Apocalypse Now

A very flawed film. Coppola manages to astonish with the excellent production and cinematography, but the film tries to be more ambitious with story and character. It takes the mission of a Captain hunting down a crazed Colonel and makes it into a mythic telling of the chaos of Vietnam and the 70s. Coppola handles the hefty subject with trendy cultural references that show what decade the war is in. The problem is that these references also become the extent of the symbolism and meaning in the film. Robert Duvall's caricature performance of a crazed surfing happy colonel is suppose to be meaningful. For me it should have been an anecdote. The film is suppose to dig at meaning and larger ideas, but features general 70s chiq only. The redux version includes a French plantation scene that does get specific, but structurally it takes the film too far off base. Marlon Brando plays the infamous Colonel Kurtz to an exaggerrated level. The similarity his performance has is that it encompasses the mythic nature of the film, but his character offers dope poetics that shows he is insane and nothing more. The film boggles so much that it even isn't personally revealing. The excellent production is almost convincing that the half ass story is actually good.

Born on the Fourth of July

A biographrical film by Oliver Stone in the same vein of The Doors. Stone tells an intense story that starts with a definite image of a man and his beliefs and then goes full circle to see how he completely changes. The subject in the film is Ron Kovic and his life altering experience in Vietnam. Stone doesn't focus on ideas with the story but focuses on the experience of Kovic's change. Ideas are within the narrative, but Born on the Fourth of July and The Doors lack the large themes in Nixon and JFK. They focus on the brutal details their main characters go through to discover their revelation (in Born on the Fourth of July) or demise (in the Doors). To make this concept of storytelling work Stone has to be a gifted and challenging filmmaker and he surely is. The sweet moments at the beginning of the film have as much grace as a quality Speilberg film and the tough moments aren't repititions of the same gritty shots, but filmmaking at different speeds and camera objectives. The film is wonderfully nuanced and features the actor Tom Cruise when he was ambitious and considered one of the young premiere acors. He is convincing both as a naive youth and a broken down crippled soldier.

Superbad

You either love this or you don't. I'm pretty stupid so I loved it. The movie has the right elements of honesty about high school and the right degree of disguting humor. That makes the movie both funny and familar. Too many times PG-13 oriented stories have tried to capture how disgusting boys can be. They are never close. Superbad does a pretty good job, but is a dumb comedy. It makes me laugh at that side of me instead of reflect upon it. In a perfect world I too would have ended up with the girls the characters get at the end. Fuck that. Critics are already calling this a comedic classic. It shouldn't be reviewed in print, but good. Animal House and Caddyshack and the like are children's stories. They don't reflect how funny and disgusting people can be. Permissiveness, very much exploited in Superbad, also represents reality, haha.

Mr. Arkadin

This comment refers to the comprehensive version. This film is a sadness. There is a great opportunity for Orson Welles to remodel the legendary character Charles Foster Kane because Mr. Arkadin is the first character for him that was of resemblance. Welles insteads side steps any ambition and tells a sloppy genre story. The film has more interest for plot revelations than anything else. The Cahiers Du Cinema critics praised the film for its unprofessionalism that made it feel more authentic than other films. That unprofessionalism wasn't a step back to Italian Neo-Realism or something meaningful, but just a lack of competance to tell a well constructed story. The plot has too many loops and holes to be good and Welles films the story very plainly. The film is more notable for on location shooting than any conceptual ideas. It doesn't help that half of the lines are as laughable as they are implausible. Welles has no sense of rythm or competance to tell a thriller of this kind. The film would have been better in the hands of Jules Dassin. Mr. Arkadin is as far from Citizen Kane as Welles could get.

Fanny and Alexander

This comment is for the television version. Bergman's send off in film isn't a compilation of everything he has done in film, but his a majestic look back at all the facets of childhood. The first episode is a vivid recreation of the ideal childhood. Bergman is the imaginer by creating a gorgeous set for a fantastic family christmas celebration. The visuals compliment the fantastic characters. I say fantastic because in Bergman's auto-biography, none of the characters really match any relative he talked about. The major piece of the first episode is the Magic Lantern that adhorned Bergman's own childhood and allowed him to dream of filmmaking at a very young age. It symbolizes the best memories and dreams that decorate the first episode. The later episodes deal with the death of the father and the children bearing life under the rule of a chaplain as their new father. The character has no likabilities of their real father, but he does match Bergman's own father well. The scope, enjoyment and imagination of Fanny and Alexander suffice enough for fufillment, but if a comment is to be made it is that Bergman looked back at childhood and tried to recollect the best elements he knew from his life and imagination but in the lifetime of Bergman, no memory was just pleasant. Every one had a jolt of pain. The later episodes are not just jolts, but reflections by Bergman on true feelings. The imagination has to have a dance with the realistic and painful. This has been part of even the lightest Bergman films. The fact the film ventures to sadder and drepressing subject matter also makes this memory by Bergman a complete one. He takes an exhausting look back and says as much as he can within a film. We can only thank him for making his last hurrah a defining memory that still stands tall to this day.

Swing Time

Not only quality entertainment, but a dancing film by dancing professionals. To put this as noteworthy isn't to say professional dancers haven't always graced film, but for a period of time they were allowed to make the art of a film. Swing Time doesn't have intricate editing or stylized compositions, but graceful recordings of Astaire and Rogers in action for long periods of time. This allowed dance critics to review films and be able to review with an expertise no film critic could have. Today all dance films are designed by editors and directors who have a vision of how the dance will look like. Choroegraphers have to play second fiddle or make a big time star look like he or she can really dance. Swing Time is my favorite Astaire and Rogers movie fo the delight in the screenplay and good jokes, but their films also remind me of a time lost in movies that will probably never be seen again. Good entertainment should respect the laws of film art, but no editing or design has been able to replicate the enjoyment of pure quality dancing.

Natural Born Killers

The best film of the 1990s for me. The general compliment is that this film does good satire about the media's obsession with violence. Yes, this film and many others have made that a normal subject in film, but Natural Born Killers is so much more. First the filmmaking isn't just chaotic or repititive of indulgent editing. Natural Born Killers has shades of numerous cinemas and histories in filmmaking. The purpose isn't just to excel at film language. Films that do try to transform their stories to the genre or style of reference. Natural Born Killers molds the references to fit its greater designs. The film has rythms and tendencies that make for a common thread in filmmaking, but each viewing shows how dense this really is. Stone allows editing to dominate the film. This isn't to capture numerous angles of a situation, but to add varying notes of feeling and reference. The wild imagery mixed with the brutal soundtrack makes for one of the most detailed and powerful filmed expressions of madness I've ever seen. Stone doesn't just visualize the extent of insane visions, but shows their fears, histories and deepest pains. Natural Born Killers deals with characters and a situation that has become stock in movie-land, but because each new situation for the killers focuses on the "how" and then branches into the "why" - which implicates society - the film becomes both a personal and societal study. The film shows how deep the excitement of violence runs within all of us. And don't believe Oliver Stone isn't aware of his attraction to Mickey and Mallory. He ends the film on a dream-come-true for Mickey and Mallory as they drive off together happy and with children. Nothing about this scene suggests the ironic or comedic. It is Stone's visualization of two killers who, by the end, looked more sincere than other characters.

The Gold Rush

Chaplin is a marvel in many ways, but he wasn't always the masterful director people claim he was. In Gold Rush he clings to a small story but it is so misguided in execution and direction that it is almost impossible to follow all of the action. Chaplin realized this and in 1940 he added a narration (done by him) to the film just so the audience could keep up with the story. It made the movie watchable, but a silent film shouldn't need to be saved by a narration to make sense. There are some good moments in Gold Rush, but the film is too problematic.

Lost in Translation

This film meanders. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that if you know what you are doing. Lost in Translation is just clueless. It has a theme and plot points that are symbolism to that overall theme. The two characters played by Murray and Johansson meet and understand the similarity of their dilemma, but nothing more is delved into between them after that. The characters meet different people and see different sights, but each new encounter acts as the same old symbolism that they feel lost in a different culture. The story meanders but isn't focused on the experience of their journey or its cogitative purpose. It's focused on cheap symbolism that shows the distance between the characters and the culture instead of between themselves. If the film had more to offer about Japan than sideshows on its weirdness, I'd be interested. It doesn't and is just an outstanding bore instead.

Sherlock Jr.

One of my favorite Buster Keaton films. Keaton always was the better director over Chaplin and Sherlock Jr. shows how. The story is a mere 45 minutes or so, but features as much ambition and thought into the comic scenes as any longer work by either Chaplin or anyt other. Chaplin loved to allow a scene to linger to keep the laughs going, but that idea of storytelling has faded with a preference for shorter scenes and focused laughs. It is also generally hard to keep a story on track when one simple scene can take over eight minutes. Keaton, later on with Steamboat Bill Jr., would test the endurance of every scene by playing it out too long, but in Sherlock Jr. he is very sane and masterful with the quick scenes and firery storytelling. Sherlock Jr. isn't a short film. Academy standards say a feature length has to be forty five minutes. No one does that anymore. That's a shame.

Batman Begins

I liked it, but something is lost with this remodeling of Batman. The character is based off comic books that were based on simple myths and lore. The themes in the story were simple. The imagery though was powerful and fantastic. Burton's original film, featuring a bad story, played up the visuals and identity of Batman. Nolan instead takes the myth and reconstructs it to be a dramatic story. Each particle of the Batman legend is reduced to a dramatic explanation. The story in this film is better than anything Burton could do, but the film is too worried about plot points to be effective for creating the grandness of Batman. This film is based on later graphic novels that figured the identity of Batman was worthy of true dramatic exploration. I don't think he is. There are limitations to what can be done with a caped crusader as a meaningful character. Batman started out as the equivalent of a serial character. He should be amplified in film to the best of that nature.

