They made a lots of crime movies like this in the 60's. The script (if there is any) hasn't given much thought and is full of holes. The characters are empty and stupid, there are always drugs involved and at least one party scene full of grass smoking messed up hippies. Jane Birkin and Serge Gainsbourg spend most of the time kissing and touching each other while the other "gangster" is just fooling around. From time to time, police is trying to catch them with zero results. Acting is bad and the dialog is ridiculous. However, there are still some nice shots in it and the soundtrack (composed by Gainsbourg) is fantastic and that is a reason enough to check out this piece of crap.
Reviews
7 Reviews
The Offence
(1973)
Not an ordinary crime movie.
16 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Sidney Lumet's The Offence is a exploring to a dark side of the human mind. At the beginning of the movie it may seem like an ordinary crime film about a maniac who rapes and kills young girls. But soon the film gets deeper into the inspector Johnston's mind (played by Sean Connery) and it becomes a character study between the killer and the inspector. Ian Bannen gives a great performance here as a neurotic killer Baxter. Sean Connery is pretty good too but somehow it feels that he isn't completely familiar in this kind of role. There are good moments especially when he has a long talk with the police who is questioning him for the murder of Baxter. But sometimes it feels that Connery really tries too hard and he's not convincing for the whole movie.
They could have maybe cut a little from the conversations between Johnson and his wife and Johnsons and Baxters scene at the end seems to go nowhere from time to time. But even if there are a little flaws here. it's still a good movie and it's not an ordinary cop movie. Usually Police officers in the crime movies are tough guys who can handle all the pressure and horror that comes along with their job but Johnson has lost it completely and he is starting to lose his mind. He only sees all the murders, rapes and suicides in his mind and he even asks his ex-wife "why aren't you beautiful" as even a woman can't take her thoughts disappear. Very effecting moments here.
And one of the best part of the film is Lumet's great directing as he paints Johnson's visions on the screen and the really creepy soundtrack also works great.
They could have maybe cut a little from the conversations between Johnson and his wife and Johnsons and Baxters scene at the end seems to go nowhere from time to time. But even if there are a little flaws here. it's still a good movie and it's not an ordinary cop movie. Usually Police officers in the crime movies are tough guys who can handle all the pressure and horror that comes along with their job but Johnson has lost it completely and he is starting to lose his mind. He only sees all the murders, rapes and suicides in his mind and he even asks his ex-wife "why aren't you beautiful" as even a woman can't take her thoughts disappear. Very effecting moments here.
And one of the best part of the film is Lumet's great directing as he paints Johnson's visions on the screen and the really creepy soundtrack also works great.
Benny's Video
(1992)
Not very convincing.
7 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Michael Haneke is dealing a important issue here as a teenager boy Benny watches violent films and murders a girl at the same age as a result. The rest of the film tries to show how Benny and his parents are dealing with this situation but it fails to make an impact of any kind.
The first part of the film works pretty OK. Haneke's very realistic directing works well and the scene where Benny kills the girl is shown through a video screen is very effective. But after that the film does not really go anywhere. Haneke tries to show here how Benny's parents tries to handle the situation after Benny has shown them the video where the killing happens. I can see what Haneke tries to say here but he gives a pretty black and white point of view about the issue. Characters don't show any motions here (except in one scene on the end where Benny's mother breaks) and while it is parentally meant to be that way it's also a problem of the film. Benny's cold and insensible presence is getting more and more irritating as he stays the same through the whole film and you don't really care what's happening to him. You don't really get into his parents either as their are not allowed to show their feelings either.
While Benny's parents are clearly one of the main reasons for his behavior, the message is here a little too underlining. And the long period of Benny's and his mothers vacation in Egypt does not really do anything for the movie. It feels like Haneke tries to get something out from the characters and their relationships but he ends up nothing. Many scenes are shot through Benny's video camera and i think Haneke is trying to take the viewer into Benny's mind but he does not succeed there either. Benny's actions are quite mild and non-interesting.There is no reason either why Benny shows the video for police and gives his parents in. He says to police that "no reason". The same problem is in "Funny Games" also as Haneke does not really seem to know what he wants to say after all.
I give a credit to Haneke for making a movie like this and i really like his realistic style and slow pace. But it's a shame that his skills for character study and storytelling lacks too much. It's all very shocking and everything but that's not enough to make a good movie.
