ralphsf

I was really hoping this film would give some real insight to the life of a very complex and horrible person. Unfortunately, it is, for the most part, a chronological retelling of events. It tells you little about his early life, his switch from socialist to Nazi, next to nothing about his joining and rise in the Nazi party, his reaction to events like the Putsch, the Battle of Britain, Stalingrad, the assassination attempt on Hitler. It gives no information about the making of films like "the Eternal Jew" or any of the inner workings at UFA studios. It does show his dislike of Reifenstahl and then, subsequent fawning over her when giving an award, but the commentary is very limited.

I understand they wanted to limit it to his diary entries but they just aren't enough to give a full perspective on Goebbels. No mention is made of his families' and his deaths (portrayed so well in "Downfall") and nothing of his life in the bunker. Too many gaps, way too much left out. There are some interesting comments about his mistrust and jealousies with Himmler and Goering, but all stuff that has been well reported elsewhere. Some of the footage is interesting including pieces I haven't seen before, but really not much that is of an informal nature. If you're hoping to gain more perspective on why someone would do what he did, or even the inner workings of Nazi Germany, sadly you might as well skip this film.

The strong points of Secretary are the terrific performances of Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader. These two top notch actors generate tremendous chemistry and really make their roles breath. A less effective performance is given by Jeremy Davies as Lyllenhaal's "boyfriend". It's way too mannered in that typical bad-Sundance film kind of way.

The weakest link in the film is Erica Wilson's screenplay. She doesn't know when to leave elements out. The entire story line with the alcoholic father tries to create tidy explanations of complex issues... so Lee this is why Lee has such low self-esteem and cuts herself. Too pat. One moment I hated was when Lee utters the line "Finally" when she's about to go into her Grey's office for more spanking. Shainberg doesn't trust his instincts very well. Know when to let character's faces speak for themselves.

The worst part of the film is the end. Yes, I know this isn't "The Pianist" with Isabel Huppert... it's an American film that ultimately shows how love and connectedness come in many forms. But the entire "marriage" at the end rings completely false. That Grey would even be interested in it for a moment just doesn't work. The shampooing scene is very sexy but I don't believe for a minute that he would do it. Her transformation from cutting to receiving spanking seems too simplified as well. I really think director and screenwriter chickened out of going into the cutting theme even deeper, which is a pity. Shainberg really tried to make several different films that don't quite fit together. Still, Secretary is work seeing for the intensity of the central relationship and the powerful performances of Gyllenhaal and Spader.

Look, I'm not suggesting Mascara is an even vaguely good film, but... who cares, it's a classic sample of Eurotrash culture. Another masterpiece from the "quality" merchants at Cannon film, I'm just surprised it hasn't found a solid cult audience in the midnight movie circuit or 1980's retro sleaze market(uh, is there such a market?).

It has Charlotte Rampling, queen of Eurotrash (remember the Night Porter?) who, oddly enough, has the most "straight" role here. As usual, she channels Lauren Bacall (good looking woman, she), and gets through a fairly lackluster part. She's always better than her material and wears some very stylish togs for someone who just works as an interpreter. Michael Sarazin, former pretty boy and Jacqueline Bisset boyfriend (he was in a good tv version of Frankenstein) is now a little long in the tooth, but still has a striking appearance and soulful eyes. Here he's a somewhat unbelievable Police Superintendent and has some wild scenes that come off... shall we say, a trifle campy. Derek de Lint (from Unbearable Lightness of Being, a fav film of mine) is a heterosexual costume designer for the opera. De Lint, a popular star in European film, must have taken this part for the money. He's mostly a foil for Sarazin and love interest for Rampling.

But there's more. Next we have cult performer Romy Haag (a well known transgender artiste from the 70's through 90's, friend of Bowie's, etc.) as the madam-manager of an underground club where closeted bigwigs go to hear drag queens, etc. lip sink to opera (yes, when there's operatic music that's a sure sign of Eurotrash). Topping it off is the gorgeous Eva Robin's (that's how her name is usually spelled), Italian transgendered star of music, tv, fashion and film as a character with the absurd name of "Pepper". Now Robin's is about as unlikely a "Pepper" as I've ever encountered. She looks gorgeous and has a scene that prominently displays her manhood front and center. This was a good 5 years before the Crying Game. Shameless exploitation? ... you bet. But what happens next is a shocking reminder of how much violence there really is against transgendered people and how it's often reported with a kind of titillation rather than as a human rights issue. The cinematography and mood in this film are striking, even as the script and some of the acting are laughable. It all made me want to take a trip to Europe, wear something fashionable and walk around some nameless urban landscape late at night looking for a niteclub to go to as blue signs flash "cambio, wechsel, change."

Mascara could be a good date movie, if you're dating someone with really sleazy, bizarre tastes. I found it infinitely more entertaining than Showgirls, and look how beloved that flick has become since it had its initial flush down the toilet?

In a word, UGGHH. This tv version of Zhivago is still a poor adaptation of the book and many notches below the 1965 David Lean film. Entire important characters are left out, like Evgraf Zhivago. Although everyone seems to be saying it's so much closer to Pasternak, I don't see it. Many of the scenes are really copied right out of the Lean film... only more poorly done. Hans Matheson is not terrible as Zhivago, just not very interesting. He's nice looking in a boy actor kind of way but not nearly as striking as Omar Sharif. His poetry is left totally unexplored. Keira Knightley, an Uma Thurman clone, is just plain bad. All she can do is look dumbfounded with her gawking mouth hanging open. Sorry, Julie Christie she ain't. There is nothing magnetic about the character. Tonya is an underwritten character in the book, and I think Alexandra Maria Lara does about as good a job with her as can be done. While many criticize Geraldine Chaplin in the Lean version, I find her very moving and certainly striking looking. While I don't think Chaplin is a better actress than Lara, she's more memorable. Reviewers have been gushing over Sam Neill as Komarovsky. Neill is a favorite actor of mine, but I think he's really only so-so here. Rod Steiger seemed far more Russian, nastier and more self-loathing (a key part of the character). Neill was merely slick to me.

Giacomo Campiotti filmed this in Prague and in Slovakia which, at first glance, would seem to be a more real location than Spain, Finland and Pinewood Studios where Lean's Zhivago was filmed. But it doesn't feel that way. It doesn't look open and vast. The villages don't look like Russian villages, and Prague, beautiful as it is, doesn't look much like Moscow. A lot of times, it doesn't even look that cold. There is a curious lack of the cyrillic alphabet. Perhaps it was too expensive to erect old cyrillic signage. The use of background Russian speech is interesting but jarring. It just makes me wish the entire film was in Russian. The music is just an odd hodge-podge. In the second half he uses what sounds like classic Slovakian music which sounds totally wrong in a Russian story. I found the guitar strumming more annoying than anything. Yes, "Lara's theme" does get under your craw, but at least it adds some real emotion to the Lean film.

I enjoy the 1965 film, but it's a wonderful guilty pleasure, I don't see it as a great work of art. This BBC version is just drek. I'm hoping a good Russian director will tackle Zhivago and show us how it's really done. I would have love to see how the director of the Russian film "Vor" would deal with it, or the recently departed Elim Klimov (director of Rasputin and Come and See) whose talents would have perfectly matched the demands of adapting Pasternak.

Sorry, but this version, for all its slickness, athleticism, modern broadway effects, superior sound, etc. remains a poor second to the Mary Martin version. In a word, it doesn't have Jerome Robbins, Mary Martin or Cyril Ritchard. Rigby does her best and has a surprisingly effective singing voice, but her accent is awful. Neither does she or anyone else have any timing. Classic lines are just thrown away and garbled. I also found her performance to be very much on one note. She's good as a p***ed-off little boy, but that's it. It has none of the grace or whimsy of Martin's performance. The woman playing Wendy has a good voice but, again, a terrible accent and delivery. Their Hook does the best of the three. He has real power and size (everyone else in this production must be 5' tall!) and reminds me of Captain Morgan. He's got a real operatic baritone. But I thought he botched his solos, throwing away lines with poor phrasing. Tiger Lily is a good dancer (although the dances are just second rate Broadway gymnastic razz-ma-tazz) but has little to do in this version. I also thought the end of the show where Peter returns was poorly performed... it had much more emotional power in the older version. There is much to like in this version, especially if you aren't acquainted with the Mary Martin version, but it's strictly second string. The artistry just isn't there.