Change Your Image
atwarwiththebarmyarmy
Reviews
Hard Luck (1921)
New and Improved!
This was Buster's favourite short; the big final gag got, he said, the biggest laughs of his whole career.
Having tried to kill himself many times, in many ways, and failed ignominiously, Buster finds himself rescuing a girl. A reason to live! He asks, 'is there anything now that can stop us being married?' 'No, apart from my husband'.
So Buster throws himself off the highest diving board and then - nothing...
For 80 years and more, the big final audience-wowing gag has been lost, leaving Buster diving off a board and nothing else.
But the most recent versions of Kino's superb 'The Art of Buster Keaton' have the original ending RESTORED! I shan't spoil it, but yes, it is great.
Steamboat Bill, Jr. (1928)
Risking your life for a couple of seconds of comedy... all in a day's work for Buster...
Okay. Obvious bit first.
This is indeed the source of the most famous scene in all of silent comedy (alongside, perhaps, Chaplin's cogs and Lloyd's clock). Caught up in a hurricane, hiding under a bed that's whisked away in the wind, Buster staggers to his feet only for the front of a house to fall all around him. Except - the tiny window falls directly over Buster. Who just stands there, staring.
We've all seen this a thousand times or more. Before I even knew who Keaton was I'd seen this scene. But even now, going back to watch it (again and again) - it's an extraordinary moment. Keaton had two nails hammered into the ground, marks for his feet, and two inches of room either side. Two inches left, two inches right, Buster would have been killed. Dead centre, and it's wondrous. Perfection. It had to be.
And he doesn't even FLINCH.
But there's something else about it...
Here's a scene, the big scene, not just expensive but incredibly dangerous. Half the crew refuse to watch. Anywhere else, you might imagine this stunt as the grand conclusion, milked for all it's worth. But that was never the Buster Keaton way. Everything had to be done perfectly (the golfing accident in Convict 13, for example, 78 takes...), and if that meant nearly killing yourself for a few seconds three quarters of the way through, so be it. Do the perfect gag, move on, do some more.
Extraordinary. Staggering. Unbelievable.
But, heavens, there's more, so much more... from Buster throwing away his own hat in disgust, to the dough that fell into the toolbox, to Buster's seemingly limitless capacity for wearing clothes under his nightshirt, to all those stunts in the hurricane, to the ingenious ending - a joy, an absolute joy. Unremittingly wonderful.
So this makes him better than Chaplin? Forget it. All I hear is competition, comparison, Keaton better/not better than Chaplin, Laurel better/not better than Lloyd, and all combinations in between. IT DOESN'T MATTER. This could only be a Keaton film, in the same way that Chaplin's best is unmistakeably Chaplin, Lloyd's best unmistakeably Lloyd, Laurel's best unmistakeably Laurel (and Hardy). There's no point bickering. There aren't any prizes to be won. Just accept - just rejoice - that for a brief few years, some of mankind's darkest years, the world was blessed with four unique comic geniuses. It probably never happened before, it maybe never will again. We were, are, will be, all of us, amazingly lucky to have them. And to always have them. So pull up a chair, grab a drink and a loved one, and settle down to this glorious film. And when it's done, stick on 'The Kid' for good measure... and 'Liberty'... and 'Never Weaken'...
... and rejoice ...
La sortie de l'usine Lumière à Lyon (1895)
And here we are, 111 years later. Did M. Lumiére really imagine his invention would lead to this?
You're using the IMDb.
You've given some hefty votes to some of your favourite films.
It's something you enjoy doing.
And it's all because of this. Fifty seconds. One world ends, another begins.
How can it not be given a ten? I wonder at those who give this a seven or an eight... exactly how could THE FIRST FILM EVER MADE be better? For the record, the long, still opening shot is great showmanship, a superb innovation, perfectly suited to the situation. And the dog on the bike is a lovely touch. All this within fifty seconds.
The word genius is often overused.
THIS is genius.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
An anti-semitic slasher film is NOT a work of piety, no matter what the subject
I felt I had to comment, having read so many gushing reviews by people who longed to see this film and had all their self-righteous preconceptions realised.