The first part of the film works pretty OK. Haneke's very realistic directing works well and the scene where Benny kills the girl is shown through a video screen is very effective. But after that the film does not really go anywhere. Haneke tries to show here how Benny's parents tries to handle the situation after Benny has shown them the video where the killing happens. I can see what Haneke tries to say here but he gives a pretty black and white point of view about the issue. Characters don't show any motions here (except in one scene on the end where Benny's mother breaks) and while it is parentally meant to be that way it's also a problem of the film. Benny's cold and insensible presence is getting more and more irritating as he stays the same through the whole film and you don't really care what's happening to him. You don't really get into his parents either as their are not allowed to show their feelings either.
While Benny's parents are clearly one of the main reasons for his behavior, the message is here a little too underlining. And the long period of Benny's and his mothers vacation in Egypt does not really do anything for the movie. It feels like Haneke tries to get something out from the characters and their relationships but he ends up nothing. Many scenes are shot through Benny's video camera and i think Haneke is trying to take the viewer into Benny's mind but he does not succeed there either. Benny's actions are quite mild and non-interesting.There is no reason either why Benny shows the video for police and gives his parents in. He says to police that "no reason". The same problem is in "Funny Games" also as Haneke does not really seem to know what he wants to say after all.
I give a credit to Haneke for making a movie like this and i really like his realistic style and slow pace. But it's a shame that his skills for character study and storytelling lacks too much. It's all very shocking and everything but that's not enough to make a good movie.
The Lost Weekend
(1945)
Not a classic but very good.
2 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Ray Milland gives a great performance here as an alcoholic who cares nothing else but a bottle. Other characters in the film are also very well acted, especially the bartender and Bim who gives Don a scary lesson about the dark side of alcoholism.
There are some pretty striking scenes here if you think that this was made in the 40's. The scenes where Don and other alcoholic sees the hallucinations are pretty rough for a Hollywood picture at that time and Wilder does give a pretty merciless description of an alcoholism. But even though Don drinks, he is still very warm and sympathetic character and as he is aware himself that he has a problem and he thinks he is a looser, it's easy to feel kind of sorry for him.
The movie is more of a review for a dark side of alcoholism rather than asking the reason for it. It's a one man story about how bottle is everything he has and care about. You don't need to know why he drinks and movie does not even try to explain that. Which is good i think because the it would easily go too pathetic for telling reasons why Don became what he is. Movie starts when Don has been already alcoholic for years and story goes back only to tell how Don met his girlfriend. And he was a drunk then already!
Many here criticize the music score here but i think it's one of the best i've heard from Miklos Rozsa. Especially the scenes where Don is trying to find the bottle from his house and when he sees those visions are musically great and gives a great point of view to Don's confused state of mind. It's not an usual Rozsa score and that makes it more interesting as it seems that he has tried something different here with using theremin and more experimental themes.
There are a few flaws though that's why i have to drop a couple of stars. In the beginning when Don suddenly wants his brother go to the concert instead of him seems a little bit too obvious. And if his brother has seen these lies for years, he pretty easily takes his story. And the bigger flaw is the ending. I was kind of hoping that the ending would follow the movie's straight storyline and "not" happy ending would have made this almost a 10 star movie. It's a shame that in Hollywood it's so rare that movies end like the director wants them to end. Especially here the ending feels really out of place and i don't think they would have released this movie without the happy end.
Despite the flaws it's still a good movie and this is another example of Billy Wilder's great directing skills.
There are some pretty striking scenes here if you think that this was made in the 40's. The scenes where Don and other alcoholic sees the hallucinations are pretty rough for a Hollywood picture at that time and Wilder does give a pretty merciless description of an alcoholism. But even though Don drinks, he is still very warm and sympathetic character and as he is aware himself that he has a problem and he thinks he is a looser, it's easy to feel kind of sorry for him.
The movie is more of a review for a dark side of alcoholism rather than asking the reason for it. It's a one man story about how bottle is everything he has and care about. You don't need to know why he drinks and movie does not even try to explain that. Which is good i think because the it would easily go too pathetic for telling reasons why Don became what he is. Movie starts when Don has been already alcoholic for years and story goes back only to tell how Don met his girlfriend. And he was a drunk then already!
