Change Your Image
felixnoir
Reviews
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)
Bloated, asinine, risible, ridiculous nonsense.
This film has such gorgeous spectacle that you want it to continue even after its two-hour length. It is a delight to the eye, with gorgeous scenery and costumes and wonderful set design.
In every other way it is a boated, silly, pretentious mess. It has no script to speak of. Character consistency and development are absent. What slight story there is makes no sense. Much of the acting is not terribly good. A lot of the CGI is not terribly good either. The forces of physics and gravity do not exist. The humour fails completely. After a devastating battle which has killed a quarter of his people, a leader takes the sick and shocked survivors away from what resources still remain for a week-long journey through a desolate wilderness, which would surely have killed the rest. This is after he has shot from a bow a ridiculous iron bolt which wouldn't even travel well from a ballista. Then he immediately puts his trust in a man who is patently dishonest, self-serving and cowardly. After inviting his kin Dain, who behaves like a football hooligan not a king, from the Iron Hills, putting the lives of he and his people at risk for Thorin, this great dwarf leader skulks in his basement. Despite Gimli's love for Galadriel in LOTR being the only time a dwarf has ever loved an elf, here it happens first. Thranduil is motivated by desire for a necklace. The three owners of the Elven-rings, who have tried for a thousand years to conceal these from Sauron, show up on his doorstep wearing them. This gives us an opportunity to see a ninety-year old man whirling and jumping around like a thing possessed, evidently because Jackson believes that you can't be worthwhile unless you can kick arse. As everywhere in the whole two trilogies, Jackson shows no comprehension of the times, of the morals, of the motivations. And this is only to mention the most obvious and foolish faults. Everything is conceived of in terms that would embarrass the writers of Days Of Our Lives. Important elements of the book - and elements that would have greatly improved the movie, such as the entry of Beorn into the battle - are thrown out or thrown away. As usual Jackson,a man who conveys neither humility nor respect for his source material, somehow conceives that he is a better writer than Tolkein - as well as a director who conveys total contempt for the intelligence of his audience. Certainly the character thread of losing all values to the lust for money makes complete sense here.
Trash, and a candidate for worst blockbuster ever. Cats & Dogs 2: The Revenge Of Kitty Galore was a better film. Perhaps one day someone with sense may something with at least some reference to Tolkein or, at least, less embarrassing.
The Day of the Triffids (1981)
Low production values all round
This was made during a period when the BBC did not have very much money and it shows in this generic by-the-numbers BBC adaptation. Neither the actors nor the script nor the production are very much to write home to Mother about. The whole first episode takes up about half the first chapter of the book, an indication that the series will set most things indoors to save money. The whole episode just shows the lead actor feeling upset in his hospital room, with a couple of flashbacks. I disliked the way that the story jumped between characters as well - this was quite contrary to the spirit of the book, in which the lead character's story slowly unfolds and his world expands. The main reason you would watch it is just that you hunger to see an adaptation of the book. The book indeed calls out for a modern 'Children Of Men'-type adaptation. We do the Apocalypse just so much better nowadays.
A Wedding (1978)
After a life time of watching films, one that I remember best.
I like people who approach art in new and unconventional ways. 'A Wedding' is one of the best Altman films for me, because it goes the furthest towards abandoning a unified structure and rational storyline, and presents a loose ensemble of stories and moments.
A review of the time said it well for me. The film has any number of stories, but few are presented completely. For some, you only see the beginning. In others, it is only the middle, or the end. The camera is voyeuristic, often seeming to stumble on fragments of things, looking through plants, people partly out of shot.
For me, first seeing the film at the age of 22, I found it quietly hilarious from almost the very first shot. In that early shot, two boys are unrolling a red carpet. Because it has been sitting unused for so long, the roll has gone flat, and this makes the boy's arm wobble as the carpet unrolls. I laughed out loud. That is an introduction to the understated humour and fine comic irony of the film. I think this is why the film is under-appreciated in America. Americans seem to like to attach a flag to their humour: "Don't be offended. This is intended as a joke." Whereas 'A Wedding' seems to have more in common with the comedic tradition of Tati. I still think 'A Wedding' is one of the funniest films I have ever seen.
For me, this film was years before its time. It reminds me of modern bands such as TV on the Radio or, especially, Animal Collective. There seem to be a lot of loose ends, unconnected bits, things that shouldn't really go together, stuff happening in layers that go in different directions. Yet somehow it all works. It hangs together, although perhaps the only unities are those of time and place. And when you actually try to reproduce the effect (perform the works) you very soon find out that the seeming artlessness conceals a level of skills and professionalism that is actually of the highest standard - something that has strongly impacted on my own approach to art.
William Goldman said in 'Adventures in the Screen Trade' that directors are basically very good storytellers. But here we don't have one story at all, we have a slice through 20th century society. A picture that is a picture, not a picture that tells a story. This film reminds me of a statement by Vonnegut, that he thought perhaps The Novel had corrupted the public mind, because in a novel, there are important and major and unimportant and peripheral characters. In this film everyone is of equal importance. For me one of the failures of this film is Carol Burnett. That's not because she is not an excellent actress, or very funny. But she stands out, and while just about everybody else is playing slightly tongue-in-cheek but straight, she plays this as overt comedy.
I don't know if I agree with those commentators who say this is a blistering satire. I don't believe it is, any more than Boccaccio or Chaucer are blistering satires. It is much more like 'Peasant Wedding' by Bruegel, full of picaresque characters, a canvas of muddled humanity trying to fill their days. It is gentle, and if it turns darker as it continues, there is a great deal of darkness in Chaucer and Boccaccio too. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised to find that Altman had been deliberately trying to create something similar to 'Peasant Wedding' in a modern art form. The absurdist influence is also strong. This is a European film, not an American film.
So I consider 'A Wedding' to be a finer movie than 'Nashville', and in fact one of the great movies of the 20th c. It is more understated, less obvious, without clear stories or points to make. In that is its greatness. It is genuinely subversive. It is a movie that uses a quite different structure and method than almost any other movie you have ever seen. It is a movie that lets its characters all talk for themselves. I think 'A Wedding' is a landmark movie, a reference point that should be part of the training of every filmmaker. I don't think Altman ever bettered it. This, with his own company, was his chance to do what he really wanted to do. It is one of the three or four films that has had the strongest impact on my own life and art. After half a century of filmgoing, I still clearly recall image after image. 'A Wedding' still sticks out in my head as one of the high points of all that time.
Testimony (1987)
One of the greatest movies ever made
Testimony would be a firm and undoubted entry on my list of the ten greatest films ever made.
I'm not really interested in the debate over whether this movie is a 'true' portrayal of the composer. I'm only really considering it as a piece of cinematic art. From that point of view, it is a masterpiece, a classic. It's not a traditional movie. It is like a completely different, fresh approach. It is closer to masterpieces like 'Nosferatu' or 'the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' than to any modern film. In some ways it is like an extended video clip - a montage of narration, sight and sound. It leaves unforgettable images on the mind.
Everything about this movie is first class. It is a very contrasty, noir B&W movie which fully utilises the artistic possibilities of that medium. I won't detail the greatest images, because that would spoil it. But there are many very powerful moments that are unforgettable and loaded with meaning. The narration and script are masterly. The powerful music of Shostakovitch is completely integrated. That music is difficult and complex, and to reveal it to the viewer and to make the viewer love it is a wonderful feat. The acting is first class, equal to the best ever seen on screen. Kingsley's performance as Shostakovitch is extraordinary. Terence Rigby, who I think of as a ham actor but whose presence in a movie is often very powerful, conveys silent menace as Stalin. Images, sound and acting can scarcely be bettered.
This movie is about a true genius and artist living at a time when the image and cult of one man totally dominates the whole of society and where any question over loyalty to that figure is deadly. But ultimately this movie is only about itself. It's not really about Shostakovitch any more than a Caravaggio is a comment on society. The question is whether it completely grips for its whole length. It does.
The Book Group (2002)
Brilliant and transgressive comedy
Not everybody will like this type of transgressive, subtle comedy rooted in appreciation of character, but those how do will find it one of the funniest things they have ever seen.
The comedy of this show is basically about delusion. Almost all of the people in it are deceiving themselves about who and what they are. They are building castles in the air and refusing to accept their lives. The main character in the show and the butt of most of the humour is Clare, the American girl who starts the book group. Well-intentioned but also vain and naive, she looks down on the other girls for their ignorance and open sexuality, and refuses to admit to herself that her motive in starting the group is basically sex. She believes she has insight into others while in fact she has none, coming from a protected background, romancing her own life and failing completely to understand the earthy Glasgow people. The only character who is not comic is Ken, who is a paraplegic who has had to be realistic about his own life and who is turning his dreams into reality.
This comedy is also very transgressive. In one scene, Lachlan and Clare are having sex while he explains to her where her G-spot is.
But the real butt of the comedy is the audience. It asks us to re-evaluate our own intellectual pretensions and lives. This is why some people react so strongly to it. The humour arises from understanding and compassion. The Book Group is true art because it asks us to examine our own lives.