DhavalVyas Reviews

Antonio Gaudí (1984)

A very unique and fascinating experience!

[9/10 · 1 October 2014]

Going into this film, I really had no idea who was Antonio Gaudi nor was I deeply familiar with his works. I knew the film was about architecture and had very little dialogue. I wanted to approach the film without knowing much about the artist. In this approach, I felt it would release my expectations. This gave me quite a journey! I am sure other films of similar structure have been made, but probably not about such an interesting individual.

This film looks at the famous architectural works of Antonio Gaudi, a Spaniard who lived in the early 20th century. His architectural works are incredibly striking, and it may be safe to say that no other architect is quite like him! That being said, the film examines his works as though someone is wondering patiently through the streets of Barcelona. Because of the paucity of the dialogue, the film deploys odd ambiance and electronic music to somehow express Gaudi's works. The result is a very unique and fascinating experience.

The viewer will fall into a state of awed hypnosis as the camera eye moves in a snail's pace looking at Gaudi's works. Since Gaudi's works are so different from anything else, it has the feeling of something other worldly. Once in a while, the music stops, and we are shown pictures of everyday, mundane life in Spain. But then, the music reappears again as we walk through Gaudi's architecture, as though we are being transported into another world the exists right alongside the modern-day life of Barcelona.

At the end of the film, we are told more about Gaudi's life. I still don't know much about him, but now seeing this film, I am eager to learn more. Try to approach this film like I did; with innocent eyes, even if you know a lot of Gaudi. Without the use of very little words, and with the use of grotesque music, the movie is a great introduction into the mind of someone who might have been a genius.

Death Line (1972)

Pretty Good

[7/10 · 1 April 2014]

Do not let the title of this movie mislead you; I know it sounds like yet another dumb horror flick, but it isn't. This is one of the better horror movies I have seen in a while. The story is set in England, and something disturbing is happening in the subways. People are beginning to disappear, but nobody can find the bodies. Initially, it is a bit of mystery as to who or what is doing this, but the film eventually lets the audience in on what is happening. I won't tell you the rest. The story is fairly simple, but it is done very well. One other aspect that stood out for me was the performance by Donald Pleasence. To me, he did a fantastic job of playing a bitter and cynical police detective.

The Last 48 Hours of Kurt Cobain (2007 TV Movie)

A Largely Cynical Look at the Life and Death of Kurt Cobain

[8/10 · 14 December 2013]

When grunge rock star Kurt Cobain committed suicide in the spring of 1994, it catapulted a pop celebrity into an American Icon. Cobain was the founder and front man of Nirvana - a Seattle-based band that introduced to the public, virtually overnight, a different form of music, clothing, and even lifestyle. His death was a very sad event, and the MTV media took full advantage of this, transforming Cobain into an almost martyr-like figure. This image has worked, as Cobain has become the most successful dead celebrity (even surpassing Elvis)! This short documentary takes a different kind of approach to Cobain's life and his last few days alive. It looks at him from the perspective of those who weren't all too impressed with Cobain and his music. The narrator (who is also the director) takes a harsh tone from the very beginning. He calls Cobain a "loser" who "blew his brains out". I think I understand why the director used this approach; he wanted to get rid of the hero-worshiping of Cobain and look at him more realistically. The final result is a very fascinating documentary that reveals information that most people would not have known about.

1. Cobain did not take strong action in order to relieve his drug addiction. His drug addiction was largely reported, but even his drug councilor said Cobain didn't really want to stay away from drugs.

2. It is most likely a myth that Cobain lived under a bridge for a period of time. Even though Cobain claimed he did, nobody else confirms this.

3. Cobain was vocal about many of the aspects of being a celebrity, but it was his own conscious decision to go on MTV shows and play at large festivals.

4. The conspiracy theories claiming Cobain was murdered are largely put to rest. Numerous people who knew Cobain (even Courtney Love) expressed how they saw major suicidal tendencies in him months (years?) before his death.

5. The original mix of the 'In Utero' album really impressed a number of people, but the record company hated and forced Nirvana to do a retake.

The way this documentary is presented can also be seen as "poking fun" at the whole Nirvana affair. The interviewees are presented as oddballs, outcasts, and even drug addicts like Cobain. A number of the interviewees talk about how they were unimpressed with Cobain and his music, and it was almost some kind of inexplicable mistake that Nirvana became such a large band. Even Nirvana fans are presented as goofs who were somehow conned into the Cobain myth.

The director might have taken a harsh approach, but in doing this, he painted a one of the most realistic pictures of a man who has undeservedly become a legend.

Drunks (1995)

Not Bad

[7/10 · 29 August 2013]

The title of the movie pretty much sums up it subject matter. At the same time, 'Drunks' is shown from the perspective of those persons who are trying to save themselves from alcoholism. It shows them talking about their problems and lives through an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Most of the film takes place in one night, and centers around one main character - Jim (Richard Lewis). His character is just about the only one we get to know deeply. In an act of desperate rebellion, he walks out of the AA meeting in order to get a drink (or maybe two, three, or four?).

The film juxtaposes Jim's desperate night out from one liquor store and bar to the next with the other reforming alcoholics talking during their meeting. As the night progresses, Richard Lewis gets more and more drunk, wasted, and out of control. He also begins to experiment with other drugs. Overall, this is not a bad film - it is mostly a character study. The stories the alcoholics have to tell are funny, tragic, and moving. Those who enjoy dialog movies will likely enjoy this film. Faye Dunaway also plays a small role in it.

I really liked the ending of the movie. It goes to show how so many alcoholics don't succeed in becoming sober and they are trapped in an endless and dangerous cycle. This cycle perhaps has no way out.

Bobby Fischer Against the World (2011)

A Good Documentary for the Universal Audience

[8/10 · 24 January 2013]

For those who do not play chess or know anything about it, the game is something that is commonly referenced in books, poetry, movies, etc. It is seen as somewhat of a metaphor for happenings in real life. For those who play chess and are in love with the game, it is something of an art or science, or something cosmic that is unexplainable. They may often be frustrated as to why the majority of society does not share their passion.

Chess has survived for thousands of years and is arguably the hardest game in the world. Through the eons, if there is one name or one master that has towered above anyone else, it is the American Bobby Fischer. When Fischer defeated Boris Spassky in 1972, the match created more publicity than any other chess event in history (even more than when IBM's computer Deep Blue defeated Garry Kasparov in 1996). A lone American had defeated the mighty Soviet chess machine during the cold war. What should have been just the beginning of an already great career for Fischer, it was actually just the end.

Bobby Fischer made one of the great disappearances of any famous person of the 20th century. He did not die, but was as elusive as Bigfoot after he won the world championship. For those who encountered him only would end of becoming frustrated because they realized he was slowly going insane. 20 years after winning the Championship (1992), Fischer reappeared to play Spassky for another match. When he appeared, it became even more obvious that the man had lost his mind. When the September 11th attacks happened, Fischer shocked the world when he applauded the acts on a radio program. He never played again and passed away in 2008.

This HBO program is fantastic in that it is presented in a manner that is suitable for those who barely know anything about chess or those who know the intricate details of Fischer's career and life. It keeps the viewers' attention by playing nice music in the background throughout. The program shows numerous photographs and television footage that most people have never seen. The central focus of the program is the Fischer - Spassky match of 1972, but it juxtaposes all kind of other topics such as Fischer's family and love life, and his affiliation with a cult group. The program even has Henry Kissinger talking about the match. Kissinger had encouraged Fischer to follow through with the match when Fischer was about to not show up. But, the program does not blame Fischer's religious obsession with chess for this mental breakdown. It posits that it could have been a possibility.

I will have to strongly disagree with one part of this documentary. It stated that when after Fischer won the world championship, he was arguably the most famous man in the world (aside from Jesus). I find this really hard to believe. One because Fischer was a merely just a chess champion and (2) there were many other gigantic figures at that time; Muhammad Ali, Richard Nixon, Chairman Mao, just to name a few.

In the end, the enigma will always remain the enigma. Nobody really knows why Fischer quit playing after 1972 or what caused his mental disintegration. Even though he forfeited his title to Karpov in 1975, why did he completely give up playing even tournaments and simuls altogether? What we are left is speculation. Many chess lovers will proudly proclaim that Fischer was the best player of all time. There maybe some truth to this, but I believe Garry Kasparov finally deserves this title. This is because Kasparov was willing to take on all comers, human beings or computers. Kasparov did this for almost 3 decades. Kasparov defeated an ongoing Champion Anatoly Karpov (one of the top 5 players ever) 5 times and he continued to defend this title beating brilliant and talented young players - Ivanchuck, Shirov, Topalov, Anand, Short, Leko, Kramnik, Kamsky, and so many others for another 2 decades.

*Please do not comment if you are going to get into a "greatest ever" debate - it will be yet another endless discussion and will lead to nowhere.* Fishcer's story is one of the great tragedies of chess, but in the short time that he was brilliant, he shined so brightly that it continues to illuminate to this day. Although his life ended to a sad decline, keep in mind, we remember and admire him for what he produced.

Orson Welles: The One-Man Band (1995)

The Twilight Years Of A Film-making Prodigy.

[10/10 · 10 January 2008]

When a person slowly disappears, nobody seems to notice. This is probably what happened to Orson Welles when his film career stumbled into a downhill slope. The man who was arguably the most brilliant filmmaker to emerge on the American scene, ended up doing narration, wine commercials, and magic shows. He died in poverty, leaving behind masterpieces, but also leaving behind dozens of unfinished films. Films that could have been just as magical as his earlier works. 'Orson Welles - The One Man Band" takes a look at those struggling later years when Welles was a ghost hovering around the Hollywood movie scene. Many people knew he was trying to make movies, but many people also knew he could never get them finished. Because of his inability to finish films, no major studio would try to finance him, so he became a gypsy-like filmmaker. Even still then many projects were not finished.

Although it is sad to see a legend struggling so badly, the film does not feel sorry for him. In fact, the film has a very positive outlook on Welles later years. The film is narrator by two people. One is the filmmaker. The other is Welles' companion, Oja Kodar. She had spent a considerable time with Welles in his last years and knew him probably better than anyone else. The image she shows of Welles was not of a burned-out has-been, but of a strong man who still had plenty of creative spark. When watching the snippets and short clips from his unfinished films, one can see exactly what Oja Kodar was seeing. Either it was bad luck or it was his conflicts with studios that could not get his films finished. Or maybe it was both. Regardless, one can see even in his later films, Welles still had incredible film-making talent and vision. One can see that he was also a versatile actor. He could play a wide variety of roles and play them as good as the best actors. When we see how creative he still was, we cannot help but think it was the Hollywood that ruined his career. There could be a lot of truth to this because many people feel he was never the same after 'Citizen Kane' because Welles might have stepped on too many big toes after his brilliant debut feature. But the unknown remains just that. At times, it is the artist who ruins his or her career with their own bare hands.

It is hard to say what happened, but this film does not try to explain that either. It tries to focus on Welles the artist. And he was just that until his death. An artist who had no audience. How frustrating, but we have seen this example time and again throughout history.

Chinatown (1974)

Classic Film.

[10/10 · 7 January 2008]

'Chinatown' is one of those rare film that is absolutely perfect. Sure there are plenty of films that have very few flaws, but they are not as complex as this movie, nor are their plots as brilliantly put together. Many people who dislike the film have called it boring and they do not like the ending. They forget the film is about a serious subject matter and shouldn't be handled like an action movie. Polanski, along with the rest of the cast, handle the story with maturity and precision, the way it should be. Polanski does not insult the viewers' intelligence. He forces us to use our imagination about past events and events that are currently happening. It may take several viewing to put all the pieces together, but with each viewing the film becomes more meaningful. Even though the film ends on an unhappy note, people must understand why the film ended that way. The ending is one of the reasons the film is so powerful and unforgettable. But that will be discussed a little later.

'Chinatown' is the story of a private eye detective J.J. "Jake" Gittes (Nicholson) who investigates the extramarital affair of a prominent engineer in Los Angeles. It is set in the 1930s, and the city is suffering a major drought. Even though the city is going through a drought, Gittes discovers that thousands of gallons of water is being dumped at night. He is dumbfounded, but he does not realize he is about to enter a conspiracy involving the elite of the city. This conspiracy stretches out to the farmers in the surrounding land. He is warned on several occasions throughout the film about what he is getting into, but he still enters the lion's mouth full speed ahead. Jack Nicholson gives one of the great performances of his career. Even though all the actors did a superb job, including Faye Dunaway, Nicholson still towers above anyone else. There is a reason he is considered one of the all time greats. So few actors can bring such range into their roles. He is funny as hell when he needs to be and serious and sensitive the story requires it.

The film is also carried by its brilliant screenplay. The screenplay has been hailed one of the best of all time, and I find that hard to argue. The dialog is so well written, it is an absolute joy watch time an again. Graphics can become dates, action sequences can become tame, but good dialog is timeless. Apparently, Robert Towne, the main screen writer, turned down 'The Great Gatsby' to instead write 'Chinatown'. He would have made a lot more money writing 'Gatsby', but inspiration won over dollars. He made the right decision because what he gave us was a screenplay for the ages. It is wickedly clever, intelligent, and cynical. Towne must have been at the pinnacle of his career.

Many people have voiced their displeasure at the ending of the film. They feel it is depressing. They feel the film should not have ended that way. They feel that people have overrated the film because of the ending. To me, the ending is absolutely brilliant. It should rank as one of the great endings in film history. In the ending, the ghosts of the past coming crashing like a tidal wave. Notice in the ending, it is only time Evelyn and Noah Cross are together in the movie. Notice that in the ending, things are so confusing, hardly anyone can figure out what is happening. Throughout the film, Jake talks about Chinatown, or how he doesn't like talking about it. Jake really does not realize what he is getting into. What he is getting into is destiny. All the money or motivation in the world cannot stop destiny from happening. And this destiny is not always happy. In fact, it can be downright brutal. At times in this life, there are forces beyond one's control. What a phenomenal achievement in film-making.

The Shining (1980)

A well made film that does not make any sense.

[5/10 · 5 September 2007]

Stanley Kubrick's 'The Shining', judging by its cult reputation over the years, and its high rating on this website, has become a classic. It has gained a notorious reputation among film lovers. It was horror movie made by Stanley Kubrick, a director who arguably has had greater polarization than any other filmmaker in history. It has a legendary performance by the legendary Jack Nicholson. It has several scenes that have scared the crap out of people, most notably the 'river of blood' sequence. Does 'The Shining' deserve the reputation that it gets, or is it yet another confusing Kubrick film that is overrated?

