tobiasn Reviews

Maigret: L'ami d'enfance de Maigret (2003) Season 13, Episode 1

All the characters are interesting

[8/10 · 26 September 2021]

I like this series because of Cremer but also the acting of everyone. It's consistently good, with only a handful of duds. If one likes the genre.

This is one of the best episodes. Saying this may be personal, but I think most fans would agree. A balance between Crime and Hope is in the story - that's why I am reviewing it. The actress who plays the mistress is especially good.

Lucky Louie (2006–2007)

R-rated sitcom

[8/10 · 17 July 2006]

R-rated sitcom that a lot of people will hate, possibly for political reasons.

The couple in 'Lucky Louie' are working-class, and the sets are spartan. The show is filmed in front of a live audience, each episode like a mini-play. The dialog realistically includes sarcasm, put-downs, quick confessions, and mad raving.

What's probably disturbing for many about the show is not the profanity or male nudity, it's that Louie and his wife are economically vulnerable but they are not political conservatives (it's not clear whether they are libertarians or liberals, but this does not matter. Their total lack of loyalty is the essence of the show).

Imagine 'the Honeymooners' TV show from 1955 except change it up so that neither buddy belongs to a union, where they treat every idea that is thrown at them with scorn, and where they enjoy debasing all ideas equally (whether they are important cultural institutions or insane conspiracy theories).

Typical was the 4th of July episode, where one of Louie's loony friends compares the holiday fireworks to a sex act by revered historical figures. This nihilist bit of dialog is delivered while the men watch the kids play in a playground!

I think the show is fantastic. It makes me laugh, and I don't mind that it cuts close to the bone.

But probably many see it as pointless and crass (the way some saw Mike Binder's "The Mind of the Married Man" - a HBO show from 2001 that lasted 2 seasons). If I had to guess I would say HBO will not renew "Lucky Louie". Not because it is so disrespectful, but because it is generating very little buzz as far as I can tell.

Almost You (1984)

accurate, cynical dialog

[7/10 · 31 August 2005]

I lived for awhile in NYC, and I liked this movie.

I spent some part of my life in virtually identical apartments. So maybe I am just being nostalgic. But watching this, I really felt like the people were much like real people I have known.

One thing I am sure of is the dialog is terrific. For instance when one character asked 'what do you do?' and got the reply, 'I am an actor' she immediately followed this up with: 'Oh, what restaurant?'.

At this stage in my life I prefer this to anything Woody Allen has done (or for that matter the two Edward Burns' movies I have seen).

Yes, the characters sit around drinking wine, and making small talk. And, yes, the lead is irresponsible, and feels far too sorry for himself. But the movie is really about the various women's perception of the lead, about their experience of him. Which makes it darkly amusing, and happily so not in the Allenesque, narcissist, self-deprecating style. The lead is a clown, but we aren't pressured to feel sorry for him. At all.

Day for Night (1973)

marvelous

[9/10 · 12 July 2004]

Jean-Pierre Léaud suppresses a smile at the end of two scenes, in a amazing way. You may have to love the movie to notice.

One scene is the one where director comforts 'Alphonse' in the hallway of his hotel room. What shines out here is how much respect Léaud and Truffaut had for each other. The actor is not just enjoying pretending to be serious, he is appreciating the ironies in the script, everything.

The other time is when the assistant finds 'Alphonse' riding toy cars, when he comes screeching to a halt in the little vehicle. You can tell Léaud cannot help but break into a miniscule smile. Very subtle, but it is there.

I loved the magazine-cover scene. The score to 'Pamela' has to be played over the phone to the composer (something like that), so we get to hear the music as we are shown shots of magazine covers depicting film directors. Only trivial in the sense that a beautiful sunset is trivial.

What is great about this movie is that is not serious but at the same time it is serious. For instance, I think it is unfair to criticize Bisset for a leaden performance, her role is the most difficult because she has to play tragic in a comedy.

I love the title (both the French one and the American one), but it might give a false impression about this fun movie.

More than any other non-serious movie, I highly recommend watching 'Day for Night' from the beginning. If you start in the middle it might come across as lightweight, its subtleties lost.

The Last Just Man (2002)

great documentary, it will affect you

[10/10 · 21 April 2003]

After a bit of background, we are told the chronological story of a genocide, events of 1994 in Rwanda. The focus of the story is the UN commander who was there, and unable to stop it. But it's not really about him, but about the 800,000 people who were killed, many hacked to death by machetes.

The right details are given. The interviews are excellent. There are clips (but only one of the violence, and it is seen in the distance).

10 stars. Documentaries do not get any better than this. But the subject is so real and so terrible you may not want to watch. If you watch it, you might be crying by the end.

Minority Report (2002)

dark and dull

[3/10 · 14 February 2003]

too many images of people stabbing things with scissors. And how can you make a movie with this theme and omit political subtext?

The inspiration here is phony. They wave their arms around while watching special TVs, that about says it all. The sophistication into human nature is phony, too. It's like a bad sci-fi short story written by a college dweeb in his sophomore year.

I hate to dis a great director, but I am not interested in anyone's retro-adolescence, not matter how cleverly packaged

The Rules of the Game (1939)

an art-house flick, but with synergy and historical karma

[9/10 · 19 December 2002]

In 'La Règle du Jeu' Renoir includes the upper class in his cynical lens. In retrospect, it was predictable that his audience would throw garbage at the screen. Many had probably come to see another thriller about how noble army officers were (Grande Illusion), or another story about how depraved working-class people were (La Bête Humaine). These same fans (I include the contemporary movie critics) had probably missed quite a bit of the enlightened content of these two earlier films.

Many just weren't ready to contemplate that the upper class were just as flawed as everybody else.

Making this movie must have been an emotional closure for Renoir. Personally, I feel as he surely did - that there is redemption just around the corner for everybody.

In summary: an art-house flick, but with synergy and historical karma - and timed to be the most unappreciated opening ever. 9 stars (only Dr Strangelove gets a 10)

My Darling Clementine (1946)

beyond good

[9/10 · 9 October 2002]

For the uninitiated, this movie depicts a old-West town called 'Tombstone', which has the biggest graveyard west of the Rockies. Henry Fonda (as "Wyatt Earp") ends up there, all because the cattle he was responsible for are stolen, and his brother is killed. That's the first ten minutes.

There are sequences in this movie so good modern directors probably weep when they see them. To hell with subtext! John Ford is so imbued with the reality of the old West, that this movie reveals universal truths.

Not much more to say. Even though Good vs. Evil is depicted, no final judgements are made. Henry Fonda the actor was beyond perfect as the fulcrum for such profound yet simple fare. Yee-Hah!

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

ill-conceived, pretentious, and Tom Cruise is miscast

[2/10 · 2 July 2002]

Kubrick grew up in the Bronx, NY. It is possible that in junior high school some other boy told Stanley a fantasy about orgies on Long Island, NY (where richer people lived). Perhaps as an older man - after a liftime in England - Kubrick retained such a memory, and glued onto it another idea he had - to cast a real-life couple as a couple in a movie.

There is hardly another explanation how such a great film-maker could make such a piece of incoherent nonsense. While Tom Cruise is an under-rated performer, his specialty is aggressive, high-energy, and relaxed characters. To cast Cruise as a repressed older NY physician lacking in imagination was colossally wrong. In 30 seconds anyone can think of a better choice (John Heard, or Jeff Goldblum spring to mind).

Kubrick's earlier movies were marked by the realistic and detailed depictions of technology and professions. Compare this movie, which completely fails to depict what is like to be a doctor.

Of course, if Kubrick had wanted to make a real movie, in order to introduce conflict he would have had his doctor discover the practice of sleeping around with female nurses, or something. But no, it had to be a secret society of orgiers! Given the name of the movie, is this society supposed to have opened this doctor's eyes? That's so absurd an idea as to be almost laughable.

I am no prude, I like looking at women as much as the next guy, but here some strange almost-lechery seemed to have compelled Kubrick to put sequence after sequence of female half-nudity, all of it gratuitous and dull. Maybe it was Kubrick's film-maker instincts, maybe he knew that showing so much flesh would con all the young fools into thinking this was a good movie.

