It's rare to see a film that as much as it amuses, it also takes an angle on serious matters. These last fifteen years have seen a series of films flourishing out of the path of some very talented Persian directors, expressing their views on life, on people, on the political issues and so on, through an anthology of subjects that come to show with finesse things that couldn't be said otherwise. "Marmoolak" is one of those. Only here, the destiny of men and women of an entire country subject to the whims of its rulers symbolized here by one man (the fake cleric played with gusto and talent by Parviz Parastui) is shown not by the means of drama, but throughout comedy. And comedy is something that Persians seem to know about. To say that this film is funny is a euphemism. There is situation comedy here, and it is treated with much lightness. But if one goes farther and looks through it, one can easily capture the fate of an entire people. Works like this, in the form of a film or a book, etc, usually help change things. Let's hope this one does. Talent as they say, has no boundary.
Reviews
3 Reviews
Hang 'Em High
(1968)
Why?
30 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
One wonders why some people shoot films. In this case, I think that Ted Post getting bored to death, thought "why only me? Everybody has the right to get bored." And what better than shoot a boring film for the masses to do so. Well he succeeded.
From a weak script, with more or less strong actors, the film loses its plot after the first half. Everybody is just walking around with no aim. There are some characters that appear without helping the story move forward, even slowing it down. (Possibility of spoilers) Some scenes are very long (the hanging of the six) where two third of it should be cut (you also will notice the handheld camera work among the bystanders much like in documentaries, in a Western!); some scenes are too short (like the killing at the end, the most important revenge scene in the film) where one wonders why the director had to botch the way he tells his story. The only reason for this movie to exist is Clint Eastwood.
Maybe this is not the worst western ever, but this is one of the boring ones. When the director doesn't care, why should the rest of the cast and crew?
From a weak script, with more or less strong actors, the film loses its plot after the first half. Everybody is just walking around with no aim. There are some characters that appear without helping the story move forward, even slowing it down. (Possibility of spoilers) Some scenes are very long (the hanging of the six) where two third of it should be cut (you also will notice the handheld camera work among the bystanders much like in documentaries, in a Western!); some scenes are too short (like the killing at the end, the most important revenge scene in the film) where one wonders why the director had to botch the way he tells his story. The only reason for this movie to exist is Clint Eastwood.
Maybe this is not the worst western ever, but this is one of the boring ones. When the director doesn't care, why should the rest of the cast and crew?
I Died a Thousand Times
(1955)
I Died a Thousand Times watching it...
20 July 2003
I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.
But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.
It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...
But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.
It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...
Tell Your Friends