Clearly an entertaining movie, with excellent New York and Paris shots, and some good actors. As Meryl Streep is without a doubt the greatest living movie actress, it goes without saying that she plays her part extremely well, although she is in the end under-challenged. What I would like to emphasize vis-à-vis the other comments is that in my opinion, the moral the film wants to present is not the one it does present: clearly, there is nothing wrong at all with the fashion industry (which indeed is a billion-dollar industry; to call it more frivolous than banking or politics is just social romanticism), nor with the way how Miranda manages her journal. If it's too hot for you, get out of the kitchen - and Andrea in the end does, but this is hardly a success; there is nothing better in being in "hardcore" journalism than what she was before. And tough jobs demand being away from your bf's birthday party; if he minds that, it is he who has a problem, not you. The movie also reminds all of us that we should dress better. :-)
Reviews
12 Reviews
Der Tag, als die Beatles (beinahe) nach Marburg kamen
(2006 TV Movie)
Excellent local history, tragic story
23 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a mixture of documentary and play, with interviews of witnesses, old pictures, and some acting of the story - of a barber who was apparently bringing the Beatles, when they were touring Germany in the late 1950s, to the provincial university town of Marburg (one hour north of Frankfurt). Fascinating for those familiar with Marburg and otherwise quite artsy, this is actually a deeply tragic movie, both about the protagonist and about life in Marburg. Very good insights, but also beautiful pictures and certainly a movie to be enjoyed by audiences anywhere. Occasionally shown on TV, this movie is actually best seen (e.g. in festival contexts) on a big screen, which it occasionally is.
Baltic Storm
(2003)
Valid topic, bad movie, good actors
24 September 2005
As has often been remarked, on one level this is a genuinely rotten movie - story, filming, etc. Many of the German actors are really good, but hardly in this flick. However, the movie is a "good thing" because it legitimately raises the point of the "Estonia" disaster - which after all has never been satisfactorily cleared up. The movie is banned in Sweden, and that alone makes it worth watching. (Imagine a movie on an US catastrophe that would be banned in the US because it implies government involvement - such as "JFK"!) We do not know what caused the sinking of the "Estonia", but we do know it was not an accident as reported, and it is not exactly far-fetched to surmise that the Swedish government is implicated, at the very least, in the hush-up of whatever caused it. It's good that this movie reminds the audience of that. The comments on this site that such a movie shouldn't have been made because that would capitalize on the victims and their relatives is outright bizarre - if anything, this movie, rotten as it is, is one of the few monuments for the victims; not adequate, but still.
Kingdom of Heaven
(2005)
not bad, but too many weaknesses to be good
15 May 2005
KOH is not a bad movie, and it is entertaining, but just because it is better than Troy, Alexander, etc., it isn't yet good. (Gladiator was better, indeed; so were other historical movies with battle scenes, such as Braveheart.) The images are impressive, the special effects well done, and never mind the historical inaccuracies, such as that the Queen Isabella was in reality strongly on the side of Lusignan and Reynald Dew Chatillon and plotted against her brother as much as she could.
The main problem lies in the Bloom character, mostly fictitious, who absolutely unbelievably develops from a French village blacksmith into a master strategist, military engineer, leader of troops, etc. This is not believable at all, and even if it were, no attempt is made to bring it off. The more "senior" Bloom becomes, the less believable he is.
The religion issue is also a problem - not the display of the Arabs, about which so many commentators have fretted. They are shown as the pretty much better guys, more sinned against than sinning, which at that time and in that place, they of course were. No, the problem is that, for some politically correct reason (fear of some Christian organizations?), Christianity is played down, both in the "good" (genuinely motivating) as well as, but less so (see the Patriarch), in the "bad" sense. A Crusade picture without genuine Christianity is like, well, the Iliad without the Gods, but we had that, alas, also.
The good actors in small sidekick roles (Neeson, Irons) don't help much; I think that the powerful role of Balduin IV would have been even more powerful without the removal of his mask. As for the battle scenes, again, they are indeed good, but in spite of all technological progress, not much better than, say, the 1968 "The Last Roman".
So, in sum, not a movie to praise too loudly, but one could do worse on a rainy afternoon.
The main problem lies in the Bloom character, mostly fictitious, who absolutely unbelievably develops from a French village blacksmith into a master strategist, military engineer, leader of troops, etc. This is not believable at all, and even if it were, no attempt is made to bring it off. The more "senior" Bloom becomes, the less believable he is.
The religion issue is also a problem - not the display of the Arabs, about which so many commentators have fretted. They are shown as the pretty much better guys, more sinned against than sinning, which at that time and in that place, they of course were. No, the problem is that, for some politically correct reason (fear of some Christian organizations?), Christianity is played down, both in the "good" (genuinely motivating) as well as, but less so (see the Patriarch), in the "bad" sense. A Crusade picture without genuine Christianity is like, well, the Iliad without the Gods, but we had that, alas, also.
The good actors in small sidekick roles (Neeson, Irons) don't help much; I think that the powerful role of Balduin IV would have been even more powerful without the removal of his mask. As for the battle scenes, again, they are indeed good, but in spite of all technological progress, not much better than, say, the 1968 "The Last Roman".