I had to say something. That Gibson was allowed to get away with so little opposition (and so much hard cash) is a terrible slur on western 'civilisation'. I felt embarrassed to be even close to a society which can accept this.
To deal with the less offensive issues first: if Gibson wants to 'spread the good word', did it not cross his mind even once to suggest that people follow Jesus for a reason? If you'd lived all your life in a hole in the ground, and this was your first introduction to Christianity, you'd be confused. All this devotion just for a man who made tables, had dinner with his mates, and then got killed? Come on, Mel, you're missing the point.
And then there's the violence. As devotees the world over wandered out of the theatre, they said that the violence was true, it was real, and it was important to let people know just how much Jesus suffered.
Why? There are many very powerful films about the Holocaust, but none which spend an hour staring at people being murdered. It just isn't necessary, we can understand what's going on, and the horror of it does not require blood to be smeared across the screen. Quite the opposite, in fact; most films about suffering approach the subject with dignity. Gibson approaches this as one might approach a new instalment of Friday the 13th.
And then there's the history; I know that many churches are not terribly strong on history. So perhaps many people have no idea that what happened to Jesus was everyday in early imperial Rome (particularly in the East, where rebellion was considerably more likely). There is absolutely NOTHING special in the story of a man being scourged and then crucified. The tradition goes that Jesus was scourged more fiercely than anyone else, and that only through being the Son of God did he survive - but there's nothing in the Gospels, however, to support this - he was scourged, end of story.
And the crucifixion? Over nigh on two thousand years, Christian tradition has transformed the cross into a unique representation of Christ's suffering. But, historically, this is nonsense - crucifixion was a common form of execution, used to make an example to others. So what we have is the story of Jesus being treated like a common criminal, for two hours, in extreme and pointless detail.
Worse still was the anti-semitism. Unbearably worse.
It has been said, through these pages and elsewhere, that the movie cannot be seen as anti-semitic as it is the Romans who are doing the scourging and killing. It's been said, in one of the comments here, that 'we all know Pilate was an awful man'. Well, no, we don't - other than his professional background (moving up through the ranks, nothing unusual), all we know of him is the few details we get from the gospels. Yet the assumption that he must have been evil is used to excuse the representation of the Jews - that it's all a Roman conspiracy. What utter hogwash.
The Roman Empire had many means for keeping control, and one was the employment of petty thugs to beat people - a very common tool for dictators right through to modern times. To say that showing these hooligans as they were is anti-Italian is, frankly, bizarre. You might as well decry the Godfather for being anti-Italian.
Similarly, the oft-cited comparisons with Schindler's List is ludicrous. There is no notion that the Nazis represent everyone of German origin, far from it - the film, after all, is about a German who saved the lives of more than a thousand people who would otherwise have been murdered. A German who, like many of his countrymen, has a memorial at Yad Veshem.
On the other hand, Gibson portrays the Jews in his film as heartless tyrants, as swarthy caricatures with no thought for others, as self-serving bigots. Now, these descriptions may fit Mel Gibson to a tee, but as a portrayal of respected elders within the Judaean community (learned, trusted people, not the handpicked thugs of the Empire) it's sickening. Gibson's far-right sect is a creed that blames Jews for everything; their message has no place in either our world or that of two millennia past. For him to flaunt his prejudice throughout the world's cinemas under the auspices of 'spreading the good word' is nothing short of criminal.
Please, don't watch this film. Or any of Gibson's films (paricularly the 'historical' ones - apropos of nothing, I might point out that the Patriot and Braveheart are staggeringly unrealistic). He doesn't deserve to have made a fortune out of this sickening desecration.
Don't believe that it's helping to spread the word of God - the word of God has nothing to do with prejudice, nor with hate, nor with obscene and unnecessary violence. Nor does it have anything to do with tables.
If you feel you need a greater understanding of the life of Christ, read the Gospels. Go to church (not Mel's, please). Talk to people. And if you feel you need to know more about the Empire during his time, there's some very nice abridged editions of Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall...'.
