Change Your Image
scobie
Love movies, naturally.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Il posto (1961)
I agree with Red
When neo-realist film works, it really works. This movie is almost perfect. The story is simple, the attention to detail is exquisite, the "performances" are totally transparent. It's all very straightforward, but full of subtlety. It's also quite hilarious in several scenes. Above all, it's done without any condescension, with great sympathy and understanding. I loved this film.
The Criterion DVD I watched has an interview with Olmi, who seems like a charming fellow. He denies that this is a neo-realist film, but that's merely a matter of definition. If by neo-realist you mean films like The Bicycle Thief and Umberto D., this surely qualifies. Indeed, there are several similarities to the former film.
Vera Drake (2004)
The English are best.
Thank heavens for Mike Leigh, because you sure wouldn't see an American film with a serial abortionist as the heroine.
The movie is set in 1950, and Vera Drake has been "helping out" young pregnant women for so long she's not even sure when she started. And she really does see herself as helping out; she won't use the A word. Her clients are not all young, mind you. There is the poor woman, for example, with six or seven children already and a sick husband, who can't bear the thought of another. Nor are they all helpless or innocent - one has had at least one before - or even poor, although most certainly are. The cost is two guineas, but Vera takes no pay - the money going to her "abortion pimp", who also deals in rationed consumer goods for a profit.
Vera truly has a heart of gold. I really can't think of a movie character - leaving aside that Jesus fellow - more selfless or altruistic. What is remarkable is that, in part because of Leigh's naturalistic script and in part because of Imelda Staunton's extraordinary performance - you never for a moment doubt the truth of that claim. When Vera is arrested after one of her syringe and soapy water abortions finally goes wrong, almost killing a young woman, she is not thinking of herself but of the effect on her family.
And this is when this already beautiful film gets even more heartbreakingly sublime. Her husband, his brother, her daughter, even the daughter's hapless fiancé stand by her without question. Only her son is appalled, thinking that she has done something not only wrong but "dirty"; but his father shows him that he must forgive his mother, as she would forgive him. And so he does. Only the brother-in-law's wife, a woman with airs, condemns Vera. Tellingly, she is also a materialist.
For this movie is mostly about the virtue of the working class, another reason why it is impossible to conceive of it in an American version. Is what Vera did wrong? I don't think so, but even if you do, there is no denying that only the poor paid the price of unwanted pregnancy when abortion was a crime. The rich, as we see in the case of desperate young woman who is date raped, get a referral over tea at a tony restaurant, see a Harley Street doctor, get a dispensation from a winking psychiatrist, and have the deed done in a posh sanatorium.
In addition to Staunton, the whole cast is wonderful. Special kudos go to Philip Davis as Stan, the husband. This is the best picture of 2004.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
The remake is never as good
My comments are directed to a comparison of this film and its original 1956 version, directed by Don Siegel. I've seen both versions twice, most recently on television, back to back. On second viewing, I liked the original more than I did the first time, and the remake less. I now think that the original is a near masterpiece, while the remake is much inferior. [new para.]
One reason is that the remake is a full 35 minutes longer than the original, which was only 80 minutes long. Of course, this is very typical of how movies have changed in those two decades: an audience today would feel cheated if they spent $14.00 for a movie less than an hour and a half long. The fact is, however, that for the telling of a single narrative about 90 minutes is plenty and nearly two hours is too long. [new para.]
The premise of both films is really quite simple: aliens invade earth in the form of spores, they grow in pods, they take over the bodies of humans and replace them, and their plan (presumably) is to take over the whole human race. The plot centres on the discovery of the conspiracy, and on whether or not the heroes can escape. [new para.]
Another reason is that the remake is full of special effects not present in the original, which has very few - and those few are not especially good. However, and this is another of my prejudices, there is almost an inverse relationship between F/X and dramatic impact. We know the body snatchers are hatching in pods. How they actually do it really doesn't matter. What is scary is that humans are becoming non-humans: they are losing their vital spirit, their emotions. The shots of half-formed pod-people is just yucky stuff; it's not truly frightening. [new para.]
A third reason is that the musical score in the original is much superior. This is surprising: music in the 1950s usually was overdone. Here it's the more modern score that is overblown and calls attention to itself. Indeed, the sound effects and camera tricks indulged in by Philip Kaufman - although some are effective - are mostly distracting. Technically, I think Siegel is the better director, even though his style is much more traditional. Compare the chase scenes: Siegel's are better. [new para.]
Lastly - and this is the most important reason - the original has a resonance that simply cannot be attained in the remake because of the time in which each was made. It is crystal clear, regardless of the intention of the author of the novel, that the theme of the original is related to Americans' fear of Communism. That invests the plot with a terror that is much more convincing than the superficial one of aliens from outer space, which is all the remake has. There are clever cultural references in the remake to bring it up to date - particular having to do with pop psychology, but also with health and environmental concerns, and some crackpot scientific theories - but none carry any great weight that take the remake outside the genre. The ending, though creepy, thus cannot compare to the horrifying scene of Kevin McCarthy screaming "you're next" to disbelieving drivers on the highway, unaware that their freedom is about to be stolen.
