Change Your Image
johnwolpert
Reviews
Better Luck Tomorrow (2002)
A superbly crafted, very mature insight into teenage culture
I saw this film at the Toronto film festival, and was completely absorbed in it. It is both an intelligent observation of teenage culture and a great achievement in style and cinematography Follows in the footsteps of masterpieces like "Goodfellas" and "Menace to Society". Like them, this film plunges us into the lifestyle of its characters, and unrelentingly attempts to relate us to them. One wouldn't think that it is possible to be so consumed by a world occupied by those quiet over-achievers we overlooked in high school, but this film offers a darker, edgier vantage point that is so involving we cannot look away.
What I enjoyed so much about this film is that its characters are intelligent, but their intelligence is constantly overwhelmed by hormones and social pressures typical of the American teenager. It begins as a story of four Asian-American high school students, all with promising futures and crystal clean records, who decide to enter a life of crime and violence. Their crimes are easy because their reputations as do-gooders make them inconspicuous. The film follows Ben, whose richly observant narration offers a voyeur type insight into their declining souls. We watch, with unblinking eyes as harmless vices transform into drugs and murder. Soon enough the lives of these characters collapse, rendering one a surviver of a botched suicide attempt, and another a paranoid killer. The brilliance of these characters is not simply an excuse for their crimes, but an added weight on their shoulders. Their intelligence breeds conflict; they are smart enough to know that their lives are being jeopardized, but logical enough to see that when the extra pennies are so easy to attain, the crime is to lose the opportunity.
The crown jewel of this film is Stephanie, strongly portrayed by beautiful Karin Anna Cheug, possibly the hottest new thing to hit Hollywood in years. Her character is strong, on par with the boys in terms of intellect and achievement, but her heart is gold. Mark my words, after the release of this film, this girl is going to be on the cover of every magazine in this country. Wonderful girl, Wonderful film.
Adaptation. (2002)
takes irony to a completely new level
Mark my words; In twenty years this film will be regarded as the re-invention of comedy. Charlie Kauffman's amazing screenplay will be a landmark piece of writing and a continuous testament to the idea that originality in writing goes further than any 100 million dollar budget can. If this movie must be labelled a comedy, than it is the best that has been made in years. A work of unparalleled brilliance.
Attempting to describe the plot of this film would be a futile exercise. It changes so frequently that after two viewings, I'm not so sure myself. The point is that this movie is a wonderful depiction of the arduous peril that is writing. It is about the duality of writers, the conflict that exists within them between the formulaic, fairy-tale plot and the completely original piece that is much more challenging. Charlie Kauffman, brilliantly acted by Cage, advocates the latter method, and his twin brother Donald, the former. We know that Donald Kauffman is given credit for the film's screenplay and, I'm quite certain, receives the honor for the movie's uncanny finale, where all original premises are lost, and the film arrives at a resolution ending that Charlie had been preaching against the entire film. This is not a formula ending, however, only because we understand that it evokes philosophical ideas about the nature of writing itself, and a feeling of irony that I will not soon forget.
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
A towering achievement, but certainly not one of the best of all time
This film is indeed a modern epic deserving of high praise, but I cannot understand how the good voters of this website have placed this film and its prequel amongst the top ten films of all time. Films worthy of this ranking must in some way change the art of cinema or, at bare minimum, they must be saturated with originality. "The Two Towers" is merely a brilliant collaboration of technology and writing; the art of film itself is almost unnecessary. Nothing artistically original has been presented in this film, and moreover, it is not even an original concept, the genre or the plot itself.
I'm sure that the ratings for this film are predicated on pure enjoyment and cinematic intensity, which this film does deliver in spades. I must say that the last hour of this film is one of the most invigorating hours of cinema I have ever experienced. I'm just not sure how, and I felt this after about an hour and a half, fans can watch with fresh eyes and vehement curiosity when the plotlines have become somewhat redundant. A battle occurs, a character we care for is wounded or killed or perhaps he fell and will inevitably return. I applaud Peter Jackson for making every battle as new to our eyes as possible, but after a while these beautifully constructed battle scenes play out as simple formalities.
