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)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

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


Categories
 


Advertisement