b-a-h TNT-6 Reviews

Hip Hop Locos (2001 Video)

And you thought Manos the Hands of Fate was bad. It can't hold a candle to this.

[1/10 · 2 March 2021]

About 17 years ago, I had watched an atrocious low-budget, unknown 80s Italian "comedy" and had called it "the worst movie ever made". Since then, I had seen a handful of movies that had came close, and perhaps even equaled it, but I could never quite decide if they really were worse. "At that bottom-of-the barrel level", I figured "it's just about impossible to decide which one is worse".

Well, not anymore. After seeing Hip Hop Locos I can say, without even a shred of a doubt, that this abomination is now firmly on top of the list of the worst movies I have ever seen. Heck, I am pretty sure that if you challenge someone (who has never seen Hip Hop Locos, that is) to make the worst movie ever made, they would end up making something better than this crap.

This is supposedly a "found footage" horror. For starters, the concept that it is found footage is not believable in the least; there are clearly scenes that make no sense in that context, such as shots from what appears the POV of the victims, or from a camera that's held neither by the protagonists or another character in the movie. But that's really the least of the problems.

The whole movie is so poorly lit that typically in half of the scene you can't tell what is happening. Security camera footage looks better than this, and I am absolutely not exaggerating. There are some headache-inducing effects resulting in the images being incredibly grainy or with inverted colors, for some reason. Not only it's a terrible idea (especially for a supposedly "found footage" movie), but it's so overdone it just makes the whole thing look like they're playing a prank on the viewer.

There are cuts where the same 3-4 seconds of a scene is repeated several times, sometimes slowed down, in what I can only imagine is an attempt at padding the running time. Not that the scenes that are not repeated are any more interesting: long stretches of driving on a dark road, the two protagonists sitting smoking a joint, or talking on a pay phone in a gas station (?) without even hearing what they are saying.

Then there is the dialogue. Far and away the worst in any movie (I can't say "in any movie script" because clearly there was none for this). The two "actors" are obviously trying to talk "street" slang, but the whole thing is so overdone it only provokes laughs... for the first two minutes, then it becomes just unbearable. The word "homes" especially must have been repeated at least 500 times in the 70 minutes running time. Again, I am not exaggerating.

I could go on and on, but other reviewers have already pointed out how utterly dismal, atrocious, unbearable this "movie" is. I seriously can't imagine it being kicked off the top spot of my "worst movies I have ever seen" any time soon.

Venni vidi e m'arrapaoh (1984)

The worst "movie" ever made

[1/10 · 8 December 2004]

It might happen that actors or directors whose movie got trashed get so upset they would like to punch the critic. This time it is the opposite: as a critic, I would like to punch the people who got involved in this abomination. There is a debate about which one is the worst movie ever made; some say Manos, others Plan 9 From Outer Space. Believe me, those are masterpieces of modern art compared to this "movie" (double quotes needed).

Despite the idiotic title ("I came, I saw, I had a woody") that might as well be used for an adult movie, this was probably planned to be a comedy in the style of Porky's. I say "probably", because there is absolutely nothing that even reminds you of something funny at all in this monstrosity. Imagine some of the biggest goofballs you know, imagine them throwing lines like "tomorrow it'll be Sunday and she'll give me it" (not kidding, the level does not get any funnier than that) and whose acting is quite probably worse than what you could get by just randomly recruiting people in the street. Imagine abysmal sound and video quality, non-existent plot -- it is almost amazing how it literally doesn't go anywhere -- and wanna-be sexy moments featuring either quite fat or ugly middle-aged women.

Well, if you can imagine that believe me, it is only the beginning of how atrocious this movie is. This is not even one of those movies that are so bad they are actually good, as the wanna-be funny parts are totally unfunny and either very sexist and offensive or just plain dumb. I cannot even judge the music -- there was a song, and it was an exercise in idiocy -- nor the script, because they clearly shot this "movie" without any.

Obviously nobody heard of this "movie". I myself had never heard about it until a local TV station near Milan decided to show it. The title was idiotic enough to get me curious and watch some of it. After about 40 minutes, I couldn't take it anymore.

Bottom line: if any of you is willing to see the worst movie ever made, just choose this one. It is HANDS DOWN the worst movie ever made.

Rating: 1/10 just because I can't give a 0. But just to consider this a "movie" needs some effort.

Less Than Perfect (2002–2006)

Unwatchable

[2/10 · 30 October 2004]

If you like this show, you are probably not going to like what I'm going to say. Then again if you like this show, I can't say I have really any sympathy for you.

Frankly, this has got to be the most painful TV show I have seen in ages. No wit, no purpose, no talent whatsoever. I scrolled down the "memorable quotes" to see if I was just unlucky with the bits and pieces I could stand to watch. No. I have not found one quote that brought a smile on my face, let alone one that actually made me laugh.

And another thing, I find it depressing that in this day and age they still try to use the laugh track as a cue to where the "funny stuff" is supposed to be. I have never met anybody who did not find the laugh track completely annoying, and this show has one of the LOUDEST laugh tracks I have ever heard! But of course when all you have is this kind of drivel, that's the only thing you can resort to to pretend what you're showing is actually funny.

Where I live they show this after the excellent "Scrubs". The difference in quality is amazing. Where "Scrubs" is always fresh, witty and honest, "Less than Perfect" is stale, moronic and, well... unwatchable.

I cinque del quinto piano (1986– )

Painful

[1/10 · 15 February 2004]

A truly horrific attempt at making an all-Italian sit-com. A mesmerizing experience for all the wrong reasons: from the insipid storylines to the disastrous overacting, this has gone down as one of the worst Italian TV productions of the 80s (and that's saying something).

Rollerball (2002)

Rollerball 2002, the village idiot of movies

[1/10 · 20 December 2002]

*WARNING: SPOILERS*

Well, you have to be thankful to Hollywood. Not only they have finally found a way to cash in without spending an ounce of time on ideas, they also have managed to find a way to destroy past films' reputation in the process.

Sure, the practice of remaking older films was hardly avoided by the Studios in the past, but the trend has become so huge in the last few years that it is, quite frankly, embarrassing. Occasionally, a remake can still be a worthwhile experience, making up with professionalism and competence where lacking on the originality side. But for every good movie like Insomnia, how many hideous things like The Haunting, The Time Machine, Gus Van Sant's Psycho, or Roland Emmerich's Godzilla are we supposed to take?

Whatever the level of badness of those last movies I mentioned, it still can't hold a candle to the astounding incompetence that is the 2002 version of Rollerball. While I do not have the absolute certainty, I'd say... well, screw it: this insipid, senseless, and insulting movie is definitely the worst remake I have ever seen. And while I am not what you would call a die-hard fan of Norman Jewison's Rollerball (see my take on the film if you want to see what I think about it), there were moments during the vision of the remake where I felt the urge of taking the rental DVD and smashing it into a thousand pieces, so that next generations would be preserved from renting it instead of the old one. Fortunately I had not paid for it, a friend of mine did.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, after just a few years since remakes have become common practice in Hollywood, we have already reached the rock bottom: Rollerball 2002, the village idiot of movies.

Like any respectable (not) village idiot, Rollerball 2002 has no grasp of philosophical or social matters whatsoever; the 1975 version of Rollerball was full of serious, at times heavy-handed, but overall interesting socio-political commentary. Considering the fact that some of the original film's themes feel much closer to our world now than back then, there was room for updating them and making them feel more alive. But 'alive' is certainly not a word that applies to the 2002 version: lifeless, boring, and moronic are much more fitting. On the sociological level, the film is simply nonexistent: none of the original film's themes made it to the new version, and there is absolutely no trace of anything deep, thought-provoking, or simply stimulating. It is as if the filmmakers watched the original version and could not understand a thing about what existed beyond the simple action. It's all the more discomforting if you consider that the original was hardly all that subtle.

