kleiner_fuchs Reviews

Beloved Sisters (2014)

trivial tapestry

[4/10 · 16 August 2014]

(note: I watched the short version, about 140 minutes, of this film)

Beautiful landscapes, beautiful interiors with subtle natural lighting, beautiful actors and some beautiful moments don't save this film from being a serious disappointment that may be tolerable on a TV screen, but certainly not on a cinema screen.

Allegedly this is a story about passion, and early on in the film there is a promising moment when Schiller, soaking wet and half-frozen after rescuing a child out of a stream, is warmed up by the sisters clinging to his body; this was quite erotic, but sadly it remained the only erotic moment in the whole film. The director's approach to sensuality and passion here is much too buttoned up; the result is bland and soporific. You can't have women like Herzsprung and Confurius in such a film and never have them undress; this is simply inexcusable.

I won't talk about the score here; the music is so irrelevant that it doesn't even affect the film negatively. I'd like to talk about scenes: Usually, a film, be it a Hollywood film or an art film, is made of scenes; a succession of scenes, with each individual scene having a beginning, an ending, a development in between, and a relation to the preceding and to the following scenes.

Dominik Graf obviously doesn't believe in scenes. Take, for example, the beginning of his film: First shot is a close-up of Confurius sitting in a coach. I expected that I would get to know this character now and that I would be guided into the world of the film. Well, I was wrong. Suddenly an ugly voice-over starts explaining who this girl is and what she is about to do. Then we cut to something else. So what about the opening scene? There simply is no opening scene! This is terrible. Imagine a writer writing a novel and not even getting his first sentence right. The editing is terrible throughout. I remember at one point there is a cut to a wide shot of a street, and about half a second later there is another cut away to something else before we even had time to appreciate what is going on in this street. Terrible. However, the general problem concerning the editing is not that it is too fast, but (and I don't know if the writer/director or the editor is to blame for it) that the editor was incapable of giving the story a compelling structure, a recognizable rhythm. Instead of a succession of meaningful scenes we get an erratic tapestry of meaningless pretty shots, and even if these shots group themselves to a kind of individual scene from time to time, there is no weight behind it, no sense that this scene had to start at exactly this point and had to end at exactly that point. In contrast to the sad mess that "Die geliebten Schwestern" is, you may want to have a look at Kubrick's "Lolita" (there may be many other good examples, but this film comes to my mind right now as a benchmark for masterful writing): Instead of trying to cram as many scenes of Nabokov's novel as possible into the screenplay, they wrote mainly long or very long unforgettable scenes, that give the actors time to breathe and to unfold.

Bottom line: If you love the art of filmmaking and wan't to spare yourself some serious frustration, I don't recommend this one.

Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013)

Forget about pleasure

[7/10 · 21 February 2014]

Note: this review is about the 4-hour-cut (two parts with 2 hours each) of NYMPHOMANIAC, that is shown in German cinemas.

"Forget about pleasure" – that could have been the tag line of NYMPHOMANIAC instead of "Forget about love", as we are never allowed to see, or feel, real pleasure on the actor's faces while they are having (simulated) sex; ironically, the only scene where something like pleasure can be felt is a shot of two little girls playing in the bathroom early on in the picture. Could this be called a "failure" on the part of the director or the actors considering that this is supposed to be the story of a sex addict on a never-ending quest for ecstasy? Or did Von Trier want it to be that way?

Regardless of this "failure", NYMPHOMANIAC is not a bad film, on the contrary: It is often very funny, often very beautiful, sometimes moving, sometimes provocative, and always entertaining, but it is also an uneven film. Take, for example, the opening sequence: Great production design and delicate sound design work together to create a mesmerizing atmosphere for several minutes, then suddenly a deafening Rammstein song starts playing. Is this a stroke of genius or is it simply the worst possible choice of music in this place, brutally destroying the carefully built atmosphere?

There are more strange directorial choices: Throughout the film we get ugly, pointless inserts (nature shots, animals, choir boys etc.) that are derived from low-quality, low-resolution video material. Then there are some lines that seem to have no connection to the characters and are only there because Von Trier wanted to say something important, and instead of saying it in an interview, he decided to put it in his film. This is always a bad choice; when Joe and Seligman are discussing topics like political correctness and pedophilia, I hear Von Trier talking, where it should be the characters I hear talking.

The whole film, despite its length, to me felt like a puzzle with too many parts missing: so many things left unexplained (for example, how exactly did Joe find that "K" character?), so many scenes that I would have liked to see. The non-chronological structure of the film with its flashbacks, inserts and captions didn't help to tie the whole thing together either.

