emptypocketpictures Reviews

The Deer Hunter (1978)

Flashes of greatness

[6 March 2003]

*This review may contain spoilers, so if you'd like to be surprised, enter at your own risk*

I think my opinion on this film differs greatly from most of the opinions. I personally was greatly disappointed by this film, and I think that the primary reasons lie in the fact that four separate writers were credited for the film. I have heard the claim that the deer hunting scenes are metaphors for the loss of innocence, and that the Russian roulette scenes are metaphors for the random horror of life. If this is the case, the least Cimino could have done is construct these scenes well enough that they are made real to the audience, rather than contrived, which, unfortunately, they do. While the marathon wedding sequence is a true work of art, and every scene in Welch's Tavern is amazing, that bittersweetly poetic ending feels forced in light of how disgustingly much the Russian roulette and hunting gimmicks smack of smug, pseudo-profound 1970s Hollywood. Contrary to most reviewers, I find De Niro's brilliance not in the extravagant displays of emotion during the games of Russian roulette and in the finale, but rather in his quiet restraint and distance stateside. Also contrary to most critiques of this film, while I am riveted to Christopher Walken whatever his film, he seemed to skate to his Oscar on presence alone, as his character arc was inexplicably assumed rather than effectively shown. While Streep provides a more than adequate characterization, she struggles with poorly written dialogue and a blatantly underdeveloped character. The supporting ensemble turn in sufficient performances with what they have to work with. Wherever Cimino shot the Vietnam scenes, I'm unconvinced. The war scenes seemed like they could have just as easily taken place on a flooded river in the Northwest, and the only indication that the blue-collar boys are in the jungles of Southeast Asia is the fact that there are Southeast Asians torturing our American heroes. Nevermind the unlikelihood of De Niro serving fully bearded and finding his hometown friends. All in all, the Vietnam scenes are not plausible (with the exception of the fall of Saigon), and I am appalled at those who say that the parts in Vietnam are the best asset of this film. By contrast, the stateside sequences are beautifully shot in all their gritty glory, and truly showcase the spirit of this film. I have to concur with the opinions that Cimino never made a great film, but I would add that his first act of THE DEER HUNTER is a masterpiece.

The Godfather Part III (1990)

So much wasted potential.

[1 March 2003]

It is worth noting that although I consider THE GODFATHER saga as the greatest film of all time (yes, I consider all three to be one film), this film made me wish at its worst moments that the whole project, from 1972 on, had been taken out of Francis Ford Coppola's hands (perhaps Martin Scorsese wouldn't have littered the trilogy with nepotist talent vacuums like Talia Shire) and that at its best make me wish he had been given the artistic freedom and time that he asked for to make the final installment. The film's many flaws begin with the script. There are no less than five different stories within the world of the Corleones that are being told, and none of them are given the tender loving care that was so obvious in the effectiveness of the complexity of the two preceding epics. Problems plague each individual plot enough that the glaring lack of integration is one of the least critical issues. Had Puzo and Coppola been given the time they would have liked, I am confident their overhaul efforts likely would have been sufficient, and furthermore, Mary Corleone's character might have been tolerable played by a rested Winona Ryder rather than her wooden replacement Sofia Coppola. While in this stage, both the studio and writers might have also considered that while the exclusion of Tom Hagen's character was a crucial mistake, the exclusion or reduction of Kay's character might not have been. While Paramount's impatience certainly rushed writing and casting decisions, the acting, from Al Pacino's tragic loss of subtlety to a performance by Eli Wallach so caricatured it bordered on the offensive, falls at the feet of Coppola and the performers themselves. I wonder if the over-the-top rage and suffering displayed by Pacino is at all related to frustration over having to scramble to rise above material this mediocre. Production values for the most part are still solid -- Gordon Willis' cinematography is as beautiful as ever, and my only complaint is that while a superimposed title at the beginning of the film tells us it is 1979, it is next to impossible to tell from the production design. It might have been better to use a period design, and lose the title, particularly since the Vatican events chronicled happened in 1978. Still, this film has fine moments -- the opening and closing sequences are memorable, if seemingly haphazard in comparison to the touch of the earlier films. The sad truth, however is, that, as it was made, this film never should have been released to add a disappointing coda to in all likelihood the greatest American story ever told. A final thought on THE GODFATHER saga. I have thought that the best format for the saga might have been a two-part sequential chronicle: 1) Vito's story, up to his abdication of power to Michael and 2) Michael's downward spiral from the top, with a lot of trimming from the second and third films involved. No relatives allowed, cast Joe Pesci (Luca Brasi perhaps?), let Martin Scorsese direct the entire film, written by Paul Schrader, Coppola, and Puzo. Just one fan's dream.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1984 TV Movie)

