Change Your Image
checker-45139
Reviews
Tom (1973)
Hilariously awful
One of the worst collections of tired cliches I've seen assembled into a feature film. Every scene is entirely predictable, and squeezed hard to wring some sort of meaning or intensity out of it. Which is kind of a lost cause, since most of the flat, one dimensional "acting" is about what you'd expect from a local car dealer TV commercial.
With that in mind, it's not without its (unintentional) charms. There are enough "so bad it's good" moments to make this stinking old pile of leftover glop worth watching strictly for laughs. And the shockingly bad theme song is so ridiculously inappropriate and racist that it's hard to believe that anyone ever thought that it was a good idea.
One star as a serious movie, but six stars as an unintentional comedy. I'll split the difference and give it four stars out of ten.
Wise Blood (1979)
Hypocrisy is bad, I guess?
Like other reviewers, I struggled to find meaning in this film. Is it anti-religion? Yes, but it's also anti-common sense, anti-social, anti-conformist and anti-Hollywood. Of course the problem with being anti- everything is that it's not clear what it's *for*, if anything. Protagonist Brad Dourif's 'preacher' character is propelled by his rage against religious hypocrisy, but is so purely negative in every interaction that it's difficult to feel any sympathy for his character, and ultimately, his position. He pinballs from one angry moment to the next, lashing out at virtually everyone he encounters, never engaging in a sympathetic or redeeming act. How can one even begin to care about this protagonist? Mother Theresa would have a hard time summoning any compassion for this truly unlikable character.
I knew nothing about this film before watching it; maybe the novel it's adapted from makes the Dourif character's motivations clearer. In this film, his complete lack of anything but boiling anger and self-loathing make this a tough slog from beginning to end. I suppose that is intended to parallel the Dourif character's entire existence.
Around 15 minutes into the film I realized that its formula was to make every interaction between characters as awkward, uncomfortable and off-putting for the viewer as possible. You know how in some films, a character will do or say something unusual or inexplicable to quickly move the story in a certain direction, and you think, "No one would react that way in that situation in real life"? That's every scene in this film. Credit where it's due: that's a bold and adventurous move by director John Huston, and I suppose kudos are deserved for shaking things up. Off-kilter, discomforting mood achieved. But without any tethers to normal human interaction for contrast, it feels like the audience is being forced into the role of distant voyeurs watching unlikable, shallow characters circle the drain of life in a far away, unpleasant fantasy world. If that's your thing, this film is for you.
Also, the soundtrack music, except for the inexplicable recurring theme "Tennessee Waltz", sounds as if it was taken from a cheap production music library and sprinkled randomly into the film without much thought. Corny circus clown music over scenes that aren't comedic, dramatic/tense music punctuating mundane events, etc. This may be intentional of course, but it is ultimately annoying, and creates an impression of cheapness or carelessness that I don't think helps the film's cause.
With all of that said, this film is not without merit. Brad Dourif, the master at portraying damaged characters, pulls out all the stops here. Intensely unlikable, but entirely believeable - like a terrible car accident, it's hard to look away. His pain looks real; it's not hard to imagine this performance taking a personal toll.
Harry Dean Stanton plays a typical Harry Dean Stanton character, and that's a plus.
Ned Beatty is excellent as an opportunistic huckster street preacher (is there any other kind?) His natural enthusiasm as a sleazy con-man provides some of the only glimmers of light, an indication of how dark this story is.
The cinematography is very good - natural, evocative, and some neat shots. Editing is tight and generally keeps things moving forward, without revealing where 'forward' is leading to.
Maybe the meaning is just the cagey Huston pulling a joke on us, with an intentionally unfathomable story. If so, we fell for it, as we are still trying to sort out the clues 40+ years later.
An experimental film worth watching if you're a patient cinephile; others can safely take a pass.
Tommy (1975)
I get The Who. My question is The Why?
The Who is one of the great rock bands of the '60s and '70s, and with such an amazingly photogenic front man in Daltry and the high-minded (ha!) musical vision and ambition of Townshend, I can understand how their pioneering rock opera album Tommy got the green light as a feature film. What I don't understand is this film *as a film*. It is an unfathomable mess of lurid and garish imagery that is clumsily shoehorned into an overreaching musical story that was weird and allegorical to begin with.
Every frame of this film seems to be meant as a metaphor or symbol for some 'deeper' meaning. Other reviewers have commented on how this film is an example of director Ken Russell's over-the-top cinematic style, and Pete Townshend's creative vision in telling a story that touches on religion, society, etc. And if you've studied the album and already know the story of Tommy, and have studied film making and understand (and care about) Russell's style, this may be a more interesting, entertaining, or enlightening film. But if you haven't done your homework first - and who really wants to do their homework first in order to understand a film starring a rock band? - this film is close to indecipherable.
The most entertaining parts of this film are Ann-Margeret's all-out performance - title character notwithstanding, she's the star of this film - and a few of the musical performances. And Roger Daltrey's almost surreal rock-star perfect good looks. Otherwise, this film is SO rooted in a specific time, place and aesthetic that it is almost incomprehensible now.