Good Will Hunting

This film does some amazing things. Will Hunting, the genius from the wrong side of the tracks, is a stock character who has been used as a heroic type in other bad films. He has the same invincibility in mind that any super hero has in physicality. Good Will Hunting doesn't exploit that but delves into it. It has layers that reveals not only inner truths about Damon's character, but greater ones about the nature of intelligence, compatability and happiness. The supporting characters also come to terms with their own selves. And the film doesn't serve up these observations in manufactured moments at the end, but in consistently revealing and enlightening scenes all the way through. Nobody has anything in common with Will Hunting's genius, but they do have things in common with his personality and search for himself. The fact this film speaks to the philosophical and personal level of so many different people says a lot.

The Virgin Spring

The subject of strict traditional Christianity is nothing new for Bergman. He grew up with a father as a preacher and lived under a strict household. That experience allows him to dig the best he can into a moral revenge film. A young virgin is brutally raped and murdered. Her tormentors are forced to face the wrath of her father who kills them out of vengeance. The story though is alien to Bergman because it plants a christian belief that later films showed he didn't have. Bergman's experience is the only tie. The Virgin Spring is a development for him over Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries but still finds dealing with a story that doesn't reflect his deepest pains or challenge his potential.

Irreversible

Gaspar Noe does a lot of good in the filmmaking. The camera movemens are expressionistic and geared toward the feelings in the film. They also display enough imagination that easy categorization is out the window. The first twenty minutes can be described as a nightmare. Noe does enough to alarm the audience before making them numbed. The story and screenplay have the problems. Noe is depicting a brutal segment of the world. Uncomfortable scenes are set in very uncomfortable places. OK, but Noe loses confidence when the personal problems of the characters begin to be shown in the most exagerrated ways. Cassel's out of control behavior being shown in a rampant drug and sex binge has to be the most obvious way to show a character trait. Also each scene becomes easily identifiable for what's it is trying to say about the characters. This minimizes the importance of the filmmaking that is trying to express those feelings because the story seems hell bent to lay them out. If Noe was able to marry his outstanding filmmaking to a proper story of substance and nuance, Irreversible would be an outstanding success.

Citizen Kane

There is so much to say. Citizen Kane represented both the history of cinema up until 1941 and its future to come. Its influence is still being felt on numerous levels in many films. When it was released, James Agee short changed the film by saying it was only a series of cinematic shots from German Expressionistic Cinema. Citizen Kane combined shots from all facets of cinema including German expressionism, but also silent cinema and deep focus cinematography that was becoming prevelant in 1930s French Cinema. Before this film it was a norm to combine styles and touches from different cinemas, but Citizen Kane put it all on a grandoise level. Professional technicians in films were told to hide the style behind the story. Citizen Kane is about its achievement in style and structure. The focus on its own language would be a precursor to many art films of the 60s and beyond that took on film theory and poetics. As Pauline Kael said, Citizen Kane has a dramatic story, but the rosebud symbol at the end is a false one to inner meaning of Charles Kane. It doesn't explain him but only asks another question of what Kane's main identity in life really was. A lot of people I know are ambivalent toward this film. They know it is a classic, but it is a Hollywood classic that has no likeness to any other film made at the time. People have to stop comparing it to other Hollywood works. Citizen Kane was released in 1941 but its true release was really 1947. That's when it was released in France and erupted the foreign market to take influence for the first time from an American filmmaker. Hollywood owes every genre (besides the Western) to a foreign cinema, but America gave the rest of the world something more. They gave it its basic identity to art cinema. Citizen Kane was one of the best early opportunities for film to evolve over genre stories.

He Got Game

The story of the up and coming basketball star and the media buzz surrounding him. The very bad movie, Blue Chips, addressed every cliche possible for such a story. Spike Lee tries to elevate the stale subject. The filmmaking is noted by almost lyrical editing and colorful textures in the cinematography. The story deals with the pain of an accidental murder that killed a mother and imprisoned a father. The son has to come to grips with the hatred he has for his father and be able to deal with the pressure situation of taking on a full fledged basketball career. The story is poignant because it makes a fantastic situation ring true in the relationship of a father and son, but Lee's filmmaking is most noteworthy. He has a fluid imagination in mixing basketball play with the media coverage that involves staged commercials and ESPN coverage.

Troy

Minor nod to Brad Pitt. An attractive man, he epitomizes Achilles the way no one else could because no one is the physical specimen that Brad Pitt is. Every ounce of him is believable as a mythical warrior. It was even good to see him do most of the choreography in the fight sequences. The rest of the film is worse than bad. The historical interest is nowhere to be found. This film isn't even on track enough to be good cliff notes of the actual legend. Everything is butchered and made acceptable for the populous. If the film had a ridiculous style and more action scenes it could be false artistry and live on like 300 does.

Forrest Gump

When Robert Zemeckis is doing good work he can be an excellent entertainer. That was true of Back to the Future, but he's pushing it with Forrest Gump. He makes devastating subjects the topic of a heartwarming tale like it was any romance. Many moments in the movie make you smile on the outside and in, but Zemeckis glides over everything and gives each subject the most innocent context. Even good comedy has to make the subject stand for something. Zemeckis' innocence borders on offense. Spike Lee has always been complaining of Zemeckis' continous infusion of whites into black history. In Back to the Future, Michael J. Fox is the reason Chuck Berry does what he does. In Forrest Gump, a young Gump gives Elvis Presley his moves, not southern black music and dance. Back to the Future seems truly innocent because Fox is in a time warp and borrowing from Berry to influence Berry, but Gump is a step over the line. It seems innocent but it starts putting assumptions into viewers minds about the history of rock n roll. Zemeckis' glad handing of other topics strikes a similar unnerving trigger. It's sad some high schools use this film as a history lesson. Tom Hanks, fresh off an excellent job in Philadephia, shows he can be a physical actor here. Nothing more.

Dances With Wolves

I've never been much of a fan of romantic epics, but I can appreciate when they are well done. Kevin Costner makes a good one that is also relevant. Historical epics usually take a look at our European roots, but Dances With Wolves focuses on our Native situation. More importantly, it embraces the common truth that white men were members of Native American tribes. It is a lost dimension of history that white men and women did flee towns to join tribes for numerous reasons, which mainly was poverty and famine. The fact that Dances With Wolves has a dumb set up doesn't matter. Unlike Last of the Mohicans, the story is focused on the inherent differences between two cultures. I think a more in depth and serious film is to still be made, but if I'm going to view romantic epics with a generalized viewpoint, I'll take what Costner has to offer as far as uniqueness and relevancy is concerned. Costner also does a decent job directing. He plays with the scope of a John Ford Western and intimate drama well. Both viewpoints work well through out the story and Costner competently films it all.

All the Real Girls

I dissent against this film while being a large fan of George Washington. That film was innovative in structure and style for a small budget film while retaining strands of realism that made the film stand out. DGG's follow up, All the Real Girls, only has the realism left over. The purpose is to make an honest and true love story, but capturing the minor moments of realism between a couple does not cut it. Any love story has to play to the experience of the audience. The film has some things to say about the meaning of a relationship, but has much more to say about the awkward moments in it. Capturing realism in such a story isn't truly capturing the real meaning of it. People will be reminded of similar moments instead of lasting impressions and meanings of a former love. Other filmmakers like Werner Herzog and Robert Altman had poor tendencies to question the best method of realism for a situation instead of ask questions about the morals and ideas of the story. DGG has a lot of potential and I root for him, but he invested in the wrong focus here.

The Magic Flute

My reluctance toward opera was overwhelmed by how good this adaptation is. It isn't what is changed that is good, but how the opera was presented. Set on stage, the film opens with faces of children in the audience. They sit happily anticipating the beginning of the opera. The wonderful faces set the right tone to smile at the rest of the film. Bergman films the stage recreation. Through out the story, he mixes in shots of a specific young girl. As a child, she can understand the gist of the story but not the specifics of the art, but she's still entranced in the story. Her enchanchment becomes ours. Bergman hasn't been one to adapt specific plays to film, but he creates the right atmosphere to make The Magic Flute both faithful to the original and something more than a typical adaptation. Bergman uses the right elements to make it grand entertainment.

Dog Day Afternoon

It's amazing Sydney Lumet was able to make a film like this in the 1970s. Not only make it, but make the main characters sympathetic to the audience. The general story is that two men take hostage of a bank to pay for a lover's sex-change operation. The implication of a homosexual relationship and a sex change operation was the last subject American audiences were ready to face. Lumet handles the taboo subject by keeping it hidden until late in the film, when the audience has already grown accustomed to the characters. The rest of the film is well handled. Lumet has two stories to worry about filmically, the inside the bank story and media frenzy outside. Many filmmakers deal with conflicting stories like this by having filming the media frenzy to look a well packaged commercial. They want the audience to associate what they are seeing as media coverage of a hostage situation to what they see in the news. Lumet instead films that portion to be a like a documentary instead. He doesn't allow that portion to be glitzy and out of sync with the rest of the film. He keeps the story sane. Al Pacino had a break out role here. The Godfather films put him on the map, but they also stereotyped him. Many critics commented at the time how this performance was the furthest thing from those films. It is. Pacino plays a vunerable character who has an emotional center. Godfather Part II showed that Pacino needed to operate at the level of calm and deceitful only to locate the persona of Michael Corleone. Dog Day Afternoon not only allows him to give a different performance, but a much deeper one as well.

House of Games

Watching it now, this film fits into a mold that is very recognizable. Mamet has contributed to this with two later con movies of the same tone. But when it was released, it was something else. The film has numerous odes to and touches of Hitchcock, but Mamet adds a new texture to the formula. The first is the acting skills present. Hitchcock sometimes had amazing actors in the likes of Henry Fonda and others, but mainly he dealt with Hollywood likes. Mamet utilizes a lot of his theater crew in House of Games. The second is the stage aspect from Mamet that injects into the story. The characters have a much more developed script with a greater degree of nuances and language to attack the themes. Mamet is remiscient of Billy Wilder who dealt with different genres and stories but always carried a tone of craftmanship to everything he did because he was always the writer. Hitchcock would pick from a jumble of projects and once Hollywood executives understood he was geared toward suspense, the offers of scripts sometimes became too repititious of what he had already done. Like Wilder, Mamet injects an organic center into a common Hollywood story and makes it his own.

