Sophie's Choice is two movies for the price of one. One of the movies is a young writer's coming-of-age story in New York. The other is a Holocaust movie. It is very dialogue driven. Does it succeed?
In one sense, yes. Kevin Kline is great as Nathan Landau: charismatic and funny. Meryl Streep is convincing on all levels as Sophie. The actual moment of Sophie's choice is one of the most powerful moments I've ever seen on film.
But then we come to the problem of the movie seeming very long. I found that the Holocaust movie disrupted the coming-of-age movie. Once we are thrown back in time to Sophie's suffering in the death camp, the tribulations of Stingo in the present day seem quite trivial. It seemed to suck away the energy of the primary story, if that's possible.
Then there is the other side of the character Nathan Landau. I won't give away what happens. Let's just say the audience discovers that he is not just a bad drunk. The effect of this realization is not shocking. It is disappointing. Imagine if you can a comedy starring a really stupid guy. The audience laughs at him and near the end they discover the character is retarded. The whole thing seemed like a huge deflation of Nathan's character.
Sophie's Choice is not for everyone. I loved many things about it. Other things frustrated me. Generally, I'd say they cancel each other out.
3 great American novels out of 5
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Friday, September 7, 2007
Review of Goodfellas
Goodfellas is great. There are so many things to praise. I like the epic quality to the story. I like the acting. The direction and photography are stellar.
There is something to be said for the violence as well. There is something very casual about the way violence is presented in this movie. I believe it has to do with directorial choices. For example, in one scene, our protagonist walks across the street, pulls out a pistol, beats his girlfriend's neighbor in the face with it several times, and then walks back across the street. This is all done in one shot from start to finish: no reaction shots, no close-ups. It somehow makes it feel that much more real.
I have a minor quibble with the ending, however. For some reason, the action cuts to Joe Peschi emptying his revolver into the camera, then cuts back to the scene in progress. It's weird and pointless. I wonder if it was the suits upstairs with a brilliant idea that the show should end with a BANG and pressuring the director to insert something. Anyway, it was weird.
Summarizing, there is some justification to the idea that this is the best gangster movie of all time. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out.
4 out of 5 slices of garlic so thin they liquefy in the pan
There is something to be said for the violence as well. There is something very casual about the way violence is presented in this movie. I believe it has to do with directorial choices. For example, in one scene, our protagonist walks across the street, pulls out a pistol, beats his girlfriend's neighbor in the face with it several times, and then walks back across the street. This is all done in one shot from start to finish: no reaction shots, no close-ups. It somehow makes it feel that much more real.
I have a minor quibble with the ending, however. For some reason, the action cuts to Joe Peschi emptying his revolver into the camera, then cuts back to the scene in progress. It's weird and pointless. I wonder if it was the suits upstairs with a brilliant idea that the show should end with a BANG and pressuring the director to insert something. Anyway, it was weird.
Summarizing, there is some justification to the idea that this is the best gangster movie of all time. If you haven't seen it, you're missing out.
4 out of 5 slices of garlic so thin they liquefy in the pan
Monday, September 3, 2007
Review of The French Connection
A disappointment, I'd say.
There were lots of good things about it. I liked the car chase where Popeye follows the skytrain through New York, wrecking stuff. I liked the scene where he tracks the crafty villain throught he subway. However, the sum of the parts didn't seem to add up.
Boredom was the main problem for this flick. I'm sure the intended effect of the cops stalking the smugglers with increasingly scary music, watching them eat and doing nothing bad, was tension. For me it didn't seem to work. It was okay for awhile, but it just goes on and on.
Did I say boredom was the main problem? I change my mind. The ending was terrible! I will not spoil it for you, but I will say that the filmmakers forgot how important climaxes are. Instead of providing the audience with the climax it needs, we hear a gunshot and then the ending is written with captions on the screen! Bad filmmaking! Bad! No buscuit!
To conclude, The French Connection was an art-fag movie masquerading as a thriller. Sigh. Why are films that people classify as "innovative" turn out to be boring?
2 out of 5 porkpie hats
There were lots of good things about it. I liked the car chase where Popeye follows the skytrain through New York, wrecking stuff. I liked the scene where he tracks the crafty villain throught he subway. However, the sum of the parts didn't seem to add up.
Boredom was the main problem for this flick. I'm sure the intended effect of the cops stalking the smugglers with increasingly scary music, watching them eat and doing nothing bad, was tension. For me it didn't seem to work. It was okay for awhile, but it just goes on and on.
Did I say boredom was the main problem? I change my mind. The ending was terrible! I will not spoil it for you, but I will say that the filmmakers forgot how important climaxes are. Instead of providing the audience with the climax it needs, we hear a gunshot and then the ending is written with captions on the screen! Bad filmmaking! Bad! No buscuit!
To conclude, The French Connection was an art-fag movie masquerading as a thriller. Sigh. Why are films that people classify as "innovative" turn out to be boring?
2 out of 5 porkpie hats
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
