Track the Films You Watch (2007) (2 Viewers)

[Martin Teller]

Okay, I've gotta know... what did you hate about An Angel at my Table? It's a beautiful movie.

And when was the last time you LOVED a movie you hadn't seen before? It seems like unless you're introducing your son to one of your old favorites, all of your reviews indicate mild approval at best, and usually outright disdain. I've got to wonder why you even bother trying to expand your horizons.

 

[PatW]

Did you not like The Piano? Certainly it's one of my favourites from the last decade.

 

[JohnRice]

Just think about it for a moment Martin. This is just George as usual. With all the remarkably horrible actors through the years, to him the worst actor of all time is Vivian Leigh. With all the Uwe Bolls in the world and countless hacks through the decades, Jane Campion is one of the ten worst directors of all time. How can you take any of these "Georgisms" seriously?

 

[JohnRice]

In a Dark Place - :star:1/2 / :star::star::star::star::star:

Unscary, uninteresting adaptation of Turn of the Screw has Leelee Sobieski playing cleavage tease and suffering from rapid editing and shaky, diagonal camera shots, er, horrifying flashbacks. Gave me a chance to grab a few winks.


Bridge to Terabithia - :star::star::star:1/2 / :star::star::star::star::star:

Slightly too melodramatic and "after school special" adaptation of the children's book for my tastes, but not without its appeal. I vastly prefer the true imagination being shown here to the spoon-fed variety of the LOTR movies, even if this world is a bit too evenly lit. AnnaSophia Robb is an absolute revelation as Leslie. Possibly the best performance from a pre (or barely) teen actress since good old Reese in The Man in the Moon, and that's been 16 years. This movie is no where near as good, but it appeals to me in much the same way. Similarly, Robb is solely responsible for making the whole thing work.

 

[PatW]

Notting Hill (1999) :star: :star: :star: :star:

A sweet romantic comedy with Hugh Grant starring and doing what he does best. Julie Roberts also shone in this movie. The shining spot in this movie though was Rhys Ifans who was just hilarious as Grant's daffy flat-mate. He was the best of the quirky characters that can be found littering this movie. Lovely movie that doesn't lose anything with subsequent viewings.

 

[SteveGon]

Re: In a Dark Place

Ya know, I almost rented this the other day but passed on it, thinking I'd get it next week or whenever. Thanks for saving me the trouble!

 

[Bob Turnbull]

zip.ca just shipped that one to me yesterday. Why didn't you post this sooner?!

Oh well, I'll give it a spin as I've wanted to see if for awhile as well.

 

[Richard N]

Death and the Maiden (Polanski, 1994) - A
http://directcinema.blogspot.com/200...nski-1994.html

A tense, intelligent film, with fantastic performances from Kingsley, Weaver and Stuart Wilson. In my opinion, one of Polanski's best films and proof that he does claustrophobic psychological thrillers better than almost anyone else.

Knocked Up (Apatow, 2007) - A-

Easily the most satisfying summer movie experience so far this year. Apatow has an incredible ear for dialogue, and is able to capture today's youth in much the same way John Hughes captured the youth of the 80's.

Real Life (Brooks, 1979) - A
http://directcinema.blogspot.com/200...s-1979_20.html

Over the past couple of weeks, I've been exploring much of Brooks's work, and his debut film is another knock-out. An extremely hilarious, visually witty look at filming "reality" before reality tv.

WXIII: Patlabor The Movie 3 (Endo & Takayama, 2002) - C

Only loosely connected to the previous Patlabor films. Moody and visually accomplished, though it lacks the intelligence and ponderous qualities that Mamoru Oshii brought to the superior previous installments. Interesting though not completely successful.

Hostel: Part II (Roth, 2007) - D+

Will someone please explain to me how/why certain people still view Roth as one of the most talented, most exciting new horror directors? Based on his output thus far, I would say he is middling at best. His films are proof that while he has a certain degree of visual flair, he can't handle actors at all. Hostel: Part II was for me, worse than Hostel, because it is simply a retread, an empty film, full of shallow psychologizing It isn't scary in the least, believing that violence is an adequate substitute for plot, characterization and real tension.