8 1/2

The film of liberation for film artists. The comment comes with some considerations though. This film wasn't technically innovative or new. Fellini borrows tricks from numerous other films. Some of those films were more ambitious and technically innovative than 8 1/2. This isn't also doesn't feature a deeper story for Fellini. La Dolce Vita was a crescendo work for Fellini as far as realism and character depth in story goes. 8 1/2 features a silly story with even sillier symbolism. The scene with Mastroianni whipping all his women to keep them in line is a comic charade of any ambition that the film has to develop themes between Guido and his women. The end, featuring a mysterious ambigious ending in whether Guido killed himself or not, is a false question. There is little question what happens. It's so little it doesn't even matter. The film matters though because of the inert feelings that tie the filmmaking to the emotions in the story are so strong. When Martin Scorsese introduced this film years ago, he described the story and themes by repeating the word "pressure". He wasn't devaluing the film by simplifying the emotions to just one word. He was addressing the fact that film was less about story and character and more about the composite of the scenes and feelings involved to be about one essential feeling. Fellini was making a personal film that he believed in but his true megaphone was the camera movements, music and accumulation of scenes that made less of an impression for quality story as they made an impression of a filmmaker or artist who had the experience to feel what Guido felt in his search for clarity. Art critics depend on the insight of their impressions of a piece. Only so much can be said about the brush strokes and their history. Quality can be gaged, but the true meanings lie in between the strokes. The true meaning also lies in between the scenes of 8 1/2. This film was liberating for filmmakers because it allowed them to tackle personal commentary within the narrative. Later filmmakers like Terrence Malick and Andrei Tarkovsky have excelled at this branch of filmmaking. They feel it's their best chance to find true meanings.

She's Having a Baby

My favorite John Huges movie. The only regret is that Hughes makes this movie look too much like a 1980s commercial. Too many sequences play out to 80s fantasy. I think this film was stylistically out of date within three years. Other than that the movie is the most heartwarming by Hughes. When I watched Apatow's Knocked Up, I was reminded of this a lot. Both are about young parenthood and the trials of dealing with responsibility and making the transition to a working parent. Knocked Up is really funny, but She's Having a Baby made me question parts of myself to see how I could fit into that world. Hughes does amazing editing work at the end to highlight the thoughts, pains and joys going through Bacon's head right before delivery. I liked Ferris Beuller, but not much else by Hughes. He graces this story with a pure talent in Bacon and not an amateur in Estevez or Judd. The right combinations make the movie work.

Lush Life: A Biography of Billy Strayhorn - David Hajdu

David Hajdu does his best to give an unlikely subject in music history a full biography when it is assumed details would be lacking. The importance of Billy Strayhorn should be understood in that he gave Duke Ellington the creative push that lifted him out of a creative slump and made him an important figure in the late 1950s and 60s when the face of Jazz was rapidly changing. It's just that Billy Strayhorn was Ellington's arranger and not exactly a major figure. Strayhorn bridged friendships with major figures, but lived a life of an openly black homosexual in the 1950s. Even his outward looking friends knew the dangers of it. His identity made him a back figure to music history. Hajdu rescues Strayhorn from obscurity and celebrates him. Sometimes the book is based too much on interviews, but Hajdu is the best candidate for the job because he is a biographer and a critic. The importance he places on Strayhorn's work is the best commentary he can give.

Cancer Ward - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I remember reading a book on studies of Eastern European literature in the 1960s and 70s. It commented on the political restraints writers faced, but made a better point in that Western reaction was to sometimes award these novels with greater reward than their talent merited just because the work came from a tolitarian state and had to will itself to our shores. Solzhenitsyn makes Cancer Ward a perfect example of this. His novel is a multiple story of the happenings and goings of an impoverished Soviet Union hospital. Some characters have political bents and some just have offbeat ones. Their cliches is that they all become interesting on general humane levels. The worst that a serious novel can do is give the audience characters and situations that just tug at their emotions and get them to sympathize. I cared about the characters in the book, but I wanted more detail about the grimness of life. What I got was a grand style sweep that made reading the novel more fun than it should have been. There is even a subplot romance that got me interested in the possibility of an unlikely romance, but it is nothing but a small side bar to the story. Romances like these come when the author is fearful their audience is getting bored. It also happens as comittment to a genre standard. Cancer Ward has elements to appease every kind of reader, but no elements that will challenge them. I only saw moments of sincere realism or detail to life that in the end the finished product wasn't worth the subject or theme.

Sontag and Kael: Opposites Attract Me - Craig Seligman

I read this out of simple appreciation. Like Craig Seligman, I too have a distinct attraction to both Susan Sontag and Pauline Kael. The benefit of Seligman's book is that he makes his personal affection a drawn out work. The structure is basically a commentary on both authors and the narrative voice is as casual as a conversation. He doesn't start at their beginnings and go until the end, but hits earlier and later periods often and with ease. The reader who is already well versed in the writings of both writers won't learn anything new here, but they will get a picture of Seligman's appreciation for them. Since the book is sometimes as much about Seligman as it is Kael and Sontag, it makes the book a personal journey as well. I'm not an expert on either writer so I also saw this book as a good introduction to them. This book isn't a mighty or grand work, but since books about both writers are very few in number, it's a special accomplishment nonetheless.

If They Move . . . Kill 'Em!: The Life and TImes of Sam Peckinpah - David Weddle

There is a place for criticism, but the starting point for understanding most artists and their work begins with a good biography. What a good biography can do is align the artist with his or her time period and best give a context to their work. Biographers are always favorable to their subject, but they are also more likely to speak about the artists intention with a given work before a critic is. Too many times a critic will give his idea of what the artist's intention should have been! Then the enormous details in a good biography is a happy bonus. This book is the best biography about Sam Peckinpah. It takes his excesses and doesn't try to rationalize them but instead explain them. David Weddle, the biographer, has a good filter in what perspective to give Sam Peckinpah the man that doesn't amount to neither a smear campaign or a blow job. It's level headed. But the best part about this book is the excellent story of how Sam Peckinpah came to be the filmmaker he was, mixing a cowboy-esque background with theater. The two contradictions in Peckinpah's life worked themselves out in a film career. Peckinpah was enough of a character in real life to make any biography a fun read, but this is an insightful rendering of an interesting man.

Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander - Gary Berntsen

Personal fascination. These books seem to come by the truck load and are written (or ghost written) by people who just basically tell their accounts of what happened out in the field of war. Sometimes unlikely serious films come out of them (Syriana from See No Evil) or TV series are made (The Unit from Inside Delta Forces). Jawbreaker was suppose to have been adapted into a film, but it's still a fun read for me. The world of Special Forces and Military Ops has endless interest. The subject in this book is the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. Considering the headline grabbing subject of the book, one would expect interpretation and ideas into why he hasn't been caught, but Jawbreaker is just an account of one of the better chances we had to catch him and didn't. The book even skirts the chance to make a big deal out of that missed opportunity. There are a few political overtones, but not many. It is military perspective of a military mission. Since I have no problem with that, I considered this a decent read. I have even come to enjoy all the black blotches on pages detailing guarded information about missions and details that can't be made public. It's the sign of authenticity.

The Peabody Sisters: Three Women Who Ignited American Romanticism - Megan Marshall

The times of transcendentalism in nineteenth century America. Many notable writers of this period have been discussed, but with this biography, add the Peabody Sisters, especially the eldest, Elizabeth. Megan Marshall makes her a fascinating subject as she merges from the trials of her personal life with her greater achievements. Elizabeth Peabody opened progressive schools in the New England area, but the biography isn't just about her, it's about all the Peabody Sisters. This is what makes the book spin into lower tier stuff. The other Peabody sisters have accomplishments worthy enough to tell, but Marshall focuses too much on their personal relationships. The fact that Elizabeth loved the two men that eventually married her sisters is too vital in the book. Then the book ends with both sisters (Elizabeth never married) getting married to their ideal husbands to give it the glow of a Jane Austen affair than an actual serious study of their lives and time. What the Peabody Sisters did after the marriages is only the value of a small epilogue. Interesting book, but too many faulty parts and purposes.

Women: A Novel - Charles Bukowski

If I was a book reader during Bukowski's lifetime, I'd say my goal in life was to out live him so I didn't have to read any of his work. I'm finding it difficult to out live his legacy so I was forced to read a novel - something - by this man. I chose Women for no reason. Officially it is about a fictional writer, but basically it's a day to day account of Bukowski's continious affairs with women and half baked ideas about writing, art, women, education and everything else. Nothing he says is insightful or interesting. It is the parading of a man who lives for his ridiculousnesss because it is celebrated by others. There is no dimension to the character in this novel. It's about a three hundred page effort, but all the true character detail about Bukowski the person amounts only to a page. At the end the novel tries a rectification project by setting up a plot that truly pains Bukowski to his core and makes him re-examine himself, but it is too weak to have any conviction. It is closer to the wind down period of a drunk going through withdrawals and remorse before he sobers up. Whose to say the drunk won't just get drink again the next night? Bukowski makes an effort to correct his problems, but his self centered nature still exists. The attempt at redemption is a blow job attempt for anyone put off by how ridiculous the rest of the novel is. The people that hate it should hate it. They should because those who love it only do so because Bukowski is their prophet. No comment about that.

