Reviews

17 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Misguided documentary offers no insight into history of Andy
2 April 2004
For the most part I agree with the negative review posted below but I have a few other choice comments. As someone who has researched and obsessed over Warhol for years I have to say that this film is incredibly misleading in presenting itself as a film that has something to do with Warhol. It has in all actuality very little. Filmmaker Stanislaw Mucha, led by a man who is supposed to be the Ruthenian Andy Warhol lookalike, wanders around Mikova, the Czech village where Warhol's mother and father descend from. The film focuses itself on the supposed Aunts, cousins and distant relations of Warhol - people who know little about his personal life and share little to no appreciation or understanding of his art. Many of them have never even seen a picture of Warhol himself. All of these people seem to have their own interpretation of Warhol's myth. They all claim him as their own, speaking of Warhol as though he were actually born in the Czech republic, and believe he was eager to return to Mikova before his untimely death in 1987. All of them refuse to acknowledge Warhol's homosexuality - in the only section of the film that truly makes a statement - claiming that no homosexuals ever came from Mikova, so there is no way that Warhol was a "you-know-what." They have never seen Warhol's Torso series (of pornographic gay sex images) or his Oxidation (piss) paintings, nor would they understand or appreciate them. Their interpretation of the 1969 shooting of Warhol (detailed in "I Shot Andy Warhol,") is believed by most of these men and women to be a lover's quarrel that occured when Valeria, Warhol's girlfriend, wanted to marry him but he turned her down. They use this delusion to support their theory that he was not homosexual. One woman also describes her disdain for the paintings that Warhol once supposedly sent back to her, eventually throwing out what today would likely be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Warhol's alcoholic aunt comments, "He looks like a monkey," when she sees her first picture of him.

The film really never explores what is the central irony of these people - that Warhol spent his life erasing negative aspects of his personality and history from the public persona that defined him. He would never have traveled back to such a squalid un-glamorous village, and when in one instance Diana Vreeland referred to him as being from Czechoslovakia he insisted that he didn't know what she was talking about - he was "From Pittsburgh." He disliked the intense ethnicity of his background, and remained distant from his family except for his mother, for whom he cared until he sent her to live in a nursing home where she died a few years later. The filmmakers never really explore Warhol himself, why exactly it was that he chose to erase perceived negative aspects of himself - homosexuality, ethnicity - from his image. In fact, the people in the film represent the kind of puritanical, bigoted, and un-artistic point of view that Warhol so dismayed and escaped from with both his art and his life style. Even his close family members did not appreciate his art, and he remained distant with both his brothers, who swooped in upon his death to claim his fortune, along with everyone else. The villagers of Mikova, who refuse to admit Warhol's homosexuality, and can't understand or admire his art, myopically claim him as their own but are never confronted with their own delusions. But perhaps that is not even the point. For it is also the people who claim to appreciate his art who are also delusional. The owner of the Warhol Museum in a nearby town sees no need to repair the leaky room which on a daily basis leaks buckets of water into a room filled with expensive prints of Warhol's work. He also refuses to admit the gypsies of that same village into the museum. Warhol would have been aghast at this movie, in both the intrusion into the ugly minds of his ancestors, and the failure to reall be anything but boring. After the interesting moments I've mentioned occured, the film descends quickly into filler moments - an Andy Warhol double tries to walk to the supermarket to buy a can of soup, a Slovakian rock group led by the museum's owner sings horrible songs about Warhol in the square, while the squalid and impoverished villagers look on, bewildered, and in the final half hour of the film, there is little to look at except drunken peasants singing endless Slovakian folk songs, until the blissful moment of the credits fills the screen. This is not really a film about Warhol, but not really a film about Warhol's relatives either. The filmmakers likely had wide access to archival materials detailing Andy Warhol's mother, who lost her first baby and traveled to America to be with her husband, but all the filmmakers give us is a tree where the two supposedly met. It's clear that pitching this film as a film about Warhol may have enabled the filmmakers to find funding more easily, but they've really squandered their opportunity to make a thoroughly effective and intelligent piece that explores all sides of the Warhol mythology. Andy deserves a better film than this. He would have hated it.