The ending (the "moral" and the closing "punch line") I found to be extremely stupid and it left me sorely disappointed, it felt like a bad joke. I'll refrain from discussing it here, see it for yourself and decide for yourself.

Von Triers previous films ANTICHRIST and MELANCHOLIA were masterpieces, securing him and his unique style of filmmaking a place in the pantheon. NYMPHOMANIAC is no such masterpiece. I will recommend it as it is very entertaining, but it is also quite shallow and it didn't tell me anything interesting about sexuality or society. The important matters that the film brings up would have deserved to be dealt with more seriously. And by that I don't mean to imply that the film should have been less funny; in the past there have been funny and charming sex comedies (for example, Sunday IN NEW YORK, 1963), that have dealt with sexuality and hypocrisy in a decidedly serious and thought-provoking way.

The Fine Art of Love: Mine Ha-Ha (2005)

beautiful and devastating

[10/10 · 10 February 2013]

*** NO SPOILERS IN THE FIRST PART OF MY REVIEW ***

"The Fine Art of Love" looks like a film from the past, from the 20th century -- and that's a good thing. It is an example of masterful, unpretentious, adult filmmaking, so very different from the superhero-, action-, romantic-comedy- and art-house-trash that is flooding our cinemas nowadays.

Unlike "Innocence" (2004), Lucile Hadzihalilovic's fine adaptation of Wedekind's novel, that stayed quite close to the source material (failing only, obviously for budgetary reasons, in conveying Wedekind's spectacular closing sequence), "The Fine Art of Love" takes liberties, creating a new storyline, turning it into more of a horror story, but still based on the setting and atmosphere of the original novel.

Irvin's film moves at a steady pace, never hastening, never lingering, accompanied by a beautiful, never intrusive musical score. The cast is perfect, full of unforgettable faces and powerful performances (some commentator here complained about the dubbing; I didn't notice it at all; however I have to say that I come from Germany, where people are familiar with dubbing and it doesn't bother them as long as it is well done). The film looks great, as you would expect when you have Dante Ferretti in charge of production design.

*** SPOILERS START ***

The title sequence already sums up the film perfectly: We see two feet in ballet slippers, dancing en pointe, while blood from the tortured toes is slowly seeping through the shoes. Seeing it in close up, you can feel the pain, and you want it to stop, but it doesn't stop. You start to hate the music, the beautiful music: It's the same melody still, but it seems cynical now, sadistic. You want the pitiless music to stop, so the feet can stop dancing. But it doesn't stop, it goes on and on and on, while the blood keeps flowing...

That is how the story works: Something terrible happens, then another terrible thing happens, and you want it to stop, you desperately want someone to stand up and stop it, put an end to it. But who can do it? The few good men an women in the story (the kind young teacher, the idealistic police inspector, finally Hidalla the firestarter) don't stand a chance against the powerful forces of evil. When I saw the film for the first time, I found the ending to be one of the most devastating endings I have ever experienced in the cinema: When the flames started licking in the theatre, I felt so relieved, I thought "finally, the whole cursed place is going to be consumed" -- how big was my shock when I had to learn that it was not over yet.

You may see "The Fine Art of Love" (what a wonderfully cynical title for this story, by the way) as just an unusual horror film, taking advantage of the much-loved setting of a girl's boarding school. For me, it is much more: A desperate cry of disgust in the face of a world that is corrupt, built on lies and hypocrisy, where money and power are substitutes for love and life, where the spirits, and ultimately the lives, of the young are broken and destroyed. It is the world we still live in today.

Orphan (2009)

I wished it would not have been a genre film

[10 April 2010]

*very mild spoiler*

A nice film, but it could have been better without the constraints of the genre.

It's a horror thriller, a genre film, and it works well as a genre film. It is not an original or surprising film, but well done, well acted, and enjoyable for its whole two hours.

In this kind of genre, people have to die violently, that's a rule. I don't blame the writer, producer or director for sticking to that rule. Let's not forget they must sell a product. And still, I regret the way that "Orphan" turned out.

For me, the best part of the film is the section between Esther's first appearance and the first murder. For example, there is a scene when Esther comes down the stairs one morning wearing one of her old-fashioned dresses. Mother: "You don't wanna wear that to school, Esther. I gave you some jeans" Esther: "But you said it was OK to be different" Mother of course has to give in, as she actually did say that when she first met Esther (And of course, in the next scene Esther's dress does cause problems at school...) This kind of scenes, about everyday situations I can relate to, I find so much more exciting than waiting for the umpteenth time for the mad killer to enter the frame and stab the victim.

