krp2003 Reviews

A Quiet Place (2018)

So many bad reviews for the scariest film in years

[8/10 · 14 August 2021]

First, I was impressed by many of the intricacies in the film that I usually see only in Indie or foreign films, none of which were apparently noticed by the dolts dumping on the film. There are innumerable little tidbits in the cinematography, camera angles, sound, etc that are not seen in the current comic book or "action" thrillers now infesting our theaters and internet. So there are some reasonably questionable plot holes that in retrospect seem bad? So what? Name ONE almost-perfectly made film that doesn't have some (look up ur favorite movie here and click on Goofs or Trivia- I dare you!). The bottom line is that it's a damned scary film (unless ur obsessively taking notes on minor flaws) that is highly creative in its use of silence to create a VERY scary scenario. I feel sorry for those nit-pickers who missed the trees for the forest (intentional).

A Master Builder (2013)

A masterful adaptation of a masterful play

[10/10 · 27 July 2014]

First, I should warn readers that a major plot transition appears below the Spoilers alert—or maybe not. Regardless, film revolves around the aging and perhaps dying architect Halvard Solness (Wally Shawn), a parochially renowned architect whom we first see in a bed with EKG leads, monitors, and private nurses attending to his apparently imminent death. There is a tangled web of relationships with his withdrawn and severely mannered wife Aline (Julie Hagerty, in a major departure from comedic roles), his bookkeeper qua (perhaps) mistress Kaya (Emily McDonnell) and her fiancé Ragnar (Jeff Biehl) whom Solness maintains and severely controls as an lowly employee, Ragner's father Knut Brovik (Andre Gregory) who was an associate/partner/competing architect whom Solness oppresses, and finally a mysterious young woman Hilde Wagner (Lisa Joyce) who bursts into this house of misery with verve, joy, hope, and vibrancy. The surface plot entails the ego-maniacal control Solness exercises over his wife; Kaya and Ragner whose engagement he attempts to disrupt; Brovik who is dying himself and begs Solness to give his imprimatur to his son's architectural prowess, and finally his bewilderment at Hilde's arrival which keeps him nonplussed and off balance for the duration of the film. Hilde relates that she met Solness 10 years before at the age of 12 when he built a church and, for her, magically placed a wreathe at the top of the steeple. There are hints that Solness tried to seduce her at age 12, but also more obvious statements that she worships Solness as the "Master Builder" with whom she will re-unite in 10 years and who will build her a "castle in the sky." Her role, and the end of the film, deviate from Ibsen's play and are of Shawn's doing in his adaptation. Before going to Spoilers and conjecture, it should be noted that Shawn, who is a Harvard graduate, learned Norwegian so he could translate the play directly into English himself. The acting is outstanding, especially from Shawn and Joyce who up until this film had relatively minor roles. I cannot imagine another actress who could have conveyed the energy, vitality and sheer joy (as well as occasional pathos) she exudes. The cinema-photography is wonderful, including a hand-held camera giving an intimate and at times embarrassingly too-close view of Solness on his deathbed. The film is almost all dialog and emotion, and some will see it as too slow moving. However, I was literally sitting on the edge of my seat enthralled and enveloped by the karma, emotions, and symbolism coming at every turn. *************SPOILERS*************** Apparently lost on most other reviewers to date is the fact that most of the film is a dream or mystical. Solness goes into cardiac arrest shortly into the film, both shown and also depicted by the eerie EKG auditory alert. The entire rest of the film up to the last few minutes is, depending on your interpretation, a dream Solness experiences, a But run, don't walk, to see this brilliant film which will have a short mystical visitation from a forgiving angel, an apotheosis to THE master builder on his deathbed, etc., but NOT reality. The film returns to reality a few minutes before the end with several of the characters witnessing Solness' death and his wife bereft at his side. I view Hilde as an angel come to attempt redemption of or at least comfort for (think Wings of Desire) Solness's sins, and his wife from guilt over the death of their two children whom she pitifully tries to replace with love for 9 dolls. Beyond these thoughts, there are multiple metaphors and symbolism to absorb that I will leave to other viewers. run given that the main plot went over the head of most film critics so far.

