Faith of My Fathers blog

June 29, 2009

Mad Love review

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 7:02 pm


Mad Love

is a curiosity of 1930s Hollywood horror. Rather than a tale of a monster on the loose or of a mad scientist with a lust for glory,

Mad Love

is about a man at loose ends

and a mad man who happens to be a scientist. It isn't that some of the movie's themes are sexual; the film dives head-first into the sea of sexual desire and the destruction that occurs when it is sublimated and perverted.

Actress Yvonne (Frances Drake) is retiring from the simulated torture and bondage of Paris's Theatre des Horreurs (a take on the Theatre du Grand Guignol), in order to be with her husband, concert pianist Stephen Orlac (Colin Clive). Yvonne's departure from the stage greatly disturbs her biggest fan, the renowned surgeon Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre), who buys the wax figurine of Yvonne from the theater lobby as a shrine to his favorite star's beauty. When Orlac's hands are damaged beyond repair in a train wreck, Gogol gives him the hands of the guillotined knife murderer Rollo. Soon Orlac is tossing any convenient knife he can find, a problem that Gogol encourages in order to conquer Yvonne's heart through his own twisted means. Yvonne rejects him utterly, however, sending the good doctor into the warm and loving embrace of madness.

Although

Mad Love

is ostensibly an adaptation of Maurice Renard's 1920 novel

Les Mains d'Orlac

, director Karl Freund and scenarist Guy Endore have relegated

the tragic story of a pianist given the hands of a killer to a subplot. The main focus here is on a new character, Dr. Gogol, who seems custom tailored for Lorre's Hollywood debut. Indeed, while the character existed in drafts of the screenplay prior to casting, the part was reworked once Lorre had the part (one note in the final script calls upon Lorre to give "his


M


look"


1


). This decision to shift the focus of the source material away from Orlac and onto this new character works for the film and adds a psychosexual bent that is immensely satisfying.

Dr. Gogol is portrayed as a brilliant surgeon and a petulant child simultaneously, with Lorre's baby face and shaved bald pate adding visual dimension to this characterization. Although Gogol is respectful and professional in matters of medicine, in matters of life he is uncertain and occasionally behaves inappropriately (at one point he grabs Yvonne and kisses her deeply in front of a crowd of people). There are suggestions throughout the film that he enjoys watching others suffer more than he should. Gogol watches Yvonne's performance at the Theatre des Horreurs from his private box, half in shadow. As Yvonne's flesh is "seared" by the hot irons of her "torturer", Gogol's eyes close and he breathes in deeply; the cruelty to Yvonne's person sends him into sexual ecstasy. Once Yvonne spurns the doctor's advances, his lust for her takes on a dimension beyond mere sex

. She is no longer his Madonna Whore fantasy, the object of his creepy if petulant infatuation. Rather, she becomes an object that he must possess simply because he's been told without exception that he cannot.

No line sums Gogol's monomaniacal pursuit of Yvonne better than his histrionic exclamation "I, a poor peasant, have conquered science! Why can't I conquer love?" The words sound silly read aloud and Lorre's delivery of them seems to break the bounds of the scene and occupy a strange netherspace all of its own. I believe this is the point. We know that conquering is antithetical to loving, but Gogol's perspective is that of the surgeon, the scientist. In the world of science, things are put together a certain way and despite the multitude of variations, a basic template and pattern is maintained.

There is no boundary he cannot breach given infinite time and infinite self-discipline. That his work is on human bodies makes his mania complete — human beings are parts that can be fit together on the operating table.

To his mind, Yvonne's heart should be no different and he should be able to fix it so that it does what he wants. If he cannot do that, then he'll do the next best thing and remove the aberration from existence like a cancer.

