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

CinemaRian Blog

  • Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars (1983, USA, D.A. Pennebaker) *1/2

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

     

    Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars is probably the worst concert film that I ever seen, and that is a huge disappointment, considering the fact David Bowie's live shows on this tour were legendary. But based on this movie, they kind of sucked.

    I've often maintained that while it had several great songs on it, the Ziggy Stardust concept album was not the rock and roll masterpiece many critics claim it to be. It doesn't really have much narrative cohesion and starts to run out of gas on Side Two (with the exception of "Hang On To Yourself"). I always thought that perhaps the live shows on the tour, performed with Bowie in costume, would be a more exciting experience and be truer the Ziggy Stardust concept.

    But instead of the huge sci-fi spectacle I expected, this movie presents Bowie and his small band singing mostly in place. Bowie's charisma is strong, but nothing outside of the realm of the usual rock star (he's no Jim Morrison) and the Ziggy tunes are sung all out of our, with even less of a narrative.

    Of course, perhaps this concert, given on July 3rd, 1973 in England, the last of the tour dates, was really exciting if you saw it live. But D.A. Pennebaker, director of Don't Look Back and Monterary Pop, doesn't do much to get us in the mood. He doesn't use enough cameras to cover the action, meaning that most of the time we see Bowie in one interrupted shot, often from a distance so we don't see his facial expressions. The lighting cues of the concert (mostly just a red or blue spotlight on Bowie, with Spiders in near darkness), made it difficult to shoot and a lot of the footage is out of focus.

    Also, the sound sucks. On the DVD's bonus features, Bowie's music producer Toni Visconti describes how the original recording was so bad that he Bowie had to go back and re-record much of the Spider's backing vocals. Perhaps it the fault of the recording and not the musicians, but none of these tunes sounds particularly good, and none are certainly better than the studio version. For me, the highlight of the set was hearing Bowie perform "All the Young Dudes", a song he wrote but never recorded in studio, but it's over too quickly.

    The most interesting scene in the film occurs at the very beginning, as Bowie is getting made up his then wife, Angela, comes in and the two have a surreal conversation about his mother seeing a spaceship. Angela is very excited and has a great screen presence, so it's too bad that there little other backstage footage of any consequence.

    At the end of the movie, Bowie famously tells the audience that this is the very last concert he will ever give. In interviews, Bowie claims that he was totally exhausted and really meant it at the time. By the time this movie was released (a full ten years after it was shot) he had already gone on multiple tours and released two live albums. This movie would have at least some merit as a historical document- had Bowie never toured again. Knowing that the artist would return, with better and more complete material makes this movie of what is supposedly his greatest accomplishment a bit sad in retrospect.

    Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars (1983)


  • Flash Gordon (1980, USA/Great Britain, Mike Hodges) **1/2

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Flash Gordon  (1980)

     Flash Gordon was obviously made to cash in on the sci-fi boom that was begun by Star Wars, but it belong to an earlier era- the high camp of the 70's, personified by The Rocky Horror Picture Show. As such, it's a hard movie to review because it doesn't really tried to be good in the traditional sense- it aspires to be trashy fun, and the two star review is because it only partially succeeds on that level.

    The original Flash Gordon was for years the most popular science fiction in the country. Begun as a comic strip, it reached iconic statues from three movies serials starring Buster Crabbe, and had numerous TV and cartoon adoptions. George Lucas tried to make his own movie version in the early seventies, but he was unable to get the rights, so he made his own science fiction saga. As the documentary on the DVD states, Flash Gordon has not had the staying power of other cultural icons, such as Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps that's because there's not much depth to the character and Flash seems perennially locked in the 1930's in a bad way.

    Anyway, the film rights to the comic strip (which ran until 2003) were acquired by Dino De Laurentis who provided the film with a much lower budget than the big budget sci-fi movies he was cashing in on. That's okay, because it probably works better that the Hawk-men, for example, have wings that look like plastic.

    Following the plot of a movie like this would pointless, so suffice it to say that it involves football star Flash (Sam J. Jones) who is pitted against Ming the Merciless (Max Von Sydow) who wants to destroy the Earth and marry his girlfriend, Dale Arden (Melody Anderson). On his quest, he is aided by Hawk-men, who have wings that don't work, and the Frigians, who dress like Robin Hood. I remember the cartoon series having Lion-men as well, but unfortunately the movie eliminates these.

    There is a lot (and I mean a lot) a kinky sexual innuendo. Most of the space ships look phallic and character's are consistently getting tied up by people dressed totally in leather. There's a lot of gay references as well, and hunky Jones often ends up with his shirt and pants off. The music is by Queen, which I have to admit was about a perfect choice for this kind of material.

    But is the movie worth watching? Well, the cast, including Jones, is surprisingly good, playing everything exactly right. They all seem to get what kind of movie there's in. The picture is fun for a while but then it stars to get boring only to pick up towards the end, when director Hodges stages a surprisingly beautiful attack on Ming's ship with the Hawk-men with very funny visual gag involving a tribute to Flash.

    But for me, it wasn't enough. The movie is just wears out its welcome, and even talking through the boring parts the entertainment value started to give. I can't recommend the movie for that reason.

    Interesting bit of trivia: According to Wikipedia, the movie did badly in every country accept Britain, where it was massive hit and is still one of 100 highest grossing films of all time.  I have no idea why.

    Flash Gordon (1980)


  • The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima (1952, USA, John Brahm) ***

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

    It kind of says something about Hollywood filmmaking in the 1950’s when a movie has to make up a stupid subplot because it thinks that a MESSAGE FROM GOD is not enough to carry a film. If you were writing a screenplay, what would you think would be more interesting: three children who have been chosen by the Virgin Mary to receive visions, or their atheist friend, Hugo?

     For those of you who are sadly not familiar with the historical events in question, be assured the title of this movie is not hyperbole. On May 13th, 1917, three children in the small town of Fatima, Portugal received a visitation from the Virgin Mary, who instructed them among other things to return on the 13th for the next six months. The Lady revealed to them the Three Secrets of Fatima, predicting the Spanish Civil War, World War II and the assassination attempt of Pope John Paul II, as well of the deaths of two youngest children. The children were imprisoned by local authorities, but were eventually let go. On the day of the final appearhersion, the Miracle of the Sun occurred- an amazing event that was witnessed up to thirty miles away. No empirical explanation has ever explained what was happened, probably because there is no explanation. That’s the defination of a miracle.

     What has always made this story so fascinating to me are the photographs of the Fatima children and the story of what happened to them afterwards. The three look frightened, as if the fear of Hell had been put into them, which, apparently was what happened. They were deeply effected by a vision of Hell they were given (the First Secret). Furthermore, the two youngest died in the flu pandemic of 1919, just as they had predicted.

    This story has always spoken to the most basic part of us- the spiritual level. It says, yes, their something beyond the mundane aspects of our everyday lives, and it is big, big BIG. The movie about the occurrence is not surprisingly a letdown. To say that no movie could capture the experience of being their would be an understatement, but this picture is too much of a Hollywood studio film to come of as being real. For this story to work, someone like Herzog or Bergman needs to direct it, and John Brahm is not in their league.

    Even if he was, he would still have a hard time doing much with the stupid subplot involving Hugo (Gilbert Roland), the town atheist who seems to be a lot more popular than he probably would be in that situation. The script resort to creaky Christian movie clichés. Without revealing anything, I think most of us will probably suspect that there is very high probability that Hugo will not be an atheist by the end of the picture.

    I am still giving the movie a recommendation on account of the basic story, which is compelling to say the least. I would argue that every human being needs to know the story of Fatima, but not necessarily from this movie.

    The Miracle of Our Lady of Fatima (1952)

     


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement