen as something really special. The most endearing scenes for me were when one was down and the other was there to cheer him up.

Gabbeh (1996)

strange...

[6/10 · 14 April 2011]

I don't know what to make of this movie, Gabbeh. My mind is blown. I do not get it. Maybe it is a cultural thing. There is a gap. Iran is so different from the United States. I do like the rich colors that appear all throughout the film. They are bright and vibrant. They contrast with the bleak situation of our main character, the mysterious young woman. There are touching and charming moments that supersede culture. They are on a human level, understandable by all. There are also things that happen that I can't make sense of. That is what I meant when I said I don't know what to make of this film. What is it about? A girl who wants to get married, but her cruel father will not allow it for some reason. First the uncle must get married then she can marry. Then the mother must give birth then she can marry. Both of these things happen yet the young girl is still denied her suitor. I feel like I'm missing the point. I feel like that is not what the movie is really about. What is with her suitor sounding like a wolf? This old man must be the wolf. He is howling like one. Is the man on the horse, suitor imaginary? No, she rides off with him just to get shot down by her father. That is cruel. Oh, good that was only a rumor told by her father to keep his other daughters from running away. That is cruel, also. So what is up with the old man and the old lady? A lot of weird stuff happens with these two. What if the young woman is imaginary? She is just a rumor. The clan is so big who would know? Only the mother and father. If the father is that cruel it is understandable that the mother would keep quiet. The daughter is not mingling and talking to people in the clan. I think she could be made up.

Days of Heaven (1978)

masterpiece?

[10/10 · 6 April 2011]

Days of Heaven. Wow. OMG. This may be the best movie I have ever seen. 10 out of 10. I'm trying to think. I've seen a lot of movies, but I can't think of a better one than this at the moment. What can I say about it? The cinematography is amazing. So is the soundtrack. It is subtle, but it is great. The story is great. But, the pace and aesthetics really bring it out and make it shine. From the very beginning to the very end, I was absolutely captivated. I must be in one of my manic romantic moods. I'm sure I'm manic, but I think the movie did it to me. That happens to me when my attention is held captive for extended periods of time. It began with the opening credits. I have heard the music somewhere before (probably because it was so beautiful). And, the photos shown go right along with it in an eery sort of way. I forget the director's name, but our teacher did mention he was hailed as a very brilliant filmmaker in the line of John Ford (whoever that is). Besides unadulterated praise, I can say one thing about the movie. The plot may have been stolen right out of the Bible. Not once, but twice, Abraham visits foreign lands and claims that his wife is his sister. The king then becomes infatuated with his wife and marries her. And, then God rains down hell on the king and his kingdom because he has taken Abraham's wife as his own (committing adultery). The jacked plot is completely excusable because the whole package makes up for it.

Simon of the Desert (1965)

Bunuel's vision of Satan as a temptress is great entertainment.

[10/10 · 31 March 2011]

Most Christians, today, go to church (some tithe), they say prayers (usually not enough of them), they try their best to be good Christians and live life like the bible and our preachers teach us to (but not all read the bible consistently or go to church consistently). Very few Christians, that I know of, fast. I think it is safe to say that nobody in the world is attempting something like Simon by standing on a column for almost a decade. With today's media, something like that would have already gained world wide attention and publicity.

Everybody has temptations to deal with, but they are in the form of the world and the desires that are in the world. If anyone claimed that Satan was torturing them, they would probably be considered insane. Simon is so well disciplined he is not tempted in normal ways. The way Simon is set apart from other Christians makes it believable that it would take Satan himself to tempt Simon and cause him to stray. I think this makes for a very good movie. We get to see Luis Bunuel's version of Satan as a temptress. We also see how devoted Simon is. He treats everybody the same and rebukes even holy men.

I think Satan is sent by God (or allowed by God) to tempt Simon because Simon has surpassed normal temptation. Therefore, temptation of a higher degree (for lack of better words) must come to Simon to test his perseverance and build his effectiveness as a Christian even further. This is the basic premise for making an effective Christian. They go through trials or hard times, but with the help of God (by trusting God and taking cover in God's refuge) they overcome, persist and persevere.

I thought the ending was neat. Satan takes Simon on a journey that takes them to a club of some sort. Simon is being shown the world outside of his normal column and what it is becoming. The youth dancing to vulgar music. To the normal person the youth or the music do not seem vulgar. But, to Simon the whole scene stinks of the devil's schemes of subversion. And, the devil loves the revelry.

Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962)

Cleo is realistic

[7/10 · 23 March 2011]

This movie is realistic. There is no Hollywood flair, fairy tale story, or conclusive, nicely packaged ending. All of the characters and their interactions with one another are normal, expected and true to life. There is nothing fake in them. There are no scene stealing characters. They all go together and react to one another in a fluid, natural way. There are no climactic kisses, fatalities, or surprises. If there were any they would be very subdued in order to keep with the feel of the movie.

This style is much different from the Hollywood style. It may come off as boring at first, but that is only because we, Americans, have been trained to expect action, drama, and over the top performances. None of that exists in Cleo. There is only a slight bit of drama and that is Cleo's illness. And even this drama is marginalized and downplayed. At one point, Cleo is referred to as a drama queen.

When you slow down and think about it, the style is quite astonishing. Very subtle acting is required to pull off the illusion that the characters are real. They are as real as your own family and friends. This creates intimacy and relatability with the audience. This is hard to find in Hollywood films because the characters are caricatures with large ego's and huge personalities.

This is the essence of Cleo. It is a good movie not because of an amazing plot, famous actors, action, drama, etc. Cleo relies on the actors' and actresses' ability to literally draw you into the movie as if you being a normal person could play a role. I was writing this review as the movie was ending so I missed the part where Cleo goes to the doctor. I did catch the very end and the smile that Cleo shares with the man. It is a smile of levity and confidence. I am not sure if there is any resolution to the only problem in the whole story. Maybe the doctor wasn't there, and she has to wait until tomorrow. With all the emphasis about Cleo's illness, it is funny that the movie doesn't need any resolution concerning her situation. Whether she gets an answer or not, whether she is going to die or live, it does not matter. Life will go on with or without her.

It's Always Fair Weather (1955)

spry G.I.'s

[7/10 · 14 March 2011]

Normally, I don't like musicals. I admit I haven't seen many musicals at all and none recently besides It's Always Fair Weather, of course. From what I remember, I never liked musicals because I thought there was too much singing and I couldn't really follow the plot. That may be because I was young. I'm not sure. Either way, I feel Fair Weather contains the right mixture of singing and just regular acting. Also, each of the singing and dancing bits are actually amusing to very amusing.

I think I got a good glimpse at what America was like after World War II just from seeing the characters as they were just after returning from the war and 10 years down the road. In their first bit they were very ecstatic, happy, optimistic, and they exclaimed they would be friends forever. The bartender says things will change and they won't be friends for that long. They make a bet to reunite 10 years from the date and show the bartender that they are still friends. Over the ten years, each goes his own way and they fall out of communication with one another. They forge careers and make money, but they return 10 years later as bitter forms of their old selves. I learned in my class that much of America felt a sense of loss of purpose after World War II. When the soldiers reunite they find that they are all very different persons and far from the spry group they were just after the war.

Eventually the trio spends some time together and they come through for each other when one of them gets in trouble with some shady characters. There is a great, big, hilarious fight. Also, the movie takes a lot of shots at television. The movie uses ridiculous product placement and an insiders view of the TV industry to knock television at a time when cinema and television were competing for viewership.

Paisan (1946)

actor or non-actor?

[7/10 · 13 March 2011]

Early in the film, the girl from the church who guides the Americans sounds just like the girl from Godfather II who Michael marries while hiding in Sicily. They're both young and Sicilian. If it were just their voices, I could never tell the difference. Not just voice, but their attitude and demeanor are the same. I've never been to Sicily, but this seems to confirm what a young Sicilian woman sounds like. This authenticity really adds to the goal of Italian neo-realism; the goal of capturing real human behavior and shying away from an actor's "fake" portrayal.

Rossellini uses actors and non-actors in the film. It is difficult to separate the two. I think I can safely say all the characters with no dialogue are non-actors. They are extras, hired, dressed (maybe in their own clothing), and placed where need be. The rest with dialogue are harder to distinguish as either actor or non-actor. All the lines seem to be delivered in an amateur way. Even those that may be actors seem to make efforts to seem as stiff and natural and real as would a non-actor appear to be. Close-ups may be the only give away. And this is not always sure. There is a close-up of the Sicilian girl that really shows her emotion and deliberation of what she is about to do. Again, am I deceived? Is she actor or non-actor? At this point, it seems not to matter except for the fact that all the characters are seamlessly woven into the story. There are none who give an obvious performance. There are none who stick out or are identifiable were it not for the credits, which I don't pay attention to anyways. What remains is praise for Rossellini's vision and execution.

Godzilla (1954)

Gojira!!!

[5/10 · 3 March 2011]

We watched the original Japanese Godzilla film made in 1954. I thought it was pretty entertaining. Compared to present day special effects the scenes with Godzilla wreaking havoc seem pretty cheesy. Although at the time of its release I'm sure they were impressive. I wish they could have figured out a way to make his fire breathing more realistic looking. It looked like he blew steam on things and then they would suddenly combust into raging fires. One of those scenes I did like and I think the filmmakers knew had made a good looking shot because it was extended for quite a while. It was during the attack on Tokyo after Godzilla has made his initial breakthrough at the coast and inflicted tons of damage in his path. It is a very long shot. Intact buildings are in the foreground. Seemingly small from a distance Godzilla looms over the buildings in front of him while behind him there is a "sea of flames" as they reporters say in the movie. The other thing I liked about the movie was the plot and explanation of how Godzilla came to be and why is it now that this million year old specie emerges. Previously the only Godzilla movie I had seen was the American made 1998 version with Matthew Broderick. If I remember correctly that movie did not offer any scientific explanation for why or how Godzilla came to be. In the original much of the content early in the movie was devoted to scientific research and explanation which to me seemed to make the whole scenario at least somewhat plausible. Anytime you can add believability to a story, it creates a more realistic and involved experience for the audience. In the case of the original Godzilla I would consider the movie to be less of a monster movie and more of a sci-fi movie. In sci-fi movies a plot that is credible has a more profound impact on the audience.

Stranger on the Third Floor (1940)

where is the french and soviet influence?

[5/10 · 20 February 2011]

As far as I am concerned true cinema began in the early 1930's when sound in film became prevalent and techniques to capture sound were being creatively refined. I do admit there are certain silent era films that must not be discounted but only because of their historical significance and the innovations they pioneered. Stranger on the Third Floor was made in 1940 so it is in sound and does not suffer from the awkward implementation of early sound films. It does however suffer from a production stand point in that it was a "B" movie. But I certainly don't mind "B" movies, after all I watch the lifetime channel and the sci-fi channel all the time because they are good for a little entertainment and a few laughs.

We watched this film in our class primarily because it is noted as one of the early precursors to the film noir genre. Which as I understand it is not so much a genre but a style. The film noir style can be seen in the dark, moody setting of the film and its use of shadows. The style adds to the overall mystery of the story. It certainly adds to the doubt and the almost mad and paranoid feeling that overcomes the protagonist midway through the movie. During the dream sequence of the movie we also see some German Expressionism nicely laced into the story. It is very appropriate for this segment. It is expected that a bad dream may appear to be very expressionistic.

At the time of the movie's release, critics claimed it was influenced by German Expressionism, French Impressionism and Soviet Cinema. As noted above the German Expressionism is obvious in the dream sequence however I cannot think of good examples of French Impressionism or Soviet Cinema in the movie.

Metropolis (1927)

tooooo loooong

[4/10 · 19 February 2011]

Metropolis was a two and half hour long silent movie. I was hoping to have my socks wowed off by an incredible classic movie (because of the way our professor hyped it as the silent era's Avatar). Nothing could be farther from the truth. After an hour or so I could barely stand it. Another thirty minutes go by and I begin to seriously contemplate walking out. But I couldn't just leave. It wasn't that I was interested in the movie but I had already invested too much time to leave and not get credit for being there. The last hour was a test of my will. I was antsy and I was jittery but I stayed and I got my damn credit. The movie was not that awful it just didn't warrant two and a half hours of screen time. So far the silent movies we have seen have been one hour maximum. This was just too much.

Like I said the movie wasn't all awful. If I forget the agonizing length of the silent Metropolis I can see a few positive things it had going for it. I loved the machine woman Hel. I think her name foreshadows what she does in the movie because she basically lets all hell loose on the city by inciting the workers.

The story spends a lot of time on the workers and the machines. The time it spends up top deals almost exclusively with the mastermind behind the city Joh Fredersen. The workers are basically rising up against and destroying the system he has built, but the two never come into direct contact. It is as if such a confrontation of the lowly with the high brow is unthinkable and that is why there must be a mediator. I would have rather seen an invasion of the upper-class lifestyle by the rioting workers.

Battleship Potemkin (1925)

Battleship Potemkin

[6 February 2011]

Battleship Potemkin is unlike any movie I have seen before regarding the treatment of the protagonist and the antagonist. More specifically it is the lack of protagonist and antagonist in the film. In modern cinema there are always specific, identified characters that oppose one another from beginning to end. Battleship Potemkin does identify several characters however they do not carry the narrative very far. Indeed their roles seem limited to simply serve a purpose in the bigger scheme of things.

