Reviews

I saw this great film 4 times and would have watched more often if my local cinema would not have finished showing it after 3 weeks already. I loved the acting, the mood, the music, the scenes of Paris. I "fell in love" with Clémence Poésy (real name Guichard, Poésy is her mother), a star in 3 Harry Potters, In Bruges and much more. This film was shot between October and December 2011, so it took 2 years for a wide release. First they filmed in Paris, then St Malo (Mr Morgan has a summer house there), then the interiors in Brussels and Cologne, as it's mainly a German production, in English and a bit of French. Matthew Morgan is a retired American professor of philosophy, living alone in St.Germain, Paris, ever since his wife died 3 years, 2 months and a few days ago, when he meets the young Pauline, a modern dance teacher, on a bus and then again. Her father also died (the director dedicated this film to the memory of her own father who also died). She seems to be in search for a father figure and starts helping Matthew. We don't get much or anything to know about her own problems. Matthew tried to kill himself, and Pauline livens up his life. He had a friend whom he took to expensive dinners but when she moves out of Paris he became even more lonely and Pauline fills that gap nicely and becomes his last love but purely platonic. After his second suicide attempt she visits him in the hospital and here also his son and daughter arrive, thinking Pauine will be their new stepmother or is a bimbo. It turns out the relationship between father and his son and daughter is far from good. They quarrel about their mother who wanted to die in Paris but they feel he took her way from them. Miles Morgan ,the son, plays just one face here all the time, an angry one. Karen, the daughter, has also an angry role and quickly returns to the USA when there are family problems back home. Pauline is caught in between. The film then becomes more or less 2 stories in one, about her and Mr Morgan and Mr Morgan and his children. The ending (which of course I don't reveal here) leaves you wondering about a number of things, most of all how much time there was between the last scene and the penultimate one. In general there's some guessing to do here and gaps to fill by yourself, but that's fine as the best films always leave room for own interpretations. The acting is superb, by Micheal Caine (who might get an Oscar nomination) but mostly by Clémence Poésy who is a real kindhearted spirit, and the "crack in Mr Morgan's life, that lets the light in". Mr Morgan says she does not have a mean bone in her body and Miles thinks she lights up the room with her presence. So Pauline is a dance teacher. Right NOW Clémence Poésy stars on stage for 2 months in a theatre in Paris in a play called "I always dance" (a war story monologue) and the French reviews are mainly glorious, so it shows she has great acting talents. Educated bilingually she lives a lot in London and New York and is also a great fashion model, on the cover of many magazines. A great film about love and friendship and family ties, albeit melancholic and with not a lot to laugh, but of a sort I wish would never end and Paris looks lovely. The director manages to give us neither too much nor too little emotion and avoids big clichés and banalities. I can't wait for the DVD (January 2014).

S P O I L E R S

but I only write it so that it will make clear what a favour you will do yourself by not watching it.

Borgman (the surname of the main gangster) is not a thriller but a very very sad and deeply disturbing horror film that shows how deep society has sunken (considering it's big attention and Cannes). I unfortunately watched it because it was yesterday's Sneak Preview in my favourite cinema, one that normally only has films with good taste, and it was at the Cannes festival. I wish I had left as I could totally not sleep afterwards. I was so extremely angry that this horendous horror could reach Cannes and that it is going to be shown in 140 Dutch cinemas. Do yourself a big favour and avoid this at all cost. It is about a tramp from a forest invading a house. At first he only wants a bath. Later he murders the gardener and his wife in a most horrible way that will make my life a nightmare for days to come. Then he takes over that gardener job, having shaven so unrecogizable for the owner of the house. Then other gangsters join in and kill more people. The ending is equally disgusting. That's all there is to say about the most worthless Dutch film of all times. If you enjoy such horror, go see it by all means, but a decent person, one with good taste and a heart will stay far away. Really really really sick piece of wasted time, money and efforts. And there's also blasphemy in it, the most insulting comments about Jezus Christ I ever heard in any film.

This film is the best, most spiritual, most philosophical, beautiful film of my life. I watched it 24 times in cinema so far in 10 weeks (I have a lot of time and a card for unlimited access to 3 of the 4 multiplexes in my town). It is deeply touching, consoling, peace giving, mesmerising, inspiring, with superb natural acting. This is a film to not miss in the beginning, as a lot of great importance is said and shown right from the start of this film with no opening titles.

Malick (1943)'s only 5th film, filmed in 2008 in Smithville, Texas, is set in Waco, Texas (where he grew up) in 1956 and autobiographical (but we'll never know how much). A film about the grand themes of life and the way to happiness. It encompasses the world and history from creation till end of time but not in an apocalyptic way. As Jessica Chastain as the mother says, it is to WONDER about, just as about all tiny beauty in life when we want to see it.

The film can be roughly broken into 4 parts (like a symphony), the mother, the father, the oldest son and him as an adult, with his mind wandering off into a reverie about the origins of life and how he fits into this and a coda about eternity, reconciliation and a way to eternal bliss.

The film opens with a quote from the Old Testament, Job 38, 4,7, "where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth. When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy". Humble as he is, Malick left something out in Job 38,4, namely "tell me, if you understand" and that's what Malick does in unprecedented glory.

The mother then explains that the nuns taught her there are two ways through life, grace (picture of sunflowers turned to the light of Christ) and nature (picture of father) and one has to choose which to follow. Grace isn't trying to please itself, accepts being slighted, forgotten, disliked, insulted. Nature only wants to please itself, wants it's own way, finds reasons to be unhappy when the world is shining around him and love is smiling through all things. She then gets a telegram about the death of a son (RL). She prays "why, where were You?" and Malick (or God?) answers by showing the creation, with Preisner's Lacrimosa (Requiem) set under it: "Tearful will be that day which from the ash arises the guilty man who is to be judged. Spare him therefore, merciful Lord Jesus". Parts of the creation scenes are from Yann Arthur-Bertrand's "Home" (2009). Malick worked closely with Douglas Trumbull ("2001") and a Harvard scientist for this.

Malick uses a lot of (only) classical music and does so exquisitely and uses the most famous recordings of a piece. Toscanini's 1951 Brahms 4 is legendary (but we hear Von Karajan 1978 I think) and of Colin Davis 1969 Berlioz Requiem (Agnus Dei-Communio used in the end) Gramophone wrote in it's review that the playing is superb, thrillingly grandiose. Desplat composed for 2 hours but little is heard of this in the film. His soundtrack CD only contains that and nothing of the other music. The music fits the scenes well, like Mahler 1 at a funeral, Holst's Hymn to Dionysus when the children play with mother and Smetana's Moldau (later used in the Israeli anthem) after mother says "that's where God lives".

Father works seemingly in an oil refinery and Malick's father Emil worked for Phillips Petroleum and had 42 patents as inventor, of which 12 when this film was set, so Malick lets father say he has 27 patents.

"Malick truly loves all his characters, respects, appreciates them", Jessica Chastain said in an interview and added how Malick was most interested in "the accident than the plan", working without script and in her showing emotions by body language than words. She watched films with Lauren Bacall as "we now speak so fast as we're afraid someone is going to cut us off" and in the 50's people spoke slower.

"The tree of life" is a requiem for a dead brother (for Malick himself possibly his brother Larry) as well as about all of us, inviting us all to think about our life,existence, destiny and Being. There's loads of symbolism in a dazzling amount, which I love, but it demands multiple viewing to grasp it all. Examples: a clown in front of a sign "creation",RL burying a dead fish (Christ) in a cloth under a tree that has a ladder (resurrection, eternity). Also the many animals show this is a film alluding to timelessness, eternity.

My favourite quotes are "help each other, love everyone" and "the only way to be happy is to love or life will flash by". This film leaves such powerful emotions as it is about all of us and our eternity in a spiritual sense, not religious. Don't walk out at the credits as the music gives further catharsis when "Welcome happy morning" and the lovely guitar piece are played again.

One remark about Jack and the gown. He only took it as he was in a hurry after hearing a sound (as the film shows) and had to then dispose of it. Great to see then such changes in him and also the father (a great storyline and character development in all main roles).

I want to draw people's attention to a brilliant, very long (28-page) analysis of this film (and all Malick's films). google Nilesfiles Malick to find it/them. There are more blogs but that one is NOT to be missed if you want to understand this complex film better.

DVD/Blu-ray out in Europe on 12 October 2011. To understand the truckload of symbolism better, it's helpful to google for Dream dictionary.

I don't easily write any negative critiques but for this 90-minute thriller I think I should. It's about a woman moving into a villa area and a few murders. That's about all there is to say about it as it so uninteresting and hard to understand. I couldn't care less what happened or why or "who did it". Some people have an affair,even the main character and people die. That's it. Absolutely amazing how so much money could have been wasted on a thriller that does not thrill but bore you to death. Only 90 minutes. That is in this case a BIG PLUS! Don't waste your money on this C-class film. Most of the timer it was not even easy to hear what they said and I sat on first row.

Script writer Ger Beukenkamp wrote already 2 film-scenarios for TV about members of the Dutch royal family (the affairs around Mabel Wisse Smit and Maxima Zorreguieta, now our Crown princess) but as an anti-monarchist not much credibility can be expected of him and of course some satire. There is always an aura of grandeur around any royal family and to some extent that is also preserved in this film but it also contains some laughable conversation that the royals will never have in reality. The characters resemble the real royals fairly well. There's hardly ever a doubt as to who someone is supposed to portray but I don't think any of the royals will be pleased with how they have been portrayed and surely also Prime minister Balkenende not. The story is set in 2003 during the day of the annual "Troonrede", the Queen's speech for parliament in the Ridderzaal in The Hague. Of this real day there is quite some footage in the film, as the Royal carriage would never be used for anything else, surely not for a film for which the filmmakers had to go to Belgium for the interior shots of palaces. Of the real "Prinsjesdag" event, horses are shown, the carriage itself but in such way that nothing is visible of who really sat in it. Queen Beatrix (Carine Crutzen) is not happy with what she has to say, a speech written by the prime minister. She disagrees with a last-minute change in something about Africa (that indeed was in the real speech in 2003). The whole film is a mix of what happens after that, her talks with various people that day, including Prince Willem-Alexander ,and of past history when Claus was still alive, a wonderful role by Jeroen Willems who got the Dutch "Oscar" (Golden Calf) for this role.It is clear that they loved each other, possibly the only not fake detail in this film and this is a moving part. This film is the first one about Dutch royalty for cinema but looks like a TV-film in that all scenes are very static (a lot of talking without action). There are some visits across the border, namely in Africa and London and it is not too obvious that the palaces are Belgian ones and some footage was really shot in my town The Hague and I even saw the cinema in it where I watched this film,Buitenhof (a strange feeling). The film suggests that none of the sons of Beatrix are really interested in taking over the crown or with their role as exists now. We see Beatrix struggling to keep the monarchy together. In the end she sits in the Golden Carriage (but not the real one of course) and holds her speech in parliament. Will she have changed anything in it or not? The film is worth watching but the fact that the royals will be anything but happy with this fake story with all sorts in insinuations is something that takes away from the joy. One has to be better an anti-monarchist also to appreciate this film but the acting and cinematography are great. All in all a welcome change from the many banal films made in my country.

Eat Pray Love is based on the bestseller by Elizabeth Gilbert. It strikes me that many don't know or did not investigate that this is a true story and that all what they found unbelievable actually really happened and is therefore not to be criticised. Elizabeth Gilbert was not rich (got an advance on the book, so she could make the 1 year trip, staying in cheap accommodation) and it is, after all, HER life this film is showing. That said, it differs greatly from the book. The makers wanted to stay faithful to the book as much as possible and filmed it chronologically, but it starts for the first 28 minutes in New York, whereas the book starts in Italy with flashbacks to her married life, but much of that part has been made up by the scriptwriters. Luckily not a moving scene where she starts to pray to God for the first time, a really breathtaking scene I loved the most. Both book and film don't make it too clear why she was so unhappy but that fact that she WAS should be enough for us to know. Her publisher is black in the film, white in reality (as I saw in the Oprah Winfrey Show), but will have had as good reason. There are more differences but Elizabeth Gilbert herself didn't mind and loved the film. The Italy part takes 29 minutes with flashbacks, the India part 31 minutes with flashbacks, the Bali part 45 (I saw the film already 8 times so I paid attention to that at one time). All parts start abruptly without showing how she got there. In reality Liz did not do the trip in one go, as once she went back to the USA for Christmas. The Italy part is the funniest, in fact a film title could have been "Divorce, Laugh, Meditate, Love". Italy is being shown in a cliché way ("Dolce far niente") that is not representative for the present-day life there but what is shown WAS what Liz has experienced. Here they stay the most true to the book of the 4 parts, except that the turkey was not frozen and not eaten for breakfast. The book only mentions that they could have done that. The book contains a lot of history of Italy and the film luckily shows a bit if that. The India part in the film is all about Liz, "Richard from Texas" (the real one, Richard Vogt, has a role in the film, seated next to Liz in the Rome spaghetti eating scene, but sadly, he has died) and Tulsi. There wasn't much more time for anything else. Richard also called her "Groceries" in reality but the sad past of Richard that he tells about is invented for this film. But it gives Richard Jenkins the chance to excel and this role is Oscar-worthy material. Both Richards met each other in reality. The India part ends with Liz's wisdom that God acts in you AS you. The Bali part is where a lot of critics find it unbelievable that she met a man and fell in love as it seems to be a too much Hollywood cliché ending but it did really happen, just not all quite like in reality. Hollywood wouldn't be Hollywood if they didn't invent some funny way of them meeting when he hits her off the road by his car. In reality she first had a fling with the guy who is shown in the film as bartender before she met "Filipe" (not his real name and Stephen was also not a real name) in a normal way in a bar. The film stays fairly true to the book except that Wayan the healer was indeed helped but more happened that is not shown in the film. Matter of too limited time? They even used the real house of Ketut for this film but Ketut did not want and is played, quite endearing, by a street musician the film crew found near their Jakarta hotel. The ending is really a Hollywood cliché as the break-up did not happen and thus the making up also not and the book does not end like the film does. So once again book and film are not the same, but it does not matter as one has to remember that films are meant to entertain a big audience and that it does superbly. Beautifully crafted, superb cinematography by Robert Richardson ("Inglourious bastards" and "Shutter island"), the music unobtrusively compliments the story (great song during the credits that made me stay clinged to my seat) and the spiritual content has been quite well dosaged so that it does not become a lesson in any religion or philosophy and still makes it clear what Liz was looking for. Pity only that the magnificent chapter 107 of the book is hardly represented in the film. As I see it, one has to both remember and forget that there was a non-fiction book, to really love this film.Liz is a very sympathetic, unselfish character, played well by Julia Roberts. Javier Bardem is a bit young to represent the real "Felipe", but who cares. All actors have done a great job to be proud of. You just have to sit back, relax, know that most of it was true, and you will get vitalised and really glad you went and it is not just for women as the story is about feelings of men and women. This fantastic film is just what is needed in a time where there are so many totally unbelievable stories in films or where it is all about what man the female lead will end up with. This is 4 films in one and therefore already more than worth your money and I can't wait to see the DVD with, reportedly, an extended version, out at end of November or early December in the USA (a bit longer wait elsewhere).

The spoiler warning is for those people who want to see for themselves what animals and landscapes pass before their eyes, although I don't mention it in great detail.

"Earth" is an approx. 90 minute cinema version based on "Planet earth" which I watched all on BBC TV.The TV version was narrated by David Attenborough, a captivating commentator, who I had wished had also done it for "Earth" but it is Patrick Stewart, Star Trek's Captain Picard. There are regularly shots of the Earth from space so that's may be appropriate. In any case he has a nice enough and calm voice for it. There are 12 chapters in which we follow animal life on earth from North Pole to Antarctica. 3 animal families, polar bear, elephant and whale, appear in more than one of these parts. Each "chapter" starts with an indication how far from north pole or equator it is. We see something of each kind of animal, but only mammals and birds, and some fish, and some beautiful shots of vegetation, mountains, waterfalls, deserts and jungle, a near perfect presentation of the variety of life and landscapes and climates on earth. You get the impression that our planet is only inhabited by animals: people or villages or cities aren't in the film, so it's a typical nature documentary, but breathtakingly shot and accompanied by delightful music. When the film opened I already knew it would end far too soon for me. It is a family film, so no brutal killings of any animals. When one is caught by his hunter the shot ends and in other cases where we see the prey being caught it's shot in slow-motion which makes it less violent and watchable for young children (age limit 6 in The Netherlands). No blood is shed. Some scenes (newly born animals) are really cute and will be adored by kids. It looks like an ordinary nature film but when you know how many shooting days it took (4000) and how much money it has cost it becomes an even more astonishing piece of beauty. It had it's Dutch premiere yesterday, a month before the actual release, in a cinema of 500 seats, of which 15 were taken. True beauty is rarely interesting for cinema goers, it seems. As I knew the TV-series I was of course very curious if my favourite scenes would make it into this movie. Some didn't, but the most impressive shots (big waterfalls) did, luckily. It was the first time I ever cried in a nature film.