Username Password Remember me Forgot password?

Wanna join? Tour Spout | Sign up

Find movies you'll love

CinemaRian Blog

The Swindle (1955, Italy, Federico Fellini) **

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

Under discussion:

Il Bidone (1955)

The Swindle, A.K.A. Il Bidone is a lesser film in the canon of Federico Fellini. There are among the first vestiges of what would later be termed "Fellini-esq." but the film lacks the formulism of his later work. I think that the main problem with the movie is it wants to be a simple, sincere fable, which is not something the Fellini was particular good at. To pull out the cliché of comparing Italian directors of the 1950's, this is the sort of material that would have been better if it had made by De Sica.

The movie begins as a cheery comedy about three conmen, led by American star Broaderick Crawford as Augusto. They conduct an elaborate scheme in which they pose as priests and take nearly all the money that poor rural people have. Most of the first half of the film follows the men as they rather aimlessly spend their money and live a mostly empty lifestyle. Things begin to pick up when Augusto runs into his teenage daughter (Sue Ellen Blake) who he hasn't seen in years. His moral consciousness finally awakens, and he agrees to pay for her schooling, somehow.

Fellini's upbeat quirkyness isn't really right for this story. The first half of the film is occasionally funny, but mostly just wanders aimlessly. The Italian actors are not that distinctive and Crawford is allright but a poor substitute for the first choice, Humphery Bogart, who turned it down. The second half is strangely uninvolving, as we never really care about what happens to him. This is also the 59^th millionth movie made, in even just in the 50's, about people sleeping through life and then wakening up. There were some excellent versions of this age-old cliché before (Kurosawa's To Live and Delbert Mann's Marty), but this does not rank among them.

Il Bidone (1955)

Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 11:28 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

Bulworth (1998, USA, Warren Beatty) *1/2

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

Under discussion:

Bulworth (1998)

Bullworth is stupid, patronizing, insipid and ugly. It is also sincere in its convictions, which makes it at times excruciating to sit through. A movie that pretends to say something by a hack like Patch Adams is easy to attack, since it's so manipulative, but almost as bad when a movie is by somebody who is convinced he has something important to say, but only reiterates timeless clichés. It's hard to believe that a movie this simplistic was made by the same man who made the fascinating and wise Reds, one of the best political films made in America, and that a film this visually grating was made by the visual stylist of Dick Tracy.

Beatty plays Jay Billington Bullworth, a Democratic Senator from California who is running for re-election in 1996. As the film opens, Bullworth is suicidal- he has been forced to abandon all of his 60's idealism and run as a family values conservative to win his party's nomination, let alone re-election. He is so tired of playing the political game that he hires a hitman (Richard Sarafian) to kill him when he hits the campaign trail the following day.

Having nothing to live for, Bullworth doesn't give the old stump speech at a black church and just tells the truth- that big business runs America. Like something out of a bad Frank Capra movie, the surprising but completely expected happens- Bullworth suddenly becomes super-popular. The rest of the film is a series of vignettes as the Senator loosens up and tells it like it is- often by rapping, which Beatty thinks is way funnier than it actually is. Can you believe that by the end, he actually has something to live for?

What is even worse than the story is the movie's politics. It's like a Kucinich supporter who keeps disrupting the Democratic party meeting. Beatty relays a series of left-wing litanies that are so simple it's its sort of a like liberal version of Rush Limbaugh. Every major policy problem facing America today has a simple solution, in Beatty's world. Beatty's argument is, of course, that politics should be free of corruption and big business payola, certainly true but in the DUH category. The movie's treatment of black people is borderline offensive. Every black person in the film is seen as a kind of borderline saint. There is no question that there are racial problems in America, but the movie's Crash-like argument (a lot of white people are racist!) is totally unhelpful.

And there's the style. This film has a garish, MTV style look to it. It's sort of like Beatty was going through a midlife crisis and was trying to prove that he could still be hip, or mod, whatever those young people say nowadays.

Even as I am writing this review I am still in a state of disbelief. How could the guy who made such great and intelligent movies make one this dumb? Beatty obviously wasn't just making this for the money, as he co-wrote and co-produced the film in addition to directing and acting in it, and he is very politically active. I read that Beatty was actually considering a run for the Presidency in 2000 before some very kind people talked him out of it. Judging on the basis of this film, it kind of says something that if he had somehow managed to beat Al Gore for the nomination, George W. Bush would have had the monopoly on ideas in that election.

Bulworth (1998)

Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 11:27 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

Don't Drink the Water (1994, USA, Woody Allen) *1/2

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

Under discussion:

Don't Drink the Water (1994)

Don't Drink the Water (1994, USA, Woody Allen) *1/2

More like Don't Watch This Movie. This is the most obscure of all Woody Allen's films as director and with reason- it's debatable as to whether it counts as a film. It's a made-for-TV movie that Allen directed for HBO. Do movies made for television count as, um, movies? Well, I already considered Pioneers in Ingalstadt and Angels in America to be a films, so I suppose that should count this. The larger philosophic arguments about movies made for television will wait for another time.

Don't Drink the Water is based on the play of the same name Allen wrote in 1966, but the film was made in the same year as Bullets Over Broadway, so its features the "earlier, funnier" Allen content with the more "mature" Allen style. So the movie is pure farce, the lightest material that Allen has done since Sleeper. The films sole ambition is to be funny, and it completely fails. According to the semi-reliable Wikipedia, Allen made the movie because a previous adaptation in 1969 was so bad that he wanted to see the material done right. Frankly, it would be hard for the other version to be much worse than this.

Set in the American embassy of an unnamed Eastern European country during the Kennedy Administration, the film stars Michael J. Fox as Axel, the incompetent son of the ambassador (Josef Sommer). Against his better judgment, the ambassador leaves Axel in charge for two weeks while he returns to the US to pursue a cabinet position. While he is gone, a visiting American family (Allen with Julie Kavner as his wife and Kalamazoo?'s Mayim Bialik as the teenage daughter) is falsely accused of being spies, so they are trapped in the embassy until a diplomatic solution can be reached. At the same time, an Arab Emir (John Doumanian) visit's the embassy with his seventeen wives. Comic hijacks emerge as the uncultured Allen annoys everyone.

The film is so slight in its content that it's hard to find any criticism other than the fact that the jokes are lame. But aside from an occasional zinger, most of them sputter and die. Allen also includes the same joke over and over again, such as a magiciain whose tricks always fail. Wocka wocka.

You are only going to want to see this if you absolutely need to see everyone Woody Allen film. I like Allen enough to want to do that, but this movie is like being around someone who keeps telling the same joke over and over again, in the hopes it will eventually be funny. Kind of like me on a lesser evening. Remember, the film was made in '94, that's one year later than '93, but one year earlier than '95? Get it? Do you need to hear it again?

Don't Drink the Water (1994)

Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 11:25 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

A Bronx Tale (1993, USA, Robert De Niro) ***1/2

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

Under discussion:

A Bronx Tale (1993)

A Bronx Tale is the first film directed by Robert De Niro, and it's a quietly effective low-key drama about gangsters. It is unique among crime films in that the protagonist is neither a mafiaoso or a law enforcement agent, but an average Joe. This is the only film that shows what it might be like to grow up in neighboorhood where having the mob living next door was a fact of life.

The screenplay was written by Chazz Palmentari, who in addition to adapting his own play to the screen portrays the gangster, Sonny. The film is a battle of wills and ideas between Sonny and Frank (De Niro), over Frank's son, Calogero (played as a child by Francis Capra and as a teenager by Lillo Brancato). Calogero is fascinated by Sonny- he drives the coolest car and everyone treats him like royalty. By the same token, Sonny, who is unmarried and has no children, becomes a second father to the boy.

What makes A Bronx Tale so interested is that you think you know where the movie is going, and then you are wrong. The film is not about a choice between Sonny and Frank that Calogreo must make as much as it a portrait of what it's like to be young and grow up in the environment, and about the stuff that you believe when you are a teenager. Many times the movie does not go in the obvious direction- we are surprised when Sonny tells his surrogate son that he should not follow in his wise guy footsteps, and when Frank is revealed as a racist. It is interesting that both men have Calogero's best interests at heart, although each despise each other. They two men share a mutual hatred possibly because each has what the lacks- Frank has integrity and Sonny has success.

This is a strong directorial debut for De Niro, who is widely considered (get ready for the cliché) the Greatest Actor of His Generation. Although his style is not surprisingly heavily influenced by Martin Scorsese, De Niro brings a sort of calmness and to the material that is appropriate. You would have little idea that the movie was based on a play, because it is not stagy and a moves and feels like a film. The entire cast is excellent, but particular credit must go Palmentari, who creates a very complex character that is more like a fallen knight than the stereotypical gangster.

The movie does have some problems, namely that at times it is at times too obvious about its ideas and that it's first part (where Calogero is a child) drags a little. But this is an impressive film, and it's surprising that De Niro has waited until this very year to follow it with another.

A Bronx Tale (1993)

Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 11:25 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

Trekkies (1997, USA, Roger Nygard) ***

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

Under discussion:

Trekkies (1997)

Although I am often hesitant to admit to people I am a fan of Star Trek, I have really nothing to worry about compared to the guys portrayed in Trekkies, a fascinating documentary about the fans of the world's most successful franchise. Basically, this is Cinemania with Star Trek enthusists.

