Reviews

I just recently saw "Putney Swope", mainly because I'm a big P.T. Anderson fan, and he frequently sights this movie as a major influence. The character played by Don Cheadle is "Buck Swope", Robert Downey Sr. has a cameo in the film, and the scene where that Asian kid is throwing fire crackers everywhere is a direct homage to "Putney".

Ultimatley, I was kind of impressed but also a bit more dissapointed. I think the film is dated, and a lot of the jokes are more offensive than funny. Now, I don't have anything against offensive humor, but offensive humor often ages badly.

Now, the film has some very funny moments. The commercial parodies are especially funny. The film is well made, well photographed, especially when you consider the fact that it was made on a shoe string budget.

The big problem with this film is the title character. There's that old saying that you should never marry someone that you wouldn't want to spend the weekend with. Well, you shouldn't make a movie about such a person either.

At first, we see that Putney Swope is just the token black guy on the board of directors at this big time Madison Avenue advertising firm. They treat Putney like crap. It's not hard at all to sympathise with him. But once he assumes power, you realize that he's a total ass hole. His creepy, gravely voice dosen't help.

Still, I can imagine that in the late sixties, this movie was refreshing and daring.

Dear God this is a great movie! One of the best movies of the year. Now, I've come to accept the fact at years end, some of my favorite films don't have a chance at winning the Oscar (I don't expect to see either "Kill Bill" or "Holes", two of my favorites, nominated for Best Picture), but this film REALLY deserves to be nominated.

The Acadamy has a long standing prejudice against films that air on television first. This has caused for some very unfortunate moments in the past. Many people were outraged that Linda Fiorentino was not nominated for "The Last Seduction", and the Japanese film "Shall We Dance" was snubbed because it aired on Japanese television first. I find it funny since both many of Ignmar Bergmans movies, including "Scenes From A Marriage", "Face To Face", and "Fanny And Alexander" (the latter won the best forign language Oscar) aired on Swedish T.V. first.

"Angels In America" was not some film that couldn't find a distributor. Nor was it some T.V. movie that was cranked out. A six hour movie is hard to release in theaters. Television has allowed for all kinds of films, from "The Decaloug" to Ken Burns documentaries to have a life that normaly would not be possible in the world of the multiplexes.

"Angels" is an important film. A great film filled with brilliant performances that deals with one of the most devestating events of the last twenty years. I also think it's Mike Nichols greatest film.

I urge everyone who has seen this movie and who loved this movie to write to The Acadamy Of Motion Picture Arts And Sciences and tell them to change the rules and nominate "Angels".

I first saw this film when I was a little kid. It stuck in my mind because it was so damned bizzar and depressing. I also remember that they had these really weird previews at the end in which people were at some kind of eatery and they were serving rodents on sticks.

After searching tirelessly, I finally tracked down a copy. The film was pretty much as I remember it, only, well, worse.

The film tells the tale of two brothers, who die and go to a medivil fairy tale world. The opening sequence, which I suppose was shot in Stockholm or Copenhagen, is shot in sepia tone. The younger brother, "Crispy", is afraid he's gonna die. His older brother, Jonathan, tells him not to fear. When he dies, he'll go to some place called Nagliomi (I think that's how you spell it).

Jonathan dies trying to rescue Crispy from a fire. Crispy dies shortly after. They meet up in Nagliomi. The scenes in the afterlife are shot in color, but their just as dreary. The brothers live in a medivel village called Cherry Valley. Aparently the neighboring vilage, Wild Rose Valley, has some kind of warlord that enslaves it's people. He rules over them with a big dragon called Catla.

The brothers end up going to war with the bad guy. The dragon makes the Toho monsters look like the dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park". I do know that in Norse (Viking) mythology, the greatest honor is to die and go to some place where your always at war. Compared to this, the films of Ingmar Bergman look like "The Care Bear Movie".

