Review of The Apartment

I find myself at a loss for words. This is not because the movie was exceptionally good or bad. I think it is because I have no strong opinion about this show.



I think what makes The Apartment different from other movies is that it has distinctly dark subject matter. Halfway through, a character attempts suicide and the threat of suicide lingers for the rest of the film. What made this so disorienting for me was that IT'S A COMEDY! Not only that, but a comedy in the hokey, all-American style with tons of snappy dialogue, which seemed to be the fashion in the 40's to 60's.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of it. While it certainly had its share of laughs, I didn't think there was much chemistry between the two leads. Something just seemed missing for me.

What is perplexing is that I think I was alone in being confounded. The rest of the audience present at the screening seemed to really enjoy it. I guess you'll have to ask somebody else why they thought it was great. Sorry!

2 and a half tennis raquets out of 5

Review of Spartacus

This was my first time watching Spartacus. In many ways it is a remarkable movie. There are breathtaking shots that you will never see in any other film. But on another level it is very long-winded and imperfect. I'll start with the good things.

A word about extras. Hollywood seems to hate them these days. Perhaps for good reasons, monetary-wise. They must be paid, wrangled, clothed and managed in every way. They are necessary, but computer animation has found ways to reduce their number. Look at the epic battle sequences of today and you will see hordes of clone warriors clashing on a computer-generated canvas.

I always knew it was no substitute and now I have proof. Spartacus contains wonderfully framed shots with throngs of extras. These shots stole my breath. Imagine, if you can, a hillside crowded with pilgrims spilling down its side like rivulets of rainfall. Imagine thousands of Roman soldiers in tight battle-lines marching-in step toward you in such vivid detail that you can see the sunlight reflected in their weapons and shields.

I've seen movies with a cast of thousands but never before like this.



But now for the not-so-good. Let's start with the star, Kirk Douglas. Spartacus is a man of few words. Usually characters of this stripe have impressive things to say when they deign to open their mouths. Not so with Spartacus. He tends to say obvious stuff. Douglas lends to the role a certain gravelly manner of growling, but fails to convey to the audience what Spartacus is thinking when he's not talking. Spartacus has no dimension of character beyond all the gruff and gravel, other than a perfectly virtuous soul. It kinda made me want him to die.

Because I didn't buy the uncharismatic Spartacus, I didn't buy his romance either. It made me want the girl to die.

The plot is compelling up until the last act. The movie essentially ends after a climactic battle sequence. But wait, no! It keeps on going and going! The minutes turn to millennia as the story repeatedly fails to resolve itself. It made me wish director Stanley Kubrick, writer Howard Fast and screenwriter Dalton Trumbo would die. But how do you kill that which is already dead?

Maybe it's just me, but the dubbing seemed to have problems too. Half the characters spoke with gruff voices that sounded straight out of the mouth of a big thug from an Anime flick.

That all sounds pretty negative, but most of the bad fell to the wayside as I was watching it. In the end, I was always curious to find out what happened next and dazzled by the spectacle of it all. I would recommend strongly it for history buffs like myself, but I suspect it would irritate most people.

3 defeated Roman cohorts out of 5

Review of Sunrise

A surprisingly good film. I know I have said many times that movies don't age very well. Sunrise defies my blanket statement.

Sunrise surprised me. I had no idea that I could ever enjoy a silent film. As somebody who has lived his entire life in the era of sound, specifically the era of the blockbuster, I might naturally believe that films with sound, realistic sets and special effects are just BETTER than anything that could be produced in 1927. How wrong I was.

The sets and models, laughable by modern standards, simply melted into the background like they should in any stage play. I was perfectly willing to suspend my disbelief for the sake of the story. I simply wanted to find out what happened next and not once did I find myself scoffing at the studio sets, model city and water tank.

As for the sound, this really threw me for a loop. I'm a pretty auditory guy, so dialogue and sound are very important to me. Yet this was no hamper for my enjoyment. I wasn't counting, but the movie probably used only ten dialogue legends on the screen. TEN in an hour and a half! The rest was simply implied by the action. Amazing that the story could be told so lovingly through imagery only! Let this be a lesson to screenwriters! Film is a visual art form first and foremost. Dialogue is simply entertaining fluff. A story can be told without it.

I know I already mentioned I liked the story, but I'll mention it again. It was simple, touching and especially at the end, tear-jerking. There was a bizarre scene in the middle involving a pig, but I can't criticize it for that, mainly because one of my own screenplays has a bizarre scene involving a pig as well. Each scene flows lovingly into the next, somehow more affecting because of the visual style.

In short, the more I think about it, the more I love it.
4 1/2 sunrises out of 5

Review of Titanic

What is it about this movie? Why exactly is this movie the highest grossing movie of all time (unadjusted for inflation)? What sent people into the theatres over and over?

Surely it wasn't the love story. I've heard the love story described as vapid. I've heard many references to clunky dialogue. I've heard people call it boring.

Surely it wasn't the spectacle. Nobody wants to see a movie about a big boat going boom. Who in their right mind would want to see people fall a hundred feet off the stern of a boat and go splat in the water? Drowning children? Bobbing frozen corpses? What bloodlust and sadism!

Surely it wasn't the attention to detail. In our day and age, it is merely expected that a historical pic like this will be well researched. If a movie does not elaborately reconstruct sets so that the audience feels like they've entered another era, it has failed its job. Why should Titanic feel so special?

The answer is: all three of those things. Despite what people who were "too cool" for this movie say, millions of people found the love story compelling. People liked seeing other people go squish in the water. And above it all floats the love and care that the cast and crew put into making everything seem perfect. The costumes, the research, the sets, the fact that they recreated a life-size Titanic (!), all of these delight the viewer's senses.

I don't care what all y'all say. I really like this show.

4 hearts of the ocean out of 5

ps- If you need more evidence that the MPAA is corrupt, ponder why this film with shocking violence, swearing, and naked Kate Winslet is rated PG-13.

Review of Easy Rider

O. My. God.

So terrible. So unworthy.

And yet, I'd like you all to try an experiment. If you have parents or other relatives that were young (ages 16-29) in 1969, I challenge you to ask them if they liked Easy Rider. If they've seen it, they'll tell you they liked it.

Why? WHY WHY WHY?

I guess you just had to be there. Some movies age better than others and Easy Rider hasn't fared well. Two guys ride on motorcycles, accompanied by music. They meet some guys. They leave. They ride around on their bikes, accompanied by music. They meet some more guys. They leave. They drop acid in a graveyard. Then before you know it or care, they're dead and the movie's over.

Oops! Did I spoil that for you? Too bad, sucka! Because, the fact is, if you manage to make it to the end you won't care either.

"But Jeremy," you say, "Easy Rider is an avant garde masterpiece. It's not meant to have a conventional Hollywood plot."

Well, my friend, I've seen The Last Movie, also by Dennis Hopper, and I can say without reservation that if Easy Rider has anything good in it, it's an accident. Dennis Hopper was stoned out of his mind for both these films. Easy Rider is considered to be a "good" movie, and The Last Movie is considered to be a "bad" movie. The Dennis Hopper of Easy Rider is portrayed as a gutsy, thoughtful filmmaker, but the Dennis Hopper of The Last Movie is considered to be a drug-crazed, self-indulgent lunatic. But you know what? Both movies are shitty, pointless and incoherent, and the same guy directed them!

Like most avant garde works of art, these movies are only good if people say they're good. Easy Rider has a good reputation, but that's all it is. Don't believe me? Watch it and find out. My prayers are with you.

The scenery is nice, though.
1 acid tab out of 5

Review of A Night at the Opera

Meh.

Not that great. I didn't hate it, but the laughs didn't come very fast nor furious. One cannot even really say, "It was okay for the time it was made", because Bringing Up Baby was made during this same era and was HILARIOUS by modern standards.

Honestly, I think the big problem was that the plot wasn't that good. Like a lot of comedies, it was events strung together to highlight a series of gags and musical numbers. Yeah, those Marx Brothers were talented musicians, but for me it didn't fly.

Suzi seemed to hate it.

2 bearded Russian pilots out of 5