Eleatic67's reviews

This looked like it was pieced together on the back of a moving truck. The "joke" of an uncomfortable and uncooperative subject (Fripp) gets annoying after the first minute. I really found no insight or explanation of the music. The only sincere moment is provided by Belew expressing a profound sense of betrayal and his criticism of the current project being a lucrative vanity project and indulgence in nostalgia. Almost every interview clip seems shallow and random. Were the comments and footage of techs moving crates necessary??? Fripp criticizing Belew's inability to collaborate is rich, given that everyone describes him as the unsupportive petty tyrant.

I could not believe how empty and worthless this documentary was. Watch The Last Waltz instead, and you will find a far more interesting exploration of a musical legacy.

How should we react to souls who bare their pain with unflinching courage? Hopper was a troubled man who tried desperately to transform his anguish into art. For me, it is an open question whether or not he succeeded. Personally, I think a great filmmaker balances quiet moments with high drama. Perhaps, Hopper captures the frenetic and chaotic energy of a society on the brink of collapse. Someone's comparison with Rafaelson and Cassavettes is definitely useful. I don't think this film rises to the level of Five Easy Pieces or A Woman Under The Influence. The scripts and performances of those films are far more original and superior. The performance of the young woman is the most interesting and unique thing about this downbeat indulgence.

I think most of Fuller's films have nothing to do with reality. Generally, they are a patchwork of incoherent nonsense and depravity. He strikes me as a craftsman who knew how to produce a movie for a general audience rather than as an artist motivated by high moral and aesthetic principles. Yes, you can find some great scenes or visuals occasionally, but they are marred by either hyperbole or melodrama that precedes or succeeds them. Nicholas Ray, by comparison, could draw out the most sensitive and thought provoking performances out of his actors. Maybe, I lack an appreciation for grit. There's no elevating or transforming of grit into something true and profound.

How can you tell the difference between a gifted and talented filmmaker from one that isn't? Compare Baz Luhrman's film about Elvis with this poor effort by SC. You might argue that Elvis was a larger than life kind of figure. True, but BL used a wide variety of techniques to present the complexity of his subject in insightful and memorable ways.

Even if the stylistic approach is understatement and simplicity, the choices must dig for meaning and be creative. Biopics present unique challenges because the audience is already familiar with the general details.

Somehow, the Elvis film engaged the viewer when the Coppola film did not.

Who should we fear the most? Some scholars highlight that many opportunistic well-educated individuals joined the Nazis during their reign of terror. Which is certainly true. Infamously, even the philosopher, Martin Heidegger, joined the party. However, the majority of the inner circle-like Hitler-were failures and, mostly, stupid. Their total incompetence and poor judgement was evident in their rapid collapse. The genocide and devastation could have been minimized if the Allies had intervened earlier and more quickly.

I believe the film suggests that these horrendous crimes were committed by simple minded individuals who, through a series of historical chances, lusted for and acquired power. When the ignorant mob seizes power, chaos and destruction will inevitably ensue.

The control of tone and the gradual subtle accumulation of detail is masterful. Every single frame and scene is pregnant with artistic intent and meaning. Kubrick was right. Unlike Schindler's list, this film communicates the depth and scope of human failure and tragedy.

Ishtar is the high point of Beatty and Hoffman's careers. Yes, their singing is a little flat, but there's a song in their hearts. Sure there are echoes of Hitchcock, but May creates an entirely unique world and atmosphere. Adjani adds sex appeal through mysterious chemistry with both leading men. Could it have been shot on the back lot for a tenth of the cost? Yes, but the location shooting justifies comparison to Lawrence of Arabia, Last Temptation of Christ, and The Sheltering Sky (also shot by Storaro).

Is it postmodern? Yes.

Is it premodern? Yes.

Is it modern? Yes.

Is it antimodern? Yes.

But why try to attach limited labels to a creative masterpiece? Maybe, Masterpiece is the wrong word.

Why did the film community fail to recognize this artistic achievement and give it the multiple Oscars it deserved?

The success of any film depends mostly on the script. Why Scott would initiate such an expensive project without ensuring a refined and sophisticated script is a mystery. I'm not convinced there is a single interesting scene that provides insight into the characters or captures through language the prevailing political ideas. Scott's frequent missteps as a director reflect a greater interest in the cinematic rather than in the dramatic. However, this seems inevitable when your priority is delivering a blockbuster that will have broad appeal instead of digging deeper into culture, society, or history. A colossal waste of an extraordinary opportunity to create an important film about a fascinating historical figure.

What was the state of the US during the seventies? Watch the films from that time and you get some insight into a society that was disintegrating rapidly.

Panic In Needle Park, The Laughing Policeman, Taxi Driver, The Last Detail, The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon, among others... capture the fallout of political and social "unrest". The Vietnam War revealed all the fault lines between races, classes, and ideological viewpoints. All the institutions-religious, educational, political-failed to address the rampant and severe social problems that were dividing people.

Have things improved or did an entire generation give up on the promise of radical social change? Even revolutionaries grow tired and disillusioned.

It seems to me that Fincher's films are frequently a hit or a miss. I've found that the majority are technically brilliant, stylistically interesting, and thematically challenging. This latest one seems like a commercial concern intended to fund other projects. It's full of cliches in both the action and the characters.

