Change Your Image
michaelingp
Reviews
The Golden Boys (2008)
Fails to re-create 1905
I hate to rain on the Cape Cod parade, but this film was unsatisfying. I don't know if it was the budget or incompetence, but the film just never felt like it was set in 1905. Somehow I don't think 70 year olds in 1905 had perfect teeth, but that's just one small thing. Mariel Hemingway was either miscast or awful. She was too young (47) and her accent was inconsistent and all over the U.S. One moment it was refined New England, and then it might be small town hick. Rip Torn's character, frozen in one facial expression the entire movie, made no sense. Even after two disastrous marriages, what 70 y.o. man is going to turn down 47 y.o. Mariel Hemingway? The ship wreck and rescue were just amateur film making, or maybe budget problems.
What was most frustrating was the writer seemed to leave so many opportunities on the table. I think ultimately they couldn't decide between romance and comedy, so did neither well. Was it going to be "Grumpy Old Men" or "On Golden Pond"?
Despite it's failings, the film has a bit of charm. If you are really good at suspending disbelief, you may find it reasonably entertaining.
The Other Side of the Mirror: Bob Dylan at the Newport Folk Festival (2007)
NOT Disappointing
I cannot believe that this film has only 82 votes and 3 comments! This is an amazing concert film. If you're frustrated with all the music movies where you only get to hear 30 seconds to a minute of each song, this is the film for you. There is no fancy camera work, no distracting lighting, no peripatetic moving the camera from place to place, like we'll be bored if we just see the singer singing the song. Much of the time you see Dylan's face in close up, as if you were sitting on stage. And every song he sings you hear from the opening to closing chords. It's a special treat to see the young Johnny Cash, but he's not the focus of this film, so we only see part of a song. Same for Joan Baez. Other than that, no other performers than Dylan.
There are no interviews, no crowd closeups, no explanation of anything. The performances just speak for themselves in a way you probably haven't seen before, even if you've seen all the other Dylan films. You might even hear a song or two you haven't heard before, and you get not one but two complete performances of Mr. Tambourine Man. The change in Dylan's appearance, voice, and music in the course of just three years is amazing, and seeing it without commentary just seems "right" to me. You don't always need to hear someone explain what you can see for yourself.
The sound and picture, while black and white, is amazingly high quality, even without considering the era from which it was all recorded.
Familia rodante (2004)
Probably not the "road movie" you're looking for
I don't usually do negative comments, but in this case I feel the positive reviews and the IMDb rating are so much higher than the film warrants that you wonder about the impartiality of the writers and voters (a danger when there are so few responses).
There are so many good movies of this genre (Little Miss Sunshine and Y tu mamá también come to mind) that you might be interested in this one, based on the reviews. I think you'd be disappointed.
1. The camera work in the RV will drive you nuts. Sure, you get the idea that the RV is moving, but you will also get seasick.
2. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, the scenery really stinks, and there is too much of it. This is a pretty short movie, and a lot of it is endless shots of the RV going down the road.
3. There are too many characters and, as others have mentioned, nothing happens. At one point I was actually looking forward to coming to a toll booth!
4. When something does happen (there is some conflict), the "actors" who work OK when they are just being normal people come up very short, and the scenes just come across as amateurish.
If you watch the DVD extra features (I gave them 1 minute), the director says that the film is essentially autobiographical. I think that's the basic problem. People don't watch film to see real life, it's all around them. You can do a great film about real life and you can pace it slowly, but you have to find something profound about the human condition. I didn't see that in this film.
Old Joy (2006)
What happens to friends now that the sixties are over?
This movie is really about the aftermath of the sixties. The sixties were a great time of bonding, love, drugs, experimentation, communal living, group houses, nudity and doing your own thing. What happened next? Most of the youth of the sixties grew up, got jobs, started families, and, essentially, "joined the establishment".
That's Mark. But his friend Kurt is the sixties denizen who never grew out of it, and wants it to be like it was in the old days. Mark, not wanting to hurt his friend, and perhaps to verify for himself that he cannot go back (to the old days), agrees to go on the trip to the hot springs. But he doesn't really like being lost in the woods, the camp site has become a dump, he resents his free-loading friend, realizes that nothing his friend says makes sense any more, and the road signs have faded to the point of being blank. The most telling point in the movie is the remark Mark makes to his wife, "But look at what we're dealing with here" (talking about Kurt).
It's obvious that the film maker is making a huge statement that the sixties are over. The signs are lost, and the bath house is in shambles. The land is still beautiful, but the desire is gone. But what I don't understand is how negative she is about the choices. Kurt appears to end up lost and homeless. Mark goes back to what appears to be less-than-ideal marriage and a stressed-out life. Is that all there is? Depressing as the movie turns out to be, I still think it's an interesting film. It's a little more like real life than we usually want to see in the movies, but the sparsity of the dialog, and the inability to read the characters' minds require each watcher to interpret what they see in their own way. The fact that you're really not sure what the filmmaker wanted to say can be considered a plus when you discuss this movie the next day.