Rollerball 2002 exists as a simple action movie but, sadly, it completely fails on that level as well. The action is confused, the editing sloppy, the plot a complete mess; hardly anything is revealed about the chaos we see, and when something is explained, it is simply asinine. The characters are ridiculous two-dimensional (or, like some prefer to say, zero-dimensional) puppies without an ounce of common sense.

The film opens up in 2005 in San Francisco, where Jonathan Cross (Chris Klein) is competing in a dangerous contest where two opponents roll downhill laying down on some sort of big skateboard. Why anyone would indulge in such an imbecilic activity is beyond me, but it is enough for you to know that, after almost getting killed in the traffic, Jonathan gets picked up in a Porsche by his friend Marcus Ridley (LL Cool J), who tells him to stop it with such puerile games: there's this new sport Rollerball in Asia, and it pays big big money.

So Jonathan goes to Asia and we get our first glimpse of the Rollerball. The rules are unclear, but don't worry: we are introduced the most annoying commentator alive, who proceeds to tell us only that "the rules are too complicated to explain". Then, in an arena with a tiny playground where both male and female players dress up like rejects from Slipknot (also briefly featured in the film), we are shown the game: not much can be seen between the record-breaking fast cuts, but it suffices to say that the previous rolling-down-the-hill farce looks good by comparison.

In a few weeks Jonathan becomes the biggest star of the sport, but something nasty is going on: the man behind the league, Alexis Petrovich (Jean Reno, in his worst performance to date), notices that the TV ratings immediately go up when something violent happens, and when I say 'immediately' I mean magically the same second. So he begins orchestrating accidents, and while the ratings go higher and higher, Jonathan discovers the truth. Chaos ensues.

One of the worst aspects of Rollerball 2002 is the editing: entire scenes seem to have been chopped off, resulting in a story that feels rushed, awkward, or just-plain-nonsensical in many occasions. In one scene, Jonathan and Marcus are in a hospital room under strict surveillance, and in the next scene they are in the desert driving a van. What happened in between is never explained, and it feels as if the filmmakers could not come up with anything that made sense so they just decided to blow it. There is a small amount of gratuitous nudity (including an all-time pathetic sex scene between Jonathan and Rollerball player Aurora, played by Rebecca Romijn-Stamos) and a fair amount of nudity hinted at. The sets look unbelievably cheap, making you wonder where the 70 million dollars went. All the actors give terrible performances.

While things in Rollerball never fail to maintain a certain level of badness, there are at least two scenes that truly stand out and beg the viewer to ponder "what were they thinking?"

The first is the infamous 'night-vision' sequence; it takes place in the desert, and the protagonists are driving a van first, then are chased on a motorbike by an airplane. Everything onscreen is green, grainy, headache-inducing, and just plain horrid to look at. Then, in what could be only called a moment of pure, unadulterated cinematic insanity, the motorbike and the airplane crash through a fence and we hear cartoons-like 'BOING!' sounds. It's surreal. This sequence last around 20 minutes, akin to being in hell for 20 minutes.

The second is the ending. Oh dear, the ending. The original had a perfect ending. In this one, we have to witness the protagonist chasing down the bad guys and kill them in cold blood with an iron bar. Insulting.

Avoid this film like the plague.

1.5/10

Chicken Park (1994)

A script so awful, you wish they'd start doing improv

[1/10 · 12 September 2002]

A moron goes to an island to find a chicken he lost, but finds himself in a park where some insane scientist grows dangerous giant "prehistoric" (?) chickens; the chickens seem to have strange sexual behavior. Will the mad scientist and his freak-show crew help the man in his endeavor?

WHO CARES!

This "thing" is painful to sit through. Bad spoof comedies are not something that come out once in a lifetime, but whoever thought this one up should be sentenced to watch it repeatedly, Clockwork Orange-style, as a punishment. An Indian coming out of a giant egg (?) saying "is this Dances with Wolves hoo-hoo-hoo" (or something to that effect), then running away? A girl coming out of nowhere in the middle of the jungle and seducing a postal worker? A giant gay chicken trying to sexually molest the protagonist? These are the kind of jokes shown through the movie, and I'm pretty confident that they would make even one on nitrous oxide stop laughing. What's disconcerting is the fact that it's impossible to understand for whom exactly the film was made: the terrible, terrible juvenile (not to mention moronic) humor seems to be made for not-so-bright young kids, but then the tasteless sexual references and the gratuitous nudity exclude that possibility.

The acting is ridiculously bad. Jerry Calà, the protagonist, gives one of the worst acting performances I've ever seen: if something happens, whatever that is, he tries (unsuccessfully) to look surprised. Demetra Hampton and the rest of the cast are equal, or worse. The special effects are sub-video game level, the music and the cinematography are all abysmal.

Do not, under any circumstances, watch this movie. You'll be sorry if you do.

1/10

Apocalypse Now (1979)

It'll take you out there.

[10/10 · 4 May 2002]

Capt. Willard: "They told me that you had gone... totally insane... and that your methods were unsound."

Col. Kurtz: "Are my methods unsound?"

Capt. Willard: "I don't see... any methods... at all, sir."

Ah, Apocalypse Now. Probably my favorite war film of all time.

Coming from the huge success of The Godfather and The Godfather: Part II, Francis Coppola was offered the possibility to direct a big-budget epic about the Vietnam war. Did I say big-budget and about the Vietnam war? Ok, I have come up with only a couple of statements and there is something to say already. While the planned budget for the film was undoubtedly large, the process of filming it was a true Odyssey; endless problems, including but not limited to a typhoon that destroyed most of the sets, difficulties with the authorities of the Philippines (where the film was shot), and personal problems with the actors and the crew, brought the costs sky high, and the shooting process from the scheduled six weeks up to 16 months. In case you are interested, there is a 1991 documentary titled Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse that is said to narrate the incredible adventure that the making of the film was, and how Coppola himself at the end was almost physically, financially and psychologically devastated. Sadly, I have not been able to see the aforementioned documentary, but it must be definitely worth a look if you are a fan of Coppola or filmmaking in general.

While Apocalypse Now's context is strongly related to the Vietnam war, its ambitions are higher and its implications much broader: it is not simply an opera about Vietnam, it is an adventure in human insanity where war is only part of it. Perhaps the most interesting quality of the film is that, far more than any other war movies I have seen, it works perfectly on multiple levels; on a more immediate level, it is a depiction of the struggles, the bad judgments, and the madness of the battlefield. On further analysis, it is a metaphorical, visceral adventure into the depths of the darkest side of the human mind, a trip that's most definitely open to many different interpretations and opinions. Of course, like in every masterpiece, the two layers complement each other perfectly and reflect one another, building a memorable picture of intense emotional power. Simply put, Apocalypse Now successfully goes where other popular war movies such as Saving Private Ryan or Full Metal Jacket fail to go, or more realistically (pun somewhat intended) just don't have the ambition to go.

Apocalypse Now liberally adapts Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness, transplanting it into the chaos of the Vietnam war circa 1969. The main character is Captain Benjamin L. Willard (Martin Sheen) of US Army Intelligence. Willard has already carried out "assassinations" for the Government and is, his own way, almost a war victim; he is alive, but he feels soulless, and his perspective for a regular life seems lost forever -- especially after the divorce from his wife, which he blames for the greater part on himself. In Saigon, he is handed a mission. Out there in Cambodia, the former outstanding officer Col. Walter E. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) has stopped following the orders and is now conducting his own personal, ferocious war with his own army, who apparently worship him like a god; he is operating "beyond the pale of any acceptable human conduct" and, as General R. Corman (G.D. Spradlin) informs Willard, his command must be terminated. Kurtz must be terminated. With extreme prejudice. Willard will have to track the Colonel by riding a small boat upriver with a few soldiers, then kill him. A long dossier on Kurtz is handed to Willard so that he'll be able to understand what is going on in Kurtz's mind.

