sepial Reviews

Breathe (2014)

A quiet, disquieting portrayal of the potency of emotional conflict at Teen-age

[8/10 · 24 March 2015]

So she's a great director, too. I still haven't seen Laurent's 'Les Adoptes', but will close this gap asap after watching this her 2nd feature film. On the surface alone 'Respire' offers everything that's good about and expected from a social drama produced in Europe: hand- held camera, faithfulness to the light in which we'd see each scenery in real life, the effects being in the faces rather than in post production. The story being told by those faces as much as by film narrative, foremost by Josephine Japy's face. And the film unfolds as everything but mere surface. It's a very simple story, a school friendship going awry with tragic consequences, but Laurent's focus is on the subtleties of this relationship's evolution in each moment, and in collaboration with formidable acting this makes it a compelling watch. One small but powerful feature of film language that particularly delighted me was the smart use of slow motion: slow-mo is too often used in other films in a very annoying, bashful in-your-face way, here it is sparsely used, brief moments that follow the sole purpose of accentuating, and these moments work. The final result is a quiet, engaging, and ultimately disquieting and unsettling portrayal of the potency of emotional conflict at teen-age, of how unrehearsed and thus affecting, cruel and potentially dramatic and disastrous actions and reactions can be, especially if the pretence of adjustment hides the cracks of insufficient, failing or absent home support. Reacting increasingly becomes overreacting, foreboding eventual catastrophe; vulnerability takes vengeance on the greater vulnerability, and it is the containment of this greater vulnerability beating with the heart of the more reasoned protagonist that will in the end cease abruptly and give way to a surrender of control. The final take, as simple, precise and convincing as the entire film, is nothing short of ingenious. Praise be due to the performances of both leads, especially Josephine Japy (often reminding me of a young Binoche), as well as that of Isabelle Carre, playing Charlie's mother.

Left Behind (I) (2014)

Yes!! Hallelujah! That's It! The Worst Film this Year!!

[1/10 · 27 October 2014]

We all love ourselves a good end of the world. At least when it's a movie. Mind you, there are those who are hoping beyond fiction, or the potential real causes for such a thing. I go with the movie flirtation. Amongst other things you can check out the latest state of the art in special effects. In latest years, when you pick a film starring the most overrated of all stars, you might just end up seeing an end of times variation. The line-up Nicholas Cage heads this time is for what must be Michelle Bachman's favourite movie.

The first part of the film you spend hoping it'll kick in soon, this end of the world, and with wondering if all the badness you chew yourself through is intended, say, as a reflection on cliché character set-up in a writer's cheek instead of a tongue. The music is of much help here, because it is as cheesy and clumsily clue-driven as the acting and the screenplay. Hunky hero meets girl on airport and they engage in meaningful witless conversation about tragic things; music on clue. Daddy has to fly a plane on his birthday and cannot be with daughter, so they have a heart to heart with only slightly different music on clue. Daughter right back to hunky hero, and the same music on clue as before. It gets worse, though.

Turns out the only reasonable person within the story's realm is mum, who everybody thought of as crazy, because she just knew what dawned, and it literally happens in a flash, and also quite literally as they say in the bible. Yes – it's the rapture!

Kids are lifted and saved, because they're good, and faithful Christians are saved, even if they're packing a gun. The rest are left with the, spooky, no, actually not, left with the comically empty clothes of those risen to Heaven and with having to figure it out, down on the ground, though not really, while making their way through the havoc unleashed by the ensuing panic, and up in the clouds, in every sense of the expression, trying to deal with airplane issues that include disappeared and now assumed naked passengers and a fuel leak over the Atlantic. And they do figure it out, the whole to be expected cast necessary for a Christian lecture tale, the drug addict, the gluttonous candy lover, the greedy business man, the angry midget, the vain stewardess and of course the wife-cheating captain alias Mr. Sad Puppy-Eyes. And once they figure it out they express regret over not having had time for the kids, being so job-orientated and, off camera and presumably cut, for eating so many candy bars. Again with much help by the music and an equally unoriginal, uninspired script.

We got action, since that plane needs to be landed safely, captain Puppy-Eyes resolving he cannot let those people die with all their sins on their minds, and we got family values, as daddy and daughter find back to one another via cell phone, plane-landing and other heroic acts that are potentially redeeming in the eye of the Lord.

Here's my favourite little detail. Amongst the predictable cast of washed together characters we also have the kind, gentle, friendly, reasonable and faithful Muslim. And he really is kind, gentle, friendly, reasonable and faithful. He takes care of the old lady shaken with fright, he does his part in settling conflicts. So no trouble with the orthodox end of Islam to be expected there. Also because they just might miss the bigger picture: here we have a deep believer in an only slightly different version of the same god, and he's good, he's faithful, he's all a deity can wish for, and yet he's among those who are NOT lifted to Heaven. Because he believes in this slightly different version. Yes. Oops.

And it all ends in the to be expected reunion of loved ones, having survived a near fatal plane-landing that went exactly the way we knew it would, now looking at the burning city and forward to years of darkness. After which they'll do fine, promise, as we've witnessed them finding back to faith.

The whole thing is one ugly piece of literal bible evening Christian propaganda coated in an excess of unhealthy sugar and aimed at the extremely gullible, made by those who have at this point only movie- making while waiting, salivating, for the real thing. And the viewer is the one left behind, with trying to decide whether Mr. Cage is either desperate and gropes for just any role offered to him, or whether he's a fundamentalist Christian himself, trying to contribute in spreading the message. And Zeus knows, this film is messagy.

It also confirms that with Christian issues-themed material it is very much as with right-wing humour: it doesn't work. It's uninspired, it's lacking fabric, ground to stand on and anything that can remotely approach convincing sense, and it inevitably results in fabulously bad acting.

