Austen

KING OF KINGS tells the story of Jesus of Nazareth with the subtle genius of Nicholas Ray completely intact. Ray doesn't portray Jesus as "magic", but rather as Jesus the rebel, poet, passive resistor and prophet, while still telling the story of a shepherd of men. Note the touches Ray adds. All the miracles Jesus "performs" either come from secondhand (and therefore questionable) accounts or offscreen suggestions (when Jesus passes his hand over the boy and he stands, that hardly seems like a miracle to get someone to stand up. it is only the implication that it was some type of miracle). Jesus is the people's leader. Pilate, on the other hand, is seen making decisions from his sauna or at the hair salon. Towards the end, Pilate's wife asks, "What crime has he committed?" Pilate responds, "He is different! He won't act like the others." Perhaps the greatest scene in the film is the sermon on the mount. Jesus is in white with a bright red covering, framed against the deep blue sky--directly recalling James Dean in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. So we have Jesus as the intellectual ostracized by the wealthy, greedy rulers. Kind of a common subject for most auteurs, Ray goes straight for a most ancient formulation. While not Ray's best film, KING OF KINGS is still wonderfully intelligent and beautiful.

Godard was one of the most brilliant directors to ever make movies. His rebellious attitude and style simply puts some people off, which is unfortunate since Godard's movies are smart, well-crafted and, yes, entertaining.

Alphaville is most often compared to movies that came after it, which goes to show how unique and groundbreaking it was (even if perhaps this has been obscured in hindsight). What Godard achieved is seen best at what HASN'T aged. Anytime you show computers and technology in a sci-fi movie it invariably will look dated years later. Yet Godard's stylized approach looks far beyond the superficiality of Alphaville. For example, the first scene with Lemmy Caution in Alpha 60 shows him monitored with microphones manipulated about his head. The jerky motion of the mics (equipment that isn't futuristic is the slightest) portray the mechanical control of Alpha 60 with cunning insight. The microphones are neither left static nor moved with fluid grace (just as another scene with discontinuous shots of a fight). The ominous, intermittent movements suggest the limitations of this computerized state.

I like this movie in its correlation to William S. Burroughs' fictional world Interzone. Alphaville's Dr. Nosferatu (which translates into the undead, as in vampires) bears some resemblance to Burroughs' Dr. Benway. Alpha 60, the monsterous human/machine computer running Alphaville, functions much as Burroughs' Nova Mob. Concerns over science dehumanizing society are pervasive. The scene where Alphaville executes the poets using water ballet echoes the fictional dichotomy the state has drawn.

"Alphaville" is hypnotic. The continuous use of flashing lights impresses this. The ending is what cracks me up. Ending with Natasha VonBraun (Anna Karina) straining to utter "I...love...you." Is this all Lemmy Caution has faught for, some sentimental tripe? Maybe Godard subtly revised Hitchcock's ending to his second "The Man Who Knew Too Little"--Jimmy Stewart delivers the beyond-obvious line, "Sorry I'm late, I just had to go pick up Henry."

"Alphaville" throws together a multitude of increasingly aggresive styles. After "Le Mepris" in 1963, this movie (if one ever could) shows a transition to Godard's scathing "Weekend" in 1967. Godard made so many wonderful movies each its own treasure. Not that everybody should make movies like Godard, I do wish everyone could make movies as good as his are.

Until viewing this documentary I thought it utterly fantastic that jazz could be boring. That belief was shattered by Ken Burns' disappointing "Jazz". Though it certainly contains immensely valuable archival footage, the mini-series as a whole is no more than traditionalist propaganda.

By all means, go to a jazz concert! Read Amiri Baraka's [LeRoi Jones'] "Blues People" & "Black Music" and Angela Davis' "Blues Legacies and Black Feminism" or Miles Davis' or Duke Ellington's memoirs. There are many other, better ways to learn about this uniquely American art form that abstain from this labored attempt to impose a narrow view of the jazz ideal (I mean how many *hours* of screen time should Wynton Marsalis really have?).

Those with an appreciation for the music and footage used in "Jazz" will either enjoy the rarities or laugh at the pompous presentation (or both). Those unfamiliar with anything related to jazz should know that this series presents a very slanted view of history. The lack of any objectivity led to critics almost universally panning "Jazz" on its release.

Many criticize "Room Service" as the worst Marx Brothers film. This is both misleading and ridiculous. While "Duck Soup" now receives the most critical acclaim, one need only compare that film to Room Serivce to see a dramatic improvement in the directing and delivery. Room Service wasn't written explicitly for the Marx Brothers, so it doesn't have catchy lines. Still, the film flows much better than predecessors and is still pretty damn funny. The Marx Brothers made many great movies, and yes, this is one of those great ones!

This movie (and book) plays like a Lou Reed song (see "Street Hassle"). Aronofsky develops his striking style as seen in "Pi," and benefits greatly from a bigger budget. A brilliant film all-around. So note that the topics of this film have been well-explored in the arts for decades. The cinema finally takes their crack at it, and really there is no one better than Aronofsky to handle the task. He seems to have less sympathy for the characters towards the end. Though "predictable" is hardly a word for this film, among independent music at least the story is at times cliched. The cast is what makes this film most memorable. Highly recommended.

Gladiator had it's moments, but was altogether too blunt and predictable. There was some superb acting, but the way the film was put together just comes off being very superficial. If a ten-year old boy was to make a movie, this would be their approach.

In a certain sense, the setting of the film was a time of rather simple people, so in that sense the movie could work. However, all these dream sequences are tacked on seemingly to try and give the movie some kind of deeper credibility. In that sense, the movie as a whole fails. Too bad for Phoenix, Crowe & Nielsen who turn in fine performances. Excellent makeup too!