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Fear of Fear (1975 TV Movie)
effective
25 February 2003
this is a lesser known work in Fassbinder's ouevre, but it is really worth seeing. Margot, a housewife pregnant with her second child begins to feel a strange fear that she can't explain. Her vision becomes blurry and she begins to fear that she is going insane. She seeks relief in valium, cognac, and has a brief affair with the local pharmacist. It is a well shot film, the actress playing Margot has a kind of Karen Carpenter creepy frailty. There are slightly campy and melodramatic elements, but the vision of the nightmare of depression and modern life is really powerful.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Christ.
19 February 2003
I saw the restored print today at the film forum it was stunning and lush and beautifully photographed. If you can't understand that Fassbinder's early films came out of his experiences in the theater in Germany, and the plays he wrote very often featured a group of people standing around talking, then you'll never understand this film or Fassbinder. This film is about Fassbinder, and like all his films it crosses genres widely mixing the obvious Warhol influence with films about films like Contempt, Day For Night, 81/2. It does feature a large cast of people and like the Chelsea Girls sitting around talking about nothing for four hours, Beware Of a Holy Whore features a large group of people doing whatever they want and catches them in various states of anger, sadness, drunkenness, etc. The dialogue is often amusing, but the monotony of the experience is what's important - again the link to Warhol. Moreover the director character in the film seems to me to be exactly a representation of Fassbinder and by the final half hour you really come to feel his frustration at everyone and life itself. This was Fassbinder when he directed, screaming , shouting at everyone. His reputation was widespread. In this film Fassbinder realizes his ridiculousness and decides to do it up - and that's where the self-parody comes in. If you want to see this movie for a comedy experience, next. The film is impressive, interesting, beautifully shot - one exceptional moment was the sunset shot where Jeff gets punched in the stomach. And the editing of the film half really worked well, cutting between scenes the way they did. Quite Effective. Really.
31 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Heat (1972)
Pat Ast is dead.
28 October 2001
From the New York Times, October 26th, 2001.

"Pat Ast, 59, Film Actress.

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. Oct 26 - Pat Ast, 59, a model and actress who appeared in Andy Warhol films, died on Oct. 2 of natural causes at her home, it was reported in the Los Angeles Times.

Ms. Ast, who was born in Brooklyn, was a receptionist and clerk in a box factory when she met Warhol and starred in some of his films. Her roles led to meeting the designer Halston at a party, and she was a model in his Madison Avenue store.

She moved to Los Angeles in the mid-1970's and appeared in several films, including 'Reform School Girls, and 'The Incredible Shrinking Woman.'"

thought someone might like to know.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nico Icon (1995)
a behind the music masquerading as a documentary
21 April 2001
this film is truly anything but a real documentary. How anyone could take as interesting a subject as Nico and so incomprehensively make a film that purports to go inside her life is beyond me? It seems like this film was thrown together at best. I had no understanding of the real chronology of Nico's life, as the timeline jumps around repeatedly. The interviews seem largely to rely on one interview with John Cale, and it's just quite clear that the filmmakers didn't do any research whatsoever. Instead the filmmaker's come up with the dull technique of using superimposed titles throughout the film to highlight the un-insightful interviews. So superficial, so dull-looking, so without any kind of understanding of what must go into a posthumous documentary that it is really sad. A wasted opportunity. Shooting photographs for an hour or so and playing the Velvet Underground and Nico album over it is hardly the stuff of insightful or talented documentaries.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mademoiselle (1966)
incredible work written by jean genet
1 January 2001
This movie, most notable for its authors, Playwright Jean Genet, is a lost classic which one ups Bunuel's Diary of a Chambermaid in its portrayal of the secret twisted desires of the rural french. Jeanne Moreau stars as a teacher in a rural french village. Her secret desire for the Italian logger Manou leads her to acts of brutal destruction on the town. A brilliant story combined with luscious camera work and nearly silent but incredibly tense scenes with Jeanne Moreau lead to making this movie an absolute must see.