Stormy Monday (Figgis, 1988) - B-/C+
http://directcinema.blogspot.com/200...ggis-1988.html

An interesting attempt to tell a story in aesthetic terms almost completely. Figgis's jazzy take on the crime film is narratively thin, yet it doesn't feel like a failure.

Mr. Brooks (Evans, 2007) - B-

After Knocked Up, probably the most entertaining and satisfying summer movie I've seen this year. An idiosyncratic thriller that succeeds in large part because it feels somewhat fresh. Costner is great, Hurt is great, and their chemistry is fantastic. The films biggest problem is that there are so many different things going on (many of which feel unnecessary) that the film occasionally looses its focus.

New Police Story (Chan, 2004) - C+

A nice return to form for Jackie Chan, who has a story that feels somewhat complete, and is given the chance to invest some emotion into his character. Of course, the action is also incredible, far more intense and hard core than his recent American output. Nothing groundbreaking, but certainly entertaining.

 

[Sandro]

Bob

IFC had played a number of the Fukasaku yakuza films recently and I find them all of a similar high quality. I would say Graveyard of Honor is my favorite but I love the style of all of them - the narration, the use of stills, the camerawork, the theme of Japan's despair after WWII.

As for And Soon the Darkness, I know that it is quite highly thought of by some and I did like certain parts of it but the whole was a disappointment. Give the commentary a listen if you are a fan of Fuest or Clemens as it is great to hear them talking.

 

[PatW]

The Descent (2005) :star: :star: :star: :star:

A well-made British horror movie that is both terrifying and satisfying. A small group of woman go cave exploring and get caught underground where they are hunted by blood-thirsty creatures that aren't quite human. Not too much to say about this one but only that it's truely scary and that a rare claim nowadays.

 

[george kaplan]

It used to be that I'd love lots of new films I'd seen. But that was when I hadn't seen nearly as many. I've seen a ton of films, and frankly, I've seen most of the classics and great films by now. That doesn't mean I've seen them all, and while it may be relatively rare for me to truly love a film I haven't seen (after all, they're coming from a pool in which thousands of the greatest films ever made have been eliminated since I've already seen them), it's worth it every time I do come across one. And, seeing bad films I haven't seen before is still important to me as someone who remains open-minded about all films I haven't seen, and who can't enjoy sending Rice and his ilk into fits by knocking his favorite piece of shit unless I've actually seen it.

Just a couple of examples. After watching and hating many Bunuel films, I saw The Exterminating Angel, which is great. If I had not continued watching, I would have missed this masterpiece, and if I had assumed I'd hate all of Bunuels films based on having hated many of them that I had seen, I would have also missed out.

To answer the original question, about the last new film I loved, I can't recall the exact last one, but some recent ones off the top of my head (within the last year) are:

Keeper of the Flame
My Name is Julia Ross
A Matter of Life & Death
Bachelor Mother
The Scarlet Pimpernel
Portrait of Jennie
I Know Where I'm Going
Eyes Without A Face
Magnolia
The Dinner Game
The Cat's-Paw
Memories of Murder
Love in the Afternoon (1957)
The Professionals
The Pajama Game

And I am certainly going to continue to introduce my son to classic films.

 

[george kaplan]

Oh, and by the way John, you've earned your way back onto my ignore list with your typically 'ignore'-ant post, so respond all you want, but don't expect a response from me (at least until the next time the server crashes and resets my ignore list).

 

[JohnRice]

Now, if that statement was "ignorant" as George called it, I wonder what part of it isn't completely accurate? I believe the absurdity of it is quite evident and I stand by my clearly implied conclusion.

Come on George. Watch The Dead Girl, which has seriously grown in my mind since I first watched it. Possibly my favorite film of 2006. I have no doubt you will be overwhelmed by it, populated by "believable" characters and generally likeable people such as it is.

OK, that's enough, John....

 

[PatW]

Scoop (2006) :star: :star: :star:

Mildly entertaining Woody Allen movie about a college student reporter that is given info from beyond the grave that will help her solve the tarot card murders. Both Johansson and Jackson give good performances but I just found myself becoming increasely irritated with Woody Allen's familiar neurotic take on his character. Screenplay is entertaining though, so a mild thumbs up from me.

 

[PatW]

The Uninvited (1944) :star: :star: :star: :star: 1/2

As a young pre-teen, I was into gothic books and this was one of the books that I had read. Imagine my delight when ten years later I happened to stumble upon this on TV. Since then I've seen it many times and it's my favourite haunted house picture along with the Haunting (the original, thankyou very much)

This movie offers alittle bit of everything. It's a good scary movie, plus a mystery and a romance. The acting is superb here. The photography is just gorgeous and that musical score is just breathtaking.
A wonderful scary movie to curl up on the couch late at night to enjoy. There is certainly something to be said for atmosphere.

 

[JohnRice]

I really need to see The Uninvited again. It's been a long time. One of the best ghosts of all time.

 

[Martin Teller]

George, you didn't answer my question about An Angel at My Table.


And here we get to the root of it. My analysis: You want to be forum's "bad boy", childishly dismissing certain critical favorites, only because you believe it makes all the "pretentious" types go in paroxysms. You think you're "telling it like it is!" and being a free-thinker by thumbing your nose at critical convention, when really you're just being a petulant brat. I'm sure you'll now proceed to get indignant about my analysis, but I think we both know I'm more right than wrong.

I am pleased that you enjoyed Memories of Murder and Exterminating Angel, though. There's hope for you yet.

And one more thing: I don't believe for a second that you've put John Rice on your ignore list, or ever have.

 

[Ted Lee]

title: dracula (1931)
rating: b
comments: i can't think of too many movies i've seen from this period, but this was certainly entertaining to watch. it sure seems campy now, but i can see how it must have blown audiences away back in the day. i just loved those bela lugosi stares ... awesome.

title: oceans 13
rating: c
comments: i was never a huge fan of this series (and i pretty much hate the director), but this one kept me entertained enough. the unbelievability factor is crazy high, but the leads do a good job of keeping us entertained.

 

[Mario Gauci]

06/18/07: SAFETY CATCH (Yves Boisset, 1970) :star::star:1/2

Fairly interesting Euro thriller revolving around the investigation into an apparent suicide who, prior to her demise, was involved in a brief romance with a troubled young man but had also attended a dubious photo-model session. The latter scene, which opens the film, features some mild bondage – thus eliciting memories of Henri-Georges Clouzot’s swan-song LA PRISONNIERE (1969); it’s also interesting that the girl concerned is played by Raffaella Carra` (whose last film appearance this proved to be prior to her breakthrough as a top showgirl/presenter on Italian TV – a status she holds, by and large, to this day!). Unusual, too, is the fact that the detecting work here doesn’t involve the police at all.

The initially ambivalent relationship between disgraced doctor Bruno Cremer (expelled for performing euthanasia) and self-destructing bourgeois Renaud Verley (who feels guilty for Carra`’s death) suggests this is going to be a clinical Chabrol-like character study. However, it turns into a conventional thriller before long (with the heroine – played by Martine Combrell – used as bait for the sleazy amateur photographer); still, Mario Adorf manages to invest the latter role with some degree of panache. Jean Martin, best known as the colonel who leads the oppressive French forces in THE BATTLE OF ALGIERS (1965), appears here as Verley’s valet (who doesn’t seem to take kindly to Cremer’s intrusion!).

As a means of livening up proceedings, director Boisset opts for a car chase climax involving speed-freak Verley and the fleeing (and flustered) Adorf. Needless to say, this being a product of the late 60s, we get the added feature of bad dancing in various pub scenes (though set to some groovy music)!


06/19/07: THE MAN AND THE MONSTER (Rafael Baledon, 1958) :star::star:1/2

Judging from the stills I’d come across prior to my viewing it, this Mexi-horror outing promised to be goofy fun in the vein of THE BRAINIAC (1962). However, even if the monster make-up is a definite hoot (more on this later), the film proved a relatively sober offering and – with its judicious borrowings from the likes of Faust, Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde and The Phantom Of The Opera – thematically intriguing.

