diva-19

Oh how seldom it is that I leave a theater thinking how much my parents would have loved a film. If this indicates that stylistically this film breaks no new ground, it is correct. The film would have been most content in the 1960's or 1970's - thoughts of "The Three & Four Muscaters" come to mind. "Shakespeare In Love" and "Stage Beauty" are more recent and scripted with more style. This is a completely charming film, stylishly concocted and directed. Ledger following "Brokeback", if that was the case, is a winning, sexy and dashing "hero". Irresistible. The ladies are all good fun. There is even 18th century feminism stirred into the pot.Yet, the true star, as it should be, is Venice. A set design that bewilders, broods, and intoxicates. The palazzo interiors are adorned in brocades upon brocades upon brocades; that magnificent over the top decor that only this city could pull off. The costumes are magnificent and a pity they were overlooked by the various award outfits. But its that suffused golden light that glows everywhere.

This "Kong" is very good until one holds it up against the original. The first version by the fact that it was made at the beginning of talking pictures had a by the seat of your pants style. Today, it would be close to impossible to replicate this, so this alone must be kept in mind. In 1933 "Kong", which was a huge hit, must have absolutely amazed the audience. Pre computer imaging for that film still is incredible. With the new version, the special effects are incredible, though no longer amazing. We have seen such leaps in special effects that what one sees in this version is an extraordinary achievement, but not unanticipated. Amazement is therefore lost. Mr. Jackson has over extended the film. The initial New York scenes and the voyage to Skull Island always took time, but now it takes even longer. Though the details of depression era NYC are wonderful (though the opening scenes of a shanty town in Central Park make no sense to me. More "Grapes of Wrath" than "King Kong")and too those on the tramp steamer. Mr. Jackson has a fabulous eye for detail. During the long voyage, Mr Jackson does succeed in establishing excellent characters, something that was not done in the earlier version. How necessary, I don't really know. So when these characters, in turn get eaten, one is a bit more horrified. The creation of an actor for the film within the film is terrific. There was always something missing here, and Jackson has easily solved the problem. Once the voyage ends, the trouble and the fun really start. The island natives are simply over the top. The ones in the '33 version have now become campy too. (One keeps thinking of Dietrich in "Blond Venus") Terrifically the original natives return in the theatre sequence in NYC. That is perfection. One of the many lovely references to the original. However, as soon as Ann Darrow is put out as a sacrifice the film truly takes off. The jungle scenes are spectacular and the following New York scenes with Kong's escape and demise are too. Curiously, this film brought up an important question for me. The key to this movie is the relationship between Ann Darrow and Kong. Jackson has tampered with this and I am not sure why. In the original version, Darrow had more fear than love for Kong. Here Kong is more of a love interest than the Brody character. Frankly, it pushes the boundaries of believability. Here, she actually pursues Kong. There was also in the original a sexuality, an erotic element that has completely disappeared. In the restored 1933 "Kong" is a scene that has sadly been eliminated here. It is where Kong with great gentleness removes a piece of Anns clothing while she is high above the forest floor. It falls like the lightest piece of tissue. It adds a sensuality to the picture (not to mention Kong's finger scene also gone) that is missed in the new film. One must wonder why? This would not have been permitted shortly after the original was made due to the Hayes Code (just when movies were getting really fun - think Mae West), but one cannot help but speculate were these scenes eliminated due to the current conservative climate? Was 1933 more liberal in this particular instance than we are today. Can we not today, integrate lewdness in an adventure film? Come to think of it, mild lewdness is not really around these days. Some might say before seeing "Brokeback Mountain" that it is; however, it is not. Strangely along with sex, the new film has become in an odd way less grizzly. Tamer. Much of the horror in '33 was watching those sailors getting eaten. They still get eaten, but it's strangely different. Amusingly, the audience in the screening that I was a part of seemed to enjoy the most -hearty laughter- the scene in which Kong flip flops the dead dino's mouth. From '33 and it still gets the loudest laugh 72 years later.

An excellent film about love. Every character is spot on. Excellent acting, though both leads are award winning. Both should hopefully receive nominations. Despite the film taking place in 1963 - 1983, it is also sorrowfully current. It is an important film for its subtle power. Though not preachy, it will have an important place in film history. The first part of the film is beautiful in its rustic beauty. Terrific cinematography. Mountains, rushing rivers, herds of sheep - innocence?Here it is on the mountain's slopes that the love of these mens' lives starts. There will never be anyone else. It is simple here, uncomplicated - a part of nature and natural. The physical is more violent than erotic or perhaps that is the eroticism. The sex scenes are hardly ground breaking and should not upset many. Not graphic unlike some reports. When these lovers do descend from the mountain and away from nature, is when their troubles and frustrations start. Absolutely no one fares well in this film. By the end most of the lives portrayed have been shattered. It is all extremely sad and honestly depressing on so many levels, but it is superb and a must see. A pretty safe bet as a very serious contender for "Best Picture" in all of the awards still to come. Commendations to Ang Lee for his languorous, perfectly paced direction and for making this film at all. It too must have been a test of endurance, which will ultimately benefit all.

To put it as simply as possible. Film does not get any better than this. One of the Master's finest pictures. From the marvelous opening credits with that great Herrmann score to the wonderful closing lines there is never a dull moment. The most important art form of the last century at its very best.

Trying to even see "Lantana" in South Florida was a trick in itself. Like "Business of Strangers", it was in and out of the cineplexes faster than a blink of the eye. Too bad, as its a very fine film with a terrific script and absolutely spot on performances throughout. Why did this not pick up a couple of Oscar nominations? Its a far more deserving film than some of the best picture nominations. By all means see it if you can and don't wait, because it doesn't hang around for long.

