melisande55 Reviews

Casino (1995)

It sucks

[1/10 · 6 January 2007]

I decided to give Scorsese one last chance (I'm now trying to erase the entire film from my mind, and Mr. Scorsese's name, as well). I understand he's supposed to be a great director and that the acting is supposed to be great (I just don't see it - and I tried *very* hard to see good things in this film. I paid to rent it, I wanted to like it. How can someone ruin a movie about my favorite themes - Vegas and the mob? I mean, I'll watch practically anything about this topic.

This movie's pacing is arbitrary and amateurish. Scorsese knows he has to provide some gruesome violence at some point - we were checking the time of this flick at 1 hour, wondering when it would *ever* be over. I figured then that the violence would be immediate, gratuitous and upcoming - merely because it had to be there, to keep anyone watching. So there it was. A TV-style shoot-out, followed by torture scene (don't worry, I'm not spoiling much) that's filmed with overly artsy and arbitrary camera angles. I've never seen a film that relied so heavily on narration. What was Scorsese thinking? That he'd get remembered for having the most over-narrated film in world history? There are TWO overly wordy narrators, but you can't make up for the lack of cinematic action and believability on the screen - unless you are watching this during a cocktail party or something. Or you really like movies that don't require a strong plot, and blast you occasionally with set decor or violence.

The sets are great - that's what kept me going through the movie, but set design and production design do not a great film make. He should have DeNiro be naked to provide interest, though. DeNiro does his obligatory pug-dog face, with the wrinkled forehead way too much, and that bobbing and swaying thing where he crosses his arms and looks intense way too much.

The side characters are overwrought and stupidly dressed (that huge bolo turquoise guy is an example). Once again, Scorsese is like a cartoonist that hates cartoons. He can't even put meaningful props around the set, they appear to be symbolic (but apparently are not) and he shows us all kinds of things that never come into play (that's just bad directing - very B movie, actually). I guess I can see how a movie like this one (cartoony) can be popular, though - I just can't handle the shifts in tone and pacing throughout the flick. There are too many scenes where the frame is tilted, comic book style, that have NO comic book content - and where in addition the acting and dialog are overshadowed by set decor or costume - and the dialog/events do not move the movie forward. Why do that? And why then force so much narration (in a boring tone, mostly from DeNiro) onto the audience? I love B movies, and was prepared to view this entry as Scorsese's attempt to make one, to forgive him all the other directorial excesses he's been guilty of. If he had done that - at all, I would have liked it. Or if we'd seen naked Sharon Stone (that's how bad this was - I was praying for Sharon to lose her panties in that one scene, or at least give DeNiro a blow job, but no - nothing).

The Italian mobsters and their food look fake and last minutey - as though someone composed those scenes on a Sunday morning, with a hangover, using the most obvious and basic film student style composition techniques and set pieces. Even the decor failed at many points - and it didn't have to.

Oh, and by the way, Martin, if you're reading (which I doubt - if I had made this film, I'd never read anything critical about it, I'd never want to remember I'd made it) - merely sticking old slot machines in little trios on the floor here and there to denote "basement" doesn't work. Neither does using geometric window patterns or Renaissance colors to provide visual distraction to make plot elements loom large when in fact, it's just standard stuff. Watch a Tarantino movie, will ya?

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Why Some of Us Love it

[14 June 2004]

Are you familiar with Kurt Vonnegut's idea of a karass?

That there are something like 12 teams of humans. Each team has its own games, its own sense of humor, its own sense of style, etiquette, tactics and techniques of persuasion. Karasses cross-cut all other memberships, so that you might not share politics or historical era with your teammates, but if you are attuned to the Universe, you recognize your own karass-mates.

The Coen brothers - and all who love them, are on my karass.

I hope I'm spelling karass right. It's been 30 years since I read the book, but I still think of it almost daily...

The Scorpion King (2002)

TRUE ENOUGH TO HISTORY TO INSPIRE ARCHAEOLOGISTS

[1 February 2004]

Yes, indeed. Several archaeological journals - and the New York Times - have commented on elements of the movie that are quite accurate. Of course the costumes have been redone, Hollywood style, but there are many, many truthful elements to the film.

Sure, some of it is out of historical order, and there are delicious little anachronisms that any student of prehistory will enjoy picking out.

But the basic theme, of the Akkadian connection to Abydos - and the importance of the Scorpion King (however he was) to pre-dynastic Egypt - is quite compelling.

