Change Your Image
918
Reviews
Solyaris (1972)
Just A SciFi film like Forbiden Planet
Solaris was my first Tarkovsky movie. I got the Criterion Edition, and read the companion booklet first. And I was very sure I was going to like this film. I read reviews here and again was reassured I was going to like it. Some of my most favorite films are slow thinking movies, I love Michaelangelo Antonioni's movies, Bergman's movies, Godard's films, and I love 2001 space odyssey. I enjoy the more symbolic expressions of cinema in general. For instance the way Coppola cuts together the sacrifice of the bull with the murder of Kurtz in apocalypse now.
So i was very excited and sure that Solaris was going to be great. I watched it and I thought it was terrible. And I am someone who will acknowledge or give respect to a film even if I don't personally "enjoy" it or am "entertained" by it but I thought this was bad.
1.) Color to black and white: Later on in the movie the film stock changes to black and white to better illustrate dream sequences... but Tarkovsky is not consistent with this approach because earlier on in the film it changes to black and white for no reason. Am I missing something here?
2.) Cheap production: their is countless flaws in many different aspects, for instance the terrible zoom shots, and panning shots look very amateurish. The sound was terrible as well many times there would be no sound effects for obvious things like a car's engine. This film was made after 2001 and its FX aren't even close to being on the same level.
3.) Too long with too few ideas: Being long alone doesn't mean anything really. Tarkovsky gives you plenty of time to understand what the main characters problem is. The character is told for nearly two hours that his wife isn't real, and I understand that the drama of the film is created out of the tension of knowing that the relationship doesn't exist, and that the main character only wants it to but for two hours! This isn't a mind bending concept that calls for such obsession. I think that the audience understands the problem within a half an hour.
4.) Bad ending: to make matters worse the problem or conflict that arises for two hours of the film is resolved in a very anti climactic way. After he has came to terms with his loss she simply isn't seen again.
5.) Tarkovsky's failure I don't see any evidence of metaphysical Pudovkin editing techniques. or Igmar Bergman symbolism, or even any sort of response to 2001.
The few discussions about philosophy and life are pretty stock discussions and aren't really that interesting or in relevance with the plot.
The levitation sequence isn't anywhere near as effective as it seems in Tarkovsky's sacrifice.
6.) Solaris is a SciFi movie... nothing more: In comparison to 2001 Tarkovsky's Solaris dwells more in human emotion... that's true but so does Forbidden Planet which I found more similar to Solaris than 2001.
I may have been expecting too much, or expecting the wrong thing from this film but I was severely disappointed. The "surprise" ending was not much of a surprise, and not very thought provoking. It seemed almost like an ending found on the Twilight Zone.
Solaris involves some thought, there is a few interesting ideas, but its not groundbreaking or a masterpiece, and the idea that this film is even considered to be linked to 2001 is silly.
7.) A few good points: having said that i don't mean to bash the entire film. I found the first hour very interesting and engaging. I didn't mind the nature shots. The car scene, I thought, was one of the best sequences shot, edited and scored pieces of the movie though I have no idea what it had to do with the plot. One review on the board suggested that it shows how the astronaut has nowhere to go... okay... so what though? What does it matter? In contrast the nature shots seem to serve importance because Nature will be severely missed by the astronauts. but an astronaut/2ndary character driving around in a car because he has nowhere to go?
8.) In conclusion: The cinematography was cheap, the pacing of the film was completely silly. Not once in 2001 is Kubric being slow just for the sake of being slow. there are 3 or 4 minute shots of nothing but spaceships spinning but the FX and cinematography are breathtaking.
Solaris is tediously slow and the few ideas and themes that are brought up are spelled out just as clearly as most Kate Winslet movies. And the film is cheap. Tarkovsky obviously didn't have enough money. The movie goes from color to black and white for no reason, the sound design is terrible. The acting is pretty shaky, and the FX are terrible. There are no real twists or turns in plot, the film just doesn't ever take off.
Like I said this was my first Tarkovsky film. But I considered it extremely overrated. i read other comments before posting to see if maybe I missed something. one person included clues for viewing Solaris the algae, the car, the ending, all of which I understood pretty matter-of-factually after the first viewing.
Please if I'm missing something here i would like to know just what everyone likes about this film so I can at least respect it.
The Order (2003)
a good movie with some bad points
The movie does not suck. The movie is however very different, so different that through out production major changes were forced into the film. If something isn't grabbing at the audience every five mins producers get worried. This film could have been much better if the producers were just left out of the making of this film. The reason the exorcist is so great is because the beginning let's you be. It isn't constantly grabbing at you, it slowly leads you instead. when you watch the order you have to kind of filter out the producers additions to the film. Watch for acting, plot, framing, and color, and try to ignore the constant nagging cgi demons and random barking dogs. the story is very adult, as in adult interests and attention span but random dumb parts have been thrown in. This is a big problem today. In Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York he is constantly reminding us with flash backs who the characters were in the beginning of the movie. The problem is they assume all audiences are dumb. Never again will we get truly great movies, because producers assume we don't have the intelligence or the patients. It's forced greats to dumb down their material.
Anyway watch for Heath's amazing acting job as a priest. Watch how he handles the rosary when him and his friend discuss Shannyn Sossamnon's character, it's just like Brando and the glove in On The Waterfront. Shannyn is amazing too, painting with her hands.
If you can see past the dumb lures and really become interested in the mystery it really can carry you away. It's kind of like Angel heart.
Scarlet Diva (2000)
a beginners movie
It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination. The acting is poor to OK, the idea it's recorded on digital video dosen't help though. Some truly great ideas are presented, a shaving scene is very well preformed. The film is very personal, and artistic, but more like a diary of fantasy not a great diary like Anne Frank's. I would suggest to see it but don't buy it. Their is no real reason to watch it again. Their is a little sex but not as much as it looks like. It is dark but again no where near as dark as it looks. And it is serious and tries to be intelligent but it really isn't at all. Asia makes lame attempts to include Godard like pictures, and out the window type shooting but it fails to be interesting. It's really a great attempt and a good try but it's not enjoyable or different enough to be interesting for two hours. I'm not saying it would be better as a porno but the cover and reviews would make one assume that it is dark and sexual and it really isn't. Its kind of a cheap girl on the verge movie.
Though she does seem very brave to sacrifice herself to the camera so exposed as she does. a scene includes her and black man being interrupted in a trailer that keeps her from getting off. She's wearing all black and net stockings. That's the kind of sexual danger, curiosity, type film I expected. Also a scene where she finds her friend tied up. But these scenes are very very short.
It could have been great if it had maybe taken a stronger direction into a serious world of sex, violence and drugs like Blue Velvet or irreversible. But it's not. Don't buy it, i did and I'm kind of stuck with it. Asia is great but she isn't as intelligent or as interesting as the angel tattoo flying out of pants and too bad because that's really cool.
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Spider-Man 2ward the next Golden Age
Spider-Man 2 is a bigger, better, and faster movie than the first. The story is continued by the opening credits summing up the last movie. The cast is all growing older and even the storytelling is getting wiser, this seems to be a trend set by the new Harry Potter, LOTR movies. Long gone are the days with sequels with different actors in the main parts (like the Batman movies). The serial type feel is reminiscent of the Golden Age of Hollywood. An Age where the studios had the money and held great control over their employees. Is this all too familiar Golden Age( that fell in the 60s and 70s) reemerging? And if so, how would an independent filmmaker feel about participating in it?
What has been evident in both of the Spiderman movies has been it's uncanny ability to borrow from other films. The first Spiderman movie included the infamous Matrix move in slow motion, the Superman striped shirt move to change costumes, the Mission Impossible sweat dripping off the forehead replaced by blood suspense scene, the Batman disappearing in mid conversation technique, and the many cliché superhero scenes including babies in burning buildings and such. The New Spiderman Movie continues to use these well-known cinematic devices. From the stomping thunderous noise of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park, and a multi tentacle operating scene gone wrong found in Independence Day, Sam Raimi continues to use the films we all know and love in his movie. He borrows or makes reference to all the big budget films that we have already paid to see again and again... But why?
