Change Your Image
hooftr
Reviews
Boîte noire (2021)
Enjoyable thriller set in the world of modern aviation
A very good thriller that is set in the world of people who design, operate and regulate commercial aircraft, with a couple of nice twists. If a plane with over 300 people crashes it is unlikely a lone young fellow gets to identify the cause all by himself, and there are a few other technical 'stretches' but overall the movie is a very pleasant surprise. I believe some essential abbreviations were left unexplained: cvr stands for cockpit voice (and other sounds!) recorder, fdr stands for flight data recorder (things measured by the equipment such as airspeed, altitude, how the controls such as flaps are set and much more), and AP stands for autopilot. The movie accurately reports modern aviation issues, particularly the tension between automation and what is left to do for pilots. A 'feature' is decribed that corrects a plane's behavior as it goes into a 'decrochage' (I watched the original version), or a stall, essentially a situation where an airplane flies too slowly, loses lift and drops to Earth. This clearly referred to a recent, notorious piece of software from Boeing that sent two crowded 737 Max airplanes into the ground. We also get to see how new planes are approved, which includes a test with volunteers demonstrating everyone can get out on time when the aircraft sits on the tarmac (I guess the images shown were those of the mighty A380). What the movie also depicts well is the revolving door problem between airplane builders and the regulatory authorities (you have a similar problem in the drug industry and the FDA). In spite of the movie's title, you'll forever know that fdrs and cvrs are not, actually, black.
The Last Duel (2021)
A look into the medieval mind
This is a most enjoyable movie, throwing viewers back into the weird medieval European mindset. Most historical movies just parachute modern people into an earlier epoch. This movie doesn't make that error, so expect to roll your eyes (but, for the good reasons). It was a 'Demon-Haunted World', as Carl Sagan put it (and in some ways/places, it still is...)
The movie could have used a more explicit introduction. We are in the middle of the 100-Years' War between what is now France and England (a dispute that goes back to Eleanor of Aquitaine, the huge landowner who had married, successively, French and English kings). The events take place not long after the Black Death, the cause of labour shortages and lower revenues for landowners (again not made explicit in the movie). We follow events on the French side, and almost all of this War is fought on (what is today) French soil. The French king (Charles VI) is weak- some of his vassals are richer and more powerful than him, some betray him and some fight against the king (the Burgundians), in short, central authority is still very weak. True nations would only emerge with gunpower and the Renaissance- for the moment you can control (terrorize) a local area with a good castle and a couple of armed men on horses.
So at this time there was not yet a 'United Kingdom' either, and Scotland was allied with France against England (again, not very explicit in the movie, our hero just suddenly pops up in Schotland).
It is not clear why the same story in the movie is told by three people- as far as I can see they concord, and the overlapping scenes are plain boring. Also, while the story covers many years, everything seems to have been filmed in winter. The 'Little Ice Age' would only come a century or two later, so summers were quite good. Probably to emphasize the gloom of the period.
Without giving away too much, the story is about rape, and the 'last duel' refers to one intended to have divine justice take its course. This was the last duel of this type- obviously other types of dueling would continue, and there was even one in France (a swordfight) in 1967.
What the movie depicts well is how rape was viewed in medieval times, almost entirely shaped by what the Old and New Testament had to say on the topic. So rape was mostly viewed as a kind of theft. The crime was not against a woman, but her owner, the husband. For when the Ten Commandments allude to rape it is only in this context, stealing property of one's neighbor, like cattle. Revealingly, the only other clear allusion of rape in biblical context is when Israelite travelers (men, of course) fear to be 'sodomized' in, well, Sodom. The NT presents a somewhat more enlightened approach to the OT, now specifying that a man sins by merely 'coveting' his neighbor's wife (cited in the movie), but it still looks about as bad as coveting his goats- property envy. And of course St. Paul generally puts women right back in the place the OT had intended for them.
Again, the central topic of the movie is the medieval mindset. In this haunted world, having God on one's side- or appearing to have His favor- is critical. One then also better understands some of the subsequent events: How Joan of Arc, 'hearing divine voices' inspired the French by helping Charles VII accept the crown and liberate English-occupied Orléans. Why it was the 'anti-French' Burgundians who delivered her to the English. And why, rather than just eliminating the young woman it was essential for the English to organize a witch trial, 'proving' that she, and the French successes, had all been inspired by the Devil.
