edwartell Reviews

Shallow Hal (2001)

This movie is better if you're drinking

[4/10 · 23 November 2001]

Normally, I write reviews of movies I see on my website. However, for this movie I cannot do that because I wasn't really watching it for the last half-hour or so. An explanation and warning to all follows.

I saw this movie with some friends; otherwise, I would never have seen it, since the reviews have not been kind. The movie, indeed, is every bit as inane and touchy-feely as you think it is. There is very little to recommend in it; the only thing I can think of is that it isn't downright unpleasant. The birthday boy, one of my friends, brought along a bottle of whiskey, and, after draining enough of it, handed it to the chick on my right. She drank as much as he did, but, being much less corpulent, got drunk right there in the theater. The stupid things she said and her lack of physical coordination were much funnier than the movie itself. I finished off the bottle, and the movie was much more tolerable while buzzed. So, I can't recommend going to see this movie unless you just feel like getting drunk in the movie theater; not normally a practice I condone, but in this case almost a necessity.

Greedy for Tweety (1957)

Unusually sadistic but hilarious

[8/10 · 12 August 2001]

This is one of those shorts where Sylvester chases Tweety and Hector the bulldog chases Sylvester. Unlike most of those films, where Sylvester gets beaten up by Hector in the end, this time their chase leads them into traffic, and from there to a recuperative stay in the animal hospital. But even in heavy casts, cat and dog are determined to whack the crap out of each other and cause incredible amounts of pain. Rarely in a WB cartoon has so much pain not been glossed over; there are no fade-outs here, and the pain accumulates for the character rather than just fading away. Because of this, an unusually hilarious and terrific short.

The Flowers of St. Francis (1950)

The most unrigid religious movie ever

[9/10 · 26 June 2001]

Most religious films are somber affairs, made by religious men. So Francesco, giullare di Dio is an odd religious movie. It lacks any readings from scripture, or even any quotation. It's made by Rossellini, and the title means "Francis, Jester Of God." It's a long long way from here to Diary Of A Country Priest.

We've had St. Francis movies, of course. Most (in)famous is Zeffirelli's Brother Sun, Sister Moon: St. Francis as hippie. But this was the best. It was shot more or less on location, in the Italian countryside. It stars non-professionals (of course; Rossellini was a neo-realist). Fortunately, it stars a bunch of monks as...a bunch of monks following St. Francis.

In a brisk 75 minutes, Rossellini sketches a bunch of events: St. Francis meeting a leper, a cook learning why actions win souls, not words, etc. There's little music, and, oddly, not really much time spent with St. Francis himself. He's a side character; the thing of real interest is the daily lives and lessons of the monks.

At the end, Francis sends the monks off on their own to preach. They spin in circles, fall down, and wherever their head points, that's where they go. Religion is a journey, not an urgent reason to convert others. This supremely generous and uninsistent film is surely one of the best religious films ever made, full of nature and joy.

The Whole Dam Family and the Dam Dog (1905)

It's just one joke

[4/10 · 21 June 2001]

Like the title says. Like snickering fourth-graders, the movie makes jokes about the family's name. The wife's name is Mrs. Hellen Dam, etc. They pose for us behind a platform with their name written on it. Notable as a surviving early silent rather than for any cinematic value.

Drunk Driving (1939)

Crime Does NOT PAY!

[5/10 · 11 June 2001]

In this early example of an instructional film, we open on the stirring close-up of a police badge. Then, we hear the blare of sirens, and then we see a solemn expert who speaks to us about the dangers of drunk driving - and offers photographs to back up his word. Just as we prepare to swear off drinking for the rest of our lives, he offers this dramatic reconstruction, and it's flash-back time.

John Jones is a nice guy who works for a refrigerator firm. This is our first tip-off that he's not too bright. He's just landed a $20,000 contract, and the boss is sending him off to the east coast, to train for his upcoming management post. Elated by this news of his promotion, Jones rushes with his buddy to the bar, and drinks 3 straight bourbons. Then, wisely, he drives home, stopping only to hit the bumper of a woman when he runs a stop sign. (When he gives her his card and says insurance will pay for the damage, she says "Oh no you don't! All these people on the sidewalk saw what happened! We'll settle this right here!")