Caesar and Cleopatra - Bernard Shaw

Shaw mainly writes comedies so most of his plays are light, but Caesar and Cleopatra has to be one of his lightest and most fanciful plays. It's easy to say this because he takes two monuments of historical respectability in Julius Caesar and Cleopatra and makes a light farce of their story together. The play is still thick with ideas and objectives, but is the first work I know to imagine Cleopatra as a bratty child controlled by handlers and without a clue of how to rule. Shaw takes this step by noticing her age and the lack of intelligence and dignity in her father so there is a reason to exhibit Cleopatra in such an ungrateful light. Caesar is portrayed respectfully, but isn't considered a man in the play. He is part lion, woman and God. This combination of different traits allows Shaw to imagine Caesar as the dignitary he wants him to be. When Shaw creates a character that may have little recognition of the real character, it means Shaw has found the character in which to portray himself in the play. His works are always running commentaries. It makes for an impressive work because a large part of popular history is given a refreshing new look in Caesar and Cleopatra. The story is silly and some of the jokes even sillier, but there is true logic behind this play.

The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich - William L. Shirer

Years ago, I read that Napoleon Bonaparte was the most written about man in history until Adolf Hitler took his place. It means any book about Hitler or his era will be specialized instead of generalized. There is no book that encompasses the life and times of Adolf Hitler. William L. Shirer was witness to many activities during Hitler's reign and he does an excellent job to give the best overview of the era. This book is around 1500 pages, but has such a grace to the detail and storytelling that reading it once isn't enough. Years after the first read one usually always go back for a second dip. My father did and had to reward himself with a brand new edition to make the experience worthwhile. I recently got a new edition in anticipation of my second go around. I've read deeper and more thorough books about both Hitler and the Nazi revolution, but the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is an account of its popular history. The book makes the point that the Third Reich was never the empire it claimed to be, but public fascination made it to be bigger than it was. That explains the appeal of this book.

The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (The American Empire Project) - Chalmers Johnson

I found this book to be inspiring. I say that because it is poorly argued, poorly schemed and terribly repetitive but yet was published and went on to certain fame. Who says my half wit excuse for writing can't accomplish the same? Joking aside, this is another naive book about the place of a United States Empire. Johnson takes long enough trying to convince the reader the United States is an empire (a 'duh' fact in my book) and projects the eventual fall of the United States by comparing current problems to ones that took down the Roman Empire. I was not convinced the situation of an Empire hundreds of years ago has much relevancy to one today. Johnson may speak some basic theoretical truth, but he has no more insight over the course of his book than an essayist does in just ten pages. Johnson focuses so much on the general nature of Empire that basic points he makes are often repeated. The author figures a sympathetic audience to his concern will be able to accept the mediocrity. Agreeability isn’t enough for me to recommend this book. The United States is an Empire, but that’s the basis, not the extent, of analytical discussion.

Ran

Throne of Blood is considered to be the best adaptation of Shakespeare for another culture. There is support to the claim that Kurosawa does bridge a Western play to have an Eastern connotation, but Kurosawa doesn't do it to the degree that he does it in Ran. The film is an adaptation of King Lear. Shaw called this play the height of Shakespearean tragedy. Kurosawa adapts it to fit the heights of Japanese tragedy. The film starts out by showing the clouds in the sky. The film transitions into every shot of the action being from high above and afar. Shinto beliefs in Japan say that there are numerous Gods and they actively watch over people. Kurosawa's objective of the camera is to see the story from the viewpoint of a God. If this idea seems questionable, remember Ozu filmed the entire bulk of Tokyo Story from the level someone would see the world if kneeling down and praying. Kurosawa always admired Ozu and strived to make peaceful films like he did. Ran is his final hurrah with the war epic. The filmmaking could be said to be an imitation of other filmmakers like Ozu and Tarkovsky, but because of the themes and focus of the story and Kurosawa's majesty in filming battle scenes, Ran is also a filmic progression. You cannot compare Seven Samurai to Ran because both films had different filmmaking structures, but for me, Ran is Kurosawa's finest work.

Spirited Away

Review for the Japanese version. Miyazaki knows the girl of Chihiro well. He hasn't written exactly about her before, but he has written about characters like her for his entire life. His career has been an evolution to this film. He's done stories large and small, but Spirited Away is a transcending of the mold. The story is an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland. Miyazaki makes it a large epic, but does so to the pacing and effect of an art film. Meanings between characters are allowed to linger and meditate instead of be spelled out. Miyazaki also takes full advantage of excellent computer animation to marry his hand done drawing to modern effects. It makes the world radiate with visual wonder. Gene Siskel once said the best thing about Star Wars is that the corners of the screen were interesting to look at. That's a silly statement because Lucas was dealing patterns with space and the Death Star. The middle was suppose to resemble all the corners. In Spirited Away there is true diversity and depth to the images. The film is a never ending joy to the eye. Also one of the best aspects of this film is the structure. It not only keeps the story unpredictable, but keeps the situations out of easy identity and moods. Even if people do not know the history of the three act play structure in movies, they recognize it in everything. Spirited Away is closer to a symphony. Many moments are touching and the build up of a scenario, but these scenarios are molded together to keep us in awe instead of being done to formula to remind us of another film we've seen. It also makes the film do better as experience. The film I do not recommend is the American version. It takes away the mystery and satisfies the audience by answering questions in the story that shouldn't be answered.

City of God

It's understandable why Roger Ebert claimed this was one of the best films ever made. After years of indepedent cinema and gitty stories that appeased violence for exploitive means, City of God was the biggest and best film of them all. Scorsese and Tarantino gave violent films a critical acceptance so its obvious that City of God would be compared next to the giants of the film world. Technically, the praise is justified. The film has a very large story in 20 years to tell, but wraps it within an array of camera innovations and stylized storytelling. The effects never become redudant or repititive. The film has a lot to offer and shows that Meirelles had a lot of years in television work before tackling this story. His technical handling is never questioned. The story and depth of the themes are. City of God is in the vein of Goodfellas and other trendy violent films where depth is unseen or rationalized in awful ways. City of God offers very little new by way of characterization. The success is in the filmmaking. The good thing about Meirelles is that he did move on with his next feature and extend the talent of his camera abilities to an organic story. The praise here is for the pure talent within the film.

Waitress

I dare someone to find me a more pleasant movie to be released this year. The story is simple but the charm is great. Keri Russell plays a waitress who has found her passion and love in baking pies but has to live under the roof of a domineering husband and he always manages to ruin her day. Unexpectedly she finds out she is pregnant and has to decide what her fate will be with more responsibility on the way. A fling with a doctor occurs, but through it all, she comes out truly able to smile the way she did when she was a child. The movie is fantastic for making small situations the meat of the story. There isn't a large conflict or terrible accident. Everything happens in a small town fashion. That's the air the film breathes and every moment is peaceful and makes you smile. You're suppose to have afternoon books to read in a park to enjoy a beautiful Saturday. I'll take this movie for the time being.

Masculin Feminin

There is no doubt that Godard changed the structural basis a film could have. Breathless was deft in challenges to norms of editing and story. I have issue with his later approaches of criticism to larger subjects. Each film he did seemed to have no bounds to what is referenced. The Vietnam War and gender studies are on display here. The story isn't a story as it is a march through different topics and situations. The relationship it has to a normal story is that the same characters appear through out. Godard handles numerous subjects with little focus on one situation or subject. Everything is a reference and it makes the material appear too thin. Richard Lester criticized the subject of World War II and atomic annihilation with an even lighter tone than Godard in How I Won the War, but because he really focused on those subjects he was able to be successful. Godard is in another realm of critical thinking. As Susan Sontag said in her defense of him in the 60s, everything in the world of Godard is worth referencing and equivalent to any high cultured reference. Thus the meaning of a flower is equatable to the meaning of a real war. These ideas died out in cinema, but it's ironic that critics like Roger Ebert will call films by Richard Lester outdated and films by Godard not even though much of his critical process is now truly extinct. Some say it lead to essay cinema, but it's a moot point even if his ideas are long gone. Susan Sontag went back on them and even Godard said his work in the 60s was "bourgeoise".

Full Metal Jacket

It's admirable what Stanley Kubrick tries to do in Full Metal Jacket. The first half is a pronoucement of the horrors of war we come to expect with Kubrick fufilling the idea of boot camp being as rigorous as possible. The simple soldier, Joker, is supposebly "born to kill" afterwards. His experience in Vietnam shows he isn't ready. It shows it takes a lot more than boot camp to unconnect the nerves that keep us from killing. Kubrick paints the life a soldier in Vietnam to go against expectation. It's filled with a lot of down time and the talk of heroics instead of being shown it. Joker finally gets his brush with combat when his company is assigned to take out a sniper. The sniper turns out to be a woman and Joker has to shoot her straight on and watch her die. The experience humbles Joker to realize how tough it is to kill. The theoretical nature of Joker's experience into Vietnam is provoking, but Kubrick's art is too readable and artificial. Every portion of the story is aimed at one conceptual idea. It starts to reduce the scenes to have little significance. Also Kubrick's theoretical idea is too slim. The nature of killing has been brandied about in numerous works. The only difference is that the subject is about Vietnam. Kubrick distinguishes the place of war with just a few scenes of television cameras following the soldiers. There isn't enough depth into the situation of Vietnam or in the ideas Kubrick is interested in. When this was released, the only notable fictional films made about Vietnam was Apocalypse Now and Go Tell the Spartans! Platoon arrived at the same time, but wasn't around long enough to influence Kubrick to take the realities more serious. The other two films were either generic or fantastic.

