Change Your Image
robert_johnston
Reviews
Art School Confidential (2006)
very funny
I don't understand why this movie has attracted negative reviews. When I saw it the audience - including me - was laughing out loud. Sure, it isn't the cleverest film ever but it is unfailingly entertaining. The performances are great and the script is witty. The point is that Jerome can draw but is no great artist so from the beginning is never going to achieve his ambition to be Picasso. He is as much of a stereotype as everybody else. It is stated right from the start that everybody is a cliché - and ain't that the truth? We are all clichés. As Malkovich explains in the beginning art students are almost guaranteed disappointment. The audience isn't supposed to sympathise with Jerome - if you think you are then you have missed the point.
The Interpreter (2005)
underrated
I find it hard to believe that this movie has provoked so much comment and analysis. I am sure Sidney Pollack didn't think he was making Citizen Kane here. Rather, this is a perfectly enjoyable, well-acted thriller with no pretensions to depth. Admittedly there are no big surprises, but it is well-crafted. And, as someone who feels instinctively anti-Nicole (sorry), it is always good to be reminded that she can actually act. More importantly, I think that - despite what some cynics have suggested - Pollack is brave in these PC days to show that feelings of national identity can transcend simple issues of colour or creed. Let's face it, there are white Africans who have just as much right to feel African as a second-generation Nigerian immigrant, say, to the US has the right to feel American, whatever his or her cultural, racial, whatever background may be. To suggest that one continent should be one colour while the rest of us enjoy the benefits of multi-culturalism is racist - even if it is by default. So good on Sidney - even if he may have had his eye on the box office rather than trying to make a moral point...
Network (1976)
Brilliant and prescient
I totally agree with the above comments. This is a film you have to see. And - scarily - one that probably couldn't be made today, considering the commercial links between Hollywood and the US TV networks. What must surely have appeared to be intellectual cynicism in 1976, today looks more like a no-brainer observation on the seeming lack of morality of the world's most influential medium. That's not to say that admirable TV programming no longer exists, but the power of Network and the brilliance of the performances by Finch and Dunaway is to show how easily the race for ratings can lead to something far more sinister than simple entertainment. Reality TV? I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore.
Alexander (2004)
Unbelievable
This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I left the cinema not only wanting my money back but also a written apology from Oliver Stone. What was he thinking? From what I saw on the screen this was a project that was doomed from the word go. What was Mr Stone trying to say? I would love to know - seriously - because if there was some message here it went right over my head. The only vaguely interesting thing in all this nonsense was the performance by Angelina Jolie - if she can do camp this well she is set to be the next Anjelica Huston. And I mean that as a compliment. Otherwise, all that can be said of Alexander is that it made Troy look good - no mean feat...
Elizabeth (1998)
A truly great film
I am biased but the fact that Elizabeth lost out Oscar-wise to Shakespeare in Love is one of the greatest Academy Award travesties of recent years. I'm pretty sure that Shakespeare himself would have voted for this film! It's greatness first is in the performances of Blanchett, Eccleston, Rush, Fiennes, Ardant... the list goes on. But just as importantly it shows that atmosphere and dramatic tension are far more effective than special effects in transporting an audience. And then, like a Shakespeare tragedy, historical verisimilitude rightly takes a back seat to the investigation of eternal themes - love, jealousy, hunger for power, weakness, mercy - and perhaps most relevantly how - in politics - appearance counts more than reality. This universality is brilliantly revealed in the choice of music - Elgar and Mozart seamlessly heighten the drama. And the script is wonderful - effortlessly turning what in less sure hands would be trite asides into profundity. OK, I'm gushing, but (but for my money at least) with Elizabeth, director Kapoor shows that cinema can be truly dramatic. It's definitely in my top ten and I don't see its position being threatened any time soon.
In Her Shoes (2005)
Strong performances
While In Her Shoes is enjoyable on a basic chick-flick level, ultimately this is a terrible movie saved by great actors. Cameron Diaz - in my opinion - is a true movie star: from Charlie's Angels to the Gangs of New York, it doesn't matter how good or bad the script is, she is always incredibly beautiful, utterly engaging and almost always convincing. Toni Colette is a wonderful actor who could read out a horoscope and make it moving. And while Shirley MacLaine may now be forever typecast as the crabby old woman with a heart of gold she always (well, if you forget Bewitched) plays them brilliantly. And in In her Shoes they deserved every cent they (hopefully) received. Without their combined talents this would be the most tired, hackneyed pile of old rubbish ever. You can't help but feel that rather than bothering with a screenplay, somebody fed the plot highlights of every rom-com ever made into a computer then hit print. The fact that this movie got any laughs (or inspired any tears) is a testament to the fact that the ability of actors is still what counts. And thank goodness for that.
Capote (2005)
Hoffman is Capote - but not in a good way
And by that I mean the whole film is so in love with itself that it fails to realise that it is actually incredibly shallow. Accomplished maybe, but ultimately saying nothing. As Capote the novelist was in love with his prose, then Capote the movie is in love with its imagery, but doesn't seem to appreciate that it ends up revealing more about its maker than it does about its subject. Yes, it can be pretty, but it has all been done before - and better. No visual cliché can be resisted. For example, when Capote himself reveals his self-conscious prose in the reading when he describes the clothes of the victims, you can't help but remember that in the earlier courtroom scene you know with a sinking heart that the camera will not be able to resist panning over the relentless grey suits to reveal Perry as the lone figure in white. It's not that the film isn't enjoyable, it is just relentlessly self-conscious. And even this almost works until the flashbacks to the killings when you realise that the shallowness isn't post-modern genius, merely an unconscious apeing of Capote's own failings. And to see the movie as an examination of how a writer manipulates truth seems to me to miss the point that the character Capote himself describes In Cold Blood as a novel from the outset. Indeed, isn't the book's "novelisation" of reportage the whole reason In Cold Blood is famous in the first place? As for Hoffman's performance, while enjoyable, it is parody rather than characterisation - it feels like watching a stand-up comedian pretending to be Alec Guinness acting out a role. No doubt Capote was an unpleasant human being but the charm he must have possessed is reduced by Hoffman to merely a couple of queenie comments at parties. Also, the way the screenplay keeps underlying his hypocrisy ends up being almost insulting to the audience's intelligence. To be fair, it is well made and worth seeing - the fact that with a little more courage its flaws could be turned into triumphs shows that it isn't dull. And with ruthless editing it could have been so much better. Unfortunately this would have meant that it would have only been 70 minutes long. Mind you - Breakfast in Tiffany's was a novella...
The Stepford Wives (2004)
dreadful
What an appalling waste of time of the actors' talents. The plot makes absolutely no sense - it seems obvious that halfway through they decided to change the plot (presumably feeling that present day American audiences wouldn't be able to stomach the darkness of the original) but simply couldn't be bothered to change earlier scenes to justify the tacked-on ending. Did they really think we wouldn't notice? Frankly it is an insult to the audience's intelligence and Frank Oz owes me $12 and an apology... Having said that Glenn Close is great as always, as is Bette Midler, but this isn't one of the movies that they will be boasting about in years to come.