imdb-3362 Reviews

Religulous (2008)

No atheist manifesto .. yet

[7/10 · 26 December 2008]

Saw Bill Maher's Religulous yesterday. Regular viewers of Real Time with Bill Maher and Bill's stand-up shows will know what to expect, and Bill doesn't fail to deliver. Religulous is a good-humoured attack on religious beliefs in general and the big religious organisations in the US in particular. Through a series of irreverent interviews with ministers, priests, rabbis, 'formerly gay' evangelicals and 'escaped' Mormons, Bill paints a picture of hypocrisy, lack of logical reasoning, evasive answers and rigid doctrine.

The way Bill approaches these people is certainly a breath of fresh air. There have been other documentaries dealing with religion, but even the most critical of these usually display some (innate?) reverence towards 'persons of the cloth', whether they deserve any or not. Not Bill. When a 'formerly gay' minister decides to hug Bill farewell, the latter simply inquires about a possible hard-on. When a group of men in a truck stop chapel decide to bless Bill and pull him into a prayer circle, he claims to be missing his wallet afterward, etcetera. There are plenty of irreverent and funny moments like that.

Still … it isn't all good. It's quite clear that Bill took a leaf or two from Michael Moore's and Stephen Colbert's editing play-books. Asking a difficult or trick question and substituting a likely answer with a puzzled or stupid look just to make the subject look goofy has been done before. It is funny when it's not overdone. In Religulous it is used a lot, and although it serves its comedic purpose quite effectively, it does look like a cop-out when done to death. Bill Maher is a very funny person, and religion hardly needs any parody; using editing tricks to stress either point makes it look a bit forced.

There is one other point that feels like a missed opportunity: Bill is so busy showing the downside and inconsistencies of religious beliefs that the case for atheism that he is clearly trying to make is underexposed. The documentary could easily have lost the UK rapper (who failed to utter a consistent thought), the Dutch cannabis guy (who failed to utter any thought until his hair caught on fire) and the gay Muslim guys (who failed to do more than sit there). That would have freed up ten minutes or so for people like Richard Dawkins and Cristopher Hitchens, both of whom are among the most eloquent and savvy defenders of atheism and critics of religious beliefs. They appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher numerous times, so they would undoubtedly have been happy to voice their opinion. It would have made Religulous into a more coherent atheist manifesto.

The rather one-sided (albeit humorous) approach fails to put Religulous into the 'ooompf!' class of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Bowling for Columbine. It is preaching to the atheist choir (people who don't need to be convinced) and it will fail to cause even a slight dent in the religious mindset (people who only respond to strong-armed manipulation or even propaganda). Adding Richard Dawkins and Michael Moore as executive producers to the payroll of Religulous II might be a good idea

Lantana (2001)

A cure for insomniacs

[1/10 · 8 December 2004]

This rates highly on my 'most boring movie ever' list. Went to see it with a friend, and we were actually on the brink of placing a bet on who would scream or run out first. By sheer determination, we made it to the final (and hardly deserved) credits without snoring.

One inconsequential, meaningless scene after the other, with 'look how interesting we edited it, and isn't this a cliffhanger' oozing from it. Unfounded pretense in its purest form.

I'm not fond of action movies at all, but this is ridiculous. Nothing happens at all, but we're supposed to feel at least ten intricate layers of tension all of the time? That's what the movie appears to suggest, but it does not deliver.

There's the guy from The Flying Doctors, or whatever that awful Oz soap my mother liked to watch years back is called. Hardly a credible character in what appears to pose as a psychological thriller/drama (which it isn't on any of its purported levels). And what are Geoffrey Rush and Barbara Hershey doing down there? Was the movie shot on some kind of an Actor Sabbatical Trip Down Under?

That's the trouble with movies that aspire to be all moody, interesting and ambitious: too many famous faces (not necessarily fitting the script) are injected into it, and the final question is "Why didn't they get Pacino and De Niro as well, in a package deal?". It is an unbelievable mix of characters in an unbelievable, and in the end very shallow, story, which made me so tired that I actually had trouble sleeping the same night, and produced a throbbing headache the next day.

Dogville (2003)

Interesting solution

[8/10 · 12 November 2004]

Quite an interesting solution to the troubles of small-town, rural America in the end there.

It takes a bit of getting used to the stark set, but the minimalist approach to the lowest common denominator in human behavior does work after a while.

