Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

CinemaRian Blog

  • The Reptile (1966, Great Britain, John Gilling) ***1\2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The Reptile  (1966)

    After three films I can be comfortable in saying this: John Gilling is a great lost auteur.  He's not a good horror director, he's just a plain good filmmaker, with a unique and compelling style that for some reason has never been adequately respected. 

    If you have to reduce his work down a genre, he's made two of the best horror movies ever made: The Plague of the Zombies (1966) and The Mummy's Shroud (1967).  Almost is good is The Reptile, which is would be in the league of those film if it had cut about ten minutes out of its climax.  Otherwise, this is a great movie.

    The brother of Harry George Spalding (Ray Barrett) has just died, and he and his wife, Valarie (Jennifer Daniel) plan on moving into the deceased estate in 19th century Cornwell.  Unfortunately, the town doesn't take kindly to strangers and they most definitely don't want to head out to the new couple's home.  Spoilers ahead.  A friendly bartender (Michael Ripper) tells them that the town has had a series of deaths from a strange plague of mysterious origins that no one is particularly keen on explaining.  The couple soon discover that the townspeople are not actually avoiding the Spaldings but their neighbors.  Aside from their servants, there are three, anthropologist Dr. Franklyn (Noel Willman), his daughter Anna (Jacqueline Pearce) and an  East Indian (Marne Maitland) who is mostly silent but seems to be overly interested in Anna.  Indeed, everyone seems to overly interested in Anna, who turns out to be one of horror's most tragic characters.

    With the possible exception of Karl Fruend, no horror director has better achieved the since of atmosphere that Gilling has.  The filmmaker draws us into the world of the film and makes us believe in events that would have been ridiculous in the hands of others. 

    In addition to the wonderful director, there is Pearce's performance as Anna.  Although her screen time is too short, she creates such a wonderfully likable and somewhat pathetic character that you can't help but really care about what happens to her.

    I know that some people who are reading this are thinking that they don't like horror film, and that The Reptile is just another boring '60's B movie.  While it is from the 60's, it is neither a B film nor boring.  It is a movie that deserves to be recognized on its own merits without it entering into the genre gutter.  To all movie fans: John Gilling is worth investigating.

    The Reptile (1966)


  • Ararat (2002, Canada, Atom Egoyan) **1\2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Ararat  (2002)

    Ararat is such an ambitious and well intentioned film that just to conceive it an achievement.  The problem is, I am not sure that it actually possible for any filmmaker of any talent to successfully pull this movie off.  It tries to simultaneously be a film about the 1915 Armenian genocide, a post-modern meditation on the meaning of truth, an Altman- like ensemble piece, a family drama AND a contemporary look at the ghosts of the Armenian genocide as seen from the point of view of the descendents of its survivors.  It may shook you to learn that the movie runs only an hour and fifty-five minuets.

    To be honest, I did not totally understand the movie's complex plot (or plots) so the summary will be somewhat simplified, but I'll do my best.  A famous Armenian movie director named Edward Saroyan (Charles Aznavour) is making a historical epic about the genocide (his mother was a survivor).  Specifically, he focuses the childhood of a real life artist, Arshile Gorky (Simon Abkarian).  He hires a local history professor, Ani (Arsinee Khanjian) as a historical consultant and she gets her son, Raffi (David Alpay) a job on the film as a P.A.  Raffi, whose father was killed while trying to assassinate a Turkish diplomat, becomes obsessed with the story and makes his own visit to Turkey, but on the way back he is stopped by a customs official (Christopher Plummer), who believes he may be smuggling drugs.  Coincidentally, the son of the customs official (Brent Carver) is in a homosexual relationship with actor Ali (Elias Koteas), a half Turkish actor who is cast in Saroyan's film as a Turkish villain.  Ali begins to question whether or not Saroyan's film fairly portrays history.  On top of all this, Raffi is in a relationship with his stepsister (Christine McFadden), who believes his mother is responsible for murdering his father.

    I've given this rather lengthy summary not to take of space so I don't have to write an actual review, but to demonstrate that this movie is truly convoluted.  The writer..director, Atom Egoyan (himself of Armenian ancestry) is really trying hard here, and after watching so many mediocre, predictable movies I had to admire him for that.  But I must also be honest and say that his reach exceeds his grasp.  There is simply too much material for such a short running time, and little of it is fully developed (how can it be, when every subplot or idea has to compete with so many others?).  I also haven't mentioned that the movie is told out of chronological sequence, or that fact the Egoyan frequently intercuts scenes from Saroyan's fictional film with the characters discussing the history of what happened.  Because so much expository material has to given, the character speak with an awkward directness, somewhat reminiscent of Woody Allen's Match Point.