Another film in the style of "Bravehart" and all.The story is some confused tale of an Arab hooked up with Norsemen to protect some tribe that is being seriously put upon by guys with Grizzly Bear headresses.Valhalla is mentioned a couple of times in the script giving the film mythological barings (no pun intended);however,Richard Wagner did it better; as did George Lucas with the original "Star Wars".The script is hopeless and the performances are adequate for the drama on hand.The first hour is tedious; the second hour moves well. Banderas, in the lead,does a fine job of looking concerned.He should be considering his recent track record of films.Is this actor deliberately trying to kill a career or what? He has made some good pics, but not for some time.This go around, his character is a void in the middle of the film with no motivating force whatsoever. "The Thirteenth Warrior" is not a complete waste of time, though. Cinematography, sets,fur costumes (not an animal rights film - plus horses take quite a beating in the battle scenes) and special effects are all very good.The battle scenes are fun with beheadings and blood spurting all over everyone and not really disturbing, because this movie never becomes at all personal and never gets one emotionally involved. It's distant and theatrical; kind of like a video game.The scenery is great with lots of mist. Check out the great line of fire (torches) as the bear warriors on horseback ride out of the valley to do battle. If this genre of film appeals to you; it's worth the ticket price; if not,steer clear, as "The Thirteenth Warrior" will not convert you.

I f you have been living in the woods ( and lived to tell about it) or been on the moon, you just may have missed the advance and reviews about this little film. Its a very well crafted and created student film with a brilliant premise. Congrats to all involved; screenplay, direction, cinematography and performances are all very fine. Curiously, the problem here is with the press. Trumpeted as the scariest film in years, eerie beyond mention, the articles etc have raised expectations to a fever pitch. Few films can live up to this and neither does "Blair Witch". Its simply not the terrifying movie that one is anticipating when one sits in the darkened theater.Its a shame, because there is very good stuff here; not genius, but good. So if you have read or heard anything about the picture; you will hopefully love it.

Just shown at the 1st Annual Miami Gay & Lesbian Film Festival (a hugely successful event here), the film was very well attended, as have been all of the films. There have been some good, one great (Head On), and the usual supply of mediocrity. Sex Life in LA falls into the last category due mostly to the dreary/ boring individuals who make their living somehow connected to sex.Its perfectly decently made, but these guys are all in all just plain dull. There must be people in the industry who would be more interesting to interview. A bit higher IQ for the subjects would be helpful.Not much introspection or thought here. The high points of the film are a bathtub masturbation scene including "the money shot" by Madonna's ex now very tired looking model Tony Ward and self mutilation scenes by performer Ron Athey.Without doubt Athey is the most articulate and interesting subject, but what a subject! So there is surely better sex life in your own home town, even if it is back ass nowhere and in back ass you wont be seeing this film anyway.

Seen in the new and architecturally splendid Lincoln Road Regal Cinemas (w/ cheapish seats; the gallery atrium spaces are brilliant and very South Beach,but why could they not do it all the way?)The film veers from the utterly brilliant to the sophomoric squirmish.The "tent scene" has got to be a first and will be remembered, as possibly, the film's high point.Totally tasteless and over the top. Few have gone so far with a concept that no one would ever have dared put on film before.On the downside, the idiocy of the character "Fat Bastard" and similar dumb excrement etc humor. It's been all done before and not necessarily better, but still .....at times ones' skin crawls at having to live through this tastelessness. So a very mixed bag, to say the least, but hey, trying to maintain a very high level of great bawdy humor hadn't been done in how long?

"Election" is a wonderful example of American satire. Along the lines of the director's wise "Citizen Ruth", this film takes gleeful aim at high school life today.Reese Witherspoon is hysterically funny as a churlishly competitive brat.Matthew Broderick is wonderful as the teacher who decides, none too secretly,to sabotage her plans for her election to student body president. The movie is superbly directed and the cinematography is great especially when it uses it's stop frame mode to underscore the various characters' facial expressions. Overall it is the terrific script and performances that make this such an entertaining film.It is explicitly real.(I don't recall ever seeing on film someone washing their genitalia with a bath tub faucet before a sexual encounter - it is riotously absurd and shot from a non offensive angle.)Go see it before it is deluged by "Star Wars".

Its not difficult to see why this film was the Aussie entry at Cannes in '98. It is a generally superb and intense gay film. It is wonderfully thought provoking, something pretty rare in film today, sexy and hard edged.Some scenes remain seared into ones mind. The script is excellent as a study of both the Australian immigrant Greek community and the gay leads character within that community. Dimitriades is superb in the lead. His character is beautifully drawn - a young man brimming with frustrations of his sexuality and environment.The plot may not travel very far, but neither does he. Its a terrific tough pic that should not be missed. One of the best gay films to date.

Edge of Seventeen is an above average coming of age film with a fine performance in the lead. Its script is a bit soggy and at times the film is a bit slow. Unfortunately stereotypes abound and there is not much depth to the pic. Cinematography is above average for a gay film; soundtrack is fun. Overall, it is somewhat forgettable and would not have been, if the film had had more guts.It has ample charm to please many.

A very entertaining pic with four gorgeous performances. The film joyously displays the humor of American relationships today and the absurdity of machismo behavior. It is thoughtful and very funny; one is bemused by its insightfulness. The performances throughout are tops. Another Oscar round for Blanchett ? Hopefully so and deservedly.The pic moves right along and is tightly scripted and directed.The film's end is, as many have said, its weakest point, but after all that has gone before and with the utter charm of the leads, who really cares. Excepting the final minutes, the movie is wonderfully real. Definitely worth seeing.