shiva-28 Reviews

The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011)

Very Educational

[7/10 · 4 January 2014]

I watched every episode of the Story of Film on TCM and quite frankly found it very educational. As a film buff, with a pretty good knowledge of the history of cinema, I thought I had a good grasp of what has come before but Mark Cousin's epic documentary with a focus on International cinema, and not just the West, really opened me up to so many foreign films that I was not aware of it. So, thank you Mark for that!

There's been much talk about Mark's accent as the narrator. Frankly, since this series is about Mark's own vision of cinema's history, it makes sense for him to narrate. Because all along he is the one telling us what he thinks of this film or that, this director and another.

It would not have made sense if SOF was narrated by someone else, because the points being brought up in this 15-hour long documentary aren't necessarily cinema facts, but one person's rather educated opinion. So, I have no issue with Mark's personal narration.

As for his accent, why such a fuss? Why do we need to have generic, impersonal narrations all over the place. If Michael Moore gets to narrate his own documentaries and telling us how feels about various topics, why shouldn't Mark do that.

If the real fuss about Cousin is that he is not American, then the blame is on us for being so uptight and not him.

Good work Mark and thanks for expanding my cinema knowledge.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

Note to Mr. Scorsese (not enough sex)

[1/10 · 28 December 2013]

Dear Mr. Scorsese, I have seen every movie you have done, dating back to your Mean Streets and Who's That Knocking at My Door, and I am very sorry to say that The Wolf of Wall Street is your worst.

Unfortunately The Wolf is a bore for the following reasons:

1) You have made a movie that is a De Caprio vehicle, instead of Scorsese movie. (Unlike your other films).

2) You have put your focus on a story that is unfortunately not only not new, but in fact too familiar and been said before.

3) The length of the film for this particular topic is a problem.

4) The most interesting aspects of this film is showcasing of the excess and the sex. And I wish you didn't cut that out as much as the other mundane parts.

5) Why treat the audience as dummies. Why assume that we can't handle something as relatively routine as an IPO (and I am not in finance) and cut off De Caprio's explanation of such in his narration.

6) Why not show us what De Caprio's character actually did wrong.

7) I am not sure what it says about us that we prefer to watch movies about Italian gangsters vs Wall Street types.

8) This movie would have worked better as a 2-hour wild ride with more of the excesses showcased than a 3-hour vague promo for the main character.

9) I understand that while editing this film you tried to narrow it down to under 3 hours, but doing so, you have made compromises about what we consider Scorsese touch vs what you think the audience wants to see.

10) Maybe, this is a case where studio interference would have helped. Knowing full well that the movie was independently financed and hence granting the director a rare opportunity to release the version without a green light from the bosses.

11) Where is the Scorsese touch in this film? Where is the wow factor? Why would a director of your stellar reputation and vision release a film that doesn't project your signature touches.

12) I understand that for this film you have chosen not to showcase the camera. I get it, that the subject matter may not have required (for example) Robert Richardson's amazing lighting techniques, but by giving in to the script too much you have lost your DNA in this film.

13) We are used to watching Scorsese movies about degenerate characters, nothing new there, but you always mix that with awe-inspiring visual narrative. None of that exists in The Wolf.

14) Where is Ms. Schoonmaker's now iconic editing chops in this film? Why is it so mundane?

15) If you would have kept more of the sex, and lessens the movie by a full hour (at least 30 min), added your signature visual style and more of Ms. Schoonmaker's editing prowess you could have saved this film.

16) This movie comes across as your first film that was made purely with box office numbers in mind and that's beneath a director of your stature and frankly doesn't sync with your legendary reputation.

17) I prefer to watch movies at home, as I have a nice set up, but I only go to the theater and suffer through all the hassle and commercials for 2 directors, yours and Tarantino. I was sorry that I sat through this farce for 3 hours and I am a huge fan of your work.

The Artist (I) (2011)

Not Oscar Worthy - Highly Overrated

[4/10 · 7 July 2012]

You'll find this movie mildly amusing if you have never seen: - A Chaplin Silent... - A Harold Lloyd Silent... - A Gene Kelly Movie... - Dancing in the Rain... - A Fred Astaire Movie... - The Thin Man Movies from the '30s... - An Actual Silent Film...

If you haven't seen any of the above, then this extremely cliché, poor substitute for the real thing, may amuse you just a tad.

Bérénice Bejo screen presence is highly uninspiring. Jean Dujardin gallantly attempts to carry the movie through, but the hyper cliché, almost comic book amalgam of many popular screenplays from the silent era that is the source material for this movie, kills his effort to save the film.

Watching The Artist to get an experience of a real silent movie, is like buying a $50 Breitling from Canal Street, in China Town, New York City for an experience of the actual watch.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Review from writer/photographer who has seen this movie 4 times

[7/10 · 19 February 2012]

I have seen almost all of Woody Allen's movies and like many of his fans have been disappointed with his body of work since Mighty Aphrodite, except for Vicky Christina Barcelona. I ignored the hype about this movie and decided not to watch it in theaters. But the best picture Oscar nod got my attention. So, when it became available on demand I thought it was time I watched. Since on demand allows 24hr rentals, I end up watching this movie 4 times. Twice in the first night and twice the next day. Why? Because the first viewing really touched me.