For once, try to imagine a film where Esther is an adopted child who is different, mysterious, difficult, even nasty... but NOT a murderer. Father likes her, but Mother thinks she is more than she can handle. How would that story end? That would have been totally unpredictable and thrilling. I would have liked to see Isabelle Fuhrmann's great performance in such a film...

An Education (2009)

in defense of An Education

[7/10 · 20 February 2010]

*** Major Spoilers ***

"An Education" is an entertaining little film, well done in all respects and superbly acted.

Some commentators here have complained about how implausible it was how the heroine, and her father, act in this film. I however think that this exactly is the point the film tries to make:

-It shows that while being "smart" in school when getting good marks, you can still be "stupid" when it comes to relationships (Thinking that it is OK to be deflowered by a much older man you hardly know, as long as you are seventeen years old - so bizarre!). In school they may train you to get an "A" but the things that are really important in life, they don't teach you there. That has been true back then and it is still true today.

-It shows that even people with a higher education can have completely absurd views. If a headmistress displays such revolting and primitive anti-Semitism as is shown in the film, it may be sad but not at all implausible. Look around you today: Being a scholar at an university sure doesn't prevent you from being an idiot.

-It shows that while being concerned about his daughter's future, a loving father can still act stupid and make terrible mistakes. I thought Alfred Molina did a wonderful job in portraying this father, who seemed weak and - indeed - very stupid, but not at all implausible.

For me the most important scene was when Jenny discovers that David is a thief and, outraged, starts to walk away, but is then convinced by David to stay. I'm sure she knows that it's wrong to stay and that there will be no happy ending if she stays, and still she can't help it because the alternative - leading a decent, but boring life - is unacceptable to her. The representation of the world she is living in as seen in the film made me absolutely believe in her dilemma: doing what is expected of her by teacher, headmistress and parents, and be unhappy, or being happy in the company of criminals. A horrible choice indeed, when you can see no third way beyond these two.

And this is the reason why I found the ending of "An Education" the only weak point of the film and very disappointing: Miraculously, Jenny is finally admitted to Oxford, and suddenly the dull and boring life she detested earlier in the film, as seen in the arguments with her teacher and headmistress, is OK? WHY? The ending seemed far too moralizing, as if to say to the young viewers of the film: "Just stay in school, always conform to what society expects of you, even if it seems boring and useless (like wasting years of your wonderful youth in school), in the end it will all be fine!" The cheap feel-good-turn at the end, THAT was implausible. It would have been so much better if the film ended with Jenny NOT being admitted to Oxford, leaving the rest to the viewer's imagination.

Effi Briest (2009)

great cast, disappointing film

[4/10 · 15 February 2009]

-- mild spoiler --

Not knowing the book or any of the films that are based on it, I was without prejudice when I sat down in the cinema, looking forward to a beautiful period piece.

The cast is exquisite, no doubt about that; but some of the best German actors couldn't save this film from an empty script and a director who seems not to have had the slightest idea why she wanted to tell that particular story.

Thinking back, I found that there where exactly two well-done scenes in the two tedious hours of the film:

The first was Effi in her new home taking a bath. The housekeeper (the great Barbara Auer) enters and offers to wash her back. Effi is clearly uncomfortable about this but doesn't dare to say no. Does the housekeeper fail to notice Effi's embarrassment, or is she deliberately being cruel? Beautiful scene, full of suspense.

The second scene is near the end, when Effi's little daughter is finally send to visit her outcast mother. The child, obviously instructed to act cold by her father and/or housekeeper, doesn't move her face and gives only very short answers, and Effi gets more and more desperate. This was a touching scene, and I asked myself: How come that after two hours with all these capable actors acting so hard and showing so much emotion, the best scene is about a little child, just sitting there, not moving a muscle of her face at all?

The editing of this film is without style and rhythm, the music is unimaginative and boring, but even worse is the cinematography. It's shot in CinemaScope, but why? Apart from some landscapes and interiors, most of them badly framed, we get mainly close-ups, close-ups and more close-ups. There's nothing more pathetic than shooting on CinemaScope and not knowing what to do with it.

La vie de Marianne (1995– )

fascinating

[25 August 2007]

This little known film, produced for TV, is a real gem. The three hours of the film seemed to me like two hours, it was that fascinating.

Of course no one knows how the people of the 18th century really behaved, how they moved, or talked, but when I watched "La Vie de Marianne", I thought: "They look not like Hollywood actors wearing costumes doing their job, it could have really been this way in the old times". It felt authentic, I felt immersed into the past.

The casting, the performances, the music, the costumes, the camera-work, the editing: Everything is splendid. Central to the film are the dialogs, which are sometimes long, but, due to the situations and performances, never tiring.

I noticed three strange (surrealistic?) inserts, two in the first half, one in the second half of the film, that seemed to have no direct connection with the rest of the film, but added to the atmosphere and fascination of the whole.

"La Vie de Marianne" is beautiful, entertaining and thought-provoking. It adds a lot of funny touches to the ultimately quite depressing tale and should have been shown in cinema instead of TV.

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

Morals: Why I love this film

[25 August 2007]

I admit I'm too lazy to read through all the reviews here and see if I'm the only one who loves this classic not only for its music, its cast and costumes, or its insane collection of cinematic references. Just in case I'm the only one, I post this comment to perhaps give you a new view to this wonderful film.

Under all its noise and gaudiness, I think the RHPS is profound, touching and tragic.

A German critic (sympathetic to the film) called it "utterly immoral". This is ridiculous, as the RHPS is one of the most deeply moral films of all times.

Why do Brad and Janet let themselves so easily be seduced by Frank N'Furter? Because they never spent a thought on the rules they want to live by. They think, you don't have sex before marriage because that's just the way how decent people should live. Obviously no one has told them that there could be a real understandable REASON for living this way. They have no clue. Trying to live by a moral without understanding the foundation of this moral must lead to tragedy.

Frank N'Furter is a fascinating figure, one of the most memorable villains in cinematic history. There can be no doubt that what he does, to Brad, to Janet, to Rocky, to Eddie, is not only rude, but evil. Not before the "Floor Show" at the end we get a glimpse at the human core in this monster. There he sings about how he wanted to be dressed like Fay Wray when he saw her in "King Kong". I suspect that he not only wanted to be dressed like her, he wanted to BE her -- a longing that could not be fulfilled. Wearing women's clothes tragically didn't made him an angelic figure like Fay Wray, it made him a freak. And it seems to me that all he wanted in the first place was to be loved and be accepted for what he was. When he sings "I'm going home" and imagines an audience, this audience doesn't consist of weirdos like the Transsylvanians who are present when Frank is introduced into the film. Instead they are ordinary old people who friendly applaud his performance. Frank makes you think about how unfulfillable desires can torture people and make them outsiders. I don't think Frank wanted to be an outsider.

For me, the most beautiful scene is when they sing "Don't dream it, be it" in the pool. The other four people in the pool are dressed like Frank; there are no boundaries any more, no distinction between the sexes, no gravity. This is pure bliss, the single truly utopian moment of the RHPS. Makes you want to believe that it could really be possible to be in love with the whole world, caress and be caressed back, without jealousy and pain, beyond time and space, beyond good and evil. Not even Dr. Scott can resist (great performance in his monologue, magnificent actor!).

But is this more than a dream? Could it be real? The scene could go on for ever, I wish it would, but it is short and is abruptly ended by Frank himself when he jumps out of the water and starts singing "Wild and untamed thing". Why? Doesn't he trust his own utopia? Earlier in the film, we have seen how Janet imagines different people replacing the face of her lover, Rocky, during her orgasm. This is basically the same utopia, but here the way it is presented doesn't make it look very tempting, but bizarre and disturbing. I suspect this scene is closer to our reality outside of the cinema, outside of our dreams: When you love with your body but not with your soul all you can hope for is a moment of frantic pleasure, but no real fulfillment.

The ending of the RHPS cannot be mistaken in its moral. Brad and Janet spell it out when they sing the sad last song "Super Heroes". What is left for them from the big party? Nothing but pain and disillusion. They have not been loved, they have been used, and now they are scarred for life. This is not a happy ending.

The epilogue by the narrator is very pessimistic. But are we really "insects", crawling on this earth, without hope, without meaning? I don't think so. We could decide to live a different life. A life without deliberately or thoughtlessly hurting other people. Respecting and accepting other people for what they are. Living not by an empty moral, but by a real one, with love and compassion.

Father and Daughter (2000)

moved to tears = good film?

[3/10 · 16 July 2006]

Like other commentators here, I was moved to tears, too, by this film, but does this necessarily mean that it's a "good" film?

I'm not at all ashamed of crying in cinema if it is for a piece of true art, like for example "The Mission" by Roland Joffé, but in the case of "Father and Daughter", I found that I actually hated myself for being such an easy to manipulate fool, and I tried to find out where my antipathy stemmed from.

This short film reminded me of the classic German short story "Unverhofftes Wiedersehen" (translates to "unexpected reunion") by Johann Peter Hebbel, that I had to read at school, and that I didn't like either. Both, story and film, achieve their sentimental effect by reducing the long life of a woman to just one single motif, and by implying that only after she dies she can get happy. By doing so, story and film show a completely wasted life, that in reality wouldn't be nearly as wasted. I suppose that's the reason why I found the film to be untrue.