Nicole Kidman executes her role with admirable precision, although the final scenes appear to hold the middle-ground between being contrived and looking for a quick and dramatic finish after two hours of walking pace. I don't think I was the only one who suspected that there was more to the gangster story that brought Nicole to town than 'just an occasion to get her there'. The movie managed to close the circle, but with a bit of a clank. Or with a bell, to remain in style.

The display of basic human avarice, meanness and lack of self-restraint is presented in a convincing way by the rest of the cast.

One thing that did bother me quite a bit was the uneven camera work. In a (somewhat overestimated and overused) attempt to pull the audience into the scenes by becoming 'their eyes', a lot of nervous and shaky images, especially present when performing fast 90-degree pans and when trying to keep up with a moving actor in close-up, presented at least me with a mild, but annoying headache after a while. I would have preferred a more smooth, 'steadicam' approach to this embellished (and slightly long) stage-play. After all, when I look at something up close, I don't usually shake my head all the time, nor do I rotate on my heels to look behind me. This is a dead and dull town; it doesn't need a speedy, giddy treatment.

Anyway, interesting exercise, captivating set of circumstances, and fuel on the fire of the misanthropists, who know they're right in the end. And who would have loved to re-enact the last chapter for real, had they not been kind fools at heart, and hating themselves for it.

8/10

The Office (2001–2003)

Absolutely brilliant

[17 October 2004]

Had this been a 'Britcom-proper' it probably wouldn't have been as funny as it is now.

The tragic elements woven into it make it so much greater. Admittedly, there are a lot (and I mean A LOT) of cringeworthy moments in The Office. Moments that make you put your hand over your eyes and look through your fingers, moments that make you gasp and look away, and moments that will make you go "Aaaargh! Noooo!".

Everybody (who is not David or Gareth) who has ever worked in an office setting (especially those who worked in several ..) will feel that The Office is a condensed and compressed series of events, but very true to life. Everybody knows David and Gareth, everybody wants to slap them and shut them up forever. Everybody feels for (and feels like) Tim and Dawn. And everybody knows that an office would be a downright suicidal place were it not for common foes like 'the boss' and 'the wannabe boss' to loathe.

Don't watch The Office if all you want is a quick laugh .. you would feel way too uncomfortable for that. The Office is a true slice of (office) life, a bit larger, a bit darker, a bit more painful, but ultimately more humorous than anything I've ever seen. Make sure you catch the Christmas special(s) as well, as that puts the icing on the cake and makes life slightly more bearable.

Yes, Prime Minister (1986–1987)

Academic praise

[16 October 2004]

In my years as a student of political science at the university of Leiden, one of the professors used to rave about these series whenever the subject of British politics was on the agenda. And even though that professor wasn't the most humorous of chaps, his quotes and tales from the series always guaranteed a good laugh.

I recently got hold of the entire series, and even though I do view them with a somewhat scholarly mind (old habits, and such), laughing out loud is my usual response. So cleverly written, such an exquisite cast of characters, such a mild way of portraying profound cynicism ("A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist", dixit Sir Humphrey Appleby).

I will probably still look at it in ten, twenty, thirty years time (if I live to see the day) ... knowing that there will always be a Sir Humphrey Appleby, a Bernard Woolley and a Right Honorable James Hacker around somewhere preventing the series from becoming outdated.

I don't know if that's something to look forward to, but if it guarantees the same laughs, I'm all for it!

Delicatessen (1991)

Masterpiece

[10/10 · 15 October 2004]

If Citizen Kane is the number one movie to see to learn anything about cinematography, this might as well be at number 2.

Delicatessen succeeds at creating a totally separate, consistent and believable universe with a very distinct atmosphere. The brown and green colors add to the weirdness of this universe.

Is it horror? Yes and no. Is it a comedy? Yes and no. Is it brilliant? Oh yes!

Everybody involved in the making of this picture gave it its best. The camera work is brilliant, the sets are simply amazing (with the final bathroom scene at the pinnacle), the editing and pace is breathtaking.

This could have been a very dark movie (and I guess a few Hollywood directors would have tried to turn it into a splatter movie and fail miserably), but the humor is just light, off-beat and hilarious enough to make it into a consistent and bearable whole. Every universe has its humor, and a strange universe has strange humor. Jacques Tati would have loved Delicatessen.

Julie's 'tea ceremony' without her glasses, the mattress spring test, Aurore's failing suicide contraptions, it's all funny as hell. I hope everyone who is even marginally involved in making movies gets to see Delicatessen and learns from its greatness. We could sure use a touch of genius in most of them ...

10/10

Zoolander (2001)

A pleasure to watch

[8/10 · 7 October 2004]

I really wonder what that 'six' rating is all about ...