The narrative deals with a mediocre musician who – envious of his loved one’s skill as a pianist – sells his soul to the devil, kills the girl and hides her mummified body in a closet (thus anticipating Hitchcock’s PSYCHO [1960]). The catch is that, from that point on, he turns into a monster whenever he attempts to play a particular tune (the score for which is still kept by his beloved) – which rather suggests that, had he avoided playing it in the first place, nothing would have gone wrong…but, then, there’d be no movie! Incidentally, the idea of a murderer being triggered by a musical theme had already been seen in Luis Bunuel’s delightful black comedy THE CRIMINAL LIFE OF ARCHIBALDO DE LA CRUZ (1955)…and, having just mentioned my favorite film-maker, it’s interesting that two of the leads here went on to appear in his Mexican work – Enrique Rambal (the Professor) in THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) and Ofelia Guilmain (his mother) in NAZARIN (1959) and THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL itself. Abel Salazar, as usual, does double-duty as producer and star – though, here, he’s not so much the wisecracking type (and, perhaps, thankfully so).

Anyway, the relationship between the musician and his mother is quite poignantly developed – and the respective actors respond accordingly with convincing (if occasionally campy) portrayals. That said, the mother is endowed with the typical accoutrements of a witch – white-haired, black-clad, stern demeanor and a cat as constant companion – but the plot provides no explanation whatsoever for such an affectation (especially since she wasn’t at all involved in her son’s diabolical pact)! Similarly, when the time comes to desert the mansion and avoid meeting up with the police (alerted by the suspicious Salazar), the corpse of Rambal’s former muse has been unaccountably reduced to ashes – we’re simply shown the result, which the musician still preserves inside a casket. A more irksome conceptual flaw, however, concerns the leading lady (Rambal’s protégé who, very conveniently, is a dead-ringer for his lost love!) opting to remain in his mansion despite the obvious danger to her life (in all, she comes into close contact with the monster three times during the course of the film): since the girl tells Salazar that she can hear the Professor playing the piano by night from her room, the fact that she’d be completely oblivious of his constant growling and maniacal laughter while doing so (at one point, the mother even carelessly addresses the monster by her son’s name while he’s stationed outside the girl’s door!), therefore, strains credibility somewhat.

As I said, the plot is a mishmash of well-worn horror elements; the film disappoints because it doesn’t do much with them: for instance, when the musician turns into a monster, he usually locks himself in and throws the key out the window. In fact, his only victims are chance acquiantances: a passer-by, the unfortunate occupier of a hotel room which had been Salazar’s (though this scene does develop into a well-staged rampage/scuffle in the lobby) and a little girl, a piano student whom Rambal kills in spite of himself (even if her death occurs offscreen, it bears unmistakable echoes of a famous scene in FRANKENSTEIN [1931]). Incidentally, the latter horror classic is referenced again when the monster menaces the heroine as she’s preparing for her debut concert!

While the direction by Rafael Baledon (who would later helm the even grimmer THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]) is occasionally clumsy – opting, for instance, to end the film on a sentimental two-shot of the dying Professor and his heartbroken mother rather than the much more arresting (and all-encompassing) image of them in the foreground and the protegee` and Salazar, who symbolically sets the musical libretto on fire, in the background – the opening sequence alone is among the most effective of its kind that I’ve seen, immediately setting the mood of mystery and violence. In fact, as with most of my previous experiences with Mexi-horror, the film’s major asset is the palpable creepy atmosphere it manages to create with the barest of resources (the central setting itself of the Professor’s hacienda and adjacent courtyard could well be the very same ones that were featured in THE VAMPIRE [1957] and, again, in THE BLACK PIT OF DR. M [1958]!).

Even so, THE MAN AND THE MONSTER also contains surefire instances of unabashed goofiness – which, in their own way, are equally characteristic traits of this particular genre of film-making: the mother’s familiar goes into a panic whenever the musician enters the room...and, then, there’s that hilarious hairy make-up – accomplished by primitive special effects heavily reliant on awkward freeze-framing during dissolves – and comprising a weird combination of Martin Scorsese's bushy eyebrows and the bulbous nose of W.C. Fields!!