Perhaps one of the most memorable characters in Apocalypse Now is William Kilgore (Robert Duvall), the loud-mouthed Colonel whose orders are to transport and escort Willard and his boat crew for a brief period. Kilgore is just about the complete opposite of Kurtz, but he is almost as scary. The famous sequence where he orders to play Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries during an air raid is without a doubt an immortal piece of cinema, and the same can be said about his infamous quote, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning... It smells like... victory."

Speaking of memorable scenes, there are so many that I just don't know where to begin; the film is visually a real tour de force. The opening, with The Door's "The End" playing while we are witnessing the destruction of a portion of jungle, sets the mood with apocalyptic undertones that will only grow stronger as the movie progresses; the near-riot caused by a Playboy show plays like a dream sequence, and seems to underline the progressive detachment from sanity and rational thoughts; the tragic consequences of the boat's crew incompetence in dealing with a simple canoe is a heartbreaking moment where personal regret and the horror of amoral choices come stronger than ever. Probably most riveting of all are the shocking images of an army without commanding officer and completely on the loose in a remote outpost.

The pacing is perfect. As we crawl along the river, we experience an ever-deepening spiral into darkness, madness, and seemingly unreal events; the conduction of war is taking wrong turns on all parts and Willard is progressively descending into mental instability. Like Kurtz, Willard is appalled by the incompetence and the horror surrounding him; the boat crew is slowly killed off one by one.

Col. Kurtz's compound is, quite literally, the end of the river: the last stage of madness, or the ultimate bowel of hell on Earth. And yet, it is strangely fascinating. Kurtz is part demon, part prophet. He has, quite simply, stopped questioning the morality of his choices and now lives and acts following the rules of the jungle. In many ways, Kurtz represents Willard's inner demon, and the final scene where Willard has to become Kurtz to get rid of him and what he represents is, in my opinion, absolutely outstanding.

The acting is excellent on all parts. Martin Sheen's restrained performance perfectly fits the emotionally disrupted Capt. Willard, and his voice-over does not feel obtrusive or grow boring. Marlon Brando is great as the man whose soul has hit rock bottom, Kurtz, and Robert Duvall offers what is possibly his best performance to date (ok, together with The Godfather). The supporting cast (that includes Frederic Forrest, Dennis Hopper, Laurence Fishburne, Harrison Ford, and Sam Bottoms) never fails.

One particular mention goes to the soundtrack. The mix of rock tunes and atmospheric sounds works in a magnificent way creating a mix of real/surreal that's been rarely matched in the history of cinema.

Sanctimony (2000)

Atrocious, but unintentionally funny in places

[3/10 · 27 April 2002]

Oh, my goodness. I would have never thought it was possible for me to see a thriller worse than Domestic Disturbance this soon, but here it is. Armed with rotten plot, terrible editing, stilted acting, and headache-inducing 'style' (sorry, I have no other words for it), Sanctimony is the kind of movie that almost forces you to re-evaluate an entire genre; that is, this film is so bad that even the thrillers I condemned as complete failures now seem a little better.

Now, not only Sanctimony is a terrible film in itself, it also succeeds in the difficult task of ripping off better movies and do a pathetic job with it. Right from the main titles -- nothing but a blatant attempt to reproduce the ones from Se7en -- I was under the impression that something didn't smell quite right. As soon as the movie started with a series of corny, wanna-be hip quick-cuts full of gory images and bombastic colors, I knew where that smell was coming from.

It turns out that two policemen, or rather policeman Jim Renart (Michael Paré) and policewoman Dorothy Smith (Jennifer Rubin), are investigating on a murder spree in Vancouver. A serial killer, known as "Monkey Killer" (what a menacing, chilling nickname, uh?) for his working methods, has killed quite a lot of people. You see, this nut apparently works following the proverb "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" and cuts eyes, ears, and tongues out of his victims. So far, six eyes, six ears, and three tongues. In very ingenious fashion, Renart and Smith figure out that the Monkey Killer is probably going to kill other three people... well, because he probably wants to complete the number 666. So suddenly the film focuses on Tom Gerrick (Casper Van Dien), a young, successful, good-looking businessman, with a dreadful temper. And that's where the rip-off of American Psycho kicks in.

So we follow the life of the two police officers and the young psychopath, none of which is interesting in the least, until they finally meet. Along the way to that, a disco where Renart barely misses Gerrick unintentionally offers us one of the funniest scenes in recent memory: Renart goes in the back of the disco club, because... well, just because the script tells us it's a suspect place; then, with one single punch in the stomach, Renard gets rid of a big guard who blocks the path, and the guard is never heard of again? Does this scene strike anyone else as completely unrealistic?

Anyway, after another murder, Gerrick turns in as a witness, but Smith and especially Renart immediately suspect he might be the killer. In typical Basic Instinct fashion, Smith gets some dates with the young businessman, under the assumption that she might discover his true identity.

I won't spoil the ending but it is, quite simply, an embarrassment; there are contradictions, some plot holes, issues that never get resolved, and especially there is one last scene where a brutal mass murder, supposed to be shocking and sad, comes off as such laughably overdone and nonsensical that I frankly can't imagine how anyone could not laugh at it.

At 87 minutes, Sanctimony is really pushing it. You never care about one single character, because they are all so flat (not to mention boring) that you know exactly who is who the first time you meet them. You are never pulled into the story, because the scenes are connected through weak plot devices when not downright unnecessary and out of place. The acting ranges from average (Van Dien) to downright atrocious (Rubin, and most of the supporting cast); the music is abysmal generic techno, and the photography is one of the worst I have ever seen. Of course, like every fiasco of the genre, we are provided with a little bit of gratuitous nudity.

3/10

Domestic Disturbance (2001)

Deja vu all over again.

[3/10 · 9 April 2002]

Domestic Disturbance sucks.

There, a short, lame and generic summary that I shouldn't have used, but that fits perfectly for a short, lame and generic movie that shouldn't have been made.

Is there anybody on this planet who has not seen one of those movies where a respected man is actually a dangerous criminal but the police refuses to investigate? Or one where an apparently normal person who is actually a dangerous criminal hides in the midst of a family? I frankly doubt it.

More often than not, the aforementioned premises are the subject of made-for-TV movies. In some rare cases, the films based on such premises are able to put a nice spin into an otherwise tiresome story; most of the time, they are mediocre, cliché-ridden pieces of work devoid of vision or originality. Such is the case with Domestic Disturbance, one of the most unnecessary and brain-dead thrillers to come out in the last few years. To call it a thriller seems wrong at all: it's a cinematic exercise in boredom and deja vu.

Domestic Disturbance stars John Travolta as Frank Morrison, a boat builder who recently divorced from his former wife Susan (Teri Polo). Susan is currently dating a young and wealthy man, Rick Barnes (Vince Vaughn); the problem is, Frank's and Susan's young kid, Danny (Matthew O'Leary), who lives with his mother, does not like Rick. Not at all. And after his mother finally marries Rick, Danny sees something that makes him dislike his stepfather even more. You see, Rick is also a murderer. Will Danny -- who is known for being a problematic young kid by the police and the like -- convince the people around him that he is telling the truth? Or are the menacing presence of his stepfather and the ridiculous incredulity of the police going to prevail? Thus is introduced to us the tiresome piece of crap that is Domestic Disturbance.

Multiple moments in this film that have the word laziness written all over. Oh, watch how conveniently young boy Danny hides in the back of the car despite the fact that he knew his stepfather was going to take it. Watch how conveniently the camera focuses on a cigarette lighter that is going to be a key element for Frank to know the truth. Watch how conveniently Frank is able to gather private information about the phone calls a person made from the hotel. Not only that, Domestic Disturbance is the kind of film where for events to develop everyone has to behave like a moron: Susan doesn't believe his son's words one bit at first. You know, the kid just accused his stepfather of committing a murder... every mother would think he just lied for jealousy, right? And of course, why would the police even think of at least checking out a couple of things?

