Change Your Image
arty44
Reviews
Killing Them Softly (2012)
Yes, They Can Still Make 'Em Like They Used To???
if the review entitled 'Yes, They Can Still Make 'Em Like They Used To'is still visible, please take this as a response.
for me this movie had zero engaging or redeeming features. a thin story, without wit or humour (as suggested it possesses in some reviews).
mostly relentless eavesdropping on the inane conversation of low lifes, with dark shots of cars driving in the night. what is entertaining or engaging about this?
albeit some realistic depiction of violence is nowadays required in any movie about violent people, was it necessary to subject the audience to the sustained, brutal beating of markie? what did this extended piece of horror add to anything?
and then at the end, brad pitt's little speech about the hypocrisy of America and that it's a 'business not a country' - is that supposed in the dying moments to slap some iota of intellectual stimulation/ justification on the movie?
highly unrecommended for my kind of viewer.
Holy Smoke (1999)
Yes, this was awful!
it starts out well - a reasonably interesting premise, albeit not particularly original, and some good shooting of the Indian phantasmagoria. thereafter it's downhill all the way - be warned.
some have admired the challenging themes and how they are handled. well, yes, they might have been - in another movie. i found it seriously ridiculous but then wondered if perhaps i was misinterpreting a spoof? either way it doesn't work. as drama it falls absolutely flat - the characters are not even one-dimensional or pantomime - they just bend willy nilly to whatever the writers want them to play in the next scene. there is no complexity here - just a jumble, a pastiche of switching back and forth between free floating exercises from drama school, with straw characters.
a few slapstick moments reflect the level of such humour as there is. dumbass ponytail walks into a post; air head mother looks away at (supposedly) attractive male while child leaping into her arms belly flops to the ground; harvey keitel limps around the outback dressed in a frock. insipid.
harvey keitel's role seems to be 'bad cop' transposed via an absurd portrayal of a cult-buster to the outback.
kate winslet takes her clothes off, full frontal. big deal. maybe this had more market appeal in 1999, just before every form of sex/erotica/porn was freely available over the internet.
suspending disbelief is inherent to much of movie enjoyment, but beggaring belief (except in fantasy)poisons any potential enjoyment. the scripted puppetry with which kate winslet moves in no time at all from sannyasin to being groped by two drunks in a bar is awful. it does not portray a confused young woman worth taking seriously - it is just another scene utterly manufactured out of sheer vacuity on the part of the campions.
etc.
Whatever Works (2009)
absolutely excellent
this is not everyone's cup of tea - the underlying philosophy of futility with comfort is presented bluntly and unflinchingly. if you resonate with the philosophy and the general tenor of woody Allen's matured take on life, then it's a non-stop chuckle from start to finish. despite the fundamentally bleak view of human life (and humanity) it still finds and retrieves a positive way out (as summarised in the title).not sure why Allen offered the part to David instead of just doing it himself - in any event, both do their job brilliantly. very simply done, the craft is sharp and scintillating - a diamond. possibly helps if you're close to Allen's and David's current age bracket too.
as for negative comments about it being 'unnatural' - yes, it's art!
Law & Order: The Family Hour (2007)
comment on series 17
i begin by saying i'm a big fan of L&O, having seen and enjoyed most of the first 16 series. but something seems to have changed in series 17, and taken the show from head and shoulders above the others down to bordering on run of the mill with the rest.
milena govich cast as det nina cassady is a glaring and perhaps symbolic example. she appears to have been chosen for the sake of 'sexing up' the show. the only gravitas she has is in her push up bra (with the accompanying 3 open buttons of her top). and looking at her conduct as a detective, how did cassady ever get promotion to this illustrious unit of the NYPD? in episode 7 the suspect, under interrogation, blurts out and calls her 'sugar tits' - all very titillating, but L&O never used to call on this particular element of the movie maker's tool box.
i'm in england so we run a little behind the US screenings. we are just seeing series 17 now, and we've had the first 8 episodes. of those episodes, 3 have already had celebrity/youth orientated plot lines, with a sensationalist flavour. has the show decided to target a younger (and less discriminating) audience? the plot lines are less intricate, the legal issues have lost their fascinating convolutedness, the police section is more superficial, the characters have gone thinner, the scripts are weaker, and the acting has gone more watery too - partly on account of the weaker material. beside looking older, naturally, sam waterston looks tired - playing with less conviction - maybe because he's not convinced by the show any longer.
did money talk behind the scenes? too bad if it did, and maybe got it wrong into the bargain - maybe they should've stuck with their core, loyal audience of the first 16 years.