michaelf

In 2002, a suicide bombing in Maggido took the lives of seventeen innocent people. Only sixteen of the dead were identified. A team of Israeli filmmakers became obsessed with discovering the identity of victim number 17.

What follows is a good detective story, but even more than that `No. 17' gives us a view of the Mideast conflict that western news organizations tend to ignore. While news stories often profile the terrorists and the bombers, the victims remain nameless and faceless. `No. 17' is a much needed film that provides the victims of terrorist bombings the only voice they will most likely be granted.

There is a lot of truth in Michael Moore's film. During its first eight months, the Bush administration did ignore the threat of terrorism. They have been protective of Saudis involved with extremists. And the war in Iraq not only had little to do with terrorism, but it actually interfered with the war on terrorism by diverting resources.

However, Moore does so much grandstanding going for the cheap laugh that he damages his own credibility. Moore seems to put entertainment before informing, which is why `Fahrenheit 9/11' is something less than a good film. While it may cause many to justly question the Bush administration's policies, this movie will also mislead many viewers into thinking this is what a well made documentary looks like -- and `Fahrenheit 9/11' is nothing like a well made documentary.

Writer-director Jean-Jacques Annaud has given us a beautifully photographed story about two tiger cubs who become separated from each other when their world is violated by man.

Many have dismissed `Two Brothers' as a kiddie film. First of all, this movie is a bit too complicated for younger children. Second, anyone who dismisses this movie sight unseen will be doing themselves a great disservice.

The main story is told primarily from the point of view of the tigers. There are some human subplots, and the human actors do offer their voices, but the story is told primarily through visuals with no dialog or narration. Annaud's skill as a director is such that he does not need the dialog to tell the story. You know at all times what the tigers are thinking and why they react the way the do. Annaud actually brings you into their mind. This is a very expertly made movie that should not be missed.

Nhat Minh Dang gives us a look at the complex society that is modern Vietnam. We see a Buddhist society with a Communist government that is beginning to embrace western values -- at least commercial values. All these competing factors have their positive and negative sides, which the writer/director presents with openness and honesty, and through the eyes of a mentally underdeveloped young man working as an artist model. The story centers around his boyhood home and the quava tree which grew outside. The house and the tree both symbolize the history of Vietnam in the 20th century.

For most of us, this is a glimpse of a world most of us do not know -- not to mention a well made film.

This is debatable, but The Pianist may be the best work Roman Polanski has ever done -- although this may be one of his most un-Polanski-like films. Unlike Chinatown, Rosemary's Baby and The Ninth Gate, here evil eventually has to give way in the face of good.

The film is also timely. There has been in recent years an upswing in anti-Semitism. Jewish studients in US and Canadian colleges report verbal and physical abuse by faculty and other students. European nations ignore the rise of anti-Jewish violence in their own countries. Arab press and websites praise Hitler, deny the Holocaust and call for a war of genocide against Jews. (How can one both praise Hitler and deny the Holocaust is beyond me, but I have read the articles!)

The Pianist is based on Wladyslaw Szpilman's autobiography. But in watching this film,I do wonder if Polanski took any artistic license and added any autobiographical material of his own. Szpilman's and Polanski's wartime experiences are similar. This may well be the most personal film Polanski has ever made.

There were scenes that brought me to the edge of my seat with excitement. There were scenes that went absolutely nowhere and made me want to yell, "Come on! Get on with it!"

There are some great performances. Then there's Ian McKellen talking as if his fake beard got caught in his mouth.

For everything good one can say about "Lord of the Rings," there is something negative one can say. This isn't a bad movie, but it is not memorable. For all the fuss, I predict it will go the way of all recent big Oscar nominated films and be quickly forgotten. This is an average movie at best.

Sean O'Casey's play does not translate to the screen very well. A bit talky, it may have worked fine on stage, but it is not movie material. Still Hitchcock has moments where he shows his genius as a filmmaker. There are camera shots and editing cuts that tell more of the story than any of O'Casey's dialog.

Still, I would not recommend this film for anyone who is new to the work of Alfred Hitchcock. Save this one for the advance class, and let the beginners view "The Secret Agent," "Shadow of a Doubt," "Vertigo," and "Psycho," just to name a few.

Who says film noir is dead? The Coen Brothers prove otherwise.

True recent so-called "film noirs" have been poor imitations of the real thing. (The German made "Wege in die Nacht," or "Paths in the Night" is a notable exception.) But obviously, there are some film makers who know noir!