Dresden (2006 TV Movie)

Insulting

[7 March 2006]

James Cameron is to blame. In his 1997 hit "Titanic" he used, in a rather tasteless way, a real-life tragedy as backdrop for a larger-than-life love story. Now some stupid German TV producers wanted to do just the same and came up with something even more tasteless.

The first thing I noticed while watching this much anticipated "TV event" was, that all the British spoke German. I wondered why that British pilot in Dresden tried to avoid talking to Germans, because when he spoke, it was always in perfect German without any accent (I might add, that in the "Making-of" features which promoted the film beforehand, it was pointed out that only British actors were cast for the British parts, for greater authenticity). Have you people never heard of the concept of "subtitling"?

The story of this film comes straight out of our favorite handbook "How to write a screenplay for beginners", so everything is trite, obvious and corny, from the way our heroine meets her hero just as she is about to get engaged, to the point where she is miraculously re-united with her dying father so he can whisper "I'm sorry" before drawing his last breath... And as you might expect, the directing is as trite and unimaginative as is the story.

When it comes to the bombing, there is a lot of explosions and fire, which is not the least impressive, as we have seen better explosions and bigger fires in hundreds of Hollywood films. Of course they throw in some gore (but not too much, as this is supposed to be prime time material), so no one can blame them of not having shown the "real" horror of war.

Some thing I liked was the cast and the acting, especially that of some of the supporting actors, for example Wolfgang Stumph as a priest and Katharina Meinecke as Annas mother. I really liked Susanne Bormann as the heroine's sister. I'd rather have followed her through the film instead of Felicitas Woll's Anna, that annoying prig who never hesitates to dump her fiancé (without telling him, of course) in favour of a handsome Englishman she barely knows. Oh, how I hate this kind of women.

Sin City (2005)

disgusting and pathetic

[19 December 2005]

First, I don't know the comic book, and I don't care. "Sin City" is a film, so I judge it as a film.

The stories that the film tells are ridiculous, pure banality, devoid of any imagination, suspense or interesting characters. People are shot and fatally wounded again and again and still live on. When they finally die, how can I believe that they're really dead? Pathetic.

There is constant violence. Neither does the violence hurt nor is it fun or beautiful or provocative or does it say anything else apart from the author/director saying: "Look how proud I am of my sick mind". It's simply childish, cynical violence without any meaning. Disgusting.

This film was meant to look great, to be a feast for the eyes, right?. How come there's NOT ONE SINGLE frame in it that I could call a "beautiful shot composition"? How is that possible? Even Lars von Trier's endlessly dreary "Dogville" had one beautiful picture in it. If you like Black and White and Film Noir, go see the classics: "The Big Sleep", "Kiss me Deadly", "Out of the Past", "Rogue Cop", "Killer's Kiss", anything. Just stay away from "Sin City".

With this film Robert Rodriguez proves once again that he has very little imagination and very very bad taste.

Nightflyers (1987)

as an adaptation, this is a catastrophe

[30 November 2005]

Look at these people! Those funny hairdos! All this mist! And listen to the music! Yes, this film was done in the eighties.

I like the eighties, but I don't like this film.

I admit, I had read George R. R. Martin's novella on which "Nightflyers" is based, before, so I was extremely prejudiced in regard to this film. The universe that Martin created in the seventies is the most haunting and beautiful science fiction realm I have ever entered. "Nightflyers" isn't his best story, but it is exciting (Martin couldn't write a boring story even if he tried), it has a nice prologue and a great ending and it is about a hundred times better than its adaptation.

Screenplay is horrible. Production design of the interiors looks very low budget. Cast is mediocre. Editing is confused. Music is forgettable. Yes, there are some nice old fashioned special effects shots, but they don't save the film.

George R. R. Martin's stories and novels have always been too intelligent, too beautiful and too sad to be considered source material for Hollywood blockbusters. Thank god, I should say.

Land of the Dead (2005)

a sad failure

[13 November 2005]

There are films that had great potential but failed and it is so very obvious what went wrong that it's hard to believe that no one during production noticed it. "Lady Jane" (1986), "Lost in Space" (1998) and "Planet of the Apes" (2001) are some examples.

The potential of "Land of the Dead" lies solely in the fact that legendary filmmaker George A. Romero returned to the theme that made him famous. It is said that only after the success of modern zombie films like "28 Days later" and the "Dawn of the Dead"-Remake, Romero was given the money to make his own new zombie film. How ironic that he, who invented the modern zombie film, would now produce a film that is inferior to Zack Snyder's Remake of the Romero-directed "Dawn of the Dead".