Anything you wish to see that is already a huge set of steps up the ladder to quality, watch a Troma production. Which is, in these dark times, where I turn to in prayer: please, Troma, spoof this one!

Coherence (2013)

Great story, mostly wasted

[5/10 · 17 September 2014]

This is a spoiler-containing review, as it is near impossible to write anything about the film without giving something away, which in itself is remarkable enough, so this would be one for those who've already watched it. 'Coherence' is a story about very, very stupid people made film by a director who loses against his ambitions. To get my main annoyance out of the way, the choice of how to narrate a series of unwise decisions on behalf of the protagonists is unwise, and displays a preference of form of narration over narrative deciding on form, which can easily slide into pretension, and here does. Hand-held camera and smart editing are tools, a tool is there for something specific and thus does not come first. The editing here is done almost ferociously in order to serve a trend rather than the film, a hip semi-documentary style that isn't warranted by story nor setting, begins to cause exhaling after the first 5 minutes and ultimately stands in the way of letting us take part in the tension. It is done to abundance, it has been done to abundance, and this decisive idea lets a film stand where it's appropriate, fall where it becomes a nuisance. Likewise is the idea to introduce a safe-fail tool of explanation into the midst of the ongoings a bad one. I can easily suspend my belief where it comes to the overall cause of oddness, a comet passing and apparently resulting into a suspension of possibilities, and I'd rather be left with it. I'd rather be left speculating instead of being fed further suggestions along with the characters by means of a book about precisely what's going on that has been conveniently left in the car. But the filmmakers don't trust the audience getting it without it, because they don't trust their characters to get it without help. Not that I would blame them there. A table round of academics, startled from an initializing bang on the door to the extend of giving up their mental capacities, not merely making a few wrong decisions but invariably wrong decisions, had to be sought and was found. Worse, they're also an impressively un-curious bunch. I agree, the more likely scenario of a group of people discovering that this other house and its human contents is another possibility version of their own situation before collapsing into a reality, a group that would upon such a discovery go 'Wow! Let's go over and meet ourselves!' would result into an altogether different story, to give the How-Quickly-Will-It-Crumble-aspect of the small representative society a miss. But that specific possibility lingers about in one's mind. 'We can't trust those others.' And one would like to know why this has become such a premise. To be fair, besides the unnecessary effort of making the protagonists characters by flawing them into stupidity, the eventually transpiring mingling of members of the groups of same selves and the choices resulting make all the sense I'd want and provide thrilling thought- fodder. Disturbing, again, the prescribed actions of these characters, in detail (while they're tied in angst and horror they're still reliably indulging in comparably petty personal problems, or rest in nostalgia) as on the whole (quick resolution to violence, even murder, and blackmailing) – not once does this well-educated group grasp the opportunity. How fantastic and awesome the situation is, how much is revealed about Nature. And in all their over-reacting and discontent not even the fear of this event, the uncertainty of the outcome, the possibility of permanent entrapment comes over convincingly: it all, all of it, remains in the absolute private and frankly egoistic. I openly admit that part of my grudge results from the subject-matter at hand being one I'd always love to be put into a script, the more I'm being fussy and critical when the opportunity is botched. It is precisely the sort of science fiction I care for most. The story itself is brilliant, and I was, after all, entertained by it in the best way, meaning up there. The means of narration and deciding on privileged idiots spoiled it for me, though. All the stars I'm giving are for the story, the acting was good, and in the end I was entertained.

The Alphabet Killer (2008)

Waste

[2/10 · 6 September 2014]

Stick to the facts, and you'll be half-way there. Unlike this film. It appears as if the filmmakers thought they have too little at their hands, and felt compelled to 'spice' things up by adding the story of an investigator (as so often, female, young, good-looking, yawn) who struggles with mental illness; the murders weren't solved, the essence of them appear to fit on a short Wikipedia-page, so what else can we do...? Just that it's still enough to make an interesting, haunting film-effort, the unsolved murders of three girls. Instead their legacy is insulted with this cliché-laden flick. It comes to no surprise that it'll opt for inventing a perpetrator in the end. Until then it's poor in sequence and pace, it's poor in acting, and it's poor even in using the clichés. Try and find a documentary about the case, instead.

Noah (2014)

Excitement over Incitement

[2/10 · 10 July 2014]