The movie on its first viewing casts a certain old school Woody Allen spell, where you think to yourself "he's finally back." But the charm is quickly diminished by every consecutive viewing and sadly soon becomes forgettable.

I still have memories from watching his Interiors ('78) for the first time in late 90's early 2000's. There are scenes from Hanna and Her Sisters ('86), Annie Hall ('77), Radio Days ('87) that I will never forget. If any of these movies run on TCM or premium channels, I would certainly stop and watch until the end. It doesn't matter how many time I have seen them before.

But once the impact of the first viewing faded away, Midnight in Paris also fades away from memory. I think the main problem is Owen Wilson. Although this is probably the best performance he has done to date he is simply not worth repeated viewings. He does a pretty good job of channeling Woody however, but he lacks Woody's screen presence.

The ensemble however is simply brilliant and so is the art direction and the cinematography. Adrien Brody's Dali is a scene stealer.

Actually when I started writing this I intended it to be mostly a review of the cinematography by the fellow Iranian Darius Khondji. He is no doubt a master cinematographer with quite an impressive track record. The work as a whole is quite flawless and intentionally subtle, except for the lighting in one set that really bugged me all 4 times that I saw it--the Gil and Inez hotel room. The room is filmed way too yellow with a very harsh look. All the lights are turned up, even the bathroom while no one is using it. There are no effective shadows. It's lit like a TV set. I could only imagine what Robert Richardson would have done to the particular set. The glass-doors on the closets are frosted (look terrible), assuming a treatment done just for the camera as not to reflect the set lighting. Thankfully their hotel room is shown only 3 or 4 times for very short periods as most of the scenes are shot outdoors.

The postcard shots of Paris are drop dead gorgeous, so is the scene at Monet's gallery. The night shots however are magic and I think it's one of the key reasons for this movie's success.

If you are a Woody Allen fan and have given up on him and stopped watching his movies, do yourself a big favor and watch this gorgeous film. The first viewing will simply blow you away.

The American (2010)

Spoiler Alert: The Rififi ending doesn't work,

[31 July 2011]

A truly wonderful movie, spoiled by a poorly thought out ending.

I enjoyed watching this intentionally slow-paced movie, but was disappointed by the ending. Let me clarify, I am for unconventional endings and I also like to see bad guys win at the end. So, my disappointment wasn't that it didn't have a Hollywood Ending. It was that the Rififi ending that they chose for this film, meaning driving the vehicle while dying of a bullet wound and actually making it to the destination and then right at the last minute dropping dead, literally, with your head on the horn and a fade out with the sound of the horn is too cliché and brings down this otherwise very well directed movie.

I liked the cinematography, the actors/actresses, the slow pace, but the ending totally killed my enjoyment for this film.

I know it's too late to re-shoot the ending, but what IMO would have saved this film was a True Romance ending. Meaning the hero, although beaten up and bloodied, gets to the prostitute friend and is saved in the last minute and they have an after life, no matter how unconventional.

In True Romance, written by Tarantino, the hero, with war wounds and short of one eye, actually gets the crazy prostitute and they live in some out of the way place and raise a son. Why not that ending for The American.

I didn't feel sad for the hero of The American at the end, I just thought, "the Rififi ending, you must be joking." Sorry, as much as I enjoyed watching this movie, the ending killed the pleasure and I will not watch this movie again on cable or otherwise.

Mildred Pierce (2011)

A Television Masterpiece

[10/10 · 17 April 2011]

To really appreciate this masterpiece of television cinema, the first step is to outgrow the original starring Ms. Crawford.

Initially as I started watching the HBO version I tried to compare the scenes with the original, as I have seen it several times over the years.

It's easy to compare the HBO's Wally to the truly wonderful Jack Carson, and just for comparison sake, Carson takes the cake. No challenge.

How about Ms. Crawford's Pierce vs Winslet's? Crawford of course would win for her screen presence, and the magnitude of her personality. She would also grab the public's vote because she plays a heroine. Ms. Winslet's Mildred has a persona of a victim and comes across as too ordinary, compare with the superhuman presence of Crawford. So, I understand why a lot of us would automatically defer to the original and try to ignore the new.

And what about Veda, how would I compare Evan Rachael's to Ann Blyth's wonderful 1940's performance. In many ways I'd nod the hat to Ms. Blyth, because the movie itself is so immersing.

Judging solely based on the performances of the original characters of the 1940's version, the luscious black and white cinematography, and Ms. Crawford, it would be easy to dismiss the 2011 version.

However if you look at the 2011 version as a standalone piece of grownup film making and the viewer is indeed a grownup who appreciates subtleties, this is one of the best modern movies ever made for television.

Many complain about its pace, they whine that this new version doesn't have a bang of an ending, they complain that Winslet is not a heroine, and how is it possible for Veda to become so great as a singer in such a short time. However, the core reason for people's dissatisfaction with the HBO version is because the original was so good, and to be honest so manipulative. The original twisted the novel to maintain and in many ways revive Crawford's superstar status.

The HBO version is an ode to masterful, grownup film making. I am simply blown away that we can still make such amazingly powerful cinema in the US.

A huge thanks for those involved in this truly inspiring movie. Thanks for not cheapening it with juvenile gun fires and cheap dialog. Thanks for not catering to the lowest common denominator.

This is a heck of a grown up movie, if you can just see it for what it is and not as a remake.