Done in old style, quasi-B movie mode (which works - because this is the stuff of B movies), the film takes advantage of exotic locations, exotic-seeming locations and studio backlots to tell an old story with very modern seeming characters. Kids'll love it, and we adults can think about lots of historical connections as we watch.

Dwayne Johnson (The Rock) is of course supreme. This is chick-flick eye candy at every turn. And the leading lady, in my view, is one of the hottest girls to appear recently in cin-ah-mah.

Oh, and if you're into Cin Ah Mah - skip this one. This one is for us entertainment-seeking, over-the-top-enjoying, Hollywood/Babylon-smitten.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Erratum

[10/10 · 15 November 2003]

In an earlier comment, I stated in error that Gene Hackman won an Academy Award for this film. At least, I think I stated it. Mr. Richard Cosgrove kindly contacted me to point out this egregious and horrifying error.

In truth, I have no idea what the Academy Awards are, or who has won any of them.

Adaptation. (2002)

Writer becomes anti-anti-hero writing about anti-hero

[7/10 · 1 September 2003]

Clever. This movie is clever, sometimes stepping over into precious. But if being overly precious is not high on your list of movie flaws (there are so many others), this movie may appeal to you, as it did to me. If you're into semiotics, deconstruction, frame analysis or that kind of thing, there are some nice little jokes you'll enjoy.

For anyone who has ever seriously pursued a creative vocation, especially writing, this movie will appeal. If you are the kind of person who has gone to expensive seminars, hoping (along with hundreds of others) to transform your craft or your life, this movie will make you laugh.

It is about a screenwriter who is trying to write something original, in a day and age when everything has been done so many times, even originality seems to have become clichéd. He has a further problem, which is that he can't get out of his own head. And he is neurotic. He is hired by a major motion picture studio to do something almost impossible: write an adaptation of a non-fiction book about orchids so that it can be a regular Hollywood film. It sounds like a stupid thing for a studio to hire a writer to do, but of course, that's exactly what the Studio did with this film. Adaptation is based on the work of New Yorker writer, Susan Orlean. She is played by Meryl Streep in the movie. The real life Susan Orlean had her scenes cut out of the movie (she also wrote the magazine article, `Surf Girls of Maui,' on which the film, Blue Crush was based).

While Charlie Kaufman (the screenwriter for Being John Malkovich) struggles with the increasingly impossible task of finishing a script about weirdos and orchids, his brother, Donald, decides to take up screenwriting. Donald isn't writing an adaptation, he's writing an original screenplay. Charlie thinks he knows everything about writing, Donald goes to a screenwriting seminar and posts the teacher's `Ten Commandments of Screenwriting' above his laptop. Charlie pecks away on some old manual typewriter. We've seen it all before: sibling rivalry, identical twins who are opposites, so on and so forth. We think we know the ending, as long as Charlie is writing it. Somehow, despite Charlie's quest for originality, nothing very original transpires. Some folks, at this point in the movie, will understandably get bored to tears. Charlie just gets more neurotic and self-absorbed. In fact, the only thing he can write about is himself, so he writes himself into the orchid movie.

I guess things pick up at the end. Someone else has said the characters get `weird.' While I disliked myself as I fell for the Hollywood-style manipulation that the ending appeared to be, still, I woke up and was squirming in my seat. Charlie attends the writing seminar, and learns to do `research.' Thus liberated from the plotless constraints of the work he's supposed to be adapting, Charlie can write a different kind of movie. Research, apparently, can lead anywhere.

The thing is, I cared – a lot – about the various characters. I liked John and Donald best, Susan and Charlie were rather boring and neurotic. The contrast drove the movie. Do we all want to be interesting creatures of Hollywood then? Or are we just human beings, adapting to our own predictable life circumstances by preferring stories with oomph and characters with style? Chris Cooper's performance as John LaRoche was something I'd never seen before on the screen. That's always a reason to make a movie. The character and the performance were original, the actors were in first place all along. The screenplay ultimately served the studio, the actors, the cinematographer, the director and even the prop department extraordinarily well…but, perhaps, screenwriters don't come out looking so heroic.

Silverado (1985)

Top Notch Cowboy Erotica

[8/10 · 31 December 2002]

This movie stands the test of time for those of us who love the Western genre and appreciate a group of fine-looking, well-dressed cowboys. Kevin Kline in his adorable coral longjohns and aqua suede coat is worth the price of rental, and well, I'm a huge Brian Dennehy fan: he's in his prime, here. You can also see why Jeff Fahey's eyes made him famous (he also possesses just the right amount of facial hair). After this movie, I became a real Danny Glover fan, too, he is smashing and cuddly in that soft felt hat.