Although this review contains spoilers, go right ahead and watch the film anyway if you feel you must, for whatever reason. I watched it because its director is Darren Aronofsky, and because it's got Jennifer Connelly in it. Despite my great affection for at least 4 of Aronofsky's works, both the subject matter and 'The Fountain' had me anticipate that this might be bad. I wasn't quite prepared, however, for just how bad. This latest began to transpire with the introduction of the watchers, a hybrid of that rock-monster from The Neverending Story and the Entz. Oh yes, that was right in the beginning of the movie, by the way. From there it was so cliché-loaded, so uninspired and so failing in its ambitions to unify both incompatible morals and ideas about the world that it left me with a headache, as it compelled me to serial face- palming. The raging debate ignited by stout believers about this version of the story being 'inaccurate' gives the whole enterprise a humorous touch at best, meanwhile, it wasn't the reason for my chuckling despair – to say it with Bill Maher, the believers of one piece of fiction are upset about another's piece of fiction mismatching theirs. Who gives a darn. After all, the main hero is the special effects, and, perhaps due to those alone no longer being the decisive factor, they leave cold beyond a possible initial 'woah' by a 14 yr. old. No, my despair was a familiar one, felt when ever I realize, 'damn, this would work great as a comedy,' but having to watch helplessly as the whole thing is taking itself utterly seriously. Which means the film doesn't even stand out in its ridiculousness. Nothing works. There is a clear emphasis on man's sins for which he, and with 'him' all the women and kids, is to be genocided being to a large part ecological, since it was released in A.D. 2014, and that isn't able to get off the ground. We got a villain, and as it's a bully he's played by Ray Winstone, and he's mainly necessary because since Noah is played by Russel Crowe it's a Noah who can kick ass, and does. The en masse arrival of somehow summoned animals, pairs of bears peacefully next to pairs of deer, might be compelling for this specific story, it still made me cringe, and I'm an other animals-friend. Speaking of which, the repeated vegetarianism propaganda might be noble from a related point of view, but particularly in the context of predators holding hands with prey just a bit too much. Even those approaches that should give a tad more complexity to the project, such as putting stress on Noah's fanatic character, that has him even wanting to murder his own kin, including little babies – a streak that should really THRILL the bible-lovers – and which makes perfect sense with someone who's just fine with watching the rest of his kind drown, don't work, because the filmmakers shy away from giving it strength over the altogether more apparent mild- and meekness of the character; Crowe is a very able actor, but typecast not only in a row of fake history-action dramas, but also, more or less, in the respective part therein. Unforgivable also the drop of hope betrayed when in a narrative told by Noah we're momentarily treated to a rather stunning fast forward morph showing us through the evolution of solar system and life, only to end with a verbatim imagery of Adam & Eve – sorry, Mr. Aronofsky, but you won't reconcile two opposing ideas of how world, life and, extending, humans came into being just by cutting the one off short and propping the other at its end! And on it goes. I give it one more star than worst marks for 2 reasons. One is in sympathy for the routinely underused Connelly, who gives a terrific outburst. But much more for one of the best laughs I've had in months: at the very end, the setting of which would make cheese want to walk out of the theatre, Noah blesses the baby twin sisters and says, 'be fruitful and multiply.' I was still in stitches when the end credits were finished. I mean, with WHOM? The only blokes left are dada and grandpa! A bit gross, isn't it. Of course, this bit is faithful to the original nonsense story, the implication already given (and by believers favourably ignored) with a single, troubled couple as our ancestors. Yes. And we're all Banjo Boy from Deliverance. I cannot for the life of me imagine how this should have escaped every single one involved in the making of the film, unless I missed a huge tongue in a slightly smaller cheek. But sadly, producing my laughter was clearly not intended. So please, I beg you, Hollywood, a spoof on this one, next. And for me it's the last time to have spent with any of those films by the director that smell of his clearly hysterical preoccupation with 'The Spiritual.'

Transcendence (I) (2014)

Welcome conflicts, and how could we possibly...?

[7/10 · 4 July 2014]

***Huge Spoiler Alert – really only read if you've already watched the movie*** This review is partly a reflection on conflicts, as watching the film was an experience of conflicting notions, so whoever might read this, bear with me. The fact itself is a good thing: you touch the subject matter and leave no conflicting opinions in a single viewer, and it'd mean you've been too easy on yourself. I just wish those conflicts in this particular viewer would be more down to the contents of the by nature highly loaded subject, drawn out by this project, not so much to the choices as to how to dramatize it. First conflict for me was wondering why I spent so much time on being more annoyed than usual about the good looks of three of the leads, scientists, and one more, activist, conflicting because each is played by fabulous actors who're doing a fabulous job. Splendid enough for me to eventually getting my head around it. After a few instances of rather laborious attempts of outlining profiles and private life-aspects and way too spurious setting of the technology at hand – oh, so they got quantum processors already, I'd like to hear more – we're quickly engaged in a series of indeed masterfully engineered fusions: synchronized terrorist-attacks are melted with cyber-phobia in an excellent sequence, followed by fusing three of my favourite subjects, how to achieve AI, can one upload the self and who or what will it be, which is asking What is Self. The latter question is one of the two running themes of the whole film, which I'd love, but conflicts are awaiting. The moment of transcendence works well, and is to me the most exciting part: an initially confused and disoriented mind, longing for the ocean (the internet). The question racing in me was, would it really adapt this quickly, or wouldn't it rather be hell first, a possibility that would have held even more potency for me. But stop. That's just me, for the story line at hand another decision was made, comprising, perhaps out of lack of faith in the audience, again several facets, transcendence, alteration of mind and already the posing danger, into one scene. The advantage of the intelligence before us adapting this fast and already expressing the desire to access the market is that we're already faced with the question – is it Who, or is it What? Although the problem is elaborated on throughout the film, this happens mainly by means of one-liners, the repeated tag-line 'can you prove that YOU are?' (self-aware) and spousal relationship. The question is so big that it deserves a more intimate treatment. Once more, conflict in me, as I understand that there's yet another big question, that of threat, on which the film ultimately decides where it comes to the action. For a long time I'm purposefully wrapped in discomfort by the hitherto single-minded, murderous activists becoming allies. Not at all an implausible scenario, and given what seems to transpire even quite a logical one. Still my discomfort perforates this logic, which on the other hand is in fact wonderfully controversial, and should thus be to my heart. It does leave with the impression that the remaining central message will rather be one chanting of the dangers of technology. I'll be compensated for this later. In the meantime we have Hollywood taking over the set, and it's very much like, 'how can we possibly bring GUNS into the story?' That's right. A film about fusing mind and computer to create AI, and the climax is ruled by a huge stand-off shoot-out. Which almost spoils it ALL! But just when I got ready to show the whole thing my finger, the compensation: the band of victorious allied protagonists were wrong and have inadvertently prevented the world from being saved from ecological disaster. Which is a turn I congratulate the filmmakers on. Having said this, with a prospect of this magnitude as a premise, it's not really convincing to me that He (as It turns out to be) chooses to volunteer for the virus, and to sacrifice his love on top of it, both in order to save a friend. Then again it's an ultimate illustration of his being human. Distracting, though, that we'll deal with a rather unexplained body again in the end. Then again... All in all a welcome exercise of getting the debate into new gear, featuring a few quite engaging moments. I'd give it 1, perhaps even 2 more stars if it wasn't for those darn guns.

Incendies (2010)

not enough stars available - pure masterpiece!

[10/10 · 26 May 2014]

In the midst of my Villeneuve-exploration this film hit me like no other in the past decade. It took me about 10 minutes after watching it to be able to do anything (eventually I had a smoke). Everything that composes a film, editing, camera work, acting, all the choices for narrative, converge most perfectly, emerging as the most complete whole I have seen on the screen in a long time, at once hauntingly beautiful and quietly earth-shattering. And, as it always seems to go with Villeneuve, there's not a single superfluous grain. There's no lingering, no exploiting of cruelty (each aspect and scene of the sort is thus also presented in the most tactful way), the soundtrack as well is reduced to what is necessary, to much greater effect. The camera is closely kept on the protagonists (without exception every performance is excellent), wider shots are reserved to set the stage. War is seen through the eye of the intimate in a fact-finding odyssey into the past. Virtuous also the division of these time-lines without ever confusing, and never l'art pour l'art, but an essential story-tool. The story itself is in the end the main character. It still hasn't left me.

Polytechnique (2009)

All the right choices

[9/10 · 20 May 2014]

The 2nd film by Villeneuve I've so far seen, and he's already one of my favourite film makers. And, judging the reviews, he also divides. Some of the negative reviews complain about the film makers' choice to basing the film on actual events while fictionalizing it on purpose. And I'm a little lost about that, I'm not sure whether it's the choice or in fact this disclaimer that meets this discontent - in other words whether anything would be different had the reviewers in question missed the disclaimer. What is fiction, what reality indeed, to quote one of the other reviewers. As soon as you touch a subject, be it in writing or as a film, you fictionalize it - to a degree it even goes that way with documentaries (and it begins with memories). This makes the choice of the film makers a rather smart one - if you know nothing about the Montreal shooting, actually if you do, but weren't there, the difference is almost incidental. What we're left with is one shooting and its effects for many others. Does this choice make the film unrealistic? Far from it. Unless you consider a, say, McEwan novel as unrealistic and exploiting for being fiction while putting the plot into a context of real events. Whether the choice is made out of respect for the victims is also irrelevant for the viewer. For the viewer contents-format relation is decisive. And what we see is uncommented on matter-of-factly depiction that keeps an unusual balance between the graphic (not in the sense of the usual graphic detail, but rather of graphic impact) and the subtle, the restrained. It says, This is what a shooting is. Full stop. The effect on the survivors is told in equally un-elaborated form. It never fully enters either the victims' nor the perp's total POV beyond this constraint, which is smart again; otherwise it'd be inevitable to cross the border to the sentimental, which I always find insulting towards the victims. Instead we're watching jumps between the significant moments both of the shooting and the later effects on the traumatized, only where necessary, and without distorting embellishment. The film begins with a letter composed by the shooter, which he's about to carry on his person, to be found by the world to read in the aftermath. The film makers do not allow him this fame within the frame of the film. Although the film begins with him, and although he necessarily prominent he is denied the higher significance he seeks on the whole, his end as incidental in comparison; he remains nameless. It ends with another letter, from a survivor to the shooter's parents, beginning with her saying that she knows that this letter will not be read (presumably because it's meant to stay with her). Which is the one that stays with us. This is the closest the writer & director go. And they let it end right there. Perhaps it's not the best way to turn a review into a rebuttal, but these points highlight what I liked about the film. The film makers stood before the same questions as the reviewers, they made a conscious choice, and it was the right one. To me this is one of the most tactful treatments of the subject of shootings, while bringing us right there, and it does so without the burden of artificial sentiment, making the impact an even stronger one.

Enemy (2013)

Go and feel trapped - it's worth it.

[10/10 · 10 May 2014]

Watching this film, knowing little to nothing of what would find me, turned out one of the most pleasant film experiences in months. And perhaps it might be necessary to explain 'pleasant' here: the word does not necessarily mean that one is comforted, has fun in the usual meaning. Film-wise it means, at its best, to be challenged. Challenged, here, meant to be glued to the screen. It's a little difficult to write a review on it. I've read through some of the others and saw that almost all reviewers had problems. Some were trying to solve the riddle (the more confidence displayed, the less successful they were). Perhaps it's best to paraphrase what one of the reviewers wrote: try and go through this film as if through a dream, through reality enhanced. Enhanced reality feels very much like the opposite, and this is the feel of the film. From the choice of colours to acting to ambivalence about identity, the result is as hypnotic as it's unsettling. The very simple story is told very plainly, but underlying is the intricacy of a nightmare. The discomfort feels like a single, stretched emotion. Something about this film works wonderfully, and as with the best of literature that narrates between the lines I wasn't always able to tell why (that went the same way for me with the spider-theme: it worked before I understood). The music is an inseparable part of the film. The film wouldn't have been the same with another soundtrack, a large part of what works in it isn't merely carried by it, but co-created. Pleasant also, albeit in a more common sense, to be finally able after quite some time to give a best vote for an achieved fusion of everything that makes a film for the viewer, unsettling, challenging and deeply rewarding. 10 out of 10 Theraphosae.

