Cherubin

Many Czechs love this movie, and by the comments on this site, I can see that even some Americans do. I can't see why, though. To begin with, "Román pro ženy" is simply not funny. I can't think of one moment which would even amuse me. Instead, I felt like groaning every time there was any attempt at humor. Why was this ? Maybe because there is no real timing. Maybe because the comic situations are presented in such a smug and happy-go-lucky way that it's more like non-ridiculous people deciding to force themselves to act ridiculous than a naturally funny comedy. Maybe it's also because the actors are average dramatic actors rather than comedians. Or most likely it's because the movie derives much of its humor from people acting weird, like the mother being an enthusiastic participant in the rituals of foreign cultures because she dislikes her own people, the heroine's best friend pretending to be like Uma Thurman in "Kill Bill" or the brain-damaged grandmother constantly repeating the same question over and over again. In the hands of a better director or screen writer, such situations could be at least slightly funny. However, here, they just seem like boring non-weird people's unimaginative idea of weirdness.

The movie does not work too well as a love story either. The scenes which are meant to be touching didn't touch me at all. This is probably because the characters are simply not likable. For example, Zuzana Kanocz's character is a young woman who takes everything with a light, whimsical attitude and does not seem to feel anything too deeply, except for when she is dumped (but not when she is the one doing the dumping), and Marek Vasut's character is an inherently unpleasant jerk who lacks the warmth or charisma (or even niceness)to be a good romantic lead. But then, if these two characters are both intended to be good looking, almost amoral and mostly unemotional, they are perfect for each other. There is also the problem of the movie being kitsch in the sense that the plot twists are at least moving as ideas (eg. the closing subway-related sequence) but their execution in the movie is clumsy and not moving at all. The pairing up of two minor, mildly unattractive characters at the end is not only equally ineffective but something that any intelligent viewer could predict. And let's not even go into Kanocz's more minor boyfriends. Those are strictly in the "let's make a character out of one or two qualities" mode. The sequence with the sky diver is particularly bad, as it feels just like a chewing gum commercial.

So why do people like this movie ? Probably because they identify with the characters, which is pretty scary.

I don´t understand how people can consider "The Hunt for Red October" to be a good movie. To be sure, Sean Connery is quite charismatic and likable as probably the least reptilian Russian communist to ever be portrayed in an American film and his talks about plans for living in the U.S. with another crew member are fun. And, the character of the classical music loving sonar/radar/whatnot specialist is at least superficially interesting. And of course, who wouldn´t like to look at melodramatic shots of huge, whale like submarines, relive some Cold War nostalgia, or hear some beautiful Russian classical music in the background ? People who consider explosions, gunshots and the suspense of waiting for them to be exciting in any form will also get a couple of brief scenes of that sort. Otherwise, though, this movie is extremely hard to follow. This is mainly because technojargon dialogue comes at the viewer so fast that he doesn´t even have time to think about what it means, because major plot twists seem to come out of nowhere rather than receive sufficient build up , giving the movie a fragmented feel that still doesn´t achieve the fast pace it aims for and also because when the characters constantly lie to each other, it is hard to tell what exactly is true at the point when it is most relevant. Amid this mess of so-called "intrigue" , there is then very little room for characterization. Most of the characters, including possible villains, just do their jobs with a straight face as if they were automatons and the viewer never receives any reason to care about what happens to them. Alec Baldwin´s character is especially wooden. He just seems to be a coldly analytical scientist type who knows all the answers which various government organizations don´t - and we never even quite know how he came to this knowledge. He just seems to know everything simply by being created according to every government agent cliche in the book . And the movie´s highly regarded suspense ? That just comes from the Russians and Americans not knowing what to expect from each other and that the conflict between them may lead to a military attack on the U.S. Granted, this keeps the movie watchable but again , if we don´t care about any of the characters in the movie , we don´t really care about their conflicts either. Furthermore, the movie is so devoid of eccentricity, weirdness or humor (attempts at which fall painfully flat) that it´s strictly left brain territory and just like any other mostly uninventive spy movie.