06/20/07: THE LIVING COFFIN (Fernando Mendez, 1958) :star::star:1/2

This is a weird amalgam of gothic horror elements with the Western genre, also interesting for being shot in color. The 71-minute film emerges to be a generally likable curiosity that, with an engaging (even complex) plot, evokes affectionate memories of American ‘B’ serials from the previous decade – though, ultimately, it’s marred by a lethargic pace and, when finally exposed, a trio of uninteresting villains.

Gaston Santos, a famous bullfighter, plays the hero; he’s flanked by his resourceful steed and a chubby, perennially sleepy sidekick (initially amusing, he soon becomes overbearing – especially when his antics are accompanied by incongruous ‘comic’ sound effects!). Unfortunately, too, the star is engaged throughout in some extremely fake fistfights! The main ‘ghost’ of the narrative actually ties the film with a long-running horror series revolving around a legendary character known as “La Llorona” (The Crying Woman); I’ve only watched one such film, the fine Mexi-horror THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN (1961) – which, incidentally, has also been released on DVD by Casanegra.

The typical atmosphere of the horror films originating from Mexico – steeped in family secrets, shadows and superstition (by way of Edgar Allan Poe and Agatha Christie) – is further boosted in this case by the muted but pleasant color scheme. Finally, I much prefer the original title of this film – EL GRITO DE LA MUERTE, which roughly translates to SCREAM OF DEATH – to its American moniker, the rather meaningless THE LIVING COFFIN (which is actually a reference to its being armored with an alarm system in case of body snatching, or in the event the coffin’s occupant has been buried alive!).

The most substantial extra on the disc is a very interesting essay by David Wilt about this characteristically Mexican hybrid genre (incidentally, the potential camp entertainment promised by the wealth of titles mentioned here – the absolute majority of which have yet to see the light of day on any digital format – is proof once again that this particular cinematic well is far from exhausted!). However, given its considerable length, the inordinately tiny font used (also for the accompanying cast biographies) is a real strain on the eyes!; besides, the audio for the main feature is a bit low.


06/21/07: THE AZTEC MUMMY (Rafael Portillo, 1957) :star::star:1/2

I didn’t quite know what to expect from the “Aztec Mummy” trilogy, a typically wacky Mexican variant on a classic horror theme. This first entry proved quite a surprise: a highly entertaining confection which, apart from delving into ancient Aztec lore, also incorporates elements of science-fiction and gangster dramas into the fray!

The distinctive Aztec temples and (overstretced) rituals seen here provide an exotic alternative to the Egyptian examples we’d seen in previous Mummy movies. The background to the curse is still the same, however – a girl intended for sacrifice (played by Rosita Arenas, whose other Mexi-horror titles include starring roles in classics such as THE WITCH’S MIRROR [1960] and THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]) is caught in the arms of a warrior, for which he’s condemned to be buried alive; centuries later, when his lover’s tomb is desecrated, he awakens to eliminate those responsible.

The sci-fi trappings are put across with a good deal of persuasion (since they involve reincarnation, this section bears a striking resemblance to Roger Corman’s contemporaneous THE UNDEAD [1957]), while the crime-lord involved is a masked figure referred to as “The Bat” (most probably inspired by the 1926 Roland West film of that name or its sound remake, THE BAT WHISPERS [1930]) – his presence is initially intriguing, but the ultimate revelation of his identity beggars belief. Among the secondary characters, then, are a cowardly medical student who acts as comedy relief and is quite amusing (even so, the very need for it betrays the fact that the Mexican horror film was still in its infancy at this point in time), and a kid – ostensibly the hero’s (much) younger brother – who brings absolutely nothing to the table except that he’s always being scolded by his elders for following them around!

Unfortunately, my enthusiasm for the film was considerably dissipated by the dire quality of the print included on BCI/Eclipse’s 3-Disc Set. I didn’t mind so much the softness of the image, the rather low audio or the occasional missing frame – but, then, I was intensely annoyed by scenes that were set in complete darkness where it was virtually impossible to tell what was going on. Considering that these include the exploration of the tomb, all the footage of the rampaging mummy and the climax, it felt like I only watched half a film…without even the benefit of getting a good look at the titular creature!!