This is a movie I have watched several times, and every time the overall silliness gets to me. The wonderfully goofy mock-intellectual conversations among the models, the recurring misunderstandings caused by differences in a model's skewed grasp on things and the actual reality surrounding them, microscopic cell phones .. it's just funny as hell. Owen Wilson, whose life consists of a series of gadgets, fads, drugs and leisure time only, Ben Stiller taking a trophy he did not actually win (Michael Jackson should have been hosting that ceremony ..). It's all good enough for me.

What I appreciate even more about this movie is the visual perfection. So much work has been invested into creating interesting sets and locations, great lighting and camera work, with the weird 'indoctrination sequence' in the day spa taking the cake. The great number of cameos adds to the mix - "Put a cork in it, Zane!".

Anyway, always enjoyable and a pleasure to watch. You can delve for deeper layers, like Ben tries to do for a day with the equally spike-haired relatives ("I'm not a professional television or movie actor!" - Jon Voight), but that's probably not what this movie was made for.

For entertainment, comedy and production values, I will happily concede an 8/10.

Love Actually (2003)

An appeal to the United Nations

[10/10 · 26 September 2004]

Wonderful. Wonderful. Wonderful.

There, I said it.

This movie turned a jaded sarcastic into a sentimental fool for two hours straight. And it's nowhere near Christmas. Can't we ask the United Nations to pass a global law giving only the Brits the right to make a romantic comedy-drama from now on? Bridget Jones' Diary times ten. On steroids.

Funny semi-cameos from actors you'd never expect to see in anything like this. Billy-Bob Thornton? Claudia Schiffer? Denise Richards? It all adds up somehow.

If you think you've seen enough of Hugh Grant, Colin Firth and Rowan Atkinson by now, think again. This is a stellar cast of British actors (with an American sparkle) capable of delivering a wide range of emotions and humor. Richard Curtis and Emma Freud pulled it off.

Did I say it's wonderful?

Two Weeks Notice (2002)

Not that bad, really

[7/10 · 5 September 2004]

I just happened to catch this movie because it was on a PPV station and I had nothing better to do when it aired.

For me, it wasn't hard at all to sit right through it. It did help that when I saw the opening credits I noticed immediately that the movie was produced by Sandra Bullock, and that Hugh Grant was playing the lead male role. I knew right then and there that this was going to be a movie showcasing two comedy actors, not necessarily a high-value, high-production, high-brow movie, or even a movie per se.

In fact, the movie provides nothing more substantial than a backdrop (like a canvas with a city painted on it in old vaudeville shows) to enable these two to bounce some funny lines and probably improvise a lot. I bet the bloopers are pretty funny as well. Some of these lines would work well as a standalone joke, a one-liner or material for a skit about something completely different. Actually: the dialog is not even really related to the plot.

Not being a fan of romantic comedies at all (I prefer dark, moody, "European" stuff, and certainly no happy endings or giveaway plots), I did laugh out loud a couple of times, and if that's all I can get out of this movie, it's fine by me.

Yes, the movie is forgettable and the plot is ludicrous and the scenes are pretty detached, but as a series of skits/sketches against NYC painted on a curtain as the backdrop, it's good enough for me.

Murder by Numbers (2002)

Reasonably entertaining thriller - too many shortcuts

[7/10 · 5 September 2004]

Sandra Bullock paints a believable picture as the troubled detective, though seeing her as a cynical man-eating victim-turned-persecutor requires a leap of faith (or two). The two creepy troubled kids are portrayed adequately by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt.

I do have quite a bit of trouble getting Ben Chaplin into the equation (same problem arose when watching 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs' (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0117979/). I mean, when you put an Englishman into an all-American movie, shouldn't there at least be a reason to put him there? Shouldn't there be some story leading up to the fact that an Englishman is serving as a detective on an American police force? Shouldn't there be some dialog pointing out and explaining that rather obvious fact? Or even some jokes about him being that English?

He looks out of place here, as he looked out of place in 'The Truth About Cats & Dogs'. Producers really should take notice, it distracts and annoys the audience (at least me). Nothing wrong with Chaplin's acting, it's just a matter of making an actor who is 'out of place' believable and not putting him somewhere without a good reason or a storyline.

The movie itself: well, thrillers, especially those dealing with solving a complicated crime, require some suspension of disbelief. This one's no different; actually, it requires quite a bit more effort than usual. In order to make Bullock smart enough to crack the case despite of all the pressures requiring her to let go of it, some unrealistic assumptions are being made about the evidence, and I'm sure a lot of people who watched it had a few moments of 'Come on, this is highly unlikely under the circumstances' or even 'Hey, you can't brush evidence aside like that to wrap this movie up!'.

