Let’s see now: the film is a version of Anton Chekhov’s play Uncle Vanya, as adapted by David Mamet, brought to the stage by Andre Gregory, filmed in the derelict New Amsterdam Theater by Louis Malle, where rehearsal is taking place, blending the lives of the actors with the play. It’s basically an experimental version of a well-known and good play, that creates an interesting, gimmicky film that doesn’t quite succeed. Everything here is deliberately done to look accidental, creating something very unusual, but not very great. Nevertheless, the play is good enough to warrant watching and the frame-work is not so distracting that it becomes unbearable.
Some real nice stage acting here by the cast, which naturally does not translate to film at all. I’m sure it’s intentional and it is well done, but it is also annoying.
This concludes Louis Malle Week on something of a sour note, although the film is a far cry from being bad. Just not as brilliant as the last one.
Typical Mamet dialogue has subtly entered the play. I wonder how much else he changed.
In 1954, a brutal murder shocked New Zealand. Two teenage girls killed the mother of one of them, in the hope of removing one of the obstacles keeping them apart. The film adaptation follows the diary of the daughter and tells the story of their friendship and love, that soon turns to obsession. Darkly poetic, the film manages to have the viewer root for the girls before the shocking ending to their story exposes the folly of their way. It’s a powerful story, masterfully told, that lives through the performance by the two leads, then-newcomers Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet. Ultimately, it’s a little too rambling with too many loose ends in the narrative to be perfect, but it’s still a very good film.
You may have heard of director Peter Jackson. He went on to adapt a quite popular trilogy of fantasy books, creating the most successful films ever made in New Zealand.
There are certain parallels to Jackson’s latest film, The Lovely Bones, in that both blend fantasy and reality through the use of great special effects. In this case, however, the effects actually advance the story and do not detract from it.
Much of the film has an almost dream-like tone, which makes the realistic ending all the more powerful.
It has been extensively debated whether the two girls were “just” friends or actually lovers. A moot point in my opinion, as the obsession with each other that lead to the tragic ending, can support both ideas. The parents’ fear that their children may be lesbians, however, should not be discarded and is adequately shown in the film.
After the owner and president of Hudsucker Industries jumps out of a window, the board decides to install an imbecile in the job to devalue the stock so they can buy the majority chair. But the man comes up with a brilliant idea (if you have seen the poster, you can guess what it is) and saves the company - at least for a while. But things never work out the way one expects. The film is a hilariously funny comedy that is somewhat diminished by the need to have a halfway coherent plot with a happy ending, resorting to fantasy to manage to get out of the many holes it dug. Nevertheless, the film is absolutely brilliant and should have firmly established the Coen Brothers as the leading comedy filmmakers of their time.
John Goodman has a small cameo here and is credited as Karl Mundt, the name of his character in Barton Fink.
Also with a small cameo: the always awesome Steve Buscemi.
The dialogue in this film may be some of the funniest in the history of the medium.
I love how Tim Robbins, playing the lead guy, goes around showing people his circle, claiming that it is a great idea.
Sam Raimi, acclaimed horror (and Spider-Man) director, co-wrote the script with the Coen Brothers, almost ten years before the film was made.
I’m fairly certain that this film will prove to be even better on repeat viewings. It seems like one of the things it has in common with The Big Lebowski, which it precedes in many ways.
A group of friends fresh out of college doesn’t know what to do with their life. This is exemplified by Winona Ryder, who can’t choose between broke musician and idealist Ethan Hawke and yuppie sell-out Ben Stiller. All this is combined into a film that claims to be a comedy but is very seldom funny, with a strange story without real plot or point. The film is often considered a cult-classic and maybe if you finished college in the early 90s you can relate to it, but otherwise it’s just boring.
Five years after Leningrad Cowboys Go America, in 1994, Kaursimäki made a sequel. It tells the story of the band’s return from Mexico to their home and how they met up again with their former manager, who now calls himself Moses. On the way, he steals the nose of the Statue of Liberty and another road trip across Europe this time proves both funny and thought-provoking. While not strictly necessary, this film is also a fun movie and adds some more layers to the only real character, the manager, while the new composition of the group adds some more funny moments.
Please enjoy another clip from the Total Balalaika show:
Speaking of which, there is also a “documentary” about the Total Balalaika Show available, which I highly recommend. Sadly, it is only about 55 minutes long and large parts of the concert are cut.
If I hadn’t seen Modern Times so recently, I probably would not have caught the homage to that great classic.
I’ve heard people say that “Little Women” is for Americans what “Pride and Prejudice” is for the British. And in a way it is true: There are lot of similarities between the stories and at least for the movie version it is true that “Little Women” is extremely American. The story of four sisters growing up during the Civil War is sentimentalized beyond belief. Even though the story of how they make their way in life, especially Jo the writer as the main character, is interesting and touching, the movie suffers from being just a little to melodramatic. It’s nice to see what life in that time in the US was like and the film shows this very well, but the unrealistic sentimentality of the story and of some people’s behaviour spoils the good effort to a certain extent.
Loading ...