Every event in Domestic Disturbance looks like it was taken straight out of the book of clichés. The scene where the hero discovers the truth about the villain by looking up online? Check. Scenes where the endangered person is scared by a noise in the hall, but the villain appears right behind? Check. The same can be said about the characters; there is nothing remotely interesting about them, because they are all cardboard cutouts.

Acting-wise, the film is hard to judge. It's obvious that with this kind of material even a very good performance would feel insipid.

Domestic Disturbance is certainly not one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It's not even Travolta's worst. But it is so unnecessary and insipid that I the only reason why I would recommend it is a cure to insomnia.

4/10

Marathon Man (1976)

Yes, it's safe

[7/10 · 1 April 2002]

Marathon Man is a thriller/spy story where tension builds up like in very few other films, and it is guaranteed to leave you emotionally exhausted at the end. The pacing of the film is intentionally slow, yet surprises are at every turn and the plot is complicated enough to leave you scratching your head in more than one occasion. Like quite a few movies from the Seventies, Marathon Man is bleak and unglamorous yet strangely fascinating in its portrayal of underground mysteries of an apparently normal world.

It is, however, the performances that really make this movie. Dustin Hoffman had already made a big name for himself by giving intense performances in completely different films like Midnight Cowboy and especially The Graduate, and he is perfectly convincing as 'Babe' , the student whose life is turned upside down as he unwillingly crashes into a dark world of undercover affairs and greed. It is particularly striking that at this time Hoffman was already 38 years old, yet he looks so youthful he is completely convincing as a man in his middle twenties.

The picture, however, belongs to Laurence Olivier. Olivier, one of the most acclaimed stage actors of all time, might have starred in a few mediocre pictures late in his career, but watching him in Marathon Man will blast away any doubt about his real acting capabilities; Olivier's portrayal of former Nazi Christian Szell is absolutely extraordinary as he plays with subtlety one of the most abhorrent characters ever seen onscreen. Probably some of you heard about the infamous scene where Szell uses dental instruments with dispassionate ease as means of torture, but make no mistake: Oliver's portrayal never comes off as over-the-top or exaggerated, and it's the smaller nuances that really show Szell as a chillingly repulsive character.

The movie starts with a car accident in New York City resulting in the death of two old men. One of these men, we will find out, is the brother of the infamous Christian Szell, a sadistic Nazi criminal who disappeared after WWII. Szell was able to escape to South America and live there hidden from international justice, but with the death of his brother he is now the only person with the key to a fortune in stolen diamonds deposited in a safe box in the Big Apple.

Meanwhile, Babe's brother 'Doc' (Roy Scheider), who works for a mysterious government agency yet to Babe's knowledge is simply a successful businessman, barely escapes an assassination attempt in Paris. Soon Doc finds out from another agent that Szell's brother was killed in an accident; when he receives a letter in which Babe narrates that two men had mugged him near Central Park, he flies to New York to pay a visit to his brother.

I'll stop here with the plot because I believe that you need to know as little as possible in advance to really enjoy the film. It is sufficient to say that Babe will discover things he never suspected, and he will be caught up in a dangerous game where his life will be threatened in a series of heart-pounding moments.

The supporting actors are uniformly good, from Roy Scheider as Babe's brother Doc, to Marthe Keller as Babe's love interest, to William Devane as Doc's co-worker. What puts this film down a little bit is the fact that the plot gets a bit muddled at times; in particular, there is a couple of scenes where the motivations behind some of the characters' actions and decisions are pretty much imperscrutable. It is possible that this was a deliberate choice of the filmmakers: after all, we are dealing with some of the most untrustworthy people on Earth. However, those scenes can be distracting, as while the movie is moving on the viewer is left elaborating on the reasons of what just happened.

Visually, the film is every bit as Seventies-looking as Taxi Driver , and the fact that New York City had such a particular feel to it during that time will only make things more enjoyable. This is certainly not the polished, fake look of modern blockbusters, but rather a dirty urban maze where dark secrets could be at every corner. To complete the movie's old-but-fascinating feel, there are also multiple references at the McCarthy era.

Overall, Marathon Man certainly gets my recommendation. Only one thing: just don't watch it the same day you have to go to the dentist.

7.5/10

Pink Floyd: The Wall (1982)

Is there anybody out there?

[8/10 · 15 March 2002]

Contrary to popular belief, The Wall (and not The Dark Side Of The Moon) is Pink Floyd's biggest commercial success to date, and it is unlikely that the band will ever top it. The Wall was a weird, unconventional, and sometimes misunderstood opera, a monumental and undeniably ambitious piece of work that came out on double album and yet had to leave out something.

Quite probably, it was also the band's album that split opinions the most. In fact, The Wall was controversial from the ground up. Some thought that it was one of the most brilliant and intriguing records ever published; others claimed that it was crushed by the weight of its own ambitions; others accused the band of promoting questionable ideas with a song like the famous Another Brick In the Wall, part 2, or were disturbed by the contents of In the Flesh. Add to that the band went through a difficult time while composing and recording the album (to this day there are some not-so-friendly feelings between Roger Waters and the rest of Pink Floyd about what happened during the recording sessions), and you see where I am going.

What is undeniable, however, is that although some criticism against it probably never disappeared, The Wall is now celebrated as a classic of rock history, one that has never grown old with time. Composed mainly by Roger Waters, it is a concept album that mixes different rock styles and even opera-like sound to immerse the listener in a real journey into insanity.

In 1982, The Wall was put into a movie on the Alan Parker-directed Pink Floyd: The Wall. While the movie never achieved -- nor probably ever tried to achieve -- the absolute classic status of the album, it can definitely be a worthy experience and a fine companion to it.

Be advised, though: Pink Floyd: The Wall is not what I would call a pleasant movie experience. The tone is constantly downbeat, the images are often creepy and disturbing, and the film can be frustrating if taken with the wrong approach. If you are not much into Pink Floyd but you were fascinated by the beautiful lights and visuals of a live show you saw on TV, I assure you this is not quite the same. A song like Comfortably Numb looks beautiful with the laser lights and colors of their concerts (especially the ones Pink Floyd put out in the last few years) but here it is accompanied with dark imagery and a mood that can be quite depressing.

The story behind Pink Floyd: The Wall is one of a man's descent into madness, partially based on Roger Water's autobiography, in particular on his childhood memories, and partially inspired by former band member Syd Barrett's experience (Syd Barrett, the former leader and creative mind behind Pink Floyd, went into schizophrenia and to this day lives secluded from the outside world).

The protagonist is Pink (played by Kevin McKeon and singer Bob Geldof). As a child, Pink lost his father in WWII (Another Brick in the Wall, part 1 and especially the heartbreaking sequence of When The Tigers Broke Free) and was raised by an overprotective mother (Mother); in school, his teachers denied him the possibility of expressing his own creativity (The Happiest Days of Our Lives, Another Brick in the Wall, part 2). Growing older, Pink starts playing in a rock band that leads him to popularity; but popularity and money work only on a superficial level and for his inability to cope with his own past and frustrations he seeks refuge into drugs. Mind-altering drugs only accelerate his mental detachment from the outside world, and when he discovers that his wife is cheating on him (Empty Spaces) -- not that much of a surprise, since Pink is by now quite disturbed and not paying much attention to her -- he puts "the final pieces" into a mental "wall" he allows his own mind to build as an escape from the real world (Another Brick in the Wall, part 3, Goodbye Cruel World).

However, when the wall is built, Pink realizes that he is not able to come back to reality, no matter how hard he tries (Is There Anybody Out There?). Desperate and angered, Pink fantasizes of becoming a loathsome dictator to inflict punishment on the outside world that did wrong to him (In the Flesh, Run Like Hell, Waiting for the Worms). At this point, all the borders between reality and psychosis are confused, and we don't know how much his fantasies are a distorted vision of reality: the nazi-looking followers could be fans at a concert who are foolishly following his orders and seeing him as a godlike figure, or maybe he just thinks they are; then again, it could be that the whole thing is in his mind.

Repulsed by the pathetic and loathsome figure he has become, Pink turns all the blame onto himself (The Trial) and sentences himself as "guilty" for all that happened to him. The film ends in a way that can lead to in multiple interpretations, as we don't know whether Pink really gets free from the chains of insanity. However, there is a strong hint of hope in the ending, and the film manages to put a touching feel to it.

Now, if you think I missed something outlining the story, you are certainly right. It is very hard to point out all the contents of this rock opera without getting into personal interpretations, and that's also the reason why I did not list all the songs. Just like the album, Pink Floyd: The Wall signifies little on the surface and a lot if we analyze it in depth.

Although the acting is virtually without any spoken line, Bob Geldof gives a good performance as adult Pink, and the same can be said about Kevin McKeon as young Pink. But of course, it is the imagery that really makes this movie: from the surreal animations by Gerald Scarfe, to the realism of the war sequences, to the visual punch delivered through colorful or gritty images of Pink's madness, there is plenty of memorable shots. The film uses multiple flashbacks to draw a parallelism between the real-life experiences of young Pink and the mental ones of adult Pink (again, it is left to the viewer to make sense out of it, so I won't delve into that). The music fits with the images almost seamlessly, and it never sounds out of place; if anything, in a couple of occasions it seems a little bit redundant.

There are claims that this is a "stoner" movie. For the life of me, I have no idea of the reasons of such claims. Sure, Pink Floyd put out some albums that might be even more enjoyable under the influence of something, but this is hardly true for The Wall, and especially it couldn't be farther from the truth for the movie Pink Floyd: The Wall; this is not a motion picture of slow and trippy images, it is a true attack to the senses that might leave a viewer depressed or a little bit shocked, and I have the impression that under the influence of drugs the experience could be rightdown too much to take.

Pink Floyd: The Wall gets my recommendation, especially to those who listened to the album and want to make sense out of its contents. This film doesn't speak out all the meanings behind it, but it can be helpful and it is certainly a worthy experience.

8/10

The Beach (I) (2000)

Spoiled brats on vacation

[4/10 · 7 March 2002]

What a disappointment. Danny Boyle had recently directed one of my favorite films of the last few years, Trainspotting, and although Leonardo DiCaprio has never been between the actors I liked, I had somewhat high expectations for The Beach. It turned out that DiCaprio's acting is actually the best thing about this clunker.

To say that The Beach didn't have the space to develop its ideas would be wrong. The movie is based on a book by Alex Garland, and while I never read the book, I must say that the concept the movie seems based on could be interesting. The search for a new way of living outside our society and considerations on the impossibility to find the perfect Paradise on Earth are captivating, and as a nature lover I must say that it is really rare that pro-ecology undertones don't appeal me. However, these themes were treated in such a vapid, superficial and often hypocritical way in The Beach that when the movie was over I was not just bored, I was irritated.

I am not blaming the author of the book. In fact, it could be that the novel is a good read. But if the movie is a good adaptation of it, then I am sure I will skip on the book for the rest of my life.

The Beach opens in Bangkok; Richard (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young American man, is here on vacation. In the hotel he meets Daffy (Robert Carlyle), a dope-smoking lunatic who shows him the map to an island where, it seems, it's possible to find the most beautiful place on Earth. Richard doesn't pay much attention to him, but when the next morning he finds that Daffy had killed himself, he steals the map and wonders if this beach really exists. Finally he decides to take a chance and, along with a young French couple, he takes a trip to the fabled island.

To this point, the film is not particularly good, but it is at least interesting. But as soon as the movie gets to the beach, everything starts going downhill and it never stops, reaching the worst with the awful finale.

When the three young tourists get to the beach, they get to know that they are not alone. A small village of young men and women already lives here, and although it seems like a disappointment at first (at least judging from DiCaprio's voice-over), when Richard and the French couple get to know them and their way of living, they begin to be very fascinated. The small village, it is said (more on this later), is self-sufficient and they can live without any contact with the outside. The problem is, if anything happens, they are on their own.

The movie puts in some romance between the French girl, Françoise (Virginie Ledoyen), and Richard, and some time is spent on the consequent grief of Françoise's boyfriend. The romance however, fails to generate any sparks, and the focus on Françoise's boyfriend anger is shifted off so abruptly he practically disappears from the movie. However, as uninteresting as the romance is, it is not nearly as bad as most of the rest.

First of all, there is not one likable character. Most of them are either paper-thin, irritating, spoiled, and usually all things together. There is much talk about how these young people are self-sufficient, and yet we see that they are not: they hardly do anything all day. Richard himself has to go on the outside world to buy goods for the island community, and most of these goods are the typical unnecessary comforts many tourists look for when going on vacation. The people on the island play video games and buy beer; it's never shown where they put their trash. In many scenes the movie looks like a Club Med commercial, and it is a pity since the problems of a small society truly living on its own never get the possibility of being delved into.

During the course of the movie, two characters are attacked by a shark. One dies in a brief time, the other is left dying in the woods because, it seems, the island community doesn't want people on the outside to know about them. Deus ex machina anyone? How does "bringing a man to the hospital" immediately connect to "revealing where the community is"? And when the members of the community go to play volleyball while their friend is left dying, one would at least expect that it is a starting point to show how they will be unable to cope with their own sense of guilt. It never happens.

In a completely different scene, Richard suddenly loses his mind without apparent motivation, and one has to wonder what it is all about. And after some nonsense that leads to the killing of four tourists who reached the island, he snaps perfectly awake again. Absurd.

And when Richard finally gets back to 'normal' society, we see him thinking about the island with nostalgia. That's right. Puh-lease.

Stylistically, this movie is a huge step back from Trainspotting for Boyle. The music is barely tolerable, the cinematography relies on the beautiful scenery but puts in some inappropriately silly scenes, such as Richard transforming into a video game hero while walking in the forest. The performances, apart from DiCaprio's (pretty good, but not very good) range from average to bad. But what's most disappointing is the treatment of the subject matter. Trainspotting had ideas, characters and story. The Beach has ideas that never get developed, irritating characters, and a story that barely stays together.

4/10

Rollerball (1975)

This wasn't meant to be a game!

[7/10 · 5 March 2002]

First of all let me make this clear, this is not a review of the Rollerball remake that came out in the theaters recently. I am not very interested in remakes. I believe that a movie should avoid simply borrowing ideas: since many remakes do just that without adding anything new or interesting, they end up being not only unimaginative, but often also irritating in their lucrative purposes. That said, I have no idea whether the remake of this movie is bad or not; although there has been a lot of critical lambasting against it, I simply do not blindly trust critics. Especially mainstream critics. Maybe the remake is terrible, maybe not, but since I have not seen it nor I have intention to spend money for a ticket to see it, I simply can't tell.

Ok, enough with the rant. Let's talk about the original.

Rollerball is one of those pictures that are stuck in a limbo: it never became a classic, but it never got completely dismissed and forgotten. The reason is quite simple: although undoubtedly not without flaws, and probably pretty far for being an immortal masterpiece, at the core Rollerball has some insightful ideas that, despite the years gone by since its initial release, are probably more valuable and worth discussing today than they were when the movie came out in 1975.

On the surface, Rollerball is simply a movie about a violent sport that takes place in a not-so-distant future, and a warning against violence sold as entertainment. In a way it is, but seeing it only on that level is missing the movie's much broader agenda; with themes like globalization and corporate power being so present today, it would be inadmissible to do so. If one doesn't stop at the most superficial level of analysis, the experience of watching Rollerball is a rewarding insight on the value of individuality and choice, and on the true meaning of progress. Sure, these themes have been treated in many books and movies before and since, but the film puts a nice spin into them and, although probably not completely original, it still delivers some unique and strong moments.

