Reviews

The movie really starts out excellent with an odd story full of weird characters. Watching Sue as a neglected housewife who sees the death of her husband as her big chance to get some attention by pretending, her better half has been kidnapped, is really enjoyable. Fantastic play by Allison Jenney.

The end of the movie, however, was quite a disappointment. According to me, there must be better solutions for completing a story than having almost everyone killed. Maybe this was meant to double down the absurdity of the story, but this intention did not work on me.

Overall, this makes a rating of 6, with a 9 for the greatest part of the movie and a 2 for the poor ending.

I loved the movie when watching it in the 80's and I enjoyed it just as much when watching it again recently. The main difference between now and then is that simple and almost forgotten things now striked my eyes like telephone cords, music tapes or minibikes.

The interaction between the two very different men, ambitious versus relaxed, is still good fun, while they are in love with the same woman. Especially the performance of Uwe Ochsenknecht as the relaxed part of the flat share is quite impressive. He manages to give his character Stefan a very good mix of easy going, sensitivity and sincerity. Only in the end Stefan gets very easily manipulated and tempted by money, what I found a bit disappointing.

Still, the movie has good conversations, stupid-clever male sayings about women and the acting is not overdone, not even in the shrillest situations. It is even believable that the two very different opponents little by little take a liking to each other, although it has to be said, that only one of them knows about their rivalry.

Overall, this makes a clear recommendation because it is good and intelligent entertainment.

Next to Annie Hall this is probably my favorite Woody Allen movie. It is even more a homage to NY City than Annie Hall and states this fact right in the first sentence - New York was his city and always would be - and has this statement underlined by George Gershwin's rhapsody in blue.

Diane Keaton is one more time Woody's ingenious relationship. Her character is oh so lovely but also oh so difficult due to indecisiveness. Frankly, Mary is almost the repetition of Annie Hall but why wrinkling your nose over something good!

Quite impressive is also the performance of Mariel Hemingway, one of Ernest Hemingway's granddaughters, by the way. It is hard to be more convincing as a mature 17 years old, who knows her feelings oh so well. She's the one to tell her adult lover to have confidence.

Not very surprising also that a still very young Meryl Streep manages to add quality to the movie in a supporting role only. Another sign of quality is, that the movie seems to be affected by aging only because of some technical equipment shown in the movie like e.g., audio tapes.

In some parts the movie is also quite funny. Watch out for Mary's ex-husband, whom she described as a womanizer.

Yet another movie that survived times without taking any harm. When watching it this time I liked it just as much as 30 years ago. Bob Hoskins is just great in his role as little crook George, who slowly falls in love with the black call girl Simone that he chauffeurs to her wealthy customers. After a bad start this impossible love affair seems to find its way but appearances can be deceiving, since George is only used as a pawn sacrifice in yet another love affair.

Michael Caine, in his role as peep show owner and chief pimp, is also quite impressive. What a combination of fake friendliness and relentless business conduct. Be aware that there are some rather disgusting scenes of old rich men abusing underaged prostitutes. Quite a dark sided London that is presented to us here.

The movie does, however, also have its fun moments. What a blast when we get to see how George used the money that Simone gave to him in order to improve his outfit. Some men are really good in making clowns out of themselves.

A tribute also to Sir George Harrison who made this noteworthy film possible by means of his production company Hand Made Films.

I was a bit surprised how much I liked the movie this time because it did not please me when I first saw it as a teenager, which was in the early 80's. Probably, then it was too little action and too much depth for a teenager's taste despite its label as a scandal movie.

In my eyes, it is still an uncompromising piece of art, far off from commercial mainstream. It does have, however, some lengths, especially in between minutes 30 and 60, where Marlon Brando gives his great monologues, parts of them allegedly in an improvised manner. They are not badly plaid but for my taste just a bit too long. Overall there is no need to discuss the indisputable acting qualities of Marlon Brando, but I would like to emphasize that young and quite unknown Maria Schneider as the female part of this 'amour fou' is in no way inferior in her performance. While Brando impresses by giving a desperate middle-aged guy trying to forget, Schneider is good in showing a somewhat pampered young lady on the search for something, that her rather immature and playful boyfriend, wittily plaid by Nouvelle Vague hero Jean-Pierre Leaud, cannot offer her.

It was also interesting to see that the raping scene was the only scene that had no German dubbing, which can only mean that it was apparently censored in the original German version. Surely a bit overdone but I do not think that the omission changed the movie all too much.

It is quite a pity that uncompromising films like this one become rarer and rarer nowadays. Compliments to Mr. Bertolucci for creating a movie that has such extreme and vulnerable characters.

... are the casual ingredients of the movie. Despite Elliott Gould being a real character, his cat Kitty is still the star in the starting scene of food preparation in the middle of the night, when it behaves in a demanding and disrespectful manner as only cats can.

For some reason this quite unusual story opener already captured me and gave me the feeling that this would not be one of the ordinary, straight forward detective stories. The rest of the movie confirmed me in this adjudgment.

I have to admit that my expectations beforehand were not all too high, but I was interested to see a movie featuring Mr. Cool Elliott Gould. It was a good decision. I especially liked Mr. Altman's idea to transfer the Raymond Chandler story from the 50's to the 70's which gives the movie a certain flower power feeling. Only Philip Marlowe himself, who is always dressed in a black suit, does not seem to have quite made the leap in time. I would say that this was done on purpose in order to stress the independence of the Philip Marlowe character and to keep in touch with the Raymond Chandler trademark.

What about the cigarettes, you may still want to ask. Well, Marlowe is constantly smoking in this movie. Whenever one cigarette is finished the next one is lit. Are there really matches that can be lit that easily on normal house walls, as it is practiced by Marlowe in the movie? To me the smoking is quite overdone and even annoyed me to a certain degree.

Insignificant for the movie but somehow still worth mentioning: an uncredited appearance of Arnold Schwarzenegger in a part without a single word. Keep your eyes open in order not to miss the moment.

A film about someone being homeless can be considered street art. And indeed, this movie is just that, which is also to be credited to the compelling acting performance of Richard Gere who normally is not one of my favorite actors.

I especially liked the concept of the omnipresent ambient noise. While we see George tumbling through the streets of New York City, leaning on walls, sitting on curbstones, and lying on benches, we can listen to the conversations of passengers, that have nothing to do with George, because he is not noticed. At most he is mentioned in a degrading manner. This does not only underline George's hopeless situation but also helps to overcome the long cuts on George with almost nothing going on.

At the beginning we hardly know anything about George's story other than the fact that he was thrown out of an untenanted apartment, where he used to sleep in the bathtub. After this starting scene featuring Steve Buscemi (!), by and by we get to know George better as someone, who really loves drinking beer, who has a daughter that is not on good terms with her dad and as someone who refuses to call himself homeless but prefers the term in between homes.

Despite some quite painful formalisms in a homeless shelter, George eventually manages to see his own situation in a more realistic way and there is even a suggestion of a happy end. A nerve-racking fellow shelter-inmate, who speaks some true words among many other things, also has his share in this development.

In my eyes quite a courageous movie that deals with a hard to sell topic without any sentimentality. Without ever having been close to homeless I still have the feeling that the movie at least comes somewhere near to reality. To be recommended for all those who seek more than pure entertainment in the movie theatre.

There is no longer a need to look up the word grotesque in wikipedia. Just watch this film and you will know precisely what it means.

In parts the movie is so bizarre that it must be seen as great art. Have you ever seen before a bear that does not allow anyone else to ride his motorbike or a pretty girl that hides herself under a bear costume out of a feeling of bad self-esteem? I do understand that this is mainly the merit of the original novel by John Irving but without knowing the book I do have the feeling that the film is quite good in telling an odd story without turning into shallow slapstick. In my eyes this is because the absurdities are by no means stressed in any way but come along as something very normal. This also gives the movie an anarchic touch, especially during the Vienna episode.