Gaz Bar Blues (2003)
Honest, moving, and charming - spoilers
Gaz Bar Blues is a Québec film written and directed by Louis Bélanger which won the Special Grand Jury Prize at the Montreal Film Festival.
It begins dramatically with the owner of a gas station being held up at gunpoint. That incident is then left incomplete and we are introduced to the owner, "Boss" Brochu, and his family. Brochu is a middle-aged widower who is the manager of a shabby service station somewhere in Québec. He's developed Parkinson's and he needs the help of his three sons to continue in business, but the two older sons have no interest, while the youngest is willing but only 14.
The film is set in 1989. Self-service stations are forcing small and marginal service stations out of business, and this one has almost as many robbers as paying customers. It serves mainly as a hang-out for an assortment of oddballs, who gather every day to smoke, joke around, and pass the time. Think of several Cliff Clavens with a Québec accent. Brochu knows the writing is on the wall, but he knows nothing else but work, and seems to think that if he can keep the business going, he can keep his family together.
Rejean, however, wants to be a blues musician. He runs off to play his harmonica whenever he can, abandoning the more conventional son, Guy, to cover for him. But even Guy has had enough, and he leaves to photograph Berlin after the fall of the Wall.
Eventually, we return to the armed robbery, and see its dramatic denouement. Boss admits the inevitable, and closes the gas bar. He makes peace with Guy and Rejean, and with his illness.
This is an honest, moving, and charming film, clearly bearing the imprint of personal experience. The cast, led by popular Québec comedian Serge Thériault as the paterfamilias, is uniformly excellent. At 115 minutes, I would say it runs 10 minutes long. The Berlin episode should have been excised. Mostly, it serves as an excuse for Bélanger to self-indulgently display his own arty photographs, and to make a rather strained analogy between the East Berliners and people like Brochu who are economically obsolete.
The subtitles, of the very colloquial working class language of the characters, are generally excellent. However, my companion assured me that the dialogue identifies Boss as 59, whereas the subtitles say 54. Given that he looks about 65, it's a rather significant point.
Undisputed (2002)
Boys night out
Although the average rating for this movie on IMDb so far is even for males and females, the huge disparity in the number of each which has voted indicates that this is clearly a "boys'" movie. After all, it's not just about boxing and prison, it's about boxing IN prison.
The plot is pretty simple: The "Iceman" (Ving Rhames) is the unbeaten heavyweight boxing champion who has been convicted of rape. (Does that sound familiar?) Monroe Hutchens (Wesley Snipes), a former ranked boxer who lost his temper and beat his lady's boyfriend to death 10 years ago, is the unbeaten champion of the maximum security prison in the Mojave Desert to which the Iceman is assigned to serve his sentence - or at least until his expensive lawyers can get him out. Naturally, the two must meet to decide who will be the Undisputed champion. Meanwhile, Mendy Ripstein (Peter Falk), an aficionado of the sweet science and old-time mobster who because of his wife's allergies left Florida - where they know who's who - for California - where they don't - and fell afoul of the tax authorities, plots to make a killing betting on the fight.
You can guess who wins, but that's hardly the point. The enjoyment in the movie comes from its execution, which is stylishly handled by veteran Walter Hill, who moves things along at a fast enough pace that you don't have time to dwell on the prison-movie cliches - this place owes more to "Oz" than to any real prison, I suspect - and the occasional hyperbole. (Was it really necessary to weld the door shut when Monroe is sent to solitary? And do inmates anywhere still bang their cups and do the Big House Chant? Holy Jimmy Cagney.)
Rhames plays his part with plenty of mean mother style and even a little pathos, Snipes is adequate, and Falk is hilarious. Fisher Stevens, playing a very seedy arsonist who acts as Monroe's "manager", leads a solid supporting cast.
Warning: this being a boys' movie, you may find your audience off-putting. When I saw it, the boys jeered whenever the alleged victim appeared on screen to tell her story. She seems quite credible and sympathetic, but of course the Iceman contends she "really wanted it" and made her accusations merely to score, and as he says, "when you can fight, people love you". Well, some people do, and as shown by the case of the fighter on whom Iceman is obviously based, they're willing to give a chance to a man who can fight which they wouldn't give to any ordinary criminal. If this breezy piece of escapism has a point, that would be it.
Never Again (2001)
Not suitable for persons under 25.
Judging by the user ratings, which generally seem to me to reflect a very young taste, this movie should have an age warning. However, as a person over 50, I found it delightful, charming, and touching. Jeffrey Tambor is a brave and always interesting actor, and Jill Clayburgh is one of the best American screen actresses - and still sexy at 54. Bill Duke is as cool as it gets, and Sandy Duncan leads a solid supporting cast. The film is better when it plays it straight than when it goes for laughs (the final scene is a bit strained), but there is one extended bit where Clayburgh attacks a dildo - which is hilarious.
If you're, say, 35 or over - see this! Otherwise, tell your parents to see it.