But, whatever your reason, please, not this.
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Actually, y'know, it's really, really, REALLY bad. (May, possibly, contain tiny spoilers, if you've been living in a cave in New Guinea these past thirty years)
Of course, those who waited with baited breath all those years no doubt disagree. To criticise Lucas is sacrilege, apparently.
Codswallop.
You can't base your opinion of a film on how much you liked previous instalments, or how long you've waited for it. Look at the film, for heaven's sake.
It's trash.
The fact that it has those words 'Star Wars' at the start does not affect the quality of the film. Yet so many people judge it as a Star Wars film, as if that's some universally recognised genre.
Judge it instead on what it is. I did.
And here are a few wee details I noticed: (in no particular order)
1) The acting is unbearably lifeless. Yet this is a film with actors of real quality. Either you blame the scriptwriter (Lucas) or the director (Lucas).
2) The much-vaunted pod racing scene. It's the Love Bug. You know, old Disney flick with a white VW. Lucas filched the plot, condensed it, and stuck some pretty graphics in.
You doubt me? In the Love Bug:
-Our hero is a put-upon nobody with, apparently, no chance of success.
-His rival is smart, popular, amazingly successful, and no-one knows he's a cheat. And his vehicle is top notch.
-Our hero's vehicle, however, is implausibly good, far better than everyone imagines.
-So said rival sabotages it.
-And alters the signs to send our hero the wrong direction.
-A vital part of our hero's vehicle falls off.
-But he puts it back together, and unfeasibly wins the race. Sound familiar?
3) Jar-Jar Binks. Oh, for crying out loud. Even Star Wars devotees find fault here. It's just sickening. (And so blatantly designed to sell Happy Meals).
4) The 'slapstick' that Lucas throws in - Binks messing about and accidentally winning a battle etc - could have been written by a five-year-old; it's not in the least bit funny. It really doesn't deserve the same label as that attached to such slapstick geniuses as Keaton, Chaplin and Lloyd. I'd rather call Lucas' efforts 'complete dross'.
5) It doesn't make sense. If Darth Vader built C3PO when he was a nipper, surely they'd recognise each other in years to come? Unless, of course, C3PO was just put in to sell Happy Meals...
6) On the same note - if two-bladed light sabres are so great, why don't they have them in the future?
7) Ewan McGregor's accent.
8) The phrase 'Star Wars' suggests exciting adventure in space, battles of good and evil, dashing heroes saving the day, and all that matinée fun that Lucas was aiming at in the first place. It does not, nor should it ever, suggest debates about tax reform. I don't care how important it is to the story; if the only way Lucas could link this with the original was to analyse the galactic budget, he needs a new story. I don't remember the original film having to many fiscal quandaries in its plot.
9) Was anyone surprised by anything that happened in the entire 2 1/4 hours?
10) Oh, and the names. What exactly is Lucas on?
In short, then: 1) Badly acted, written and directed; 2) Plagiarism; 3) Worst character in movie history; 4) Bad jokes; 5) Blatant commercialisation; 6) Hopeless attempt at continuity; 7) Ewan McGregor's accent; 8) Desperately dull; 9) Complete lack of imagination; and 10) Rank stupidity.
And I've only scratched the surface.
If, by some fluke of glorious fortune, you've yet to see this film, please, please, don't bother. Watch Emprie Strikes Back instead. And if you can't get it, why not try peeling all the skin off your left foot? It's immeasurably preferable to the Phantom Menace.
Finding Forrester (2000)
How did they get it so wrong? (SPOILER)
For nigh on two hours, I watched an often engrossing film. The story of talented teenager meets bad-tempered genius recluse is a very old one, but one with a lot of scope nonetheless, and it's done well here. A lot comes down to the acting; Brown makes a superb debut, Abraham is as good as ever, and Connery finally does something worthwhile. Through this, the 'odd couple' storyline moves very neatly towards the obvious conclusion, indeed getting there with a lot of intelligence and imagination. Really, I was quite happy. Two hours well spent.