As Gogol's perverse obsession increases to a point beyond sexuality, cultured Stephen Orlac watches his own virility decline. As Yvonne says to a doctor who wants to amputate the pianist's hands, "Doctor, you don't understand. His hands are his life!" Orlac's entire livelihood is the piano. The act of amputation is tantamount to castration. That Gogol, a man who lusts after Yvonne, is the one who removes the hands adds a measure of insult, but the deepest cut occurs when Gogol then replaces those hands with a crueler, alien pair. The new hands, scarred and grotesque, could never caress the ivory piano keys the way that Orlac's natural talent demands. He is able to bang out out only the simplest of melodies, and even those attempts are fraught with embarrassing mistakes. Soon, the new hands, frustrating in their inability to recreate their owner's glory days, are throwing knives. In response to his emasculation, Orlac has subconsciously turned to violence for release of his tensions (while we are meant to accept that the hands kill on their own, they don't begin to take action until Orlac gives in to despair and anger). It is somewhat unfortunate that producing studio MGM dictated a traditional ending, where husband saves wife from the clutches of madman. In the waning moments of the film, the new hands and their frightening knife-throwing abilities are shown in a heroic light. Despite this, given Stephen's despair at his reduced circumstances, there's probably very little happiness awaiting either he or Yvonne after the film ends.

Much of director Karl Freund's visual style, with the sharp angles of the set design, the chiaroscuro lighting, and the impressive depth of field, seems lifted from the exaggerated worlds of German expressionist silent cinema. This isn't surprising; Freund worked as cinematographer on several of those films (including


The Golem


and

Metropolis

), and

Mad Love

acts as a continuation of that work. He paints a world lost in the depth of shadow, where a man's sexual expression can become ill-defined or distorted.

One of the most impressively directed sequences is a confrontation between Orlac and Gogol, disguised as Rollo, the executed hand donor. In the small room where they meet, the two men are surrounded by a gloom that threatens to consume them. The scene ends with the outrageous visual of a maniacal Gogol revealing his neck brace (ostensibly to keep the guillotined "Rollo" from losing his head). Gogol's pallid face, lit from below, seems to create its own disturbing illumination, as if Gogol's desire to own Yvonne and destroy her husband has finally allowed him to express his true madness with utter clarity. Conversely, Orlac, in his flight from the demented figure, runs into the night and back to his own repression.

Karl Freund's direction and the masterful script combine to form a black pearl of horror genius. In

Mad Love

, passion is everything. Those who carry it to extremes lose their sanity and those who sublimate it don't fare much better. Whether or not you choose to take such a theme at face value,

Mad Love

's exploration of it should not be missed.

Comments

June 28, 2009

Ice Princess review

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 5:50 am



Average

Reviewed: Step 15th, 2005

Amy Stewart as Ann and Michelle Trachtenberg as Casey in Disney's Ice Princess - 2005
When I'm as contribute from being the object audience of a movie as it's possible to be and hushed enjoy it, then the makers of that silent picture ought to beget done something right. This is the case with Disney's
Ice Princess
, which almost in irritate of myself, I actually from stem to stern enjoyed.

Like so many of Disney's movies and cartoons, this one deals with a teenage girl living with a single parent who goes in pursuit of her dream. This time the girl (Casey) is played by Michelle Trachtenberg (

Buffy: The Vampire Slayer

,

Eurotrip

) and her dream is Figure Skating. When the movie begins, she's a physics nerd who needs a science project to get a scholarship to Harvard. Since she already dabbles in ice-skating, she decides to base her project around the dynamics of skating. Soon though, she's caught up in the sport and armed with her raw talent and her mathematical formulas, she enters a tournament. The question of the movie then becomes, does she pursue her dream of skating, or does she go on to Harvard?

It's not the most original of concepts I know, but Trachtenberg is so likable in the lead role, that you can't help but root for her. She plays the pretty-ugly girl quite well (you know, she's nerdy and geeky until she lets her hair down and puts on the ice-skating outfit).

Joan Cusack and Kim Cattral are both good in supporting roles. Cusack plays Casey's mom, whose personality was formed in the liberal 1960s and hasn't changed since. She disapproves of her daughter's hobby as sexist and silly. Cattral is the former skater who now coaches and will do whatever it takes to win, no matter what.

Kim Cattrall as Tina and Michelle Trachtenberg as Casey in Disney's Ice Princess - 2005
Some of the dialogue is a touch melodramatic, like when Joan Cusack tells her daughter that, "You're giving up on our dream!" and Casey replies, "No mom, I'm giving up on your dream." Other lines seem to have an accidental double meaning, as when the guy Casey has a crush on says, "You can ride my Zamboni any time you want." Although since the movie is rated G, I might be reading things into that last line.

