Change Your Image
Jim M-2
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Drowning by Numbers (1988)
Certainly not a Greenaway fan here
Peter Greenaway's film Drowning By Numbers certainly has an interesting and unique visual style and some very strong performances. However, in the final analysis I didn't really care much about the story on screen. The film opens with a young girl in a large, star-spangled dress counting out 100 different stars. The framing of the scene is compelling and curious, but ultimately pointless. Throughout the film, various things are numbered in sequential order. After the girl is finished jumping rope, an older woman passes by and proceeds to drown her husband in a tub after he has had an amorous interlude with a younger woman. He doesn't put up much of a struggle and there are numerous apples involved in the romantic escapade, and butterflies too. Eventually the film revolves around the woman's daughter and granddaughter also drowning their husbands with the complicity of the local coroner. Amid this, there are games with ridiculous rules; numbered cows; numerous insects; a self-circumcision; runners numbered 70 and 71 who attend a series of funerals and no compelling narrative. The interesting framing of many scenes held my interest for ten or fifteen minutes, for the next 100 or so I found myself wondering, "Why should I care?"
The Garden of Allah (1936)
Story - enhh, picture - amazing.
"The Garden of Allah" was one of the first feature length, 3-strip Technicolor films. To correct a previous poster the first Technicolor feature (after Disney's 5-year exclusivity deal) was 1935's "Becky Sharp" which was a costume drama that used the color for it's garish color costumes.
"The Garden of Allah" looks as if it could have been shot years later as the cinematography uses not only the color but also the use of shadows. It must have been amazing for an audiences at the time to see a color feature after seeing basically only black and white films for their whole life. Unfortunately, the film does not stand up to the cinematography. That being said, the film is worth seeing just as a visual treat.
Dune (1984)
Nothing to like...
I just watched the DVD of "Dune" and found it to be an utter dog. I
have never read the book, nor do I intend to.
There is nothing right with this film. The dialouge is unnatural and
stilted, the acting suffers very much from it - as no one produces
an interesting character at all. The special effects are cheesy,
even for 1984. And most of the characters look like Dr. Suess on
acid. Big eyebrows, silly costumes, poor interior decoration. The
film had a look similar to "Flash Gordon" but that film meant to be
camp. On top of it all, the plot is more or less incoherent. I had a
basic idea of what was going on, but couldn't figure out why...
None of the characters seemed to have sufficient motivation. And
the sounds effects, and silly dialouge..."Cha-a-a-a-aksa!"
God bless you.
Possession (1981)
Worst film I've seen since Myra Breckenridge
Just received the DVD in the mail (thank God I only rented it) and it was everything I could do to keep from taking it out of the machine and smashing it into little bits. I don't care about the imcomprehesebility of the film, but would someone tell Isabelle Adjani to just SHUT UP!!!! She screams throughout the entire film. The dialouge is obviously written by someone who speaks limited English. The horror of this movie is in the watching these actors screach throughout the film. After 20 minutes I wanted someone to come on screen and put a bullet through their heads. The scenes are poorly put together, the acting is little less than screaming punctuated by mannered psychoses. Everyone involved should be sacked.
Frankenstein (1931)
Who can say this sucks??? It's a classic!
Sure, it is not at all faithful to the novel, but if you want the novel then read the book. What Whale is able to create is a compelling vision of his own that inspired filmmakers for many years to come. The visuals are stunning and the performances are first rate for such an early talkie. It ranks second on my list of the top films of 1931 (behind only Chaplin's City Lights). The Academy missed it, instead choosing fit to honor the stiff "epic" Cimarron (which is not as bad as many people say, but isn't all that good either). Frankenstein still holds up after 70 years, it may not be able to shock audiences as it did in 1931, but it remains a memorable piece of cinema.
Meatballs (1979)
A film for those people who find fart jokes too sophisticated
A lame-brained comedy that is rather dreary and ill-mannered. The jokes are right at the level of 12 year-olds. The story of Murray befriending Makepeace is poorly executed and silly. Very crudely done on every level with Kate Lynch rather unappealing as Murray's girlfriend. The jokes with Spaz and Fink and truly immature and mean-spirited.
Can I Do It 'Till I Need Glasses? (1977)
This movie is absolutely AWFUL!
Can I Do it 'till I Need Glasses? at the very least proves the point that anyone can make a movie. Talent is not a consideration. The folks who unleashed this wretched pile of spewing vomit upon the world, lack any semblance of talent, taste or intelligence. The target audience must consist of the recently labotimized, and infants who play with their own feces. Anyone else would be far too world wise to get even a snicker out of this film. It consists of a series of sophmoric skits in which the punchline does not even extend to the obvious. It ends at the ludicrous. The jokes told are the types of jokes that elementary school children tell (usually potty or sexually related) where they don't know the meaning of all of the terms they use. You know, like the one about daddy's car and mommy's garage. To apply any sterner method of criticism would be pointless, since the usual standards of acting, writing, direction and such have never even been heard of by the creative "minds." behind this mess. Not to be judgemental, but anyone who enjoyed this film should seriously reflect upon their purpose on this earth.