Wendy and Lucy (2008)

Subtle, suggestive and engaging - a magic little island within the polluted film ocean

[9/10 · 7 April 2014]

Simplicity, when employed wisely, can serve as an enhancement. Subtlety almost always does. Of all the films I've seen in recent months, including high budget productions and much artistry, this quiet drama with few words, a simple plot and more suggestions than out-spun explanations about the protagonist's background has hypnotised me the most. Everything about this film is just right, every word, however mundane. The carrier is without doubt the lead actress: she's done her job if you feel the person on screen actually has to exist, and you do. Williams is perfectly cast; it's perfect if one is convinced that no other should have played a part. Beside this Wendy's plight might feel awfully familiar to some. Feel, as it is the making that successfully makes the bleak experience of being stranded in a town with a possibly even bleaker past and no real idea about the future tangible. The film is to a large degree an in-between the lines reader. And nothing is added that isn't necessary. Very well done, by anyone involved.

47 Ronin (2013)

47 Movies. With Keanu.

[3/10 · 21 March 2014]

I went to see this film mainly for 2 reasons. For once, the story of the 47 Ronin is one I sort of grew up with, and I strive to see any film adaptation made. And here I also wanted to know what on Earth Keanu Reeves had to do in it. The answer is that thanks to ultra-libertarian screen-writing and Mr Reeves' presence itself the viewer is to experience the privilege of watching a whole number of movies for the admission of one. I just wish it'd been movies we haven't already seen. To be clear from the start: I don't mind a U.S. production stamping out an English language version on the theme, and I'm more than fine with an all-Japanese cast supporting Keanu. The choice would be between keeping the tale in Japan or do a 'Magnificent Seven' with it; the decision was made for the former, so I want the actors to be Japanese. Neither do I have much of a problem with those actors then delivering their lines in English (this is way different from and much better than having Brits and Americans playing Russians with a by then unnecessary attempt of a Russian accent) – if a studio isn't brave enough to finance the project in the language of the place it's set in and present the audience with this – gee, god – challenge, that's again one of two choices, and I can either live with that or do the honourable thing. Of course, if the screenplay asks for Keanu Reeves to be the center of things, he'd have to learn some Japanese, but naturally that isn't the point. The problem is that despite all ambitions one could grant the project it is still a vehicle film. This becomes painfully clear every time the principal actor isn't involved in a scene, for then the film fares best. This isn't at all Keanu's fault. Our most beloved mime dug deep in his tool- kit and decided for the appropriate approach to his role: the Klaatu- way. Minimally accented facial expression, heavy stress on the mostly slow motions. Which is perfect for a part that is essentially a Jedi knight, trained by the best of superior mythical creatures and without whom the bunch (now we know it, they're just Samurai, and they needed an American played outsider to kick ass for them) would never make it, shown right at the outset. If you happened to watch the trailer and wonder where that huge monster they're hunting fits in, you'll keep at it when you're watching the whole; that one, witches turning dragons or breathing white widow spiders, and that order of mythical eagle-head creatures, all not only threaten our heroes but also the actual story from being buried under everything goes-wonderland. But anyways, that monster is brought down by Keanu single-handedly while a whole hunting gang fails. That's some serious Kso right there, and after that had really gone down we eventually find indispensable Keanu on a harbor island where he'd turned into Logan and show-fights even the most rednecked monster-sailor off the boards. You know where this is going. There's even a variation of Neo's 'This will end tonight.' Don't get me wrong. Once surrendering to this 47 movies in one it can be quite entertaining, by the time they enter that village to get swords made by the finest sword makers I was kinda hoping they'd find Hattori Hanzo. It just totally undermines the central story. More so than the clichés. Speaking of which, when will Hollywood learn to trust in some degree of nuance? While the castle of the gentle lord is bathed in sunlight and colours – Seppuku is always committed right on time for cherry- blossoming – the villain, with a sexually charged witch and an armoured version of Richard Kiel's Jaws as his side-kicks, rules over a mainly black clothed army within a monster- version of a castle set within the misty, dark, desolate mountains of what is undoubtedly Mordor – we get it, he's the bad guy. I'm trying to imagine the project funded for an all-Japanese crew, including the writer, for the same cast but without the obvious vehicle purpose that prompted Keanu Reeves and thus his character. The multi- movie sickness would have been averted. This way 46 Ronin might stir uncomfortably in their graves, and one is spinning. I give it 3 stars nonetheless, one for giving the ground to Japanese actors, one because it still looks very pretty, and one for giving much screen presence to Min Tanaka, Hiroyuki Sanada and, foremost, Rinko Kikuchi as the witch.

Only God Forgives (2013)

Sheer brilliance.

[10/10 · 29 July 2013]

With some films it's a given that they'll divide. That is by no means a safe indicator for quality, or even anything interesting in general. In the specific case Nicholas Winding Refn it is, though. The division in regards to 'Only God Forgives' isn't created by the much discussed violence, thankfully. It's generated by the director's uncompromising demands for what this film had to be and how it had to look like. It's pace, it's contrasts, the reduced acting, arriving at aesthetics that are at once hypnotic and uncomfortable. It is very hard not to think of 'Lynchian', and not wrong - it's in the music as well -, but it is a 'Lynchian' Refn would have created even if Lynch hadn't ever made any films. There's a sense of constant threat running through the film as a red line, and one of peculiar melancholy. The heart of it, both character-wise and, to me, in terms of acting is Vithaya Pansringarm's Chang. There can't be a better example for the effect of understatement, of presence and over-the-whole-film looming than Pansringarm's play, creating a most compelling persona beyond good and evil with the most minute gestures and incredible clarity. There's a need to mention the music, without which the film would have been another, which is how it goes with successful marriages between score and image, and it is one of my favourite works of Martinez to date. It's not the easiest of ways to spend a film's length evening, which, in this case, speaks for it already; I spent the 90 minutes transfixed, and the film propelled its director to the top of my most wanted (to watch) list.