Le Samouraï

An image means a lot to Jean-Pierre Melville. This case was proven when Alain Delon read the script for the lead role. Reading with Melville, Delon got only six pages in and agreed to the role. Melville snapped, "You haven't even read a line of dialogue!" Delon replied, "That's why I'll do it." It's an ancedote, but it is also telling. The image of Delon as the professional killer, lying awake in a bare bedroom, lingers through out the film. It invites us to wonder about a killer who goes about a rough job as if it was routine and commonplace. Delon personifies the look and actions. Melville just doesn't take the characterization far enough. In Army of Shadows he played with roles like Delon's, but he gave the characters and their unfortunate situation a greater context. Le Samourai is given a questionable plot that does little to add to the killer. Melville, a master of tone and frame, makes Le Samourai breathe too closely to lesser works of hollow style. A lot of the imagery is powerful and contemplative, but those images aren't rewarded. A smaller effort for Melville.

The Passion of Anna

One of Bergman's best dramatic offerings. The story involves an isolated man starting a friendship with a couple and a romantic relationship with an unsteady woman. The dynamics between all four make for interesting happenings, but Bergman makes the material thrive by having a lack of beginning and conclusion to each character. Emotional heights come in the stories but they aren't concluded. They linger in the characters through out the film. The film also makes a point to tell the stories at precise emotional moments. The stories are chronological, but feature the moments that go in between sadness and revelation. They reach the characters at the point of their confusions. By the end our lonely protaganist played by Max Von Sydow is wandering an isolated road lost in emotions and despair. What to make of everything that happened? He has no clue; it was too intense. Bergman applies the right grain and grit of realism to capture the intensity that jars our senses to comprehend the emotions we feel in tough situations. Even the audience has to catch their breath and stand back from the story to understand it all.

3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Another old Hollywood film is rebooted and remodeled to look fresh again. When 3:10 to Yuma was made in the late 1950s, America was fascinated by the Western. It was one of the most popular genres in movies and over fifty television shows were dedicated to the Western within a 5 year timespan. Hollywood was milking the genre so dry that producers started looking for the most convoluted plots and stories to keep some freshness in what had become a stale genre. Enter 3:10 to Yuma. A rancher has to help escort a criminal to Yuma to put him on a prison train. If he does so he gets enough money to save his ranch. The rancher and criminal bond and digress over their unlikely similarities and even save each other's life. The criminal takes sympathy in the rancher's story and in heroic fashion, he saves the rancher's life with his wife present (she comes in late to up the sentimental ante) and goes aboard the train willingly. The updated version has the rancher's 14 year old son making the surprise appearance. The final battle is absurd as townspeople try to kill the rancher to collect reward money. He dodges bullets and gets the criminal to agree to go for the sake of the money and a respectable self image to present to his son. If that's unlikely, when the rancher is finally killed by one of the criminal's gang members, the criminal kills his entire gang and then gets aboard the train afterwards. This really is pretty silly. Not only is it not believable, but it's not important. Hollywood exploits a simple story of poverty to ridiculous scenarios. The filmmaking makes everything look realistic by having the fighting and make up look so. Russel Crowe and Christian Bale get to enjoy exploits of a story that is superficial fun for an actor to do. Crowe has the most fun by playing the antagonistic criminal. Bale still proves he has little personality or emotional core to his performances. The grittiness of his look is the only thing that makes his desperation feel believable.

Downfall

The subject of Adolf Hitler looms large over the 20th Century. Downfall is the second serious film made about the notorious Chancellor. The first, a cultural study, was Syderberg's Hitler, A Film From Germany. Downfall is the necessary personal film about Hitler. Set during the final ten days of the Nazi regime, the film looks into Hitler's last days as he agonizes over lost battles and momentum shifting the other way in the war. Bruno Ganz plays Hitler as a man who can be compasssionate to the people closest to him but of control when reeling in anger after hearing news of continuous losses in battles. The film also shows the fate and last breaths of a cast of historically infamous people. The film makes the fall of Berlin a large project of realism for everyone involved. Hitler A Film From Germany cast a light on the unrecognized influence of Hitler around the rest of the world. Downfall casts a light on the personal side of Adolf Hitler and his cohorts. This is important because many people refuse to acknowledge the human side of what is considered pure evil. The film doesn't try to make meaning out of Hitler's mystique, but it does try to personalize him. The other major realist film of the time was United 93. It focused on the last hours of a fateful event, but that film focused so intently on the hijack that it was trying to make a hostage scenario a telling event for our history. It has importance, but doesn't doesn't encompass 9/11 or the War on Terror. It's an easy story to scare the audience and make a sad subject tragic. Downfall takes on the large breath of life in Berlin and focuses on those who have been cast in the shadows due to our uncomfortability. The film is a wholly re-imagined view of the swirling events surrounding Berlin at the time. It is an important recreation of history. The regrettable aspect is that some lesser stories in the film try to be comment on the problems of the war. The comments are superficial and break away from the wonderful realism of the story.

The Mystery of Picasso

Kudos to the producers for forcing this project upon Pablo Picasso. Though Picasso will live forever on screen thanks to his brief appearance in Cocteau's The Testament of Orpheus, it was this 1956 documentary of Picasso in action that has the most meaning. Picasso paints a few paintings on a transparent canvas. It shows how some paintings begin as small doodles of other objects but eventually transform to become something else entirely. The process of Picasso is truly fascinating. This film doesn't exist as a creative project, but it is an important document to carry on forever.

Art School Confidential

In the same vein of humor of Ghost World, but a much different film. Ghost World is a character piece about two girls, who through the force of time and change, drift apart from one another. The story features similar jokes and attacks of society that are in Art School Confidential, but those jokes exist in a story that has a different purpose. Art School Confidential has a protoganist, but he is a mechanism within a film that is a large critique of the art school racket market. The first half of the film is a series of attacks and slams against the art culture. In the second half of the film a story picks up a plot and follows a story. The details of this story have little importance. The film still stands to criticize this world. It just does so by the showing the determination of someone to sell himself out to the art world so he can become a success. The fact the tone of the film becomes melodramatic is a satiric move. The protoganist in peril of lost love is only momentarily shaken until he can find a way to make his gloom a success, no matter what the cost is. The serial killer subplot is silly but is almost irrevelant. It is just a set up for the protaganist to jump accused artist to legend in his own time. The film never loses sight of the basis of criticism that begins the film. Because the film is structured as so, it has more intrigues and laughs. Every joke relates back to experience of dealing with people of a similar vanity or jarringly reminds you of yourself at your worst moment. The scenario of Art School Confidential is not just true of art schools, but all colleges. The subtitle for this film could be, "If you don't know what you're doing it must be art."

Heartbreak Ridge

This movie can be best described as a Clint Eastwood vehicle. The story exploits Eastwood's legacy of a tough guy persona and puts that persona through the ringer of a sentimental comedy. The sentimental element of Heartbreak Ridge is hokey, but the comedy is authentic. True marine humor is the funniest humor I've ever heard. Most marine movies try to have it but fail. They never are crude or imaginative enough. Heartbreak Ridge is the real deal for excellent marine one liners and a beautiful thing because of it. The fact this film would offend 70% of audiences today is its credibility. A movie of this authority is rare and remiscient of the days when Hollywood yearned for authentic cowboys to write dialogue for Westerns instead of yuppy scriptwriters who had just seen a lot of Westerns and considered themselves the authorial voice. The marriage of the fine dialogue to a great tough guy persona like Eastwood's makes for a charming and good comedy. Of course charming is a funny word for me to say considering the degree of offensive humor in the flick, but Eastwood really does come off as very likeable.

Grindhouse

The main concern is Quentin Tarantino. Robert Rodriguez continues to make movies that are so bad that they are beneath comment. It's sad that his best work was the first two Spy Kids movies. Quentin Tarantino has degrees of talent but almost no control in how to use it. Since the beginning he has told stories in a movie universe. Even the quasi realistic Resevoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are major bows to a genre or two. The difference in Pulp Fiction with comparision to his later films is that the Tarantino narrative thread was more prominent than were the genre references. I've seen numerous gangster films, but none structured and told in the manner of Pulp Fiction. The continous problem for Tarantino is that he stopped adapting the genres to his world but started adapting his world to the genres. Kill Bill has a lot of differences, but looks and feels like many other kung fu flicks of the same nature. Death Proof is almost a complete replica of the structure and story of how one of these exploitations revenge flicks would look. The fact that Tarantino has a few good moments with dialogue almost doesn't matter. I felt the stiffness and boredom of Death Proof that I felt with any exploitation flick like it. Tarantino is becoming a bigger proponent of "Z" cinema all the time and is getting closer to replicating their worst tendencies in his films.

The Last King of Scotland

The Last King of Scotland is a film where the filmmaking and acting truly lift the story. The script, adapted from a novel I have not read, places a young Scottish doctor in the incredible position of being spokesperson for the ruthless General Idi Amin of Uganda. The relationship between the two men is so unlikely a lot of scenarios are far fetched excuses and rationalizations why this could happen. None of it is really believable. The subplot at the end and dramatic escape from Uganda lifts the material to pure melodrama. The film stinks as most historical films do that force white characters into a black historical situation. Of course I could be wrong and this story could be accurate, but my investigation said it was fiction. But the positives of this film is the filmmaking. Kevin Macdonald, a filmmaker I don't know at all, handles the realism with the expected use of hand held camera work. The credible thing is that he doesn't base the entire film on this. He mediates between good realism and professional camera set ups that use bring in different tones and textures. The variety of shots mixes well together with the story. The acting, much applauded, holds up well. Forest Whitaker does well to bring the General to life, but his character doesn't have the true depth. It is in Dr. Garrigan's character who has a full revolution from cocky hopeful to power mad political tyrant and all the way down to a broken down mess. James McAvoy impresses with charm and then with conviction.

One Fine Day

They say when you fall in love that everything the other person says is funny and charming. The script of One Fine Day wouldn't do much to stand out just on paper, but in the hands of George Clooney and Michelle Pfeiffer and their good chemistry, it makes everything feel genuine and clever. The film is a true dedication to a classic romantic comedy of the 1930s or 40s. Usually when moden films try to ressurect old genres, I am annoyed. Either they replicate the qualities of the genre in the wrong note or they try to lift the genre to hold large dramatic comments that were never intentioned for the style. Million Dollar Baby was that exact failure in the latter department but One Fine Day hits every right note in what is usually a problem in the former department. It is easy for a guy to say they like this movie and blush. It's another thing for them to watch it and private and blush at the moments they care about. I do that for this movie. It's a small, but good accomplishment.