One small, nice touch added to this movie is the humanization of the popular girls. When the movie begins, they seem like the stereotypical snobs who always seem to populate these teen films, but as Casey gets to know them they actually soften up. Who knew that in a high school movie, people from the popular crowd could be nice?

This is a movie that will plainly be enjoyed most by its goal audience of young girls, but it should be a relief to anyone who has to go together with their daughter or girlfriend to accompany it that it can be enjoyed by all.

Did you enjoy Scott's evaluation?



+
1



-
0


Reviewed: August 20th, 2005

Joan Cusack as Joan and Michelle Trachtenberg as Casey in Disney's Ice Princess - 2005
I enjoyed this movie, but not as much as my trouble. As Scott wrote, this is definitely a girl's large screen. A movie around two single parents who badger their children to breathe the lives that they wished they had could easily be a send up flicks. It just so happens to be about women.


Ice Princess

is about finding your own way and not following the path your parents, (oh, I forgot this is a Disney movie) I mean "parent" wants you to. It is a very worn cliche but it is handled well here. Casey's dream to ice skate is hardly a negative thing so it doesn't really give her mom much to complain about. The two mothers have a scene where they yell at each other, but otherwise this movie is all simmer and no boil.

All of the characters are likable. Even the villainess popular girl and her win-at-all-cost mom become human and are pleasant by the end of the movie. Casey's mom, played by the great Joan Cusack, could have used some more screen time. Her liberal, feminist character could have easily been the butt of many jokes. The politically correct Disney missed some opportunities with her character.

Women will probably like this movie and some men may be able to sit through it without being completely bored. It's just too bad the writers could not have gotten more out of the characters. If they had, then this film may have been more than just some afterschool special.

Did you utilize Eric's review?



+
1



-
0

Photos © Copyright 2005 Walt Disney Pictures All Rights Reserved

June 27, 2009

The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 7:45 am


Reviews

»

Blu-ray Reviews

»
The Devil Wears Prada (Blu-ray)


The Devil Wears Prada (Blu-ray)


Fox

// PG-13 // December 12, 2006 // Region A

Record Toll: $39.98
[Buy right now and protect at

Amazon

]

Review by

Joshua Zyber

|
posted January 6, 2007 |

E-mail the Author

|

Start a Discussion

Your regularly scheduled reviewer Josh here. Having done this job for quite a long time, I occasionally find myself unqualified to comment on certain types of movie. I'm talking of course about chick flicks. Especially chick flicks about the fashion industry, in which a supposedly frumpy (but actually flawlessly beautiful) starlet learns to empower herself by playing dress-up in a series of ridiculous costumes while a flower-pop song previously featured on

Grey's Anatomy

blares on the soundtrack. Sorry, some films are simply not made for me. You might as well ask Mel Gibson to critique

Yentl

. It's just utterly beyond my comprehension. As such, my wife Elizabeth has graciously agreed to tackle the movie review portion of

The Devil Wears Prada

. I hope that readers find a proper female perspective more useful than anything I could write. I'll return for the technical portions of the article below. Enjoy.


"I'm just one stomach flu away from my goal weight."



The Movie:



As the wife of a film junkie, I've been subjected to, and come to love, a wide array of art house indies, weighty documentaries, and subtitled foreign films. I've even suffered through some anime, although I've yet to see the appeal. I can appreciate the artistry and depth of directors like Fellini, Renoir, Lynch, and Soderbergh and enjoy films that inspire thoughtful debate. That said, there are days when nothing hits the spot like donning some cozy pajamas, making a big bowl of popcorn, and curling up on the couch with a delightfully frothy chick flick.

In

The Devil Wears Prada

Anne Hathaway, best known for her fairy princess roles, trades her glass slippers for a pair of thigh high Chanel boots. All the essential fairy tale elements are here: an adorably spunky heroine, a deliciously wicked boss, a loyal boyfriend, a worldly suitor, and a fabulous fashion godfather. Finding it difficult to land her dream job as a serious reporter, idealistic young journalist Andy Sachs falls into the job "a million girls would kill for" as

Runway

magazine editor Miranda Priestly's second assistant. She quickly learns that this job will require not only a makeover (cue Madonna's "Vogue" for the fashion montage), but also the loss of her personal life and quite possibly her soul.

Hathaway lights up the screen as Andy and is joined by a strong supporting cast. Emily Blunt shines as Miranda's first assistant and Stanley Tucci has fun as the snarky Nigel, Andy's guide through the treacherous world of high fashion. But it is Meryl Streep's performance as the title character that is most notable for adding shades of gray that didn't exist in Lauren Weisberger's novel. We see what she has given up to reach the top of her field and are left to wonder if the same work/life balance and ageism struggles are faced by Donald Trump and Ted Turner.

Like any good chick flick our heroine must have a love interest.

Entourage

star Adrian Grenier is charmingly swoon-worthy as Andy's steadfast beau (those eyes… and he cooks!). Simon Baker provides some nice eye candy as the suave older man who introduces Andy to Paris and the darker side of the fashion world. But this movie is more about the boardroom than the bedroom and the most compelling scenes are between Andy and her colleagues.

Over the top costume design by

Sex and the City

style maven Patricia Field (who also provides audio commentary) adds a touch of whimsy, and glimpses inside the fictional

Runway

fashion closet are a nice treat for would be fashionistas (or even for those of us who occasionally skim thru

Vogue

on the treadmill). While the film has it flaws, most notably an excessive use of montages, overall it's a better than average guilty pleasure that will have you cheering for Andy and perhaps feeling some sympathy for the Devil.



The Blu-ray Disc:




The Devil Wears Prada

debuts on the Blu-ray format courtesy of 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.

Blu-ray discs are contrariwise playable in a compatible Blu-streak player. They compel not affair in a standard DVD contestant or in an HD DVD player. Suit note that the star rating scales owing video and audio are relative to other High Distinctness disc pleased, not to traditional DVD.



Video:



The

Devil Wears Prada

Blu-ray is encoded in High Definition 1080p format using MPEG2 compression on a single-layer 25 gb disc. The movie is presented in its theatrical aspect ratio of approximately 2.35:1 with letterbox bars at the top and bottom of the 16:9 frame.

This disc looks terrific. The movie has splendid, appropriately glossy photography by Florian Ballhaus (son of acclaimed cinematographer Michael Ballhaus) and has been transferred to High Definition extremely well. The picture is sharp and detailed, with no edge enhancement artifacts. Black levels are rich and have excellent shadow detail, lending the image a nice sense of depth. Colors are rich and vibrant, from Hathaway's porcelain skin and ruby lipstick to all the outlandish costumes on the fashion models, without a trace of noise or bleeding. There's some especially great High-Def imagery once the movie transitions to Paris.

The film is fleetingly grainy in a few places (some of the runway scenes were shot on 16mm for effect). The very opening of the movie looks a little noisy, but otherwise there are no digital or compression artifacts to note. The picture has a very nice, film-like texture and appearance.

The

Devil Wears Prada

Blu-shaft disc is not flagged with an Aspect Constraint Token and will play in full High Outlining calibre over a Blu-ray player's analog Component Video outputs.



Audio:



The movie's soundtrack is provided in lossless DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 format. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing no Blu-ray hardware is capable of properly decoding the full Master Audio lossless codec. Instead, players extract the lossy DTS core, which is equivalent to DVD quality. It still sounds very good, but may offer further improvements when advanced hardware is released in the future.

The

Prada

soundtrack is typical for a romantic comedy. Dialogue and sound effects are clear (the ring of Andy's cell phone is intentionally piercing), but the movie has no surround activity at all that I could notice, not even ambient noises or music bleed. Some of the songs on the soundtrack (notably "Vogue") offer rocking bass, but it comes out a little boomy here. Aside from that, fidelity is fine. It's just not a showy sound mix.



Subs & Dubs:




Optional subtitles

? English or Spanish.


Alternate language tracks

- French or Spanish Dolby Digital 5.1.



Extras:



Most of the bonus features on this Blu-ray title are recycled from the DVD edition and are presented in Standard Definition video with MPEG2 compression. Only a portion of the supplements from the DVD have carried over.