Naturally, I went to this movie almost expecting it to have something to

do with altar boys being molested by priests (hey, let's face it. It's

the scandal du jore of the moment). I insted found a delightful movie

that was quirky and fun. It kind of reminded me of "Stand By Me" in

it's attempt to balance the fun and joyus side of childhood with the

dark side. The cast was generally excellent, and I think young Kerin

Culkin may yet one up his older brother. Jodie Foster, as always, is

superb, as is Vincent D'Orfino. It's kind of nice to see a friendly

priest in a movie at the present time.

The film really tries to perform a balancing act. It tries to on the

one hand depict a slice of life/coming of age story, while trying to

depict a pure childhood fantasy (i.e. the wonderful animated segments by

Todd McFarland), and depicting a genuine look at the horrors of

childhood. And it very nearly succeeds. The business with the

girlfriend was handled well. But the ending was too heavy handed. I

find alot of films these days seem to think going over the top into an

apocolyptic ending is the answer (ala "L.I.E."). Still, a

And the best romantic comedy of the decade.

Almodovar may err on the side of exploitation, but he always has

genuine compassion for his characters. His situations are always

interesting, but his films can at times be uneven. He's perfectly

focused in this film.

Antonio Banderes plays a released mental patient who tracks

down a one time porno actress/ one time junkie who currently

stars in a series of slasher films. He follows her home and ties

her up. He does not rape, rob, or hurt her. He instead insists that

they had an affair before, and that they said that they'd get married

should Banderes be released. At first, she naturally thinks he's

nuts. But the more he keeps her captive, the more she begins to

succumb to his charms.

A wonderful film, full of color, humor, romance, and one of the best

sex scenes I've ver seen.

I remember seeing an interview with Neil Simon once who said

that he remebers that during the run of his play "Brightom Beach

Memiors", a black usher would crack up at every performance.

When Simon asked him why he laughed at every performance, the

usher told him "That's my family."

"Crooklyn" had the same effect on me. Just as a black ushers

family must have been light years away from a pre war Jewish

family in Brightom Beach, I can assure you that my childhood was

lightyears away from the Charmichles. True, I grew up in Brooklyn,

but I grew up in a upper middle class white neighborhood in the

early eighties. This world was light years away from the world of

Lee's film, but certain aspects of childhood ring true wether your

from Sachrimento or Siagon.

I think this is Spike's best film after "Do The Right Thing". In some

ways even better. It's one of the best films ever made about

childhood. You have the joy of staying up late and watching "The

Partidge Family". The pain of losing your Mom and having your

Dad thrown out of the house. The humor, as when one of the boys

hits a girl with a cat. This is a magical movie in all respects.

This movie is alot like Chop Suey. They seem to have just thrown

watever they could find into the wok and, while the meal isn't bad,

it's not great and an hour latter your still hungry.

Obviously, this George Jung character isn't terribly interesting.

Neither was Henry Hill in "Goodfellas" (which "Blow" owes alot to),

but the way the situations he was in developed were fascinating.

Everything in this movie just seems to be thrown into the mix.

Escabar, Pee Wee betraying him, even the lovely and talented

Penelope Cruz just seems to have been thrown in to yell at

Johnny. And then when they have a kid. Suddently his goal in life

changes. Too abrubt. Too manipulative.

I think this film really could have worked if they took the time and

deveoped the characters and the situation. As a result, we have a

movie that leaves a heavy aftertaste in our mouth.

I think this film will one day be the cinematic equivilant of Beethovans Ninth Symphony. Both were autumnal works created by great masters late in there careers. Beethovans symphony was hardly well recieved by critics, who found the piece baffeling. Beethovan responded in saying that it was for "Future Generations". Indeed, it is now viewed as one of the greatest symphonic works of all time. "Dreams" was not well recieved when it was released. No one could deny that at 81, Kurasowa was still ambitiouse and imaginitive. Yet most critics found the work to be rambling and self indulgent. I for one think that this film is one of Kurasowas best films, and one of the best films ever made. And I know I'm not alone in this assessment. I know many people who've seen this film (including my father) who see the film for the masterpiece that it is. When I went to film school, I found many young Cineast's who share this viewpoint. Perhaps comparing it to Beethovan's Ninth may seem a bit percousiouse, but I do think in time this film will be recognized as a masterpiece.

