Delila's Reviews

You're a twicky wabbit, Holden Pike.
They had it at Amazon.

That sounds positively brilliant! Thanks for the recommend. I will certainly check it out, and let you know what I think.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

I happened to see Roman Holiday for the first time, shortly after my 4th viewing of Lost in Translation. I caught a few reminders, the first time through, of the newer film. A second viewing, pen in hand, yeilded the following points, all of which are common to both films:

Had the pleasure of watching a most charming movie this afternoon? It?s a story about two people who are away from home, kindred spirits who see each other very clearly and come to understand and care about each other in rather whirlwind fashion, but while their connection is genuine and beautiful, it is doomed from the start by the commitments in their lives.

Opening scene, we meet our young heroine: fresh-faced and pretty, intelligent, educated, the embodiment of sweetness and decency. She is not alone, and yet terribly isolated, emotionally. Even when she allows herself an emotional outburst, the people closest to her are unphased and oblivious. Our heroine listlessly looks out her window over a strange city, and we feel how much she wants to experience the place... to connect to something. This is our introduction to the silent character in the piece: the city itself and the strange culture we?ll soon explore, and it isn?t long before she ventures out. We explore the city over her shoulder as she wanders the streets alone, rather aimlessly, taking in the history in the architecture, enjoying the food and music and interacting shyly with the locals. She begins a detached observer, but gradually allows herself to be affected by the charm of a new place ? purchasing a souvenir specific to the culture. She is touched at one point, by the written wishes of the people, and participates in the ritual herself.

At this point, she runs into a man she had met fleetingly, a little earlier: also a displaced traveler and a little older and streetwise than she, they form a pact to escape into the city and enjoy all it can offer together. They share a smoke, a few drinks, music at a party and escape a light-hearted scuffle in the city streets. He provides a safe means for her to escape her confinement and experience not just the city, but herself, in this new place. He assists her in a moment of distress, and amusingly attempts conversation in the local language ? naturally, the overall effect is charming as hell. ?Nice guy?, we find ourselves observing.

A third character provides counterpoint to the friendship of our happy couple: a photographer ? a bit shallow, bit of a flirt, but a good guy at heart, we see the contrast between the choices he makes in dealing with people and those made by our central characters. There?s the suggestion that he might not be entirely decent, bringing onto the screen the reality that our central characters have options that they actively decide (despite strong feeling) not to take. They do spend a night together, but fully clothed and nothing untoward happens. In the end, our hero chooses not to take advantage of this situation, and our heroine chooses to return to the duties of her life. We see the longing in him as he sits in his car and watches her walk away.

This is a tale of a refreshingly different ?movie romance?. It was fabulously received, garnered an array of Academy accolades and launched the career of a lovely fresh face ? Audrey Hepburn, who won the Oscar for best actress in this film: Roman Holiday.

So, how does it compare to Lost In Translation? Easy: every point above is true of both movies. True, Johansson's character is not a princess, but a philosophy major (and really... same diff, no?) and she didn't get an Academy nod for her performance in LiT, but there's no missing the fact that it's launched her career. I found the similarities striking, and yet both are firmly enough rooted in their "present" days, that they feel different.

This is a well-told story of a guy holding on to the good in himself. De Niros Travis Bickle is a highly controlled, expertly focused character study that walks the line between obvious psychosis and a childlike idealism. It doesn't hurt that he looks really good, either. I like the irony of the ending, that

Jodi Foster's performance has been deservedly lauded, and Cybil Shepard was annoying, but tolerable. In fact, this movie has a lot of familiar faces who went on to be charicatures, and it's refreshing to see them, back when they were focused on storytelling. Kudos to Scorcese on maintaining the realism in this piece - it was the element that most made it all sympathetic, and has helped this film to endure, despite all the heinous hairstyles.

I almost turned this one off during the first act. It started out so sleazy and focused on these three primates-posing-as-humans that I could barely even relate to..... but it got better. The beginning of the second act begins with a palatte cleansing movie-sherbet moment - very funny scene where the main character, a filmmaker, is recognised by someone who's seen his movie... and asks for his money back. ha! It's also an indication that this main character has been dealt a few blows by the hand of Harsh Reality. Unfortunately, not enough, yet. That comes in the third act in an emotionally satisfying speech from his girlfriend. The movie doesn't answer the ultimate question of how it all ends for the protagonist, but frankly, I didn't care much. Which is the one major problem with this movie: the main character is a jerk and it's kind of hard to care about him, and by extension, the film. It's counter-balanced allllmost, by the emerging character of his girlfriend, but again, we aren't told what finally comes of them. It's passable, but not a great film. Nicely shot, but not beautifully made.

Bizarro. In a good way. This is a really creepy movie. It goes way beyond that, however, and explores the concepts of "capture", "escape" and "freedom". Adapted from his own novel by Kôbô Abe, this is a thinking (wo)man's horror movie. It's also got some hot erotic scenes, I'm not kidding.

The acting is excellent. I'm not a fan of subtitles, because... well, if I wanted to read it, I'd just read it, ok? But in this case, the acting was so excellent that it bridged the gap to my ignorance of their language. Pretty big job. Kudos to Eiji Okada (as the entomologist) and Kyôko Kishida as the woman.

The other major player is Hiroshi Segawa's photography. This is a two-hour film about a guy who falls into a trap, but my interest was sustained through the beat transitions by the brilliance of director Hiroshi Teshigahara's photography. It's metaphorical, artistic, beautiful, haunting.. and conveys the frustration of the central character very effectively.

This one is not to be missed, and not to be forgotten.

In the absense of LordSlaytan's wonderful reviews, your quick and witty comments are very refreshing. You have a wonderful voice in your writing.

__________________
NEW (as of 1/24/05): Quick Reviews #10

This was one of two shots that really grabbed me in this movie. The other is from a tennis match when everyone's heads are moving in unison and Our Antihero is staring right at the camera from the midst of the crowd. It's a simple shot, and yet unnerving, which is a good starting piont for discussing this film. Strangers On A Train is creepy in it's conventionality. The premise could easily happen, much like One Hour Photo. The horror in this story - adapted by Hitchcock from a novel by Patricia Highsmith - is fairly natural human behaviour. It's extreme, and not polite behaviour, but it's nothing that doesn't literally happen every day.

The acting was a bit stilted on everybody's part... just a tinge of camp. I think the concept would have been better served with a straighter treatment. Also, the tennis match was a bit of a dead spot, but worth slogging through for the infamous "carousel scene", near the end. I'd hate to ruin that one for anyone, so I'll simply say: they got it on one take.

This is not one of Hitchcock's strongest films, but it is a good story. I'd recommend it as a study of early identity-theft flicks.

Hi, Mark! Thanks for the kind words.
On the MoFo review plate, Lord Slaytan's reviews are steak and mine are the parsley, but that's ok. I look good in green.

Peter Sollett's directorial debut features a cast of unknowns, who put the flesh on a somewhat spindly skeleton of a story with such heart and grace that we are drawn into their world. Victor Vargas is a young man with a sweet soul, living in a world that demands a thick skin, going through the familiar growing pains of teenage sexual curiosity. Somehow, miraculously, this movie avoids the well-worn stereotypes and tells Victor's story with an unexpected freshness, frankness and charm. It's a sweet little movie that is honest and never cloying. Great performances by a lot of young talent, and grandma rocks, too! I offer this as the cure for Sex In The City -aholism.

I love your reviews and opinions Delila. Even if I saw Lost in Translation a little differently than you did, I still enjoyed reading what you had to say about it...very insightful. You have a nice way with words.

I haven't seen Raising Victor Vargas yet, but since you said the granny rocks, I will make a point to check it out.


By the way...parsley is always good to have around....adds a subtle flavor and texture to the dish.

Your kind words have helped me recover from my shock over your not liking LiT. I'm back on solid foods again and everything.

I can just about guarantee you'll love it. The kid who plays VV is so direct and charming. I didn't think I was going to like him or the movie, and I totally fell for both.

ha! Thanks for the encouragement, chica! xo

The main thing I wanted was a good time, and a close second was to see the dynamic between the two lead actors. Remembering the all our adoration with which Ms Hepburn referred to Mr Tracy in her memoir, I found the scene pictured below to be ultimately rewarding.





Adam: Are you alright, Pinkie?
Amanda: I guess I'm ok. Why?
Adam: Well, I just wouldn't want to think of you being not alright.
Amanda: You know what you are? You're lovable.


I wonder if that looked like treacle to anyone who hadn't read her book.



This was a well-constructed script, with a healthy dash of panache which won an Oscar nod for the writers, married couple Gordon and Kanin. I expected a romp, and wasn't disappointed, but saw some unexpected depth as well. The one word that I'd use to describe the point of the movie is actually a little deeper than I anticipated: transition. The opening scene of the street clock marking the transition into evening... the cartoonish scene cards announcing "that evening",etc... kept the action going and the beats clear, but they also reminded me that this time was a transition into a new world of thought about gender roles. I thought the casting was excellent for that purpose: KH's Amanda was pretty and clearly a woman, but also athletic and dressed in sharp lines. ST's Adam walked the line between respectably masculine and 'big ***** cat' with enough grace that he didn't give away the crying scene at the CPA's office.

This movie was a stepping stone for Judy Holliday, who had been performing on Broadway in "Born Yesterday". Her reception in the Adam's Rib role sold her in the lead for the movie version of "Born Yesterday", for which she won an academy award.

My other honorable mention goes to David Wayne, who played Kip the letcherous neighbor. Great character, fun song, nice foil... I need a guy like that across the hall from me!

The Apartment is a pretty simple story of an Everyman of 1960 (Jack Lemmon) in a typical entry-level insurance job, a number-cruncher without much to set him apart... except an apartment he's willing to loan out to the big kahuna's in his office for their extra-marital romps. It isn't long til he meets the perfect goofy girl next door (Shirley MacLaine) and wants the apartment for himself. This is a fairly light-hearted little story with fun characters and an upbeat attitude. There is a slightly deeper level to it, in which you can ponder the "mensch" angle: "what would it take for you to stand up for your beliefs?" it asks... but it asks over a frothy drink with an umbrella in it, and it's a fun thing to contemplate. It's a highly enjoyable movie, and it got me thinking about a couple of things, too.

For instance...
I did a little research on the information in Bud's opening speech, and a comparison to today's corresponding data:

In 1960, population of NYC: 8,042,782
In 2002, population of NYC: 7,428,162

In 1960, 5th largest corporation: Consolidated Insurance (per Bud)
In 2002, 5th largest corporation: Enron

In 1960, pay for an actuary, level III (middle range) in NYC: $4924.40 a YEAR!
Same in 2003: $76.268.00 a year.

Then, rent for a mid-60's Manhattan 1 br, W of Central Park: $85/mo. (21% of the above income)
Now, for the same area: $2000 a month (31% of that person's gross income....suddenly it's clear the real reason we stopped wearing pearls and furs after the 60's!)

Then: instant coffee was hip
Now: it's all about the Starbuck's, baby

Then: nearly dead movie cuties got 10 sharp slaps from an MD and walked around for 6 hours.
Now: same girlie gets a hypodermic of adrenaline jabbed through her sternum by a drug-dealing Eric Stoltz.

Regarding Bud's morality, I think he had a sense of chivalry going on. I didn't think he enjoyed taking "credit" for banging a different woman every night, but rather that it was better the neighbors thought he (a single guy) was wild than for them to know that he was letting his apartment be used for adultery. He had a couple of moments where you saw that he had mensch potential, like when he said to Sheldrake that, "five bad apples is still a small percentage." He didn't just let him off the hook. I think Bud was a guy trying to figure out his own morality in a sea of new ideas about sexuality. 1960 was a bit of a turning point.

My favorite quotes...

he: Your mirror is broken.
she: Yes, I know. I like it that way. Makes me look how I feel

bar floozie: Twas the night before Christmas and all through the house, not a creature was stirring. Nothin'. No action. Dullsville.

Bud: I used to l ive like Robinson Crusoe, shipwrecked among millions of people. Then one day, I saw a foot print in the sand, and there you were.

Nice!

Thanks Delia for the great reviews, you realise that you have just increased my, To See List, thanks

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Now that's highly cool. My entire netflix queue (over 200 titles right now) consists of things recommended by people who know more about movies than I do. It's pretty awesome that all that enthusiasm gets spread around, no?

This story interweaves themes of ambition, disparity between the classes/races, science fiction, politics and our current climate of fear and paranoia regarding terrorism. It's a lot to tackle, but director Jonathan Demme's updating of the 1962 classic is time well spent.

The main reason to see this movie is the performances. The cast does a superb job across the board. Of particular note is Liev Schreiber's turn as the candidate, which had suprising depth and an eerie resemblance to John Edwards at times. The story has been updated well, and resonates with the currently prevailing political climate. The sci-fi is a bit heavy on the -fi, but there is enough build to keep us engaged and Demme/Fujimoto conspire effectively to create a tension-filled world, particularly in the dream sequences, which start out very sketchy and confused, and eventually we see exactly what happened. I have not seen the original, so my perception of this film is uncomplicated by comparison. I think, overall, that it works well and is very effective as a thriller. The ads promise no one will breathe during the last 30 minutes. If you're willing to believe that's possible, then the hazy details of microchip implantation shouldn't bother you in the least, and even if it does, it's worth a watch.

This film is amazing. Carl Theodore Dryer's Le Passion of Jeanne d'Arc is a must-see for anyone with a true interest in film, theater or acting.

The Story In The Film
The story is taken directly from manuscripts of the famous trial, with very few additions. The real trial was comprised of 22 sessions of interrogation, over a span of 6 months. Dryer eschews the famous military deeds of our heroine, and the splashy accusations of sorcery, to focus on the trial itself, and the universal conflict between simple faith and politicized theocracy. He includes here only the moments from the trial that he considered "significant or typical", and condenses the story into one day.

The story begins with the opening of the trial. Renee Marie Falconetti, as Joan, is immediately captivating and will remain so until her last frame. This is an astonishing performance. Dryer tells the story almost entirely in close-up, and Falconetti shows us the soul of Joan with unvarnished (and un-made-up) openness. The result is one of the most moving performances I have ever seen.

Also of note in the cast is the founder of the Theater of Cruelty movement, Antonin Artaud, who plays the sympathetic but ineffectual young monk. As a student of theater history, I can't tell you how excited I was to see such a person do his thing.

The action of the film involves Joan being interrogated by a roomful of powerful figures bent on forcing her into a confession of heresy. They use tactics of debate, trick questions, forgery, bribery, blackmail, torture... and are confounded at every turn by the simple faith of their captive. In the end, they put her to death for her insistance that she will save France through a great victory and that God will deliver her, and one wonders if they ever saw that in her martyrdom, they bring about both these events.

The Story Of The Film
Criterion presents us with the dual story of Joan and that of the film itself. Like Joan's simple, direct connection with her God, this film was met with outrage and censorship because it did not echo the commonly accepted conventions of the story, nor did it support the politically motivated claims on Joan by contemporary French government factions. Dryer foregoes the depictions of the peasant girl hearing voices, and the virgin knight in shining armor, and instead gives us a starkly honest hour and a half with the psyche and the faith of the martyr.