The major difference between the first Spiderman and the second is Sam's constant reminder that it's just a comic book movie we are watching. These constant reminders are expressed through exaggerated characters and a sort of satirical tone to keep the adults laughing and the kids watching. The acting is more of a symbolic act to convey the story to an audience of all ages. These tongue in cheek scenes found in the first movie are not as prominent in the second film. This was my major problem with the first movie. The movie never took itself seriously and instead of being afraid of the Green Goblin when he's going mad, like I was in Batman with the Joker, I was laughing.
At the same time Sam Raimi's reminders work at making the film satirical it also (especially in Spiderman 2) works at making the film smarter and more artistic like Godard did in Breathless. Sam Raimi uses not only other Big Budget movies but his own Big Budget movie Spiderman to make references with in Spiderman 2. It?s in his juxtaposition of his first Spiderman movie to his second Spiderman movie that the film?s most interesting aspects lie. We relive moments from the first film and are able to compare and contrast are heroes progress with the second film (similar to the end of Back to the Future 2).
We find ourselves in the burning building, his uncle's murder scene, and the rooftop where he made his first jump. This time Peter is facing new problems. The major problem being himself. The film conducts a very fresh and interesting study on Peter's condition. A type of soul searching goes on in the story that is more mature and interesting than anything found in the first movie. I believe the film is most interesting when placed in juxtaposition with the first movie in a way Coppola introduced with Godfather Part 2.
The Superhero movies of today have become our modern monster movies. Heroes or romantic villains take on their traits of symbolic meaning. It?s not hard to believe those monster movies where also part of Hollywood 's Golden Age. And now with the many Blockbuster Summer movies aimed at are pocket books with clichés and all too familiar scenes, jokes and characters we seem to be entering another Golden Age. So how would an indie filmmaker feel about this "show BUSINESS"?
Now I?m not sure if it was Raimi or the screenwriters? idea to include the film references; But if a major production company was going to entrust an indie filmmaker to make a big budget film what better a way to ensure the crowds and stick it to them with your own artistic rebellion at the same time than by showcasing the over formulized films that everyone already likes in a light that shows their plastic and artless form that has become our modern pop culture. Because this idea would give Raimi more of a reason than the screenwriters I tend to give him the credit.
On an emotional appeal Spiderman 2 makes you laugh, bite your nails, and feel overly sympathetic toward our friendly neighborhood Spiderman.
Overall, watch for Raimi's many film references/influences and the juxtaposition not only between Spiderman and Spiderman 2 but Peter Parker and Doc Octopus. James Franco gives an incredible performance considering the world the acting is taking place in. And watch for how quickly he can muster pain, tears and charisma. One of the greatest scenes takes place in an elevator between Spidey and one of his neighborhood friends. The scene conveys in the truest sense Raimi?s take on Spiderman. Raimi's ideas expressed here and Spielberg's expressed in the Terminal could start the first American New Wave of intellectual and highly marketable films that represent the times as well as the artist and culture.Enjoy.
The Terminal (2004)
Spielberg again
Spielberg Again
Though Spielberg is trying to break free, The Terminal continues the unchanged style he developed decades ago. A biography on Spielberg stressed how he wishes to gain acceptance from the majority through his films. The struggle of being an individual is usually handled by artists by declaring their differences, like Scorsese. This struggle of being different usually leads to personal cinema that reflects the artist, Scorsese's Mean Streets, James Joyce's A Portrait of an Artist, Picasso's many self portraits. THe artist declares how he and he alone sees the world. This is not the case with Spielberg who stresses the opposite. Instead of placing the focus on what's different the emphasis is placed on what is the same.
Even though Hanks portrays an individual from an unfamiliar, unrelatable, unamerican country, he behaves in a fashion that gathers empathy and understanding from an American audience. This sentimentality is not what Spielberg believes but desires. His strength as a filmmaker does not lie in his appeal to the intellect, like Coppola, but to the heart. An appeal to a universal heart by displaying (whether he knows it or not) archetypes that strike an emotional universal cord with his audience. Atonement with the Father, Women as Temptress, Refusal to the call and many others.