06/22/07: CURSE OF THE AZTEC MUMMY (Rafael Portillo, 1957) :star::star:

This is an inferior first sequel to THE AZTEC MUMMY (1957), eschewing much of the atmosphere and metaphysics of the original for comic-strip antics and cliffhanger situations involving a masked avenger (whose identity is even more incredible than the revelation of the villain at the end of THE AZTEC MUMMY) and a private snake pit! Despite the title, the appearance of the mummy itself is almost an afterthought – since it’s relegated only to the climax. Though barely over an hour in length, the film features extensive flashback footage from its predecessor and, similar to it, the scenes involving the mummy are extremely dark – the lighting during the finale changes drastically from one shot to the other – perhaps so as to conceal the rather poor make-up job! The comedy relief isn’t very pronounced this time around (as it turns out, for plot purposes) – while the villain (incidentally, the scene depicting his escape from the clutches of the police at the beginning of the film utilizes footage from a gun battle featured in the first entry in the series!) here completely forsakes his “Bat” persona on his way to becoming the mad scientist in the next instalment…


06/23/07: THE ROBOT VS. THE AZTEC MUMMY (Rafael Portillo, 1958) :star::star:

I was expecting this to be even worse than the second entry in the “Aztec Mummy” series, but it’s basically on a par with it. That said, about a third of the 64-minute running-time is lazily devoted to a reconstruction of previous events (yet again!): the corny Aztec sacrificial ritual is boring enough on first viewing but, watched three times in a row, it becomes positively exasperating!! However, I was gratified for their inclusion because, at least, scenes in which detail was indistinct in the prints utilized for the other two films in the set were far clearer now…

Anyway, this hastily-written third (and final) chapter of the saga provides standard excitements – with yet another attempt by the villain (who miraculously escaped the grisly death set out for him at the end of the preceding entry!) at hypnoitizing the heroine, in an effort to locate the dormant mummy and its valuable artifacts (which will enable him to lay his hands on the mythical Aztec treasure). All in all, it’s a very painless way to kill an hour.

The Bat’s ravings are at their ripest here (assisted by his acid-scarred lieutenant, the result of an unfortunate encounter with the Mummy in the second film – and whose vengeful predicament introduces an unexpected poignancy to the proceedings!): he conceives a radioactive human robot(!) in order to fend off the inevitable marauding mummy. It’s not clear just why the robot needed the body and the brain of a man to function, but the hulking automaton – with its clumsy movements yet deadly exterior – is obviously a topical nod to Nuclear paranoia (which, from what I’ve seen, wasn’t so much a concern of the Mexi-horror subgenre).

The one-on-one between the two ‘monsters’ is O.K. – the robot has the upper hand at first but, once the controlling device is destroyed, the mummy is able to take it apart in a matter of seconds! While the appearance by the hero’s pesky brother is thankfully limited this time around, the latter’s sidekick – somewhat incongruously – also reverts to his cowardly persona here.

With this film’s ending, the Aztec Mummy saga is brought to a nice closure – as heroine Rosita Arenas (the reincarnation of the mummy’s lover) returns the Aztec breastplate and bracelet to Popoca and appeals to it to seek a definitive (and well-deserved) rest in the ancient temple. I’ve failed to mention in my comments about the two earlier films in the series, the important contribution of the musical score – simply but perfectly evoking the requisite aura of mood, mystery and dread.


06/23/07: LOVE ON A PILLOW (Roger Vadim, 1962) :star::star:1/2

While their short-lived marriage was long gone, this is the fourth of five Roger Vadim/Brigitte Bardot collaborations and only the second I’ve watched myself. After opening in a light comedy vein, this rather scrappy film turns into an unappetitizingly ponderous melodrama on the lines of LA DOLCE VITA (1960), complete with a risibly “beat” orgy sequence and a surfeit of pretentious chat; nevertheless, the whole is somewhat redeemed by the attractive Italian locations in its second half and the nice musical score throughout.