Also an echo of Joan's treatment in the film, the film itself was censored, cut, denounced and burned. The original negative was lost in a fire shortly after the film opened. Dryer's insistance on multiple takes paid off, in that a second version was cut together from alternate takes, but this too was thought lost to fire. For 50 years, the film existed only in the form of vastly inferior mock-ups, until 1981, when a dusty copy was found in a closet in an insane asylum in Copenhagen. (Have you ever?!) It was sent to the national film board, only to wait another three years before curiousity got the better of someone and it was discovered to be the previously "lost" second version. Now known as the Oslo version, and restored beautifully in 1985, we finally have this glimse of the height of silent film.

Dryer assembled a crew of trailblazers in the art of camera movement. The first sequence in the trial is one of maybe three establishing shots in the whole film, a 45 second dolly-shot that sweeps the entire courtroom. He uses extreme and conflicting camera angles to heighten the sense of disorientation that Joan feels. Her agitation is expressed in fast-cut changes in point of view. The film is comprised of over 1500 shots - double the average film of the 20's. The sets are simplistic, inspired by illuminated manuscripts of the day and the unbalanced proportions heighten the sense of things being askew. The near-constant close-up treatment of the actors echos the close-quarters combat that is the central conflict of the film. Crosses play a symbolic role, both the naturally-occurring ones and the manicured representations of them. Joan's nature is compared cinematically to flowers, birds and a crown that she weaves of straw. This is the level of detail that makes great film.

In my opinion, while this film has a great deal going for it in the acting and the compelling story, the thing that sets it above so many other films is the dedication of writer/director Carl Th. Dryer to truthfulness. The film cost 9 million francs. I fed that into a currency converter and without adjusting for inflation, that's nearly $2 million USD. He had a castle built with four towers, a moat and a drawbridge, city streets and a central square, occupying some 700 sq. meters and kept the cast on site for the six months in which he shot the film more or less in sequence. No makeup was allowed on any actor. Falconetti's hair was really shorn off for the final scenes (over her many protests), and a stand-in really was bled for the scene following the torture. The monks really did have their heads shaved, despite the fact that they wore skull-caps that would have hid their hair. This prompted one actor to label Dryer a "certafiable lunatic", but the result of it all is such a fascinating piece of film.

Contemporary reviewers hailed The Passion of Joan of Arc as a masterpiece. I agree. They also regarded it as an "art film", and there I disagree: I think the universality of Dryer's subject and the fame of the story make it very accessable to a broad range of people. Catch it, if you can!

thanks so much for all your reviews...i agree with you on the manchurian candidate...

After waiting in line to get into line to wait some more, I was happy once again to be seated in the middle of a roomful of geeks who love this story as much as I do. I have immense respect for Peter Jackson, to take on this project in the first place, and to give it full and rightful treatment. I was very moved by the beginning of FOTR, because I honestly hadn't dared to dream that a filmmaker would be so faithful to the author's words, but there we were looking at Tolkein's Shire.

This is a beautiful end to the story. I liked the scope and the magnitude of Helm's Deep, and I also liked the contrasting treatment of the battles in this one: they seemed more personal and small-scale, even though the armies were huge and the effects spectacular. Those flying pieces of buildings had me paralyzed and breathless. As did Sam's battle with Shelob.

Since I last read these books years ago, events had conspired to obscure in my mind just how much Eowyn rocked. I now remember crying when I read that part of the battle, and it was one of many things that moved me to tears watching the movie.

I think part of why this is all so emotional has to be credited to the beauty in the details. The sets and costumes and the landscape and all of it is just so gorgeous that in the quieter moments, you're swooning over how pretty it all is, and then it's back to the action. You don't get a rest that way. It's very effective!

I do agree with the gripes about the Arwen story. It needed a little depth, while they were adding things. I also found it distracting that the front of Aragorn's crown reminded me of the Crystler Building. But those are both pretty small gripes. Overall... it's just wonderful.