hveiti Reviews

Breaking the Waves (1996)

Disturbing in the extreme

[6/10 · 15 February 2001]

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

I recently watched this film and I must say it's taken me quite some time to make up my mind about it. I suppose my opinion on it is sort of split; Emily Watson's performance is among the best I have ever seen in the movies, and I liked the in-your-face pseudo-documentary style camerawork, but the story kind of bothered me.

Now, I know a lot of people who find this to be an incredibly moving and inspirational film, but I can't say it did that for me. I found the story itself to be slightly disturbing in the way it showed sexual humiliation as the road to saintliness (at least for the heroine). It also irked me quite a bit that the husband's request for her to go have sexual experiences with other men and then describe them to him was never adequately explained. Was it him trying to get her to move on with her life, or was it, as a character in the film described it, him "being a dirty old man?" (paraphrasing here).

This film disturbed, saddened and angered me. It showed stupid people doing stupid things (not since I saw 'Inherit the Wind' have I been so angry with a community of religious zealot fools), and the message of hope it offered at the very end (yep, them durned bells) just felt like a half-assed, tacked-on comforter. It also undermined the interestingly ambiguous question of whether Bess's "conversations" with God were real, or whether it was just her being a silly little lunatic.

OK, I'm slipping into negativity here. As I said before, Emily Watson was breathtaking in this role, and indeed most of the actors played their parts well. Even though I have my objections to the story and its moral insinuations, I will admit that the film does possess a raw power that had a definite influence on me and swept me along. And did I mention Emily Watson's incredible performance? 6/10

The Apostle (1997)

Beautiful but long-winded

[17 December 2000]

If 'The Apostle' were a book, it would be turgid to the point of unreadability. The ever-amicable Robert Duvall, who wrote and directed this film, seems to be especially fond of his subject matter, devoting 134 minutes (which felt like 200) to letting his story slowly unfold. We get seemingly endless scenes filled with evangelistic gospel shouting and energetic Jesus worshiping, and even though Duvall is both endearing and consistently convincing in his role as the charismatic preacher, the shouting starts to grate after a while.

My main gripe with this film, and something which hampered my enjoyment of it immensely, is the main character, the apostle E.F. I just don't get him. I don't understand his motives. I am unable to sympathize with him. He doesn't feel vividly human to me in the same way as, say, Jerry Lundegaard from the Coen Brothers' 'Fargo'. He's not someone whose pain I can feel or whose joy I can share in. Despite this he doesn't come across as a caricature or a two-dimensional character; the screenplay is too intelligent for that. The end result is somewhere in the middle - a realistic character whose motives and inspirations are hidden (at least to myself). My secondary gripe is the film's pace; it drags in places, the gospel scenes are far too long, and my guess is the story could well have been told in 90 minutes instead of 134.

In some places the movie's pace lessens the dramatic impact; for instance, a farewell scene that had the potential to be genuinely touching is somewhat trivialized by its pointless length (yes, it's a gospel scene). A sweet scene of redemption wherein a troublemaking redneck finds Jesus in front of a crowd of people (assisted by a teary-eyed Duvall), is cheapened by banal prattling from a radio station deejay broadcasting live from the area ("This is amazing. I am speechless.") When a movie has to tell me what I'm supposed to be feeling about it, I instinctively draw back my emotions and snatch back my suspended disbelief. But maybe that's just me.

Negative as I have sounded up to here, this film has many good points. There is a beautiful and stirring opening scene in which we become acquainted with E.F.'s intense love and faith. The screenplay (the parts of it that aren't regularly intercut with a cry of "Jesus!" anyway) is excellent; the characters are for the most part believable and interesting, and the story itself is brilliant. The lead character, though I find him flawed in many ways, is refreshingly non-stereotypical for a film preacher or, indeed, a film Christian. The acting is superb across the board, and set design, editing and other technical and artistic aspects are very competently handled. I only wish I'd had more fun watching it. 6/10

The Birds (1963)

Underrated script, overrated effects

[6/10 · 28 November 2000]

The thing that struck me the most about this film is its brilliant script. Funnily enough, this is in direct contradiction to a lot of people's perceptions of the film; most find the script to be nonsensical and the characters one-dimensional, citing the suspense and the special effects as the film's strongest points. While I will admit that the characters (or, indeed, the performances) aren't exactly the greatest I've ever seen in a film, it's the advancement, the mechanics and the allegory of the plot that do it for me. I hate to echo or copy others, but zetes's 'freudian analysis' of this film (found in the user comments section of this site) was totally spot-on. The bird attacks were symbolic representations of Mitch's mother's antipathy towards her son's love interests, and seen from this perspective the whole movie makes perfect sense, particularly the ending.