  • Audio Commentary

    - Participants include director David Frankel, producer Wendy Finerman, costume designer Patricia Field, screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna (whose nasally voice sounds like she's fighting a cold), editor Mark Livolsi, and director of photography Florian Ballhaus. The group was recorded together with plenty of lively interplay. The track is a good listen that covers all the basics of making the movie such as the story and characters, adapting the novel, some technical elements, and of course the elaborate fashion design.

  • Deleted Scenes

    (22 min.) ? Fifteen scenes are provided with optional commentary by Frankel and Livolsi. Stanley Tucci and Aquaman (Adrian Grenier) have a couple of funny bits, but most of this footage amounts to padding and scene extensions. It feels like every scrap of film was retrieved from the cutting room floor to be included here.

  • Gag Reel

    (5 min.) ? Tucci again has some good improv moments, and there are a couple of funny pratfalls involving the female cast's trouble with high heel shoes, but I found the rest of this reel rather tedious. For what it's worth, Elizabeth thought it was "cute".

Also included are some trailers for hit-or-miss randomly Fox titles. Missing from the DVD edition are five featurettes, dropped as a replacement for no illusory reason.

Exclusive to the Blu-ray is:


  • Trivia Track

    - Pop-up notes can be run simultaneously with the commentary track, and in fact I recommend it because the trivia bits get to be rather sparse as the movie progresses. There is some duplication of content with the commentary, however. The notes primarily focus on the use of fashion in the film, identifying the designers behind each outfit and providing some background history on the fashion house itself. The audience for this movie will probably find it interesting and entertaining.



Final Thoughts:



Thanks to my wife Elizabeth for giving us the female perspective on

The Devil Wears Prada

. To all the guys out there, as far as chick-flicks go this one's not too painful if you're in need of something to keep your Significant Other happy. The Blu-ray has some pretty nice picture quality and comes recommended.

June 26, 2009

The Nine Lives of Fritz the Cat (1974)

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 7:40 am

WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT?


Spawned from the pen of underground comic artist R. Crumb—but disowned (and even murdered in the funny pages) by his creator after this unauthorized film version—Fritz the Cat is a disarmingly cute animated feline who’s also visibly horny and deliriously high. This 1972 Ralph Bakshi adaptation is a very odd mish-mash of innocuous-looking kids-style animation married to softcore erotica, horrific violence, and hippy-era drug use. The film has attained a cult status, and its place in animation history is assured, if only because of its boundary-crashing imagery—wild humping and bloodletting and doobie-toking in a cartoon! Without Fritz, would we have such adult cartoons as South Park? Still, watching Fritz the Cat today is a chore—you’ll derive a few laughs at the outrageousness of some its scenes, but most of the time your brow will be furrowed while characters endlessly spout obscure early-70s counterculture meanderings.

The film follows NYU student Fritz as he engages in an orgy with various animals, flees from a couple of insanely bumbling cops (characterized by pigs, naturally), burns his apartment building to the ground, and hangs out with black crows in Harlem. After a series of revelations, Fritz finds his calling as a crusader against the world’s ills. As you follow Fritz’s adventures, you can’t help but notice that the film has a strange contradiction at its heart: While the film and Fritz take a firm stance against racial injustice, much of the imagery is racial stereotypes.

Considering the recent standards set by such films as Toy Story, Fantasia 2000, and The Iron Giant, and even older Disney fare, Fritz’s choppy, nonfluid animation style is bound to disappoint. This is a movie that you must watch with some perspective—it’s a labor of love produced by bong-sucking hippies. I’m just kidding about that “bong-sucking hippies” remark. Mostly. But it is a labor of love.

HOW’S IT LOOK?


MGM presents Fritz the Cat in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen. The transfer surprised me, particularly considering the film’s low budget and age—it’s nearly 30 years old, after all. The colors are spot-on and intentionally chaotic, bringing across Fritz’s hand-painted origins. Sometimes the film’s age is evident: I noticed a few scratches and small particles, but nothing major. I can’t imagine this film looking any better.

HOW’S IT SOUND?