18 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
if you were moved by Requiem for a Dream
24 November 2000
I rented this film because I remembered that it was written by hugh selby, who also wrote Requiem for a Dream and I was curious. I loved Requiem for a Dream , and thought it was one of the most amazing and disturbing movies I've ever seen. Last Exit to Brooklyn is well, familiar territory. The same storytelling techniques are present, characters who you like, and become heartbroken as they try to fulfill their quests for happiness in terrible, scary manners. The stories take a character, put him at a high point and then bring him crashing down. Take for instance, the secretly gay Strike leader who is living high on the hog, charging a storm to the Union office and buying fancy champagne for his newfound lover. He returns home and finds himself out of work. He returns to his lover and finds that his lover doesn't want him without money. So he goes home and tries to sexually assault an adolescent boy. and is subsequently beaten (to death? it's not clear). But this is the type of emotional assault that the story inflicts upon us. It is almost Altmanesque in it's weaving of separate stories, but it never quite reaches the level of Altman. I'm sure that I was affected by seeing Requeim for a Dream before this film, as it annoyed me to what extent the story is manipulated and plotted to allow each of it's characters to have the most horrible and distressing endings possible. The movie itself is a very good one. But for me the problems emerge in the story. I didn't believe that the down on his luck strike leader would have tried to molest the young boy. It didn't seem to have been previously indicated anywhere in his nature. I wanted to know more about the gay character, Georgette, who for some reason runs out of her house screaming and is mowed down by a car. Anyone who's seen the Celluloid Closet knows that killing off your gay character is a needless and trite way to deal with them. It would have been much more fascinating to have delved into Georgette's story more completely. But anyway. The best part about the movie is the overall sense of dread and terror and looming nightmarish quality about the streets and scenes in general. Brooklyn is painted as a nightmarish community where the code of the street is the only law.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
fantastic
11 July 2000
I agree that this film is perfect and here's why. It details its subject in a thorough and sweeping manner. It explores films and details the homosexual portrayals in an intelligent and non-catty manner. It's clever, well presented, no it's not a typical documentary but it's a very moving piece nonetheless, and it tells a story throughout. I was really thrilled by this film and all the research and effort that went into it. In interviews the filmmakers said that the only section they wish they could have kept was one about gay historical figures whose biographical lives were depicted on film as heterosexual. Certainly this would have been wonderful, but as is, the Celluloid Closet is an incredible film.
16 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Viridiana (1961)
very bunuel, if that says anything
11 July 2000
well i wasn't going to add a comment, but nobody else did so i felt a duty to. I just watched this movie about a nun who leaves a convent to go see her uncle, who falls in love with her and then she becomes owner of the estate, and decides to care for a group of unworthy beggars. The box said this was a comedy, but I didn't think it was super funny. I think this film is most notable for the scene where all the beggars pose for a picture and they exactly duplicate all the poses in DaVinci's Last Supper painting. This is I suppose supposed to be some kind of big comment on the hypocrisy of the church, eg, replicating a holy scene with trashy people, but I didn't care to spend the time thinking about the comments. This film was interesting, but I cannot decide if it was good or bad, It's just Bunuel. That's like what Bunuel does, the story sometimes doesn't come to a complete close, and stuff doesn't resolve itself, and weird things happen all over. It seems like this entire film is some kind of big comment about the church and how it's ridiculous. The character that is most abused and taken advantage of repeatedly is Viridiania, the pure nun who is devoted to God. The other characters make no excuses for who they are or their sometimes disreputable characters. There is a lot of visual symbolism to go along with this, ie the burning of the crown of thorns that Viridiana had with her. I don't know though. The other Bunuel films I've seen, Diary of A Chambermaid (my personal favorite), The Exterminating Angel, And Un Chien Andalou, all seem determined to make a really obvious statement about society in a really obvious manner, I think that diminishes the message in the end. I think that subtlety works more often than not. If you're watching a movie, and right after a character says something or whatever, you go, oh that's like a big statement against the bourgeoisie or the church or something, then it takes you out of the world of the film and the movie, and into a space where you're viewing a work not involved in the story, but involved in the story of what the filmmaker is trying to say about society. I think the bottom line should be the story. Any messages should come across through the storyline and not in direct symbols. I don't know maybe I'm wrong. Bunuel is supposedly a genius, and I do enjoy the style of his films to some extent. They seem more like plays than films though and there is no act structure. Maybe that's why they sort of annoy me. I dont' know. thats my opinion
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Marathon Man (1976)
um, this movie sucks im really sorry...