Many here criticize the music score here but i think it's one of the best i've heard from Miklos Rozsa. Especially the scenes where Don is trying to find the bottle from his house and when he sees those visions are musically great and gives a great point of view to Don's confused state of mind. It's not an usual Rozsa score and that makes it more interesting as it seems that he has tried something different here with using theremin and more experimental themes.
There are a few flaws though that's why i have to drop a couple of stars. In the beginning when Don suddenly wants his brother go to the concert instead of him seems a little bit too obvious. And if his brother has seen these lies for years, he pretty easily takes his story. And the bigger flaw is the ending. I was kind of hoping that the ending would follow the movie's straight storyline and "not" happy ending would have made this almost a 10 star movie. It's a shame that in Hollywood it's so rare that movies end like the director wants them to end. Especially here the ending feels really out of place and i don't think they would have released this movie without the happy end.
Despite the flaws it's still a good movie and this is another example of Billy Wilder's great directing skills.
Manderlay
(2005)
What a huge disappointment!
14 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't have a great expectations about this movie. I really loved Dogville and i kind of guessed that Von Trier is not going to be able to do another such a great movie especially when the starting point is the same. And he didn't, but still i was hoping a little more of this movie.
What did Dogville so good was the great actors, great story and theatrical set up which was very fresh move. Now we are already familiar with the set up and all the focus is the story and acting. Unfortunately the script is not very interesting in Manderlay. Big part of Dogville's charm was that you didn't know who Grace was and from where she came. And you really couldn't guess what is going to happen in the movie and the story went ahead all the time. Now we know what happened to Grace and who she is and now she decides to free Manderlay from it's slavery, apparently because she was so humiliated herself she wants to release these downtrodden people. The idea is important as Von Trier tries to criticize slavery and especially slavery in America. But the film just don't move after the first 30 minutes. Dogville was an interesting place with a certain charm in it and interesting characters. Manderlay is like a boring village where nothing happens, no magic there and you can't get touch with slaves who lives there. First chapter is called "Introducing the people in Manderlay" but after the first chapter you haven't got any picture of the Manderlays people.
Von trier seems to be lost here and don't know how to go on with the story. The result is confusing and uninteresting piece of work. Bryce Dallas Howard is not nearly as good as Nicole Kidman. Most of the film she just stares the same look in her face and she just don't have the right charisma for this kind of role. And the narrative voice which worked well in Dogville is now mostly irritating. The voice is talking at least half of the movie and in certain point you just want him to shut up and let actors speak for a change.
I hope that Von Trier finds a better way to end up this trilogy than Manderlay. It's a shame if Dogville stays only masterpiece in it.
What did Dogville so good was the great actors, great story and theatrical set up which was very fresh move. Now we are already familiar with the set up and all the focus is the story and acting. Unfortunately the script is not very interesting in Manderlay. Big part of Dogville's charm was that you didn't know who Grace was and from where she came. And you really couldn't guess what is going to happen in the movie and the story went ahead all the time. Now we know what happened to Grace and who she is and now she decides to free Manderlay from it's slavery, apparently because she was so humiliated herself she wants to release these downtrodden people. The idea is important as Von Trier tries to criticize slavery and especially slavery in America. But the film just don't move after the first 30 minutes. Dogville was an interesting place with a certain charm in it and interesting characters. Manderlay is like a boring village where nothing happens, no magic there and you can't get touch with slaves who lives there. First chapter is called "Introducing the people in Manderlay" but after the first chapter you haven't got any picture of the Manderlays people.
Von trier seems to be lost here and don't know how to go on with the story. The result is confusing and uninteresting piece of work. Bryce Dallas Howard is not nearly as good as Nicole Kidman. Most of the film she just stares the same look in her face and she just don't have the right charisma for this kind of role. And the narrative voice which worked well in Dogville is now mostly irritating. The voice is talking at least half of the movie and in certain point you just want him to shut up and let actors speak for a change.
I hope that Von Trier finds a better way to end up this trilogy than Manderlay. It's a shame if Dogville stays only masterpiece in it.
The Abyss
(1989)
Just another Hollywood blockbuster.