We Steal Secrets (2013)

Best when viewed as a character study of the major players

[8/10 · 26 May 2013]

This is a fairly straightforward documentary with some fancy graphic interludes between segments, but some character development that was somewhat surprising. It proceeds primarily chronologically, from an early hacking of NASA & government sites to the establishment of Wikileaks as a self-made depository of accountability and "open source" government. It progresses through the early publishing of government data through the Bradley Manning data provided at the behest of background hacker and the final outing of the State Department cables. I thought the film did a reasonably good job of depicting Assange and his motives, from his early teenage hacking of government sites purely for fun to his firm belief in the right of the public to know what its government is doing behind its back. I had followed some of the developments around 2010-11, but learned a lot more about the background of the other players besides the charismatic and rather self-serving Assange. In particular, a fair amount of time is spent on Manning, including interviews with friends, a superior in his unit, and video and photo clips of him prior to the story breaking. I had known nothing about Adrian Lamo, a mysterious hacker in the background whom Manning confided in anonymously and eventually trusted enough to follow through with recommendations for disclosing the material, only to have Lamo rat him out. Although the popular press had always depicted Manning as simply "apparently gay" the film delves much deeper into his sexual identify conflicts (prior to and during his deployment and throughout the leaking process he struggled with whether to pursue transgender surgery) and marked self-esteem and isolation issues. Assange initially comes across as a quasi-anarchist on a mission to make government accountable, but narcissistic and borderline personality traits become quite apparent as his fame and infamy grow. The "rape" charges are explored, including an interview with one of the two women. What we've heard in the press about one of them being a CIA agent affiliated with Miami/Cuba is blown apart, and (IFF the woman is to be believed) the charge that he had sex and broke a condom but kept going are depicted as true. The woman sounds like she just wants him to admit it. However, the take home message from this film is that everyone may-- or may not-- be lying part or all of the time: Assange, Manning, Lamo, the two purported "rape" victims, and above all governments. Lamo is described in the film as having Asperger's syndrome, but his stilted speech suggests he falls more to the autistic side of the pervasive developmental spectrum. The film succeeds as a character study of the major players even if it does not move in interesting directions or reveal much more than is already known. The saddest aspect is the fate of Manning, whose naiveté is likely to result in a lifetime of torture in a Supermax while the real criminals in the Bush administration remain free.

King Lear (1970)

English to written Russian to spoken EstoRussian to English subtitles

[9/10 · 31 March 2012]

I agree with most of the prior reviewers (save the one who doesn't seem to understand cinema), and was especially struck by the art direction and cinematography. The B/W palette fit perfectly in both the castle and in the desolate moors, as Lear wandered mad with his fool. The acting was superb. However, I was completely flummoxed listening to it. I studied Russian for 3.5 years in school and on a high school summer trip to the USSR. Sadly I have forgotten most of it. However, the viewing I saw in 2009 certainly brought a lot of back in a strange way. I had read parts of Pasternak's Russian translation, and he did a wonderful job capturing the iambic pentameter, puns, and subtleties of Elizabethan English. However, the film, as others pointed out, used Estonian or Latvian actors whose Russian was so bad that much had to be looped after the filming by Russian speakers. Consequently, a long and flowery phrase in the Pasternak translation-- dutifully subtitled back into English-- is truncated. E.g., "Mend your speech a little, Lest it may mar your fortunes" is translated well in subtitles, but what is spoken is "govoreet prosto" ("speak simply"). I tried to read the subtitles instead of listen to the Russian, but came out of the theater pretty confused!

Fall (1997)

"Fall" for romance

[10/10 · 28 October 2008]

I cried. And cried and cried. Some films simply remind you of relationships, others evoke emotional experiences (should you have any) for relationships gone south, some tease you with relationships that might have been. "Fall" incorporates all of these. First off, my primary recollection from the 3 or 4 times I've enjoyed watching "Fall" is the ending. Sarah is in Paris, exiting some chic place with Phillipe. Michael, who has flown to Paris in desperate need to re-connect with her, tracks her down (magically) and sees her exiting. He looks at her, she looks at him, she non-verbally gestures "no, don't connect with me any more"--- and he breaks down in sobs. As do I, even as I'm writing this. The longing for true love on his face—the yearning for a love than can never be fully returned—is one of the best, if not THE best, portrayal of unrequited love I have ever seen in any film. Bar none. Heart-breaking sobs. You, who berate this film for Eric Schaeffer's self-indulgence and egoism, must never have felt this type of unrequited love, and for you I feel sorry (or not—I guess it's easier to be ignorant in love but wise in film criticism). For the rest of us, he struck a chord that is rarely approached in film. Forget the strap-on, dismiss the socioeconomic disconnect, don't fret over the boastfulness—this film simply nailed that painful yearning for true love that some romantics still treasure. The dialog touches many of us as personally poignant but that "film" critics interpret as trite. I could wax eloquent about the cinematography—especially one scene where Sarah is walking past a piece d'art depicting waves (get the metaphor, duh!) with an equivalently apt soundtrack—but the arrogant, non-romantic film critics would dismiss this as being self-indulgent. You know, sometimes we need self-indulgence—especially when it comes to relationships! Give me those scenes that touch my heart, expand my senses, and evoke my passion. If you want to be really TOUCHED by a film, see Fall. You won't be disappointed (unless you've taken Film Criticism 101, in which case cynicism trumps romanticism).