After first reading about "Salo" on the internet, I thought that it would be like my worst nightmare coming to life on film with innocent teenagers being defenseless against the worst tortures imaginable. Plotwise, that is obviously still the case but what keeps the film watchable is that most of the film is presented from the point of view of the Nazi torturers while the teenage victims are left undercharacterized. The Nazis, though all behaving similarly and hence being somewhat undercharacterized themselves, may very well rank as some of filmdom´s greatest villains simply due to their arrogance, which is pushed to extremely absurd limits. Indeed, most of what they do is relax in the highest state of luxury with no worry as to what will happen next while casually discussing various philosophies and cracking dirty jokes. However, when they feel the hankering to enjoy the luxury of having innocent victims completely at their mercy, they just go off to see their teenage prisoners and in a state of complete calm, regardless of the victims´ hysterical protests, force them to do whatever they want them to do just by being firm, which is usually some kind of sexual activity or feces eating (an activity the Nazis themselves surprisingly enjoy, taking the traditional metaphor of evil being connected with feces to its most literal level) . All this is actually quite funny because what is happening is so weird that it seems almost cartoonish. The horror increases a bit at the end as extreme acts of violence like the burning of and cutting off of limbs are finally more blatantly forced on the teenagers than any of the previous orders. But by this point, the viewer is so lost in "Salo"´s hallucinatory atmosphere that such acts do not even hit him or her as much as they are supposed to. One might even find his or her feelings of sadism being disturbingly appealed to. The teenage victims, who in an American movie would most likely utilize plenty of pathos and fire in their protests and probably even defeat the Nazis at the end through a "prison riot", are here rather resigned to their fate , only rebelling against them through a couple of smartmouthed remarks and secretly disobeying their orders, constantly just hoping that some stroke of fate will save them if they just play along. Though some lose their lives rather than stay prisoners any longer and although one girl keeps crying to another girl that she "just can´t take it anymore", the basic attitude is so submissive that the victims don´t even complain much but just look tired, confused and submissive. The most obvious metaphor then is that if one does not rebel against fascism or dictatorships, they will keep wronging and injuring him or her with increasing severity. In such a scenario, dying on one´s feet is better than living on one´s knees. However, if you are a ruler in such a system , you will probably have a superficially grand old time at the cost of renouncing your humanity and most of the things it should naturally abhor. Otherwise, with its grossout soft porn and lack of strong plot, "Salo" is hardly a great movie but the above features definitely make it unique, fascinating and thought provoking.

I recently rented "Canterbury Tales" because I started reading the Chaucer book and also because I liked Pasolini´s final film "Salo". However, I was very much disappointed with the results. To be sure, the film begins strongly as the first tale presented (about a young woman cheating on her elderly, temporarily blind husband) has an enjoyable sense of playfulness and brilliant camera work (especially the ambiguous, naturalistic shots of sloppy facial expressions, which are usually always a strong point for Pasolini). Even the 2 tales that followed had their merits. The story of the tax collectors played like an interesting poetic riddle and the tale of the Charlie Chaplin style "reveler" was fun in how it combined Chaplinesque innocence with things like gambling and group sex. However, after this, my appreciation of the film soon went down as the stories that followed lacked virtually anything that could be called likable. It was mostly just wooden, superficial characters hysterically shouting at each other so cartoonishly that even a seven year old would complain about bad acting while watching it and lots of cheap bodily function jokes that were done better hundreds of times elsewhere. And it also has plenty of completely unerotic sex scenes that belong in 70s Italian gross out soft porn rather than in any movie that´s meant to be taken seriously. And the infamous hell scene at the end feels like bad children´s television (e.g. "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians") with its cheap looking paper costumes and sloppy claymation. While scholars or people who lived in Italy during the 60s and 70s could probably spot intellectual criticisms of society´s hypocrisy in the movie, they really do not save it much - especially not from completely butchering the intelligence, humanity and depth of Chaucer´s original work. In any case, "Canterbury Tales" shows that no matter how artistic you make your visuals, if your movie lacks plot and characterization, they will be badly missed.

After seeing "Leaving Las Vegas" for the second time, I truly have mixed feelings about it. Initially, I thought that Cage never acted convincingly drunk in it and that if he really drank that much, he´d be dead in the film´œ first 20 minutes most likely from inevitably crashing his car due to drinking extremely large amounts of vodka in it. However, later I learned that the most extreme alcoholics develop such a high immunity to alcohol´s effects that alcohol makes them act relatively normal more than anything else. When under the influence then, Cage´s character acts calm but also unfocused, silly , crazy, and irresponsible. When he has too little alcohol in him, he gets worse shakes than anyone kicking a harder drug. Whether all this is accurate, I really don´t know now. His relationship with the Elisabeth Shue character can be touching at times, especially in the scene when she lets him stay in her apartment and he gets a truly grateful smile on his face as a result. However, the movie would have actually benefitted from an extra hour or at least more touching moments because the relationship is presented as too quick and choppy for the viewer to fully sense it´s importance (even though the Shue character says how important it is to her at least three times to hammer this point home). However, the most striking thing about the relationship is that we get the sense that the two characters could really change their dead end lives around if they made the effort, even though the process would be very hard. However, as things rarely change for the better unless we actively want them to, we witness these two characters helplessly watch their lives fall apart because their attitude towards their lives is one of surrender.

I also have similarly mixed feelings about the film´s overall style and atmosphere. On one hand, presentations of seedy urban blight can be artistically pleasing. Las Vegas is presented as sublimely in its bleakness as for example, the cities in "Taxi Driver" and "Heavy Traffic". However, "Leaving Las Vegas" is obviously specifically calculated to shock the viewer. Seriously, is it really necessary to watch Shue take a number one or to hear her describe deviant sexual practices to know that the characters live rough ? Also, is pessimism really realistic or do tragedies resonate more in a world that is neither good nor bad ? It actually seems the "LLV" loses much of its shock value by saying that whatever bad or sickening things happen, it is normal to expect them. Still, who´s to say that such a view is 100 % wrong ? This movie is definitely food for thought.

"The Elephant Man", rather than being all around great, is actually a mixture of good and bad. The good is that , well, first of all, the cinematography is nothing less than amazing, feeling like a series of cutting edge paintings. For example, all the dark passage ways utilized really do seem scary and mysterious, the extended shot of the pipework is art at its finest, and the dream sequences are some of the most disturbing ever committed to film. Otherwise, the film has all around excellent acting (Hopkins as Dr. Treves is especially memorable, presenting the character as a gentle but realistic hero with self conscious doubts about his own virtues) and no punches are pulled in presenting the deformed main character being abused or making others feel uneasy. Indeed, in most of the scenes where Merrick tries to interact with people in a normal way, you can just sense how awkward the "normal" characters feel in spite of trying to act like his deformity does not matter. And when he gets bullied, he REALLY gets bullied (you´ll probably cheer when Dr. Treves gives the abusive hospital worker a serious a-kicking in return). Otherwise, though, the problem with the movie is that Merrick is not really a well fleshed out character (no pun intended). The basic recipe for him is "take a deformed person and make him stereotypically innocent and slightly socially retarded to show how isolated he was". John Hurt conveys this quality well under a heavy makeup job but that´s pretty much the beginning and end of the character. Also, David Lynch, being David Lynch, usually focuses on getting the most violent shock value, absurdity, surrealist weirdness, or odd awkwardness out of most scenes. Plus, 1940s style melodrama and "Eraserhead" style surrealism, as good as they are on their own terms, are uncomfortably combined here. Hence, it sometimes even feels as if Lynch is making fun of the screenplay. All in all, though, it´s worth a look if you want to see something different.

There are things you can hold against "Moscow on the Hudson". It is quiet and episodic rather than exciting in any way. Vladimir, the Russian main character is completely different from any Russian I ever actually met (although it can work since all individuals are different). Convinced Marxists will hate its all too truthful criticism of communism. The 2 sex scenes break up the movie´s otherwise family friendly tone. However, in spite of these details, which can be both pluses and minuses depending on one´s point of view, "Moscow on the Hudson" is a great movie - possibly even the best movie ever made about the immigrant experience. ( I should know because I was an immigrant to the U.S. myself.) It is perhaps even mislabled as a comedy since its dramatic aspects outweigh its comedic ones. Its essential point seems to be that if you have a positive attitude, you can actually connect with the strange people in a strange land. However, its other major point is that no matter how well you adapt, the home where your roots are is still your home and you will miss it no matter how awful life there was. And if you are like Vladimir, you will also have to deal with an unstable mix of odd jobs, friends who never stay in one place too long, your new country´s street scum, arrogant morons from your motherland, and a significant other who will not fully commit to you. However, Vladimir realizes that this is not too high a price to pay for freedom to speak your mind, travel, and really shop around at Bloomingdale´s. He also winds up appreciating America´s wealth of many different cultures and ethnic backgrounds, although the makers of this film were good enough to not bang the viewer over the head with this point. Rather, they present it as irreverently and matter of factly as Jim Jarmusch does in his best work. This all amounts to a movie that is very human (or humane) in a gentle way and rather realistic in its depiction of the less extreme varieties of human nature. Its low key approach is much better for expressing its points than the loads of melodrama which these kinds of movies usually have. The jazz music soundtrack is great too. Basically, if you´re sick of movies which are overblown and commercial, then you will especially appreciate this little gem.

I saw "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" when I was still in my early teens and didn´t like it much then. I thought it was like an action movie but without the comforting elements usually associated with action movies like moral clarity and extremely spectacular fight scenes. However, recently, I saw it again on video and liked it for this exact same reason and more. The movie begins with a credit sequence of gun shots, grainy photos from the movie, and great music by Ennio Morricone that already tells you to expect a trip that´s exciting and fun. Then it rushes straight into a set of fight scenes which introduce the three main characters very dramatically (complete with titles to let you know which adjective in the title each character represents). Each of these characters is a morally flawed person who makes a living off of death. The "Bad" Angel Eyes makes his living as a soldier and a mercenary. The "Good" Blondie makes his living by making a travesty of hangings by always freeing the convicted men he turns in for reward money just before the rope should kill them. His "goodness" is only relative. The "Ugly" Tuco basically makes his living any way he can and his list of crimes is absurdly varied (ranging from all kinds of violence to statutory rape). He is a true opportunist without overriding morals but not entirely without a conscience. Played by Eli Wallach, Tuco actually steals the show from his 2 more famous costars because while they are almost superhuman in their skills, he is strikingly human in all his flaws. All three of these men, on individual terms, eventually come to know of a fortune buried in a graveyard and constantly keep fighting each other for knowledge of its exact location since each man only knows a different hint of where it is hidden and not the whole story. While such a plot does not seem too great, Sergio Leone choreographs every scene (violent or otherwise)to make it as suspenseful and expertly made as possible. The film also gets a lot of its entertainment value from Tarantinoishly holding nothing sacred. The three heroes scheme against other characters with a joyfully effortless malevolence, and not even the American Civil War is held sacred as the men try to manipulate the "senseless" conflict full of hopelessly drunken soldiers to make their quest for the treasure easier. The result of all this is that although "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" is more than 3 hours long, there is never a dull moment, making it seem about an hour or so shorter than it actually is. What´s most important, though, is that it is a thinking person´s action movie which unpretentiously demonstrates the absurdity of real life and helps us to laugh at it. If there is such a thing as a perfect western, this is the one. 10 stars out of 10 !

The problem with all of Spike Lee´s movies is that he never seems sure whether he is making a comedy or a drama. The common pattern is that you feel as if you are watching a profane sitcom only to have the illusion shattered by some scene shocking brutality. "Bamboozled" is no exception to this pattern. In fact, the rift between comedy and drama is so great here that it feels like a comedy that was literally made in hell. This time, the laughs are derived from pop culture references and stupid offensive black stereotypes. The plot concerns a TV exec (Damon Wayans) who develops an "Amos and Andy" style TV comedy show as an attempt to spite his arrogant jerk of a boss (the reliably annoying Michael Rappaport) only to have it turn it to a hit and most of the jokes, as can be expected, come from this show within the show. On a superficial level, the jokes are funny but the sheer dehumanization they represent is not. Therefore, they pretty much amount to something like laughing at mentally retarded people who do not know how to act properly. There is also a pretty funny comedy club scene in which the exec´s father performs a comedy routine in the style of "Def Comedy Jam". Unfortunately, those are the only funny parts of the whole movie . While Wayans´ "Uncle Tom" style character is probably intended to elicit laughs, he is so exaggerated and badly played by Wayans that he plays like nothing but Steve Urkel from "Family Matters" all grown up and utterly pathetic. Rappaport´s character is somewhat more convincing but all in all, he is nothing but a flat cliche of a dunderheaded white guy. As a comedy, then, the movie is nothing much. As a drama, it disturbingly evokes the dehumanization of dumb cheerful blackface stereotypes which black people were forced to conform to in the first half of the 20th century. However, this is evoked more by authentic blackface footage rather than the uniformly one dimensional cast of characters. Just about anything that happens to them left me feeling cold (although there´s a pretty depressing death scene late in the movie). All in all, Spike Lee would have done better if he directed a documentary about blackface rather than this mess which calls itself a "satyre". Nevertheless, kudos go to Lee for creating fake commercials for the movie which justly put down the stupidity of the products and images which black people support.

Words cannot do justice to this excellent movie. I am sure that many Czechs will bash Zdenek Sverak for his unabashed sentimentality just as they did with "Kolya" but somehow, Sverak gets away with it mainly because the feelings in his movies seem natural and never as obviously calculated and maudlin as, say, those in "Folger´s" commercials. Actually, there is much more to it than that. "Dark Blue World" is, above all else, a film which celebrates close male friendships and reveals the soul underneath them. The war setting is natural for this since it is traditional knowledge that nothing strengthens friendships between men as much as war. Some may say that the movie presents these (platonic) friendships as superior to romantic heterosexual love (of which the movie actually paints a rather cynical picture) but it may merely show how war brings people together and tears them apart in the strangest ways. Therefore, there are many "tearjerker" scenes like the one where the feuding soldiers forgive each other, the ones where the individual soldiers discover that their "girlfriends" have other men, and especially the strange surprise ending which can be interpreted in various ways but convincingly sends out the message that true friends always stand by each other - even after death.

Just so that one does not get the idea that the movie is just about sappy feelings, it has lots of other plusses. For a Czech movie, the budget and technical quality are very high. This is especially evident in the plane flight sequences which are so expertly filmed and exciting that a big budget airplane fest like "Top Gun" has nothing on them ! All the actors are perfectly cast even though most of them are unknowns even in the Czech Republic. Czech jazz from the 1930s provides a surprisingly fitting and sensitive soundtrack. It is also worth mentioning that while the film touches the viewer´s heart, it makes him or her feel legitimately politically angry. How many movies (including Oliver Stone´s) can you honestly say that about ?

I love this movie and give it 10 stars out of 10 !

"Ratboy" is not a good movie by any means. The freakish protagonist (despite the movie´s theme song) lacks personality. In fact, he´s disgusting in every way. The script is incredibly lame without being funny. As can be expected of a Sondra Locke movie, it is just as bland as her cutesy modern cowboy farces with Clint Eastwood. The plot is all over the place. In spite of all these flaws, though, the film is so unique that it´s fascinating. It pretty much gives the message that monsters do not necessarily have to have a hidden beauty and are best left alone. The plot concerns a reporter named Nicky (Locke) finding a rat-human hybrid named Eugene and adopting him while seeing him as nothing more than a news story that would dramatically improve her career. Her human associates don´t treat him much better. In spite of this, Eugene falls in love with Nicky (which is never particularly sad or funny). She does not love him back but is torn between exploiting him and feeling sorry for him. There are some crime related subplots too and Christopher Hewitt from "Mr. Belvedere" makes some appearances playing (surprise) a snooty British guy. This plot keeps the viewer interested if nothing else but only because it is so weird that anyone would wonder what will happen next. Basically, what´s great about the movie is that people with good sense would never have made it but Locke and company went ahead and made it anyway ! Therefore, "Ratboy" is every bit as punk as the Sex Pistols´ first album. Its audacity is remarkable.

"The Wedding Singer" is one of my all time favorite movies. It is not technically brilliant by any means and one would be hard pressed to find a film studies class that would treat it as an example of serious filmmaking but somehow, it jusdt touches my heart. As a child of the 80s, I fondly remember fluorescent colors and people being crazy over TV cop shows and celebrities with homoerotic images. Although my memories may be clouded by the fact that I was in elementary school back then and therefore attribute a sense of magic to the time that really wasn´t there, I seriously think that the 80s were a rather romantic decade by today´s standards. New wave music gave us some of the best love songs ever written, the sexual revolution was officially declared to be dead in favor of committment, and many American movies of the time celebrated romantic ideals (not just love but also heroism) in a way that made people feel enchanted (for lack of a better word). Therefore, the U.S. of the 1980s is a great setting for a sappy, traditional love story like "The Wedding Singer". Essentially, the movie is a wish fulfilment fantasy in which the prototypes of the virtuous underdog protagonist, the cruel antagonist, and the likable female love interest are clearly defined. However, the talented cast make it work. Adam Sandler is funny and likable as the protagonist. Drew Barrymore is surprisingly likable here too (as the love interest) in spite of the fact that she played quite obnoxious women in other movies. Together, they seem to genuinely create the atmosphere of a couple slowly falling in love. And of course, the actor who plays Glenn (the antagonist) is just like any genuine self centered jerk any of us ever encountered. In addition to this, a wide variety of odd characters provide plenty of very funny moments - especially Steve Buscemi as an obnoxious wedding guest and Billy Idol as himself. To be sure, the movie has its flaws like the "butt grabbing " scene that falls flat and the fact that it seems that the movie was made on a shoestring budget without anything by way of meticulous planning. However, it , at the very least, achieves the status of a romantic comedy which is both funny and romantic. This is not exactly typical for the genre so it may be something of a feat.

"A Soldier´s Daughter Never Cries" is the kind of movie that, in spite of American production, feels very European. American movies tend to be sentimental with plenty of scenes specifically calculated to make viewers get teary eyed. European movies, though, usually opt for a more naturalistic approach that refuses to wallow in emotions. In the case of "Soldier´s Daughter", this characteristic can be both good and bad. It is good in the sense that the movie seems more realistic because one must admit that in real life, melodramatic conduct is not too common. Emotions seem to be hidden rather than absent and they actually do appear in small explosions like in the somewhat odd outbursts of the mother towards the end. Emotions also seem to be behind the strange behavior of the characters (e.g. the maid scrubbing the floor at midnight after breaking up with her lover or Billy acting antisocial to make up for his feelings of resentment). Howwever, there are quite a few scenes which should have been emotionally powerful but aren´t. A good dose of American sentiment could have made a difference. For example, in the one scene where Channe finally starts crying (the title of the movie is a saying her father keeps quoting at her), I understood the place of it in the plot but was not touched by it. When Francis, heartbroken, says goodbye to Channe after telling her his secret, the situation should have been heartrending but it also left me feeling hollow - and this in spite of the fact that Francis, an effeminate heterosexual, was probably the film´s most fascinating character. Furthermore, the parents´ understated reactions often make it seem that they do not really love or care about their children the way everyone keeps insisting they do (is that a possible hidden meaning ?).

Otherwise, the movie is fine in the sense that it is intelligently written. Not only is it based on a novel but it feels as if it WAS a novel rather than a movie. The family is portrayed quite realistically. Even though the film does not seem to try to be artistic, it is lyrical enough to be seen as art.

Contrary to some other reviewers, I did not find "Chariots of Fire" to be boring. This was mostly because of the racing sequences, which are beautifully shot and pay attention to various tiny yet striking details such as the shaking wine glass on top of a hurdle, Eric loudly gasps for air after winning a race, or the dramatic beginning of a race set to the chiming of chapel bells. "Chariots of Fire" did for track what "The Tin Cup" did for golf - take a sport that is usually dull to watch and make it seem exciting. It also has the great emotional scene in which Harold confides his concerns about losing to his girlfriend. The film also has an interesting feel for its time period. Plus, creating an adult oriented movie virtually without any explicit content like this one is quite a feat by today´s standards. However, I did not feel that the movie was particularly great either. Basically, the problem with it is that neither Harold nor Eric are very well rounded characters. Harold´s character seems to begin and end with his furious desire to be a track champion in order to spite the Britons who look down on his Jewish background (although the antisemitism he encounters in the movie never seems to go beyond mild teasing). Eric´s character, in a similar way, begins and ends with him being obsessed with running track because he believes that his speed is a gift from God and being committed to his religion to the point of refusing to run on a Sunday. Except for tiny details like the fact that they both like Gilbert and Sullivan, that is all we ever learn about them. The result is that the movie plays like a simplistic "Rocky" style motivational feelgood movie rather than a thought provoking drama. Eric and Harold are so at odds with each other that one would expect at least one heated argument, debate or competition between them. This never happens. Rather, they just have a boring, quiet respect for each other. They also do not seem to have lives outside of running track except for those moments when their "civilian lives" are CONNECTED to running track in some way. The movie also has the problem of lacking even a vague sense of humor, and, in my opinion, one would be hard pressed to find an all time great movie that is also utterly humorless.

"Three Men and a Baby" is one of those movies like "Ghostbusters" that you enjoy in spite of the fact that you realize that they are only made for money and are otherwise empty. I saw this about three times when it was new and laughed like a loon each time. A couple of days ago, I saw a dubbed version on Czech TV. This time, only a few of the jokes made me laugh such as the drug hiding jokes, the scenes of the three roomies being obviously outside of their element with the baby and that masterpiece of a scene where Tom Selleck tells off the pompous Hungarian celloist (I always loved that one). Otherwise, the only other entertainment value is provided by the "goofball with a heart of gold" appeal of the three lead actors and a cute little baby for the more sentimental viewers. One thing which struck me though was just how garishly the 80s the music and the fashions were ! When people think "good 1980s music", they usually think of new wave and some of the better hard rock stuff. The music here, though, is exactly the kind of sugary drivel that is best left forgotten. And the fashions, of course, make everyone look like either a "Miami Vice" fan or an ultra clean cut Young Republican. "Three Men and a Baby" is a genuine artifact in this sense.

"MASH" must have been a pretty radical statement when it first came out, what with the Vietnam War and mainstream movies being ultra squeaky clean. However, when I watch it today, I really do not know why people consider it to be so great. Today, the idea of soldiers goofing off and chasing women instead of doing their job is old hat. Movies like "Three Kings" or most Czech "Schweik" style army comedies did this better. However, more importantly, "MASH" is not funny. Even when it is, though,all the humor is built on low, crude cliches like people getting drunk, people being embarassingly exposed when showering or having sex, or stereotypically innocent Asian teenagers being exposed to "Playboy" magazine for the first time. There is not even a plot. It´s just a series of random incidents. On the plus side, though, the cast is fine and the theme song sounds great. However, that´s not enough for this film to be a classic.