    Another problem is that Saroyan's film looks to be better than Egoyan's.  I wanted to see a movie about the Armenian genocide.  More people need know about it, and I would actually like a David Lean- like filmmaker to make a big epic, as long its intelligent.

    The other content of the film ranges from compelling (Plummer as the customs agent) to the underdeveloped. The whole subplot regarding the Raffi's father is hard to understand, or frankly, to care about because the situation is so ludicrous.  How many people choose to get involved with someone when they believe their mother murdered their father?  Wouldn't that be a bit of a turnoff?

    And finally, isn't genocide important enough to carry a film on its own?   Why do we need this other material?  I get the Egoyan is being sensitive to the way history is portrayed in the movies, and I respect that, but shouldn't the majority of a film about a historical event that took place in 1915 be set in that year?

    Ararat (2002)


  • Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004, Great Britain, Beebee Kidrom) **1\2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason shares with its predecessor the number one thing that made the first film so endearing: Renee Zelweger as Bridget Jones.  Watching this movie, I realized that wouldn't mind seeing a Thin Man type series of Bridget movies, each one featuring the indominatatble protagonsit as she encounters another major life stage- marridge, children, perhaps struggling for tickets to see a Madonna concert.

    And for the first forty five minuets or so, this movie appears to be on the brink  of being the rare sequel that's as good as its predeccesor.  Picking up six weeks after the last film left off, this one finds Bridget in seeming bliss with her new boyfriend, Mark Darcy (Colin Firth).  But Bridget's paranoia is begings to take over and she tends to see problems when they aren't there.  Then it seems that there's a problem that is real- Mark is apparently having a too close for comfort "friendship" with fellow lawyer Rebecca Gilles (Jacinda Barrett).  But then the movie starts going on some odd and rather implausible tangents, including one that's stunningly bizzare and tantamount to racist (I won't reavel the surprise here).

    The first movie and the beginnig of this one were endearing light comedy.  The film, which could have essentially been a drama, was played slightly exagerated for laughs and always had a degree of plausablity.  But this film is misguided in its attempt to please the audience. (Moderate spoilers ahead).  I think that the director, Beeban Kidrom, and her four screenwriters (one of which was Helen Fielding, adapting her own novel) must have figured that bigger was better.  If the first movie contained a scene where Bridget exposes herself while sliding a fire pole that was funny, then her doing the same thing in this one while skydiving must been even funnier, right?

    The movie also thinks that we want a rehash of the first one, so we get a return visit from Daniel Cleaver (Hugh Grant), a jerk who tempts Bridget to return to him.  The problem is that we have must less sympathy for her this time.  What's that quote?  "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?"  Besides, every human being in the audince who has ever seen a romantic comedy knows how this movie is going to end, so we kind of wish that the movie wouldn't waste time with absurd (in a negative sense) sidetracks and get us there sooner, or maybe risk trying something unique.

    For the most part, this is not a boring movie, and at times it is quite funny, particularly in the first third.  But the satisfaction that came with the first movie was not there.  I would not mind seeing a third Bridget Jones movie, but she to exist in a semi-plausable world where I can care what happens to her. 

    Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004)


  • Jefferson in Paris (1995, USA\France, James Ivory) ****

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    The first surprise is it’s not really, really boring. The next is that Nick Nolte is actually plausible as Thomas Jefferson. The next is that it’s quite good. The third is that it’s really, really good, and very smart on top of that. The movie is two hours and nineteen minuets long, about a subject that many would find dull, and consists almost entirely of dialogue, but avoids all the traps that could have made in a treatment for insomnia. Watch this one late at night and you’ll probably force yourself to stay awake to see what happens next.

    As the rather bland title indicates, the movie is an account of Jefferson’s experiences as Ambassador to France, which Wikipedia states occurred from 1784 to 1789, although the film condenses the action down to considerably less than that times. The movie opens in 1873, as an elderly black man (James Earl Jones) prepares to tell a reporter his story- he is the child of Jefferson and one of his slaves. As expected, there is a flash back to the founding father as he visits Paris after the death of his wife, accompanied by his beloved daughter Patsy (Gwyneth Paltrow). Despite a deathbed promise that he would never marry another woman, Jefferson soon becomes involved with Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), an artist of English and Italian ancestry who is married to the homosexual Richard Cosway (Simon Callow). Spoilers alert! Everything is going well, and Jefferson seems prepared to move to France permanently to stay with her until he receives word that one of his other daughters, who has remained in the states, has died. Patsy never liked Maria, apparently out of an Elektra complex, and makes her father pledge loyalty to her first. Then he sends for his sole remaining daughter (Estelle Eonnet), who is accompanied by her fifteen year old slave, Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton).