The Vanishing (1988)

This is considered a classic thriller, but it is better as a film experiment. When a couple is traveling and the girlfriend of the man suddenly disapears, he goes on a three year mission to find her. He realizes it is not a simple disappearance but more likely a kidnapping. The film keeps the details of what happens to her hidden, but it shows the life of the kidnapper. The structure of the story begins to parallel the kidnapper's with his victim. The details are interesting. The kidnapper lives a normal life with his family and has everything in order while the victim is a mess personally and hasn't rebounded since his girlfriend was kidnapped. By technique of plot device, the two finally meet. The victim is allowed the chance to find out what happened to his girlfriend if he also agrees to meet her fate. He reluctantly accepts it. The film got large press because of the shocking ending. When Seven was released in 1995, both endings were compared and ultimately The Vanishing was considered to have the better one. I agree, but it's a false accomplishment. Any film that bases its quality on its end has little going for it by way of story and characterization. This is partly true about the Vanishing too. The duality of the story is interesting, but it's a limited effect. When the film ends, greater questions come to mind about the motivation and nature of the kidnapper and his victim. The film making a note to show the differences of their lifestyle seems to be the most superficial differences to detail.

Silence of the Lambs

Silence of the Lambs understands the right elements to make a truly terrifying villian and wraps that knowledge in a sophisticated thriller, but misses the boat for everything else. To make Hannibal Lector work is to make him not repulsive first and foremost, but instead engaging. Anthony Hopkins adds charm and delicacy to the role when Brian Cox just played it staight for Manhunter. Then there is Lector's situation in the film. Most of the time he is locked up and unable to harm anyone, but he is terrifying the more you get to know him. The closeness creates fear and removes the knowledge he can't hurt you from your brain because you only imagine what he could do to you if he was free. The way the film trickles around this idea makes it a superior scare, but there are deeper themes it shows nods to without delving into. Clarice Sterling and Hannibal Lector get to know each other and begin to become drawn to each other. The audience takes notice of their similarity of their past situations. Then the script makes a direct reference by Lector saying, "People would think we were in love" in one scene. Jonathan Demme said he was conscious about the similarities but didn't do enough to distinguish it. To his credit, he was able to win a Best Picture Oscar anyways, but the film doesn't have enough of an emotional core to really merit the acclaim. Silence of the Lambs is one of only three films to win the top 5 Oscar awards of its year. The film is many good things, but mostly being a "psychological thriller" is kind of a let down.

Children Of Men

The funny thing about Children of Men is that it isn't much of a science fiction film. The story is set in the future with a theoretical situation that would ask us large questions, but the structure of Children of Men has little to do with those questions. The film is more remiscient of stark social thrillers of the 1950s and 60s. The film I kept thinking about was Andrej Wadja's Kanal. That film was about soldiers using the sewers of a city to get to other end in a losing battle. The film is just about their dangerous travel. Children of Men is about Clive Own trying to get a pregnant woman through a war zone to a thing called The Humanity Project. The story zig zags with plot twists and unfortunate deaths, but the meat of the film is the long tracking shots of the brutal situations the characters have to get through. The film has little of a dramatic core but the production detail in the filmmaking is unbelievable. The fact there aren't many cuts really distinguishes everything that is accomplished. It makes everything that happens look more unbelievable and exhilarating. As far as emotional depth, I'm not sure. Two important characters are killed during the beginning half of the film and then another at the end. The film doesn't allow us to really get to know these characters. The meaning of Clive Owen and Julianne Moore's characters is mainly in their past and the film talks little about it so the film suffers from spoken dramatics instead of an organic dramatic core. The audience does get to know the baby in question, but the film shouldn't be taken to heart for the other unfortunate scenes. The story utilizes those scenes to pull the audience into the story. They are easy to pull off. The thrills in the story are more interesting.

Superman II

I think this is the best of the Superman series. I use to like the original, but a recent rewatch of it showed a love story that wasn't developed enough and special effects that looked awful. In the two years since that movie was made, effects didn't get much better, but the filmmakers focused this movie on just being a good action exploitation. There was little ambition. Superman II has all the right elements of dramatics, comedy, romance and adventure. In the tale of quality Superman movies, Superman II is sadly the only stand out. But the movie isn't even that good. It's a fun exercise that mixes laughs and good memories. Because the laughs are still funny today you get more than usual with these kind of movies. Recommended.

Casino

The most honest moment in Goodfellas was when Ray Liotta said the mafia was just protection for people who couldn't go to the cops. That piece of dialogue came at the beginning of the movie. The most honest line in Casino is at the end when Robert De Niro describes the transition of Las Vegas from mob controlled to corporatized and ready for the average American. The rest of the film, like Goodfellas, is a grandoise rendering of a rise and fall of a criminal. The film is based on facts but the stoy has as much honesty and depth as any old gangster flick. Scorsese commits himself to the old Hollywood vehicle. The good news is that this commitment brings better results with filmmaking than it did in Goodfellas. Scorsese puts on a stylistic show with his camera and allows actor narration to perfectly match with camera movements and literally pan through five scenes in less than a minute and give more action and information in that one minute than most other Hollywood films would in ten minutes. Scorsese's talent has never been questioned and is proved here. He does some amazing virtuostic acts with the filmmaking in Casino. It's a shame the subject is the mafia and it barely reminds us of his early days when characterization meant a lot more to him for this subject.

Open Range

Kevin Coster makes an authentic western with Open Range. That is true because the subject, free-grazing and its legality, is one that could only exist in the West. The subject is so dear to the West that critics took exception to it having any modern meaning. Costner stays true to the genre by filming the stoy with a picturesque focus. Large prairie highlights most of the simple story. I hadn't seen this used normally in a Western since the 1940s. It is easy to mimic techniques of the past, but Costner utilizies an unpopular format of storytelling for the Western to appropriately tell this story. His dedication is commendable. Costner's dedication is true until the final shoot out when he mixes in modern editing techniques to increase the energy in the action. This change doesn't ruin the film though. Too much of it is good and pleasant. Costner also gives himself a depth role and reminds everyone he can act. Annette Benning has always been an underrated actress and she makes a classical role feel true and Robert Duvall is always a breath of honesty. He not only brings conviction to his performances, but textures his roles with experience. For the character of an aging rancher, experience is the perfect ingrediant.

Tender Mercies

I'll quote a large comment that I still believe in. When Tender Mercies was released in 1983, the NY Times said Robert Duvall was "America's best actor. He's our Laurence Olivier." Duvall went on to win an Oscar for his performance in this film, but both the comment and performance have been forgotten today. Duvall shortchanged his future by taking too many character roles after Tender Mercies and not challenging Robert De Niro and Al Pacino by taking on more ambitious roles. Laurence Olivier, himself, speaking about his own career, said in the early 1960s that he was the best actor not because he really was the best but because he challenged his talent with the greatest roles. In 1983 Duvall already had a resume that showed he might be able to do the same, but he aligned his career afterwards with too many familar roles and he wasn't afraid to be in the background of a scene. The greatness of Tender Mercies is that you are allowed to be carried back to the heights of his career with a role so simple but a performance so commanding that Duvall's performance itself challenges the bounds of the story. He could have played this role straight. The story of a troubled singer coming to terms has been done well by lesser actors. But Duvall adds so much nuance and patience that every moment looks like a personal experience for him. The filmmakers probably had an idea to simplify the story and create an atmosphere, but I believe Duvall challenged them to take it even further with his performance. It bleeds of too many moments of drawn out pain and hurt. The camera spends so much time on Duvall that the recording of his portrayed pain really becomes our prolonged admiration of his talent.

Cars

Usually I would say Pixar could do no wrong, but then I'd have to ignore Cars. A terrible piece of entertainment, the movie proves that within Pixar movies lays a formula that has been repeated through out all their releases and unless you add a large amount of imagination and wit, you are doomed to a 1930s rolling out of a product that will make money but not challenge your bounds. The good thing is that Cars is the only mistake by Pixar so far. Nothing about the story or characters are fresh or interesting. What is new about the movie is the realism of the animation. Where animation was a language and simplifcation of our world to its own aesthetics and beauty, Cars tries to get animation to reflect the complexities of details in our life. John Lasseter promoted the new computer effects used in the movie. He didn't do good. The effects, meant to enthrall, just overload on the visuals. The fact the story involves many high speed chases with large amounts of details and objects make the wonderfully precise animation all that more worse. Brad Bird, in all of his efforts pre and post-Cars, still simplifies the animated world. He details the objects meant to catch our attention in a scene and simplifies the rest of the scene. He takes advantage of new and excellent computer animation but doesn't over step basic principles of animation aesthetics. Cars has absolutely no sense of these aesthetics. Our only salvation is that 3/4 of the story is set in a remote desert town, but if it was a city with lights and objects everywhere, there is little doubt Lasseter wouldn't have tried to capture it all.

The Sting

For this to be a good B movie or generic entertainment vehicle is understandable and makes the film more recommendable, but it is the 1973 winner for Best Picture. That's too much. The film only conists of a plot. Two con artists arrange an elaborate sting against a crime lord. The film follows suit to wrap the entire story within that "sting". Paul Newman and Robert Redford can play charming and likable with their eyes closed and that is all they are asked to do. The film doesn't even have any characterization for the men outside of the con. Because the film is only about the con the story becomes depedent on the twist ending so spoiling it ruins much of the fun. The only feeling this movie gives you is self gratification at who was suckered and fooled by these likable men we've followed the entire way through. When Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid came out in 1969, it didn't win Best Picture Oscar and some feel it should have. I don't think it should have even been nominated but when all the notables of that film reteamed for this one, the Academy felt they owed them an allowance for the oversight. I think the Academy should have just given them free tickets to the show instead.