I remember going to see this movie with my second grade class. It was playing at a theater somwhere in New York, no doubt due to the recent popularity of "The Cosby Show". It was really weird seeing Bill as a cowboy. I don't remember the movie well at all, but I remember it being kind of violent and very depressing. It seemed like the poor mans "Sounder". I don't remember liking it much, but I think Bill's heart was in the right place. He apparently loves Westerns, and, as always, wanted to make something very pro social.

A perfectly marvelouse film. Certainly the most theologicly faithful

biblical film ever made. This fact is all the more suprising when

one finds out that the director, Pier Pablo Passolini, was in fact a

devout Marxist.

The film is shot with a simple beauty, and unfolds with at a

deliberate but entrancing pace. The scene when the mothers are

attacked by the armys, and there infants roll down the hill, is one of

the most shockingly horrible scenes I've ever seen. The film

obviously had no money for special effects, yet the scene when

Christ heals the leoper is stunning. They bring out what I'm sure

was a real life leoper, and they then simply cut to a normal man. In

it's own simplistic way, this scene is every bit as amazing as the

parting of the red sea in "The Ten Commandmants".

Far and away Levingstons best film to date. I think this film is in many ways the post war equivalent to Orson Wells' "The Magnificent Ambersons". They both deal with an era and a community that passes. I love the way Sam talkes about America. None of that "back in the old country" crap. You have the opening scenes in the movie with this big Jewish family telling stories and laughing. Later you have Adian Quinn's family all in there rooms watching TV. Most heartbreaking of all, you have poor Sam, alone in the retirement home, talking about the life he had in America that is now lost. Definitely one of the great films about the American experience.

All in all, this is a tremendous film. One of the most uncomprimising and personal films I'd ever seen. So many films insist on create characters that we like or can "relate" to.

Scorsese often opts not to force us to like a character, but to understand him. One things for sure, we grow to understand Travis, love or hate his actions.

I have just one problem with this film. I think the film comes so close to perfection one can overlook a few little faults (The piece of Errol Flynn's bathtub dosen't make much sense, and even though Travis is supposed to be detached, would he really be stupid enough to take Betsy to a porno movie?). Still, I wish they had ended the movie with the blood bath. The films epilogue, I feel, prevents the film to reaching the highest of hights it comes so close to reaching.

For one thing, if a man shot three people, however degenerate they may be, he probably wouldn't be allowed to walk the streets, and he definitely would not be allowed to drive a cab. The scene also ruins much of the intimacy of the film. One of the beautiful things about movies is that we are given insight into a character that the other characters in the film aren't given. We know why Travis did what he did. This whole comment on the media portraying him as a hero just ruins the special quality of the film. There was no need to vindicate Travis, we already assessed our opinions of him. There was no need to moralize. Thankfully, Scorsesee would become less prone to moralize with "Raging Bull", "The King of Comedy" and "Goodfellas".

This was the first foreign language film I'd ever seen. I was only six or seven years old when my Dad rented the film. He was in his bedroom watching the film when he called me, my Mom, and my sister into the room. He showed us the scene where Le' Petite Gregory falls out the window. It was one of the most terrifying and suspensful things I'd ever seen, up there with the best of Hitchcock. Years later, when I was in film school, I tried to remember the name of the film. When I became familiar with Truffaut's work, I suspected that he might have directed this film. I went to my local video store where we they have a Truffaut section. I saw the box for "Small Change" and rented it on the hunch that it might be the film I'd seen as a boy. Sure enough, it was. I love this movie! After "The 400 Blows", this is Truffaut's masterpice!