J.D. Hansel

Historical

Selma Review

by

I cannot relieve that I’m reviewing this movie right now.  I just don’t feel qualified to comment on it.  Since I still review most of the films I watch, if only so I can keep practicing my writing and keep fine-tuning my cinematic eye, I still feel uncomfortable expressing my opinions about it.  I’m no historian, and the vast majority of history that I do know pertains to talking socks, so I cannot review this as an informed critic.  Consequently, I will have to talk about this from the perspective of what I do know – how the movie made me feel.

This was shown as a part of one of my classes at the university where I’m currently studying film, and I’m very glad that it was.  It’s one of the most interesting and enjoyable films that’s been shown in the class thus far, if only because it does a good job at telling a good story.  Generally, this isn’t exactly the breed of movie I go for – the pseudo-realistic lighting and colors, the strict basis in history, the focus on oppression, revolution, and inspiration – it doesn’t tickle my fancy the way that surrealistic fantasy does.  However, I was moved in all the ways I should have been moved, I felt good and bad at the appropriate times, and I’d like to think I may have gained some insight and perspective on both the man and the event.  (Most importantly, the use of “The Banana Boat Song” was perfect.)  This film was fascinating and enjoyable, and I think that, for now, is all I really need to know in order to give it a thumbs-up.

107 Selma

Boogie Nights Review

by

Interesting is an interesting word.

Paul Thomas Anderson’s 1997 hit film Boogie Nights was terribly difficult for me to watch to the finish.  I watched the film in pieces over a period of about two weeks, which is the longest I’ve ever dragged out any of my cinematic experiences without watching another movie before finishing.  Now, this is in part because I’ve been absurdly busy lately, and I’ve had no time to watch movies, but it’s partly because the film is not very interesting.  I had to make it through to the end of the film, however, because it’s very interesting.  This is why the word interesting is so tricky.

Boogie Nights has a story structure that’s not very JD-friendly.  The fact that the last portion of the film (which would ordinarily be used for a very important climax) was actually entitled, “Long Way Down (One Last Thing)” reveals that the scenes shown to us are not scenes that are necessary for a plot, but are instead whatever portions of the lives of these characters the director feels like depicting.  This gives the film a serious case of “And-Then” Syndrome, an issue that’s chastised by writers of several different productions (ranging from PIXAR to South Park) for being the guaranteed way to generate apathy.  For me, this is the kind of movie that leaves me with a blank expression on my face asking, “so… what’s your point?”  There’s not much to gain from a film that gives off vibes of “just being there,” and I find it dreadfully tedious.

On the other hand, I do find the characters quite interesting, and characters are nearly half of the essence of a story.  I did want to know if Dirk was going to be a success, and if Amber was going to get to see her kid, and if Jack was going to find a way to stay afloat in the midst of new trends in the industry.  That being said, I wasn’t exactly on the edge of my seat waiting for the big reveal, because I knew there was no big reveal.  There was no moral of the story, no global implications, and no point – everything is presented matter-of-factly for anyone who’s curious about the field.  This, I think, it was it comes down to: the film is not interesting in the sense of keeping the audience invested and on the edge of their seats, but rather, its unique qualities persist to arouse curiosity, which is the kind of interesting at which this picture excels.

So, while it may not be my kind of film, I do think that, for the kind of film it is, it is done very impressively.  The cast is outstanding, and it is because of the cast that the characters keep us curious.  The soundtrack is one of the best that any movie has ever had, and the ’70s are captured brilliantly.  Even though the story does not appeal to me, and I probably wouldn’t recommend it to hardly anyone I know, I have to respect it for being so well done.  Also, Burt Reynolds’ character in this movie is just too darn likable.

84 Boogie Nights

History of the World – Part I Review

by

I absolutely love it when a film has such a strong creative essence that it immediately relays its muses to me, who inspire me to express the experience in a review (in much the same way that a songwriter might be overcome by the need to play the expression of his/her passion).  At those moments, the essence of the film appears before me as a dream awaiting a poet’s articulation.  Other films, however, leave me scratching my head (and leave my muses shrugging) as I try to figure out what to make of whatever I’ve just seen.  These are the moments that make me look at Roger Ebert with jealousy, knowing that he could nearly always express exactly how he felt about a movie, no matter the film’s complexity.  Unfortunately, History of the World – Part 1 is a puzzler for me, since I really want to love the film, but I just don’t think I do.

The film has its moments that hit home and are very strong, but it has a lot of moments that simply don’t do it for me.  Unfortunately, the movie can’t decide whether it’s comprised of comedy sketches, vignettes, or (not very) short films.  This inconsistency in length means that many scenes leave me thinking, “that’s it?” while others make me cry, “it’s still going?”  I think that consistency – or, better yet, a narrative (or some focused structure) to tie everything together – would do the film some good.  That being said, I love the “Inquisition” number, and I’m more moved by Mel’s take on 2001: A Space Odyssey than I am by the actual Kubrick film.

I generally wouldn’t hold a vignette-based film to my Pausibility Test (I measure a film by how content I am with pausing it and coming back to it in a few weeks) because the nature of such a film has built-in stopping points, which makes pausing natural.  The problem with this film, however, is that I was content with pausing the movie mid-segment, and I suspect that’s because of the characters.  Ebert helped clarify this for me by pointing out that we are presented with cardboard cut-outs of Jews, monks, etc., but there is not much detail added to make them funny or interesting.  Instead, our interest in each character is dependent on the performers.  While I didn’t necessarily “have a blast” watching the movie, I cannot be as hard on it as Ebert because I suspect that many scenes from it will stick with me for the rest of my life.

64 History of the World - Part 1

(Monty Python’s) Life of Brian Review

by

This film is not sacrilegious.  This film is not about Jesus.  It is about the importance of rationally thinking for oneself rather than just accepting what others say is true.  It mocks group think, pokes fun at activists, and challenges people to be critical thinkers, making it very much the skeptic’s film.  In fact, Pythoner John Cleese has said that a number of Christians have told him how much they enjoyed the film, because they understood that making fun of religion is not the point.  Cleese has also gone on record saying that he has always thought Life of Brian would be considered the best Python film ever made, but I have to ask myself, would I say such a thing?  Well, let’s analyze the story, characters, and comedy, comparing it to what has been my favorite of the Python productions, Holy Grail.

In terms of story, Brian works better.  Its story has far more structure to it, and the plot is more conflict driven, with a narrative that would work well even if it was not a comedy piece.  The pace is actually a little slow, but it’s still a very interesting story on the whole.  The main character, Brian, has much more reality than King Arthur, making for more investment in a relatable character.  This also lends itself to a great comedic situation as Brian is a voice of reason in a world of lunatics, and no one really listens to him.  Also, the supporting characters are fun, will-written, and performed excellently, but this film is still not as fun or funny as I had hoped.

There was little to make me fall out of my chair laughing, but most of the movie did manage to put a smile on my face or get a chuckle out of me.  Part of the problem was the culture-specific jokes throughout, such as the parody of the British political activist groups at the time, and the jokes based on the Pythoners’ mutual experience with learning Latin in school – something that is not as common in the US.  In a way, the film is more of a tragicomedy than a comedy, largely because the audience cares a bit too much for Brian to be okay with his suffering (or at least I did).  I tend to be very empathetic concerning movie characters I like, so I was legitimately happy when Brian was happy, but in turn, some of what he dealt with was hard to watch.  Particularly the stupid people who didn’t really listen to him no matter how well he communicated – I knew I was supposed to laugh, and I suppose I did some, but I couldn’t help but empathize with his misery too much.

Comedy is a tricky thing since it requires keeping people interested in what the characters endure without letting them get too invested.  So, in the end, I do not find Life of Brian to be their funniest film.  I do, however, think it’s Monty Python’s most important film.  I cannot help but respect this movie immensely for making a piece that helps us see why we must be critical thinkers, while making us smile at giggle at the same time.  This film serves as a perfect example of how to make a message movie: its focus is on a strong character in an interesting situation; it makes it clear that this is not our world, but rather an absurd variation on our world; it is not at all preachy, but instead puts fun first; the audience is left smiling, but still thinking about the nature of humanity.

For this reason, I highly recommend the film to everyone, because in a way, it may be Monty Python’s finest achievement.  (Not to mention, “Bright Side” is pretty great.)

P.S.  My next movie review concerns another message movie that needed to learn a lesson or two from Life of Brian, so stay tuned . . . .

57 Monty Python's Life of Brian

Ever After Review

by

Do you know how often I give a movie four and a half stars?  I’ve done over 50 movie reviews and I only gave such a rating to two of them … but today you can make that three.  To be honest, I probably should have given this rating to a couple other really good movies I’ve reviewed, such as Annie Hall, but I really wanted to save such a high number for the absolute best of the best.  For this reason, it is odd that I would choose to give this rating to a film that stars one of my least favorite actors in the lead role.  (What, you don’t see why I don’t like Drew Barrymore?  I can’t really explain it, but I find her voice pretty annoying, and the roles she plays are often the kind of characters that seem like they were written just to bug me.)

Here’s the thing: that’s pretty much the movie’s only flaw.  Everything else, from the story to the dialogue to the performances to the visuals to the music, was done right.  The world of the film is enchanting, the characters are delightful, and the story manages to capture all of the best elements of the story upon which it is based, Cinderella, while carefully adjusting what does not hold up.  The story of “Cinderella” is a timeless one, which means it does not need an update unless something extra special will be added.  Rather than adding anything too terribly brilliant or different, this film adds the basic thing that “Cinderella” lacked – a love story that’s actually a love story.  And it’s a good love story at that.

The movie owes much of its success to the main character, and while I think it was the writing that made the character great, Barrymore’s performance was really not bad.  The character could have been ruined by someone who lacked talent, but Barrymore’s acting talent allowed for the character to shine through in exactly the way it needed to, making aCinderella that the audience really cares about.  It helped that she was doing an accent, but what really helped was the way the dialogue was written.  It was done in such a way that the character is strong, smart, independent, and brave, without seeming like an annoying know-it-all.  This is a fine example of the type of character I would like to see more often in cinema.

If I may note one other thing, and I do believe this is key, I think it helps to have the writer be the director, or at least have some additional control over the project so his/her vision gets across.  Many of the other movie’s I’ve reviewed that I enjoyed the most had Woody Allen as both the writer and the director, or at the very least as both writer and star.  Planes, Trains, and Automobiles came very close to getting four and a half stars out of me, and Silver Linings Playbook succeeded in doing so.  Both of those had the writer direct as well.  Perhaps this is just the wishful thinking of a screenwriting control freak, but I want to see this become common practice.

53 Ever After