iheartkp

'A Report on the Party and the Guests' is not just a biting political allegory on Communism, it is also one of the most astute observations on human nature I have ever seen- which is what makes it universal.

The "plot" revolves around a group of friends who are having a picnic in the park one afternoon, but are eventually forced into going to a birthday celebration for a man they do not know. In order to gain his favor, some of the group betray a friend who left the party. The plot is actually loosely structured after the manner that Czechoslovakia was taken over by the Communists in the 50's, and the way the Czechs allowed it to happen. Interestingly for a film that was "banned forever" by the Communists, I found it to be more scathing in its depiction of the people who were seduced into the situation, and then collaborated with the party overseeres.

In a film with a surrealist plot, the acting is surprisingly realistic. The situation is so bizarre, but the film poses the question: if you were there would you have acted any different? The situation, after all, was very bizarre in real life too. The acting is excellent, the cinemetography is excellent, and Jan Nemec (whose Holocaust film 'Diamonds of the Night' I found to be disappointing) directs with a bold hand. This is a great film, and it's not just a history lesson. There's humor in it too, and it's very interesting from a psychological perspective. 10/10

This looks like it is going to be one of those films that is praised by critics and hated by audiences. Some of the critics I've read have been a bit too over the top in their praise, the films themes of voyeurism, reality vs. fantasy, life imitating art, what if?, etc. are nothing new, and in fact, have been dealt with especially heavily in films of the last three or four years. DePalma has never been much of an originalist, he prefers to take things from other films and expand on their themes with his own stylistic auteurism (which he has been lambasted for in the past- unfairly in my opinion)- but "Femme Fatale" does not seem as fresh as "Run Lola Run," "Memento," "The Man Who Wasn't There," or "Mullholand Drive," also films that deal with some of these topics in their own way. Still, it is a good movie, DePalma's best since 1993's "Carlito's Way." DePalma shows of his visual storytelling prowess in the films opening heist scene, which is exhilerating. There's a scene a little later where Stamos watches a woman in pain contemplate suicide, and we are reminded by DePalma of our part as voyeurs. There's a sexy striptease by Stamos, a funny bit by Banderos playing it fruity, and rewarding scenes where we are able to tie together the loose ends and understand the plot. Really the film is a series of these excellent scenes. Audiences no doubt will complain about the films screenplay and acting. As for the screenplay, it's not bad. The story is pretty good, though it's true that the dialogue on the whole is rather uninspired (though that doesn't matter when long segments of the film are done without needless dialogue), and the acting isn't bad. No great performances, but these are fun actors to watch. On the whole, this is a good DePalma film. Not quite as good as most of his early Hitchcockian works like "Sisters," "Dressed to Kill," or "Blowout," but it certainly nice to see him return to the genre. And it's nice to see him return to the genre in a good mood.

This has to be the most boring gangster film I've ever seen. Basically it's about Robert DeNiro and James Wood's friendship over fifty years or so as they rise and fall in the gang world. It's interesting to do it about Jewish gangsters, because most films center on Italian gangsters, but their being Jewish didn't seem to make much difference in the film. DeNiro and Woods were subdued, and I didn't buy for a second that they actually might care about one another. The female lead and DeNiro had no chemistry. Leone centered more on cinemetography than story, and the little story there was was painfully streched out to almost three and a half hours. Speaking of the cinemetography- sure there were some very nice images, but basically they were going for the same look as "The Godfather" only maybe with a little more of a golden nostolgia feel for it. I don't mind slowly paced films, but that deliberate pace must be used to draw the viewer into the film, the pace of "Once Upon a Time," just makes the viewer wish that he had commited suicide instead of having to watch it. I'm not a big gangster film fan, but this one ranks low among gangster films. It lacks the visual pop of "Goodfella's," the emotional intensity of "Miller's Crossing," the cultural/historic significance of "Godfather," the moralistic elements of "Angels with Dirty Faces," or the acting prowess of "White Heat." And it is certainly a lot more boring than any of the above films listed.

This is one of the best films of the year. It's about a cop (Al) who may be in some trouble in l.a. so is sent to alaska to investigate the murder of a teenage girl. there is an accidental killing of a cop, so a local cop (hilary swank) investigates it, so there are actually two investigations going on simultaneously. This is not a conventional hollywood cop thriller because the plot, while good, is not the focus, but rather the characters are. The plot serves as a function where the characters are forced to make important moral decisions that will change theri lives and define who they are as people. These moral dilemma's that the characters find themselves in is the focus of the film.

Nolan directed "Memento" which was very much a "surface" movie in that the style of the film was more important than the themes of the film (although the film did have some interesting transcendentalist themes). Whereas in "Insomnia" the style plays backburner to substance. This is not the kind of revolutionary film "Memento" was, but it will be remembered as an intelligent, well done thriller/drama.

Robin Williams gave a surprisingly good performance (I for one was not too impressed with his dramatic performance in "good will hunting")- he showed both that his character was just a chicken, and also basically without scruples, as he brought the murder investigation down to a game of wits. He was bad, true, but more "the bad guy next door," than an evil superman like say a hannibal lecter. Swank got across the innocence and intelligence of her young cop character, the only woman cop, trying to come off "one of the guys." Al Paccino made the insomnia believable, although he's played up this type of washed-up serious professional one too many times for me. Go see it, it's quite good.

Good film, if a bit of a disappointment coming from alex payne, who did 1999's best film "Election," an hilarious and truthful satire. Payne also tries to make this film funny, and parts of it are, but the humor seems to detract from the emotional element of the film. Nicholson plays Schmidt, a respected businessman who has just retired, who goes on a cross-country trip in his RV to his daughter (Hope Davis) wedding. Along the way, he has some funny adventures and learns a little something about blah, blah, blah.