The Passion of Anna (1969)

flawed gold

[7/10 · 12 June 2002]

First the bad stuff .. 'Passion' has all the earmarks of a botched production: intercut in the film are interviews with the 4 leads. These seem to have been an afterthought. .. There is also a crucial missing sequence: the beginning of the romance between Andreas and Anna seems to have been cut out! Anna's later dream sequence does not look integral to the movie. Was it added later to make up for the missing running time? ... Not to mention the sub-plot involving the mysterious crimes on the island. I suggest the original script might have fleshed this part out more.

Of the four leads, the protagonist is the weakest characterization. The director has Andreas (Max Von Sydow) constantly nailing things and carrying buckets - to show what a phlegmatic man he is . In contrast, Andreas' acquaintance, the despicable architect Elis (Erland Josephson) is the best characterized .. When both Andreas and Eva (Bibi Andersson) say they say they really like the architect, it is almost as if they 'really' mean they admire the role and how Josephson plays it. The movie is that abstracted.

There is a 5-minute sequence near the end that is incongruent and pretentious, even for Bergman. ... not too far after that we get the the climax of the film - where Andreas and Anna reveal their 'real' attitudes to each other. This sequence is a bit confusing. When you think about it later, you realize how it was incompletely prepared.

More generally the movie needed to fuse the 4 leads into the island life better. Non-Swedes probably wont fully understand the quick rendering of the secondary characters. It would help the movie get out of its narcissistic tendencies if we learned what other island residents really thought of the 4, rather than always their navel-gazing.

Now the good stuff .. as botched as it is, this movie does not deserve less than 7 stars. The talent involved in this production are almost in a different league than everyone else in the history of the movie business. The acting is so good, and the underlying concept so honest that Bergman/Nyquist most times can just leave the camera on the actors in a way Hollywood productions can only dream about. And I say this as someone who does not usually like art-house type movies.

The concept is also original, non-misogynistically portraying a woman character as possibly an unconscious murderer, as a liar who loves truth.... some of the sequences are both cinematic and perfectly subtle in the Bergman style ... Nykvist's camera-work is excellent as always ... As other people have said, the exceptional final sequence - which illustrates Von Sydow's characters fate - is both profound and amusing.

Genuine Risk (1990)

low budget, but not bad example of LA hood genre

[6/10 · 19 March 2002]

If you are a cynical person then you might watch this all the way thru. There is violence (or the danger of violence) plus the requisite love scene. Pretty good acting (especially Terence Stamp) gets you thru the clichés in the script.

A racetrack milieu is involved. Note the title of the movie, which is both a banal comment on the ambiguous nature of relationships, and the name of a race horse - in the 'Baby' race! (that horse has no role in the plot, that I remember).

This movie is a bit better written than your average hood flick (I gave it a 6 out of 10).

Mumford (1999)

funny and straightforward, should please grown-ups

[8/10 · 4 May 2000]

'Mumford' spends zero time at the beginning boring the viewer with the setup of its premise. It gets going right away. You can hardly believe what you're watching, how smart but un-neurotic it is; You are hardly aware of the film-making at all, except that its like meeting someone refreshingly candid at a party.

There is a small-town involved, but I didn't mention this first, because I didn't want to give the wrong impression. Hollywood has exploited the small-town setting, but not here. Kasdan (the director) actually knows what it is to listen, to watch, and to be friendly. It's a comedy, but there's no punch lines to ruin the fun.

The best part is that you like Dr. Mumford, just like everybody else does, and for the same reasons. This trick is accomplished honestly, because there's no put-on ironical distancing, like you often see with directors as sophisticated as Lawrence Kasdan. In no scene do you ever get the impression he is saying "I am better than this"; nowhere are you supposed to be entertained by any attitude in the script. It's just the people.

I actually have the sneaky suspicion that Kasdan found his career challenged and rejuvenated by the success of his son's film, the excellent "Zero Effect" (from last year), there are echoes from that film in this one, common themes: What is the meaning of the past? What sort of person can understand this meaning? What is that makes someone good at other people?