19 June 2000
um i don't know what crack y'all were smoking when you decided you thought this movie was excellent or whatever. I had heard so much good stuff about it, but it really sucked a lot. I'm sorry but both Dustin Hoffman's character and Laurence Olivier's character are completely underdeveloped. And what is the relationship of the "marathon man" idea, it seems like half of this movie is there so that like in key scenes they can come into play. Like he runs marathons and thats how he gets away from the men chasing him. This movie's first hour and a half is completely incomprehensible, i had no idea what the hell was going on. There are great actors and they try really hard but this is a really poorly written movie. William Goldman really tried hard with this but it seems like in adapting his book he forgot a lot of stuff. i felt like if i read the book it would be better. This movie all in all just seemed to pale in comparison to The Boys of Brazil, which dealt with very similiar themes but did it in a much scarier and better manner. Anyway it sucked, by the last hour we were doing mystery science theater 3000 dialogue to this stupidity.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
more like an absurdist play than a movie...but still enjoyable
22 May 2000
Now I remember when Scenes From A Mall first came out, it got absolutely atrocious reviews. I wasn't old enough to see it then, but I loved the idea of a movie with two of my comedy heroes, Woody Allen and Bette Midler. In fact, I had almost forgotten about this movie until I read a review of the newest Woody Allen movie, "Small Time Crooks" in which the reviewer said that Allen hadn't had as good chemistry as he had with Tracey Ullman with another actress since Scenes From A Mall. So I went out and found the movie, and the reviewer was definitely correct. The two stars have masterful chemistry, although it's almost ridiculous to believe Woody Allen and Bette Midler would be together, but then again isn't that it in most of his movies. I mean does anyone believe he could have gone to bed with Mira Sorvino, Julia Roberts, Juliette Lewis, Elisabeth Shue, I mean even Judy Davis is a big stretch. Well whatever. The problem I had with the movie is that it is more like an absurdist play than a real movie. This married couple go to the mall on their anniversary and both reveal they have had affairs. The film is believable except for the wild and sudden reactions that Bette Midler's character has to Allen's revelations. She knees him in the groin and screams at him. Now nobody enjoys Bette Midler's antics more than I do (think the phone call scene in Ruthless People) but I just didn't buy it. It was like Bette Midler was dying to have moments of big ballsy comedy inserted into a more serious film. Then of course they make up, which isn't very believable either, nor is it funny. Then she reveals her affair and Allen overreacts. At this point I was like in disbelief that anyone would expect us to swallow such a hackneyed and predictable reaction and story set up. Of course they're more fighting, and an annoying mime (hello? they stole it from tootsie) and lots of garish on again off again reactions. Gee I wonder what happens at the end? It's not a hard one to predict folks. It was perfectly enjoyable though, but when you think about it in your head you realize it's really not such a with it piece of work. The movie reminded me of Midler's more recent film "That Old Feeling" where she again overreacts with big screaming fights that are supposed to be hysterical. The couple in that movie also go do an on again off again thing with lots of screaming in between. Like I said, they're both enjoyable and Midler radiates charm but why does she keep saying yes to this terrible s**t? She's a good actress, and she should be doing better comedy's not this terrible lowbrow material, (hello Drowning Mona was beyond embarrasing, its already the worst film of the year). All in all, scenes from a mall is worth it for the great chemistry between the two stars and its pretty cute. But why anyone would think that we would enjoy seeing Woody Allen in a ponytail is beyond me.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Smithereens (1982)
excellent film by the director of "desperately seeking susan"
22 May 2000
i quite disagree with "dehlia"'s comment, this movie is anything but dull. It is an excellent film that does seemingly document the early new york style of punk/new wave rock and it's main character Wren who is as mentioned on a road to nowhere. The film comes off as a really excellent student feature, and it was the first film by the director of Desperately Seeking Susan and She -Devil. You can definitely see remnants of the Wren character in the character Madonna plays in "susan" and the film doesn't have a big sappy ending which is what makes it so interesting, it starts off like a comedy and then reveals itself as a more serious drama. It reminded me a great deal of the films of the French New Wave. Definitely worth seeing.
