Change Your Image
JamesKLambert
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Marina Experiment (2009)
If it wasn't for the subject...
This is an interest (sick, but interesting) subject. Unfortunately, the editing does little to utilize the wealth of material and adds nothing to it. A much more professional and interesting film could be made from this story.
The opening is particularly lacking, which sets the tone for the entire piece. While the narrator speaks of an abundance of films and photos, which her father took of her, we see the same photos of boxes over and over again. Couldn't they bother to show some of this material, or at least different photos of the items inside the boxes? The rest of the film feels very dull and haphazard, with very little of the films and photos actually utilized and very little information given. The filmmaker says that she organized all this material but it feels like she just rifled through it and grabbed the bear minimum of items to throw a short film together.
OK, so I realize that this review makes me sounds like an insensitive beast. It is not my intention to minimize the horror of what she went through, but I am not commenting on her plight, I am commenting on her film as a film, and it just doesn't work as well as it should. After seeing her talk about the story on the Documentary Channel I was really intrigued, but that interview was much better than the actual documentary.
Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003)
A nice attempt for a TV production but - spoilers.
The series lacked any life - it was just going through the motions. Though I am glad that it keeps people thinking about this import part of human history, and reminds us all how easy evil men can rise, if you already know the subject mater it will do little for you.
Some noticeable defects that come to mind:
1) The characters and their relationships are overly simplified - no one is really fleshed out as a human being. The relationship between Hitler and Rohm is particularly overly simplified.
2) Many people are missing or hardly mentioned - Himmler in particular.
3) Rohm's homosexuality is all but ignored, except when he is suddenly found in bed with another man during his arrested (which is inaccurate) and this is so quick that if you blinked you might have missed it. They should have dealt with the subject or left it out all together. By only touching upon it, the production confuses people who don't know the background for his story and will be left saying, `Was that a man in bed with him? What's going on?'
4) While the production often cites exact dates, some details, which are not marked by date, are out of order - Eva's first suicide attempt for example happens too early.
5) They were too cowardly about dealing with Geli and Eva and Hitler's personal relations with them. Furthermore, they made it seem as if these were the only women in his life, which they were not. And why no text at the end to tell people what happened to Eva? After her suicide attempt she is simply ignored. (For those who don't know, Hitler married her before they both killed themselves in the bunker at the end of the war).
I realize this was a TV production but it could have been much better than this.
Mission to Moscow (1943)
Unbelievable propaganda!
I've often argued the FDR's administration was a dangerous threat to the U.S. in its socialist leanings, but this is proof positive how bad they were in their willingness to support Stalin's murderous dictatorship. The film actually tries to justify Stalin's invasion of Finland as a defensive action against Hitler's Germany. It also whitewashes the Nazi-Soviet allies as simply a treaty of neutrality, never mentioning that the U.S.S.R. took half of Poland after when their Nazi friends invaded it and never mentioning the Balkan states that Stalin took. The film makes it seem like most everyone was stupid to allow Hitler's aggression to go unchecked, but it actively supports Stalin's aggression. Is it any wonder that Eastern Europe suffered under totalitarian rule for more than a generation after World War II? It should have been clear to the Soviets in 1943 that we were inviting them to do whatever they liked and we would look the other way.
Azúcar amarga (1996)
Interesting, but disappointing
Though there are some dramatic moment in this film it does not go far enough in showing the evils of communist rule in Cuba. For anyone who is truly interested in the subject I would recommend the book, `Against All Hope' by Armando Valladares. Valladares spent 22 years in prison for the `crime' of telling his co-workers that he didn't think communism could work. The things he saw and experienced make this fictional film seem like a happy story by comparison.
12 Monkeys (1995)
Close to a perfect movie
I usually call 12 Monkeys my favorite film, because I like the idea of time travel, but hate so much of how I have seen it done. I can easily see this film becoming a cult classic and/or being widely talked about as sadly `overlooked.' Though I am quite aware that the film is not for all tastes, I do not see how any lover of cinema could call this a bad film. Like a fine meal, how can you not appreciate the preparations that went into it, even if you do not have the pallet for it? I have never seen another time travel movie that is so well thought out, were everything ties together in a perfect circle, and there are so many details and insights to discover/change/question upon further viewing.
Most of the criticism I have seen of 12 Monkeys seems to be based on taste or on insults and name calling without substance. If it is simple personal preference I can understand that, but when they say it is lacking in its plot, camera work, acting, etc., that leads me to believe that many people simply do not understand it, or they have some jealous chip on their shoulders against big name stars. I remember seeing 12 Monkeys in the theater, and as the credits rolled two people behind me were talking over what happened. The first said they did not understand, so the second proceeded to explain the ending, though it was obvious that she too was not getting it. I know it sounds pretentious, but it takes a level of sophistication that I do not think most casual movie watchers have. In many ways I think this film does for time travel what 2001 did for space movies: It tries to think through every detail more completely.