Like I said: reasonably entertaining and watchable. Just don't use this as required viewing for detective exams. There are no shortcuts there.

Lost in Translation (2003)

Wonderful

[9/10 · 5 August 2004]

What a wonderful and mellow movie this is. Bill Murray is a very nice surprise. His obvious comedic talent, facial expressions and dead-on timing work very well with his slightly morose and jaded character, and Scarlett Johansson's pouty off-center beauty complements his character beautifully. Sofia Coppola has to be complimented with her outstanding cinematography, enabling these characters to stand out among the haze of busy Tokyo. Two people on a lonely raft on a busy and alien river, the eye of the storm, alone and almost condemned to find each other in a strange culture. And it works so well. They are comfortable in their silence, their goofyness and their silly wisecracks. The only other foreigners in the movie are either Germans or Americans playing awful muzak, not worthy of any attention (well, a little bit of physical attention for the 'singer', but regrettably so ..). The fact that they did not get involved (or managed not to get involved), apart from a farewell kiss and a gentle touch, works very well, and is the main driving force and creates the overriding atmosphere in the movie. I loved it, and I'm going to enjoy it many times.

Oh, and anyone who puts My Bloody Valentine and The Jesus and Mary Chain in a movie soundtrack (perfect for this occasion) gets a bonus point from me. 9/10.

Cloaca (2003 TV Movie)

Well done

[8/10 · 5 May 2004]

Even though this is 'just' a TV movie, it has the look and feel of 'real cinema'.

The lead roles are played by Dutch stage actors (the movie is based on a successful stage play with the same name, featuring the same actors), but most of these actors were in motion pictures and TV films before, so they know very well (or even remarkably well) how not to play to the balcony.

The cinematography is simply beautiful and the editing is what I would call 'fluent'. A nice rhythm of long, medium and close-up shots and some dolly work at the right times. Some Dutch movies try to look like a reality-TV show, but this one has cinematic qualities.

Since the main theme is friendship eroded by ambition, secrets, and betrayal, it does not really matter that the storyline and settings are a bit 'overburdened' (I mean, a future cabinet minister, a stage director chasing the lead actress in his play, a homosexual civil servant accused of stealing paintings, and an attorney with a cocaine addiction and a tendency to cut himself up - that's richer than Holland's Golden Age ..).

The supporting roles are fine, with Laura (the 18-year old daughter of one of the friends and femme fatale for one of the other friends) delivering some magnificent Lolita eye candy.

Well done, and good news for Dutch cinema. This movie deserves to be on wide-screen celluloid in a theater near you.

8/10.

Bella Bettien (2002)

Awful

[2/10 · 5 May 2004]

This (TV) film was made in a series of Dutch TV films. I wonder how the network producing this movie (AVRO) managed to produce something this awful when they produced a magnificent TV film in the same series (Cloaca, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375662/).

This movie suffers from some real Dutch movie diseases: massive and annoying overacting, unbelievable and contrived characters, well-known Dutch actors trying to portray foreigners (who, as a result, speak with a terrible Dutch accent, making it even less believable), and a thoroughly wooden screenplay (especially the portrayal of violence, including someone getting shot in the head without spilling an ounce of brain or blood, even managing to put a newspaper over his head after being shot - maybe they forgot to bring the stage blood?).

At a time when Dutch movies are climbing out of the amateurish pit they were in for a long time, this movie is a giant setback. The only positive side to it is that this is merely a TV film, not a major movie destined for international rotation or (God forbid) a serious film festival.

Obviously, that's a negative side-effect for Cloaca, which is real motion picture material and could use a wider audience.

Anyway, if you're unfortunate enough to run into La Bella Bettien, just gaze at Thekla Reuten's lips and eyes and forget she was ever in a movie this horrible.

I might have given this a 3, but since the movie is actually based on true events, the additional talent needed to turn a true story into an unbelievable movie means the score drops down to 2.

The Bourne Identity (2002)

A sequence of missed opportunities

[4/10 · 8 April 2004]

I have a hard time believing that this is the best these people were able to do with this cast and this material. I have no idea why young aspiring actors like Matt Damon, Julia Stiles and Franka Potente (please ask Tom Tykwer to give you a decent role again, Franka) felt compelled to play roles in this movie.