Arriving home to his elated wife and her mother, they decide to go to dinner at a place called "The Plantation," which is some miles away. He drinks one martini in celebration with his wife and mom, and drains another two in secret. (This after paying a $25 fine for the first accident.) He keeps speeding and speeding and HE'S GOING TOO FAST AND THEN...BOOOOOOOOOM!

Naturally, his wife dies...plus her mom...plus the baby in the truck he hit...plus God knows who else. It's all too much. He cracks up, crying hysterically (and quite annoyingly). Dissolve back to stern-faced expert, who delivers lecture. And then it's all over.

OK, I've had my fun. What do you really expect from an educational movie? Entertaining as an artifact, and also as one of the first works of David Miller, who later directed Kirk Douglas in Lonely Are The Brave. This movie plays under the label "One-Reel Wonder" on TCM.

The Making of 'the Bridge on the River Kwai' (2000 Video)

A good bonus on "The Bridge on the River Kwai"

[6/10 · 22 May 2001]

This is an hour-long documentary about what the title says the movie is about. It's made by Laurent Bouzereau, the current king of "making of" documentaries made in retrospect. It's a pretty standard affair: he interviews surviving crew, retells stories well-known to those who've read the reprinted program notes in the DVD, and shows conceptual drawings. If that's your king of thing (and I enjoyed watching it), fine. Just don't expect a deeper look at this movie (a la the great book about the making of Lawrence of Arabia) or its restoration.

La rosière de Pessac (1979 TV Movie)

Now that you've read/seen the first Rosiere...

[7/10 · 18 April 2001]

You'll understand the importance of Eustache coming back to film the same thing 11 years later. We must remember that this was after the financial failure of Mes Petites Amoureuses had sent Eustache back to making shorts and documentaries (or just short documentaries). It was time, it seems, to come back to Pessac and film the ceremony again. If you don't know what I'm talking about, check out the other Rosiere De Pessac on Eustache's filmography, where I described it.

That movie was in black-in-white. This one's in color. But don't worry, this one's better. For one thing, Eustache is considerably more bitter and disappointed with things in general. Last time he was content to merely show. This time, he wants to show you some things. Like the fact that the people in Pessac are now dwarfed by two gigantic, horrendously ugly apartment buildings. Or how the ceremony has now become a politicized event covered by TV news crews. Or how long the gap is between the choosing of the virgin and the actual ceremony. Or the interminable number of times the virgin must be kissed by an interminable number of people.

This is a considerably more cynical film. Eustache does make some stabs at filming this film the same way as the last one (a shot going from the mayor's head to a bust above it, for example; the direction of the camera's movement is reversed), but seems to be less interested now than he was in 1968 than simply "showing truth." But the joy does return in the final scene, where we see the outdoor celebration dinner, where the rowdy residents goodnaturedly bang on their tables and cry out for more champagne. Eustache's camera slowly retreats into the distance as the credits roll, a magnificent closing shot. Together, these two movies provide an interesting study in contrasts. Things have changed indeed.

La rosière de Pessac (1968 TV Movie)

Slice of life, uninterpreted

[6/10 · 18 April 2001]

Director Jean Eustache was born in Pessac, France. He returned there in 1968 to film the annual ceremony in which the town's most virtuous girl is elected. First, we see the town meeting, where nominees are named, votes are taken, and the decision is made. The committee then walks to the girl's house, and informs her. Then we see the march in to the church, the church sermon, the mayor's speech, and the commemorative dinner.

This movie (incredibly hard to get to see) is perfect for those who want to see ordinary daily life unfiltered and without commentary. Eustache simply films the events described above. It's a very amiable film and a very enjoyable one. It's the way France was, circa 1968. However, to understand this film completely, you then have to watch the 1979 version...

The Tell-Tale Heart (1941)

Awesome obscure short; catch this on TCM

[7/10 · 5 April 2001]

Trying to find a translation to the screen of Edgar Allen Poe's work that doesn't involve Roger Corman? Try this short film, made by Jules Dassin, a director who was highly regarded in his time, and is nowadays mainly remembered for Rififi. It's pretty simple: 30-year old apprentice Joseph Schildkraut kills his cruel master. But the heartbeat of the dying body will be his downfall when the police come over. What's that rhythmic ticking sound: the clock? Dripping water? Or is it...(bum bum bum) the HEARTBEAT OF A DEAD MAN?

