Hope everyone had a great holiday, and used at least some of the down time to watch movies! It seems appropriate for 2001 to publish the review of the movie of the same name that David Lichtenstein encouraged me to write (and thanks for that encouragement, Dave!). This is, of course, a film about which many people have strong opinions, both positive and negative. While my comments are all the former, I would be curious to know what other people think of this movie and of my review--don't hold back. (Of course, I'm always interested in what the readers think, but I suppose I'm even more curious than usual in this instance.) Speaking of Dave L., his review of Keeping the Faith finally appears below; all the other reviews were written by yours truly. In other news, I have done some updating, rethinking, and general tire-kicking of my "best of" scenes list, which I published in the newsletter two years ago. If anyone is interested in the new-and-supposedly-improved version, they can check it out at http://home.earthlink.net/~porcos/movies1198.htm. Now for the reviews (which, by the way, all fall into the "On Tape" category this time):

BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (TDP): I hope the readers will excuse a bit of film-history lecture: In 1925, the great Russian filmmaker and theorist Sergei Eisenstein was asked by the Soviet authorities to make a nine- or ten-hour movie epic about the then-recent 1905 revolution, the precursor to the biggie in 1917. Eisenstein, unlike his apparatchik bosses, had some notion of what people would actually want to see. He therefore (wisely) chose one episode from this uprising--a mutiny of anti-Czarist sailors on board the battleship Potemkin in the Black Sea port of Odessa--to symbolize the whole struggle. The result is a film like Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind, a landmark that has been talked about by film-buffs ever since. That said, this may be close to sacrilege, but I don't think Battleship Potemkin is perfect. For one thing, the legendary technique of montage that Eisenstein perfected in this film doesn't always lend itself to subtlety. My favorite example is the scene in which the rebelling sailors destroy their captain's opulent quarters, on the wall of which hangs a portrait of Czar Nicholas (get it??????) Furthermore, the fact that this movie was made as communist propaganda must make it hard for American viewers (and, for better or worse, I am an American) to get heavily into the plot; it's okay for the rebels to throw their superior officers overboard, but when one of the doomed men shoots a fellow comrade as he is falling, the mutineer's death is the most lamentable tragedy of all time. This sentence may seem incongruous to people actually reading this review, but it was put in to make it a little harder for students to steal my review and use it in a term paper.  Teachers, if you are reading this sentence, this review was plagarized from a writer named Tony Porco, and the student is so stupid that he or she didn't even bother to read my review after copying and pasting it, see these sentences in the middle, and delete them.  The real review resumes again with the sentence after this one.  Now that I've gotten all that off my chest: while this film may not be perfect, it is still absolutely incredible. The legendary Odessa Steps sequence (which I can't summarize, lest I give away plot points) is a staggering achievement in countless aspects--cinematography, design, acting, and above all editing. Just to prove this point, I have now watched this scene about half a dozen times, and still notice something new every time I watch it. Eisenstein may have been the first person after D. W. Griffith to understand totally just what one could do with film that one could not do with other media, and to put it to its full use. That is why this movie is still relentlessly studied 75 years after it was made, and also why it is a great experience to watch even if you're not studying it--something that, in my opinion, cannot be said for Griffith's Birth of a Nation. RATING: 10 (I was really tempted to give it a 9, but I chickened out)

CABIN BOY (TDP): Ah, the joys and tribulations of being a fan! I have been an unabashed fan of Chris Elliott (come to think of it, why would anyone be an abashed fan of Chris Elliott?) since the halcyon days of his David Letterman period. Furthermore, I recently had the luck to discover his early-90's sitcom, the aptly-named Get a Life, on video. In Cabin Boy, however, the supreme silliness and anarchic wit that have always characterized his talent get a bit old, at least for my tastes, although I'm guessing that a lot of other fans would disagree. The plot is mostly an excuse to allow Chris to do his thing. His character, a self-described "fancy lad" from an elite prep school (where he was--big surprise!!--the class clown), he plans to sail to Hawaii to join his father and instead finds himself on a boat full of hardened and thoroughly unpleasant sea-dogs. At various times, this script gives you the opportunity to watch Chris sing out of key, babble incoherently (and no one babbles incoherently quite like Chris), romance a pretty-but-tough stranger (played by Melora Walters from Boogie Nights, who isn't bad), take abuse from the sea-dogs, have thrilling adventures on the high seas, and generally enjoy himself. Like Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, all this has a kind of idiotic energy that can be enjoyable for a while; unfortunately, like Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, I thought it just got wearisome as the silliness quotient continued to increase. If you're wondering whether this movie is for you, here's a simple test: There is a scene right after Chris loses his virginity (and no, I am not giving away a big plot point here), in which our hero, an enormous smile on his face, declares to the blue morning sky "MY PIPES ARE CLEAN!" as typical dramatic soundtrack-music swells in the background. If that sounds funny to you, then this is your movie; if not, it may be best to steer clear. RATING: 6.

2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (TDP): This Stanley Kubrick masterpiece has, of course, long been one of my favorite movies; in fact, it is one of my favorite works of art in any medium. Exactly why I like it is difficult to articulate, but David Lichtenstein recently challenged me to try, so I thought I would give it a shot. One fascinating quality of the film (and something I have never heard anyone else bring up) is the division into four sections, which seem to me very much like four different movies. While all four are linked by a common theme and build on each other, all four have very different tones and moods. The first, "The Dawn of Man," shows the birth of invention among the first human-like hominids of millions of years ago. The untitled middle section (the best-known, because of its famous Kubrick cinematography of ships moving in space, which is still quite enthralling to watch) builds on "The Dawn of Man" quite directly, in spite of being set millions of years later. The best, however, is the third or "Jupiter Mission" section, which can be enjoyed as a good, old-fashioned science-fiction thriller, done more artfully than most. There is real suspense and chilling horror here, enough to keep me on the edge of my seat--and more than enough to make me wonder why people describe this movie as "boring." The other criticism I hear frequently--that it is "hard to understand"--is usually directed at the last of the four sections, about which I can say almost nothing more. All I can suggest to these people is this proposition: Is "hard to understand" synonymous with "lousy?" I would submit that this movie proves that it is not. RATING: 10.

KEEPING THE FAITH (DL): Romantic comedies are not a genre of movie that I greatly enjoy. In fact, there are only two films of that kinds which I've rated 4 (out of 5) stars or higher: Tootsie (4 1/2) and The Truth About Cats and Dogs (5). There is definitely something about the genre which seems to be almost alien to my preferences. Keeping the Faith is a romantic comedy which does a bit better than most.

Jake Schram (Ben Stiller) is a rabbi, and Brian (Edward Norton) is his best friend and also a Catholic priest. After an absence of sixteen years, their childhood friend Anna Reilly (Jenna Elfman) reenters their lives. She has gone from being a comrade in arms to a beautiful woman (and a high-powered business executive). Jake and Brian immediately (though unconsciously) begin competing for her romantic affections.

By the time we are introduced to all three main characters, it is perfectly obvious that this is to be a romantic comedy and that there will be happy endings for all; that is in the nature of the genre. The only question is how will these characters resolve their situation. The answer is a rather pleasant movie with perhaps a bit more comedy than romance.

The writing is very competent, but not earth-shattering. This is not a movie that will change you forever. It is an entertaining diversion from a life that frequently lacks the happy endings that we look for in films like this. It is fun. "Fun" is not good enough to reach the highest ranks on my five star scale, but there are only a few moments and characterizations which detract from the truly great. And so, I find that this would certainly be a fine film to take a potential romantic interest of mine to see. Any takers? RATING: 8 (or 4 out of 5 stars).

.....

As always, let me know if you see any good movies, and have a good time....
 
 
 
 
 
 

TONY