WARRING! SPOILERS ENCLOSED FROM HERE ON:
And the last line of the film is so wonderfully delivered to give a double meaning and a ray of hope I think the only last words I like more are from A Touch Of Evil. But once again that's just a personal feeling.
As for the often-overrated La Jetee, that some people think should not have been `remade,' it is a visually stunning and poetic film. But La Jetee lacks the well thought out fullness and development that 12 Monkeys brings to the story, and I therefore would not call this a remake (the credits say it is `inspired by,' which is more correct). My biggest problem with La Jetee is that it is not great science fiction, it is an intellectual cop out and could be better labeled as `fantasy.' In La Jetee a man from the near future is chosen to go back into the past to get items necessary for human survival after a nuclear war. He is selected because of his strong memories and obsessive dreams about the past. The scientists are able to amplify these dreams in a way that allows him to enter the past. It is far fetched, but those are the rule it sets up and I as the viewer was willing to accept them. The plot problem comes in when they decide to send him into the far future. How is this possible? He has no memories of the future for the scientists to latch onto. The film breaks its own scientific reasoning, which breaks my suspension of disbelieve, and tells me that the writer got sloppy. Worse, the idea of going into the far future, because if they are there they must have found a way to survive, therefore they can save us so they can be born, is so much illogical nonsense as to be childish. This is a clear sign of writer's block. La Jetee got its hero into a situation that it did not know how to get out of, so it decides to call on the hand of God (the far future people) to solve the problem. Whenever you introduce previously unknown and all-powerful characters late in the story it is an obvious script failure. This offers no opportunity for your character to grow, to sink or swim on their own, and leaves the audience feeling gypped. Hamlet should regain his father's kingdom or bring down everyone around him in his maddening quest you don't have the Virgin Mary suddenly appear, give him back his sanity, and put him on the throne. It's just not good writing. 12 Monkeys corrects La Jetee's error by never going into the far future, while also added more details that pull everything together in a more intelligent manor. In La Jetee the main character's actions has nothing to do with the nuclear war, but the main character's actions in 12 Monkeys are an integral part of the virus that almost wipes out the human race. This is a far superior plot.
I fear that what most `high-minded' people are judging La Jetee on is the fact that it is French. Just as many Americans would never see a foreign film, other Americans would never dare believe that Hollywood could ever do anything right. You can see the obvious slant one way or the other in so many reviews of 12 Monkeys, La Jetee, and other films. But the fatal flaw of La Jetee can not be wiped clean just because it is big in `artistic' circles. It was a wonderful idea that was later improved upon.
La jetée (1962)
Poetic and visually stunning, but overrated
This one is worth seeing by anyone interested in still photography, time travel stories, or good cinema in general. But because I am a big fan of 12 Monkeys' brilliance I was a little disappointed in this original story.
WARRING! SPOILERS ENCLOSED FROM HERE ON:
My biggest problem with La Jetee is that it is not great science fiction, it is an intellectual cop out and could be better labeled as `fantasy.' In La Jetee a man from the near future is chosen to go back into the past to get items necessary for human survival after a nuclear war. He is selected because of his strong memories and obsessive dreams about the past. The scientists are able to amplify these dreams in a way that allows him to enter the past. It is far fetched, but those are the rule it sets up and I as the viewer was willing to accept them. The plot problem comes in when they decide to send him into the far future. How is this possible? He has no memories of the future for the scientists to latch onto. The film breaks its own scientific reasoning, which breaks my suspension of disbelieve, and tells me that the writer got sloppy. Worse, the idea of going into the far future, because if they are there they must have found a way to survive, therefore they can save us so they can be born, is so much illogical nonsense as to be childish. This is a clear sign of writer's block. La Jetee got its hero into a situation that it did not know how to get out of, so it decides to call on the hand of God (the far future people) to solve the problem. Whenever you introduce previously unknown and all-powerful characters late in the story it is an obvious script failure. This offers no opportunity for your character to grow, to sink or swim on their own, and leaves the audience feeling gypped. Hamlet should regain his father's kingdom or bring down everyone around him in his maddening quest you don' t have the Virgin Mary suddenly appear, give him back his sanity, and put him on the throne. It's just not good writing. 12 Monkeys corrects La Jetee's error by never going into the far future, while also added more details that pull everything together in a more intelligent manor. In La Jetee the main character's actions has nothing to do with the nuclear war, but the main character's actions in 12 Monkeys are an integral part of the virus that almost wipes out the human race. This is a far superior plot.
I fear that what most `high-minded' people are judging La Jetee on is the fact that it is French. Just as many Americans would never see a foreign film, other Americans would never dare believe that Hollywood could ever do anything right. You can see the obvious slant one way or the other in so many reviews of 12 Monkeys, La Jetee, and other films. But the fatal flaw of La Jetee can not be wiped clean just because it is big in `artistic' circles. It was a wonderful idea that was later improved upon.