The movie opens in year 2018. After the so-called "Corporate Wars" that threatened the stability of people's lives, all competition has been shut down and now everything is run by a big trust of companies that provides the world population with everything they need. An unquestioned authority, the "Board of Directors", makes all the decisions. There are no more governments and no more big problems such as hunger and wars; people can rely on the corporations for many comforts, and they are asked back loyalty and conformity.

The most popular form of entertainment is a gladiatorial-like sport called "rollerball", which mixes skating, American football and motocross. The rollerball is a violent sport: injuries are common, and there are even occasional deaths. The crowds attending matches of rollerball are often drawn into the excitement at the point of behaving somewhat violently themselves, yet in a world that keeps such tight control over the population, this is the legal way (and also, promoted by the corporations themselves) to give the masses the escapism and crazy excitement they want.

Jonathan E. (James Caan) is possibly the most popular rollerball player in the world. He has been on top level for over ten years, and to this day he still is seen as a hero by thousands of fans worldwide. In the film's opening match, he leads the Houston team to yet another victory. But his joy won't last long: Bartholomew (John Houseman), head of the corporate power and supporter of the Houston team for quite a long time, wants him out for reasons he doesn't feel like explaining.

But Jonathan has no intention of retiring: the rollerball is everything he has. And since he feels the corporation has been influencing his personal life in the past, he simply doesn't want to blindly obey without knowledge about the reasons this time. The problem is, the corporation thinks that the reasons are better left unanswered, because they would expose a flaw in the sociological environment. Jonathan's popularity, it seems, could lead people to think that their own individuality is more important than conformity and complete collaboration. Jonathan's refusal to retire will open a path of paranoia as he further tries to discover more about the world he is living in, and as the corporation will do anything legal in their power (including modifying the rules of the rollerball itself, hoping that Jonathan would experience a permanent injury) to take Jonathan out of the business.

As I said, some of the points of the movie are very relevant today; the rollerball is a form of entertainment to keep the masses happy, but the corporations promptly try to modify it when it might offer thought-provoking (or even subversive) ideas; when Jonathan is offered a deal that would have permitted him to live a wealthy, "happy" life in exchange for leaving the rollerball business, he claims that progress is not how many comforts we are provided with, it is freedom and the possibility to choose: it is particularly interesting to see him debate this point with his ex-wife, who has instead decided to completely conform to the comforts that society provides. In a world where mass media and entertainment are often in the hands of a few people who decide for the masses, these are points we should not forget.

The movie is very Kubrick-ian in its visuals (probably too much): there are some elements of A Clockwork Orange, but it is clearly 2001: A Space Odyssey that influenced the director Norman Jewison the most. Like in those Kubrick's popular movies, there is an amount of classical music (the film opens and closes on Bach's Toccata and Fugue) and a lot of cold-looking scenes through the use of white and music in that mood. Rollerball is not the visual masterpiece that 2001: A Space Odyssey is, if anything for the much smaller budget, but it manages to deliver good visuals especially in the scenes where the actual game of rollerball is shown.

James Caan gives a good performance, and the rest of the cast is satisfying. However the slow central part does detract from the movie a bit, as insightful and interesting scenes are alternated with slower, more monotonous (and ultimately, unexciting) ones. Fortunately, the movie ends on what is probably the strongest scene of them all, an exciting climax where the point is made very clearly.

Overall, I do recommend Rollerball. Yes, it could have been a better film. But it's still good and intelligent entertainment, and despite being a little bit overlong and not without flaws, in the end it is a rewarding movie experience.

The Godfather (1972)

Another kind of "family movie"

[10/10 · 5 March 2002]

The Godfather is one of the few films in which I personally did not find any significant weakness even after many viewings. From the direction, to the acting, to the storyline, to the score, The Godfather has the word classic written all over, and it really is not much of a surprise that it is now considered by many one of the top five movies of all time. Perhaps when it comes to cinematic techniques The Godfather has not been as revolutionary as Citizen Kane, but its influence on motion pictures is comparable. Rarely a movie has defined or re-defined a genre as much as this one did for "gangster movies", but its influence goes well beyond that.

The Godfather's influence has been so big through the years that elements of it can be found in virtually every "organized crime film" nowadays; almost every comedy featuring a gangster in the last few years has spoofed something in The Godfather. The Italian-American old mobster a-la Don Vito Corleone has become one of the most established figures in the public's imagination.

But to say that The Godfather is simply "influential" is to diminish its true qualities, and so is to describe it simply as "a movie about gangsters". The Mafia is certainly the main focus the story revolves around (despite the fact that the word is never mentioned), but although the movie never tries to forcedly insert separate subjects it contains an amount of psychological and social subtexts that cannot be overlooked. Considerations on how the social environments changes us, on how moral values appear different from different point of views, on how violence can destroy a human soul, and on how power can corrupt an individual are deeply blended into a story that stays practically always true to complete realism, and the result is a picture of astonishing efficacy and believability.

As good as the direction and the story are, it would be unfair not to consider the major role that the actors' performances had in the cinematic triumph that was The Godfather. Praised by many as the best cast to ever appear in an American movie, all the cast in The Godfather succeeds in portraying complex, three-dimensional characters without ever making a slip. The exceptional portrayals of Don Vito and Michael Corleone respectively by Marlon Brando and Al Pacino, the performances by Robert Duvall, James Caan and Diane Keaton as Tom Hagen, Santino Corleone and Kay Adams, the ruthless Virgil Sollozzo played by Al Lettieri -- as well as more than a few other roles -- are all perfect for the movie, and they all succeed in making us believe these are real people, not just actors. We are not watching a central character and a bunch of incomplete figures that revolve around him: although Michael Corleone is the character that gets the most screen time, everybody is the center of this world his own way. The movie makes it possible for the viewers to identify with different characters and to observe how their personality and story fits in, and it does it much more effectively than many bloated multiple-storyline movies that came out in the last few years.

The movie opens on the wedding of Don Vito Corleone's daughter, Connie (Talia Shire). Don Corleone is a powerful man, and it was not without the use of violence that he achieved this position during the course of his life. The wedding scene gives a perfect setting of where and how the Don's power extends; from the regular worker in a neighborhood, to the immensely popular singer, to the friends in politics and right to the ruthless killer, Don Corleone has links to people ready to ask him favors and to pay him back. Some are trustworthy, some are not, but thanks to his intelligence and intuit the Don can almost always distinguish the two.

However, this is 1946, times are changing, and to many of the younger people working in the crime business, Don Corleone's ideas are becoming obsolete. The Don believes that the new trend in the business, narcotics, is too dangerous and the families dealing with it would eventually end up self-destroying; while his family had deals in alcohol and gambling for a long time, part of the Government and law enforcement was ready to close one eye. Drugs are another thing.

To this day, Don Corleone was able to keep things together while maintaining his economic and political power, but things will brutally change when a powerful drug dealer name Sollozzo enters the picture. The refusal of Don Corleone to cooperate with Sollozzo, and a weakness immediately spotted by the latter, will ignite a war that will cost many lives, and that will see Michael Corleone, Vito's younger son and the one who never wanted to take part in the family business, lose his "innocence" and transform into a gangster as ruthless as the people he initially stood up against.

I purposely decided not to spoil much about the plot because I believe that the film is perfectly enjoyed without knowing anything in advance, and -- believe it or not -- there are still quite a lot of people who have never seen this movie. There are multiple scenes that manage to create an incredible tension, various twists, and although like any other masterpiece The Godfather can be watched knowing the whole story beforehand and still be a phenomenal experience, I believe it is always a pleasure to see it for the first time and enjoy its multiple climaxes. Besides, to outline such complicated characters and such an emotionally intense story in a short review like this one would be inadmissible.

There has been much speculation on how the events in The Godfather novel written by Mario Puzo, the book the film is based on, could be an exposé of true facts. Many believe that the character of Johnny Fontane , for instance, was based on Frank Sinatra's real life, and many of the other characters were modeled after real people. I won't go into that: frankly, I have no idea whether these voices are reliable, although the Frank Sinatra reference seems obviously quite believable.