So, in sum, not a movie to praise too loudly, but one could do worse on a rainy afternoon.
Zulu
(1964)
excellent war movie as all are saying
18 January 2005
If you don't like war movies and/or if you are politically correct in the negative sense (i.e., if your ideology comes before the fact), this is not the film for you. If not, then admittedly this is a Colonialist film, where Blacks are the enemy, but as has been pointed out here, they are presented impressively and with dignity. Still, it does feel odd. Other than that, it's just a spectacular war movie, a genuine classic, not needlessly bloody, with some of the best battle scenes on screen (more "Braveheart" than "Alexander" or the dismal "Troy"), and a real-time feeling of the threat of the entrenched Brits (Welsh). For a movie that old, the colors are excellent, and indeed the entire movie feels very fresh, except the Colonial thing which nobody would dare to put forth anymore. Michael Caine is just superb in this; one of his best roles.
House of Flying Daggers
(2004)
bad aesthetics, bad martial arts, bad love drama - so what was so good here?
9 January 2005
Again and again, it is interesting to see on IMDb how tastes of people who apparently have many categories for judgment in common can differ so vastly. For me, it is absolutely unimaginable how anyone who saw, understood, and appreciated (let alone loved) Hero can appreciate this flick; I can also not understand how one director could have made those two movies. I appreciated CTHD, I think Hero is one of the best movies of the decade, and I think House was really, really bad on all levels.
It is often remarked that this has to do with background, and it is also interesting to see how location matters; China, the US, and Europe obviously see movies differently (see, e.g., the reception of Alexander, although almost all Europeans I know personally disliked that one also). So, this is the critique of a German European - for whom, obviously, this movie is also made, so the critique seems legit.
I think House has a trivial plot, all the actors are really weak. ZZ is just unbearable, as she already was in Hero as its only weak spot; one is so happy when the great Mary Cheung, and the audience, seems to get rid of her so we don't need to listen to her horrible voice anymore - the same voice that did her in House as well, alas. The only good actor was the squirrel playing with the sword.
The aesthetics of Ukrainian leaf forests in the Fall were really weak; where did all the beautiful pictures go? The Pavilion was not more fancy than many a Chinese restaurant. The Bamboo forest was nice, but the last snow scene was so badly digitalized that this distracted... but it wasn't even bad that it did, because the blood obsession in that scene was more Gibsonish than forced by the story. As one couldn't take an interest in any character, one also didn't care what happened to them. This would have rendered all fight scenes boring, even if they hadn't been otherwise. All much inferior, and really a regression from CTHD.
A political remark: Hero was criticized for its regime-saving moral; many people have said that House was either apolitical or less pro-government. Neither comment is accurate; House is a horrible "all systems are evil" piece in which the allegedly corrupt and bad Empire (nb. this is just claimed in the text notes before the story starts, it is never hinted at visually or dramatically!) is just as bad (for the two lovers) as the Flying Daggers, who in the end are the even more destructive force.
This is a movie which in review was often said to combine aesthetic pleasure, love drama, and martial arts - and as few spectators would be the same, this would cause problems for the reception. All I can say is that I totally disagree, because this was a bad move on all thee counts.
It is often remarked that this has to do with background, and it is also interesting to see how location matters; China, the US, and Europe obviously see movies differently (see, e.g., the reception of Alexander, although almost all Europeans I know personally disliked that one also). So, this is the critique of a German European - for whom, obviously, this movie is also made, so the critique seems legit.
I think House has a trivial plot, all the actors are really weak. ZZ is just unbearable, as she already was in Hero as its only weak spot; one is so happy when the great Mary Cheung, and the audience, seems to get rid of her so we don't need to listen to her horrible voice anymore - the same voice that did her in House as well, alas. The only good actor was the squirrel playing with the sword.
The aesthetics of Ukrainian leaf forests in the Fall were really weak; where did all the beautiful pictures go? The Pavilion was not more fancy than many a Chinese restaurant. The Bamboo forest was nice, but the last snow scene was so badly digitalized that this distracted... but it wasn't even bad that it did, because the blood obsession in that scene was more Gibsonish than forced by the story. As one couldn't take an interest in any character, one also didn't care what happened to them. This would have rendered all fight scenes boring, even if they hadn't been otherwise. All much inferior, and really a regression from CTHD.
A political remark: Hero was criticized for its regime-saving moral; many people have said that House was either apolitical or less pro-government. Neither comment is accurate; House is a horrible "all systems are evil" piece in which the allegedly corrupt and bad Empire (nb. this is just claimed in the text notes before the story starts, it is never hinted at visually or dramatically!) is just as bad (for the two lovers) as the Flying Daggers, who in the end are the even more destructive force.
This is a movie which in review was often said to combine aesthetic pleasure, love drama, and martial arts - and as few spectators would be the same, this would cause problems for the reception. All I can say is that I totally disagree, because this was a bad move on all thee counts.
De-Lovely
(2004)
almost okay movie
25 December 2004
Kevin Kline is a very good actor, and Cole Porter is an interesting figure, but the former's portrayal of the latter is uninspiring, pedestrian, and boring. There is no story line, and the musical numbers could have been much better, although some of them are genuine fun (the music as such is excellent of course; I mean the interpretation). Really embarrassing the handling of the gay/straight "problems" of Porter; this reminded me somehow of "Alexander", and that's certainly no compliment! Excellent Ashley Judd as Linda Porter; Jonathan Pryce as Gabe was completely useless; and yes, the "Night and Day" duett was really good, in spite of Kline.
Alexander
(2004)
intentionally trashy?
25 December 2004
Although a bona fide European, I really disliked this movie. It gets a 2 rather than a 1 for a few good features, such as some of the battle scenes, which were needlessly gory but otherwise very good. They compare well to those from "Troy", which was an unmitigated disaster but not as bad as Alexander. The entire thing seems like a trash movie, with no acting involved, or even attempted. Is anyone able to listen to someone in 2004 to the pep talks of Alexander to his troops without wanting to throw up ("Ride, my brave Macedons, ride!")? All seemed like amateur theater. And in the end, the movie was expensive, but not expensive enough. The oedipal touch was just embarrassingly superficial and wholly unbelievable; the homo-erotic and heterosexual touches just funny. Three hours wasted.
excellent revue film
9 November 2004
Alright, this is a remake of an UFA classic. It is predictable. Some scenes are simple, to say the least. The leading girl has no charisma (and I don't like her singing much), and the Olympic star as the male lead is not a great actor. But still, what fun! What songs! What atmosphere! Really nice outdoor and stage scenes. A real feel-good review plus comedy! And some of the greatest comedy stars of Germany at that time - including Oskar Sima, Ernst Stankovski, and the great Heinz Erhard. They all manifestly enjoy acting in this movie. Okay, this is not Almodovar, but nor is life - and if it is, thanks for wonderful entertainment like this, because one needs it even more!
Troy
(2004)
a rotten bad movie
6 July 2004
My two cents' worth: First, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Homer, because the Iliad especially is not understandable without the Gods, who are - this is pretty much consensus by now among Classics experts - not support characters, but absolutely essential. The entire story makes no sense without them; the humans only act with them. To add them out is like Moby Dick without a whale, Snow White without the Stepmother, etc.
So, was this a successful movie otherwise? I don't think so. The battle scenes were all the same (compare good movies with such scenes: people actually fight differently!), the mass scenes seemed like Mummy II or other trash movies, the characters indeed did not develop and moved like puppets... I really thought these were some wasted hours.
I should like to add that the Iliad really supplies key insights into how we (as humans today in the glovbalized culture in which most of us IMDb readers live) became what we are, and also in what we are now - and especially so because of such problematic characters like Achilleus, who is a whiny boy and a hero at the same time. It is thus really really sad to have a movie like that invariably blocking access to this great work, because - as can be seen already now - people do mistake this thing for somehow representing at least "the story". Too bad.
So, was this a successful movie otherwise? I don't think so. The battle scenes were all the same (compare good movies with such scenes: people actually fight differently!), the mass scenes seemed like Mummy II or other trash movies, the characters indeed did not develop and moved like puppets... I really thought these were some wasted hours.
I should like to add that the Iliad really supplies key insights into how we (as humans today in the glovbalized culture in which most of us IMDb readers live) became what we are, and also in what we are now - and especially so because of such problematic characters like Achilleus, who is a whiny boy and a hero at the same time. It is thus really really sad to have a movie like that invariably blocking access to this great work, because - as can be seen already now - people do mistake this thing for somehow representing at least "the story". Too bad.
So You Don't Know Korff Yet?
(1938)
utterly charming UFA comedy
6 July 2004
This is a highly amusing musical comedy with romance and crime elements. In spite of being made in 1938, it is more reminiscent, in style, contents, and setting, of earlier Weimar Republic movies. The music, and the revue numbers, are excellent; the criminals and especially the detective seem just funny today, but that adds to the charm. The hero, the naive flutist Niels Korff, is played by Hans Rühmann, the most popular comedy actor for such roles of the UFA and one of the most beloved German screen actors at all. How good he is can be seen by the fact that he has an adorable small dog who nevertheless doesn't steal the show. Some of the settings (Dutch beach, Hotel interior) are quite lovely time-pieces as well. A thoroughly enjoyable movie, but because of the quality of the voices, it must be seen in the original German.
It Was a Gay Ballnight
(1939)
magnificent song, great Russian scenes, high drama
1 July 2004
Of course, to have Tchaikovsky of all people have a heterosexual love affair seems somehow funny today, although his love interest is played by Zarah Leander, who was not one of the greatest UFA stars but who is also a gay icon. In any case, this is a brilliant movie if one likes high drama by divas, and Zarah sings one of the most famous and touching songs of the time, "Nur nicht aus Liebe weinen", which has not lost its charm today. And indeed, some superb ball and society scenes set in Imperial Russia, which for many viewers will only profit through the beautiful black-and-white. Highly recommended to watch on DVD in late Fall while drinking hot chocolate with vodka!
Tell Your Friends