Nonetheless an analysis on a more solid ground is possible. Altogether it is the story of a family with lots of ventures which mostly fail. 'And our dreams slip away just like we provoke them' is a quote from the end of the movie. Discouragement, however, hardly ever takes place or only for a short moment, even when the Grim Reaper has struck one more time. Is this meant to be an allegory on life, where success and disappointments also take turns? There is not a whole lot that one can do against this except for the family's motto of 'staying away from open windows' in order not to tempt fate.

Finally, it is also the excellent cast, including a still very young Jodie Foster or Mathew Modine in a double role, that contributes to the quality of the movie. It may be true that the movie is not everyone's cup of tea, it also contains some nasty speech and indecencies like incest, but the flop at the box office was certainly undeserved.

A beautiful and unspectacular movie that covers various serious topics and puts them in the right perspective. Although the story does offer it, the movie avoids falling into the sentimentality trap.

It is the story of an Algerian immigrant into Canada, who takes over a primary school class in Montreal, after the former teacher has committed suicide. In mostly short and unsentimental scenes we see the challenges and prejudices that a person coming from a different cultural background is confronted with.

There are certain parents who doubt that a foreigner can be the right person for educating their offspring. Likewise, there is an otherwise likeable fellow teacher, who confuses a forced emigration with an adventure trip that adds some spice and color to the journey of life. Monsieur Lazhar dissents vehemently by stating that being a refugee means being without roots and feeling disoriented in the new "homeland".

At this point of the movie, we know already that Monsieur Lazhar knows what he is talking about, because we have seen his case at the immigration authorities. There he is confronted with a considerable amount of distrust regarding his life being endangered in Algeria despite the big personal losses he had to go through.

And then this deeply traumatized man, who is fighting for his dignity, is the only person who finds the right key to the wounded souls of his students, who are also in a way traumatized by the suicide that happened to take place right in their own classroom. It seems that it needs pain to correctly deal with pain.

The portrayal of these children is another strong aspect of the movie. Unlike in many other movies they are just normal kids without being overly smart or sassy. They are rather diverse but united in their vulnerability, which makes them quite loveable. According to the rules, however, do not physically reach out for them as a teacher if you don't want to get in any troubles. The suicide should be warning enough in this respect.

Maybe not quite the movie that is to be expected in an Oscar nomination, but it surely deserved it. The discreet acting of Mohammed Fellag as Monsieur Lazhar fits in perfectly.

A summer weekend on the home pool. Sounds great. In this case however, it is nothing more than Paul's small-town shelter from an outside world that seems to have only pointlessness on offer to him. Also, the army sucks which Paul joined after finishing high school apparently for the lack of any better plan. Out of a mood he just left the troops without permission, so that bungalow and pool are also a hiding place while the army keeps on looking for him.

We see a young fellow who excels in being passive aggressive and in annoying his older brother, while their parents are on holiday. He pisses off his own girlfriend and falls in love with his brother's Danish girlfriend, who actually shows some sympathy for him.

As a matter of fact, there is not very much going on in the movie, a fact that also can be seen as a catalyst for Paul's aimlessness. Is any effort still worth the trouble in the light of a complacent, materialistic affluent society!

For that matter Paul is not really uncongenial and parts of me could feel with him when looking in his bored and help seeking eyes. Quite good low-emotion acting there.

Surely, the movie was not primarily made to entertain but I found it good to relate to. In parts it is almost existentialistic. Is life meaningless in the first place and it is up to oneself to give it a meaning?

Not an easy movie but it felt right.

Quite a strange movie because I liked it overall even though it irritated me for various reasons.

What stroke me right away was the enormous speed of talking, which I first considered unnatural and bad acting, but maybe it has to do with the dubbing of the French language, which is very good in interconnecting words. Still, it is more explicit than in other French movies.

The story also has its flaws. Gerard Depardieu gives a disenchanted but also over-motivated Parisian police officer, who tends to get violent, when the suspects do not cooperate in the desired way. At the same time, this person also feels quite comfortable when associating with the criminal milieu. In the end he even falls in love with a young suspect. May well be since love is an irrational thing but altogether there are too many quite incompatible character traits to fit in one person in a plausible way.

In return this makes the story quite unpredictable and multifaceted. The movie also profits by the authentic atmosphere both in the police daily routine and the criminal conduct. The camera is in the middle of the action and almost feels hand-held.

The movie also has quite an impressive cast. Depardieu, Marceau and Bonnaire are great names in the French movie industry and ensure a certain quality.

Leaving behind the constraints of Western civilization in the vast areas of the Sahara Desert: that's the plan of the American couple Kit and Port, both middle aged and artists. Soon it becomes obvious, that both are not truly made for this kind of trip considering the enormous number of suitcases which they carry along, respectively which they have carried along by some Algerian street kids. Still in Algiers (for me the most likely starting point considering the location of the further trip destinations) ongoing arguments also make clear that another motivation for the trip was probably the hope, that new impressions may give their somewhat hardened relationship a new boost.

Then next to them there is their travel companion Tunner, where it remains rather unclear for the whole movie, why they brought him along in the first place, since Port only wants to get rid of him, while Kit thinks that he is good looking but boring.

Very soon they also meet two more American travelers, mother and son, who share parts of their trip. Among each other Port and Kit will give them the appropriate name 'the Monsters'. That's about the ingredients of a movie that is both profound and enigmatic.

It also reminded me on Coppola's Apocalypse Now since step by step and location to location this one is also a trip to insanity. Even though both Kit and Port do speak French the native people remain strangers to them as there is no real mutual interest in each other. The desert itself turns out to be both beautiful and merciless. It does not deliver its promise for something better, but a return does not seem to be an option as this would be the admission of a defeat.

Unfortunately, the movie cannot keep up its high standard towards the end where it almost shows fairy tale elements from Thousand and One Nights. Nonetheless the many shots from the desert and its oasis are just gorgeous, while swarms of annoying flies on the food and on the peoples' faces speak a different language. In the end it will only be Kit, depicted by a fetching Debra Winger, to make the ultimate desert experience but is she still aware of it?

Planned or not, the movie is very much a pleading for the separation of powers. It illustrates clearly what can happen if power aggregates in just one person so that the well-being of a country depends on the strength and rationality of the decisions taken by this very person. It may also be weakness or lunacy.

It also shows how the concentration of power gives room to all kind of scheming manipulation. Both, Sarah Churchill and her cousin Abigail Masham, stop at nothing to become the Queen's Court favourite in order to pursue their own agenda. On the other hand, it is mostly the ruthless intrigue between these two ladies which makes the charm of the movie.

The movie is also great in showing the decadence and disputable pastimes of the early 18th century nobility. There is racing ducks, pigeon shooting and throwing fruits at naked servants. Young noblemen use wigs and makeup for being pretty and the language used is often foul-mouthed, so that sometimes all this seems to be a bit overdone, but is it really? Anyhow, the costumes and the décor of the royal residence are truly impressive and leave nothing to be desired.

The queen's state of health, however, has quite some room for improvement as she suffers badly from gout. Olivia Coleman really does an excellent job in showing the queen's moodiness which is mostly a result of the pains which the queen has to go through. Still Coleman also succeeds in giving some dignity to her majesty.

Eventually, the queen also turns out to be more resilient and self-reliant than what could be expected at the beginning, whereas the input for neither of the two lady schemers, be it the looser or the winner, has fully paid off.

Anyway, an entertaining period movie well worth seeing, that can also help us better appreciate the democratic and technical achievements made since then.

At first sight Mr. Kubrick's last movie seems to be an erotic thriller with location New York City but in fact it is rather a psychoanalytic report about the sex beast in us that is constantly knocking on our intellectual world. After all, the film is based on the 1926 novella 'Dream Story' by Arthur Schnitzler who has even been admired by Sigmund Freud for his clairvoyant character studies. After having quickly read through the synopsis of the novella I found it actually quite striking how close the script is to the original story apart from the fact that the setting was transferred from Vienna to New York City and from Mardi Gras to Christmas season.

It is possible to see in the movie the denunciation of a degenerated upper-class morality, but I think it is much more about our own internal conflict when facing the strength of our libido which is in a way opposed to the moral standards that society imposes on us. Is romantic love and family bliss just an illusion?

Both Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise do a good job in showing this internal conflict. Alice appears to be anything but happy when confessing to Bill her sexual phantasies with someone else but still she does so for showing Bill that his somewhat haughty self-conception is based on shaky ground. And Bill's erotic night trip through Manhattan in the very same night is just his reaction to these in his eyes shocking confessions. At the beginning it was maybe just meant to be an escape from home, but it turns more and more into an act of revenge by paying Alice back in her own coin. It fits in well that Tom Cruise usually comes across as someone quite arrogant.

Overall, an exceptional movie with a high-end camera work, as we would expect it from a perfectionist like Stanley Kubrick. Reviewing may create new insights into the unconscious.

After about two thirds of the movie, Burt Lancaster declares to have captured the most terrible tenants imaginable. How right he is. The behavior of countess Brumonti and her companions is without doubt impertinent and I found it hard throughout the movie to show any sympathy for them, maybe except for the daughter, who can partly be excused for still being a teenager and one with a certain charm on top of it.

Nonetheless, the retired apartment owner, who lives a solitary life in an elegant palazzo in Rome just underneath the let apartment, feels in a way attracted to the countess' young German lover Konrad Huebel, who is also interested in art but in a rather superficial manner. Maybe he sees in him a character to be rescued or even the son, he has never had, but I found it hard to share such feelings to someone, who can be only described as selfish, manipulative and boorish.

Anyhow, this does not mean that the movie does not have its strong sides. The basic conflict between the unsociability of the old professor and the continuous excitement of the much younger tenants comes across quite realistically. Likewise, the fact, that the professor after a while feels grateful for someone breaking into his self-imposed isolation, is in a way comprehensible even though he is confronted with a for him disconcerting lifestyle that is also open to promiscuity.

There is also interesting discussions about society, especially about the bourgeoisie defending its privileges against a self-assured working class. The countess Brumonti maybe sums it up best with the ironic and rhetorical question: 'A left wing entrepreneur, does this really exist?'. It is quite evident, that the activity of the Red Brigades in the Italy of the 1970s had a certain influence on Mr. Visconti when directing this movie.

Last not least I would like to mention the good acting performances. Especially the portrayal of an arrogant and selfish young man by Helmut Berger excels, although I am not sure, whether this was really far off from Mr. Berger's true personality ...

I tend to be skeptical about autobiographical films that busy themselves with the topic of filmmaking but this one is just too good for ignoring. I would say that it does not even have to fear the comparison with Fellini's 8½, another great movie about the creative crisis of a film director.

First cut: a man sitting on a chair in a pool filled with water. Second cut: the long surgical scar along the man's spine. It is the spine of Salvador Mayo, a successful film director, no longer quite young. When seeing him move in the following scenes it becomes soon obvious that this man has constant pain (next to temporary depressions) and pain is no good for any creativity.

Quite striking to me was Antonio Bandera's very realistic acting regarding the backache. Maybe this is not overly difficult to play but as a person also concerned, I am quite in on the movements to be avoided with spine problems.

Equally impressive is the illustration of Mayo's vain attempts to keep on working despite the pain. Neither hard drugs nor the sympathetic proposals of his worried manager Mercedes can do the trick. In between suffering and lethargy, we also get to know the person Mayo by watching scenes from his childhood, by seeing him visit one of his former leading actors and meet his long gone ex-lover.

This may not sound very spectacular but the characters and the scenes altogether make a worthwhile portrait of a man who, willingly or unwillingly, draws up an interim balance of his life, what is not an unusual thing to do when being in a crisis. Almodovar's preference for fancy settings and the participation of Penelope Cruz as Mayo's mother in the childhood flashbacks add that little bit extra.

One of those movies that know to fascinate despite the fact that nothing much happens. Two boys fancy the same girl while all 3 of them are still looking for orientation in their young but pretty diverse lives. Halfway the girl disappears and eventually the director succeeded in also leaving me behind disoriented. If it was in the director's intention to put us film consumers into the shoes of the main protagonists then he has done a great job.

The 'nothing much' works for various reasons. * The movie has many interesting dialogues, some of them even a bit odd but definitely not off-the-shelf. * The 3 main characters are really diverse (poor pickup boy versus rich Porsche boy) and it is quite interesting to watch them interact. * Excellent acting performances and an artistic camera work * Some great pieces of music, ranging from Jazz to almost off-key

The movie is also good in laying out tracks to small mysteries, that kept me busy thinking about them. * Does Haemi's cat really exist or is it only a pretend cat, that needs to be fed by Jongsu? * Is Ben's cat a stray cat found or is it in fact Haemi's cat? * Does mysterious Ben really burn down glass houses just for fun?

Especially the last question keeps floating over the 2nd half of the movie. When does the burning eventually happen and what does this thought do to Jongsu?

On top, there is this ongoing North Korean propaganda voice, which can be heard from Jongsu's farm. Truly bizarre. Altogether quite a mysterious movie about life being a mystery.

Life can be tough. Zain, a 12-year-old boy from Beirut, can tell you a thing or two about it. Poverty, neglect of education, domestic violence, child labor instead of school and the lack of any official ID are some key words to describe his situation. After having run away from his family, he ends up as a baby sitter of the illegal boy of an Ethiopian cleaning lady. When the latter is arrested, Zain is left behind with the full responsibility for the survival of the infant.

The movie shows all this with a straight ruthlessness but the story also has its caring and fun moments, so that it does not ever become unbearable. Moreover, the dense pictures of Beirut street life are really compelling. That none of the passersby reacts, when bedraggled Zain, in his efforts to organize some food, pushes the baby through the streets in a pot placed on a stolen skateboard, may seem strange but only shows that poverty is no longer seen when it is surrounded by poverty.

The story covers some other hot topics like human trafficking, Syrian refugees in Lebanon or child marriage. This all comes across very realistic and the inside Lebanese view makes it even more convincing.

Then the movie also raises the moral question whether parents should have even more children, when it is already clear that they cannot care for the existing ones. A hard one but at least Zain has found a clear answer to it, which makes him sue his parents for having him born.

A bit irritating for my taste was the fact that Zain is way too small and wispy for a 12 year old. Why not let him be 10 and the story would still be the same. On the other hand, the 12 years are only a guess by a doctor when examining Zain's teeth, since Zain himself does not really know his own age ...

Despite all, the movie ends with a happy end. Not a fairy tale one, but Zain eventually turns into an official human being simply by being registered in prison. There is thus hope for a change for the better.

Seoul, a basement dwelling. Having access to someone else's free wlan is one of the main concerns of its residents for not being cut off from the world of WhatsApp.

Seoul, a private fallout shelter in a modern luxurious villa. The only way left to communicate with the outside world is the light of a bulb by using morse code.

In between these 2 scenes we get to see 120 min of a freaky class conflict, in which a family of unemployed sneaks access to a mansion of the riches. They get the first foot in by chance but from that point on, they show great manipulative and deceitful talent to get all feet in. Everything seems to work out fine until the former housekeeper returns in a rainy night. From that point on the story is turned completely upside down and becomes an entirely unpredictable hullabaloo.

I liked the fact that the movie does not side with either of the parties. Neither poor nor rich are presented in a very favorable way. Especially the patronizing behavior of Mr. Top Manager towards his new chauffeur is quite striking and doomed to create a backlash ...

Not all parts of the story are fully convincing. In my eyes, it is quite unlikely that a family of low social class has the ability to show such good manners and education as presented in the movie.

Oh well, it is still a clear recommendation. You shall be surprised more than once.