It's a pretty slim story. The 20 minutes are just right; Dassin concentrates on atmosphere; every shot contributes to the story and mood. It's totally absorbing and gripping, depending greatly on shots from a subjective POV. Schildkraut is hypnotic as the nervous killer; it's really his movie. It might sound corny, but, as done, it's a grippingly serious short; it can be seen in between features on TCM sometimes. That, at least, is how I saw it.

A Dirty Story (1977)

Spellbinding monologue the first time, but pretensions get tedious

[6/10 · 4 April 2001]

In this short film from Jean Eustache, unavailable in the US on video (I saw it at a Eustache retrospective), a group of friends sit down and, with little prelude, listen to their friend (Michel Lonsdale) recite a story about when, as a young man, he discovered a peephole in the ladies toilet at a small cafe. He describes the etiquette surrounding this peephole for the resident perverts in the cafe, and relates how viewing female vaginas soon became his sole obsession, and, finally, how he overcame this obsession. His friends listen, discuss, and the movie ends.

At least, the scripted portion does. Then we see the same story, with nearly identical dialogue, related by Jean Noel-Picq, for real. This second monologue is actually a documentary filming: the first monologue was actually filmed second, with professional actors this time. Naturally, hearing the exact same story twice in a row takes much of the edge off. At first, it's a hilarious, oddly compelling story. The second time, we are subjected to it because, according to the introduction to the screening, Eustache wants to show that there's no such thing as objective truth. Fine...but that's not exactly a new idea. By the end of this little experiment, we feel as if we have seen an overly obvious point beaten into our heads. And a bit dazed from it all. A curious short, nonetheless (please, PLEASE attend a Eustache retrospective if you're lucky enough to get one in your town).

Taris (1931)

Vigo's second film, a short, is a dated but fun technique work-out

[6/10 · 8 March 2001]

The second of Vigo's four films is about 10 minutes long. The subject, allegedly, is a French national swimming champion, Jean Taris. First we see him swimming normally. Then we see a hint that this isn't a documentary short: Taris dives into the water, Vigo runs the film backwards, and Taris is spit back out. This happens 3 times. Thus the crux of the film: inventive (for the time) technique, while overuse of it occurs. Fun stuff, though: interesting shots of Taris doing the backstroke. Finally, we see him goofing around underwater; by this point, the movie achieves a genuine state of grace. Can be found on No. 10 of the New York Film Annex's video series of experimental and abstract films.

Accattone (1961)

Disjointed, oddly wispy but depressing story

[17 February 2001]

Pasolini's cinematic debut tells the story of lowlife Accattone (Franco Citti, who was also in Pasolini's superior Mamma Roma), a pimp who feels full of guilt, self-loathing and other unsavory but understandable emotions. For two hours, we watch him and his buddies, see him fall in love, observe him fighting, etc. It's a string of anecdotes rather than a cohesive film. Still, there's no denying the power behind certain segments - the spaghetti sequence, for example - nor the overblown pomp of other scenes, like the one where frantic Silvana Corsini gives her vocal chords a workout while trying to convey the depths of Accattone's evil.

The movie is oddly insubstantial overall - it wants to be depressing and devastating, but feels merely like a small-time obituary. It's sad, of course, but Accattone tries to hard to be really sad, affecting and all those other attributes, and comes out seeming a bit manipulative. Still, Pasolini's movie is an above-average movie, worth checking out for fans of, I don't know, pimp stories.

Sur un air de Charleston (1927)

Truly bizarre early Renoir

[4/10 · 30 December 2000]

A man in blackface lands in a spaceship and meets a girl who lives in some sort of shack with a monkey. He hooks her up with a telephone, and she teaches him how to Charleston. Then they fly off in the spaceship, leaving the monkey behind. Cringe-inducing blackface aside, this short film makes no sense. I think that's the plot, but I'm not sure by a long shot. You can't tell that this is Renoir at work, despite his characteristic humanism. Good use of slow-motion, though. Can be found on the NY Film Annex's series of Experimental Film videos, No. 18, I believe.

Great Performances: James Stewart: A Wonderful Life - Hosted by Johnny Carson (1987) Season Unknown, Episode Unknown

Fairly good and short

[29 December 2000]

Any one-hour encapsulation of an important actor's life and work is bound to feel a little trivial and rushed. Still, this documentary does actually have Stewart in it, with Johnny Carson, and it does tell you a good deal about his life. However, The Greatest Show On Earth is mysteriously omitted, Rear Window isn't included because of copyright problems at the time, and his later pieces (Airport '77) are politely skipped over. But, for those who know nothing about Stewart's overall career, a worthy, short introduction...although watching the movies is a lot better.