Overall, I would definately consider this film amongst the great action/adventure films of recent years, but surely not amongst the best of all time. It is a copy of a great piece of art, delivered with grace and beauty by technology. Once we begin to label films with such high praise because of technological feats, we are forgetting the true purpose of art, and for that, "The Two Towers" is simply not as good as its cracked up to be.
Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (1922)
Remarkable
In the opening scenes, "Nosferatu" establishes itself through a series of ominous images: an obscured sunset, a silenced crowd at a Carpathian inn, and two of the most dreadfully frightening characters I've ever witnessed in a film. Max Schreck and Alexander Granach play Count Orlock and Mackler Knock respectively, and both deliver performances that, even though they are silent, evoke as much fear and mystery as Hannibal Lecter.
What is so impressive about this film is that it is able to inspire fear without modern horror film conventions. No objects suddenly revealing themselves alongside a bold musical note, no horror villain stereotypes. This movie inspires fear through the manipulation of its characters; their movements, their costume and in the case of Count Orlock, their slow, foreboding walk. The most frightening point in this film is when the wide eyes of Max Schreck are first seen. This is not the kind of horror that warrants a scream, but rather leaves you completely silent and in awe of its genius
I gave this movie a 9 almost exclusively because of its innovation and artistry. The plot, which bares little resemblance to the Stoker novel in that it doesn't include many of the sub-stories, is not as enthralling as recent versions. Then again it doesn't need it, the purpose is clear and apparent; Nosferatu is not suave or manipulating, it is a torn, haunted soul and this movie gives the only sincere depiction of Dracula that I have seen. Truly remarkable.
Gladiator (2000)
What was the academy thinking?
It has taken almost eighty years, the academy has finally awarded best picture to a genuinely bad movie. I, and avid movie-goer, have never once disliked a best picture winner, some were better than others of course, but none that I can recall were as tedious and insipid as Gladiator. There is really only one reason to like this movie, and that is if you visit the theatre because the slaughterhouse is too far. All this movie has to offer is blood and guts. There is no redeeming dialogue or exceptional acting throughout, and I am a fan of Russel Crowe. The problem is that Scott gave Crowe absolutely nothing to work with. Maximus is a conventional hero, nothing more. He spews typical, audience cheapening one liners and Ridley Scott expects us to be moved, c'mon people, it's time we woke up and began appreciating good, unique film making, unlike this formulated garbage.
Gladiator (2000)
What was the academy thinking?
It has taken almost eighty years, the academy has finally awarded best picture to a genuinely bad movie. I, and avid movie-goer, have never once disliked a best picture winner, some were better than others of course, but none that I can recall were as tedious and insipid as Gladiator. There is really only one reason to like this movie, and that is if you visit the theatre because the slaughterhouse is too far. All this movie has to offer is blood and guts. There is no redeeming dialogue or exceptional acting throughout, and I am a fan of Russel Crowe. The problem is that Scott gave Crowe absolutely nothing to work with. Maximus is a conventional hero, nothing more. He spews typical, audience cheapening one liners and Ridley Scott expects us to be moved, c'mon people, it's time we woke up and began appreciating good, unique film making, unlike this formulated garbage.
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Overrated
This movie is indeed a spectacle like none other, the cinematography is unmatched and Jackson's adaptation is remarkable. However, Tolken never meant for the story to be viewed, and though it is a landmark in filmaking, the characters are simply weak, well acted, but weak, and my premise is that Tolken never wanted us to care for them. What tolken wanted was to free readers from their austere existense and bring them into a world unlike our own, and use our imaginations to get there. A movie, no matter how spectacular can never achieve the imaginative experience of a novel like Tolken's.