Reviews

After directing some of the funniest (well, in my opinion) Romanian comedies, Nae Caranfil seemed like he had somewhat lost the plot after the great "Filantropica". "Restul e tăcere" was still funny and subtle, but a bit too long and at times losing steam. I never got "Closer to the Moon" - unconvincing story, easily my least favorite film of his. But this one's definitely a winner!

"6.9 pe scara Richter" is far removed from new Romanian wave movies. It's got a great story, it's part musical (with the actors all singing their parts, or so claims the director), it's got great humor - it got many laughs at the screening I was at. It goes back to the director's roots a bit - some of the characters, including the lead, are theater actors, just like in "E pericoloso sporgersi", his first movie. Even actor pranks make a comeback.

It's probably lighter on the social commentary compared to "Filantropica" or "Asfalt Tango", while focusing more on personal themes. But still, there's plenty to enjoy here.

This movie isn't actually that bad; it certainly doesn't deserve the endless line of 1-star reviews. I went to see it with very, very low expectations, after reading a negative review of it, and ended up enjoying quite a bit of it.

Even from the trailer you can tell this is a silly, childish comedy with plenty of toilet and/or sexual humor. I don't know what people came to expect from it - this certainly doesn't attempt to be anything else besides that. Maybe many people aren't used to seeing De Niro in such a role, but hey, he's done other silly comedies already. Not all the jokes are that great, but it was good fun nevertheless.

So, definitely childish, definitely silly, but also definitely funny in my book. I even ended up feeling for De Niro's character - hey, it's his last stand after all. So, if you don't expect much and aren't easily offended by jokes that sometimes are a bit too silly / gross /etc, you might even enjoy this!

"American Sniper" reminds me of "Team America" - both are over the top ridiculous, only while the latter was bitingly sarcastic, this one is dead serious. One has a song saying "Team America, f**k yeah!", while the other has lines like: "Shall we go kill some bad guys? F**k yes!". I'm pretty sure skimming through the scripts can yield more parallels. This is how bas AS is.

I don't think this exercise in hagiography does the memory of Chris Kyle any service. The movie seems to care only about glorifying "killing bad guys", without any attempt at looking at the elusive bigger picture - why do the "bad guys" fight us? What's the war about? Do the means justify the greater goal, which... I'm not too sure what that was? I can only think of "Trial at Nuremberg" as an example of how American movies used to be, and that one was about the aftermath of a war the US had actually won (or helped win). That one was more introspective, wondering whether the US had the right to judge the defeated, asking whether the Germans shouldn't be allowed a little dignity, after all. No such questions in Clint Eastwood's movie; one character has some doubts, only to be quickly dismissed by Bradley Cooper's character in 2 sentences. Yay - just like old Soviet propaganda movies.

Israeli cinema has produced quit a few remarkably courageous movies in the last few years - "Waltz with Bashir", "Lebanon", "Defamation", and now this one ("Five Broken Cameras" is also partly an Israeli movie). It's not easy to ask tough questions about some policies and deeds of your country, but thankfully, it seems there are quite a few Israeli filmmakers ready to do that.

It's quite a sound of alarm for politicians when former high up security officials accuse a total lack of direction and political leadership (no "wise old man" at the top), no strategy for the "Palestinian question"; it's also remarkable how most of them point out that winning the war is futile without a political settlement - especially when somebody that had no gripes to order the murder of 2 Palestinian terrorists in Shin Bet custody says it. Too bad I hear the Israeli prime minister has already said he will not see the movie - probably to prove the points these guys were trying to make about the failure of politicians' leadership (or lack thereof) :).

Ami Ayalon seems the most poignant critic of all the six, while it might only be my mistaken impression, but Avi Dichter (the 2000-2005 guy) was the least critical. It should probably be no surprise that the former was the first to be contacted, the first to accept and the one who helped get the others on board as well.

With such a broad subject, it's hard to decide what to discuss and what to leave out. I think the case of the Israeli terrorists that wanted to bomb the Haram was quite shocking - especially when you think that Palestinians are regularly thrown in jail for many years for the same kind of offenses, while these guys got our quickly and got to be interviewed on TV and say they regret nothing. I also didn't see those guys blindfolded and handcuffed. Talk about double standards.

On the other hand, I was a bit puzzled about the film's short, passing reference to Lebanon, only to mention that the same kind of tactics as in the Occupied Territories were used. I would've left Lebanon out completely (since the movie is mostly about Israelis and Palestinians), or maybe mentioned how different the security situation in Lebanon was - that's possibly the only war that Israel lost. At least according to Robert Fisk, the fierce resistance that the Lebanese put up inspired the First Intifada.

All in all, a very good movie that should also be interesting for people who don't care too much about the Middle East or Israel/Palestine (all the more rewarding to those who are interested, of course). A good lesson about the futility of security, which simply can't replace good politics. Very useful in an age of scaremongering.

I think it's no small feat for a Hollywood movie to raise issues like consumerism and how we are subtly manipulated into buying very expensive stuff we don't really need. Not sure if the kind of marketing shown in the movie exists in the real world, but if it doesn't exist as such, probably quite a few variations are already there.

Of course, this is still a Hollywood movie, so the whole theme has to be somehow tamed for general consumption; you get David Duchovny as a lonely old guy craving for a family (wasn't he getting treatment for sex addiction in real life? a bit ironic...), Demi Moore as a career-minded woman, some romance, some moral doubts from the main characters... A bit like the fictional plot in "The Player" that starts as a real drama and ends up as a blockbuster with Bruce Willis and Kim Basinger.

Still, I think the movie manages to balance OK between serious matter and the usual Hollywood ingredients and clichés.

I can't believe the rating this movie has. I wasn't too sure this was a comedy after half an hour - it wasn't even remotely funny, Brendan Gleeson notwithstanding. I've seen bad comedies pack all their good jokes in the trailer, but here, come on - mistaking Langley for the FBI headquarters? That's the best they could come up with? I do agree it's nice to hear Don Cheadle use what is probably his true accent (after doing "Hotel Rwanda" and being British in the Ocean series), and I like Brendan Gleeson, and the latter's character has some vague appeal, but this movie's a waste of their talent. Gleeson's cop character is not developed remotely to his potential, and Cheadle is just too stiff and uninspiring here.

It's badly written, not funny, a total waste of time.