The cinematography of The Godfather is dark and tasteful, and colors are used perfectly to give a true feel of the era it is set in. There is a fair amount of violence, though rarely gratuitous.

The Godfather certainly doesn't need my recommendation. The film is universally considered one of the best of all time, and the performances by Pacino and Brando alone is the stuff of legends.

Winter Kill (1974 TV Movie)

An ok TV thriller

[6/10 · 23 January 2002]

Clearly done on a rather low budget, the TV movie Winter Kill is not a great piece of film making by any stretch, but it might be worth a view.

The plot revolves around the search for a serial killer in a small ski resort town. So ok, some of the supporting actors are not very good, and the first part of the movie is meandering and slow enough to test the patience of a few viewers. However, when the movie got into gear in the second part, it managed to be entertaining and well-thought, if not rightdown tense, and the resolution left me pretty satisfied.

Andy Griffith is convincing as the Sheriff. Between the supporting cast, a young Nick Nolte in one of his first screen appearances.

Very Bad Things (1998)

"Shock"? More like "schlock"

[3/10 · 21 January 2002]

Very Bad Things is the equivalent of somebody who insults everybody, in particular the weakest, because he thinks it's funny and clever. Some people think that breaking the boundaries of 'political correctness' in every possible way is the way to be clever, I guess.

There is no doubt that Very Bad Things wants to be offensive, and in that, you bet, it succeeds. Am I supposed to care? I didn't. I could not find any trace of intelligence whatsoever in this movie. This is not a satire, because the characters don't even remotely resemble real people: they are all empty, shallow lunatics with not one redeeming quality. There are probably two people in the whole movie who don't come off as downright unbearable, but they will be slaughtered very soon, because we don't want them to ruin our crazy movie, do we? This is not a character study, because the situations in which the characters delve are completely disconnected from reality, and they are reached through contrived plot devices in which everyone has to behave like a blood-thirsty psychopath. This is not a thriller, because the story is doomed to disaster so soon, it ends being an exercise in irritating boredom.

Throw in that the movie, like I said, apparently thinks that mocking people in the most offensive ways possible (the ending is so downright irritating in its stupidity it has to be witnessed to be believed) is so funny... and you get this awful, pointless, irritating film.

3/10

Das Boot (1981)

One of the best movie experiences I've ever had

[9/10 · 21 January 2002]

I had heard many good things about Wolfgang Petersen's Das Boot before I finally got to watch it in its longest -- and widely acknowledged as the better -- form, the 216-minutes directors cut. I had understandably high expectations but, as somebody who is seldom impressed by the so-called 'classic' status of films (providing Das Boot is by now acknowledged as a true classic by most critics and movie fans) I had considered the possibility of a disappointment. Well, it was not a disappointment. In fact, Das Boot really is an amazing film experience.

The film avoids delving into philosophical considerations about war for most of the screen length (but in the ending there will a powerful and spellbinding anti-war message), focusing instead on the life, the emotions, and the struggles for life of an army of German soldiers during a submarine mission in WWII. All the emotions are rendered perfectly and with amazing intensity thanks to the wonderful directing and especially the fantastic acting by the two main leads, Jürgen Prochnow as the Captain and Herbert Grönemeyer as Lieutenant Werner. Claustrophobia, fear, sadness, hope, regrets, memories, are all incredibly real onscreen.

The action sequences (the term "action" is used loosely here -- simply put, this is not your usual summer blockbuster) manage to create real, visceral suspense and never come off as unbelievable or cheap. The characters in Das Boot are 'true' and three-dimensional, unlike the usual "heroes vs. villains" so common in today's entertainment; even if you start watching the movie feeling a sense of detachment from German WWII soldiers, the movie will pull you in and show that these are people, not monsters and not heroes.

A whole lot could be said about the absolutely spellbinding and sad ending, which comes across as an incredibly strong anti-war message. But I won't go into that: you have to experience the movie to really understand what makes it so powerful. Don't be put off by the 216-minutes length: Das Boot really is one of the best war movies of all time.

9/10

Fight Club (1999)

Some thoughts...

[10/10 · 2 January 2002]

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

Ok, I don't want to tell people what they should think and what they shouldn't, but I have to say it. There... about the twist in Fight Club, there's something that a previous user (as well as some other users) are obviously missing.

There are numerous hints that become apparent after a couple of viewings which suggest that the narrator only partially acts out as Tyler. One of the scenes is the one with Raymond K. Hassel, the clerk that he threatens with a gun. Rewatching that scene, a couple of things become clear:

a) There are blurred boundaries between "when" Tyler actually talks and when Tyler's talking is just an illusion in the narrator's mind. Raymond answers some questions, yet a couple of times the narrator has to do the talking for Tyler, as apparently Raymond didn't hear what Tyler just said. What does that tell us? That in these small fragments the narrator failed to bring out Tyler. In other words, in these small fragments Tyler wasn't "acted out" by the narrator. When they are alone (they practically never talk to each other in public), the narrator is having a conversation with himself in his mind, but he's not speaking out loud, as he doesn't need to act out Tyler.

b) The same is true for the scene in the car. There are fragments where Tyler speaks out loud on behalf of the narrator, but again, the boundaries are not defined, since the whole film is the subjective view of a man suffering from "dissociative" psychosis: the narrator ONLY partially acts out as Tyler. This is not just to justify why the space monkeys in the back answer Tyler's question. Fincher, I believe (and I've been watching the movie a lot, to see if there are flaws on this) paid particular attention to this, and it came out well. In fact, the whole conversation that the narrator and Tyler have in the car is just an illusion in the narrator's head, as he's not speaking out loud except in a couple of fragments. The couple of fragments where he's speaking out loud are, apparently, where emotions are prevailing (the narrator screaming "I wanna know certain things first"): the "wall" that he has built in his subconscious to permit him not to "act out" the two personalities is torn down for a small fragment of time. When one of the two personalities is specifically addressing questions to an external person, of course, he doesn't need this "wall", so he can act out one of the two personalities.

Another thing... Fight Club doesn't attempt to give answers to the question it raises; in particular, doesn't portray the fight club, Project Mayhem and Tyler himself as the underlying philosophy that one should follow. This becomes more and more obvious through the movie, the final twist being the ultimate proof of the irrationality of these solutions. Sorry, but it bothers me a little that one refuses the validity on the twist on the whole and then blames the movie for being "empty".

I say that the movie righfully does not offer solutions (there's only a brief hint in the end about *love*): let's face it, no matter how long, a movie can not support the weight of such heavy questions as the role of society and the equilibrium of the human in it. But the movie addresses heavy criticism about what consumerism portrays as "happiness". I say -- in this, Fight Club succeeds in spades.

Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves! (1997 TV Movie)

Pathetic

[2/10 · 29 December 2001]

Yes, talk about bad sequels. Rick Moranis stars in this awful third sequel to the once-funny-and-entertaining "Honey I Shrunk the Kids". The concept basically plays the same way as the first film, but with the adults instead of the kids being shrunk and the inner house instead of the garden as the universe to explore. If you think this sounds interesting, think again. The movie is boring at best, right down an embarrassment at worst.

First of all, the continuity of the series has been completely flushed down the toilet. The only remaining actor of the first movie is apparently Rick Moranis. The actress playing his wife has changed, the actors playing the kids have changed, the ones playing the neighbors have changed... you name it. They try to make us believe this is the same family, but the results are puzzling to say the least.

Second, the story is a rehash of the first one, with not one bit of originality. All the few jokes (and there's barely any) and the dangerous situations presented in the movie are just copied straight from "Honey I Shrunk the Kids".

Third problem, the special effects. I'm sure this has been done on a smaller budget, but they are pathetic, way way worse than the ones appearing in the rest of the series. You're supposed to admire in awe these tiny figures exploring the huge domestic area, but you'll probably end up cringing most of the time.