"The Man Who Wasn't There" has many of the best film noir elements. The main character is an average man -- an everyman. He's not a bad sort, but for once he gives into temptation with deadly results. The camera work is superb, using black and white shadowy cinematography. The Coens throw in just a touch of quirkiness, not too much, to give it the Coenesque edge.

There have been many documentaries of the Holocaust, giving various viewpoints. Seldom do we see the Holocaust through the eyes of the children of survivors.

Two Israeli rock musicians, Yehuda Poliker and Ya'akov Gilad, sons of survivors, capture their parents' story through their music. The film does wander from this main theme at times, but it remains a powerful and emotional testimony to the best of humanity.

`Shadow Magic' recaptures the joy and amazement of the first movie audiences. It also shows the power of film in its ability to bring the world a little closer, overcome cultural barriers and to preserve ourselves for generations yet to come. Certainly, anyone who truly loves the art of the motion picture will enjoy this film. It's a great first effort by writer/director Ann Hu, who will hopefully have many films to follow.

I know what I saw. I know what happened and how. It is just after having my mind screwed with for two hours, I don't believe anything that I saw! MEMENTO is a wild ride that leads you down many paths -- most of which are dead ends. Even when the truth is revealed you won't believe it! I have to keep my comments very brief for fear that I may spoil this film for others. There are a few, brief slow parts, but use those to catch your breath -- the ride will start up again in a few seconds.

"Snatch" may well be the worst movie I have seen over the past 12 months. Who ever told Guy Ritchie he can direct? Probably the same person who told him Madonna would make a good wife.

There are so many places where this film went wrong, I don't know where to begin. But, I'll give it a shot.

1. The movie is just too slow. Ritchie certainly is taking us for a wild ride, but the pace is almost as slow as an 80-year-old grandmother driving on the interstate. Ritchie spends too much time spinning his wheels before moving on.

2. MTV-Style cinematography. Nothing really wrong with this, provide it is actually used to further the story and the pace of the film. But Ritchie uses it as a gimmick. His lame attemps to dazzle me actually bored me.

3. The use of "ethnic types" and "ethnic humor." Again, I have nothing against the use of ethnic humor or the use of race, provided it is not done in a mean spirited manner. Ritchie doesn't cross the line, but he does tread it. Actually, from his portrayals I can see that Ritchie's knowledge of ethnicity is limited to whatever is white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. His use of ethnic humor makes Ritchie look like an idiot.

4. Eccentric characters. I love to see really eccentric characters in movies. But again, this is something Ritchie can't handle. Half his characters aren't eccentric enough, and the rest go so far off the deep end that they are not even credible, just one-dimensional. Its as if Ritchie is trying too hard. Also there is a lack of "normal" characters for the eccentrics to play off of.

The only positive thing I can say about "Snatch" is that this is the best acting I have ever seen from Brad Pitt. He totally disappeared into his character. Unfortunately, even with Pitt "Snatch" is not worth the time or money to see.

A powerful and poignant tale of Holocaust survivors trying to make a new life in the infant State of Israel, `New Land' tells its story through the eyes of a young girl. Anna has lost everything in life, except for her older brother and a stuffed bear she rescued from a bombed out city. She waits in a refugee camp dreaming of finding her mother while observing the lives of others around her. Watching this film is a moving experience.

Beautifully shot with shadowy black and white, `Secret Beyond the Door' is visually on the level with the best of Fritz Lang. The opening scene with the church wedding is shot in such a way that you know something sinister is about to happen.

Unfortunately, the storyline contains too many elements which seem to have been lifted directly from Hitchcock's `Rebecca.' I don't want to spoil the film for anyone, but if you have seen `Rebecca' then you can guess the climax of `Secret Beyond the Door' after the first thirty minutes.

Still, `Secret Beyond the Door' stands on its own. But if would have stood much better had the story elements been a bit more original.

"A Day in September" is a compelling and intriguing documentary on the 1972 Munich Summer Olympics in which Arab terrorists took 11 members of the Israeli team hostage. Although we know in advance of the outcome in which all hostages die, the film still keeps the tension high by giving us previously little know and new information and imagry. Shown chronological, the events speak for themselves.