Ménilmontant (1926)

Vastly overrated melodrama, notable for editing and visuals

[5/10 · 24 December 2000]

Kirsanoff's tiresome melodrama goes on for 20 minutes. There are some admirable things here: no title cards, well composed shots. But the quality of the print, combined with the rapid-fire montage (Kirsanoff being inspired by Soviet editing), makes for a headache. His story, the melodrama of a cad and two women who sleep with him, and a third one who dies, isn't particularly new, interesting or insightful. And a scene about eating sausage goes nowhere. Pauline Kael, that critical fraud, stated a couple of years ago that, at the moment, this was the greatest movie she'd ever seen. If you belong to the cult of Ms. Kael and haven't seen this movie, you can find it on the New York Film Annex's video series of Experimental Films, on #18. But it's not worth it.

La folie du Docteur Tube (1915)

Deeply weird, goes nowhere

[5/10 · 24 December 2000]

In this early short film from the pioneering Abel Gance, a scientist playing around with some white powder in his lab, begins either changing his body or how he sees the world, I couldn't figure out which. Regardless, this allows Gance to use trick mirrors to distort the picture. Then more people wander in, more powder gets thrown around, more distortion (until 80% of the screen is incomprehensible), until things are finally restored to normal. Then everyone sits down to champagne. This movie has no point except to fool around with technique, and since it's six minutes long, that's all right. But it's really more bizarre than cool. It can be found on the New York Film Annex's series of Experimental Films on Video under #18.

Pacific 231 (1949)

Intriguing combination of Eisenstein/Fantasia

[6/10 · 30 November 2000]

The opening titles announce that this isn't a documentary, but rather attempts to establish atmosphere. It does that for the first couple of minutes, following a train with natural sound, with rather conventional editing. Then the soundtrack switches to some modern symphony or other, and the editing speeds up to keep pace, sometimes as fast as the famous Eisenstein. This is a one-trick pony, but it's worth one watch (and it's less than 10 minutes anyway). This can be found on the New York Annex series of experimental films videos, Vol. 11.

Ivan the Terrible, Part II: The Boyars' Plot (1958)

Majestic but tiresome

[25 November 2000]

Ivan The Terrible, Part II, is one of those movies that you supposedly have to watch to be able to talk about Russian cinema and know what you're talking about. Eisenstein, of course, had by this point rejected the dead-end "montage of attractions", meaning that this movie, seemingly in redemption for that idea, cuts probably not more than once every 10 seconds, and that the camera hardly ever moves. Same as part I, actually.

The plot follows Czar Ivan IV (Cherkasov, overacting, but it works), of the 16th century, as he purges the court of all those jerks who get in the way of "one unified Russia," etc. What's different from Part I is the really bitter tone of the whole enterprise: no more tedious soul-searching, just snap judgements and lots of killing. (In a Joan Crawford-esque moment, 3 or 4 people are executed and Ivan hisses, "Not enough!"). Not to mention what appeared to be a mild homosexual subtext (which, of course, would bring up Eisenstein's own sexuality). The visuals, especially the color stuff, are frequently magnificent, but your mind can get numb to it. Too much symbolism, as usual.

The movie was made in 1945-1946, but was banned for 12 years, due to its negative portrayal of Ivan's Oprichniki, i.e., secret police. Eisenstein meanwhile suffered a massive heart attack and died, meaning that Part III ("The Battles Of Ivan") was never made. Thank God, 'cause after sitting through this and Part I, your pulse gets kind of lethargic. It's a worthy watch, I guess, just one that takes extraordinary amount of patience because, underneath all the spectacle, there isn't much going on.

Toothache (1980)

Not one of the best Kiarostami instructional films

[1 November 2000]

This is one of a few Kiarostami instructional films with a subversive sense of humor; it is, however, too little to really qualify as a goofy short classic like, say, "Colours." It starts off promisingly, with the narrator making an ominous statement: "Mohammed is a good boy. He does all of his homework. He does everything his parents ask. But there is one thing Mohammed does not do well: HE IS LAZY ABOUT BRUSHING HIS TEETH!" It is a neat reminder that mental hygiene was not unique to the U.S. However, the movie gets bogged down in a dentist's long explanation about how tooth decay occurs. Overall, we get too little out of this 25-minute dental epic.

