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

CinemaRian Blog

  • Silent Running (1971, USA, Douglas Trumbull) **1/2

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

    Silent Running  (1971)

    Silent Running joins Soylent Green in a duo of ecologically minded sci-fi films from the early 70's.  Both movies are about the end of the natural habitat on Earth, and serve as a warning to us that we need to care of the environment and not take it for granted. 
     
    While few can disagree with this message, this film needs to explore it more.  The picture works best at the very beginning- Freeman Lowell (Bruce Dern) is one of a crew of four on a legion of spaceships that maintain the very last of Earth's forests.  He lectures the other men on what the planet has lost- organic beauty, the pleasure of watching things grow, harmonzing with nature.  The others just laugh at him.
     
    One day, the group recieve a message that continuing the forests is no longer economically viable.  They are ordered to destroy the biomes and return home.  Lowell cannot stand to see the last surviving planet life from Earth destoryed, so he kills his fellow crewmembers and goes on the run from the company's other ships who are trying to track him down.  He has only two robots, whom he nicknames Huey (Mark Persons) and Dewey (Cheryl Sparks) for company. 
     
    Up until the point where the rest of the crew are killed the movie is pretty interesting and effective at making its ecological points.  It works on the level of a fairy tale or fable, and we identify strongly with Lowell as he desperatley tries to save the last bit of beauty left. 
     
    However, at the start of Act Two, the movie becomes a conventional thriller.  The ecological content is mostly abandonded for a fairly standard thriller plotline, as Lowell and the robots try to evade their inevitable capture.  It's hard to invest much in this story, because we've seen all of the plot machinations before.
     
    The movie is directed by Douglas Trumbell, who assisted Stanley Kubrick with special effects for 2001.  The effects in Silent Running is no where near as a good as that film, and look so fake that it's laughable in a bad way.  Trumbell and cinematographer Charles F. Wheeler find a great way of photographing the forest, making them look both natural and artificial at the same time, and the production design of the spaceships are quite good (It looks like Gerry Anderson took notes when he did Space: 1999). 
     
    The music, which intermixes excellent original compositions by Peter Schickle with lame folk songs sung by Joan Baez demonstrate the main problem with the film- an awkward shift in tone from the sublime to the cliche.  Silent Running has it's moments, but not enough for a reccamendation.

  • Kurt & Courtney (1998, Great Britain, Nick Broomfield) **1/2

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

    Kurt & Courtney  (1998)

    Nirvana and the memory of Kurt Cobain exist in that horrid netherworld of hip- too old to be new, but too new to be retro.  The band's influence on popular music was huge, and Cobain was to become in death a rock and roll folk hero on the level of John Lennon or Jimi Hendrix.  But right now, it's just not cool to admit that yes, the band was really, really great. 
     
    With the exception of The Sex Pistols, it's hard to think of another band who had such a huge influence with so small a catalog- Nirvana's entire recorded consists entirely of three studio albums, a rareties collection, two live albums (one released posthumously) and a box set of substandard outtakes for hardcore fans. 
     
    I give this introduction to defend the idea that Cobain is worth making movies about- he was a serious artist and was a great chronicler of his time- no other audince in any medium captured the horrors of early 90's world as strong as he did.
     
    Nick Broomfield's documentary, however, is not about Cobain as an artist, and is only tangentially interested in him as a man.  The movie is mostly about his 1994 suicide and the alleged charge that he was murdered by his wife, Courtney Love.  No one contends that Love pulled the trigger (she was documented to be in another city the day he died) but Broomfield manages to find a lot of people who claim that she asked them to kill Kurt, threatened to kill him or, at the very least, wanted to him dead.
     
    I am not giving anything away if I say that responsible journalists have found zero evidence for any conspiracy theories in Cobain's death.  He was a heavy herion user, chronicley depressed since childhood and going through a difficult time in his life.  He had also attempted suicide once before, during a Nirvana tour in Italy.  His death was tragic, but not surprising. 
     
