Reviews

Fans of NYC 70s rock, post-Beatles-Lennon, and music from 65-80 in general may well enjoy a good hour of rock nostalgia. As one would expect, there is a plethora of fantastic rock shots and behind-the-scenes bits here and there.

Alas, there comes a point where it starts retreading the same ground and all we hear is a bunch of non-photographers rehash what they think photography means. It feels endless. It should have all been outtakes, but no, it seems someone felt a need to pad this out past the 90 minute mark when they should have been satisfied at 60. They could have even stretched to 70 if the stopped there, but it kept going. Even the photos get recycled so that we see the /same/ picture of LedZep, and the /same/ picture of The Who and on and on.

Still, that first hour was quite enjoyable. New York Dolls, Blondie, fun.

This film needed some combination of the following : a separate director that was NOT starring in the film, sympathetic characters, multi-dimensional characters, less overacting, a bigger budget, more people involved in the creation, and/or FILM source with good image quality. Any of the listed items could be overcome in different circumstances, but here they are all piled on.

I appreciate that the main character was meant to be someone who acts out his own life in overblown, dramatic excess. I appreciate that this character is intentionally not a likable person. Such things are valid and interesting choices to try, but they are challenges that require a LOT of feedback and careful planning to make a film that works. That seemed absent.

Instead, what we have here is a piece which leaves the impression that the actor (and director), Alan Cumming, does not know how to tone it down.

We only see one side of each character, and none seem to progress or change in any meaningful way. And no, changing address or circumstance does not count -- the characters never seem to learn anything.

All the audience gets is nasty people who never get better as they do things we can not care much about, and doing them in a somewhat absurdist way. Yes, there are some amusing scenarios, but all the negatives overwhelm occasional positives.

There are a few other bits of footage of the band, but this is the only rentable film known to exist. Anyone have home movies with synched sound? ... If so, want to make some money? (well, don't look at me, others have deeper pockets).

Yes, there is footage of Andy Warhol's Exploding Plastic Inevitable with VU, but the sound isn't from *that* performance. More accurate is the footage of the band tying up Moe. Like this film (VU & Nico), you actually hear the band members speaking and such in the tie-up-Moe film, but they aren't playing instruments, and there's no Nico.

Therefore, fans simply MUST see this film is all its wandering, unfocused glory. Lay back and let the noise wash you away.

While I love this film, I understand why others might not. The most compelling points are all delivered via amazing visual imagery. Even better, there are often multiple meanings interwoven into each sequence. If a viewer is just following the dialog, they miss too much content to care about the action.

Without giving away any of the story, let me give a example. After seeing the film with a friend, I was deeply moved by the anguish of a particular scene, and while raving about how it conveyed such strong emotion for such a feminine issue, my friend commented that he hadn't even noticed what the scene was about.

So, okay, maybe the film is too inaccessible to ever be a big draw, but if you are willing to read between the lines, and can enjoy watching double-entendres in motion, then you owe it to yourself to give this a try.

If you enjoy hearing a full orchestra perform classical music, this is the film for you. The film will probably lag for most other people.

This documentary is structured into three parts. The viewer is introduced to several members of the Philadelphia Orchestra and lets them talk about how they define music, and what they love about it. Many of their stories are engaging and interesting. Seeing their passion for both classical and other genres can hold one's attention for at least half the film (but mentioning any of the neat tidbits would spoil it for those who haven't yet seen it).

The real highlights are all musical. There is no 'soundtrack' except performances recorded with the filming. The director wisely allows those pieces to continue as the visuals cut to interviews and such, but there is zero use of prerecorded music. Additionally, the camera work favors the musicians fingers over their faces when they play, allowing other musicians to better appreciate their technique.

Sadly, this viewer found that -- though the first half was very interesting -- by about halfway through the film none of the dialog was memorable. Perhaps if the beginning wasn't as strong, the ending interviews wouldn't seem to peter out. Still, the music was solid through and through.

I enjoyed this film by itself, but kept thinking that I'd love to take kids to it, too. Everyone with a child (son or daughter) aged about 10 or above should put up with the sprinkling of profanity and see this film with their progeny. The film reveals a set of REAL women with opinions, personalities, good sides and ... well, not-so-nice sides. It goes without saying that the women are physically impressive in their prime. Beyond that, they maintain their fighting spirit in their old-age.

While it was not a major flaw, the primary failing in this documentary is its lack of form. Early on, the film reveals that it will culminate with a reunion of female wrestlers, there is no particular flow of events in the days leading up to the reunion. It felt a bit haphazard. Still, this can be expected from any film that lets its content be told by interviews with a group of individual subjects -- and there were definite strives taken to introduce various aspects/people with interviews that gave viewers some background before cutting to a segment that would have left the audience confused.

This is a film that can spark much post-viewing conversation, and leaves you feeling somewhat amazed that its participants found such a unique niche for themselves in a time when women were 'supposed' to be dainty and refined. What a wonderful contrast!

This was a thoroughly engrossing film. Superb acting, believable characters, and a story that holds your interest. That said, you could dismiss the story as just another slice-of-life piece because it does boil down to a simple tale of two old friends getting together for a visit. Still, we care about what happens to everyone involved.

For this viewer, the major failing is that I wanted to see more of everyone's stories. I felt the film finished one story at exactly the right moment with the final scene, but I wanted to hear more about the other stories. I wouldn't have minded more of the well-ended tale, either, but I could accept that any more would require another full movie.

So many have commented that I'll keep this short.

Don't bother renting the short version that played in American multiplexes. Half the plot and even more of the character development was ripped out for the U.S. version. Sure, the pacing is a little but slower, but that's a good thing because we end up with characters that have more believable motivation.

Those who like this and are open to arty films should check out "Le Dernier Combat" -- which is another film by Besson that stars Reno. That one tells a completely compelling story with NO dialog.

Again, while I'd only give the U.S. version a 4, the French version is at LEAST an 8.

It looks like 'The Interview' may finally be getting some distribution in the States. Do not waste time reading plot outlines. The less you know about what happens in the story the better. Every movie in the U.S. aficionado should do their utmost to see this if it comes to their town.

Do not wait for this to show up on video. When considering the cinematography, the movie should translate reasonably well to the small screen, but, as it happens with many suspense movies, it is likely to lose impact if it can't command the viewers undivided attention. In less adept hands, a movie like this (which spends the bulk of the movie in one room) can be tiring, but the use of old noir style of dark lighting with dramatic shadows and angles gives visual interest and a definite mood. If you like the noir style of filming, this salute to the genre will be a treat.

As well as having great camera work, the acting, casting, script, and every other detail that comes to mind is above par. I'd bet even Hitchcock would have been proud to have made this.

The Ad and the Ego examines how advertising once appealed to the rational mind, but now targets the subconscious. This high energy documentary quickly explains that before the 20th century, advertising almost invariably explained why you should want a product in logical terms (such as to cure your bunions or make tasks like washing clothes easier). Next, it launches into the bulk of its mission: examining what has happened since the advent of psychology lead to ads that appealed to less tangible and more base desires -- desires for a perfect life, a perfect body, fun times, happiness, and a sense of well being.

Rather than a typical talking head affair, there is a nonstop flurry of activity and noise which is interjected by disassemblies of how the media pervades the American experience and what is lost because of it. The film bombards the viewer with hundreds of quick-cut segments of advertising that are set to the music of the notorious band, negativland. If you are fond of negativland, this is a MUST SEE. Obviously, the band was picked for the soundtrack because they, too, concern themselves with the content of our media, and its tendency to push for a culture of unchallenged, bland consumerism.

But where the band tends towards humor, the movie is about the researchers' investigation. The combination of traditional research and negativlands' over-the-top style makes for a very engaging exploration of how American behaviors are subconsciously guided by corporate concerns. Some people may find the movie's style too hectic and/or scattered, but the post-MTV generations will certainly be equipped to watch this enjoyable critique.

This documentary attempts comedy, but never quite gets there for me. Camp? Ehn, maybe. The more apt word that everyone will agree on -- and have a hard time avoiding in any review -- is kitsch. It dripped kitsch. It was as if the film makers had worried their viewers would take the movie too seriously, and so they bent over backwards to insert kitsch and proclaim, "We're joking around here! See???"

In short, I felt it was trying too hard. For example, the sock puppets that introduced each scene were (to me) annoying when I'm sure they were meant to be amusing -- or at least (ahem) kitsch-ey.

Do not, however, avoid this movie based on my complaints. Just be ready to revel in kitsch rather than having it thrust at you unprepared. If you're interested in lighthearted fare, you could do far, far worse. At the very least, the facts surrounding the rise and fall of the Bakers make this interesting and worth a view. At best, gaggles of like minded kitsch lovers will hoot and holler over choice bits throughout the film.

I saw this with English sub-titles, and with the translated title, "Where The Sky Meets the Land". This is not a fast moving movie, but the pace is exactly correct for entering these people's word. Having never been to Kirgizstan (or any place like it), I found the vistas both breathtaking to see and interesting to consider.

Nothing is blatantly explained. The audience witnesses daily life, and that is that. An example is a scene of a young boy going through a ritual marking the end of infancy. We see the toddler brought forward with his legs tied (much in the manner that the animals are hobbled). At the appropriate point in the ceremony, the ropes are severed, and the toddler is run around to all the people -- free for the first time to walk among them (though too young to be quite capable of doing so on his own). To the film makers' credit, the audience can tell exactly what is happening, and no commentary is given nor needed.

Without announcing any agenda, the film allows you to witness a whole culture undergoing change after remaining static for centuries. We see how the influence of the West affects the herdsmen/women. The West brings a new way of life, and frees one from following herds with their collapsible yurts (round tent-like structures), but also has negatives.

The movie did convey an opinion, but did so quietly. The viewer is generally left to find their own meaning from the elements that the film makers chose to give us. The movie's lack of preachiness and gorgeous camera work get my hearty approval.

William Yang seems like a nice enough Chinese-Australian photographer. The slide show of his family and friends is pleasantly bittersweet. I agree with Mr. Yang that all the AIDs deaths, and the murder of his uncle were wrong. I understand his quietly stated sorrow and loss. I, however, would have rather seen a movie instead of this slide show on film. The subject matter was of some interest to me, but the movie itself could not keep my attention. My biggest complaint was that this felt like a vanity publication -- albeit made by someone else; not the subject. That is: it felt like someone wanted to be nice to Mr. Yang rather than working at making a compelling movie.

I felt like I was getting preached at, and -- already knowing the sermon -- felt I'd heard it delivered better from other sources. They tell me the live performance was better, but I doubt I'd have liked that, either. Still, if you were playing this to a young gay man who'd never heard anyone give a call to arms for the war on AIDs and for gay rights, this would be an acceptable 1st movie. For anyone else, it isn't worth your time. Older gay men and women know this stuff from more entertaining and other superior sources. Non-gays have heard it from more sugar coated sources that allow them to separate Equal Rights from the reality of the gay bar scene, Golden Showers references and/or other behaviors that might turn them off.

Mr. Drake explained that in the 8 years between the play's debut and it's capture on celluloid, he changed a few things (such as the details of clubbing), but the major points remained the same. I do agree that the points are still relevant. I don't think this is an entertaining way to bring them up.

The message is one we've heard before, but it is nicely, sweetly told in this parable. What was the message? Don't be mean to people who aren't like you. There was more to it than that, but that was the main point -- and one that is well placed in a fairy-tale form. Rather than a Rosa Parks-esque sort of saga that leaves you with the feeling that the author wanted to pummel their message into your skull, Wolves of Kromer was light... despite a mixture of sadness in it. It was also refreshing to see the main characters, the wolves, were petty thieves rather than unblemished icons. I'm sick of movies that make the downtrodden into martyred saints rather than admitting everyone has failings. Few people are Gandhi. As such I was happy to find that though the people were all story-book caricatures, no one was pure goodness. And while the wolves a bit 'bad', the movie's village folk are more unscrupulous towards each other than the wolves were towards them.

The actresses playing the old servants gave excellent performances. Interestingly, the film had trouble casting the 2 lead roles as few actors wanted to tackle the openly gay parts in this context. According to the director (who was at the screening I saw), this lead them to put models in the leads. They did quite well.

This could almost be a kids' film, but for a scene where a girl is too obvious about enjoying sex. I would like to have seen that scene toned down so the film could reach a younger audience.

Concept: Husband wants wife to sleep with another woman (in a 3 way), but doesn't know what to do when she starts liking the idea. This movie has a strong 'be careful what you wish for' tone and moral. The husband is the main character, and the camera follows him everywhere. Even the sex scenes occur off screen; as the viewer is lead into the kitchen after the the all-important man.

Since this is a comedy, it can be forgiven for being completely out of touch with the feminine side. The film has every right to make fun of the male predicament. Maybe someone else wants to watch this, but I'd be immensely more interested in a story that had the same sort of wit, but showed how a female misunderstood the other sex, and had the camera following *her* around.