Solution (1978)

Wry parody of Westerns (I think)

[8/10 · 21 October 2000]

All that happens in the 11 minutes of this film is that a man, unable to hitch a ride back to his broken-down car with a new tire, pushes it back to his car while running. However, style quickly supercedes content; the man runs to stirring, mock-Western music alongside stunning scenery, giving Kiarostami the chance to show off various shots that must have been hell to pull off. Good fun.

The Colours (1976)

Goofy but fun

[7/10 · 21 October 2000]

Abbas Kiarostami, director of such somber films as Taste Of Cherry, is the last person one would suspect of dabbling in goofy formalist instructional movies. Nevertheless, that's what he does here. A color is brought up - red, for example. Then various red things are shown, starting with that which is found in nature and going from there. And so on for various colors. Also, a boy with a pistol shoots different colored bottles of water and the same boy is the last survivor of a car chase. This is rather inconsequential but fun - like Seseme Street for simpleminded adults.

A Suit for Wedding (1976)

Perfect

[10/10 · 21 October 2000]

Think of it as Iranian neo-realism, except without squalid poverty or the second act dramatic turnaround of Jafar Panahi's The Mirror. This follows three Iranian teens, one of whom works in a tailor's shop. A new suit is being made for a fourth, upper-class teen and his two friends both want to borrow it. Inevitable complications arise. For 52 minutes, Kiarostami follows his subjects through work and play, constantly shooting their mouths off and trying to avoid getting in trouble with their guardians. This is a fascinating look at life before the revolution with a generous dose of humor. Kiarostami has said that if his film cans could talk, this one would say, "Why did you make me this length?" The barely hour long running time ensures that this perfect little gem will never get the exposure it deserves.

The Circus (1936)

This is definitely not Eisenstein

[12 October 2000]

We rented this movie for my Russian grandmother; she's seen it, she says, 17 times. Scary. This is a saccharine romance in which an American actress, impregnated by a black man, escapes to Russia and starts a new life. She loves one man; the heavy, however, threatens that if she doesn't marry him, he will reveal her secret. This continues for a long time until the end, when he does so; indignantly, the masses at the circus rise and say that it doesn't matter what color the baby is, this is tolerant Russia! Then, for no reason whatsoever, the actress and her new lover are marching at the head of a huge parade singing about the freedom that Soviet Russia provides.

This is one of those knock-off comedies that Aleksandrov made after returning from Hollywood. It even features a Chaplin impersonator. It's not that great, and anyone who masochistically feels they simply must learn about Soviet film in the 1930s would be advised to stick to Eisenstein and The Three Songs Of Lenin.

Four Days in July (1984 TV Movie)

One of the lesser Mike Leigh films

[5/10 · 15 September 2000]

Although Leigh has managed frequently to transcend budget and medium constraints, making fantastic TV movies, Four Days In July is not such an addition to his cannon. Instead, Four Days In July is a very protracted character study in which the camera merely observes several characters living in Ireland for four days in July. The actors, as always with Leigh, are fantastic; however, the material is the stuff that real life is made of. This can be interesting, as the neo-realist movement proved; however, this movie has no point or conclusion, but simply rambles on until the running time has expired. Furthermore, the Irish accents were virtually impenetrable at times to me; subtitles would have helped. For die-hard Leigh buffs only; for all others, watch Abigail's Party instead.

Deep in the Heart (1996)

Forgettable movie; Kenneth Cranham deserves better

[8 September 2000]

Deep In The Heart is one of those warm and fuzzy movies in which the one character who's mentally retarded is "wiser" about human relationships than everyone around him. The story concerns an elderly, documentary-making couple who visit Austin and begin filming people. I saw this two years ago and don't remember it too well. However, I do remember that it was pretty boring, and that Cranham gave a terrific performance; he deserves better. The only reason I saw it in the first place is that I live here in Austin; it did give me a bit of a thrill to see, on screen, the tower on top of the building where I was sitting watching the movie. But if you don't live in Austin or aren't a stalker of Cranham, it makes no sense to watch this movie.