The original Dolby Digital 2.0 mix is mediocre. One thing that age has affected is this soundtrack’s fidelity, which is a shame because some of the quickly mumbled dialog is very difficult to make out. Other times, shouted dialog comes across as screechy or tinny.

WHAT ELSE IS THERE?


Only a trailer. Some films cry out for special-edition treatment: This is one of them. Imagine a documentary about R. Crumb’s appalled reaction to the movie. Or a commentary track to decipher some of the murkier product-of-their-times passages. Or a featurette about the years-long process of creating the animation. Sigh.

WHAT’S LEFT TO SAY?


Fine video, fair audio, and bleak extras equal a DVD offering of Fritz the Cat that will be of interest to serious animation fans and counterculturists—including, of course, suckers of bongs.

June 25, 2009

Garden State (2004)

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 1:20 pm


Movie Review:
Garden State



A Garden State of delights

In Garden State, a juvenile restrain comes home to Green Jersey because of the first time in nine years to escort his depressed mother's funeral.

As he's forgotten his meds, the trip home is also his first break from lithium and a rainbow of psychotropic drugs.


Full Story

June 24, 2009

The Blood of Others review

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 11:09 pm
“Claude Chabrol has no feel
or interest for the Occupation subject matter…”

Reviewed by Dennis Schwartz

A poorly done adaptation of Simone de Beauvoir’s 1945 novel about
the growth and self-sacrifice of a selfish American during the German Occupation
of Paris. Claude Chabrol has no feel or interest for the Occupation subject
matter, being more of a satirist of the bourgeois he seems like a fish
out of water in this venture. His uninspired filming of this routine story
and his plodding direction makes this dreary film one of his biggest bombs.
If that wasn’t bad enough, all the main actors are miscast. Try to imagine
the heroine and the lovelorn resistance fighter hero as Jodi Foster and
Michael Ontkean, and the lovelorn Sam Neill as a German businessman with
top Nazi connections; you should see from those casting decisions this
film has everything working against it from its onset. Chabrol’s wife Stéphane
Audran has a minor role as a collaborator.

The version I saw was in English and on video. It was originally
made for HBO as part of a three-hour TV mini-series. This version looks
more like drab TV than a glossy movie.

The film opens with a voiceover saying this is 1938, the year of
appeasement and the lull before the storm. Helene (Foster) is a spoiled
apolitical American fashion designer in Paris dating a commie organizer
Paul (Wilson). Through him she meets another commie organizer, the handsome,
Jean Blomart (Ontkean), the son of a rich man whose father is upset with
his radical beliefs and is estranged from him. She falls in love with him
and ditches Paul.

As the love story melodramatics go into motion, the following happens
to Helene: she aborts Jean’s child, and when Jean joins the infantry front-line
as war breaks out– she tries against his approval to get him assigned
to Paris for safe duty. He refuses that post and is wounded in battle and
is sent to a German prison camp. Through her boss Gigi, who is living with
a Nazi general (Vernon), she meets businessman Bergmann (Neill). He falls
helplessly in love with her and she doesn’t even have to put out for him,
as he uses his influence to free Jean from the Nazis.

Helene then has to convince Jean and his resistance fighter friends
that she’s not a collaborator, as she takes on a daring assassin mission
that will put her in danger.

There’s not much to this conventional story. The film never has any
suspense, and the love affair is not believable. The Nazis as heartless
villains is something that has been seen many times before for it to mean
much here. A very forgettable and regrettable film.

The Blood of Others review

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 1:50 pm
“Claude Chabrol has no feel
or interest for the Occupation subject matter…”

Reviewed by Dennis Schwartz

A poorly done adaptation of Simone de Beauvoir’s 1945 novel about
the growth and self-sacrifice of a selfish American during the German Occupation
of Paris. Claude Chabrol has no feel or interest for the Occupation subject
matter, being more of a satirist of the bourgeois he seems like a fish
out of water in this venture. His uninspired filming of this routine story
and his plodding direction makes this dreary film one of his biggest bombs.
If that wasn’t bad enough, all the main actors are miscast. Try to imagine
the heroine and the lovelorn resistance fighter hero as Jodi Foster and
Michael Ontkean, and the lovelorn Sam Neill as a German businessman with
top Nazi connections; you should see from those casting decisions this
film has everything working against it from its onset. Chabrol’s wife Stéphane
Audran has a minor role as a collaborator.