    The first and most obvious success of the films is that Nick Nolte is quiet a good Jefferson. Unlike some other actors (such as Harvey Kitel) Nolte is successful at leaving behind his contemporary, urban persona, and we can believe that this man was an intellectual giant of the eighteen century. Ivory is also not afraid to show us Jefferson as a deeply flawed man- overly emotional, able to rationalize slavery to himself and also able to effortless abuse the underage Sally. His intellect works against him, as its too easy for him to come up with convoluted logic as to why what he’s doing is right (how someone who opposes slavery owns them, how someone who wrote that “all men are created equal” can morally equivocate on what that simple statement means). Nolte’s performance is complex, brave, intelligent, perhaps the best of this career.

    Ivory and his longtime screenwriter, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, also avoid the many of the clichés that so many others would have resorted to in a film like this. Sally is a victim, but she’s a real person, too. She does not exist for the sole purpose for Jefferson to abuse her. Rather she is an immature teenager who does not really understand what is going on around her, or what the real implications of her status are, although her older brother (Seth Gelliam) does. (For the record, Wikipedia states that researchers believe that Jefferson did not begin a sexual relationship with Hemmings until he had left Paris and she older, but it’s still kind of hard to give consent when you are a slave).

    All of the other major characters in the film are given the same treatment. This is a real drama about real people. Ivory has also made a great historical film here, we witness the flight of the first hot air balloon and the under currents that would lead to the French Revolution, as well many other, less glamorous events and customs of the day. This movie is second only to Barry Lyndon at really giving the audience the feeling of being in the 18th century. Can that suffice as a closing summation?

    Jefferson in Paris (1995)


  • Bridget Jones's Diary (2001, USA, Sharon Maquire) ***1\2

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    I could write a basic synopsis for 99.9% of all the romantic comedies ever made quite easily: two people who are absolutely perfect for each other meet and hate each other. They then slowly realize that they are really soul mates and become really happy, and them demonstrate their happiness by having sex. Their bliss is thwarted by some misunderstanding and their dreams are dashed. They eventually figure out what really happened and make up and get married, or become engaged, or at least there is some implication that they will be together forever.

    Bridget Jones's Diary looks to be suspiciously close to this formula at its opening, and indeed, the first twenty minuets or so are close to what you would expect. Even at that point, my cute sensors, usually only activated in the presence of a certain overweight feline or my Shetland Sheepdog, were aroused at the presence of Renee Zellweger in the title role. Not only is Zellweger cute, she is close to the essence of cute. I am not sure she is capable of not being cute.

    Zellweger is a pleasure to watch as Bridget, a slightly overweight Brit in her early thirties. She lives a lonely life and feels that she is becoming past her prime. We like Bridget, who is sort of a female, British version of Ernest Borgnine's Marty, but even more likable and not quiet as sad. Or at least, the movie doesn't want us to think so. Just as Marty would be a great husband but is totally unable to meet anyone, Bridget is trapped by the fact that she is painfully honest, sometimes inappropatley so. If this had been a standard movie, she would meet an unattractive (by movie standards) guy and they would draw each other out of their respective shells, but instead she meets a hunk played by Hugh Grant? Jackpot? Well, not really, but that's what makes this movie so good. It takes a fantasy and turns it on its head, showing that it's still sometimes just a fantasy.

    I suppose I have made the movie sound more serious that it is. Although it does have a dose of reality in it, the movie is very light, and at times humorous and always pleasant. Zellweger received an Oscar nomination for her performance, and she deserved it- although she exudes charm, she is not content to leave the performance at a Meg Ryan level and goes deeper (She lost to Halle Berry in Monster's Ball).

    It's actually kind of hard to watch her trials and tribulations, as we want her to be happy and find the man that she deserves very badly. The movie's main problem is the fact that it is still tied a bit too much in the standard romantic comedy vein. There are too many pop songs on the soundtrack, and Bridget's friends are, like virtually all friends in this type of movie, underwritten to the point that they seem like Bridget's groupies. But overall, this is a kind of wonderful movie that is a pleasant surprise. Their must be just as many Bridget Joneses as there are Marty Pilatti's, and here's hoping they all find the people they deserve.

    Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<November 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2627282930311
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30123456


Categories
 


Advertisement