Spielberg turns an Indian janitor into a very familiar friend, and Hanks into all of us who have ever felt lost. This struggle for acceptance is not new to Hollywood, Chaplin did it in every movie. Beginning as the wimp who works up the courage to be the hero.
The Terminal falls between Catch Me If You Can's airports and Always' characters and sentimentality. Its a good movie but not a great one.
and though I'd prefer Spielberg to continue in the direction of Empire of the Sun and Schindler's List The Terminal does develop very nicely. The movie is a very interesting look at how an man survives in a new land. I wouldn't say it's allegorical but it does allude to many different ideas.
Spielberg depicts everything from learning the language to building a bed out of chairs. Hanks is stripped of all of Maslow?s Hierarchy of Needs. He is forced to survive much like he did in Cast Away. Without food he begins to work by gathering carts for quarters. These quarters buy him food. This job is closer to slave labor than anything else and is replaced by another willing to do the job for less. By working with his hands he becomes a construction worker and moves up in status. After saving a man's father's life he gathers the support of what could be a rebellion who wave a copy of Hank's hand like a flag. Hank's rebellion allows him to enter America, or the place where his dreams will come true.
What is maybe more interesting his Hank's decision to go back home. He journeys to the land to make his dreams come true and comes back down. But many filmmakers would argue that it's not what you show it's how you show it. Spielberg resorts to his classic "ongoing lines" such as "do you have an appointment", or "one girl and two guys is a crowd". Every Spielberg movie contains a set of "on going lines" for each main character and their consistency hints at the fact that it is Spielberg who is adding them not the many different screenwriters.(Jurassic Park- "we spare no expense")This is one of the methods Spielberg uses to develop an audiences' familiarity with a character. You feel like you know his characters because he allows you to learn a trait that is repeatedly proven true. And in this method is where Spielberg fails. Even though his style works he is not making any effort to change or invent new ways of communicating these ideas. He is only repeating himself. His cartoon type style doesn't seem to mature along with the heavy allusions and symbolism his mature story provides. It makes it harder to take the film seriously. Oliver Stone's telling of this story could have turned this picture into a possible award winner, while Spielberg who seems to be having too much fun won't earn any recognition at all. Though I don't think awards are in Spielberg's agenda for this movie, I still see his maturity as a problem. He wants to be serious but is afraid of losing his audience. Or maybe he just has too much fun.
Spielberg has made what he had called personal cinema before. Amblin' or any film he made before being put through the TV system relies heavily on adult themes. But when he made Jaws he seemed to start a trend he would never turn back on, and one we would never stop paying him for. A movie like Duel doesn't seem like a Spielberg movie in any recent terms.
The film The Terminal relies heavily on Hanks but for good reason. Spielberg seems to project himself through Hanks very well. Spielberg who is as famous for creating likable characters as he is for creating memorable sequences doesn't develop anything as memorable as Dicaprio teaching his French class but he doesn't miss all together either. Spielberg creates many sequences that seem like Hank's SNL skits. One scene involves Hanks and the airport's Supervisor trying to communicate to each other about his country which has ceased to exist. The skit taps into some of the all to familiar "who's on first" Abbot and Costello type miscommunication, all performed very new and fresh. Another involves Hanks making the airport a little more comfy to sleep in, something that could be found in a Keaton or Chaplin movie. And Finally another dinner scene between Jones and Hanks that seems to be Spielberg's take on Wes Anderson's movies as much as 1941 was a Landis film, A.I a Kubric film, and the Police car ride with Hanks telling his knock, knock joke in Catch Me if You Can a Terintino film.
Hank's as well as these many sequences gives the story a Spielbegian heart, not the heart found in Schindler's List or even Catch Me If You Can but a heart all the same. The movie is very likable and any Spielberg/Hanks fan will be pleased. Many scenes made me laugh till I cried.
Spielberg is good at pleasing his audience after... all he once said "I am the audience."