There are some excellent bits. Like the painfully embarrasing scene where Nicholson tries to hit on a younger (probably in her 50's) married woman when her husband goes off to get beer. And the scene where Jack talks about how his wife instructs him to urinate. And the scenes at the beginning when Jack continues to go into the office after he's quit. oh, and dylan mcdermont's funny performance. But I'm not sure that it all really adds up to much. The "funny" scenes are interspersed between the "emotional" scenes and they don't seem to mix as well as they did in "Election." Also, some of the humor isn't that funny, it just seems to be in there to break up too many intense scenes being put together. Payne does seem to care about the subject of growing old, moving on in life, letting go, the difficulties associated with all this, etc. but possibly he doesn't trust himself enough to do it straight, so he includes some out of left-field comedy like the what will probably become infamous hot tub scene. maybe he shouldn't trust himself, actually, aside from these bits the film is quite conventional. Still, overall it's probably worth seeing. There are good performances and well-developed characters, and more to recommend than to take away from it.

I saw this film several years ago and remember being disappointed with it. I saw it again after I read the book recently, and was again disappointed. For all the hype and critical acclaim, there's very little to recommend "Blade Runner."

It's based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," by the great SF writer Philip K. Dick, and the film is a very loose adaption. That might be okay, except that they took out all the deep, interesting aspects of the book- especially the spiritual themes dealing with the futuristc religion, which is central to the novel. Guess they can't have anything to do with religion in a Hollywood film. Also, the characters are so bland. I know, that's the point, humans have been dehumanized by technology, etc. But I haven't found this to be true in rel life and it certainly isn't true in the novel. the humans are very human in the novel, concerned with being accepted by society, being loved, rising in social status, etc. And it is easier to relate to Deckard in the novel, than Deckard in the film b/c he is more like us in the novel. Also, the movie mostly ignores the animal aspect of the book (in the book most animals are extinct so if you own one it is a sigh of social status- also it is considered very wrong to eat an animal) so when the few references are made to animals, like the electronic owl or the empathy test Deckard gives, it remains unexplained.

Okay, aside from taking out all the good parts of the book, it's not a good film anyway. As to it being a film noir, this is true. Stylistically it is very dark, no heros, murder plot, etc. However, the great film noirs like "Double Indemnity," and "Chinatowne" are great because they have engaging plots, with many twists and turns. "Blade Runner" has a plot that can be summed up in one brief sentence.

This is basically a film that puts style over substance. The cinemetography and art direction are impressive. The score by Vangelis is awesome. But there's nothing to the film except some suggestiveness that technology is bad because it dehumanizes man, and androids as "the other" should be accepted maybe. Of course these themes are nothing new, and the film does not present them in a fresh way, but rather within the confines of a dull film.

It was a bad film, but I will say that the ending where Roy Batty makes his speech on top of the building was a great scene, surprisingly moving, especially considering that the rest of the film is so tedious. For a minute it almost made me want to like it.

This movie was a little better than I expected it to be. The best things about it are its droll sense of humor and its ambiguity. The tone of the film seems almost indifferent, yet we are still able to relate to/ sympathize with the characters. Even the minor characters are well developed. Tim Blake Nielson's character for example: he plays a looser house painter who sees his co-worker and best friend (the always funny John C. Reilley) as his idol since he lives in a bigger house and has an attractive wife, things Nielson could never hope for, until that is he finds a way to stab Reilley in the back, which he does without a moments hesitation, since he really doesn't like his "best friend" at all- he loathes him. The dialogue is intelligent and the characters are well-written. There does seem to be a slight problem with the films pacing or tone or something- at times it feels a bit too stifled and self-conscious. It is nevertheless a good film all around, and an entertaining one at that. Certainly one of the best released so far this year. It's getting a lot of buzz for a possible Oscar nod for Jennifer, but I kind of doubt it. Not because she isn't good, but my guess is that it won't be a "showy" enough role for Oscar voters.

I don't mind Steve Soderbergh going back to his "roots" as an amateur independent, experimental filmmaker (of course now with some of his new buddies like Julia Roberts and Brad Pitt). I didn't think much of "Erin Brokovich" or "Traffic," and this one with its hand held cameras, jump cutting, and non-linear story reminded me more of "The Limey" his best film. Nevertheless, it did have its problems including being too self consciously amateurish and confusing. The film is tedious. After a while I gave up trying to piece it all together: it just didn't seem worth it, for one thing because most of the characters weren't all that interesting anyway. Also, I'm a bit tired of all these ensamble piece movies that have casts of thousands. Still, "Full Frontal" had its moments and some very funny subtle humor. Loved the smog filled skyline of L.A. shot, and the ending shot of a movie within a movie. And the conversation between two Los Angelinos, one who is from Miami and the other from New York or somewhere. And Nicky Katt as Hitler discussing artistic integrity with Georbelles (or however you spell it) on a cell phone. Did I care how it all fit together? No. But I could still appreciate certain scenes of it.

I saw this movie for the first time a couple years ago when I first went off to school. It was about characters my same age group, facing similar problems and it was very easy to relate to. Liza Minelli plays Pookie Adams, a not exactly "normal" girl who meets a boy on the bus who is more normal, but still a bit geeky. They become friends and eventually fall in love. However, as the school year progresses the boy decides he really is not satisfied to be with just Pookie, and needs his "space." Her outbursts and anti-everything personality make him into a social outcast. One feels sorry for Pookie when he tries to break up with her, but can also relate to the bad situation the boy is in. It's a very sad movie because it is so true to life.