The story is loosely based on the Stephen King novel of the same name. It is about a family of three who have to take care of an expensive hotel for the winter. Jack Torrence (Nicholson) is a struggling writer who is the main caretaker. His wife and his son accompany him for the winter stay. What happens during their stay is a series of terrifying events that leads to a tragic conclusion. What is most interesting about 'The Shining' is that it horror film that not like most other horror films. It follows a formula of creating tension, rather that blood and gore. Although there is violence in the film, it is not as explicit or gory as other horror movies. This is a good thing and it is not surprising that Kubrick followed this formula.

Kubrick, once again, shows his masterful craftsmanship for film-making. The lighting, editing, and overall technique is unparalleled. It can be argued that no other filmmaker could shoot a film as well as Kubrick did. But at the same time, this mastery is his greatest flaw. What he mastered in the technical side, he gave up in storytelling, character, and logic. 'The Shining' is often goofy and silly, rather than tense and frightening. It is very slow and many scenes and unnecessarily long. Two superstars exist in the film. One is Stanley Kubrick.

The other is Jack Nicholson. Nicholson gives one of his most memorable performance as a writer who goes mad at his stay in the hotel. His acting is really over-the-top, but Nicholson is such a supreme actor, we do not care because it is Jack Nicholson. Actors do not get any larger than him. Near the end of the film, when he confronts his wife by his typewriter, is absolutely awesome film-making. Nicholson is at his most brilliant. The other people in the film are simply annoying. Shelly Duvall is so annoying playing his wife, it is no wonder Jack wants to "bash her brains in". Danny, Jack's son, is equally annoying. I believe child actors should play a very minimal role in adult films. Minimal meaning they should only say a few lines and take up no more than 10 minutes. I understand Danny is at the center of the film, but do most people really think children have the maturity and ability to be in films like these?

Another thing that is annoying about 'The Shining' is its change of subject matter. A film that begins exploring themes of alcoholism and child abuse, slowly turns into yet another silly horror movie. Yet another typical horror movie with the madman with the ax and the screaming woman. One major thing does not make any sense. When Wendy discovers what Jack has been writing for months on end, it has a logical flaw. It suggests Jack has been crazy since the first day he stepped into the hotel, and that he did not go insane over time. Why on Earth would he be crazy from the beginning and why did his family not notice? Should we be asking these deep questions because it is yet another horror movie, or should be ask them because it is a Kubrick film? This is the frustration many people feel after they have finished watching a Kubrick film. It isn't that they don't "get it", they just don't get what all the fuss was about.

Hearts and Minds (1974)

The Scar of the Vietnam War.

[9/10 · 22 June 2007]

There are certain events in a country's history that leaves a scar so painful, it cannot be forgotten. If there is such a scar with the United States, is has to be the Vietnam War. Even to this day, its shadow still looms. Many people are starting to say the occupation in Iraq is turning into another Vietnam. Regardless if this comparison is justified, there is not doubt the harrowing memories of Vietnam are still embedded within the American psyche. I just recently ran across 'Hearts and Minds' at a library. I have not heard of this before, but after watching it, I could not help but think how controversial it must have been for its time period. It was released just as the war was ending; America was split into half and many Americans began to develop a pessimistic view of their country. This film does not show the U.S. in a good light, in fact many people would still consider it an anti-American film. It is not surprising that such a film emerged from the Vietnam War. No other war in the country's history has created such bitter feelings, although Operation Iraqi Freedom is creeping closer.

What is so powerful and memorable about 'Hearts and Minds' is its use of juxtaposing contradictions. One moment we see the immense suffering of both the North and South Vietnamese civilians. We see how their lives have been ruined and devastated by war. The next minute we see the cool indifference of the the American generals and soldiers. They do not see the Vietnamese as human beings; they see them as savages, primitives, and playthings. The Americans act like they are doing their job and do not realize the moral values at hand. It is shocking just how much racism existed within the military during this war. It makes me wonder if the same level of racism exists for the Iraq situation. Sadly, the same mentality is seen again and again. The idea of 'white man's burden' is prevalent throughout the film. The U.S. suffers from the winner's complex. The U.S. is the best and the rest of the world is sub-human.

This mentality, as the film shows, is implanted at a very early age. The air force pilot who tells elementary school children that the Vietnamese are savages. The psychotic football coach who slaps this players on their helmets, yelling at them to "kill and win". It is frightening, but the Vietnam War showed that this is what this country has become. When a country is as rich and powerful as the U.S., all moral values can be put aside. How can this be stopped? 'Hearts and Minds' gives several clues. It show American soldiers who have been wounded both physically and psychologically by the war. It showed that even underneath the heartlessness, there exists still a heart. The human soul almost naturally knows what is right and wrong. It can reflect on what it has done and make a judgment. This film, although a little one-sided, is a must see. It is a must see because we are seeing another war that is becoming just like Vietnam.

Days of Heaven (1978)

This movie was like a dream.

[8/10 · 1 January 2007]

'Days of Heaven' is a slow and dream-like look at the lives of working-class people at the first quarter of the 20th century in the United States. The story is being told through the eyes of a little girl, but Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, and Sam Shepard are the stars of the film. It was directed by Terrence Malick, who has made only a handful of films, but each one is unique and is a gem. This movie is no exception either. It is more or less a love story between two men in love with the same woman. The movie uses this story as a backdrop for its stunning and memorable images. Many scenes are likely to stay in the viewers' minds for a long time.

What is lacking in the movie, though, is a strong screenplay and complete character development. Many scenes leave left me empty simply because there was not enough dialog, and the characters seemed passive. Maybe the movie was supposed to be that way, but those two aspects are its main flaws. If it had better dialog and characters, it probably would have been one of the best films I've ever seen. Nonetheless, 'Days of Heaven' is often a beautiful journey to another place and another time. The movie is depressing, but that time period and place was one of great struggle and misery.

Game Over (2003)

A lot of flash, but no real substance.

[4/10 · 25 December 2006]

Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.

I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.

Protocols of Zion (2005)

Could have been much better.

[6/10 · 25 December 2006]

'The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' is one of the most famous underground books available all across the world. Although the book has been proved to be a forgery many times, there are still a considerable amount of people who believe what is written in the book. In brief, the book tells of a secret meeting between a group of Jews who plan to take over the world by controlling the banks and media. I have not read the book, but this is what I've heard what the book is about. This documentary is about a Jewish filmmaker who goes all around New York City and the United States and asks all kind of people about their thoughts about Jews and the book.

This film had the potential to be a really great documentary, but Marc Levin does not go deep enough. Although certain moments of the film are really funny, Levin is too brief or sloppy. He is open-minded and fair though. He interviews all kinds of people; white supremacists, African-Americans, American Palestinians, Jews, and many others. He does shatter some myths about the Jews and the book, but other parts are just brushed over without any kind of clarity. I must commend him, though, for tackling some controversial issues and talking to people who are not afraid to express their extremist views.

Please Kill Mr. Kinski (1999)

Trying to be humorous, but falls a little short.

[5/10 · 13 September 2006]

This is a short 9-minute filmed made by a horror director who looks back on his experience when he made a film with international star Klaus Kinski. The film was called 'Crawlspace', and it was yet another junk film Kinski made for the sake of making money. The director is trying hard to be funny, but the film isn't that funny. It is a little interesting to see how Kinski acted behind the camera. He was well-known for being very hard to work with. His ego is prevalent within the first minute of the film when he talks about how "allergic" he is with other directors. Enough though he was a talented actor, did Kinski really need to act like this? He looks exactly like one of those stereotypical snobby actors who walks with his nose in the air. Maybe that is not important. We the audience should only care of what is the final product on the screen.

Waco: The Rules of Engagement (1997)

Really Disturbing!!

[9/10 · 14 June 2006]

Many people remember the Waco standoff that occurred a long time ago. What most people probably have ingrained in their minds is the "cult leader" David Koresh and the images of the compound burning to the ground after a long standoff. A lot of people have the belief that Koresh was some kind of madman who thought he was God. He was accused of being a child molester and was credited for the breakdown and deaths of his followers. Furthermore, many people feel the cult committed mass suicide when the FBI stormed Mount Carmel Center and when the building was burning. Most people feel the cult was at fault for not agreeing with the FBI on reasonable terms. Most people feel the cult was brainwashed by Koresh and followed along with everything that he said. Nothing could be farther from the truth, because of strong evidence after the nightmare was over, and this one-of -a- kind documentary pretty much proves it!!

This documentary is one of the most balanced examinations at the situation that occurred. It is much more thorough and highly detailed than anything most people have received in the mainstream media. To the shock of many people, this documentary will reveal that is was the ATF, the FBI, and the higher levels of the United States government who were the ones who were unjust, cruel, and deceptive, and not David Koresh and his followers. What Korseh and Davidians were doing was just protecting their constitutional rights, and the higher powers completely violated and raped those rights. The AFT had no grounds to storm the compound; it was the AFT that shot first and they shot from the helicopters from above at unarmed men, women, and children!! What is even more shocking is the actions of the FBI when they entered the Mount Carmel. Watch it for yourselves and you will develop and new perspective on the U.S. government. There is infrared footage that clearly shows the FBI was shooting with machine guns at the men, women, and children in the burning compound. It will make your blood boil. It will make you really angry. It will make you wonder as to what kind of people run this country. Finally, it will make you wonder as to what you are being told on the news every night is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This video is frightening and I highly recommend it if one can find it. This documentary does not need to be purchased; it can be watched for free on google video!

Heart of Glass (1976)

A Failed Experiment?

[4/10 · 13 March 2006]

'Heart of Glass' was quite the daring experiment from the extraordinary German filmmaker Werner Herzog. He hypnotized all the actors except one man; a mystic who is trying to save a village from destroying itself. The scenery is stunning and so is the music. The yodeling at the begging of the film is hair-raising and unforgettable. Other than that, 'Heart of Glass' does not make any sense, especially the last scene. The final scene has nothing to do with the main story. The final scene has nothing to do with anything in general. Also, the hypnotized actors look goofy and silly most of the time rather than being in a trance-like state. It is a good thing when artists try to experiment like this, but in this case, I would consider the experiment a failure. Watch some other Herzog films, especially the ones with Klaus Kinski.

Barfly (1987)

Going to the bar might be more interesting than this movie.

[1/10 · 8 March 2006]

'Barfly' is a film that tries to explore the bar scene nightlife and alcoholism. It is based on a screenplay by Charles Bukowksi, a man who was a writer, poet, and alcoholic himself, just like the main character in the film, Henry, who is played by Mickey Rourke. Most of the movie is dull and stilted and some parts are embarrassing to watch. Faye Dunaway plays Henry's lover, but even she cannot bring any magic to the screen. The problem with 'Barfly' is that it does not allow any kind of spontaneity or improvisation from the actors.

I could tell while watching it that the characters were reading lines from the screenplay and not coming up with anything original on their own. When people are getting drunk at the bar, they can say some pretty ridiculous, funny, or even profound things. This movie had none of that. The filmmaker should have gotten the actors drunk and then filmed what happened. The might have been more interesting than what the screenplay had to offer. 'Barfly' had some interesting ideas to explore, but it failed miserably at every single one of them. Also, the movie has a happy ending. It is as though the film was trying to say, 'Hey, a life of alcoholism, one - night stands, and bar - room brawls isn't a bad way of living after all!'

Aguirre, the Wrath of God (1972)

'Who else is with me?'

[9/10 · 5 March 2006]

'Aguirre, the Wrath of God' is just a brilliant film from beginning to end. It is the story of a Spanish expedition gone horribly wrong when a madman, Aguirre (Klaus Kinski), commits mutiny and takes over a search for the city of El Derado. This is the city of gold, a myth created by the native Amazon people to lure explorers into a trap. This movie is a fascinating study of greed and power, and how delusional human beings can become when they feel they have the world's riches at their hands. While watching the film, I realized that Francis Ford Coopola had stolen some of the images from this movie! Coopola stole images and shots from this movie and used them 'Apocalypse Now'. How surprising to see that some of those images in 'Apocalypse' had been long thought up before! Nonetheless, this is a film definitely not to be missed by the film fanatics. I had never even heard of it until several months ago. Thank God I came across because it ranks as one of the best I've ever seen.

From the opening scene, when the natives and Spanish explorers are walking through the misty mountain, to the final scene, where Aguirre is left all alone on the raft, this is an unforgettable cinematic experience with a hair-raising performance by the one and only Klaus Kinski.

The Godfather Part II (1974)

A solid sequel, but a little long.

[8/10 · 13 November 2005]

'The Godfather, Part II' is often considered the best sequel ever made. Although it is a powerful and moving story, the film has deep flaws that are not revealed upon initial viewings. First of all, the movie has many of the fine qualities that made the original movie a classic. All the performances are incredible and emotional; Al Pacino give one of the best performances I've ever seen. The complex story is slowly and subtly developed by Coopola's nearly unmatched talent as a director. Certain moments are so haunting and unforgettable, they have become classic moments in the history of film-making. I don't need to tell which sequences these are because so many people are already familiar with them.

With all the great things the movie has going for it, 'Part II' has a lot of flaws that reveal themselves after careful viewings. The flashbacks nearly ruin the movie. Although they explain the beginnings of the Corleone family, they greatly deter the on - going struggle of Michael with his enemies and his own family. The flashbacks also make the movie way too long. The failed murder attempt of Frankie Pentangeli is so confusing I couldn't figure out who was doing what. The film should have done a better job of explaining the pre-Castro Cubian situation to the viewer; the actions of the rebels and the rioting are also confusing. Kay (Michael's wife) and Fredo (Michael's brother) has sudden bursts of anger that come out of nowhere. The film does a poor job of showing beforehand why the two characters were so mad at Michael.

Nonetheless, 'The Godfather, Part II' has many positives that outweigh the negatives. If anything, one should just see the movie for the performance given by Al Pacino. Al Pacino commands the movie by stealing every scene he is in. His character is frightening, untouchable, cold, calculating, and invincible. It is one of the most awesome displays of acting ever put on film.

Cobra Verde (1987)

A fascinating look at some African cultures.

[8/10 · 12 November 2005]

'Cobra Verde' is at times a confusing and awkward story about a bandit who finds himself trapped within the slave trade business. What begins as a story of a feared outlaw turns out to be a story examining African cultures and the issue of slavery itself. What makes this movie more interesting than other American films slavery is that the viewer gets to see the other side of the story; the story told from an African viewpoint. International star Klaus Kinski stars a Cobra Verde. He is a feared bandit whom many people fear. When he appears in a small town, all the people runs inside their houses because they are scared to death of him. Many things are missing from Cobra Verde's past. How did he become such a feared bandit? The movie does not answer that question. Through a series of odd circumstances, he is eventually put into the slavery trade business by a group of rich aristocrats. He is sent to Africa, where it is hoped he will be killed because of the slave trade conflicts going on there. What happens is th exact opposite. He gains the trust of the African villagers and eventually trains an army to kill and enemy foe. All the while the viewers are treated to an inside look at some African customs, religions, superstitions, and society. A beautifully made film that is a little marred by changes in the sequences of the story and many things missing from the plot. Nonetheless, this film has one of the most memorable and touching death scenes I have ever seen. Bravo to Klaus Kinski.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

Eyes Shut in Embarrassment.

[3/10 · 8 November 2005]

'Eyes Wide Shut' was the final film of the legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick. Kubrick's films probably have had greater disagreement among film lovers than any other movie maker in history. Just for that he deserves to be remembered. Those who love his works call him a genius, while those that hate his films call him a charlatan. Regardless of what people may think of him and his movies, it is no doubt that his films continue to fascinate the movie fanatics. 'Eyes Wide Shut' is no exception, although this reviewer will sympathize with those do no like this film.

Most of this movie is very difficult to watch. No doubt, Kubrick's impeccable craft is still there. The lighting, editing, music and a creepy atmosphere stays throughout the film, as it does in many of his other films. What is horribly lacking in the movie is a screenplay, story, and most importantly, a point or moral. The screenplay is downright awful. I swear Tom Cruise repeats everything another character says to him. It is as though Cruise's character is absolutely clueless and has ADD. It is as though the screenwriters could not find anything better to write. The story is a absolute mess. Each scene is drawn out three times longer than it should. There are long pauses in the conversations, even though the characters are talking about the most mundane things. Rumors exits that Kubrick was a control freak. These rumors might be right. He was so obsessed with photography and technique that he destroyed any kind of spontaneity. The plot of 'Eyes Wide Shut'? Tom Cruise walks around "New York City" all night long encountering one bizarre sexual encounter after another. Many of these scenes are embarrassing and painful to watch. None of these encounters seem to bring any kind of point, except things most people already know.

Although this movie has many bad things going for it, other things stood out that saved the film from being one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Tom Cruise, Nicole Kidman, and Sydney Pollack do a fantastic job in their acting. Their performances are powerful and convincing, and salvage a badly written story. Stanley Kubrick once again shines in his directing, as the orgy scene and the "billiard room talk" are both hair-raising and brilliant film-making. In the end though, 'Eyes Wide Shut' is pretty much a waste of time. Kubrick died before he finished editing the film, so maybe what we saw wasn't what he really intended. Nonetheless, even if Kubrick had completed the movie before his death, I don't see how the final product could have been any better.

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

Silly

[1/10 · 25 October 2005]

'Star Wars - Episode II, Attack of the Clones' is a really silly movie. Since there is no interesting story, Lucas spends so much time on silly car chases and light saber battles. Its basically like watching a blank screen for two hours. The dialog is laughably bad, and I've seen better acting on soap operas. I'm not kidding. The characters may be the same from the originals, but they do not bring the passion or excitement they once did. Yoda is now just a computer-generated graphic. The mysteriousness of Darth Vader has now been destroyed too, thanks to bad acting by a child and a teenager. And thanks to some pitiful dialog and clumsy storytelling. The "plot" is about assassinations attempts on Queen Amidila, who spends the entire movie looking pretty and saying cornball dialog. After some political babble about the Republic, which really doesn't go anywhere, Obi-won-Konobi goes out on a hunt to find who is behind the scheme. He finds out it was Jango Fett, father of Boba Fett. Then he finds out a planet is making a army of clones. On the other side of the story, Annakin and Amidila are falling in love. Annakin then tries to find his mother. His mother is killed and he then kills an entire village of people. He is slowly going into the "dark" side. I would have cared if the acting wasn't so bad and the screenplay wasn't so wooden. There is no heart in the story. It looked like it was put together without any effort or passion. It is slightly better than 'Episode I', but nowhere near as good as the originals. I fear these three movie will destroy the legend of one of the most famous villains in screen history...If it hasn't done that already.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

I did not like the main character.

[4/10 · 25 October 2005]

One of the most enjoyable aspects of a movie are its characters. The characters of a movie bring joy and life to a film. Many characters in movies have become household names in the United States; Luke Skywalker, Don Corleone, Michael Myers, etc, etc. One of the main things I did not like about 'A Clockwork Orange' was its main character, and that was what ruined the movie. In fact, I think this movie did not have any likable characters, which makes it even harder to watch.

Stanley Kubrick's 'A Clockwork Orange' has become a cult-classic. I remember in high school, this film was very well known and liked by a lot of people. At the same time, I realized that it was liked because of how grotesque and violent the story was, and not famous for the messages it was trying to convey. The film is based on a book with the same name by Anthony Burgess. I think both the book and movie are vastly overrated. The book was slightly better than the movie, but it still did not impress me that much.

One of the main problems with the story is that we have so sympathize with a rapist and a murderer. This is hard to do regardless of what punishments he receives. The basic problem is that we have to feel sorry for a character whose main solutions in solving problems is through violent means. Sorry, I cannot like somebody like that regardless if his free will is taken away. Let me ask a question to those people who are in favor of this film. Would you still be adulation of Kubrick's overrated movie if it had starred somebody similar to Jeffry Dahmer, Adolf Hitler, or any other real-life killer? Think about it and let me know the answer.