Antoinette dans les Cévennes (2020)
Sweet little movie
A sweet little movie and a couple of things you may not know about Robert Louis Stevenson, the author of Treasure Island and Dr. Jekyll and Mister Hyde. Beautiful landscapes and gentle people all around in this dreamy production.
Happily (2021)
A real gem!
This little, unassuming movie is a real gem that is easily spoiled by outlining the plot. I guess it gets low scores by the crowds here for the absence of car chases, gunfights, monsters and special effects. It shows how a good script, mixing multiple genres and clever dialogue are all it takes to keep you well-entertained. Just go and watch it after reading as little as you can about it before, and enjoy the show!
Le bureau des légendes (2015)
Why former colonial powers grow better spies
Just finished season 5. The series is simply fantastic- a masterpiece. Far deeper, diverse, smarter, subtler and culturally insightful than the usual American fare, and even enjoyable in translation. Not for the geopolitically unitiated, though, and some characters get more aliases than there are parts in a Russian doll, so viewing takes some attention. You will see no Dwayne Johnsons or car chases and rather few firearms here- but after watching it all you will forever cease to underestimate unassuming individuals, or believe that all power grows out of the barrel of a gun. After all these years it is still the Brits and the French who make the best and insightful spy fiction.
Las chicas del cable (2017)
Quite good, apart from the awful music
Great show. The fantastic costumes, hair dress and other visuals and good acting take you right back to the Roaring Twenties, and the intrigue is convoluted and unplausible but highly entertaining. A really major problem, as about everybody else here has noted, is the choice of music. A director may choose Mozart for a movie in the 1920s if they really hate the music of the time, but you can NOT, I repeat, NOT throw in a 2017 hip-hop tune, simply because you like it.
A major theme of the series is the terrible suppression of women at the time. What bothered me a bit is that women with 2017 mentalities are parachuted into this antiquated era. The reality is that everybody was brainwashed by Church and (Royal) State about the situation- getting out of this was even harder than the show depicts. To a large extent, the bars of the prisons these women lived in where in their own heads, and it is not plausible that the uneducated main character knows how to drive a car and smoothly types out a business plan. Also, in the show far too many of the men around them are sympathetic to the women's attitude. What is underplayed (perhaps due to modern sensitivities) is the dominant role of the Church. Yes, we see that women cannot divorce unless priests allow it, but nobody ever goes to church in the series, and the dialogue omits that religion was part of every second phrase that people uttered at the time. Horrible acts are committed, but they are never commented on in religious terms. Yes, you have a lady called Maria Immaculada, so you get the idea, but the role of religion is, again, underrepresented. Also, oddly, nobody takes a siesta.
The writers of the show also have characters invent the rotary dial. This had in fact already been patented 36 year (a whole generation!) earlier, in the U.S. This is a bit like filming a SF movie set in 2043 where someone invents the iPhone. Worse, 1928 Madrid was -sorry- a bit of a cultural and scientific backwater. This sort of thing was invented in New York, Berlin, London and Paris, not in the Spain on the eve of its Civil War.
Finally, today's technology in this type of movies is often parachuted into earlier times. Cars (where they really that colorful?) belched out large blue, toxic clouds and failed to work half of the time. Also, not everyone could afford them, so where are all the horses in the streets? The bright red plastic in the switchboard equipment looks awfully much like modern PVC, colored with modern pigments. I understand film makers hate to produce drab images, but life back then was, indeed, barely better than black and white.
Hogar (2020)
Another morally ambiguous tale from Spain
It is best to get into this movie without knowing anything about the plot. The story has a way of unfolding in its own pace, and it is fun to go along with the ride not knowing where things are going. One of the giveaway clues is that the lead actor looks a bit like Anthony Hopkins (aka Hannibal), and works in the manipulative world of publicity, so you know he is up to no good. Spain has a special gift for this type of creepy, 'beyond good and evil' movies.
Nova Zembla (2011)
A decent movie that however sails in shallow waters
This movie tells the story that every Dutch schoolchild knows, namely their young country's heroic efforts to discover a Northeastern sea route to 'The Indies', in 1596-7; the Siberian route, if you will. If you ever wondered after whom the Barents Sea was named, watch this movie.
This production clearly did not benefit from Cameron's 'Titanic' budget. It is not a bad movie, but it could have been much better with more effort to add historic depth. The real tragedy of the story is that nobody understood what the warm Gulf Stream was (is) doing. Sure, you can sail straight up into the Arctic from Holland, up to Spitsbergen and have fun catching whales. But sail east from there (or try the Northwest passage, through Canada) and you will quickly freeze to death. Of course you cannot use this given in the movie itself, but you could explain the accident of geography in the introduction.
The simplifications made in other aspects are, again, not irrelevant. We learn that Barentsz had made two earlier attempts to made this trip. What had happened? What did he learn? Also, this convoy consisted in reality of two ships, not one. The movie says that sailors were eager to join the expedition. How much were they paid- and what were the risks? How was the expedition paid for, since the trips were no longer subsidized, but relied on a Prize if successful? We only learn that the surviving men were not paid.
We are told that the conventional route that rounds the African Cape of Good Hope was impossible because Portugal was in the hands of archenemy Spain. Couldn't one simply give the Iberian peninsula a wide berth? Presumably, the real reason was that all the African trading posts were now in Spanish hands, but this is not explained. Moreover, at the very end of the movie we learn that de Houtman just had made the Southern trip to the Indies. Given smooth sailing, how many days would a Northern trip to India last, as compared to the Southern one? Clearly the Dutch were not nearly as ignorant as Columbus had been, but what did they know exactly- show us where their maps went blank! In fact, there is a map from 1664 showing details of the west of Nova Zembla, going completely blank on the east side. It also falsely suggests the island is connected to the mainland at its southern tip, perhaps explaining Barentsz' northern attempt. The movie also shows no map for the route of how the men escaped, using rowing boats. We know they were finally rescued on the Kola Peninsula, a huge distance.
As others have noted, there are some anachronisms in the movie (like the church organ). The rough bar scene in Amsterdam depicts a liberal, tolerant, cosmopolitan society, but this probably only developed in the next (17th) century, after the events in the movie, when Holland became a World power (until it was invaded simultaneously by England, France and German states in 1672, ending the party).
On the ship there are hints of religious tension between the Protestant captains and crew members who were (crypto-)catholic, like the fanatically catholic Spaniards. In reality the Dutch Revolt (aka the Eighty-year War) was simply about stopping Dutch money flowing to Spain- religion was mostly an excuse. Ironically it would then be the liberated Dutch who would colonize and exploit the Spice Islands, eventually, Indonesia and join the slave trade.
Admittedly it is not easy to interweave all this background into the story but if you have a tight budget you can (should) make more of an effort to work on presenting historical context.
The Coldest Game (2019)
Great movie, spoiled by inaccuracies
This is a great and original spy thriller that cleverly knits together real historical events: the Cuba crisis, the Cold War and a politically laden chess match between a Russian and an American. But the film could have been much, much better if the writers had incorporated more realistic elements. As for other movies: fewer special effects, and more consultants (or a bit of Wikipedia), please...
To begin with, the narrative of the Cuba Crisis is outdated. The crisis had in fact been triggered by the earlier American deployment of nuclear SM-78 Jupiter missiles in Turkey, right on the border with the Soviet Union. The Soviets simply responded in kind to the aggression. And Kennedy did not 'stare down' Khruschev, saving the Free World. The crisis was resolved when he negotiated a then-secret treaty that included dismantling his Jupiters. Secrecy was important because Kennedy was very concerned with his re-election, and perhaps less so with annihilating the planet...
The chess match did indeed take place, but it was ten years after the crisis. Sadly, the movie gets few chess details right, even if many elements are indeed taken from the chess world. To begin with, top level players are not old men. These days, as in 1972, it is all healthy guys in their twenties. And you don't just come out of retirement for this; top players must constantly follow and study opening theory, and their opponents' repertoires and styles. Also, during such a match, top players have seconds, to help prepare games. Such a match could never have taken place behind the Iron Curtain; the 1972 Fischer-Spassky match was played in Reykjavík, Iceland. The movie also suggests that players move immediately after one another. This never happens, except in time trouble or during (very) obvious exchanges. When a player offers a draw, he may call an arbiter, not a "judge", and these offers are made after one has moved, not before. Players never, ever discuss the position during a game; you refuse a draw offer simply by making a move. There never are/were '15 minute breaks' in chess- the clocks just keep ticking. Games could be adjourned for the next day, where one player would secretely note down his next move in a sealed envelope that was kept by the arbiter. Finally, the chess talk in the movie is mostly nonsense- knights and bishops are equivalent pieces that are exchanged, is never a "sacrifice". Nonexistent gambits and other openings are cited.
What is true is that a world champ (Max Euwe) was a math teacher (not a professor), another had an alcohol problem (Aljechin) and players (Korchnoi, a dissident, playing Karpov) complained being 'hypnotized' by people in the audience. Also, in the famous 1972 match the paranoid and boorish (but brilliant) Bobby Fischer indeed failed to show up for (and forfeited) a game.
Perhaps more importantly, the movie's epilogue highlights the dangers of the nuclear arms race; the US and Russia have indeed recently torn up their treaty on intermediate missiles, following violations by the latter. Also, nuclear powers are obliged to reduce their nuclear arsenals, says the Nuclear Proloferation Treaty that many countries signed, but that is not quite happening while the SALT agreements are expiring ("do as we say, not as we do") making threats against rogue states that also want nuclear power (Iran, N-Korea) sound hollow.
Kurt Seyit ve Sura (2014)
Good story, but made for historical dummies
A Russian-Turkish saga in the spirit of 'War and Peace', with beautiful costumes, great decors, decent acting and an entertaining story of desire, hate, patriotism, intrigue and treason. The love relationships are complex; you might need a diagram with arrows to keep track of who is lusting after whom (and few arrows go both ways). This is 'based on a true story' only in the Hollywood sense: some of the characters have existed, but the bulk is totally made up. In particular the superheroic actions of the main character are ludicrous. One gets, for instance, the impression he single-handedly defeated the Bolsheviks, and naive viewers may conclude that the Tsar prevailed in 1917 and the Russian's flight to Turkey is voluntary.
What makes the series especially interesting is its historical setting: St Petersburg, the Crimea and Istanbul over (roughly) 1916-1920. The last part in particular is a good representation of life in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. However, a major flaw of the series is that the momentous historical context is almost totally ignored. For instance, our hero's father, a Russian, but ethnic Turk living in the Crimea is vehemently opposed to his son dating a fellow Russian from St. Petersburg. The reason is of course that his family is moslim, whereas the lady is an Orthodox Christian, however that religion is never cited. Then, after WWI, Istanbul is infested with British soldiers, who not only occupy the city but, we learn, were also corrupt, pillaged, tortured, killed and raped the locals like there was no tomorrow. However, the main villain here (Lt. Billy) is purely fictional. What is left unsaid is that during WWI Turkey had fought along with the agressors, the German Kaiser. Turkey had lost the war and paid its price, so the series presents an interesting view of how Turkey portrays its history today ("blame the English"). In reality, what was left of the Ottoman Empire was simply falling apart, a slow process that took centuries and required little assistance. The series also makes multiple allusions to a war in 'Anatolia' (basically, modern Turkey east of the Bosporus). This refers to the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923). Again, only the evil English enemy in Istanbul is mentioned, but that war was fought mainly against the Greeks, who remain curiously unmentioned. The list of omissions goes on. We learn that a French character (Serge) had lost his wife a few years previously to a mysterious lung disease. Viewers with a lick of history immediately suspect this was due to the terrible tragedy that was the Spanish flu, but this too remains unsaid. One suspects that the book has much more useful background and details. If this was a 2 hour movie the makers could be forgiven to leave the historical context out (as happened for 'The Name of the Rose'), but this is a series of 46 episodes, each lasting 45-55 minutes...
Having said this, our family watched all of it with pleasure, and the intrigue is great. The good guys are superheroes, and the baddies are monsters. The main character (Seyit) is spectacularly handsome (my wife helpfully reminds me periodically-remember, 46 episodes), and the women are a pleasure to look at, even if I would have swapped the actresses who played Sura and (gorgeous) Tina.