4 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I just watched the director's cut and i have seen the theater version years ago. I don't get it really, why people give this movie so good reviews. This is pure Hollywood entertainment with great special effects and dull storyline. First of all it takes about a half an hour before the movie even gets started after the first sequence. Typical blah blah about oilworkers who have to go to save the world and main characters "ex-wife" which is not an ex just yet. And would you guess they will be together again in the end of the movie! You get the feeling here that after Terminator Cameron has wanted to try something else like shooting an action movie under the water. Well, it's a nice idea but the movie's story is not very interesting in the first place. The first half of the movie actually works pretty OK(after the half an hour start). Cameron mixes some scifi themes here which seems like a good idea at first but in the end of the movie it seems like a scriptwriter has got a little out of hand. It would have been nice if Cameron would have had the courage to leave something for the audience and maybe not to explain everything in the end. There is some nice mystery feeling when Lindsey first time sees the "Alien" and you get sucked very well in to the mood. And it actually works until the ridiculous ending where Bud Brighman is brought to the Alien's spaceship and they'll explain to him why they deciced to save the world. Movie loses it's credibility at once. Terminator works because the whole story is more like black comedy and there is some irony in it and Aliens 2 is just great action movie. Here you get the whole movie in under the seas just moving around, almost divorced couple finding each other again and kind aliens saving the world because they think that love is worth saving. And of course clumsy dialog and stupid oilworkes telling stupid jokes from time to time so things don't get too serious.
Witness for the Prosecution
(1957)
Murder trial with great humor.
28 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't have any expectations about this movie except that i saw "Sunset Boulevard" awhile ago and that was a great movie. This movie is one of the greatest court room movies i have seen. Not only because the court room sequence here stays in reasonable length but it also makes a little fun of the whole process. There's great humor in the movie though the subject is very serious indeed.
Very often the court room cases are so serious and dull but here Wilder makes it very enjoyable and fun and at the same time very exciting. Maybe the original book is more serious, i don't know 'cause i haven't read it but Wilder's view works great here. And the main reason is the great characters! Charles Laughton's role as a lawyer Sir Wilfrid Robarts is just fantastic. It's great when he is in the court room very serious and he is very passionate about his work but still you can see from his face that he is maybe very tired for the whole thing. And it's great in the end of the movie where he has been humiliated by Leonard Vole and viewers are just thinking that now he has had enough for the whole court room thing. But no, he is going to defend Christine Vole in her case. And there are many great moments and characters on the court room and the whole feeling is somehow very mild. Lawyers are telling jokes though it's a murder trial and the whole thing is shown also like a very much a competition between the defense and the prosecution. After all, does it matter if he is innocent or not? The most important thing is that Sir Wilfrid Robarts hate to lose. There's all the time this great hypocritical attitude present in the movie. Of course these motives have been deal with other this kind of movies also but Wilder does it here better than anyone.
There are lots of great moments in this movie just like it was in "Sunset Boulevard." This is much more than just a murder trial. It's also about betrayal and disappointments. All the acting and storytelling here is superb and this went right to the top of 50's Hollywood movies i have seen( with Sunset Bouldevard).
Very often the court room cases are so serious and dull but here Wilder makes it very enjoyable and fun and at the same time very exciting. Maybe the original book is more serious, i don't know 'cause i haven't read it but Wilder's view works great here. And the main reason is the great characters! Charles Laughton's role as a lawyer Sir Wilfrid Robarts is just fantastic. It's great when he is in the court room very serious and he is very passionate about his work but still you can see from his face that he is maybe very tired for the whole thing. And it's great in the end of the movie where he has been humiliated by Leonard Vole and viewers are just thinking that now he has had enough for the whole court room thing. But no, he is going to defend Christine Vole in her case. And there are many great moments and characters on the court room and the whole feeling is somehow very mild. Lawyers are telling jokes though it's a murder trial and the whole thing is shown also like a very much a competition between the defense and the prosecution. After all, does it matter if he is innocent or not? The most important thing is that Sir Wilfrid Robarts hate to lose. There's all the time this great hypocritical attitude present in the movie. Of course these motives have been deal with other this kind of movies also but Wilder does it here better than anyone.
There are lots of great moments in this movie just like it was in "Sunset Boulevard." This is much more than just a murder trial. It's also about betrayal and disappointments. All the acting and storytelling here is superb and this went right to the top of 50's Hollywood movies i have seen( with Sunset Bouldevard).
Tell Your Friends