Reviews

This is a small chapter in the long push-pull of America's racial history and how it has been observed by artists. Several positive points should be noted, and not just the negative plot which stereotypes blacks as agricultural thieves, and the use of watermelons as a racist meme.

After stealing watermelon, black gentlemen outsmart the two "skeletons" and return home with the loot. Good effort in showing off cakewalk from the black company. After the dancing ends, the black troupe simply occupies a large amount of time eating watermelon, with an especially good duet scene of two gentlemen communing while eating, since this is really what watermelon is good for. Finally, a larger white posse shows up with their dogs and smokes out the community of unaware stolen watermelon lovers by plugging their chimney, which could either be seen as funny or tragic.

The filmmaker attempts to endear us to the cultural life among the southern negroes of his time, while at the same time stereotyping both the white and the black race.

I was directed to the movie by theatlantic.com which is a long discussion of the entire culture of watermelon stereotyping. The author concludes that while, "there is nothing inherently racist about watermelons..., the stereotype has a life of its own."

I think both the film and the magazine article can be viewed best as historical artifacts, at least I hope so.

This is extraordinary. It's an easy movie to either like or dislike, because after watching it once, you might realize, or not realize that from almost the first scene, as the characters fade back and forth from real to incredible, you and one of the characters are being fooled into believing that something is real that doesn't actually exist.

The two 'mothers' are one-of-a-kind beauties, and the child, Camille is played by a fabulous once-in-a-decade child actor. If you pay attention to the closeup of the painting at the end, you will become fully aware how our cine-reality has been compromised during the time we were watching.

I was moved to order the book, now a set retitled, "Separations: Two Novels of Mothers and Children".

In this mock-documentary, the computer nerds meet the chess nerds (spoiler: They're about the same thing) in a black and white, cheesy hotel setting during the 70's. In the background, a purposeful primal therapy group works its spells and enchantments. One of the computer chess entrants is a sociopath that looks and speaks oddly like Chevy Chase, giving this movie unexpected authenticity. Another, the father of a chess buff, is one of those guys from the time that loved being the loudest guy in the room and loved asking the smartest persons in the room questions he couldn't answer. Along with these there is the 'Cal Tech team' and the 'MIT team' and a wicked science fiction plot that seems to be fizzling towards the end, just as the nascent sex life of one of the team members does also. Enjoy!

I found this movie attractive, funny in parts, yet difficult to grasp. I certainly felt the disappointment in the husband's and sister's struggle for employment. Everyone in the movie was equally struggling for identity and the artist/mother, Aviva, at the center of it, was holding it all together.

At the beginning of the story, Aviva is asked by her dentist to undress to forgive a large dental bill. She refuses, but she does hear some encouragement to do a bit of prostitution from the other women in her life. Later she agrees to become a ghostwriter for her writing professor who's talent has dried up, by allowing him publish revised versions of her stories.

I suppose the movie makes clear the extent to which we attempt to subvert own greatest possibilities of success by making it subordinate to our internalizing the cares of those other individuals we identify most closely with.

After accepting the initial deposit for her stories to be re-marketed by her professor, Aviva soon shuts down all of her normal relations with her family, imperfect as they are, since she believes she no longer merits their esteem. The catharsis begins late in the movie, when Aviva's mother leaves Aviva's father. Aviva herself gradually realizes that she must stop selling herself piecemeal, acknowledges the powerful woman she is, and allows herself with the encouragement of her family to return to becoming a professional writer.

I thought that this movie answered a lot of the questions posed by Alien 3. It also has one of the nicest sequel setups I've ever seen. There are a few unexplainable scenes such as why the giant is being attacked at the escape pod at the end of the movie by the octopus-like creature (Why not have him attacked on his own ship?) The main theme, how the creatures that made us were destroyed by their own biological weapons of mass destruction is very clever, and puts a nice period on the Alien series. It was a nice touch having the main character motivated by her, "legacy", Christian religion to finally find out why our creators wanted to destroy us. I can only imagine that the, "dirty little secret", is that the universe is really only large enough for one species of infinite potential. I'll pay to see the sequel though, so I can know for sure.

This Polanskyesque horror movie appeals to some as a perfect mixture of genres, constantly resorting to ambiguity in order to extend the attention of the audience to its hero, Nina (Natilie Portman). This actually weakens the film's connection to its target, which is a ballet production, however, which seems a waste, although eventually it becomes clear that all of the other characters must gradually become mere cogs in the grinding wheel of Nina's egoism.

In the end we are left with only one character, the hero, and her death, as the perfect consequence; and as death sublimates the existence of all, not just its victim, the movie neatly resolves all of its many conflicts.

It is as if Aronofsky, the creator of The Wrestler, is bragging to us, "See how easy it is to end a movie with death! You can dissolve every conflict at once, no matter how poorly constructed it was, and the audience will never realize how it happened in their grieving!" To his credit, he has taken care to reconcile the other characters with Nina before or at her death, yet the I find the notion that the snuff ending has become the new panacea of film making repulsive.

Gwyneth Paltrow was great, Anthony Hopkins in this supporting role was almost perfect, although he looked too old for the part (63 years), and this may be Jake Gyllenhaal's best movie. The product is ruined through being over-dominated by flashbacks, and by rushing the relationship between the two main characters.

The story is designed to put you into the position of the boyfriend, Hal: You are supposed to believe as he does, that the professor, being an icon, towered over the current generation, and would always do so. This in order to set you up in believing that the boyfriend would be pushed into asserting at the crucial plot moment that the breakthrough paper Catherine (Paltrow) gave him to read was probably the work of her father, the Professor and not hers, and that her claiming it, was stealing it.

This is the setup for a number of memorable scenes of hysteria for Gwenneth Paltrow. It's true that after starting her graduate work, she sacrificed years of her life to take care of her debilitated father.

If taken out of the context of the sister Claire's sudden takeover of her life, the plot would all make sense, but because her design is to remove Catherine from Chicago to New York, in a "soft" wicked witch act, Gwynneth decides to play sick in order to play along and avoid the shame of having hooked up with someone that could disabuse you of your best work the morning after.

This is where the weakest moment of the film comes. The characters are all weakened at this point of the plot, and they can never recover. It is now Paltrow's job to look as weak and abused as possible for the rest of the film, barring a couple of seconds in the flashbacks. The dominating obsessive sister from New York must have one more scene, to finally overcome Paltrow's last attempt at personal integrity.

Finally the audience is invited, through flashbacks, to sympathize with the dying, demented professor, as he attempts to convince his daughter that he is getting his intellectual mojo back again.

All of this is syrup, until we arrive at the moment of truth, when Catherine must literally run from the airport, desperately attempting to find Gyllenhaal on campus, since she is now alone, with no other friends, locked out of her former house by her sister, who has already completed checking her off of her "todo" list. Simply setting up this moment with a stronger relationship to Harold would have sufficed to save the movie. Instead we get one flashback with Hopkins as a teaser after another, many with duplicated footage.

What really makes me angry, is thinking that it could be possible that the footage that might make this film hold together could have been shot, but was eliminated in order to get more minutes of Anthony Hopkins onto the screen.

If you like your movies with twang, this is one for you. This is a very carefully made film for the budget and doesn't disappoint.

Surf Nazis are traditionally folks that hog the waves and are willing to fight you if you don't like that. This film takes that paradigm back in time to the real Nazi's, who, now that the big earthquake has finally hit and put the police out of control, has ushered in a beach world ruled by Surf Nazi's led by Adolf himself!

The director spends lots of time developing and getting you attached to the Surf Nazi characters, and the dominating mother of the youngest "Nazi", Smeg, as played by Bobby Bresee, is the icing on the cake. The Eleanor Washington role, Excellently played by Gail Neely, was a moving though humorous tribute of anyone harmed by brutality being willing to fight back. In all it was a very well thought out statement.

I can't believe it. I was riveted by this movie. Maybe I liked it so much because I avoided watching it for nine years. But from the time I saw the planes flying over the northern border at Israel, I felt like had seen this all somewhere before. Maybe I'm one of those few atheist ex-catholics that took my bible reading way too seriously. Maybe its because I'm doing a presentation for my Spanish Conversation group on the UN this week (Naciones Unidos).

I remember when I saw Rosemary's Baby, I felt the same way. I was a lot younger and still only a few years away from still being religious. I loved the Polanski movie and moved into the main characters body, just like I did in this movie. When I got home, I couldn't sleep because I was literally checking under the bed to see if the devil was there (Catholics really believe in the devil.) I doubt if I'll lose any sleep in the same way tonight, but this movie was in the top group of science fiction movies in my opinion, because it allowed me to buy in or "suspend disbelief" so easily.

Why should I call this a science fiction movie when many don't see it that way? Because the scientist character, Rosenzweig actually invents a new style of farming. That should be science enough for anybody. This is a note of realism in that which helps the most skeptical realist to suspend disbelief.

I notice that there are a lot of believers that don't like this movie. Is it possible that the director has done what is necessary to suspend disbelief for the skeptic, but not among the converted? Perhaps, but I feel sorry for anyone who needs a story to match their religious beliefs perfectly, and who can't just relax and enjoy a work of art for what it is. I have to wonder if any of these Christians like Disney movies, like Hercules. Why should every theological fantasy have to match what exactly what one knows about theology? While the pilot character (the whole family?) was a little weak, the other actors in the play were all strong. As I recalled the evil nature of "the one that precedes the antichrist" I was struck how this fellow was simply portrayed as an elitist capitalist was not overacted or over the top. How can so many people have missed this? I can tell you why, because they didn't study the book of Revelations in the Bible, but heard their Revelations second hand, through church sermons about "rapture". Nevertheless, despite the fact that the movie is often accurate in portraying the events and characters in Revelations, the back story that supports the movie plot is really quite strong. For example, who is the GNN reporter character in the bible? It is the writer/narrator of Revelations (considered by scholars to be John).

Some skeptics hate this movie because they say it contains the germs of the carping one hears about the "one world government" described in the Bible. However, to me there is something realistic and admirable about this idea, whether you feel comfortable with it or not. In a world which is always at war, one has to agree that a panacea can be a lot more attractive, at least subconsciously. When you see the council mollified and hypnotized at the end, you have to wonder if the GNN reporter, who now finds himself in the position of counter-spy will ever try to resist what already been accomplished. In actuality we never see him pray, only shake hands with the "lately saved".

Well, I've ranted long enough. I think someday someone will dust this movie off and realize it is not just a bad movie about a bad book about a biblical fantasy, but actually a good movie, perhaps the best of its genre. At least, that's the way I viewed it.

One of the worst movies I've seen, The Strangers is home invasion story with zombie overtones about a women who is having a difficult time with her fiancé, who is apparently bisexual and doesn't want to commit. The bad time prior to the house invasion includes a spoiled proposal, in which she gets the ring, even though he is apparently having second thoughts, and needs to leave temporarily to clean something up with his boyfriend. Later, about half-way through the movie, the couple are hiding in the closet (what a symbol) and the guy shoots his friend in the head, thinking he is one of the zombies. Then the invaders come, and they are apparently appear to be there just to annoy, embarrass, or humiliate her. In the end she doesn't get killed, but two guys are killed, including her fiancé.

The 2 stars are for the good sound, camera, music, and effects. Everything else is really regretable. This is just another good example of how filmmakers nowadays feel entitled to make bad movies, provided they spend enough money doing so.

I am a lover of history, and historical films, too, but Ju Dou has a lot of faults. Most of all this movie fails in story telling, by using weak characters and weak plot development. The only areas in which this film deserves the 10, given by many reviewers, in in cinematography, setting, and costume. One reviewer compared this movie to a Greek tragedy, but I don't know of any Greek tragedies that have endings as bad as this one. The only characters that seem to develop in a normal way are the uncle, Jin-shan, and his wife, Jo Dou. The attention that was paid to this awful relationship overshadowed the lack of detail paid to the characters in the rest of the movie.

Jo Dou is the only character with a healthy motivation, and her fall is the "T" in the tragedy here. "Uncle" is only motivated by his drive to have an heir. His ancestor-worship calls attention to this, and thus the movie can be taken as religious criticism.

Nephew Tian-qing's character was extremely weak, and only flourished in a single act of challenging his uncle. This, coupled with his physical unattractiveness caused the move to be difficult to watch, in spite of the color themes. I don't really understand much about Chinese color symbology, but this is a plus. In one scene, a customer comes to order cloth, 15 yellow (tradition) and 3 red (luck, fire, and energy). There is a lot more yellow than red. This is the main point I think the director is trying to make.

Tian-qing's weak character is probably the main thing that made this move hard for me to watch. Second to that is the treatment of the autistic son, Tian-bai. One gets the idea from watching this that in society, and Chinese society especially, some people feel that their children are dropped from trees, and that the only way a child can develop a personality is from encountering other children and playing with them. "Uncle" finally gets a retrieve, when he develops a notion of parenting. This calls attention, perhaps, to the "dirty little secret" not being confronted in our society about autism - that it really has a lot to do with neglecting children. The details of Tian-bai's upbringing that lead to his murderous behavior are almost entirely eliminated from the story.

At this point the movie goes upside down, the Uncle's develops moral superiority as well as ownership of the child, and for Tian-qing and Ju Dou, everything is downhill from there. I might revise my opinion of this if there was a list of "top-ten downer movies of all time".

The resolution of this movie is simply about the fact that feelings may trump commitment. Now that that's over, I can go on to say why I think this move is such a bad movie.

This movie has a theme, but that's all it has. The acting is atrocious. Ethan Hawke isn't capable, and because this movie is meant to be an improvisational tour de force, his character's lines are constantly jarring our belief. His lines and delivery throughout cause us to doubt that he is really a writer (even though we see him signing books), that he is really a parent, even that he is really a married man. I guess if you buy the bit about his being a writer, you'll buy the family stuff. The scene at the end with Julie Delpy mimics the deceased bebop singer/pianist referred to only as "she", is psychologically the coup de gras, since so much of the movie before seemed so disingenuous. Finally nothing is said for the "feelings" he has for his son, "I don't want to ever be without him for even a minute!", nor what it is he is unable to give his wife that she "needs".

Besides the theme, which is a good one, the only other mixed feeling I have is about Julie Delpy who turns in a reasonable performance, and some of the photography.

I don't understand the hassle some people have about this film. It starts out a little slowly, granted, however overall the pacing is very good, as it develops tension throughout. The characters are very nice and Greek, part of a Greek Tragedy, that is. The father is a tragic king, larger than life. The mother is an imperfect hero. The children are clearly "princesses". Why most people don't get it is beyond me.

The flaws are obvious. The character doesn't seem to put any 2 + 2 together until about half way through the movie. At the end, both characters are oblivious of their fates. Nevertheless, the logic of fate controlling the actions of the characters, despite the premonitions is highly compelling if you have an open mind.