weed_harper Reviews

Mulholland Drive (2001)

So what.

[5/10 · 15 February 2007]

This movie, like the comedy output of Monty Python, seems designed for a "niche" audience, specifically, people on drugs. All of the gimmicks, the reverse chronology and so forth, do not add up to the kind of dramatic tension that makes for great theater or cinema. They merely create a kind of miasma, where the viewer's mind may be titillated by picking up obscure associations from one part of the story to another. Trying to figure out what is going on is like doing a crossword puzzle--it occupies the mind without enlightening it.

On the upside, the performance by Naomi Watts displays her tremendous range as an actress.

This movie may also appeal to those viewers who are looking for some hot girl-on-girl action.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

Could have been a decent war movie

[2/10 · 9 March 2006]

Occasionally a sci-fi thriller fails to produce an intriguing plot line or an original fantasy premise, but succeeds on the basis of simply being a good war movie ("Aliens" comes to mind.) This film fails to do even that, although it has some strong performances by supporting cast members: Mary Alice is excellent as the oracle, Jada Pinkett Smith is persuasive as the gung-ho combat pilot, Nona Gaye and others are good as ordinary citizens caught up in the drama of war. On the other hand, the lead actors are uninspired; Keanu Reeves does his usual dazed and clueless routine, Lawrence Fishburne doesn't have much to work with in the script.

The computer-animated battle scenes are boring, for the simple reason that there is too much going on, too fast, on the screen, and it becomes a blur. The sentinel machines are similar to Doc Ock in "Spiderman 2," but in that film the effects were far more engaging, because they were slow enough and detailed enough to follow. And compare the exo-fighting machines in this film, which are pretty lame, to the terrific fight scene in "Aliens," where Sigourney Weaver straps into the exo-fork lift and dukes it out with the creature -- that shows you what can be done.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

A bit incoherent

[5/10 · 10 February 2006]

If you are a fan of special effects, this movie is for you -- the visuals are very exciting. Unfortunately, the story line is a bit of a cut-and-paste job. It begins as a somewhat creepy sci-fi thriller, reminiscent of the most recent version of the TV series, "The Outer Limits." In this mode, it begins to gather interest, particularly due to the fine acting job by Frances O'Connor as the mother who begins to develop maternal feelings for the youthful android, against her better judgment. But then, rather abruptly, the whole mood of the picture shifts, after Mom casts the android kid out into the world. The movie turns into one of those exploration-of-a-macabre-future flicks, sort of in the "Blade Runner" genre, then veers into sort of a "Wizard of Oz"/Firesign Theatre hybrid with the "Dr. Know" sequence. Then, with another abrupt break in the continuity of mood, it goes into a quasi-mystical riff -- like the end of "2001," where the plot line suddenly gives way to some hippy-dippy philosophizing. I guess this is the tribute to Kubrick. I mean, a 2000-year leap in the continuity of the story is somewhat larger than average. The ending sequence, which is supposed to be a psychologically insightful look at love between android and human, fails, particularly in comparison with "Blade Runner" which finds far more nuance and believability in the same subject matter.

Taking Sides (2001)

A complicated historical episode

[8/10 · 7 February 2006]

I came to this film with a detailed knowledge of the actual historical events. Many viewers will most likely be largely unfamiliar with the complexities of the case, and there are some details which are important, but glossed over.

For example: there are frequent references in the dialogue to Furtwängler's rival, Herbert von Karajan ("Little K.") Why did the Americans attack Furtwängler, and not von Karajan, who was an ardent Nazi? Furtwängler was prevented from conducting in the U.S., while von Karajan was lionized. Perhaps the makers of this film thought that the implications of this were too big to be discussed in the film. I'm sure that they didn't even want to go near the fact that the people who ran the de-nazification program were Americans with close ties to the Nazis themselves.

Also, Furtwängler's rationale for staying in Germany was somewhat more philosophical than the film implies. He thought he was defending the legacy of Mozart, Beethoven et al against the Nazis, and that this was a sacred responsibility. A bit of this comes out in the film, but in a superficial way.

With respect to the success of the film otherwise, Stellan Skarsgaard is excellent as Furtwängler, even managing to resemble him somewhat. I think that Harvey Keitel is somewhat hampered by the script -- the film would have been more successful if Keitel had come off as more conflicted and less one-dimensional. Clearly the director wished to imply that Keitel was conflicted, but that, as a military man, he was required to toe the line -- the frequent shots of Army indoctrination films (about how bad the Germans were) were intended to provide a rationale for Keitel's behavior. But the film would have been more compelling if Keitel were given an opportunity to express more doubts about what he was being asked to do. I also thought that the ending was a bit anticlimactic.