Moments of greatness

[20 February 2003]

I have an extraordinary attachment to this play. Aside from being my all-time favorite, which I have read at least fifty times, I was also cast as Big Daddy for an attempted high school production, which, fittingly enough for the history of the play, I suppose, was cancelled and replaced with something "more appropriate" under pressure from the school's administration. I saw the original Newman-Taylor version after reading it the first few times, but had heard a lot of raving that the 1958 film was horrible and that this was worlds better. I found a laser-disc copy and watched it this afternoon. I definitely have more complaints with this performance than I expected. I personally wish that the Rip Torn of 'The Insider' and 'Wonder Boys' had been present in the role of Big Daddy, rather than the version I saw, who despite playing the role with an enormous passion, produced a performance which saw his accent slide all over the place, from a few moments of European immigrant on one misguided extreme to Chris Kattan's incomprehensible sketches on SNL at another, the original lines by Tennessee Williams often escape him, and overall, it results in a very streaky and inconsistent characterization. Perhaps this is a result of being filmed live, or perhaps it's a Rip Torn without an additional fifteen years of experience. Jessica Lange also turned in an impassioned role, but she also seemed rather inconsistent. I actually longed for a little of Liz Taylor's cattiness in the first act, but the play as a whole I preferred Lange. My only quibble with Tommy Lee Jones was that he did not seem to make a decision whether Brick was indeed homosexual or not, which I think is important, because the issue of homosexuality, although the most controversial aspect, is not so crucial to the play as the issues of mendacity dissolving his friendship with Skipper. The two are interrelated, but while the belief that Skipper was homosexual would cause him to question his own sexuality, there were times when Jones seemed to actually believe the allegations, moreso than I would have expected from the character. Gooper, Mae, and Big Mama all were the finest I've seen those roles played. The other complaint was with some of the production values. I was glad that it was done realistically rather than expressionistically as Kazan first directed it on Broadway, but the liquor cabinet and bed are supposed to both have an awesome presence on the room, and neither does in this film, nor does the bedroom have the quality of "pale light on weathered wood" Williams specified in the production notes. Also, Big Daddy's entrance in a baseball cap seemed entirely out of place. Worst, however, was the soft-focus quality of the camera. There are some questionable directorial decisions, things I think could have been staged better, but the essence of the play shines through, and most importantly, the third act is nearly flawless. The passionate conflicts that Williams weaves together are communicated, and the play is so good that nearly any group, probably even my little high school troupe, could have moved an audience, even if not displaying master craft.

The Last Temptation of Christ (1988)

A fine piece of film art

[19 February 2003]

I am a devout Christian, or at least I do my best to be, and I had heard so much about this film from various sources. I heard from Christian watchdog groups that it was blasphemous, and from some critics and Scorsese himself that it was OK, and from my own sister that it was horrible. I read an argument discussing that Ebert saw images of blackface in BAMBOOZLED as offensive enough to cancel the value of the entire film, but gave LAST TEMPTATION a positive review, and finally was overwhelmed enough with curiosity that I got my hands on a DVD copy and watched it. I've got to say that I lean towards Scorsese. It is one exploration of the the mortal side of the humanity-divinity paradox of Christian theology, and taken as such, is an excellent film. I have read much of what Scorsese has to say about the production concept, so the plethora of accents doesn't bother me -- as the various psychonarrative devices display, this is not a purely realistic production, but more expressionistic realism. I was impressed with every aspect of the film, although I thought that it did run slow a few places, particularly in the actual "last temptation" sequence, but perhaps that was because I'd already been spoiled so many times about what happened in that sequence. As for the blasphemy of the sequence, Jesus having sex is an uncomfortable image, as is Paul's confrontation with the aging Jesus. However, it is to the artistic advantage of the film that the entire sequence be extremely disturbing, because, especially to Christians, the entire idea of Christ not following through with His passion, should be disturbing. This sequence seems to achieve its effect. However, Jesus talking about having sinned, and making crosses for the Romans, and continually changing His message, are the more offensive aspects to the film for me as a believer. Then again, with the proper disclaimers -- this is not fact, it is a piece of art, and intended only to explore Jesus as a human portrait, and taken as a whole-greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts, I consider this one of my all-time favorites, and the best Scorsese picture ever. I highly recommend seeing it and making a judgment for yourself using these guidelines, no matter what your faith, although I would use caution as it could be a stumbling block to an immature faith without the above guidelines of interpretation.