Auburn668
Joined Oct 2003
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews8
Auburn668's rating
Louis Feuillade may have been an early French pioneer of silent shorts but "Les Vampires" is still bogged down in plot contrivances. Technically speaking it is difficult to view this today as it was upon its release, as 10 separate films, because we're not returning to the theater weekly to see the next great piece of the puzzle. And at 7 plus hours long, to view it in one sitting can be an act of futility and frustration.
Feuillade's great strength was short films but with most of these 10 episodes reaching 45 minutes apiece, he extended his stay a large part of the time, serial or not. Designed as a crime saga with comic relief and unrealistic plot devices, "Les Vampires" has been compared to early James Bond and has been mentioned as being influential on Hitchcock. I don't see it. At best it can be compared to the weekly serials shown in theaters in the 50's, early pulp fiction, and the Pink Panther series. That's not an insult but I'm not giving out credit unjustly either. None of these take away from the fun of the work.
The Vampires are a sinister (take that lightly) crime gang that is plaguing the streets of Paris circa 1915. Edouarde Mathe's Philippe Guarande and Marcel Levesque's Mazamette are the journalist and sidekick who pursue the group. The Vampires most featured member is second-in-command Irma Vep played by Musidora and she actually is rather sexy. The Vampires leader, the Grand Vampire, actually changes three different times during the story and it is the little nuances like this that spoil the film.
Whereas having fun can be quite entertaining, plot can kill the messenger even at this early stage of cinematic history. The poison pens, portable cannons, and paralyzing pin pricks can all be strategically crafty when used appropriately, particularly in a serial series, but they lose their humorous magic when we can't even believe in the people using them. The Vampires, this menace that stalks the rich of Paris and robs them blind, are arguably the clumsiest and most unplanned organization I've ever seen wear black in a movie. Juan Jose Moreno, played by Fernand Herrmann, leads a rival crime syndicate that battles wits with the Vampires and the Guarande/Mazamette team. From the time Moreno enters the film, he successfully thwarts every single Vampire scheme hatched as they cannot do anything right. Indeed were Irma Vep not so sexy she would not be worth having around. She fails at practically every assignment she is given yet not only continually gets away but also is still a highly desired commodity by both the Grand Vampire and Moreno himself.
Of course we know why these continual lapses in anything reminiscent of an actual plot and purpose occur...Feuillade has to push this baby to ten episodes to entertain the masses of 1915 for whom it was intended. But Feuillade does show some weakness here even above his writing by playing scenes out extraordinarily too long. In fact by virtue of trimming seconds off of every scene that went on too long "Les Vampires" could have made an excellent feature length picture around 210 minutes and we could have cleared up the ridiculous plot lapses to boot.
From an acting standpoint it is neither forgettable nor excellent with the possible exception of Levesque's Mazamette character who steals the show with his hilarious mannerisms and comic imagery. While appearing to be a foolish sidekick early on, by the film's end he actually does more and knows more to catch the bumbling Vampires than anyone else on screen. And he's not even the star. If any influencing went on here it was Mazamette's character on Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau.
The nutshell: great fun if it weren't so unnecessarily long. Like early pulp fiction its nonstop use of dastardly doings, devious schemes, and nasty devices may keep you coming back for the next episode time and time again (same bat time, same bat channel) but the plot will probably slow you down in the end. Possibly worth watching to get a look at early French cinema but when compared to Griffith like all 1912-1920 films must be, Feuillade doesn't even come close...6/10.
Feuillade's great strength was short films but with most of these 10 episodes reaching 45 minutes apiece, he extended his stay a large part of the time, serial or not. Designed as a crime saga with comic relief and unrealistic plot devices, "Les Vampires" has been compared to early James Bond and has been mentioned as being influential on Hitchcock. I don't see it. At best it can be compared to the weekly serials shown in theaters in the 50's, early pulp fiction, and the Pink Panther series. That's not an insult but I'm not giving out credit unjustly either. None of these take away from the fun of the work.
The Vampires are a sinister (take that lightly) crime gang that is plaguing the streets of Paris circa 1915. Edouarde Mathe's Philippe Guarande and Marcel Levesque's Mazamette are the journalist and sidekick who pursue the group. The Vampires most featured member is second-in-command Irma Vep played by Musidora and she actually is rather sexy. The Vampires leader, the Grand Vampire, actually changes three different times during the story and it is the little nuances like this that spoil the film.