FEAR is essential for any zombie movie. The feeling of "no way out". The foreboding that it will all be over soon. Hopelessness. Terror. Madness. If you know Romero's "Night of the living Dead", or its two sequels, you know the feeling.

"Land of the Dead" has no such thing. No one seems to be afraid. There is no sense of confinement. The guards of the city can drive around in their armored truck. When they do, there is no sense of terror to see that all of the country is now in the hand of the dead (just think back to the intense opening scenes of "Day of the Dead").

I know what you say know: Romero wanted it that way. He wanted to show how the remnants of human society got used to the zombies around them, oblivious to the threat. Still, it doesn't work. How can a horror film work when we never see horror and fear, REAL fear, on one of the actor's faces? To make it worse, there is no story in the film that would be exciting or interesting enough to make up for the lack of horror.

Due to the weak story, the acting is mediocre as well. For example, look at how Asia Argento is used, or mis-used, in the film. She is introduced by a scene where she fights against zombies in an arena. I said to myself: "I love Asia Argento. This is gonna be great!". In the next scene, Asia undresses, showing off her smart black bra. I thought: "This is even better!". Then... she puts on a chaste garment and, except for shooting a zombie now and then, does practically nothing for the rest of the film. What a waste of talent. Dennis Hopper, the other star of the cast, doesn't seem too excited about his part either. All he has to do is perform his usual bad guy routine. When given the chance, he can be one of the best actors ever (did you ever see Bruno Baretto's "Carried Away"?). Waste of talent.

And, by the way, I missed Tom Savini's unique special effects that contributed so much to the horror of Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" and "Day of the Dead".

My Sassy Girl (2001)

incredibly entertaining, incredibly annoying

[12 November 2005]

Most people here seem to like this film and praise it for its charm. Few have criticized it for the way it portrays an unhealthy boy-girl-relationship. I agree with both parties. It's a beautiful film and I admit I liked it a lot, but it's also a childish film and it's based on a lie and you should be aware of that lie when you watch it.

On the one hand, the film IS extremely funny. From beginning to end, over a length of two hours, it never lets you down. The first encounter of Kyun-woo with the girl is a great scene, and virtually all the scenes that follow are equally good. The film is never mediocre and never predictable. The actors are great. In spite of Kyun-woo's stupidity and the girl's cruelty, I couldn't help but like the two -- they're so cute! As a highly original romantic comedy, "My sassy girl" couldn't be more effective. No doubt this is an outstanding achievement of all the people involved in the making of the film.

On the other hand, although it is "only a movie", the statement the film makes about dating and relationships could prove fatal for a young and easy to impress audience. It tells you that if you date a girl who treats you like s***, you should

1. always do what she tells you, no matter how ridiculous or degrading it may be

2. never hit back when she hits you, no matter how hard she may hit you

3. Never tell her that you have needs of yourself, never complain and always be very very patient

If you do so, you will be rewarded someday. The girl will appreciate your self-sacrificing behavior and will make you her man and you will live happily ever after... UAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!! --- DON'T believe this! It NEVER happens in real life! NEVER!! I do well understand that Kyun-woo endured all this because he felt responsible for the girl and wanted to heal her sorrow. But how can you heal someone by simply acting as a punching ball for her, or by being her obedient pet? It's a silly fantasy that will never work out in real life. I figure this kind of story appeals to sensitive adolescent boys who feel weak and worthless and dream about a woman who will think of weak, innocent and obedient men as attractive. And of course it appeals to all the girls who like to think of themselves as the center of the universe and mistake a guy's pathetic submission for romantic love.

Stop dreaming, boys. If you fall for a selfish, violent girl in real life, you have three options:

1. leave her and never see her again

2. go to the police and charge her with battery

3. put her over your knee and give her what she begs for

Then, and only then, do you have a chance of getting happy. NEVER act like that sorry idiot Kyun-woo. The girl will lose all her respect for you and you'll never get happy. I have never been in Korea, but I'm sure this is true for all parts of the world.

Infernal Affairs (2002)

style over substance

[20 August 2005]

I can understand why this film gets so much praise: It's got the best Hong Kong cast you can imagine, music and editing are extremely stylish, the production design is great in every single scene and the writing with its slick dialogs and nice details is, well, professional. However, I think the quality of a thriller depends on its story, and I found the one here, despite of the promising initial idea, not especially exciting. Even the rare action scenes and shoot-outs (that have always been a strength in Hong Kong cinema) were a let-down. I have to say that this film feels hardly like a genuine Hong Kong movie, if you think back to the Golden Age of Hong Kong films in the eighties and nineties, but more like a Hollywood "High Concept" film: "We have a great idea to get the attention of the audience, but no great script, so let's cover it up with production value and people will still queue up to give us their money". As this film's success proves, the formula works. "Wu jian dao" is by no means a bad movie, it keeps you entertained very well; but due to its mediocre story this ambitious thriller-drama became neither an outstanding thriller nor an outstanding drama.