    Broomfield is a responsible filmmaker in the sense that he himself come to the conclusion that there is at least no evidence that Courney tried to commit murder.  But he spends far too much time on the murder red herring and fails to ask the real question- why do so many people hate this woman?
     
    The most astonishing segment of the film is where Broomfield interviews Love's own father, who has published a book where he contends that Courtney tried to kill Kurt.  It is not hard to see that he really hates his daughter- he can barely contain the insults that fly out of his mouth.  When we learn that the couple bonded partially over the mutual pain of their abusive childhoods, it's not hard to beleive.  We see many, many other people who cannot stand Love's presence and by the end of the film Broomfield himself makes a speech at a ACLU benefit dinner accusing Love of censorship of the media, partially because she tried to prevent Bloomfield to having acess to her and Nirvana's songs to make the film.
     
    Well, I might too if someone was making a film that could potentially accuse me of murder!  Aside from spending to much time on conspiracy theories that the director himself admits are phony, the other big problem with the picture is that Broomfield commits the Michael Moore sin of documentary narcissism- he's on camera far too much, and seems personally offended that anyone might not want to appear in his movie.  He comes off as a deeply annoying and arrogent.
     
    But, I must concede that he is a strong director.  This movie is never boring, even when its pointless.  If you want to learn something about Kurt Coban and/or his relationship with Courtney Love, I suggest you consult Charles R. Cross's excellent biography Heavier than Heaven.  If you want to watch a lot of weird (but interesting) people lie to the camera, see this movie. 

  • Dance Party, U.S.A. (2006, USA, Aaron Katz) ****

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

    Dance Party, USA  (2006)

    No, I was never a part of the social group portrayed in this film, but I knew it existed, and I hated it. I hated it for because I saw that it was self-destructive and damaging and I also hated it because admission into it meant social acceptance, something that I could never really have in high school.

    The world portrayed in Dance Party U.S.A. is not the typical one portrayed in high school movies, where the kids spend a lot of time worrying about pressing issues such as Prom King and Queen or winning the big football game. It's not an entry into the Heathers genre either, about the revenge of the outcasts. It's a movie about normal people, the people you forgot after you graduated.

    The characters this film are neither smart nor stupid. Like most high school studends, grades are not that important to them, but the social scene is. That scene is packed to the brim with sex, alcohol and pot, and for some, stronger substances. They are all still figuring themselves out, but they know that like to feel good physically. It's one of the few things human beings can be sure of. The plot of this very naturallistic film is about the awakening of Gus (Cole Pessinger) who is just beginning to wonder if there is more to life than a non-stop party. He is also struggling with concepts of masculinity, knowing that he cannot continuingly emulate his debuchorous friend Bill (Ryan White) but is afraid to show a more sensitive side as well. The movie bills itself about Gus coming to terms with a secret, but the secret is not at all what you would expect (it's not that he's gay). He can only confides it to Jessica (Anna Kavan) a girl he has just met, almost on a whim.

    The scene where the secret is revealed, coming halfway through the film, is an example of the film masterful understanding of its characters. Gus begins by trying to seduce Jessica, not even because he really wants to but because he merely knows nothing else to do. She resists, and he finds a self respect and sensitivty to her that enables him to reveal the secret. The scene unfolds like it would in real life.

    This film reminded of me of such pictures as Umberto D. or Bubble in its unfailing reach for realism. What happens after the secret is revealed I will not give away, but I watched the rest of the film in genuine suspense. Dance Party, U.S.A. was shot in and around Portland, Oregon on a miniscule budget, but it could be set in any American town where there is a high school. This is a movie that moved me on a personal level. It's not often that you see characters that seem so real that you could meet them walking down the street once the movie is over.

    Dance Party, USA (2006)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<August 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
272829303112
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31123456


Categories
 


Advertisement