The version I saw was in English and on video. It was originally
made for HBO as part of a three-hour TV mini-series. This version looks
more like drab TV than a glossy movie.

The film opens with a voiceover saying this is 1938, the year of
appeasement and the lull before the storm. Helene (Foster) is a spoiled
apolitical American fashion designer in Paris dating a commie organizer
Paul (Wilson). Through him she meets another commie organizer, the handsome,
Jean Blomart (Ontkean), the son of a rich man whose father is upset with
his radical beliefs and is estranged from him. She falls in love with him
and ditches Paul.

As the love story melodramatics go into motion, the following happens
to Helene: she aborts Jean’s child, and when Jean joins the infantry front-line
as war breaks out– she tries against his approval to get him assigned
to Paris for safe duty. He refuses that post and is wounded in battle and
is sent to a German prison camp. Through her boss Gigi, who is living with
a Nazi general (Vernon), she meets businessman Bergmann (Neill). He falls
helplessly in love with her and she doesn’t even have to put out for him,
as he uses his influence to free Jean from the Nazis.

Helene then has to convince Jean and his resistance fighter friends
that she’s not a collaborator, as she takes on a daring assassin mission
that will put her in danger.

There’s not much to this conventional story. The film never has any
suspense, and the love affair is not believable. The Nazis as heartless
villains is something that has been seen many times before for it to mean
much here. A very forgettable and regrettable film.

June 23, 2009

Diamonds Are Forever review

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 8:10 pm

James Pact, Force 007 (Sean Connery) goes confidential to Las Vegas to inquire into the disappearance of diamonds in transmittal and discovers the involvement of his pre-eminent enemy, Blofeld (Charles Grey). Go down with must hold the line against the wiles of unequalled smuggler Oceans (Lana Wood) and survive the machinations of Mr. Wint (Bruce Glover) and Mr. Kidd (Putter Smith), Blofeld’s two most artistically assassins, so that he can uncover Blofeld’s treacherous skeleton.

Diamonds Are Forever review

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 5:40 am

James Pact, Force 007 (Sean Connery) goes confidential to Las Vegas to investigate the disappearance of diamonds in transit and discovers the involvement of his pre-eminent enemy, Blofeld (Charles Grey). Contract must hold the line against the wiles of beautiful smuggler Oceans (Lana Wood) and survive the machinations of Mr. Wint (Bruce Glover) and Mr. Kidd (Putter Smith), Blofeld’s two most artistically assassins, so that he can uncover Blofeld’s treacherous skeleton.

June 22, 2009

Cinemania review

Filed under: Uncategorized — faithofmyfathersblog @ 9:45 pm

At least Marion Crane got one thingumabob right: a boy (or bit of San Quentin quail, for that matter) should have a hobby. I presume, since you’re reading this, cinema’s one-liner of yours. Mine too. After a pity living quarters century working with movies, I pacific typical, for work and/or entertainment, six to ten features a week. Film’s important, right-mindedness? But how mighty? Marion was only partly right; she should’ve said hobbies. When love turns from passion into hang-up, it no longer improves the quality of life, but takes moving spirit over. Largest to keep a passion in lookout, lest incarnate and certifiable health are imperilled. If proof’s needed that monomania’s a risky profession, this funny, sad doc about five of New York’s most avid film fans supplies it. If one may use an ageist term loosely, they are (predictably, prearranged the gender tendencies of most anorak activities) four guys and a gal, with their own peculiar areas of interest and knowledge (European trickery movies, outstanding Hollywood comedy), seats, habits, costume and diet requirements. A colourful, mostly likeable oodles (though the barbarity that flares up sometimes at the frustration of a sigh for is worrying), they reveal varying degrees of self-awareness. The most stolid frankly admits cinema is for him a substitute for a in clover social time; another seems talent single on ticking wrong every title he can ballad his eyes on. There but for the favour of God… (And you do cognizant of who Marion Crane is, don’t you? Conceive of rain scenes…)

Powered by WordPress Packaged by Edublogs - education blogs.