Critics & Current Film 8/8: LORD OF WAR, ELEVATOR

IMDB on Max
LW, as far as I could see, there were 2 viewer reviews of Max on IMDB. The first seemed to be written by someone who had pre-judged the movie. This person had no respect for the role of fiction or art as a means of examining the world. His appeal was to what he called History, of which he apparently thinks there is but one true version. His version, doubtless.

The second review was better, but by someone who criticized the film for not presenting a comprehensive history and full explanation of all that happened during that time that might have had a bearing on Hitler's life. My only thought after reading this was, how much can we expect of one movie.

Personally, I do not claim eternal greatness for the film. I thought Hitler's neurotic personality was a bit overdrawn. If he seemed as nutsy in life as he seemed in this film, I doubt people would have listened to him. Remember, the title of the Movie is Max, and the focus is on the John Cusack character, who I saw as urbane, metropolitan, intellectual, and sympathetic to those less fortunate than himself such as the Hitler character.

The movie is far from perfection, but it is perhaps among the first that has sought to pry into the nature of Hitler as a human being as opposed to seeing him as a satanic character. Perhaps we do not care to think of him as being of the same species as ourselves, and that is understandable, but the fact is that he was a human being, and sooner or later, we will be wanting to understand what made him the way he was. When I watched the portrayal of H in this film, I found myself asking, what made him do this thing instead of that, or take that irrational position etc. He is seen in this film as a deeply conflicted and complicated man, not as comic evil or as satanic.

It is likely that we will never know the answers to the questions raised in this picture, but at least it takes a bold shot at understanding.

Here is Stephen Holden's review from the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/27/movies/27MAX.html?ex=1057464000&en=deb54c1a268d5dc5&ei=5070

I'd see the film just to watch Cusak perform, one of our finest contemporary actors. His performance in "The Grifters" is still my favorite and tell me that was a difficult gig, holding his own opposite Angelica Huston! I'll read Holden's review as I respect him as a critic but it wouldn't sway me away of at least seeing the film and getting out of it what I can.

LW, I'm soooo happy to run into someone else who really liked the Grifters. I've always thought of it as a story of alienation, estrangement, and individualism run amuck. Cusack, Huston, and Benning were all wonderful; although, Benning was not quite in the same league as the other two. I own very few VHS tapes, but this is one that I have.

I missed your post, Hazlitt. I could watch "The Grifters" over and over -- like "The Usual Suspects," just picking up on all the subtle nuances and the atmosphere of the film is overwhelming. They are almost likable characters in their perverse decadence, if that's possible. Benning's explanation of the sting is a classic film sequence.

Back to the current cinema, Sean Connery's new epic is received a royal trouncing by the critics and I can see it sinking at the box office as well. Let's see if Harrison Ford and Connery can begin taking parts that don't involve ridiculous daring do that doesn't impress.

Finally got to Spellbound and enjoyed it immensely. With one exception (I wanted to "gag' him!) the kids are tremendously appealing. Very interesting to see the different backgrounds. Interesting for the contrasts and comparisons. Moving and funny.

"Sinbad" tanked at the box office -- conventional animation seems to be waning. I can understand why to a certain extent -- "Monsters, Inc." really blew me away (hence by avatar is Sully!)
I just might take a trip to the cinema to see "Finding Nemo" as I understand it not only knocks your socks off with suberb computer animation but it's a lot of fun.

Yes, LW, I took my nieces to see Finding Nemo, and we all thoroughly enjoyed it. I recommend it, especially for animation fans. (The turtles were the best part!)

Thanks, mac -- my niece is too young to take to the movies yet but the film sounds like it will make my list for a future DVD gift!
I understand from friends that the film is just as much for adults as children.

Actually, I think I'd like to go see "Pirates of the Caribbean" just for Johnny Depp's campy performance and Jeffrey Rush's well reviewed villain. Nobody wears eyeliner like Depp.

Yes, it sounds like it will be fun - I plan to see Pirates too.

Caught Connery on the Early Show. When he was first offered The LEague of Extraordinary Gentlement, he turned it down because he thought it was a silly use of all those 19th C literary characters and because he doesn't like special effects movies. He decided to do it when it was offered again because he thought perhaps it could be fun.

Special effects leave me cold as well. I thought Matrix II looked just plain silly.

Don't go to movies as often as I would like because of lack of funds. Don't usually do mass market movies although I did think League could have been fun. Will probably see Pirates of the Caribbean in second run although I gather that Johnny Depp is the only thing worth seeing about it.

Wish I could find Reoper and Ebert in the Boston media market: they were on CBS early Sunday morning but jumped networks.

I plan to see "American Splendor" when it opens here. Based on the graphic memoir of Harvey Pekar, a file clerk in a hospital. Now that's got to whet everyone's appetites!

Kenneth Turan's turn on "American Splendor," the years Sundance Film Festival best film. Looks like a keeper to me, D'artagna:

http://www.calendarlive.com/cl-et-turan27jan27,0,686977.story?coll=cl-home-more-channels

That's interesting, because the Bond movies pretty much set the stage for the special effects movies of today. Even my jaded 21st century kids get a kick out of the older Bond films.

Bond films are a guilty pleasure for me, even the newest one was a kick in the pants. Sure, they don't have the ambiance of the early Connery films but there are still inventive and kinetic. Love the ice palace sequences in "Die Another Day."

My ex-husband did a james bond film festival with my sons more than a decade ago (I'm not certain how long we've been divorced). Every time I walked through the room, Connery was either sneaking into an hotel room and opening drawers or small boxes or was being garrotted. He has to be the most garrotted actor in the history of cinema.

Connery claims the growth of special effects was just one of the reasons why he stopped doing bond.

I think Connery worked well as bond for the same reason Pierce Brosnan does: both men have a sense of humor. Can't say Roger Moore does and the special effects really got out of hand when Moore played the role.

...very interesting

Moore was entertaining in the part but didn't have much depth. I thought "Octopussy" was his best with "The Spy Who Loved Me" a close second. The others were only passable but George Lazenby in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" was believable in his romance with Diana Rigg, another big plus for that film (straight out of her role on "The Avengers.") Brosnan has his own interpretation of the character and I like him in the role nearly as well as Connery.

BTW, fealola, the featured topic on new DVD releases may interest you. It encompasses films that have or will be on cable soon as well -- usually just a month or two after the release of the DVD and VHS. There are older films that are just being released on DVD (even the VHS may be out of circulation). That sounds like more of your bag.

oooh, something to look forward to.