Anna Karenina (I) (2012)

Ingenious

[10/10 · 12 January 2013]

This film provided me with the most pleasant surprise, as I hadn't read nor heard anything about it and had gone seeing it because of the source matter and the cast. The surprise came with the film's major strength, its main concept. Already after the first minutes the - excuse the, surely groan-some, comparison - somewhat Gondryish choice for an untidy backstage that provides the most fluent opportunity for gliding scenery changes felt as if there couldn't be a better way to bring this drama to the screen. and with the means a very welcome light-hearted air blew in for the first half. The never pretentious, continuously surprising style of the narration was completed by a line-up of superb actors at their best; one of my personal favourites here being Matthew Macfadyen, who really shined. This is not alone a well working attempt of bringing a heavy piece of literature to the screen, not just costume drama, but an innovative, energetic, at times almost surreal adventure into the ways how. Just brilliant.

Excision (2012)

Excellent!

[10/10 · 13 October 2012]

Categories can be helpless and misleading. And while there are horror elements, this film is mainly drama, often comedy, to a bitter end. A no holds barred indie of the best, build from brilliant performances by leads and even the smallest supporting roll (and including wonderful moments with John Waters, Ray Wise & Malcolm McDowell), a smart script and the flourishing imagination of the writer/director. Performance-wise the film is carried by leads AnnaLynne McCord and Traci Lords, both being mesmerizing. And while the first impression might be that of a cliché over-the-top mother/outsider daughter relationship, with the plot progressing we see the thing being a lot more loaded, complex and convincing. McCord is a real discovery for me. Her character, intentionally or not, feels quite like an extension of Emily Perkins' Bridget in Ginger Snaps, but without copying it. And again, any thought of this being a bit too much of outsider image is soon removed by amassing subtleties in McCord's performance; there is a clear idea behind the conception of Pauline. So while there are familiar themes they're building matter, things to be shown and said are shown and said directly (and technically flawless) and the ending, up to the last frame, should really get to you. More from Mr. Bates, please, more of such opportunities for Mrs. Lords, and please, more of McCord.

Heaven's Gate (1980)

The true Western

[10/10 · 6 September 2012]

What makes a flop? There are several ways of explanation for, numerous ingredients to the fate of 'Heaven's Gate', ranging from the director's obsession for detail that spawned a then-financial record overdraft to critical reaction after release. Kris Kristofferson allegedly stated that it was a political slaughter, an attempt to silence a reminder of an uncomfortable chapter in history. In the end, it is the artistic result, the film, that counts, and here the only explanation for the explosive box office failure, if not blind trust in critics, might be impatience. The movie had been cut down to a most minimal length, however. Having finally been able to view the longer 3.40 hrs version I wish that back then a patient audience with more trust in their own judgement had submitted themselves. 'Heaven's Gate' is the most accurate inaccurate film I can think of, and I put a lot more weight on the accurate-bit. It is inaccurate in regards to all the historic characters it uses, it is inaccurate about who the small landowners were, it is even inaccurate about many of the most important details of the Johnson County War. And it doesn't matter. Should people want to watch it as a history lesson then it serves as a signpost. It IS a history lesson about the realities of late 19th century Wilder West, meanwhile, and so much so, and in so much detail, that it is in my eyes the best, the only true Western I have ever seen. The drama, both the individual and the larger, owe to the long and slow build-up, the shocks to their relentless realism. And it is crammed full with iconic moments that stick to memory. So in the end, it's the film that wins over all the hardship. 'Heaven's Gate' is a master piece - watching the long version is mandatory. And it appears that every actor, even the smallest supporting part, believed in their director. A warning to all animal lovers, particularly those of horses: this film gave birth to the American Humane Society's monitoring in all major motion pictures following.

The Orphanage (2007)

Absolute creme!

[10/10 · 25 July 2012]

Right out at the start: this is still one of my absolute favourites from the recent years. Everything about it is just right, story, script, editing, photography, acting. Concerning the latter, about half the movie is Belen Rueda, almost tangible up there on the screen. Without her, one reckons, the movie would still be superb, but having watched it it's very hard to imagine it with another lead actress. It's her face, her voice, her character that stays before all. Don't just expect another ghost story. You'll walk into an engaging drama, and also the exhibit of how to make every single take count. Every film is a manipulation of emotions, this one knows how to play the chords, and the result is a symphony of beauty, shivers, tragedy and suggestion that might get you to multiple viewings; for me it was the 5th time last night. And once again it was a Spanish production that mounted a master piece. I marked this review as spoiler-containing, and here's the spoiler: after watching it, and in case you didn't get it fully, ask yourself who in fact locked Laura in the bathroom...

Intruders (I) (2011)

Perfect fantasy-horror of the new Hispanic school

[10/10 · 23 July 2012]

Within the field of horror, fantasy and mystery something has claimed and gained growing space that could almost be called a new Hispanic school, sporting Spanish and Latin-American writers and directors, who, also advancing into English language cinema, keep those 3 sub-genres tightly together, departing from cheap shock moments, gore and, most importantly, treaded out paths of all too predictable haunted spirit- and other solutions in favour of drama, complex story-lines, an involving root-idea and the very basic of fear. Not surprisingly, especially in respect of this last aspect, many of these stories feature children as important characters, with the adult world around them in contrast where it's about perception. "Intruders" is a very fine example of this renaissance, a story that builds directly on the child's fear of the bogeyman in the dark corner. While delivering moments of genuine goosebumps – in fact more often when something is expected to happen, which is precisely what makes a child pulling the blanket over its head – the drama unfolds with the progress of discovery of what lies at the bottom of the mystery; the conclusion of which I simply loved. The acting of everyone in the cast is top notch without ever reaching over the service to the film, montage and sequence, so important to this story, is perfect. I'll give it the highest note, and be it just for my reaction on the solution in the end.