Now comes the spoiler.
I'll tell you about the ending. It's RUBBISH. Utterly DIRE. Perhaps the worst ending I have EVER, EVER SEEN. If I'd previously had any faith in Gus van Sant (no, I haven't), it would be straight out the window.
Now the real spoiler: Jamal, the hugely talented teenager, writes a fantastic speech. A wonderful, mesmerising speech that will change the way everyone thinks. But, having been treated so badly by the school, he refuses to read it. Reclusive writer Forrester has to come down and read it for everyone. Wait with baited breath as he reads out this life-affirming speech - and collapse in horror as the words disappear to be replaced by 'stirring' music. No speech. NO SPEECH! Neither Mike Rich nor Gus van Sant could be bothered to even TRY to write something worth hearing. All we get is Connery gesticulating and panning across awed faces. Not one single word of this 'work of genius' is to be heard. A cop out on an incredible scale.
And thus, the movie is ruined.
If ten awful minutes doesn't sound like a reason to damn an otherwise fine film, imagine if we were never told what Rosebud was. Imagine if Bambi ended in the middle of winter. Imagine if Sherlock Holmes said he didn't care how many people had seen the dog with glowing teeth, it was time for tea, and he wasn't going anywhere. See? The entire film, built up to NOTHING. And two enjoyable hours become two hours utterly wasted.
Hotel Rwanda (2004)
An horrendous, yet ultimately heartening story. The film doesn't do it justice.
I hate to criticise this film. It's one of those movies you feel you ought to like, because of the subject - Paul Rusesabagina's story needed to be told, a tragic, desperate story, but also a story of remarkable strength.
Sadly, it seems that Terry George felt that the story would carry the film on its own. It doesn't. The screenplay is far too earnest - as if Messrs. Keirson and George believed we'd all be incapable of understanding what was going on. The direction is unimaginative (George does not have much experience as a director, and it shows). And both the character and performance of Nick Nolte are dismal.
There is a lot of scope for a genuinely vital film here, and it has its moments, but on the whole it comes out as a substantial disappointment. Comparisons with Schindler's List are obvious - and unfortunately, they show this film up for what it is. None of the energy, none of the inspiration, and thus, none of the power of Spielberg's film.
If you've been completely unaware of what happened in 1994, Hotel Rwanda is an honest introduction. But otherwise, it's a let down. There must be better studies of the horrific tragedy than this.
Solntse (2005)
Couldn't be better. That's not to say it's terribly good, mind...
There's an awful lot right with this film. Beautifully shot, well written, and an array of fine acting is topped off by an outstanding central performance by Issei as the Emperor whose world is slipping irretrievably out of his grasp. I really believe that, if you want a film about the last days of Imperial Divinity, you can't go far wrong with this.
But is that really what you want? The story of the Emperor's changing world is not the story of the demise of Imperial Japan. The comparisons with Downfall are inevitable, but while Hitler dragged the entire world through unthinkable horrors, Hirohito merely watched others do it on his behalf. As a result, the film seems sadly removed from reality. Which, of course, is a true reflection of events - but it doesn't make for a good film.
All in all, a near-flawless study of a rather boring subject. Which is a great shame.
The Perfect Storm (2000)
130 minutes of my life, gone forever.
This film baffles me. I understand the principle of Hollywood churning out woeful pictures in order to make money, but to make a film like this takes a real effort. From the bold opening declaration that 'THIS IS A TRUE STORY' (I don't think I'm ruining the film by saying that, no, it's not really), through every cliché-ridden minute, I was stunned. Sitting here now, remembering it (and I remember it unfeasibly well, far more so than many a better film), I am still somewhat staggered. How could it be so devoid of any redeeming qualities? I haven't the room to describe everything that could have been much better (everything being the operative word), and nothing pleased me.
I just do not, can not understand this. There are forgettable films, there are films whose limpness is amusing, but this is so forcibly wrong that it leads me to ask: why? What is it actually for?