Also great is the way the budding love affair between Melanie and Mitch is stripped of its childish veneer when they're faced with real danger. Their relationship never feels fake or contrived to me; even though they aren't the most realistic characters ever put to celluloid, it is clear that the movie is always to some extent a love story. It's a far cry from the manufactured, crowd-pleasing "love-interest" aspects of today's thrillers, and added greatly to my enjoyment of the film.

The technical aspects are all good, as can be expected from a Hitchcock film. The special effects were no doubt marvelous for their time, and the lack of a score gives a realistic atmosphere that adds to the effect nicely (hundreds of birds shrieking incessantly will chip away at anyone's composure). However, despite being well made, the film didn't have quite the massive effect on me that I thought it would. Maybe it's my ILM-addled sensibilities talking, or maybe my expectations were just a bit too high going in. In any case, such gripes notwithstanding one thing is for certain: by any standards, today's or yesterday's, this is good cinema. 8/10

Swimming with Sharks (1994)

Dark humour or nihilism?

[8/10 · 27 November 2000]

Powerful movie that shows the nastier, more foul-mouthed side of Hollywood. Guy, played by Whaley, is a Hollywood rookie with no real experience but some lofty goals. The movie charts his learning of the ways of Hollywood through becoming an assistant for fastidious big-shot producer Buddy Ackerman (Spacey), and his subsequent unlearning of the 'normal' moral values that apply almost anywhere else. A remarkable performance from Spacey who is by turns searingly offensive, scathingly funny and (funnily enough) vividly human. Making an audience feel for such a revolting character is a feat not many could accomplish, but Spacey's up to the task. Frank Whaley (possibly known to you through a bit part in 'Pulp Fiction') also turns in a very strong performance as the disillusioned young assistant who falls in love (or rather, in bed) with a female producer played by the sultry Michelle Forbes. Spacey and Whaley's interplay in key scenes is riveting, and for the most part, the younger Whaley manages to stay out of Spacey's shadow.

The movie's ending is quite unforeseeable, and its message can be construed either as darkly humorous satire against Hollywood, or as a nihilistic comment on the ways of mankind. Judging by the not-so-humorous tone of the movie (though ludicrously enough it was marketed as a comedy), to me it feels like the latter applies. Definitely worth seeing, even if only for Spacey. 8/10

Psycho (1960)

Legendary, in both a good and a bad way

[10/10 · 27 November 2000]

Not much to be said about this that hasn't been said before. Only the second Hitchcock film I've ever seen, and so far there isn't a single positive thing that's been said about him that I can disagree with. Calling someone 'The Master' is terminology that I would usually frown upon as being too dismissive of other greatly talented people, but after witnessing the directing, the cinematography, the subtle performances, the inimitable atmosphere and the quiet genius of this masterpiece, I find myself forced to agree. The notorious shower scene manages to be shocking, brutal and understated all at once, and its infamy on the pages of motion picture history is well-deserved. Anthony Perkins is subtly explosive, like a match waiting to be struck. He plays Bates with a boyish, grinning charm that generally belies his chilling insanity. Also worthy of mention is Bernard Herrmann's incredible score, possibly one of the best I've ever heard.

In a curious way, the one thing I find disagreeable about this movie is, indeed, its legend. I cannot imagine how much I would have enjoyed it had I not known any of the plot twists beforehand, and could have gone into it unknowingly. Still, perhaps somewhat paradoxically, the legend is completely due, because this film's merit becomes obvious when you consider that first-time viewers of my generation (I'm 21 years old), who have become inundated with the blood, gore and overblown special effects of today's blockbusters, can still find its subtle ingenuity chilling and scary in equal measure. Beautiful. 10/10