I have not seen this Christmas special since it was new (did they ever show it as a rerun ?). Nevertheless, I still remember how underneath all the irreverent humor, "A Wish for Wings that Work" had a truly beautiful story. Opus the penguin is caught in the awkward position of being a bird without having qualities normally associated with birds and also of being completely anthropomorphic even though he is obviously not human in the physical sense. To make him feel even more like an outsider, he does not have much contact with other penguins. In the special (as well as in the "Bloom County" / "Outland" comic strips), this is a source of much angst for him. However, by the end of the show, he manages to recognize his true worth by realizing that his differences can be assetts too. While it´s true that this message is nothing new, it is one which is worth reinforcing. Otherwise, the special is really funny too, owing to Berke Breathed´s unique writing style. He is also probably the only person to have the proper handle on the characters. After all, he created them ! Nevertheless, "Wish" would have been even better if it had cartoon versions of great "Bloom County" characters like Steve Dallas, Michael Binkley, and Oliver Wendell Jones but it was made during the "Outland" era so their absence is understandable.

I won´t say that "Sweet Sweetback´s Badass Song" is a bad movie. It has some interesting psychedelic cinematography, a good funk soundtrack, and , as a low budget action movie, it is pretty exciting. Also, I am sure that with a strong black hero beating up racist white cops, this was a powerful cry for racial progress against bitter social realities when it came out. While all this is nice, I have one problem with this movie: Where is the characterization ? I mean, throughout the movie, none of the characters really say much or show any feeling. When they DO say something, it is usually some slang filled sermon preaching black power. When they do anything else, they just get into fights or have sex (the two things the title character is best at). This gives the movie a sense of weirdness and brutality but otherwise, the effect is that the movie feels very amateurish - almost as if it was made by high school kids who are resourceful enough to get people to have kinky sex for them in front of the camera. The movie does not offer much in the way of plot or resolution either. Just sex and violence and politics. One can only ask himself, "Is this enough for me ?"

Watching "The End of the Affair" is never an experience which is onesidedly good or bad. It starts off as extremely boring as one of those talky movies where all the characters have complex psychological problems but never seem to say anything interesting. Also, in the beginning, as the movie switches between the past and present, it is hard to tell what takes place when. Nevertheless, as the movie progresses, the plot becomes clearer and much more interesting, especially because the plot is then presented as a mystery which gives the movie a badly needed sense of suspense. With Neil Jordan´s unique sense of style, the movie becomes hypnotic if not absorbing and manages to effectively ask some important existentialist questions about love, sex, and religion. The scene where Maurice tells off the Catholic priest towards the end is a joy to watch. So is the scene where the little boy is said to have undergone a miraculous transformation. However, if the movie was intended as a romance, it left me cold. It is a fact that if you want to present a romance effectively in a movie, you should focus on smaller details such as tender dialogue and knowing glances rather than sex scenes. That is why movies like "Love Story", "Casablanca" and , dare I say it, "Pretty in Pink" worked so well as love stories and why "The End of the Affair" failed in this respect. Maurice and Sarah just don´t seem to have any reason for liking each other besides the fact that they like to sleep together. Plus, in the roles, Moore and Fiennes just don´t seem to have much chemistry as a couple. Still, this is Neil Jordan and not some prissy chick flick so the lack of real romance may not really be a flaw to those who don´t expect it. I recommend this movie to all those people who thought "The English Patient" was simply wonderful. The rest of us should watch this while under the influence of some intoxicating substance to get the full effect.

"In Praise of Older Women" is relatively true to the excellent psychological/philosophical novel it is based on. However, the problem is that all its intellectual elements (such as its theories about the reasoning behind promiscuity) are removed in the adaptation. The result is a soft porn movie which is unintentionally hilarious due to awkwardness and bad acting. Andras, the skirt-chasing protagonist, is presented as a dip who throws a temper tantrum when one of his lovers leaves him and delivers lines like "Give us the grand tour, pops." or "This exquisite antique ashtray could be yours if you promise to become my lover." as awkwardly as if he actually knew how lame he sounded (which Tom Berenger, who played him, probably did). A bad acting award should also go to the girl who played Andras´s first teenage girlfriend. She delivers her lines as if the characters she talked to were puppies or newborn babies but then, as my friend pointed out, she actually does act like a stupid flirty girl in her early teens who does not know what she wants in a boyfriend. The actresses who play Andras´s more adult girlfriends admittedly do a better job but still, they mostly play along with the soft porn cliche of upper class semi-intellectuals who treat sex as if it was art collecting or jogging. What do they see in a dork like Andras at their age anyway ? Also, what´s the deal with some of the Hungarian characters having Hungarian accents and the other Magyars having AMERICAN accents ? Nevertheless, I must reemphasize that this movie is fun. It made me laugh more than most typical "comedies" and some of the dramatic scenes, such as the one where Andras must flee Hungary , actually do work dramatically. The sex scenes, while pretty mild by today´s standards, look relatively realistic. The insights into Hungarian culture are interesting too. Nevertheless, trash is trash and I love it !

I am sorry but this is probably the worst movie I ever saw. While I saw plenty of B-movies which were technically worse, I have a special hatred for this one because with all the talent on board (Keitel, Sarandon, Shanley, Aiello, and the same guy who directed the wonderful "Circle of Friends") , one would expect this movie to be at least watchable. Instead, what we get is one dimensional, annoying, and dull characters (with especially Kline and Mastrantonio especially acting wooden) trapped in a plot which is so ludicrous that it simply leaves the viewer turning his or her head. A real life serial killer could have any type of methodology but , come on, a real life detective would not be able to guess it as easily as Kline did - if he was not a telepath. Sorry that I can´t go into more detail but it was a long time since I saw it and fogot a lot but one thing which I do remember was constantly checking my watch to see when this turkey would finally stop gobbling.

"Wisdom" is actually nowhere near as bad as its rep would suggest if you take it for what it is: a trashy B-movie which you should watch when you feel like laughing instead of thinking. In its cool pretty boy chic fashions, the movie is just so totally 80s and the various scenes where Estevez beats the cops on his trail, such as the dummy scene, are downright side splitting. I actually liked the "cop out" ending because I thought it was original for a movie of this sort and did not see it coming. Furthermore, this movie, for its low ambitions, has some surprisingly good camera work . My main reason, though, for liking this movie is the beautiful catchy soundtrack by Danny Elfman and Oingo Boingo. Now, the bad ? Well, let´s just say that "Wisdom" never quite rises above the level of a lesser "Sledge Hammer" episode.

"Tendres Cousines" has generally been placed into two categories in the past: sex comedy and those kinds of movies which are mainly about artsy cinematography. However, if it belongs in the first category, it is mostly boring, pretentious, dreary, and painfully unfunny (French movies usually fail to distinguish between cute and funny). If it belongs in the latter category, than the cinematography is a grainy mix of shots which resemble traditional paintings and also of downright ugly shots which could probably be attributed to the film´s low production values. However, the movie is notable for a different reason. While it only has about 9 sex scenes, about 4 involve Julien, the film´s 14 year old hero who actually looks 14 if not younger ! These tend to be relatively explicit, chock full of nudity and even hint at incest. Of course, the movie is probably intended to show a case of what can happen during puberty and what can lead adult or almost adult women (the women in the movie, by the way, are gorgeous) to have sex with a boy that young. Or, it could just be an attempt at a teenage "Emmanuelle". Nevertheless, it surprises me that this movie was not banned in the U.S. as child porn - not that it necessarily should be but Americans tend to be extremely sensitive to the problem of teen exploitation . All in all, "Tendres Cousines" is a weird and somewhat twisted little movie. Pedophiles and people who think that French people can do no wrong should love it.

I have been wanting to write a review of this movie for a long time because it made a major impression on me. Although I heard that there were many differences between the real life Rocky Dennis and his movie counterpart and in spite of melodrama and some cloying touchy feely cuteness , "Mask" often feels like real life , which can be both comforting and disturbing, especially considering that real people can and did have the disease presented in the movie (with frighteningly realistic makeup). Nevertheless, the movie really does go the extra mile. Cher and Eric Stoltz give the impression that they actually BECAME the characters. I almost disbelieved it was them although I saw other movies of theirs. The characters were three dimensional and the script was simply great, offsetting the heaviness of its subject matter with a surprisingly effective sense of humor. Rocky´s problems, social, physical and otherwise, were presented in a well balanced context that never wallowed in the problems but did not trivialize them either. In the end, it delivered the message that your problems are only as big as you make them as long as you never give up in pursuing your goals. To be sure, Laura Dern here is as mousy and awkward as in most of her other movies and Sam Elliot is mostly just there to look cool but all in all, this movie deserves 9 stars out of 10. It is sad on a macro level, cheerful on a micro level, and all around unforgettable.