Woyzeck (1979)

Not Bad

[8/10 · 25 October 2005]

'Woyzeck' was a slow-moving but interesting film about a German soldier trying to control his nerves before he loses his mind. The story is set in a tiny German town during what seems like World War I. There seems to be underlying Anti-Semitism growing within the psyche of the town. Every character fully developed in the story has something wrong with him or her. Woyzeck seems like your typical, clueless, brain-washed soldier, but underneath the shallow exterior, he has interesting insights about life. A doctor he know is impressed with the way he sees things. At the same time, Woyzeck looks like he is about to snap at any moment. Something in his past or something happening in his life has permanently destroyed his fragile mind forever. What I liked about this film was that I could feel like I was living in that time period in that country. There was a certain level of authenticity to the film that was comforting. Many people will be bored by the movie, while others might be confused at to what the point is. Although there might not be a single point to the film, it is well done and the finals scenes are breath-taking to watch.

Barry Lyndon (1975)

The main character deserved worse

[6/10 · 25 October 2005]

I have to give credit to Stanley Kubrick for being the only director to never make the same film twice. If one were to watch all of his movies, one would never know they were made by the same man. This is incredibly hard to do and very few filmmakers have undertaken that risk. Even fewer filmmakers have undertaken that risk and were successful at it. Kubrick was both and that might be one reason why he is loved by so many film lovers all over the world. Although I can give him credit for that, I also feel his films are deeply flawed and some are quite boring.

'Barry Lyndon' is a lot like many other Kubrick films. It is directed in stunning fashion, with several brilliant sequences throughout. It is beautiful to look at and the costumes great. At the same time, the film fails in creating a character the audience can like watching for over three hours. I doubt many film lovers can possibly like the main character of this film. He is a user and an opportunist; he has almost no sympathy for the people he has hurt and used throughout his lifetime. Something bad happens to him at the end of this story. Although it is bad, I felt that he deserved much worse than what he got. He hurt and abandoned too many people in his life to receive something that was the equivalent of a slap on the wrist.

The Aviator (2004)

DiCaprio shines in 'The Avaitor'

[8/10 · 21 February 2005]

Leonardo DiCaprio has been the biggest teen heartthrob in the last ten years. Not even Brad Pitt or The Backstreet Boys have made young girls scream as loud as they have over DiCaprio. Over the last several years, though, he has been playing some mature and quality roles that have pulled him out of the image of a pretty boy and into the image of a real actor. In is latest film, he stars as Howard Hughes, a man who probably one of the most eccentric and misunderstood figures of the 20th century. It is hard to believe that this is the same Leo who played the twelve year old brat in Titanic. The Aviator is directed by Martin Scorsese, who, in the opinion of this "critic", is one of the greatest American directors of the last 30 years. His films are dark, intense, uncompromising, and are unlike most other Hollywood movies. This film is more light-hearted than his other movies, but it is still not without its morbid side. The movie is told in chronological order, starting in the 1920s, with Howard Hughes' project in the making his movie called Hell's Angels. Immediately we see his obsession with perfection. The film is costing the company millions of dollars, but that does not bother Hughes one bit, for he wants to give the audience a perfect film. He re shoots expensive scenes, and then re shoots the entire movie in sound. The obsession with perfection is what ultimately will lead to his downfall. As the movie progresses, the audience is shown numerous bizarre behaviors by Hughes, including washing his hands until they start bleeding. This behavior seems harmless and humorous at first, but soon we realize it is serious business. Nonetheless, Scorsese tries to portray Hughes in the most optimistic way possible. In real life, Hughes became extremely reclusive, hardly communicating with anyone in the outside world. Legend has it that in the last years of his life, he had to be identified with his fingerprints when he died because no one had seen him in years. The film is not trying to be a tragedy, though, but rather uplifting in showing a man who fought off his psychological demons and produced some meaningful things in his lifetime. Scorsese shows Howard Hughes as both a combination of artist and architect. Not only was he a filmmaker, but a plane designer, and also an industrialist. He was a deeply flawed man; he had affairs, had obsessive behavior, and was burned badly in a plane crash. All of this did not stop him from producing quality work, including building the "Spruce Goose", the largest plane ever to fly. He was also able to defend himself in front of a Congressional hearing about aeronautical controversies that happened during World War 2. All in all, what is most impressive about this film is Leonardo DiCaprio's performance of a complicated man. The teen sensation once known as Leo is no more. He is developing into a real actor and is starting to produce some of the best work of his career. DiCaprio plays this role with convincing passion, and most movie lovers will forget that it is actually DiCaprio up there on the screen. This is a difficult task to do, considering it is coming from a guy who most people dismiss as a pretty boy with little talent. Nevertheless, Leonardo is not looking back, and from now on, he looks like he is going to keep on playing serious and important roles. The Aviator is nominated for a whopping eleven Academy Awards, including Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actor, and most importantly, Best Picture. The movie will win some of these awards for sure, because the film community has been raving about it since it was released. It is still not a movie for everyone though. Some will most likely find it boring and tedious. Those who stick will find that is it a rewarding movie experience.