We see West German officials as being too naive and incompetent to handle the crises. Still they refused help from the Israeli government which could have saved lives. Furthermore, we find out that in a half-hearted attempt to cover up their incompetency, they actually conspired to use a fake hijacking to free the surviving terrorists.

We find out that the terrorists had help from East Germany.

We see the terrorists as being as naive as the Germans by actually thinking that their actions would gain them a long term victory. Even when given the chance to justify their actions, the lone surviving member of the terrorist squad reveals these people as basing their value of human life in terms of political necessities.

We learn that arrogant Olympic officials considered the games more important than the lives at stake. The terrorist action was more of an annoyance or inconvenience.

Finally, we see the international media reaction as if this were one big show. One police attempt to free the hostages was aborted because preperations were being carried live on television, thus alerting the terrorists!

But above all, A DAY IN SEPTEMBER serves as a timely warning of the dangers of those to whom the ends justify the means, regardless of the outcome.

What is there to like about this film? Pacino's phony accent? The fake violence? The totally unbelievable plot? A finale which defies logic and credibility? Certainly `Scarface' is one of the worst movies of all time. A lot of people get their guts blown away, but so what? How about a few interesting characters? A story line that is at least halfway believable? Is this too much to ask?

This is a typical rags to riches back to rags (via decadence) story that's been done before -- and done better.

Typical of an HBO production, there's a fair share of sex and nudity, but little originality. The thin plot line doesn't help much either. Anjelina Jolie's talents are totally waisted in a third-rate film.

Here is a great chance to see a young Laurence Olivier when he was still in his developmental stage. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is unworthy and forgettable. Olivier, in a supporting role, seems to try to carry the film as best he can. But at this early point in his career, he was not strong enough an actor.

Director Michael Almerevda wanted to make "Hamlet" more accessible by relocating the play to modern corporate America. By necessity, he is forced to cut the subplots which make this such a rich play. What is left is less than what you get reading "Cliff Notes."

The performances range from the uninspired to simply amateurish. Ethan Hawke has his moments as Hamlet, but overall puts nothing into the role. The same can be said of Kyle MacLachlan's Claudius. As Polonius, Bill Murray acts as though he is reading his lines from cue cards. As Ophelia, Julia Stiles acts as if this were a high school production. Only Sam Shepard in his brief appearance makes an impression.

My recommendation for "Hamlet" is that you stick with the Olivier and Branagh versions.

Director Po Chih Leong and writer Paul Hoffman keep a steady stream of low tension going throughout the entire film. This tension builds in the mind of the viewer until one finds themself eagerly awaiting the final climax. "The Wisdom of the Crocodiles" is a thriller that is actually thrilling!

There are no laughs here. When I saw it, the theater was stone silent. Arnold Schwarznegger hadn't learned how to act in front of a camera yet. Kirk Douglas who should have known better is just plain awful. This is one of the few times Ann-Margret is not worth looking at. Certainly, "The Villain" is one of the worst films ever!

After "Mighty Aphrodite," I have not cared for Woody Allen's recent work. But with "Sweet and Lowdown," he is back in form -- although with his most un-Allen like comedy yet.

This is a pseudo-documentary/biopic about (a fictitious) jazz "legend," Emmitt Ray. What really puts this movie over the top is Sean Penn's performance as Ray, a sensitive but egotistical talent who treats women like dirt. Ray's search for artistic perfection turns out to be a search for love. Telling any more would ruin the movie. See it for yourself -- even if you are not a Woody Allen fan.

P.S. Kudos to Samantha Morton on her performance, too.

Groucho Marx and William Bendix deserve much better material than what they are given here. A bad script with unfunny jokes gives these two talents nothing to work with. Why they ever agreed to do this film is one of the great mysteries of Hollywood!

Jim Carry gives a hit or miss performance as Andy Kaufman. When he hits, he really hits. Unfortunately, there are many more misses.

When Carry does certain Kaufman characters, such as the Little Immigrant (aka Latka) and Tony Clifton, he gets the role down perfect. But while playing Kaufman himself, Jim Carry is Jim Carry -- a weak actor who is overwhelmed by the material. I never doubt that it is Carry and not Kaufman I am watching.

On the other hand, Courtney Love totally disappears into her role. Unlike Carry, she can act!

This 75 year history of the town of Hebron, centering on the 1929 riots which resulted in the destruction of the local Jewish community, tells of an almost forgotten chapter in the history of the Middle East. Although forgot, the story is important to understand the complexities of the current political situation.