Chuck Berry: Hail! Hail! Rock 'n' Roll (1987)
Bonus Features
I don't think many people saw Hail Hail Rock and Roll when it came out in 1987. I've always considered it one of the greatest Rock and Roll movies ever made, and actually own it on VHS. Now that it's out on DVD (4 discs!), I'm working through the bonus discs.
Disc 2:
Disc 2 contains a number of rehearsals plus a piece on what a nightmare it was to work with Chuck Berry on this project (which was, after all, to celebrate himself!). In the film, if I remember correctly, Keith Richards says something like, "Man, I've worked with Mick Jagger, but this guy (Chuck) is something else." Now, on this DVD, the producers tell their story, and what a story it is. A lot has been said about the great scene in the movie where Chuck continually criticizes Keith's guitar playing on "Carol", but that is nothing compared to what he put the producers through, between constantly asking for more money, being late or not showing up, plus an incredible experience at one of the prisons where Chuck spent time in his youth. (On the other hand, even in 1987, everyone knew Chuck Berry was a total prima donna, so expecting to get all the filming done in 5 days was a bit of hubris, no?) While this piece is a bit wordy (as many "bonus features" are), it's a great story, and it's too bad there wasn't more film and less shots of people speaking to the camera.
The rehearsals really show the difference between Chuck Berry when he's off stage (picky, self-centered, neurotic) and Chuck when he's performing (a unique entertainer). The rehearsals all take place at Chuck's house, and the main players are Keith Richards, Eric Clapton, and Johnny Johnson. Again, too much "talking heads" between the music, but the point of the rehearsals (we're told, but can also see), is to witness the incredible coming together of the band as they learn to play with each other. That's something you rarely see, particularly with musicians of this caliber, and if you love Chuck Berry music, you'll really love these rehearsals tapes.
On the production side, I thought the sound and camera work was uniformly excellent for the live music parts of the disc.
Disc 3:
Disc 3 contains three bonus features. The one I liked most was titled "Chuckisms" and covers Chuck's language and love of poetry. The best scene is with Chuck reciting a William Wordsworth poem from memory while Robbie Robertson strums his guitar. "Just beautiful," as Chuck says several times in the recitation. You can really hear the origin of Chuck's own lyrics.
The second bonus feature has Bo Diddley, Little Richard and Chuck sitting around a piano discussing the early days of rock and roll. This feature touches (very lightly) on the trials of black performers in the 1950's trying to break into the white-dominated business. However, mostly due to the influence of Little Richard, it never really gets very serious. If you're really interested in this period, I recommend Chuck Berry's autobiography.
The last feature on disc 3 is Robbie Robertson and Chuck sitting around the coffee table talking about Chuck's life as they go through a huge scrapbook. This has some poignant moments, but again, only lightly touches on stuff that Chuck's autobiography covers in great detail. I have to wonder if Robbie Robertson knew much about Chuck Berry before sitting down with him. He asks questions like, "Why did you write about high school?", when everyone knows that Chuck wrote about what his fans were interested in, because Chuck himself was mostly interested in making money.
As a result, I think the Robertson interview gives the wrong impression, of Chuck as a genius inventing a new music form. The truth, if you believe the autobiography, is that Chuck had a genius, but it was for being incredibly sensitive to his audiences. When they applauded, he did more of what caused that, and when they didn't, he didn't do that again. Robertson also mis-reads Chuck (I thought it was pretty funny), when he calls Chuck's second prison term, "running into a brick wall". Chuck says, not at all, that's where he took all those business courses that made him into the businessman he is, and as a result, he's rich when many of his contemporaries are not. Robertson also seems amazed that Chuck never took drugs. Chuck replies that with a list of entertainers (Elvis, Janis, etc.) who are now dead, and he does have a point.
I thought the part about why Chuck's lyrics are so easy to hear missed the truth. The truth was that Chuck listened to music, and realized that the guys (white) who were making the money clipped their words distinctly, so he did too. As a result of that (plus a publicity photo that made him look white), Chuck got booked in venues where he could not play when he showed up. Did he mind? Not if he was paid.
So, in summary, disc 3 is exactly what the director promised. They had a lot of footage that didn't make it into the film, for good reason, so they stuck it in the bonus features. I recommend disc 3 for folks who just can't get enough of Chuck Berry. There is almost no music on this disc, but Chuck comes across very well and the mature "Father of Rock and Roll".
Chuck Berry: Rock and Roll Music (1992)
For fans who must have every bit of Chuck Berry
This film does not rate an 8.0 rating (OK, only 10 folks have voted). (Like ccthemovieman, I'm assuming we're talking about the same movie, the 1969 concert).
Chuck Berry puts on an energetic show, but as a rock and roll video, this movie leaves quite a bit to be desired. First, the sound is poor by today's standards. It sounds compressed and almost mono. Second, Chuck's backup band adds nothing. (This is not uncommon, and it's why Keith Richards put together the "Hail Hail Rock and Roll" video, so that the great Chuck Berry could have a decent back up band.) There is just a drummer and two guitar players. If you've ever heard Chuck Berry live, you know that a great keyboard player adds tremendously to the concert.
Further, the film maker adds almost nothing. The director simply alternates between closeups of Chuck's face, Chuck's guitar, and attractive young women in the audience. That's it, over and over. The film pretty much starts at the beginning of Chuck's set, and continues without editing through to the end. Most other directors would have tightened up the concert with some editing.
Lastly, it's not really that good of a concert. I've seen Chuck Berry (by the way, he's still in his prime), and he put on a much better show. If you're going to make a video, at least pick a great concert.
The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill (2003)
I'm sorry, but 8.0?
I'm not one to rain on anyone's parade, but this feels more like an homage to the film maker's boyfriend than a compelling movie. If all you are interested in is a modest nature film with a few spectacular shots of bird behavior mixed in with a lot of pedestrian shots of the bird flock mixed in with some documentary-style talking-head scenes, mixed in with endless shots of Mark feeding birds out of his hand, well, OK.
But IMDb members rate this film 8.0! Didn't any of you get tired of seeing Mark feed the birds? Haven't any of you fed birds yourself? Did any of you feel that if Mark's philosophy was so deep he might have made something more of his life than feeding birds?
As a nature documentary, I'd rate it a 5 (compare the photography to March of the Penguins, for example), but as a feature-length film, it lacked a story, it lacked drama, it was repetitive, it didn't take me anywhere I haven't been, and, ultimately, it just didn't persuade me into believing its "animals are just as feeling as people" philosophy.
Junebug (2005)
You'll think it's home video it's so real
Junebug is the type of movie IMDb members love. It has great acting, and it doesn't hit you over the head with its message. IMDb members seem to love movies that accurately portray real life, and Junebug delivers. The scenes are so real you can easily imagine they are home videos. I gasped aloud at the opening shot of the church social. The "slide-show" shots of the country-side add to the feeling that you're seeing a real road-trip by real people. These can't be actors and actresses performing! The filmmaker simply presents the characters as they are, and that's where I think the movie fails. There is really no story. An urban couple visits a rural family for a couple of weeks and then leaves. The filmmaker takes no stance on anything. There is nothing that will change your opinion of anything. Take the folk artist. If you come into the film with a preconceived notion that folk artists are nut cases and urban fans are deluded elitists, you could easily leave with that notion. If you love folk art and see it as the true expression of the people's spirit, you'd find nothing disturbing in this film either.
Suppose you think urban art gallery owners are clueless, shallow, cold and affected. Bingo! Suppose you think they are insightful recorders of Americana with a deep love for its people. That works too. Think rural citizens are intellectually challenged and prone to violence? The movie lets you leave with the same prejudice. Do you think they have rich and loving family bonds based on a profound sense of religion? That works too.
Nobody grows, nobody is stunted, nobody is any wiser at the end, including the viewer. Ashley doesn't even get a baby for all her efforts. It's the kind of art film that draws you in, but after a while, you start to get the dreaded feeling that they are going to roll the credits before anything happens. And they do.
My Date with Drew (2004)
Inspiring as long as you don't think about it
In the special features section of the DVD, there's a scene where the film's creators (the "Drew Crew") are wondering why none of the major distributors were interested in their film, despite enthusiastic audience reactions. Could it be the distributors had ethical doubts? It doesn't appear that anybody on the project ever reflected on just how far they would go to gain their fifteen minutes of fame at someone else's expense. It looks like the "end justifies the means" culture is alive and well on both coasts of this country.
I saw this movie last night on DVD, and I have to admit I was sucked in. Yes, I liked the dream-come-true ending, and the profound questions the movie raises concerning celebrity, Hollywood, the value of good friends, the myth of the classless society, and the power of the Internet. I liked the special feature where the filmmakers describe how their dreams also came true when they found a distributor for their "little" film, and I was happy for their success.
But last night I couldn't sleep. Something about the film kept bothering me. Finally it came crashing down. Dating a famous actress is not a "dream", it's a childish fantasy. Buying an expensive camera planning to return is when you're done is not clever, it's theft. Forging press passes to crash a party is not a felony, but it's still a juvenile prank. And finally, using the Internet to extort participation in your project is just wrong.
So, who comes through this unprincipled mess with a shred of self-respect? Surprise, surprise, the one professional, Drew herself. All I can say is that I hope she was well paid. Without her cameo, this movie wouldn't even exist.