Rather than specific characters as protagonist or antagonist, Eisenstein uses opposing forces. The opposing forces are the oppressed people versus the oppressive authority. They are groups identified by typage. That is they are simply identified by their appearance and their actions. Officers, soldiers and priests compose the oppressors. Sailors and townspeople compose the oppressed. The story is about the struggle between these two groups. It is a somewhat successful rebellion. One in which innocent lives must be sacrificed to overcome the oppressors.

The initial rebellion begins when sailors refuse to eat rotten meat and the officers of the ship refuse to recognize that the meat is rotten. Action on the ship comes to a climax and the sailors overpower the officers with numbers and they successfully take over the ship. Their rebellious act spills over onto the mainland and inspires the people there to come to their aid by delivering food. In doing so the people on the mainland are targeted for execution.

Next comes a great scene because it is so emotional. Staged on the steps of Odessa, soldiers march and fire upon a large unarmed crowd. The people are massacred and the Potemkin is forced back to sea. Although this would not seem to be a victory, it is in some regard. The sailors are not deterred rather they are emboldened by the injustice. They decide as a group that they will sail on and confront the fleet.

The movie has a happy ending. Although it is probably unrealistic, it enforces the idea that a group can rise up and achieve unity. Suspense mounts as the Potemkin sights the fleet. Guns are raised and the sailors prepare for a battle. At the last moment, they realize other sailors have rebelled just as they have and the movie ends with the two crews rejoicing together.

True Heart Susie (1919)

Dear Susie, drop the zero (William) and get with a hero (me).

[7/10 · 29 January 2011]

Lillian Gish aside, I don't know what is so special about this movie. Apparently D.W. Griffith is so prestigious that our class must see one of his movies. From what I've learned about Griffith, he did not do anything completely original or innovative in his films, but he simply took all the innovative ideas and techniques from his time period and combined them. On that note I can't recall anything that struck me as particularly innovative. That is probably because I am a modern viewer and I have already seen anything that may have been cutting edge at the time of the film's making. Maybe the professor could have pointed out some of these things, but I remain clueless.

One technique that is very obvious is the use of tinting to show whether it is daytime or nighttime. Dark blue tint is used for night and a yellowish hue for day and indoor shots.

Lillian Gish, however, did stand out. Even though Griffith kept referring to her as plain and inferred that the other woman was more attractive, I felt the opposite was true. Susie was beautiful and Bettina was ordinary. William was an idiot. Susie deserves better. The credited writer is Marian Freemont. The story is lackluster, but she does a wonderful job with Gish's pious character. Gish does even better executing that character. Her acting is subtle and we can see her emotions clear as day with close up shots. This combination is the only redeeming quality of the film. The viewer cares for Susie and her plight. I suppose Griffith deserves credit as well. Actually I don't know who deserves the most credit. Directors and stars seem to get the publicity and the writer is seen as an afterthought. Maybe it's all about teamwork. Who knows? Meow!

Hypocrites (1915)

my first silent film and response

[7/10 · 29 January 2011]

This is the first silent film I have seen in its entirety. I really like the use of metaphors to tell the story. This seems to be a good way to make a point in a silent movie. The use of metaphors allows the film maker to convey a message in an understandable way that does not use too many intertitles or force the actors to use an inordinate amount of gesticulation.

Towards the beginning of the movie Weber shows two quotes by John Milton. The entire movie is basically a portrayal of these two quotes.

The naked truth's transparency effect is interesting. I wonder how they achieved it. I suppose they did it in the same way they did the fades between shots.

I am surprised to find that I really do like this film. I must admit it took about fifteen minutes for me to adjust to the slow pace, the piano soundtrack and the lack of color and spoken dialogue. It was if it just took a little bit for me to slow down myself and start thinking about what may be going on in the minds of each character. When you are not being spoon fed everything that is happening, it forces you to use your imagination which is quite a different experience from movies today. After the initial adjustment, I found the slower pace and piano soundtrack to be calming and even soothing.

I am watching this as part of a large lecture class at my school. I wonder if anyone else is enjoying the movie as much as I am. There is some technical problem with the equipment and we are being interrupted for a few minutes every fifteen minutes or so. Each time it happens the class lets out an increasingly frustrated and irritated sigh. I don't think they like the movie. I don't think they were ever able to slow down and adjust like I adjusted.