Some Guy Who Kills People (2011)

Works on all levels

[9/10 · 18 July 2012]

Here's what taking characters seriously, especially in comedic treatment, will do for you when blending with imagination and good acting. The mentally unstable lead character is conceived and played, for once, free of cliché, but in every detail realistic, nuanced and fittingly understated. Which is always refreshing amidst the sea of 'funny' films where humour is killed with an overdose of silliness. biggest points for this one are balance and character emphasis, and a fluent, smart script. Karen Black's cynical one-liner mom, the likable, laconic sheriff are memorable, next to Kevin Corrigan's lead it is for me Ariel Gade who dominates the film acting-wise - she's not merely a child-actress but clearly a fully grown (in the sense of the word) professional. The father-daughter relationship and Ken's attempts for normality weigh heavier than the revenge-killing plot, for which I'm grateful as well. Excellent achievement.

There Be Dragons (2011)

How on earth...?

[1/10 · 14 January 2012]

There are some reviews that won't do without spoilers. As this one, and since the bottom line reads, 'don't bother,' it's gonna spiked with them. Should you bother, don't expect to see an edifying depiction of the Spanish civil war. Starting with the purely dramatic aspect, you're in for an attempt of the sentimental that tries to follow in the footsteps of a number of past epics without ever succeeding. Every atrocity, every battle and every memorable scene of conflict desperately contrived to be one feels much like the flashbacks in other movies that only serve to clarify past events in order to drive on the plot, the music making it even worse and more unbelievable. Which would be bad enough. But the specific contents and their implications are simply uncomfortable, in an unwelcome sense. What is seen of murder and injustice is mainly committed by revolutionaries, e.g. the killings of priests, the unthinking mob-behavior against a single, wrongly accused. While one shouldn't doubt that each side in a civil war 'misbehaves', Franco's forces appear simply as an army in contrast and the only crimes on behalf of that side we see are committed by one of the two main protagonists, who in the end receives his personal absolution on the death bed, to sweetest music. The red rebells appear to a large part as the barbaric culprits. When this is not contrasted by what else happened the message is morally doubtful. No mentioning either that the pursue of priests had one of its roots in the catholic church indeed collaborating with Franco's regime. Does this excuse the killings? No. Does it help to make the rage a tad more understandable? Yes. But the movie doesn't intend to pay reference to what the above mentioned character called much more complicated. Latest with the end credits we know that it's a celebration of Josemaria Escriva, the founder of – Opus Dei??? Yes, indeed. And thus we follow the young priest through what the filmmakers intend to call his ordeals. Not that he has the opportunity to realize much action that makes his supposed later saintly status comprehensible. He flees, not that he shouldn't, hides, which is recommendable, crosses the Pyrenees, where the music reaches its intolerable climax. In between he has terrible moments of doubt, which perhaps moves us deeply if we are priests ourselves. To everyone who isn't but is still moved what is rather recommended is some scrutinizing of Opus Dei itself. So, what has ridden Mr. Joffe to hammer together this movie? Clearly blind catholic faith.

Red State (2011)

A sledgehammer where needed

[14 September 2011]

I've just become a Kevin Smith fan, and this because of one, this movie. Kevin Smith has an issue with religion, and he has it because he understands that the issue is not merely one of different world views or opinions, but of stalling progress, ranging from nuisance to dangerous insanity. Poking fun at it and revealing its absurdities is one weapon, and Smith has used it before, but in the face of stubborn fundamentalism and deluded orthodoxy designed to rape the minds of children, growing into atrocity and demanding first rows in too many aspects of life there are chapters where jest simply won't do it any more. This is certainly more prominent a problem in the U.S. than here in Europe, but we still have enough to taste here to get how real it is what Smith needs to address. He chose a sledgehammer as a tool, and it works on every level. What begins seemingly as a 'teenagers fall into the hands of maniacs' soon brings up repercussions of multiple events, lesser and better known, no one can be proud of. Michael Parks creates an utterly scary because possible religious demagogue, causing the viewer sheer bottomless unease. Smith won't stop with the fanatics, however. Where evil is simply dangerous derangement its counterpart consists of people who don't even have the right spot for where the heart belongs. Should anyone think of the result as over-blown, comprised into 90 minutes escalating fanaticism simply does blow over, and Smith' dramatic sense finds the appropriate pace. Beside all this, and beside each single performance being excellent (notably in particular Parks, Goodman and Bishé) the movie is also an example in fresh filmmaking. Shot with a comparably ridiculous budget and making the best of uses of digital technique it excels in action, drama, suspense and editing, big cinema of purpose as opposed to money-wasting operas of uninvolving excess. It is also superbly scripted, and the lines are spoken away from cliché. I give it the highest rating and am looking forward to what's next from Smith & collaborators.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

By far my favourite Bond

[31 July 2011]