Jurassic Park

Astonishing this film was released in the same year as Schindler's List, but Speilberg makes Jurassic Park a quality piece of entertainment. The interesting tidbit is that a movie like this would be rare today. When this was made in 1993 it featured standard editing techniques and a approach simple enough to allow the wonder of the dinosaurs take over the screen. Today a major Hollywood blockbuster like this would feature twice as many cuts and edits in the name of current trends but would lose the sense of awe and wonder that is found in Jurassic Park. Speilberg does intensify the editing as the story picks up speed and introduces chase sequences, but a simple scene like Sam Neil's character seeing a dinosaur for the first time would not be so simple if made today. The fact that Jurassic Park knows when to allow the editing to slow down and pick up goes back to Speilberg's professionalism but it also goes back to the time period. 1993 was before the techniques of the 90s style phenonomen found themselves inundated in Hollywood. Most times that style has become a distraction instead of a help. Films like Jurassic Park would not be helped with an over zealous and unnessary filmmaking. The use of CGI is also notable. 1993 was a beginning year for it and Speilberg concentrated the use of it for the dinosaurs. The story of CGI and other computer effects is that as it has developed greater sophistication more films have used it for things other than just the creation of large creatures. Recreations of worlds and places are also done by CGI so the saturation level of a computer effects in a typical film is much more obvious. Speilberg filmed Jurassic Park on a real locale with real destruction around the dinosaurs. It may be considered a small deal, but the loss of true locale shooting in everything that it encompasses is becoming sorta lost in Hollywood. Jurassic Park is the perfect mixture of good CGI effects mixed real action and setting. I've looked to other early 1990s action films for believable effects mixed with the best elements of realism. The Fugitive also comes to mind. It's a time I surprisingly miss.

Grizzly Man

The leastworthy point to make about Timothy Treadwell is that he is fascinating. Anyone who spends his summers with grizzlies in the Alaska wildlife is interesting. The question of true interest is what the film offers besides the sideshow. Werner Herzog says his general ideas and the camera crew gets the opinions of others who knew Treadwell. They recount memorable moments about him and give ideas to why he did what he did. This is of general interest because what they say is no more insightful than any television documentary about an interesting tale. But Grizzly Man is also different. It doesn't try to lift the tale of Treadwell by just pointing the camera at others. The majority of the film is home videos of Treadwell "live in person" with the grizzlies. It becomes obvious Treadwell is an obsessive character. He lives off breezy, self involved ideas why the grizzlies don't kill him. Nothing he says feels geniune because nothing he says seems to have any clarity to it. It's just the statements of a desperate man who is clinging to a futile existence. The documentation has an odd thrill and then quickly gets old. It all becomes redudant. Werner Herzog, our chief patron in film for documenting and fictionalizing obsessive characters, clings to Treadwell on the thin thread they are both obsessive. He's even admitted to it. I'd like more purpose in his subject of choice next time.

Whale Rider

Whale Rider has all the intangibles that makes a good Disney film magical, but it has the focus and dedication to story and theme that makes it something more than a live action ode to an animated genre. The story of Pai, a young girl born into an ancestry Whangara chiefs, is about a culture clash within an acient people. She has the blood line to become a chief but not the gender. As a girl she is out of the running. The story is her struggle to prove herself to an old fashioned grandfather who refuses to budge in his beliefs against her. His strictness even puts a stranglehold on their relationship of grandfather and granddaughter. The details at the end of the film, quite magical and wonderful, lifts the story into charted territories of Disney lore. But the realism and patience of this well crafted story in handling large themes with a small story makes it something more. Disney movies always reside in telling stories that test only our most basic sentimentalities. Whale Rider digs at the most inner beliefs of a people and tries to do it honestly. This added on texture makes Whale Rider a memorable experience.

The Last Boy Scout

A guilty pleasure for most, but since I have no shame, a true classic in my book. Actually this is my depression movie. Whenever I feel low, I watch this because it perfectly illustrates the capabilities of my antagonism towards the world. Willis shines as a low life private detective with a great humor and perfect idea of life to those who hate it: "Water's wet, sky's blue, women have secrets, who gives a fuck?" and "Yea, I believe in love. I believe in cancer." or his self reflection mirror speech, "Nobody likes you. Everybody hates you. You're going to lose. Smile you fuck." The movie is nothing more than a B movie but so true to its antagonism and low viewpoint of life that a final scene of Willis calling his wife a lying bitch is actually romantic. Bruce Willis takes the basics of his performance in Die Hard and exploits it here. I don't mind. Damon Wayans is also surprisngly funny. In the history of movies that sums up someone's humor, Last Boy Scout sums up mine. Shows how typical I am.

South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut

Really funny. Better, really funny all the way through. Only a few moments stand out as just too stupid to be worthy of the concept and talent, but most the film is really funny. The only regret is that this was made in 1999. Still at the beginning of the series, the film was made when the writers were still getting better. I find many newer episodes to be both funnier and more graphic. Who knows how great a well made South Park movie would be if made today. The other comment is about the musical element of the film. Parker and Stone do well to make every song good and be able to ryhme, but the fact these guys succeed shows how little depth for entertainment currently resides on Broadway. The scheme South Park has is to have songs be semi clever and ryhme well and then put a generic music soundtrack behind it to just give the Broadway flair. Other plays have better talent in making the lyrics and dialogue really forward the story, but all that happens here is that they give a little color to the scenes. They really add nothing. I remember reading Parker and Stone received kudos from Broadway writers for their effort and they laughed it off. The fact that Parker and Stone laughed at it is more telling.

The Fugitive

It's a Hollywood flick, but also lays out the blue print to why Hollywood flicks like these work. The first is the choice of who the leads are. Even the most highbrow of critics applauded the appeal of the actors in this movie. At the time Harrison Ford was the most bankable star and Tommy Lee Jones was the best incarnation of charm meets antagonism. Those qualities today are a cliche with the show House and others. Then there is the script. It's a chase between two likable characters, but more importantly it's a respect game. Secondary characters are everywhere that the audience doesn't like. They are on both sides of the law from the stubborn Chicago police officers to the one armed man. Jones' character sides with one side, but the story is a continuous pull for him to side with Ford. It's what the audience wants most. This isn't a new idea for a story. It's actually done all the time. What makes The Fugitve memorable is that the interest and care in this struggle is so much more. Jones doesn't give in or show interest until the very end. His revelation of Fords innocence is as much of a relief to the audience as the woman in a love story finally falling for the right man. This film isn't true a love story per say, but it does bank on the emotional connection between Jones and Ford. The emotional core of The Fugitive should be studied for basic formulas in Hollywood. I once called the movie "today's best love story", but the purpose of that comment was to show how a thriller could encompass essential qualities found in not just a love story, but all kinds of movies. A basic screenwriting class would profess many aspects of The Fugitive.

The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp

Sometimes I like movies for small reasons. One example is the wonderful laugh of Roger Livesey at the beginning of the Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. His character, having just pulled a prank on an old friend, laughs openly at a restaurant. The two are military men of both different countries and sides, but respect each other. Livesey's laugh insinuates the level of friendship between them. When a joke is done onscreen usually the point is just to get the audience to laugh so the characters say the joke straight. When a joke is said and the characters laugh, it is a point of interaction. The level of charm and endearment between the characters is important for its success. Laughing on screen to a joke doesn't happen as often people think it does in movies. The important thing is that is hardly ever happens as well as it does in the Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Powell and Pressburger, capable technicians of other valued works, make an epic on the theme of friendship and honor over changing times. This theme became famous in Grand Illusion, but the best thing is that they don't try to copy that film. Instead they use elements of slapstick humor mixed with sentimentality. There is a good even play of absurd humor mixed emotional resonance. The purpose of slapstick is to demote the characters, but in Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, the characters represent comic tragedies who get to our sympathies because of their lovabilities. Sometimes we make too much of older movies because most of them were studio products. Considering what obligations this film had that were financial, the fact it still was able to be truly touching and poignant is a success. This doesn't equal Grand Illusion, but shows a theme and subject has many avenues in which to be gaged.

L'Avventura

Might be the best film I've ever seen. Michelangelo Antonioni makes a landmark film of new invention by configuring styles and theories of the past. The major innovation in the film is the use of landscape and scene to depict character emotion. Mis en scene and even creative geography were already viable ideas to use landscape for ideas, but no filmmaker uses landscape to the effect that Antonioni does. He uses broad strokes like a painter would. The cinematography is wonderful, but not overbearing. It doesn't take notice of itself. What it does is make the textures of the landscapes radiate even more. Antonioni accentuates the texture and look of the film by having his camera pivoted in stances and focuses. At first he is just filming to the norms of world cinema at the time, but then his camera begins to show greatness. It takes on architectural designs to add feeling to the film's design. As much as I have described the shell of L'Avventura, the dramatic core is still commendable. Monica Vitta is a staple of world cinema by being a better looker than actress, but the other actors punch the scenes with quality performances. Antonioni, for all his designs, also manages to keep the camera close to the performances to make them work even if Monica Vitti's performance is based on look instead of emotion. L'Avventura is also a landmark work because its the highest work of a popular subject at the time in focus about societies during God-less times. That not only refers to belief, but societal dilemma. Bergman touched the subject with his 60s chamber dramas as did other directors. Bergman had the ability to relate the subject back to personal experience. Antonioni makes a film of both personal experience and creative design. Some filmmakers are more grateful to technology than they admit for innovations, but Antonioni owes everything he accomplished to his creative genius.