It looks and feels like James Bond or Jason Bourne light. Exotic locations, slick production, and attractive people. Are we really supposed to believe that assassins are intelligent principled individuals? Obviously, Fincher is attempting to recreate the vibe in Melville's Le Samourai. A mild diversion at best.

Night Moves by Penn, The Long Goodbye by Altman, and Chinatown by Polanski were fascinating modern film noirs. They all express a deeper fatalism in the main characters and in the broader culture. The entanglement of the private investigators with their clients is complete and disastrous. No boundaries between the personal and the professional are left in tact.

Gene Hackman repeatedly turned in performances that communicated vulnerability and suffering more courageously than most of his peers. He was far more realistic and not interested in stylized behaviour that would ingratiate him with the audience (French Connection, The Conversation, Scarecrow).

The murder of an innocent young woman, played by Griffith, is the key event. She represents the will to survive and remain authentic in a world of deceit and malice. Her death affects the detective deeply and seems to inspire him to grow and change. There is a suggestion that he may repair his disintegrating marriage and he also plans to leave the profession that has mired him in the environment of vice.

The story is absorbing on all levels and all the performances are uniformly excellent-even a histrionic young James Woods.

Obviously, this was an interesting film that dealt with some intense characters. The exploration of the roots of violent behaviour was somewhat complex and nuanced. The relationships between the different characters were also drawn out by excellent direction and performances. However, I found Robbins' performance the least believable. He came across more as dull and simple minded rather than as a tortured soul dealing with severe childhood trauma. Fortunately, every other member of the cast were able to create and maintain the serious tragic tone required.

Eastwood doesn't really take chances, so his work often reads as fairly conventional. Still, the performances in Mystic River and Unforgiven make up for these shortcomings.

Davies is a masterful filmmaker. He has stated that he is not a "Gay" filmmaker in the way that, possibly, Jarman was. I think this is generally true. Davies seems more concerned with individual struggle and self-expression than homosexual rights. His period films recall a time when individuals created and asserted their identity in opposition to social conformity. While he emphasizes the personal and the private sphere of experience, he also recognizes how these can transform society. A Quiet Passion, Sunset Song, and Benediction are about people revolting in very unique ways. The performances and control of other elements are subtle, complex, and always interesting.

Wonderful performances by Crawford and Garfield. A powerful representation of their depth and range. The direction provides an excellent realization of the masterful script.

Art and love, when combined, are sometimes the catalysts for self-actualization or self-destruction. When difference in class is added to the mix, the tragic outcome is inevitable.

The film is an interesting contribution to the examination of the artist's psychology. It is useful to compare it to All About Eve and A Star is Born. "You're a hangman's noose to me." Gone are the days of nuanced portrayals and sophisticated dialogue.

I find Demy's achievements remarkable. He was simultaneously able to craft highly polished and sophisticated films while imbuing them with a profound humanism. They entertain with their beautiful music, costumes, choreography, and every other formal element. At the same time, focussing on real characters who are driven by deep emotions. For me, French New Wave cinema is plagued by experimental misses. Whereas, Demy remained true to a consistent artistic vision in his four major works: Bay of Angels, Lola, The Young Girls of Rochefort, and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg. All deserve our attention because they are deeply personal works of art that express deep regard for film history and deep concern for contemporary social and political issues.

It's pathetic when you have to make commercial pictures like this one and Lady from Shanghai to ingratiate yourself with studio heads. Yes, the style is great. Does this kind of melodrama keep you in the ranks with Renoir, Rossellini, Ozu...? I don't think so. Mostly, empty fluff that distracts the audience from the fact that it lacks thematic substance. Kane was an epic about the vacuity of American Capitalism. TOE is another opportunity to see Leigh in a bullet bra.

This is certainly an interesting film about the exploitation of women in a patriarchal society. While there are many moving and thought-provoking scenes, the implausible story fails to ring true. Or Ackerman fails to make it realistic. Perhaps, it was intended to be a feminist fable from the outset.

It takes a long time to outgrow the desire to be entertained by traditional Hollywood fare that is easily digested. That is exactly what the filmmakers of the seventies wanted their audience to do. Altman took greater risks than any of his peers to break free of Hollywood conventions. His films-like Buffalo Bill-are intended to challenge and frustrate the audience's expectations. No one else experimented more freely with shifts in tone and the blending of genres. This film is ridiculous and profound at the same time. The final scene in which Bill is loquacious while Bull remains taciturn for an extended time is typical Altman. This history lesson fits perfectly into the group of other seventies revisionist westerns such as Little Big Man and The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean. Second tier Altman is still more interesting than most contemporary films.

PTA's weakest effort. The leads are somewhat charming, but the script is conventional and uninteresting. It is sad when you need to buoy up a very thin story with a soundtrack in an attempt to stir some emotion in the audience. The cameos by Penn and Cooper are also wasted opportunities. The film doesn't add up to much more than a nostalgia trip.

Tarantino is not a serious filmmaker. His sole interest is in sex and violence that will shock and hypnotize the audience. There are no real human beings in his films dealing with actual life experiences. His main objective is to make a dollar and promote his giant ego. I am quite certain that he cares little about the world in which he lives or the challenges that people face. David Fincher and Paul Thomas Anderson are far more interesting.