IMDB demographics show that this movie plays well with females of a middle-age, and it probably always will. The sets, the landscapes, the costumes have great intrinsic appeal. Scott Glenn's buff-colored wardrobe is peak. There are such a wide variety of hat styles, each of them speaking perfectly to the characters' personalities (which is what cowboy hats are supposed to do: guys in the real world, take note).

Since there's only one woman for us to identify with (as usual, in a Western), Rosanna was a good choice. She's cute and pert, but not a glamour queen. She doesn't even seem as anachronistic as you might think.

The horses are fine, too. The scene where their breath puffs out in the brisk air and they trot through the snow is a Christmas card. Ah, to be in New Mexico or Montana...

And in case you're worried about Kevin Costner, he's kind of okay in this, maybe even cute. Kasdan knows to put him in very specific, constricted set pieces, so that his limited range expands to fill the tiny space.

The Quiet Man (1952)

Irish Posturing

[3/10 · 6 December 2002]

If you like stereotypes about the Irish, you'll love this movie. If you like strong-willed stubborn women who will be reformed by just a touch of violence, you'll like this movie. Oh, those willful Irish women, needing to be pushed around and taught to behave by their men. Of course, running off and leaving your husband to walk home miles and miles, while in a snit, is enough provocation. It's a good thing she learns her lesson and goes home to cook before the movie's only interesting scene: the fight. The Irish fight a lot, did you know that? They drink and smoke and fight. There's almost nothing else to do in Ireland. The scenery is pretty enough, but the Irish don't seem to enjoy it unless they're...um...drinking, smoking and fighting. Oh, and it's so hilarious to see them fighting with HAYSTACKS. All that hay, flying everywhere. What a hoot. As John Wayne himself said, "A John Wayne movie is the same thing as a Bad Review..." But some people like 'em. The drunken priest is supposed to be hilarious, you know, I should mention that. Drunken priest falling in the water while fishing, high hilarity.

The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)

Extraordinary Quirkiness

[10/10 · 27 November 2002]

The Royal Tenenbaums plays like a children's storybook, but for grown-ups. I disagree with comments that mature audiences won't like it. People expecting a typical commercial film where Ben Stiller makes them guffaw maybe won't like it.

Gene Hackman deserved the Oscar for his nuanced role. I'll now remember him forever as a studied comic actor.

If you like dark comedy (like, for instance, The Sopranos), you'll like this. Oh, and there's very little gore.

Blue Crush (2002)

Good Summer Movie; Has some drawbacks

[8/10 · 16 August 2002]

Kate Bosworth is more than able to withstand two hours of constant scrutiny in her bikini. The surfing scenes are artfully and powerfully done, and the little bits of surfing culture are almost enough to make the movie a winner.

The Hawaiians in this film don't speak as if they're in a Tarzan film -but they all sound haole and you have to use your imagination to pretend they're really Hawaiian. The class structure of Oahu is nicely portrayed, but there's no real Hawaii here, which bugged.

Girl torn between sport and boy is a believable subplot, and well, we went to see the surfing - and we'll see it again.

One thing: TOO MANY SCENES OF SUPPOSEDLY HILARIOUS FAT BLACK MEN. You'll see what I mean. Cut the hilarious FAT people and the movie would work better.

Beach Party (1963)

MUST HAVE

[10/10 · 15 August 2002]

A must have for your surfing movie collection, a piece of cinematic kitsch as well.

The surfing scenes (a montage of various places, apparently in SoCal) are all too brief, but worthwhile.

The fake-surfing and stunt-surfing are a hoot and leave you wanting more.

Precious scenes of Malibu and Santa Monica pre-building explosion.

And of course, Eric Von Zipper. Personally, I think Bob Cummings is adorable, and there's such a cheapie, near-porn subtext to much of the film, everyone gets to camp it up a bit.

Back to the Beach (1987)

If you're not a big old sour puss...

[2 July 2002]

you'll like this movie..

It's completely non-serious. It doesn't try to BE a beach movie of the 1960's...it tries to be a silly remake.

The costumes and sets are delightful - every known form of beachie cabana style is represented. Annette looks adorable in her cartoonish costumes, and is an inspiration to get out to the beach for all us "old folks."

The cuts with real surfing footage are enough to keep real surfers mesmerized, and the bathing suit styles are updated and sexy.

What more could you want on in the background on a Saturday afternoon?