Change Your Image
mtthwibrahim
Reviews
Pierrot le fou (1965)
The Masterpiece of French Cinema
The fact that there are people who dislike honestly puzzles me. Few films are as, for lack of a more descriptive word, perfect as this. Godard's directing is superb, the use of color is simply the best I've ever seen (even better than "Fanny and Alexander"). It's a pure Technicolor feast, an absolute treat just to look at. Jean-Paul Belmondo and the impossibly beautiful Anna Karina play off each other so well, as embodiments or archetypes of their respective sex. Godard draws parallels between the two, examining the nature of man-woman relationships, which essentially makes this the greatest "romance" film ever made, because it debases and transcends the average romance film. The dialog; simply the best Godard ever wrote. Great dialog is, more or less, something to be expected from a Godard, but he never again would write so many lines of pure wit and humor. The whole movie is presented in a fashion which could be described as avant-garde, with very little regard for accepted cinematic conventions, but isn't obtuse or incoherent and can be followed by the average viewer. There are themes in this film, both existential and political, that one could intellectualize, but they only work as a subtle, underlining themes that don't detract anything from the film.
The French nouvelle vogue was one of the greatest movements in cinema because it expressed creativity over anything else, and I don't think you could find a more definitive document of it than this. In short, "Pierrot le Fou" is a stimulating and tremendously entertaining film, a technical marvel, a breath of fresh air in a world of bland, sterile cinema, and a masterpiece in pretty much every way
Stalker (1979)
Brutally Misunderstood
I don't think I've had a more infuriating experience than I have reading reviews for "Stalker". Every single negative review I've read so far basically boils down to "it's slow/boring/pointless/pretentious". I feel I need to shed some light onto this whole subject. "Slow" is not by nature a bad thing. "Stalker" is "slow", in the sense that it builds atmosphere and disregards a standard narrative. I feel the world created by "Stalker" is probably the best thing about it. It's incredibly engrossing, it blocks out everything else around me. I'd take this over any action movie that leaves me yearning for the end. The "boring" part is a totally subjective , but what exactly do people seem to find boring about beautiful imagery and poetry put to screen. Every second of the film is crafted so perfectly by Tarkovsky, who just put everything he had into this one. As for "pointless", I find this criticism to be utterly puzzling. "Stalker" has a very clearly defined plot that is developed completely. Did these people not pay attention because there were no fight scenes or large breasted women. More than that, though, it also expresses religious philosophy. It's a film about belief, what exactly is pointless about that? The argument for it being "pretentious" is easily the one that angers me the most. I have to wonder if the people using this word even know what it means. What pretense does "Stalker" hold? It's a pure example of film making, where the director spares no expense to realize his vision. A pretentious film is something like "Fight Club", a film with no genuine content designed to appeal to the masses, while building itself as a pillar of truth that brings light to difficult subject matter, when the party involved isn't even intelligent to understand why a difficult subject matter is difficult.
In short, "Stalker" is a beautiful film. It is pure, unpretentious, and subtle, but incredibly gripping. It will not, however, pander to low attention spans
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
A lesser Kubrick work, but still quite good
Besides his masterpiece, "2001: A Space Odyssey", "A Clockwork Orange" tends to get labeled the finest work by arguably the most important film maker of all time. Being a rather avid fan of his work, I imagine I'd fall into the minority, because I think this is only third tier Kubrick. My main problem with the film is it's theme, which is no more insightful than what you'd hear on Fox News. Seriously, does anyone buy into this whole "a dark tomorrow full of violence" crap. It's this sort of childish misanthropy that just makes my humanist blood boil. Sadly, there are murderers and rapists, people just like Alex today, and they've been there, and they'll continue be here throughout time. However, the thought that, in the future, these people will be everywhere and we can do nothing to stop them is silly. The fact that this is wildly considered a deep film that merits excessive discussion puzzles me. Roger Ebert (who sucks, for the most part) called it a "right wing paranoia fantasy", and I'm definitely inclined to agree
That said, it's still a Kubrick film. The directing is top notch as usual, Kubrick's usual brand of innovative camera work, and the sound editing s great as well, giving the film a very effective atmosphere. The film is noted for it's incredibly unnerving scenes depicting sadism, which I have to agree are quite traumatizing, but Kubrick has the tact to make it not seem exploitative or just made to shock for the sake of shocking. And, of course, McDowell; god, did he ever have stage presence. Thankfully, Kubrick also doesn't shove the message down your throat in a painfully unsubtle manner, which does make the film a LOT easier to appreciate.
Looking past the idiotic thematic and the fact that a large portion of this film's fan base are made up of obnoxious teenagers, "A Clockwork Orange" is pretty great film, especially when looked at from a strictly technical standpoint. But Kubrick has many better films, and not just "2001" and Dr. Strangelove"
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Flat and Brainless
As a 13 year old just getting into cinema, this was the best film ever. How could I not be blown away by all the clever dialog, great characters, fantastic storyline, and gripping violence. It was just pure heaven. I saw this movie three times in the course of one year, and I still have such fond memories of watching it. It was around the time I got serious about cinema (about two years later) that I felt I needed to give this another go. I'd discovered the works of Bergman, Tarkovsky, Godard,etc, and felt a connection with film in ways I hadn't before, and I wanted to see if the movies I loved before still held up. I had every intention of loving "Pulp Fiction" just as much as I did back then, but I didn't. There was nothing there, no core. All the things I'd loved about it were gone. That clever dialog? Referential nonsense that gave no insight into who I was watching or attempted to expand the narrative. The great characters? Indistinctive cardboard cutouts that act as mouthpieces for Tarintino. Fantastic storyline? A pseudo throwback to film noir that can't decide whether it wants to take itself seriously or be intentionally stupid for the sake of irony. Gripping violence? It's violence that's harsh enough to put the average viewer in awe, safe enough as to not offend.
It's a dead film with no ideas. A common argument I hear in it's favor is that it's somehow objectively entertaining. Why? Because it has guys with guns and monologues about McDonalds? Sorry, but that's not entertainment in my mind. Entertainment is being engaged, having to think. A film like "Andrei Rublev" is entertaining because, while I watch it, it evokes thought and feeling, it has something I can sink my teeth into. I can still think about it, interpret it in different ways. "Pulp Fiction" is just shutting your brain off for two and half hours while a man with a God complex strokes his ego.
Basically, I can understand to some extent why it is so popular. It's very good at pleasing the masses, something Tarkovsky could never do. It's so perfectly designed to hook the average viewer in. But it's paper thin. This is exactly what I don't want in cinema