Fourth problem, to locate the action inside the house is just boring. Only few things happen, and when they happen, they are not thrilling at all. The first movie was amusing because the kids were dealing with nature, the grass, and the bugs that live in it. In this one, the adults (which come up as rather boring, compared to the kids) deal with dust, a cockroach and a cockroach trap. Disgusting.

I don't know why the idea of releasing such a trite sequel to the already moribund series appealed Disney's executives, except maybe because they needed to cash in without spending five minutes thinking about something new. I'm warning you: leave this tasteless cash-in garbage where it should stay: getting dust on the shop's shelves.

Me, Myself & Irene (2000)

Nearly unwatchable

[2/10 · 12 December 2001]

Comedy is one of the toughest genres, and laughs are definitely a matter of taste. That said, it's hard for me to comment on Me, Myself & Irene without saying something nasty.

I am not sure what kind of actor Jim Carrey sees himself as. I don't think he ever did anything groundbreaking, but on his resume there are a few good movies and performances. Does he think this stuff will really improve his status? Atrocious, childish, and really, really unfunny are the first words that came to my mind while watching this movie. Am I supposed to laugh because he makes noises while breathing? Am I supposed to laugh at the swearing, at him washing his butt in a bathroom sink or at a 2" dildo? Acting-wise (and with the help of the awful script), I hardly found anything interesting about Jim Carrey's role. His split-personality thing was more like an excuse for him to act like a complete idiot. And I don't mean an idiot in a funny way, like say, Beavis and Butthead or -- in a way -- even his character in Dumb and Dumber... an idiot, pure and simple, one that I could feel no sympathy for at all.

Renee Zellweger did an OK job, but again, her character was not interesting.

Maybe it's just because I don't like this kind of comedy at all, but I can't rate this more than 2/10.

Titus (1999)

Not quite there

[5/10 · 2 October 2001]

Based on a Shakespeare play, namely the one that many consider his weakest, Titus is at best a fairly enjoyable tale about revenge and power, at worst an irritating mess. From what I saw and see, a movie that splits audiences: either you really like it or you really hate it. I'm pretty much in the middle (for one thing, don't trust anybody who says "you didn't get it", as every character's motivation is up front; subtle is hardly a keyword for this movie).

I never quite bought the idea carried in the movie of mixing ancient and modern set pieces, for a simple reason that goes way beyond a simple matter of visual taste. It could have been quite an accomplishment to mix the two if there was an underlying meaning to the choice, i.e. the script could have carried references to what ancient Rome and Italy in the 1930s and 1940s (most of the 'modern' set elements seem to come outta this period, although more recent stuff can be seen) had in common. That is, the modern elements in what is a decaying roman empire wouldn't seem out of place, as long as there's a reason to embed them in it. I would probably be at a complete loss if I had to think of one to include the elements that were included here, but then again, so is the movie. It's pretty much anachronism for the sake of it. "Shakespeare is still valid today" is the statement? Whatever... I don't need some motorcycles for that...

The movie makes extensive use of theatre-like visuals and language. Lighting sets and crowds that never exceed a few dozen people give it a surrealistic look, yet not always a satisfactory one, because it seldom feels like it's really into place. We are dealing with Shakespeare here, with a play that could -- and should -- have been much more satisfactory if adapted for the proper environment, the ancient Rome, without arsty modernism. The movie does, however, feature some good acting on the always reliable Anthony Hopkins part, and one almost-memorable scene (the sick but hilarious "cake" scene where Hopkins references his Hannibal Lecter character). On the other hand, Cumming was a mediocre Saturninus.

All in all, Titus certainly didn't impress me.

5/10

Brazil (1985)

A surreal adventure in human soul and society

[8/10 · 26 September 2001]

When I think about movies with multiple subtexts titles like Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Fight Club and probably very few others come to my mind. I missed the opportunity to watch Terry Gilliam's Brazil for many years, but now that I have seen it I must say that it definitely ranks in that really narrow category of thought-provoking -- if at times difficult -- movies.

Brazil carries so many ideas and touches so many sides of the human spirit and of our society it's incredible. There is plenty for a discussion with your most intelligent friends on the loss of human contact in bureaucracy, the importance of fantasy, love, nature... there are multiple references at alienation in modern society, the pros and cons of rebellion, the sometimes manipulative role of industry and the government, and more.

It is, however, not an easy movie, despite its pretty basic plot. First of all, the movie is extremely surreal -- I frankly can't recall any movie where surrealism was pushed to a higher level than this -- and although this is not specifically a flaw, some people who like straight storylines will probably find it difficult to watch at times. Second, it is not an optimistic movie. It is, in fact, one of the saddest movies I have seen, because despite playing basically as a comedy, and despite lacking violence or brutal images, it pulls no punches in depicting the consequences of a society that does not fit the true nature of a human spirit. But it is definitely not a cold, desensitizing movie: there are some moments (especially the uncompromising ending) that will almost bring a tear to your eye, leaving you with the impression of a deep, sad fable.

I have only a couple of minor complaints: I find Gilliam style a little overdone at times, and the use of certain lenses or close-ups unnecessary. More, there are a couple of scenes where the sheer brilliance of the rest of the movies is lacking, leaving the impression that the movie could have been slightly shorter without losing its impact. However this won't be a problem for you if you are willing to understand and elaborate on the movie's themes and references. And there are a lot.

Extremely recommended for people with an open mind.

9/10

The Bogus Witch Project (2000 TV Movie)

Almost completely awful

[2/10 · 17 June 2001]

The first segment, "The Watts Bitch Project", was mildly funny, enough to make me think that this collection of spoofs gained its REALLY bad reputation mostly because fans of the real movie took the whole thing as an insult. I was wrong. If the first segment was watchable, what came next was complete, unwatchable crap with not one single laugh. The fake commercials were lame and the next spoofs were so unfunny it was painful. The Pauly Shore segment was particularly goofy and out of place.

My advice it that you can skip this movie but if you happen to catch it on cable, watch only the first segment. The rest is absolutely unwatchable. By the way, here are my ratings:

segment "The Watts Bitch Project" 5/10; segment "The Griffith Witch Project" 1.5/10; segment "In the Woods Segments" 1/10; segment "Pauly Shore Segment" 1/10; segment "The Bel Air Witch Project" 1/10; segment "The Willie Witch Project" 1/10

Overall: 2/10

The Incredible Journey (1963)

I love this movie

[8/10 · 14 June 2001]

A movie that's almost only 'acted' by animals might not sound interesting to some, but I must say that I truly love this movie. Not only because I love animals, but also because this is very good example of a very enjoyable movie with pets as main characters. Nowadays it seems that the only way to make animals 'act' is to make them talk and tell silly jokes, usually by using some awful CGI effects. This very well done tale, instead, delivers the goods through a very nice narration, and through an interesting plot that doesn't get silly and stays almost true to complete credibility: two dogs and a cat start a long and adventurous trip home after accidentally getting lost (this has happened various times in history, even for long distances). A very nice tale for the whole family, and a mild yet captivating story that will almost bring a tear -- a happy one -- to the eye of any true pet lover.

8/10

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Nice movie, with superb scenery

[7/10 · 10 June 2001]

Analyzing an old silent movie using nowadays standards wouldn't be fair: the medium is too different, the acting performances require a different perspective, and when you watch it you find yourself enjoying the movie much like you would do with a painting. This is especially true for the classic The Phantom of the Opera, a movie that gets you lost in the images more than in the story itself.

Lon Chaney gives a good portrayal of the phantom, yet somewhat different from what was portrayed in later efforts with the same subject: his character comes off more like a cold blooded than a somewhat likeable character. What shines in this movie is the visual impact: the costumes are really nice, and the gothic scenery is perfect. The best scene of them all has to be the Red Death one, appropriately shot in a painting-like color, definitely one of the most beautiful images offered by old cinema.

Sure, the movie is hardly gonna provide any scares by now, and the story has been told many times. However, this is a primary example of how old cinema can still offer a very worthy experience.