24 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blow-Up (1966)
im sorry this sucks.
16 April 2000
i hate to come on this site and read bad reviews of movies i love but im sorry this movie just sucks. And for the comment which implied that film students are keeping this movie alive, I just have to say that I'm a film student and i thought this sucked. My professors may like it, but i have never heard one say so. It just sucks a lot. Its dull and boring and if i want a movie that's just a study of a period of time there are a hundred movies out there that capture the time period, better and with far more excitement and pacing than this dull dull film. Maybe you think I misunderstand it. No I don't I appreciate all the comments about the film which actually made me think more about whether i really liked the film or not, and I still decided that yes, it sucks. And as for the comment about people wanting to go to the movies for a thrill ride, well yes that's what the movies are all about. A slow paced elliptical movie can be fantastic, i.e. the films of Peter Weir and David Lynch, however, this film is not. It just sucks. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Scandal, Shampoo, Easy Rider, these are great films which can document the sixties better than this boring ass piece of suckiness. I hate it. And I always will. Keep your finger poised on fast forward.
5 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
bliss
14 April 2000
I LOVE THIS MOVIE. I have always been a big John Waters fan, and I think that this is definitely his early masterpiece. Polyester is without a doubt his later masterpiece, although Serial Mom contains some of the funniest stuff ever. But back to Desperate Living, I just can't get over this awesome awesome movie, which I saw for the first time last night. Although Pink Flamingos may be Waters most well known work, it seems almost as though Waters was practicing in comparison to this film, which is equally funny and shocking and sick to no end. The plot is better and more structured than Pink Flamingos, and as a whole the color scheme throughout is fantastic, especially Jean Hill in a sea green tutu with bright green makeup and bleach blonde hair. Queen Carlotta definitely has some amazing lines, and her stripping sessions with her henchmen are hysterical, but the best line in the movie has to go to magnificent Mink Stole, who in her sexual encounter with Grizelda moans, "If it was good enough for Gertrude Stein...!" Of special note is Waters homage to his personal childhood hero, the Wicked Queen from Snow White, as Mink Stole becomes the spitting image of the Queen as she prepares her rabies potion. Ahhh, Bliss!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yôkihi (1955)
mizoguchi again creates one of the most beautiful movies i have ever seen
20 March 2000
Princess Yang Kwei Fei is an absolutely wonderfully and touching movie, which features Mizoguchi's astoundingly beautifully storytelling and direction. The Cinderella style story of a peasant step sister who is suddenly made the bride of the emporer and their ultimate love is totally spellbinding. This is not a film to watch lightly, it requires concentration and appreciation of the beauty of the film. If you've never seen anything by Mizoguchi watch Ugetsu as well. It's beautiful and only 90 minutes long for those who can't take subtitles (losers). 10 out of 10.
20 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Poison (1991)
So screwed up it makes doom generation look like On Golden Pond
5 February 2000
I was excited about seeing this because I loved Safe and Velvet Goldmine, but this was just a bizarre bizarre piece of filmmaking. There are I suppose points to be made about the unreasonable fear of the AIDS virus which emerge in the story about the man who drinks the sex drive and becomes a leper, but they weren't so amazingly poignant. Haynes denies that this sequence connects with AIDS of course, so who knows. The story that was the most interesting was the mockumentary about the boy who kills his father, but the structure of the film as three stories proceeding in succession prevents you from really getting interested or emotionally involved in the movie. I didn't know what was so offensive about the prison scene, I just found it boring, as well as the rest of the film.
3 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
not as great as I had hoped
5 February 2000
I thought that this movie would be great, but it was just kind of okay. It was short but it felt long, and the story was in fact quite dated. It was a good movie, but not a masterpiece by any standards. In terms of David Lean, if you want to see something truly wonderful and touching, watch Summertime with Katherine Hepburn. And to the user who remarked that this film had gay subtext I would like to point out that this is completely untrue and that Noel Coward being gay does not somehow make the movie about homosexuality, nor does a movie about two lovers who can't be together somehow mean it's really about homosexuality.
1 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed