Change Your Image
ericthatsme77
Reviews
Suroh: Alien Hitchhiker (1996)
sweet&surreal alien flick
Goddang! This is one sweet movie. I defy anyone to see this and not walk away stunned by its originality. Sure, the special effects may not be as 'high-tech' as you're used to (actually they're more nigh-tech). But the personalities of Suroh and his human are bursting with with realism, and real-life longing. And the surge of emotions that every viewer will feel is more real, and more special than any so-called 'special effects.' I myself, can only cite two other instances in which I had been so touched by a film: Ingmar Bergman's "Persona" and Luis Bunuel's "That Obscure Object Of Desire." Am I saying it's as professionally polished as those other two? No. But it did reach me in the soul (& played with my head) as much as those two did. I highly recommend this film. Watch it yourself, & tell me if I'm right!
Schultze Gets the Blues (2003)
I *DON"T* like this movie
Ohmigosh. I want everyone to BURN the title of this movie into their brains, stencil it into your synapses. If I could pick ONE word to sum this movie up, that's easy, it would be...INTERMINABLE. I must see about 130 movies a year--have so for about the last ten years. I see Blockbuster Hollywood films, Independent films, Swedish, French, Czech, Japanese, et. al., Documentaries, Mockumentaries, Anime--EVERYTHING. During all this time I have *never* had anything drive me from the theater, while-in-progress. Well, I can say that no longer. I have never done so much fidgeting & squirming in one 80 minute span before--enduring root canal, 15 years of accumulated waiting for construction on the road, standing in the return line at Wal Mart, included. At one point, I think I astral projected. Think of a Tarkovsky film melded w/the sense of humor of the Farmers Almanac; only not as funny, not near as funny, not by a longshot near as funny. If I ever get rich, I mean like Donald Trump Rich, I will publish my own dictionary. It would pretty much be a copy of Websters', with one exception; under "Interminable", it would list the phonetic spelling, then "See: "Schultze Gets the Blues". Under "Boring", it would say "Watching "Schultze Gets the Blues". The dictionary definition is "Being without end; endless." This is being kind. If one could analyze the anti-matter behind the celluloid of "Schulte", one could tell Stephen Hawking a thing or two; rise the eyebrows of Einstein, and perhaps unlock the secrets of the galaxy. And yet...as I set in a near-packed art house auditorium on a Saturday night, the audience around me reeled in guffaws, an exploding miasma of laughter. I looked at the screen, trying to see this invisible creature that THEY all saw..that they were laughing at. If ever there was the instance of one man not getting the lemonade, this was it. They were stupid on the lemonade, loving it, suckling it, gasping for more. I could draw the analogy that I was merely stuck with the lemons, but that would not nearly cover it. Sitting there in the audience, I felt detached..detached from humanity..now I know how Cher must feel. I would have felt less clueless sitting in on a Level 3 Conference for NASA scientists on the present and future state of rocketry science than as to having a clue as to WHY SCHULZE WAS FUNNY. I will sooner find out the heretofore unknown workings of the Mayan alphabet, discover Atlantis, and make a *good* movie with Pauly Shore before I figure this out. Please, if there are any brave or, certainly, enlightened souls out there who can tell me WHY this was funny, even for one frame, please, PLEASE tell me--and be prepared to go into detail. "Ulysses's Gaze" now seems like a frothy "Laverne & Shirley" episode compared to this. Whoever made this film...should suffer. They should watch "Schultze Gets the Blues". Again, and again. My God, what a horrible thing to say.
At the end of time, when this universe folds in on itself, there will be only left vibrating quarks and the bad memories of "Schulte Gets the Blues."
Giant (1956)
Thoughts on GIANT...
Is it just me--help me out here, people--or does the older Jett Rink look almost just like Joseph Cotten's character in "The Magnificent Amerbsons"? Maybe it's just the mustache--still... Speaking of Ambersons...I just saw "Giant" for the first time..and was a little disappointed. I liked what a previous poster had to say in making up other angles, vis a vis Jett and a friend of Liz's character from back east. I would've welcomed more complexties, more complex relationships with the characters... I dunno--what was this movie about? Money can corrupt? Families are complex? Racial integration? Ask me, Ambersons handled the first two a lot better, and (speaking of Rock Hudson), the Douglass Sirk films of the 50s handled the latter two better. Great vistas, some good acting, a memorable score, and to be sure some iconic visuals (the house, those Dean poses), but as Real Memorable Drama, like Ambersons, or Casablanca..I don't think it compares. I preferred Stevens' "A Place In the Sun"; and to go back 2 Sirk, found Rock's performance just as good there. For his pinnacle in film acting, check out Frankenheimer's "Seconds." And *speaking* or Orson Welles--couldn't you see there existing an alternate production of this film--done with the Mercury Theatre players (with some changes): have Bick's father *still* alive--The Cattle Baron King Patriach--a natural role for Orson. Agnes Moorehead instead of Mercedes (though Orson did use her in "Touch of Evil")--but in this version, she's alive for the whole thing; J. Cotten instead of Chill Wills...Anne Baxter instead of Taylor? Score by Bernard Herrman? Well, just a what if?