Raiders of the Lost Ark

Two trilogies from the late 70s and 80s still stand tall for appreciatione value. One is George Lucas' Star Wars series and the other is Steven Speilberg's Indiana Jones. Both films were representative works for both filmmakers' childhood interest. They are serial stories that are no better than the cheap paper they were originally written on back in the 1940s. Both had technical accomplishments that don't look dated or embarassing today. Numerous other movies that were made that were popular then only look like cheap productions now. I can still watch Star Wars and not wince over effects, but that's the thing only thing going for the series. The film is a bland stylization of cheap dialogue and corny characters. The effects are the true stars. Raiders of the Lost Ark is based on a serial story, but the scenes are rewritten with enough modern humor and good writing to be justly appreciated. The film is also well filmed. Speilberg is many things, but unquestionably is a master filmmaker in Hollywood vehicles. The quality of his filmmaking in shooting action sequences that exhibit old Hitchcock idea of camera focus with modern styles used by De Palma. The fact Speilberg is able to manage different styles and trends and not overshoot the film is commendable. It also shows how little thought the filmmakers behind the Star Wars series had. The final compliment for Raiders is that is stays as just entertainment. Lucas wanted people to make a lot out of his special effects, but he also wanted as much attention to the philosophical ideas in place. They mean nothing when told for a story that is both ridiculous and dumb.

Inside Delta Force: The Story of America's Elite Counterterrorist Unit - Eric Haney

All military memoirs seem to be travelogues of hard battles fought on a harder terrain. There never seems to be a beginning or an end, but an existence of living in the details of a mission. Most of the military language falls on deaf ears with general readers, but fun characters and good ancedotes always seem to be around the corner to keep anyone interested. Eric Haney does this and does it well. The best part of Inside Detla Force is that it digs at the nature of the soldier. Haney begins the book with a prologue of his family history and idea of a warrior. It sets up the rest of the book to be a probe into the character motivations of top soldiers. The common viewpoint is to look at soldiers as those who are unlucky to be in a war not of their creation, but Inside Delta Force is about the top soldiers, career men who had every idea of what they were getting themselves into and had to do things and fight wars they didn't agree with. These men were able to find great pride in their work. The question of "how?" is at the heart of the book. The reader doesn't get an answer, but he does get an idea. It is the sole reason the book is able to produce a portrait of moral complication.

My Dark Places - James Ellroy

There is the auto-biography and then there is My Dark Places - James Ellroy's look back into the death of his mother and its impact on his life. Book publishers can advertise this the book in the vein of Ellroy's crime fiction because part of the book is an actual investigation into who killed his mother, but the majority is a grim tale of a childhood cursed by sad events and bad influences and how they impacted a soon to be teenager and young adult. Ellroy doesn't philosophize about the emotional ramifications of his mother's death and the insecurities it created within him, but acts as a beat writer reporting the facts and moving on. For an article, that would be a simple objective but Ellroy spends an entire book listing his faults and bad actions. The detail goes into subject matter so embarassing and tramautizing that one has to feel Ellroy is trying exonerate himself from the hate he held for his mother after her death. The investigation part of the book is interesting, but relates back to most true crime. The scary details of the biographical subject matter is the true fascination.

Positively 4th Street: The Lives and Times of Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, Mimi Baez Farina and Richard Farina - David Hajdu

A valuable read for me. As a member of the public who can recognize Bob Dylan and others of the 60s folk scene, but can't separate legend from reality, this insightful biography is the bridge to help me understand and relate to a few popular musicians of the period. The most notable is, of course, Bob Dylan. His misadventures is defined as a shy youth whose silence was confused for cool. Dylan tried to keep his biographical details under wraps in relationship to other musicians. The Baez Sisters and Richard Farina get the clearest portrait. Farina is shown as a showman always on the up while the Baez sisters are individuals just looking for their piece of the pie. Hajdu occassionaly reminds readers of general points of the place folk music had in the 60s scene, but this book is a dedication to a scene and period. The story seems to end as it began, which is inadvertently. Memory makes it look distinct, but the book loses itself in the details of life on the run and in the fast lane.

Sabbath's Theater - Philip Roth

Philip Roth's best novel. The character of Mickey Sabbath resembles Ignatius J. Reilly in both outrageousness and ability for depression, but Roth does a better job in rendering his character in realistic perspective than Toole did. Roth utilizes Mickey Sabbath as a character for outrageous adventure, but grounds his memories and reflections in real pain. Tool manages to make his account of Ignatius both fictional in adventures and character detail. Roth makes it a personal journey. It's always been known Roth's strong suit has been in character and psyche rendering. He's so good at it that some of his novels were lazy and only featured that talent. Roth extends himself by having so many imaginative adventures in this novel. Everything is sustained because the last thirty pages are just as insane as any other part of the novel. A Confederacy of Dunces goes past insane and heads toward absurd by the end but Sabbath's Theater at least keeps things grounded in a theoretical reality. The biggest shocks in the novel come from Mickey Sabbath's basic personality and viewpoint of life. In Sabbath's Theater Roth finds the perfect balance between character detail and fictional events. A great read.

Ask the Dust (P.S.) - John Fante

Another sophmore effort by a writer that comes off as nothing more than an inflated ego. The story of Arturo Bandini can be regarded as realistic, gritty and uncompromising, but considering the view point comes from Bandini himself it tends to be just self indulgent. Bandini (of course an up and coming writer) thinks the world of his own struggles and heartaches that he makes them to be quests of truth and struggle with great adversity. His romance with a waitress comes off as a sick obsession but is masked as true and earnest. His character is the picture of inexperience, a youth old enough to believe his greatness but not be old enough to realize its limitations. Our beloved narrator scolds the world and asks us to believe in him forthright. There is little growth by the end for us to believe a change will happen, but just an episode that will likely keep him to continue on the same path. The writing is also terrible and can be best described as a garage band version of professional writing. The point of the writing is to make the story more realistic, but considering the story didn't have a clue I'm going to assume the writing also came from incompetence as well. It isn't a credit to the author that the amateur Charles Bukowski is a great fan.

Screening the Sexes: Homosexuality in the Movies - Parker Tyler

The first major book about homosexuality in film. Parker Tyler makes the book interesting on a surface level by reaching into the history of movies to find examples of homosexuality in both large and small movies. He proves the veil that made old Hollywood so clean wasn't fully covered. More importantly though, Tyler takes issue with the nature of sexuality in film. One of his biggest points is that sexuality doesn't end with sexual preference, but instead begins there which means both hetero and homosexuality comes in all kinds of forms. It opens up the discussion to include all kinds of sexual natures and identities. Tyler is so thorough that he de-masks the title of his book so it doesn't represent just homsexuality, but the entire cosmos of sexual identity. The point Tyler tries to make, I think, is that since a lot of fuss is made over homosexuality, looking at sexuality as a fight between that and heterosexuality is making it a black and white issue. This had to be tough subject matter in the late 1960s. Screening the Sexes begins as an inspection of the back end of Hollywood history and concludes as a theoretical study into the nature of sexuality. It's everything we hope to get with a Parker Tyler book.

A World on Film: Criticism and Comment - Stanley Kauffmann

The best book of film criticism by one author that I've ever read. It's no secret I think Stanley Kauffmann is the best all around critic to distinguish film criticism, but this book has his best collection of works. A World on Film is about his first eight years with The New Republic. While he was reviewing during this time in the 1950s and 60s, he was going up against a lot of the best critics ever. Most of them were New York based so its easy to compare and contrast because they were all going to the same screenings. In my research I've found that Kauffmann always had the most to say about a film compared to anyone else. The 60s were highly political and ideological so a trademark of a critic was for his to represent one or the other in their reviews. Dwight Macdonald was most succeptible to this identity. Kauffmann was too, but his experience was in theater and literature. The good Kauffmann did with his education is allow it to guide the moral questions he asked about a film. He didn't expect translations of the arts he knew and looked to film to be its own art, but he did ask that film ask the large questions all other arts were forced to consider. It was the best approach because its taken for granted today that film is a combination of all the other arts. This is an excellent book. The only downfall is that Kauffmann took Godard head on without being more aware of his art.

The Magic Lantern - Ingmar Bergman

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Ingmar Bergman's auto-biography plays out like a work of art. In a magnificent career, Bergman was many things, but at the heart of it all he was a great writer. His later films became commands of the written word to delve into character. The Magic Lantern references his life in the production of different films and explains how a few of them were self referential to his own experience, but the bulk of the book is a guided history of memories through out his life. There is no beginning and end to the book. Bergman keeps away from making the book an account of details by allowing the chapters to flow freely through out his life. The structure of each chapter is based on the importance of its given theme or idea. His final feature film, Fanny and Alexander, was also a large take on his personal history and professional history. The film's personal history is self evident with the story, but the professional history is reflected in the themes and symbolism of other great works of art he uses to put into the film. Other artists have have made corresponding works about their life to have one reflect the other. If Fanny and Alexander is the fictional account then the Magic Lantern is the factual. The importance to do both isn't to just show what one lacks and the other provides, but to show that both works require amazing feats of inspiration to ring true in the sense that any work of art must. The good news is that the Magic Lantern is a major success.

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Christopher Hitchens

This book can be misinterpreted in a lot of ways. Many theologians today have tested Hitchens for his literalist interpretations of ancient texts. Theologians see revisions to texts as natural evolutions over the course of time while Hitchens sees them as evidence the word of "God" never was as such. On one level, God is Not Great is a survey of the ancient texts and how they should not give the picture of the merciful God we know today. A second level of the book is about the falsifications over time and their relevance. Modern readers may not be able to see problems with some of the chapters because the arguments seem archaic, but Hitchens wants the reader to understand the evolution of lies over the years. Limbo may not mean much to Catholics today, but it was a very real place to generations of people before. Hitchens makes outrage over it all of a sudden being non-existent in the Catholic Church. Christopher Hitchens is a political writer and shows his personality by writing about a historical subject in the fashion of its controversies and falsehoods over the years. Hitchens makes the book topical by presenting each of his complaints in its sociological context.