Whereas having fun can be quite entertaining, plot can kill the messenger even at this early stage of cinematic history. The poison pens, portable cannons, and paralyzing pin pricks can all be strategically crafty when used appropriately, particularly in a serial series, but they lose their humorous magic when we can't even believe in the people using them. The Vampires, this menace that stalks the rich of Paris and robs them blind, are arguably the clumsiest and most unplanned organization I've ever seen wear black in a movie. Juan Jose Moreno, played by Fernand Herrmann, leads a rival crime syndicate that battles wits with the Vampires and the Guarande/Mazamette team. From the time Moreno enters the film, he successfully thwarts every single Vampire scheme hatched as they cannot do anything right. Indeed were Irma Vep not so sexy she would not be worth having around. She fails at practically every assignment she is given yet not only continually gets away but also is still a highly desired commodity by both the Grand Vampire and Moreno himself.
Of course we know why these continual lapses in anything reminiscent of an actual plot and purpose occur...Feuillade has to push this baby to ten episodes to entertain the masses of 1915 for whom it was intended. But Feuillade does show some weakness here even above his writing by playing scenes out extraordinarily too long. In fact by virtue of trimming seconds off of every scene that went on too long "Les Vampires" could have made an excellent feature length picture around 210 minutes and we could have cleared up the ridiculous plot lapses to boot.
From an acting standpoint it is neither forgettable nor excellent with the possible exception of Levesque's Mazamette character who steals the show with his hilarious mannerisms and comic imagery. While appearing to be a foolish sidekick early on, by the film's end he actually does more and knows more to catch the bumbling Vampires than anyone else on screen. And he's not even the star. If any influencing went on here it was Mazamette's character on Peter Seller's Inspector Clouseau.
The nutshell: great fun if it weren't so unnecessarily long. Like early pulp fiction its nonstop use of dastardly doings, devious schemes, and nasty devices may keep you coming back for the next episode time and time again (same bat time, same bat channel) but the plot will probably slow you down in the end. Possibly worth watching to get a look at early French cinema but when compared to Griffith like all 1912-1920 films must be, Feuillade doesn't even come close...6/10.
What Mel Gibson has achieved with "The Passion of the Christ" goes beyond any sort of personal belief system. This will not stop its crusaders nor its detractors from doing everything they can to promote their agenda of his film. How else can you explain the whopping number of 10's and 1's that the film has concurrently received so far in the Internet Movie Database's voting system? The people have let their religious beliefs get in the way of judging the film.
We've seen this before. The roles were reversed when Martin Scorsese did his own "The Last Temptation of Christ." The secularists loved it and many Christians thought it was blasphemy. But Hollywood, and many who study it, are hardcore secularists eager to trample out any sort of movie that might, Heaven forbid, put Christ back at the forefront of American culture. Their agenda is threatened by this because they don't want their belief system changed particularly if it makes their practices look questionable to the majority of people. You don't believe me? Let's just wait and see if the Criterion Collection attempts to get DVD rights for Gibson's film. And please don't hold your breath while you wait.
But history has a strange way of treating movies. "Citizen Kane," largely ignored in its own time because people simply could not grasp what Orson Welles had accomplished is now viewed as the greatest film ever made. "How Green Was My Valley," which all but swept the Academy Awards that year is now no more than a footnote in history. Many people today have not even seen it and probably never will.
It is not what people will say about "The Passion of the Christ" this year that will determine this film's place in history but how long they will say it. The magnitude of Gibson's vision in creating not just the last hours of Christ but the volume of pain and suffering that he experienced in giving his life for all man's sin has earned this film a place in the top 10 films ever made. Those are strong words. But it is an even stronger film.
It is difficult to even find a flaw in the film. Gibson should get props, even with Hollywood's secularist agenda, for best picture and best director. Jim Caviezel will get a sure nod for best actor and Maia Morgenstern should be considered for supporting actress as well for playing the misery stricken mother of our Savior. Caviezel in particular plays the son of God with such charisma, radiance, strength, and tenderness that his place as the greatest Jesus of all time to grace the silver screen is solidified. Screenplay, cinematography, and especially makeup and visual effects should all get Oscar mentions for 2004 as well.
Many critics have said the violence of Christ's sufferings is too over the top to merit this film much more than a bloodbath on par with a decent horror flick. These are the same critics who liked "Natural Born Killers" and "Kill Bill." As I said, they have an agenda and you can throw their comments out. Carnage of this sort, to express a point and show man's inhumanity, has not been seen since "Schindler's List" (also in the all-time top 10) and no one rode Steven Spielberg's back for that monumental effort. The film IS extraordinarily violent but to be fair to Christ (which previous films could not do because of the time they were made in) it must be so to express exactly how great his sacrifice was.
Even with the violence, where Mel Gibson truly succeeds is in his minimalism. The film is not bogged down in text, a possible pitfall considering it was made in Aramaic and Latin. One can actually say that the film could have lived without text at all. Gibson also shines in displaying the political turmoil that existed between the Pharisees and their followers, Christ and his followers, and the Romans themselves. True historians will note that Pilate was on Caesar's hot seat even before Christ came along, explaining his rather sympathetic character when the uprising begins. Gibson also added a Satan character to the action that pushes the film forward and I think it was a stroke of brilliance on his part to do so. The film's best scene, which I believe is arguably one of the most beautifully crafted scenes in motion picture history, is Christ's resurrection. Ironically, it is comparable to the way Spielberg brought "Schindler's List" to a conclusion with Liam Neeson's fateful goodbye to the Jews he helped save ("I could've got more.") There is simply not a dry eye in the house. Mel Gibson knew exactly what he had in mind to bring us this vision and it is a feat of true directorial craftsmanship.
But at the end of the day, "The Passion of the Christ" will give most viewers exactly what they bring into it. If you are a Christian you will see your views expressed better than they ever have been before. If you are a secularist your belief system is going to be threatened and you will probably not even be able to judge the film with any rationale because having Christ at the forefront of American society again (a feat this film could possibly pull off) would be the worst thing for your views and lifestyle. If you are prejudiced against Jews, you too will find things to encourage your already ridiculous notions...even if you have to make them up yourself because the film certainly doesn't. Mel Gibson is not out to change our world but to show us his world and he has succeeded beyond belief. And if he and Christ pick up followers on the way, the film will not only have done its job but have acted as a messenger and this is what true cinematic masterpieces do in the first place.
The nutshell: Absolute required viewing and an immediate entry into the top 10 films ever made. Considering that "Braveheart" also notches a place in the all-time top 20, if Gibson stayed behind the camera more his status as director could be on a par with Hitchcock, Griffith, and Scorsese...10/10.
We've seen this before. The roles were reversed when Martin Scorsese did his own "The Last Temptation of Christ." The secularists loved it and many Christians thought it was blasphemy. But Hollywood, and many who study it, are hardcore secularists eager to trample out any sort of movie that might, Heaven forbid, put Christ back at the forefront of American culture. Their agenda is threatened by this because they don't want their belief system changed particularly if it makes their practices look questionable to the majority of people. You don't believe me? Let's just wait and see if the Criterion Collection attempts to get DVD rights for Gibson's film. And please don't hold your breath while you wait.
But history has a strange way of treating movies. "Citizen Kane," largely ignored in its own time because people simply could not grasp what Orson Welles had accomplished is now viewed as the greatest film ever made. "How Green Was My Valley," which all but swept the Academy Awards that year is now no more than a footnote in history. Many people today have not even seen it and probably never will.
It is not what people will say about "The Passion of the Christ" this year that will determine this film's place in history but how long they will say it. The magnitude of Gibson's vision in creating not just the last hours of Christ but the volume of pain and suffering that he experienced in giving his life for all man's sin has earned this film a place in the top 10 films ever made. Those are strong words. But it is an even stronger film.
It is difficult to even find a flaw in the film. Gibson should get props, even with Hollywood's secularist agenda, for best picture and best director. Jim Caviezel will get a sure nod for best actor and Maia Morgenstern should be considered for supporting actress as well for playing the misery stricken mother of our Savior. Caviezel in particular plays the son of God with such charisma, radiance, strength, and tenderness that his place as the greatest Jesus of all time to grace the silver screen is solidified. Screenplay, cinematography, and especially makeup and visual effects should all get Oscar mentions for 2004 as well.
Many critics have said the violence of Christ's sufferings is too over the top to merit this film much more than a bloodbath on par with a decent horror flick. These are the same critics who liked "Natural Born Killers" and "Kill Bill." As I said, they have an agenda and you can throw their comments out. Carnage of this sort, to express a point and show man's inhumanity, has not been seen since "Schindler's List" (also in the all-time top 10) and no one rode Steven Spielberg's back for that monumental effort. The film IS extraordinarily violent but to be fair to Christ (which previous films could not do because of the time they were made in) it must be so to express exactly how great his sacrifice was.
Even with the violence, where Mel Gibson truly succeeds is in his minimalism. The film is not bogged down in text, a possible pitfall considering it was made in Aramaic and Latin. One can actually say that the film could have lived without text at all. Gibson also shines in displaying the political turmoil that existed between the Pharisees and their followers, Christ and his followers, and the Romans themselves. True historians will note that Pilate was on Caesar's hot seat even before Christ came along, explaining his rather sympathetic character when the uprising begins. Gibson also added a Satan character to the action that pushes the film forward and I think it was a stroke of brilliance on his part to do so. The film's best scene, which I believe is arguably one of the most beautifully crafted scenes in motion picture history, is Christ's resurrection. Ironically, it is comparable to the way Spielberg brought "Schindler's List" to a conclusion with Liam Neeson's fateful goodbye to the Jews he helped save ("I could've got more.") There is simply not a dry eye in the house. Mel Gibson knew exactly what he had in mind to bring us this vision and it is a feat of true directorial craftsmanship.
But at the end of the day, "The Passion of the Christ" will give most viewers exactly what they bring into it. If you are a Christian you will see your views expressed better than they ever have been before. If you are a secularist your belief system is going to be threatened and you will probably not even be able to judge the film with any rationale because having Christ at the forefront of American society again (a feat this film could possibly pull off) would be the worst thing for your views and lifestyle. If you are prejudiced against Jews, you too will find things to encourage your already ridiculous notions...even if you have to make them up yourself because the film certainly doesn't. Mel Gibson is not out to change our world but to show us his world and he has succeeded beyond belief. And if he and Christ pick up followers on the way, the film will not only have done its job but have acted as a messenger and this is what true cinematic masterpieces do in the first place.
The nutshell: Absolute required viewing and an immediate entry into the top 10 films ever made. Considering that "Braveheart" also notches a place in the all-time top 20, if Gibson stayed behind the camera more his status as director could be on a par with Hitchcock, Griffith, and Scorsese...10/10.
Very few directors strike gold with their first effort. The subtle nuances, finding what the camera is capable of, dealing with actors, scripts, and so forth, can make for a hell of a time finding yourself. Yevgeni Bauer is no different. And if you watch his works backwards, as I did, you find out that the man is human after all. On a career built on working with lighting, shadows, tracking, and the morbid netherworld, Bauer's first effort, "Sumerki Zhenskoi Dushi," does see him hint at these elements but he is a bit away from anything close to the genius of his later works.
Believe it or not, this is a simple love story about a prince, a high society girl, and the secret that threatens to end their marriage. At times it seems nearly Shakespearean. The two leads, Vera Chernova and A. Ugrjumov, certainly don't damage the picture in any way and V. Demert as the villainous Maksim plays his bit quite well. But the story line is surprisingly bland, drawing little emotion from we the viewer and exceptionally unclimactic.
It does draw slight interest just to see what Bauer does with the camera angles and the way he plays with the lighting but all in all it is just a bump in the road to the director's full grasp of what he will go on to be capable of.
The nutshell: only recommended for hardcore Bauer fans to see how the man began his career. Students of cinema should proceed immediately to "Posle Smerti" to wow over. I'm only giving it the rating I have because it has Bauer's name...6/10.
Believe it or not, this is a simple love story about a prince, a high society girl, and the secret that threatens to end their marriage. At times it seems nearly Shakespearean. The two leads, Vera Chernova and A. Ugrjumov, certainly don't damage the picture in any way and V. Demert as the villainous Maksim plays his bit quite well. But the story line is surprisingly bland, drawing little emotion from we the viewer and exceptionally unclimactic.
It does draw slight interest just to see what Bauer does with the camera angles and the way he plays with the lighting but all in all it is just a bump in the road to the director's full grasp of what he will go on to be capable of.
The nutshell: only recommended for hardcore Bauer fans to see how the man began his career. Students of cinema should proceed immediately to "Posle Smerti" to wow over. I'm only giving it the rating I have because it has Bauer's name...6/10.