For what it’s worth, it tells of a bourgeois girl (Bardot) – shortly to be married to an unassuming young man – travelling from Paris to Dijon to hear the will of her late aunt, who accidentally stumbles on the suicide attempt of a bohemian, pulp-thriller-loving misanthrope (Robert Hossein) who, upon recovering, literally turns her life upside down. The cast is completed by James Robertson Justice (as Hossein’s sculptor friend), Macha Meril (as Robertson’s tramp companion) and, in one sequence, Michel Serrault as a notary.

In the end, the original title of THE WARRIOR’S REST sounds far more interesting that what’s on offer here and the fact that I was misinformed about the film’s running time – I thought it was a good 22 minutes shorter! – did not help to earn it much affection from my end. But, then, the sight of Bardot in her prime (and, Vadim being Vadim, in various stages of undress as well) is always welcome…


06/23/07: DREAMGIRLS (Bill Condon, 2006) :star::star::star:

Adapted from a Broadway show but with additional numbers written specifically for the film, this is a rare and brave attempt at an all-black musical. While it was surprising to have GODS AND MONSTERS (1998)’s Bill Condon at the helm, it is confidently made and the musical numbers are energetically staged. Interestingly, the songs aren’t just performances by the central group or their irreverent front-man but, at particularly dramatic moments, also serve as a commentary on the narrative itself.

While I don’t feel that the kind of music involved here can sustain a film of this length (unlike, say, a rock opera) and the second half is incredibly maudlin, the film succeeds by virtue of its meticulous recreation of an era (the hairstyles are fairly hilarious though) and its sounds, and the sheer force of the acting ensemble. Of these, the most acclaimed have deservedly been Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson: the former clearly delivers his best-ever performance as a James Brown-like R&B singer (not that it was hard for him to top his work in the films he’s been making for the past 20 years!) but he only really shines in his character’s last number, where he goes on stage drunk and embarrasses himself in front of live and TV audiences; in hindsight, his storming off of the Academy Awards ceremony for failing to win the Best Supporting Actor Oscar was an infantile gesture. As for Jennifer Hudson, prior to watching the film I was skeptical about how deserving she really was of all the accolades her role garnered but, actually, her performance is the best and most heartfelt in the film and she manages to steal all the scenes she’s in from under the noses of her more seasoned colleagues.

Having said all that, however, where the film falls is in the blandness and predictability of the narrative: there was no way the Beyonce` character was not going to be boosted to diva status, no way Eddie Murphy was not going to fall for one of the Dreamettes, no way he was not going to end up dead, no way his manager (played by Danny Glover) was not going to be pushed by the wayside, etc. The “reunion” happy ending, too, is something of a cop-out because the film, after exposing the underbelly of the music industry, steers clear of addressing how this will eventually affect the fate of its protagonists.

 

[george kaplan]

Well, as is illustrated throughout your post, you are wrong, and you are rude and ignorant and the reason I put John, and now you, on my ignore list, is that it is difficult for any person to be subject to such personal attacks and not respond in kind, and if I do so, then I run the risk of being kicked off the board, which would then deprive me of the mostly worthwhile interaction of 99% of the people who are HTF members, unlike the small minority like you and John (and you should know what I'm talking about - after all you were kicked off for rude behavior once).

Every once in a while the forum crashes and the ignore lists are wiped out, and I always think, well maybe John and his ilk will have grown up and matured by now, but he (and you and the rest of the rude, ignorant, stuck-up, close-minded film snobs (in the worst use of the word snob)) always revert to form, and so I put you back on the ignore list.

What astounds me most (and my remark about giving John fits was just a joke, though you wouldn't understand subtlety if it brushed by you), is how much you and John and others get offended by people who have different taste in films than you. It seems the end of the world that someone can hate films you love, or love films you hate, and you can't help but lash out with personal attacks on the intelligence and character of someone who dares to disagree with you. I frankly could care less if you hate great films like Citizen Kane and The Seventh Seal, or love horrible films like Cries & Whispers or Pluto Nash. To each his own. But I do get offended when you make personal attacks on me, and that's when I have a hard time not responding, hence my use of the ignore list.