Murmur of the Heart (1971)

Why I don't like this film

[20 August 2005]

It is natural for us Germans to envy our French neighbors for their style, for their "Savoir-vivre" and for their cinema. However, this is one of the French films that remind me why I like being German. Although I admire French cinema (my list of favorites contains much more French than German films) and although I really liked the US-produced "Pretty Baby" of the same director, "Le Soufflé au coeur" was annoying and made me angry. With its "C'est-la-vie"-attitude it seems to say that life (and love) is a game, and nothing really matters, not even sleeping with your mother. I don't believe that's true. You may make a film that lets you laugh about life and the foolish things that people do. But ultimately life is a serious matter. An artist denying that fact is a liar. That's why I don't like this film.

Milchwald (2003)

contemporary version of classic fairy tale

[21 February 2005]

This is a modern version of the Grimm fairy tale "Hansel and Gretel". It consists of two cross-cut story lines: one tells about the abandoned children's odyssey, the other shows the actions of father and stepmother. The latter unfortunately is rather weak: we see two people in their big, empty house, who can have sex with each other but are unable to communicate. The old cliché. Very lame. The other storyline is much better. It's definitely fun to watch the children's journey and how they torment the poor polish guy who tries to help them. Some scenes are really great, for example the ones around the bus station.

SPOILER AHEAD

Now let's talk about the "ending" of the film. Some would call it an "open ending", but truth is: there is no ending at all. The story lines are simply cut off. On the DVD there is an interesting interview where the director talks about his decision how the ending should look like. His explanations seemed quite nonsensical to me. I have to stress that when you watch this film with its cross-cut story lines of children and parents, it is natural that the thing you anticipate the most is the (catastrophic?) confrontation between the protagonists. If this confrontation doesn't take place, it must be disappointing. I still feel cheated by the author.

END OF SPOILER

"Milchwald" seems to be typical for a certain kind of German film: it's intelligent, focused, uncompromising and beautiful, yet seriously flawed. The problem is not that it moves slow. The problem is that it lacks sensuality. The conscious effort to keep it cool, keep it cold, is too obvious for my taste. Other people, however, may like this style. So if you have a weakness for German art cinema, go and watch it.

P.S.: I'd like to ask the author: what does the German title mean?? It sounds cool, but I don't see any connection with the film.

House of Flying Daggers (2004)

Chinese close-up torture

[15 January 2005]

-- mild spoilers --

The beginning is quite beautiful and entertaining, although it lacks - as I had expected from Zhang having seen his "Hero" - the light-hearted fun that was typical for the beloved Hongkong New Wave Films, when it was the physical skills of stars like Jackie Chan, Sammo Hung, Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh that was most important for a film, not some expensive special effects. What follows then in the second half of "House of Flying Daggers" is simply unbelievable: an endless series of incredibly dull "dramatic" love scenes. Toward the end, there is a short cut to a group of soldiers approaching the hideaway of the "Flying Daggers". Of course we expect to see the grand finale, the showdown between the "Flying Daggers" and the soldiers of the emperor, but - nothing happens. The film just ends. What is Mr. Zhang trying to say? That it doesn't matter who wins because only the love story counts? Or did he run out of money?

There are very rare glimpses of humour in the dialogue, and at approximately 96 per cent of the shots the director seems to have forgot that he was shooting on CinemaScope.

This was easily the worst martial arts film I have ever seen.

The Trap (1966)

great old school cinema

[7 September 2004]

--- mild spoilers ---

this British adventure film tells a heart-wrenching love story by combining a classic erotic fantasy with a realistic depiction of the hard life in the 19th century Canadian wilderness. The show-piece of the film is the wolf attack. It is brilliantly filmed, with the camera moving on and on through the dark snow-covered wood, while the starving beasts relentlessly try to snap at the wounded trapper. Actually, these are no wolfs but German shepherds, but the whole thing was so damn frightening that I completely forgot that this film is forty years old. Oliver Reed and Rita Tushingham are two great actors and make a wonderful couple in this film. I loved the last line delivered by Reed to Tushingham.

Only one thing I have to criticize: the two roguish native Americans are played by western actors with wigs. Looks very cheap by modern standards.