The film is produced and hosted by Denise Crosby, who starred for one season on The Next Generation as Tasha Yar, and follows the actress as she attends various Trek related events and interviews fans, fellow actors and writers for the series. Like most everyone involved in the production of the series, Crosby approaches the fans with a combination of pride, awkwardness and awe. Everyone is certainly glad that their work is appreciated, but what can you say when a man brags about role playing your female character with a blonde wig at home while his wife plays the guy you had sex with on the series? And that same guy runs his own Star Trek themed dental office, and forces his secretaries and hygienists to wear uniforms?

It is probably impossible to overstate how big Trek fandom is (one guys says that the tie-in merchandise alone is a billion-dollar industry). Just watching the film, it's astonishing to see how many people are really, really really into this stuff. There's Barbara Adams, a Whitewater juror who wore her uniform to court to "show Star Trek pride." There's the people who have their own Klingon club and play miniature golf for charity in full costume (Who would give them money?). There's the guy who runs a Vulcan funeral parlor (thankfully the film doesn't say exactly what a Vulcan funeral entails).

The strange difference between this film and Cinemania is that unlike the depressed, lonely cineastes, the Trekkies (some of whom insists one being called "Trekkers") seem to be relatively happy people, and contrary to popular belief, many are married. Star Trek seems to bond them to other fans instead of isolating them. In fact, if you set aside the fact that they are wearing fake-looking uniforms, many of the couples and families featured are so clean cut and straight arrow that they could be the next door neighbors on Leave It to Beaver or The Donna Reed Show.

So, are these people tragic figures who are wasting their lives away for a TV show, or are they lovable eccentrics? I guess that if you have positive interactions with others, have a job and contribute to society (many say there local Trek club requires community service as part of the series "philosophy"), you can do whatever you whatever you want. One fan makes an intriguing point - you can watch sports every day of the week, memorize sports statistics and dress or paint your body to support your team and you are considered totally normal, but if you watch Star Trek, memorize fictional backstory and go to conventions, and you are a weirdo from the planet Geekdom.

I do think, however, that a lot of energy can be better spent in other areas. I like Star Trek because I think that it's artistically good and fun to watch (I hate the people who have never seen it and think it's a more adult version of Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers), but I don't think it would be appropriate to adopt the "philosophy" to one's life. There have been a lot more "real" and better thought out philosophies around, one's that actually have a definable text. For me, the most moving part of the film depicted Crosby as the guest on a radio show. A caller related a story- back in the '80's, his father died and coincidentally the episode where Crosby's character is killed aired around the same time. He said the episode helped him with his pain and thanked the actress for her performance (I've seen it and it is very moving). That's one way art can make a positive effect in someone life, and one you don't need to dress up in a cheesy costume to appreciate.

Trekkies (1997)

Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 11:24 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

Strike (1925, USSR, Sergei Eisenstien) ***

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

Under discussion:

Strike (1924)

Strike is the kind of movie that confounds star ratings. On one hand, I feel I should give it four stars because it is a film of ceaseless ambition and great visual poetry. On the other, it is dense, confusing and esoteric, without any compelling human characters to care about. I am giving it three because no serious cineastes should avoid a film this impressive, I am unsure as to how many will actually "like" it.

I have said that the movie is confusing, but it doesn't appear to be. Let me explain. On one level, the movie is simple- Russian workers plan to strike after one of them is falsely accused of a crime and commits suicide, and the upper classes try to stop them. But to keep track of the dozens of characters, the exact sequence of events and the various visual and historical metaphors that Eisenstien uses. I turned on the DVD commentary track by a Russian film historian to see if it might help me and instead realized how little of the film I was getting. I might be able to better appreciate this film with years of study on Eisenstien and the intricacies of the Russian Revolution and the events that lead up to it, but for the average filmgoer this is going to come off as a beautiful "huh?"

And make no mistake, the movie is gorgeous. As a visual stylist, there were only four contemporaries that he could be compared to- Griffith, Murneau, Lang and Keaton. The Image Entertainment DVD is in great shape and it's easy just to stare in wonder at the visuals and montage (a term that the director invented). Whether you are going to be moved by the plight of the workers is another matter- it's appeal as propaganda is limited because its transparently obvious- the workers are near saints and everyone else are cartoonish villains.

If you are into movies, you cannot avoid the magical works of Sergei Eisenstien, but this is not the place to start. His best and most accessible film is Alexander Nevsky, which features one of the best battle sequences ever filmed. In a way, Strike is to movies what Fininian's Wake is to novels- you know it's good and the guy who made is obviously a genius, but is the end result worth the time it will take understand it?

Strike (1924)

Posted Monday, May 12, 2008 11:23 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments