Change Your Image
arkif1
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Dune: Part Two (2024)
Drowning in Harkonnen grey tones
The first part is markedly better, because it.covers more.themes. The second part is one long war against the Harkonnens. Villeneuve has.changed some things again and this time more purposefully, for instance Harkonnen warfare to make it more like US warfare. I was pondering, whether Feyd-Rautha's attempt on his uncle's life via the sex slave he prepared with a poison spike even could have been a part of this film and came away with a negative answer, because his uncle just isn't shown as a real human being at all. As expected, the sex orgy while Jessica transmutes the water of life has been omitted as well, but not just because you can't legally show 13 year olds participating in such events, but also because Villeneuve is keen to portray the Fremen as French muslims.
Speeking of which, I had some political reservations about the first part, because I didn't know where it was going. It is very obvious where the second part is, namely towards an entirely mainstream consensus that it is important to fight cruel exploitation, but that religious zealotry is also dangerous. Frank Herbert thought that libertarianism could unite humanity and Villeneuve has tweaked this message some to become that French style humanism can achieve the feat.
But what matters is that you have to sit through 3 hours of.sword fights. By the way, by introducing all kinds of new weapons, the fighting doesn't really make much military sense any more. It degrades to a 6 year old playing with masters of the universe dolls. I mean, you sit there thinking: "Ok, we know they live in these rocks and we can blow them up. In the south there are also rocks. Let's blow some up and see who comes out." That's not good when the film is all about war. The only thing that can save it then are military considerations.
It appears that Villeneuve intends to go on. There are a number of Dune novels and if Villeneuve turns each into two films he's got way to go. But it will be boring. Sorry, it will be boring. By adapting Herbert's message to our time, he has to discard all of Herbert's little propositions and without them the material is boring. He can't come up with any of his own that are equally intriguing. He understands what Herbert is doing, but that doesn't mean that he can masterfully transpose it. He tried in the first part with the story of an animal chewing its leg off in order to escape. But sorry, so only irrational animals would escape a reasonable government with reasonable limitations on freedom, fine, that's the traditional Roman Empire, Catholic Church, French point of view, but it is not entertaining, whereas Herbert's "pain is an opinion" point of view is, no matter of its civilizational merit - it's really "be a good citizen" versus "cowboy and Indians". Villeneuve won't be able to turn this into anything worth the while.
Roar (1981)
Pussy Galore in The Mystery of the Nervous Marnie
Why show one tame lion up close when you can show 20 jumping at you in your living room?
Mr. Marshall surely isn't impressing any lions with this, but people, that is another story.
This is over the top exhibitionist, but then again, what is celluloid for?
So we excuse all the somewhat repetitive humor: "You crazy man, lions dangerous." and shock "Lions, lions everywhere in our house!"
After all, you also pay money to visit the circus and there aren't many that show a program like this one.
Well, that should suffice, there isn't really that much to write about this film. As the credits say: The cats wrote the script. And they liked... sinking boats, the tigers that is, riding in the back of a car, again the tigers, and playing with boxes that contain humans, the lions.
Mysteries (1978)
Hauer's best acting job by about a light year.
I could have given this review many titles, but this statement really needs pointing out.
The other thing that needs pointing out is that "faithful adaptation of the Hamsun novel" is code for "you should know what to expect".
Well, if you don't, the film's plot is akin to the plot of "Shaun of the Dead", in other words, irrelevant, a mere contrivance to have the.protagonists do something, while the only thing that matters is what their personal perspectives are doing it. Actually, the parallel to "Shaun of the Dead" doesn't stop there. The films are even about the same subject: a man trying to find happiness with a woman, and they make even somewhat similar observations, both have the craved beauty and both have the down to earth practical one. But "Mysteries" is not a comedy. I wouldn't call it a drama either, the films main intent is to provoke, although that's in the source material, the film's handling of it doesn't try to add any extra provocativeness, in other words: if you don't ponder the film like you would ponder a book, you may not feel provoked at all.
Hamsun's main lines of provocation are: Life's a joke - yes? No? (does nicely for "Shaun of the Dead" as well - again) Is man free to live his own egotistic dreams instead of paying attention to the moment? (Here it departs from "Shaun of the Dead": although that film makes it very obvious that Shaun's dreams are egotistic, there is no question that he is within his rights) Is man made to live by the standard of what he himself can understand to be the right thing? Here it gets very ugly and I will not repeat Hamsun's reasoning, something along the lines of "And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:"
The beautiful thing about Hauer's acting is that he's not Hauer for once, but just an actor playing a role. And in this role there is one scene, just a couple of seconds, that contains the rest of his acting career, namely when he stares at the dog, which got him the casting for "Blade Runner" no doubt.
As opposed to "Shaun of the Dead" the film doesn't point out how to understand it by being absurd on the surface, but it does something similar, it uses surreal dream sequences and melodrama that doesn't quite ring true, managing reasonably well to get the viewer into a distanced mindset, although there are some scenes where it fails and only huge deviations from the style of the novel would not, owing to the differences between a novel and a film.
Well, and that's my rather lengthy review of this film.
Werner - Beinhart! (1990)
Meret Becker deserved an Oscar for this!
Really, this is the best performance of a German actress ever! (Not counting Ingrid Bergman, although her mother was born in Kiel... well...) And contrary to what everybody else says, the non-animated parts of this film are absolutely fabulous in their.lampooning of the aesthetics of the.average German film production at the time (i.e. Adult material). And the high cultural references couldn't have been much better either: Schopenhauer on marriage (halved rights, doubled duties), Rumpelstilzchen's sideway glance, poking fun at the origin of the wedding march by singing the text (two more lines would have been even better though, because "Streiter der Tugend" and "Zierde der Jugend" would have been hardly ever more fitting) and... well... when Rumpelstilzchen returns... I mean, apart from having written a name that only she (thinks she) knows, does she not come as a thief, exposing the shame of the poor guy who doesn't hold fast to his clothes? This is all completely brilliant, as is the.pastor's casting and car, even the church on its hill and the beech.grove where Rumpelstilzchen brews her stuff, I'm loving all of it, yes, and after the somewhat stupid "Alf?" guess, the "Steffi Graf" stab had me laughing out loud again. No really, completely brilliant throughout.
As for the animated parts, I guess I liked the "soccer" game and the hospital stay best, the construction site explosion worst. The best part of the visit at Frau Hansen's was the way Röhrich and Werner were treated in contrast, but it's all good.
Well, and if you don't understand the humour: It's quite simple. You have a bunch of somewhat limited people and yet with the right added ingredient of.thoughtlessness it'll turn out interesting enough. Or differently put: In the absence of an intellectual life the resulting blunders will provide the necessary food for thought, a.k.a. "What you haven't got in your head, you've got to have in your legs."
Christmas with the Kranks (2004)
The abominable botoxman
There are a lot of things simply off here, like in some crazed.collage, but without wanting to be.zany, but rather all-American - or perhaps the new all-American?
The humour is too often pure schadenfreude to work for me. The basic mood of the film is held back sexual excitement. Christmas is coming and Luther Krank really wants to get it on. Alas, his travel plans are nixed - still, he's having a hard time to adjust. Perhaps next year, then?
While the film openly speaks of a carribean cruise, I wonder what its underthought is: Santa Claus comes across as a stalking creep and it ends with an (east) Indian version of dreaming of a white Christmas, like in white suggar daddy?
Well, If you had arrived in South or South East Asia on December 25th, 2004, as the film suggests, you wouldn't have had long to pursue your pleasure.
The Santa Clause (1994)
Tim Allen's best film
Not that he owns it or something, but if you like the guy, this is definitely the work to be referenced (although Galaxy Quest ain't that bad either). Do not believe the people who say that the Santa Clause films form a great series, unless you're prepared to concede that the Beverly Hills Cop films also do. This film isn't only fresh and original, its script is extremely thick and delivers by the minute, whereas in the follow-ups you do get something here and there, but it's far in between. My favourite lines must be "You mean, if I want to become Santa Claus, all I have to do is to push you off the roof?" and "Neal listens to me! - Yes, and he charges you for it.", whereas the best thing about the Santa Clause 2 is an entirely cryptic inside joke "You just scared me." (incomprehensible, if you haven't seen "Everywhich Way but Loose"). The music.in the first film is also way better, but I have to say that when ZZ Top "came up" I wondered "Why not go all the way and play 'TV Dinners'?" Btw., in comparison with "Elf", I think this wins as well, but at least that's a worthy opponent.
The Matrix Resurrections (2021)
Stylish is the new conventional
The film is quite enjoyable, as long as you don't expect to feel after it like you felt after the first three films, which gave you the feeling that there must be more to the world than what is before your eyes. After this film, I'm quite happy to be in the real world again, after a somewhat limited film.
So, people are sharply dressed, there's some pertinent social commentary, quite a bit of humour and.a happy ending. That's all good. So is the action.
Bad? Well, bad as such is only the new Zion. If you can create a strawberry out of a datafile, surely you can also get rid of Niobe's wrinkles?
You know, it's funny. I've been saying for some time now that the fact that Hollywood can only come up with dystopias in the face of new technology says something about that technology. This is a utopia for once, but the greatest benefit of superhuman artificial intelligence? Strawberries.
No, it's safe to assume that ZARDOZ, although not really meant as a utopia, still captures the imagination: eternal youth, wireless linking of brains with computers, can't beat that.
And since I'm talking about this... yes, the old Zion was a war matrix. And the new Zion? Look, it's always a rat race, right? Whether it's powerful humans and the dynamics of their system or powerful machines and the dynamics of their system, you better run or you're out, because, if you had time to do what you want and wouldn't be overrun by history, who knows what you would do and who'd you overrun? It's not that difficult.
In the beginning I was thinking: Training modules, cool idea, let's make a film about that, who cares about Neo and Trinity? Well, when the guy said he found out he's really Morpheus, I knew that there wouldn't be any metaphors or riddles in this. But... everybody is allowed to make the film he wants. And this is what it is and it makes little sense to criticise it for what it isn't.
Dune (2021)
Closer to the novel in plot than Lynch's film, but not in spirit.
Herbert was interested in the prerequisites of freedom, the right attitude to that end, honoring superior skills as its foundation, enjoying pride more than comfort, but also a stubborn connection to one's own affairs and not getting carried away in seductive adventures. Of course, that's just what happens when Dr. Kynes gives up his long term plans and falls for Paul's human qualities. Lynch's film does the same thing, completely unashamedly, one big homoerotic drooling over each other's human qualities, Jürgen Prochnow, Max von Sydow, Patrick Stewart... well, well, but it's of course completely aware of what it's doing and creates a nice hypnotic reality to do all this and give the viewer the right degree of detachment to ponder the phenomenon as such.
So Lynch's film transports the most important spiritual aspect of the novel: the quest for superhuman abilities, if you like. Villeneuve stays closer to the plot of the novel than Lynch, but quotes fewer passages. It hasn't got the Irulan layer of reflection that is characteristic of the novel, it hasn't got its mantras. Villeneuve seeks sensuality, not intellectuality.
Now, this is easily the best film since Inception and Herbert's novel is a little insane (e.g. The water of life orgy, which defies any adaption on screen by child involvement), so in principle Villeneuve is free to make out of the material whatever he pleases, but I wonder whether Dune is the right novel to make realistic and sensual, because - I mean, in the novel they openly say that people who live in harsh environments can be won over as allies by appealing to their sense of their own superiority, and by saying it like that it becomes a commentary on the treatment of Saudi royalty in western societies, and that is quite entertaining, intellectually, but, well, does Villeneuve want to do this now for real? Winning over North Africans for postchristian La France? Because the film sort of goes there and has to go there, staying true to the plot without having any self-awareness. And that's not even where it ends. You could say Villeneuve is even paving the way for the Mahdi for real. This film really focusses on the prophecy fulfilled aspect, also realistically and sensually. So again, I wonder whether Dune IS the best novel to make realistic and sensual. I mean, this could really influence some young people in a rather lunar way.
Every Which Way But Loose (1978)
Educational, lovable film.
Every Which Way But Loose is one of the oddest films ever made, but not because it's odd, but because the film industry is, because, in another context, it is one of the most common stories you could imagine.
I only came across it, because I felt that there must be more films made in 1978 than The End, Heaven Can Wait and Death on the Nile - all excellent as well. What is so extraordinary about this film is that it doesn't narrate, but show life, yet is not Tarkovsky Stalker like existentialism, but really a very down to earth self ironic take on a guy who, as we all have done, haven't we?, projects his dreams onto a woman.
AND it is a film with a lot of fist fights and an orang-utan. But it isn't really silly, that is only some of the guys who're getting beat up are. It's funny not in an outrageous, but in a silent way.
Again, a film with beautiful photography with some of the moodiest sidewalk shots I've ever seen. Also, I dare say that this is the first film in Clint Eastwood's late style (Gran Torino etc.), i.e. A silent, earnest portrayal of life.
The End (1978)
Wonderful film
While a simple film and somewhat cheaply made, the only possible complaint is that you have to dig Burt Reynolds' self depreciation in order to find the characters portrayed here (the priest, Reynolds' wife, Reynolds' lover) not over the top, i.e. You have to get that this is how he sees the world and the people in it and indulge him.
If you can't do that, only Dom DeLuise will elicit some laughs, if you can do it though, the film is hilarious throughout, starting with the awful display of self pity, when Reynold's wants to know what.some old unknown man driven in his coffin through the streets died of, because, you know, it's quite unnatural that we should care so little for each other that we just shrug shoulders when one of us has died - to give you an idea of what you're in for.
But whether that's funny or not, it is philosophically relevant. Well, and then there's Myrna Loy. For that alone, for watching After the Thin Man and then this film and counting the times you see a familiar facial expression it's worth watching this film. You may listen to Elton John's Song for Guy or watch Heaven Can Wait, both from the same year as this film, but released after it, Song for Guy last, to put you in the mood.
And then there's Dom DeLuise in his best role ever. It is pure joy to watch him do his thing.
Besides that, though cheaply made, the photography is really good and this is one of the films I like to watch simply to feel like being in the 70s, along with Bad News Bears (2 years prior) and The Sheriff and the Satellite Kid (1 year after).
Well, it's funny, two films about death within two months, May and June 1978, and even the colors of the flowers match (radiant violet, both times artistically shot, in this film in front of the backdrop of a blue-greyish sports car.).
The Lost Boys (1987)
Quite alright
I'm not a friend of Richard Donner, quite the opposite. Now this film, in the beginning, I thought "It's the Goonies all over again," Life's not life if there isn't a fair. I mean, it would just be so terribly boring, nothing to do. So, there's the beach, and there's the spectacle. Luckily though Bram Stoker's Dracula has enough substance to entertain any generation, if you only stay true to it and after the beginning this film DOES. It even adds a truly funny angle to it by introducing the younger brother / older brother aspect or more generally the "one happy family" one. Much speaks against that this should work: Corey Feldman, for instance. But heck!, it does.
Now, I'll indulge myself and write a little about Jim Morrison and.why I really HATE the beginning. Morrison was a pretty normal guy, really. This whole.nautical yarn handed down to him from his grandfather... please! So he valued what is called "culture" in most parts of the world. And then he's turned into this... well... words fail me, but this look at California in the beginning of this film, it's Esau,alright, feeling home NOWHERE, always hustling, and California is like the promised land of Esau's descendants and Jim Morrison is their... idol?
The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973)
Life goes all sorts of ways.
Quite an unusual little gem, although rather bleak. Instead of focussing on a single event, this film shows a number of similar situations and the different ways they can go. It does so effortlessly, you do not at all feel like in a classroom, it's one coherent story that provides all of it.
"Duncan!" again plays the relatable guy, funny how Richard Jordan made a trademark of it. You know, if there's a guy who cares for other guys in any movie, it's "Duncan!" But here he is very professional in his care, as much as in "The Secret of My Success" he is sleazy.
The cast is all good though. But then it's not a difficult film to make or play, once the screenplay was written, the job was done. If you want to see what art professors make out of Le Corbusier, take a look at this. Not many films playing in Boston. Yeah... best search some pictures and compare side by side. It's more telling that way.
The Magic Christian (1969)
In! Out! In! Out!
It's awful, yup. Kinda proves that, if you have too much money, as Ringo Starr had, you better give it to the people you admire, Monty Python in his case, so that they can use it in their own way, making the The Life of Brian for instance, than try something with it yourself.
There are two things here that were not completely bad. 1. The joke with the panther at the dog exhibition. 2. The Octopussy inspiration and Sellers commenting that Hollywood can still learn a few things.
Everything else is simply lame. I don't think it's arrogant. It's just extremely repetitive and uninspired. Like an imbecile telling the same joke over and over.
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot (1974)
Beautiful chicks, handsome men, hot cars and landscapes for the soul.
And that is all you get out of this movie. Jeff Bridges wasn't a particularly good actor in "Last American Hero", but the script helped him along there. Here it lets him down. It's painful. It's offensive. Pure cringe. Better listen to something else whenever he opens his mouth. The kind of character from another movie exploitation here is only topped by some of the roles that Omar Sharif took - or Peter O' Toole, for that matter (well, or Bela Lugosi...)
Of course, it's all cliché here. War heroes in a heist (Ocean's Eleven), Clint Eastwood being chased by people who think he betrayed them (The Good, the Bad and THE UGLY) - admitted, that can be fun, but such a thing hinges on taste and Jeff Bridges' part contains enough bad taste to spoil it all. I mean, the premise of his role is based in fact, as good humour has to be, but good humour also needs a good delivery and Bridges' is so rubber mask impersonal forgetworthy that it's just one long sequence of falling on its face.
Well, but the scenery really lets your soul breathe. So it's worth seeing after all.
On second viewing. It helps to know what awaits you. Still, I think that Bridges' role is the hole in the film. He's supposed to be a hippie on a criminal, you know, slippie, path. This came out in '74, one year after Manson by Hendrickson did. For this to make any sense, there must be a seamy side to him. There's not. As with the women related humour... it would be way funnier if there was some detail involved, things that you may recognize. But there is just nothing. Nothing individual or specific at all about Bridges' role. For instance, in Guns at Batasi, there's this Private who gets the girl, much to the Sergeant's dismay. Well, he has a Beatles hair cut, while the Sergeant is stuck in the 19th century. That already saves the day. But you should work with something. Not just: Sure, he looks good. Heck, you could even go with that, but then you have to surround it with something and by that I mean somthing else than George Kennedy's pathetic role.
On third viewing. O.k., it's a film about commitment: "In for a penny, in for a pound." It's just too arbitrary for my taste, as if a man would be a blank sheet and could choose his way of life without being marked by it. It's a day dream for people who lack orientation. There's something painful there.
The Night Visitor (1971)
No, no, no, there are no tracks in the snow!
I tell you it's to no avail, if you're looking out for a trail!
No, no, no, there are no tracks in the snow!
Well, this is Max von Sydow playing Pippilotta Viktualia Rullgardina Krusmynta Efraimsdotter Långstrump. With an axe. As it always was supposed to be.
It's a childish film, with childish cunning on Max von Sydow's part and lack thereof on the police's, much to the feeling of superiority (no, no, no, there are no tracks in the snow) on the childish viewer's.
Somekind of dark fairy tale about what happens to people who would betray childhood memories by selling the farm.
Solar Crisis (1990)
Overall quite intelligently written,
But with some bad taste faults. Yes, it's distracting to have someone read the text that is shown on screen. You start to read, then you get distracted by the narrator. Then you stop reading only to find out that this text now is not narrated. And Alex Noffe's storyline is 1. underwritten, 2. consequently sometimes awkward, 3. not very well acted by Annabel Schofield in the end sequence.
These are however not huge faults. The special effects in this film (excluding again the end sequence) are good, and, yes, very reminiscent of 2001: A Space Odyssey. The plot does for once NOT stretch the limits of credulity, although I kept wondering throughout the film whether the ridiculous coincidence or superhero moment is just around the corner. I figure that the film can be perceived as flat, but it doesn't try to be engrossing, but reflective, sort of Zen, and I would say that it does create a nice reflective mood, where the subject of reflection is perfection: Perfection through science or through nature, perfected human beings and their imperfections. Not at all pretentious, perhaps a little commonplace, but specific enough in substance to carry this type of film, if damaged some by the presentation of the Alex Noffe storyline.
I saw it together with Forbidden Planet. I imagine it can also be seen together with ZARDOZ and profit from it. Those are far better films of course, but I rather see an original effort like this than a remake of Solaris, say.
The Living Daylights (1987)
They left nothing to chance here.
The introduction of a new "Bond" is always a critical moment, so you better make sure that the audience doesn't find the time to complain. Very few films are choreographed like this one. Very few films can be divided into chapters as concisely as this: Death in Gibraltar, the defection, the breach, a loose end in Slovakia, developments in Tangier and Vienna, the feigned assassination, taken to Afghanistan. If you know the film, it just passed before your eyes, otherwise I hope not much was revealed. Great action, believable characters and storyline, modern, but alas the last real Bond, since the Cold War ran out on the series.
It's kind of funny: First the Swinging Sixties paved the way for Roger Moore and when Moore left, there was no more Cold War left than for ONE Bond, this one.
Vargtimmen (1968)
Very evocative
The film is a metaphor. The execution of the metaphor is superb and 10/10 would still be an understatement, but the substance of the metaphor is mediocre. Really, it's the usual stuff: Tristan und Isolde. Though, before we get Bergman's take on mean and vicious youths competing for females, drawing the line, becoming a conscious person, ghosts from the past, self-destructive romanticism, insecurities and "just when you think you know how to use it it's gone" with a few remarks about the pursuit of art thrown in (the artist by revealing the truth about life being left with shards), we get a nice treat of the Swedish soul, but that is very subtle, you either recognize it or you don't.
(I guess you have to know it already, it's not much of an introduction. Basically, the pine trees in Sweden scream: "Use me for construction work!", whereas the pine trees in Finland or Russia scream: "Search mushrooms!" It is because of this glorification of the engineer that Swedes are the way they are. Essentially, they expect each other to be able to detail solutions to any and all social or technical problems they may have. And that makes many Swedes attentive and just as many angry, who in turn seek ways to get back at those who are better at this sort of thing than they are. In this film however, we see the nice side.)
Big Trouble in Little China (1986)
Some radical Alice in Wonderland
Sure, you can say "a fun film", and what is there much to say about fun films? Perhaps that they are witty, but Big Trouble in Little China isn't really. Nevertheless it's quite special and every special film has something. So what's Big Trouble in Little China got?
1. Variety: There are no dominant characters. Every single character here is memorable and relatable. They form a great ensemble. It's all done in a cartoonish way, but at the same time there's a human dimension to all of them as well.
2. Authenticity: You may consider that a joke in a film like this, but that are real quotes from the I Ching, for instance, just like that are real Buddha statues. Also, in case you've read The Three Investigators and the Mystery of the Green Ghost, didn't you actually want to see such a place under San Francisco? Well, this one is quite believable. John H. Carpenter has shown in Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness that he's quite capable of dealing with western mysticism, if I may call it that, and though I'm not the best judge there is on the matter, I think he did a decent job on eastern as well.
3. Sight gags: Cattrall tied, Russell wearing glasses, a truck chasing a car in the streets of Chinatown, a martial artist snacking, Russell wearing lipstick, the rather wonderful "How?" situation, plowing through enemy lines on a wheelchair, backwards...
Well, it's difficult to bring it under a caption, but "some radical Alice in Wonderland" as the film itself suggests isn't such a bad one. As all Carpenter films Big Trouble in Little China is sort of lean, transparent, precise, the opposite of overwhelming or numbing. But it lacks the superior camera work of some of Carpenter's films, i.e. (the first half of) They Live, In the Mouth of Madness or the opening shots of his otherwise horrible vampire film, which are on par with Tarkowski and Malick. So no "beautiful pictures" here. The sets vary some in quality. The set of the wedding scene is a little bad, Lo Pan's other rooms on the other hand relatively good. I'd say the film grows on you and becomes more enjoyable with repeated viewing.
A Hidden Life (2019)
Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain.
One problem of A Hidden Life is that at no point did I think that on the other side of the mountains it's 1943. Actually, not even 1983 would have been believable. Sadly, you can tell from the way the actors speak that it must be 2010+. So there is no real immersion in terms of historicity.
Still there is some sort of immersion here all right, just no historical one. It's a psychological one, I guess, the idea of being free, once you don't care about your own survival anymore. That clicked. Of course this is ethically wrong, similar to the hallucinations of a man dying in the ice or the desert. Prayer would have been more adequate, though possibly also more painful.
Yet there is a strange thing here: Very few people these days seem to grasp the idea that part of the deal you signed when your creator gave you life is that you have to obey your conscience. I find that worrisome. I can understand if a person thinks "Who cares about words? I can start disobeying orders any time I want to." if the pledge is forced on him. But I find it worrisome that conscience doesn't seem to be recognized as an obligation these days. It seems to have been replaced by "give and take", and a discussion of A Hidden Life will bring this swiftly to the surface.
Anyway, however feeble the resistance, however reliant on psychological evasion tactics, it serves to remind the common man that there are things that can't be controlled by brute force and that does give great comfort to the common man, as Albert Pike pointed out in his magnum opus. Here, in this film, it allows a village to return to decency. But of course the reality of the Hitlerian intoxication is quite different from the brutish melodrama depicted here. It's arrogant, cynical, daring. The great game. Whatever abuse would have occurred in an Austrian village, it would have been born out of the nastiness of Austrian villagers without any outside help. I'm afraid that part of the film is almost cringeworthy.
But I forgive that. Pike isn't completely wrong. That area of hallucination close to death, remembering episodes from one's life, seeing the moment through the eyes of someone from an earlier time, it tells us something about us, doesn't it? Perhaps that it would be a folly to let us be reduced to the current moment? As if nothing else mattered? There is a treasure of forms that makes our lives. And sometimes someone has to say: "Can't touch this." to remind us of it.
Yet, that is not the full extent of possible, well, shall we say metaphysical interference? That'd be more like "You shall taste it."
The New World (2005)
A short while for history
The New World is my favourite film of Terrence Malick's. I liked the Thin Red Line alot, because it depicted war as war should be depicted and was, to the best of my knowledge, first depicted by Ernst Jünger in In Stahlgewittern (1920). But here we have a film that isn't just depicting a moment in time, but the eventual joining of two lines of human evolution after a seperation of more than 10000 years.
While watching The New World cannot be accepted as an equivalent substitute for having actually been around all over this planet for the last 10000 years, it does open the mental pathways that allow a man to ponder the question what man has been doing all of this time.
Very few films do that. Very few films give you a chance to reflect and compare. Not everything in The New World is quite believable, but there is enough texture, enough undeniable detail, that a realistic appraisal of the value of civilization is triggered.
And although the film does take a side, it doesn't do so in a way that would prevent you from contemplating the virtue of the other side.
While watching the Making Of I was amazed about how much more engaging Christian Bale is in real life than on film. I think he's muting himself too much. You can also do it too little (e.g. Tom Selleck), but I think he's doing it too much.
Plummer plays adequately. Farrell looks sad as always, makes me wonder why anybody wanted him to play Alexander or Crockett. Here it fits better, but he still got on my nerves.
Aynway, all the actors could do is to sink this film and they didn't. It is not a film that hinges on stellar performances like Le Dîner de cons, for instance. No, the achievement here lies in the appearance of actuality, in doing away with the idea that you live in the 21st century and looking at a set or some plot of land set aside for scenic beauty next to a motorway. The achievement also lies in the sense of curiosity the film instills and that comes from not knowing why the director is showing you what he's showing you, i.e. that the plot of the film is not some transparent construct to make some specific point, but rather like a list of highlights on a sightseeing tour, which includes the necessary stops.
The Bad News Bears (1976)
How I wished I could walk right into this film!
If a man could forgive himself that kind of thing.
I was 2 years old when this film came out. Rather than being 2 years old again in 2019, I'd be my 45 years old in 1976.
Feel the sun, the aspiration, the hope for the future. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't share it, but I would still enjoy it: Like one enjoys a couple of puppies playing.
Perhaps live like Buttermaker, only with less beer. And when I'd later feel inclined to bemoan the change brought about by the 80s, I could remind myself that I'm complaining from a very comfortable seat.
And by now, I'd be 88 years old.
Which would be a good thing, wouldn't it? Being 88 years old today... If a man could allow himself that kind of thing...
Actually, you can never satisfy youth. But a time could satisfy 45 year olds. You may ask of course: What time? Always the time of one's childhood? But to answer that in the affirmative makes too sweeping and cynical a statement.
Right now I feel dread. There, portrayed in this film is health and safety. A time for living. And I'm not being nostalgic. I feel like an archeologist from Mars, when I write that.
Well, at least I had those 45 years, whatever will emerge ahead of me. You could force yourself to walk twice as fast and still cover the distance of a whole life.
As for this film, you can use it as a cross, garlic or a mirror - just look at the reviews here. And truly, what can a mirror show when there is only emptiness to reflect?
In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
Carpenter's take on the apocalypse.
Carpenter's apocalypse trilogy is literally about the apocalypse. The Thing is about not being believed when one sees it coming. Prince of Darkness is about what Christ's teaching has been replaced with. And this glorious film is about the falling into place of things in the initiated mind.
"He sees you." Whom? A cynic who looks behind appearances. Somebody who is himself seeing. The seer is being seen. "A man will come, the Kwisatz Haderach, he will go where we can not" "and start the change." A change akin to that in "They Live", the difference here being that the process of recognition was free in "They Live", but here it has been prescribed.
"You're waiting to hear about my them?" Looking for the enemy. But where is the enemy? The enemy is a shift in perspective, recognizing habituation to violence as something evil, for example.
So, what is Carpenter saying? People let all kinds of things into their minds and those things have their way with them there. But there is no freedom in this process. The path has been foretold. "God's not supposed to be a hack horror writer. - But maybe I can help you believe." Strange. How we succumb as if we were characters in a novel.
Carpenter sees it as it is, but his heart is bleeding. How can man, the miracle that he is, let this happen to himself? Why the fascination with destruction, if only by negligence? Does nobody love life and people?
Too high standards? Perhaps not. The logic of it in a nutshell.
The Trouble with Harry (1955)
First time viewers beware!
The Trouble with Harry relies a lot on the surprise element. It has other qualities, but it does after all give the answer to a double question, namely
What do small town folks expect from their police? and
What do small town folks have to expect from their police?
and it is much more fun as long as you don't know the answers to these.
There's still the scenery and the human touch on second viewing, but as long as it can surprise you, it can be even more enjoyable than The Man Who Knew Too Much or Rear Window, a claim that I wouldn't make for second viewing (Vertigo, of course, is in a class of its own).
So, it's a September film, be in a reflective mood, don't go for the red wine, being a little distanced is better than being engrossed with this film, but be attentive, be perceptive, not too tired, expect a relaxed, light hearted, subtle, but also blatantly random film at times.
Manson (1973)
Free your mind...
...and see where it leads to.
See where it leads to! Watch this film!
Blaspheming against conscience is not easily forgiven. But few people clearly understand what it means. Well, "Manson" will show you. It is of course not pleasant to watch mentally handicapped people praise the glorious path that was unveiled to them, but you'll understand the concept of a truly free will much better afterwards.