"The Trap" seems to be a lost classic. I had never heard or read of it until it aired on German television last week under the title "Wie ein Schrei I'm Wind". Then I found out that both of my parents had seen it decades ago and were so impressed by it that they never forgot it.

(T)Raumschiff Surprise - Periode 1 (2004)

If you run out of ideas...

[21 August 2004]

... put in some time travel.

"Traumschiff" could have been a great comedy, if Michael Herbig had decided to stick with the Star Trek/Star Wars theme. Sadly, the "Dreamboat Surprise" from the title only has the part of an extra in this film, appearing briefly at the beginning. The second half of the film is ruined by a time travel story, which is awful because A. it uses the most clichéed settings of time travel stories (the middle ages, the wild west and the presence) and B. it is not funny. Given the title of the film, I expected lots of fun on board of the gay spaceship "Surprise" with its lewd and girlish crew that prefers having "Kaffeekränzchen" instead of exploring the unknown regions of the galaxy (as seen in the great post-credits bonus). The last thing I wanted to see was actors reprising their parts from "Der Schuh des Manitu".

Now that I have expressed my disappointment I want to add that the CGI-effects in this film are exceptional for a German production and are very good (however useless, because this is supposed to be comedy, so we're in need for laughs instead of eye candy) and that three or four scenes really made me laugh - among them the best Darth-to-Luke-I-am-you-father-parody I have ever seen.

The Story of Pupu (1998)

very japanese

[21 August 2003]

This is a semi-surreal brew like only the Japanese can do: it's funny, sick and silly but also tender, serious and tragic. It's obviously a low budget production; there seem to have been some problems giving it feature film length, as in the second half, some parts seem a bit drawn out. All in all, it's a nice film full of imagination and interesting ideas. If you have an inclination to japanese pop culture, manga and anime, I'm sure you'll appreciate this little gem.

Das Mädchen aus der Fremde (2000 TV Movie)

Magic little girl

[19 August 2003]

On first sight, this is just another typical TV-movie: There's no special ambition concerning cinematography and production design; the solution at the end is quite unbelievable, as the author wasn't capable of solving a specific problem (you'll know what I mean when you watch the film); some of the supporting acting is not very good -- On the other hand, the two lead actors (Christian Kohlund and Mareike Carrière) are excellent, the music is beautiful... but what makes the film exceptional is child actress Miriam Stein as the title character. The presence of the girl transforms the film into a kind of bittersweet fairy tale. What we see is a hybrid between the usual TV fare and real movie magic and it shows once more that actors ARE important.

Maries Lied (1994)

Dreamlike tale from the 19th century

[18 August 2003]

A strange, poetic little film that benefits from a great cast and beautiful cinematography. There are some ravishing moments in the film that alone make it worth watching, for example when Marie bothers her governess rollerskating back and forth before her chamber or when she puts a frog on her naked belly. I was reminded of the films of Jean Rollin (especially "Fascination", that in a similar way explores the magic of a lonely chateau) and Walerian Borowczyk (although he is much more extreme when it comes to naughty detail). I would say there is only one major flaw in the production: The director chose to let the people in the film talk as little as possible. Artistically, this may have been an interesting and daring decision, but unfortunately it seems to have been a wrong decision: It makes the narrative a bit tedious and takes away the life - no one really can believe that the people of the 19th century communicated nearly completely without words. Still, it's a very beautiful film that didn't get the attention it deserved.

The Swashbuckler (1971)

A beautiful and charming film

[18 August 2003]

Jean-Paul Belmondo and Marlène Jobert star as a very memorable loving couple: In the beginning, we see them as children running through a snow-covered wood, teasing each other. Many years later, when husband Belmondo comes back from America to divorce his wife Jobert, they still act like children, who show their mutual affection by fighting, teasing and slapping each other. The relationship of our protagonists is mirrored by the incestuous and equally ardent love between a nobleman and his sister (played by the beautiful Laura Antonelli).

Belmondo, certainly not a great actor, is perfect in this film, because he plays not a "hero", but someone who often can't act but simply has to react, with a blank and uncomprehending face, to the strange events that take place around him (for example, there is one scene in court where he is sentenced to death within minutes). I have seen this film many times and am still amazed by the sheer pace of it. The script is brilliant and one of its most beautiful features is the triptych-like structure (curiously, about at the same time Stanley Kubrick made his own triptych masterpiece "A Clockwork Orange"): First the prologue, then the first part leading to the centerpiece and climax of the film, then the third part being a mirror image of the first, dissolving with a stylish transition to the short and sweet epilogue, that in itself is a mirror image of the prologue: Although many years have passed, nothing has really changed. "Les Mariés de l'an II" is a poetic film about an endless childhood.