The script must have looked like a mess, with the line "...moving swiftly along now..." printed at least three times per page. Okay, the scenes are probably in sequence, but there is no continuity or natural flow of events. The editing is pretty shoddy as well. Looks like someone tried to fit material based on a 10,000 page script into a 100 page time frame.

The camera work made me nervous and giddy for all the wrong reasons (it is a Steadicam, not a Shakycam, guys! And this isn't NYPD Blue!). The production values are hardly any higher than in a low-budget Dolph Lundgren action movie, destined to go straight to video.

The movie opens on a ship, so of course the camera is tilting left and right... This is way beyond a tired cliche, it is tedious and distracting, and the tilting is overdone to a degree that I actually wondered why the actors (or the camera man) did not fall over.

Talking about cliches .. there we have those amazing 'CIA computers' again, that can do anything in a few seconds. So we have a blurry cam picture shot from half a mile away; zooming in actually sharpens the picture (!), and three seconds later we know that this person paid a bill in Belgium three months ago - in font size 25 and spawning at least 15 wildly animating processes on-screen. This worked fine when a PC cost $50,000 dollars and 95% of the audience had never heard of them, but come on .. Database queries aren't that spectacular, even with the CIA's budget.

There appears to be no cinematography or 'photographic pride' at all (not even one single nice and captivating shot). It looks like it was a TV movie filmed in the shortest possible time, on a limited budget, and with several people already thinking about their next project (and rightly so).

I know, a spy thriller can do with a bit of suspended disbelief, but there is so much distraction and nonsense going on, and the characters and action are so close to caricature, that disbelief hits you over the head most of the time. Instead of pulling the viewer into the train of events, the pace and the editing leave only one lasting impression: did they try to finish the movie in time before dinner?

This movie could have done a lot better with a slower and more even pace, a leaner and tighter script, classier 'cinematic' camera work, and way less editing. Less balls, better juggling.

Lilya 4-Ever (2002)

Simple, straightforward, gripping.

[9/10 · 7 April 2004]

[ story outline below, might be considered by some to contain spoilers ]

Gripping film in semi-documentary style (handheld cameras most of the time, giving the observer a somewhat impartial and detached, but explicit and merciless view of the situation - the story line is entirely linear in structure) about a young Russian girl, Lilya, whose mother decides to look for a better future in America, much to Lilya's enthusiasm. Her mother fails to tell her, until the last possible moment, that Lilya's not coming along. She will send for her later. All she really does send is a letter to the local Social Services, telling them that Lilya is an unwanted child, and that she no longer wishes to be considered her mother.

Lilya, who had tried to live her life as normally as possible until then, even going to school, sees the bottom fall out from under her existence. Together with her equally forlorn younger male friend, Volodya, she tries to make ends meet, but her life starts spiraling downwards, faster and faster.

The next station is prostitution in a local club. There she meets what she perceives to be her guardian angel, a boy named Andrei. He is a 'loverboy' of course, wooing and courting her, and promising to provide for her and to get her a well-paid job in Sweden. To Lilya, that is as close to America as she can get, so she accepts immediately, eager to escape from her bleak surroundings. Using a simple lie, Andrei sends her on to Sweden by herself, where she will be awaited by her 'future boss'. At the same time, Volodya, consumed by loneliness and overcome by a feeling of total abandonment, overdoses on pills, and dies.

Lilya arrives in Sweden, all smiles, ready for a brighter tomorrow. Until her passport is taken away from her and she gets locked inside her apartment, that is. The next day, all becomes clear. She is held against her will, mentally and physically abused, isolated by language, and driven around as a prostitute by her 'future boss', who is a pimp catering to local tastes. All she gets in return is a diet of burgers and Coke.

She tries to maintain a modicum of sanity (and to relieve her guilty feelings about leaving him behind) by inventing the presence of Volodya (complete with angel wings), trying to hang on to happier and less worrying days.

When she finally manages to escape, she has no idea what to do and where to go. In a blind panic, caused by a sudden encounter with the police, she jumps from an overpass on to the highway. She barely survives, and gets rushed to hospital. In her dying seconds, she has a dream, in which she undoes the decisions that led her there, undoing everything bad that has happened to her until that moment.

Finally, she is reunited with Volodya, and they 'die happily ever after', playing like the children they really are.

This is a no-frills story, told in a straightforward and sometimes brutal manner, and one feels for Lilya and Volodya, even though the film does nothing to evoke that emotion. Their fates are understandable, and probably unavoidable.

Stories like these can be told hundreds, maybe thousands of times every year. The story of 'sexploitation' needs to be told, and when it is being told this well, it needs to be seen.