This is more in response to some of the negative critiques I've read here since I cannot quite follow their arguments, where in fact arguments they were. Naturally we all perceive what we perceive and form opinions from that, at times, however one can be left a little astonished, me in this case wondering whether some folks have watched the movie in slow motion, at least where it concerns the action scenes. My own eyes watched utterly well crafted, brilliantly paced action, and I mean each one of the sequences, but, hell, a step-up from the mind- blowing parcour-scene in the previous Bond might still be a little lame for some. The most incomprehensible re-curring lament in those reviews regarded a 'poor story-line'. What can one say? Take the majority of earlier Bond- movies, including the worshipped Connery-era and most of the Moore- vehicles, pick one and sum up the story, then do the same with the story of 'Quantum of Solace.' That should do the trick. Perhaps the story was a little too complex for some? It is a little more complex than 'Moonraker', yet still easy enough to follow and, I dare say, much more engaging, as a story. This already having been so with 'Casino Royale', 'Quantum of Solace' is an organic extension of the former that establishes its own life and power quickly with the first scenes already. Each more defined action-sequence has its part in this story, which remains grimmer than any Bond previous to the 2 redefinitions, and on the whole we have drama gripping over into the action. Filmmaking- wise there is no match in any of the predecessors. When things threaten to become repetitious as Bond has to battle his way out at the opera through an out-numbering force once again, Forster turns off the sound and leaves Puccini's 'Te Deum' from 'Tosca', as the only soundtrack, with just the right effect and from the right second on, turning the scene and whole sequence into one of my favourite. Craig's Bond himself has been criticised by some as a far departure from the 'traditional' Bond, being 'reduced to a thug.' Many people have luckily noticed that his Bond is more 'traditional' than any of those before him if measured by Fleming's work, but much more important is that this Bond is intentionally still a Bond 'in the making', thus a far more interesting character, as he's more liable to mistake and failure than those in the past. 'Thug' still doesn't describe him, as he's clearly more vulnerable. But yes, a departure it is, whether the purists like it or not. Yes, for now it is over with the funny gadgetry, for the sake of a more believable secret servant. Yes, it is over with the superiority, in favour of the possibility that Bond may indeed fail. Yes, it is over with Bond's approaching dangerous situations with a mocking smile, as neither he nor we can be certain anymore that the next stunt will close with an amusing one-liner. If you miss all this, there are 20 old Bond-movies to watch again, I prefer a good movie to one that focuses on upholding expectations and traditions; all those feats can't be build out much more and aren't really compatible with this new, real Bond, both the character and his world. The humour surfaces seldom in the constantly dangerous universe, but when it does it has a wit by its own instead merely a Bond who must seem witty. As for Bond it goes here for the villain, who seemed to some obviously not villainous enough. It's another tradition, of course. The Bond- villain and the Bond-henchmen. Not only are they completely and utterly evil by necessity (although there had been exceptions), but they must distinguish themselves visually as well, by a physical difference preferably, and be it just an eye-patch. Mathieu Amalric's villain is utterly evil and distinguishes himself by nothing from any other villain we might meet in this world without recognizing them as such, particularly those with money and plans of grandeur. And his acting, again intentionally, does nothing further to distinguish his character from the villains we do recognize, at least not up to the point where, bereft of his henchmen and the fruits of his plan, this petite man's sheer fury alone overpowers the much better trained Bond for a moment. So at least for this instance (the movie) it's also a good bye to the standard villain who so far could only be replaced with another variation of the standard that only on the surface looked so different from the previous. This time in favour of a villain as we can expect them, if yet not recognize them on the street: one of a number within a greater organization behind, deceiving in being unspectacular, driving an agenda like a resolution, all very much like, yes, like politicians. And still, for the audience with only a quantum more sensuality, forgive the pun, Amalric manages to pack more silent menace into a single glance on a plane when a CIA-gimp laughs a trifle too silly than any Auric Goldfinger will manage with an array of nervous gestures. In the end a movie works or not as a whole, and now and then the experience will differ. I do dare to think, however, that some of the critics for whom the basis of their bad experience is what they miss of the old Bond might gain from a second viewing. For me almost everything attacked was precisely what made this Bond the most accomplished so far, particularly when viewed in tie with 'Casino Royale.' It is extremely well shot and bears the visible mark of a director's work, not only that of a producers' executive director. It is a new Bond indeed, and it's a Bond as a part of the major film- productions' awakenings, which is also signified by having truly gifted directors signing on. Beside Bond also Mendes returns.

From Hell (2001)

Poor Mary Kelly

[3/10 · 15 June 2011]

This movie, loosely based on the graphic novel of the same name, does not offer an accurate account of the events in Whitechapel, autumn 1888, and it doesn't pretend that it does, so folks preoccupied with the Ripper-case don't have to rush and fill the goof-section with corrections regarding the actual ongoings. It also doesn't rely much on the graphic novel, with the exception of the choice for the perpetrator and all this would imply, although different from the novel keeps it a who-dunnit till the end. The movie is a Hollywood action-horror-romance populated with historical figures who underwent even more liberty, ranging from shallow drafting over purpose-posing to audacious character-alteration. In this sense, recreating parts of Whitechapel in Prague, and this still way too clean, was with all the inaccuracy probably not necessary. But OK, it's a show, and the real background story remains captivating enough, as well as Depp's acquired accent and Coltrane's presence.

Too many things strangle the effort, however, starting with the main weakness of Heather Graham being cast and outfitted as Mary Kelly. While the other victims, struggling prostitutes in the most ragged quarters of London, were all made up to more or less look that way, torn clothes, unmade hair, bad teeth and no make-up, not to mention the required acting, Graham's Mary Kelly sticks out the way Cinderella would if arriving in Whitechapel after the ball: hair perfect, careful make-up, tidy, clean, unharmed dresses, and Miss Graham is ready for the cast- party. Needless to say, we never see her getting drunk or even just attempting to go after her trade like the others. But then she's the love-interest, of course. Which is another very ill-advised idea, and we see virtually all cliché Hollywood-rules unfolding, a killer when it comes to this particular crime-case.

The movie superficially shines with a cast of very able actors, Depp, Richardson, Holm, Coltrane, the late wonderful Katrin Cartlidge, to name a few, and yet, although the fantasy- and horror-genre ever so often tickles surprising performances out of well known stars, nothing breathtaking happens here, with the exception of Holm's play (although watch, he's doing the chin-thing again), too deep the tracks of expectation in character-behaviour are, and too dominant.

Fusing an inspector and a self acclaimed medium, who both had been involved, to a clairvoyant inspector might have, with some tolerance, given this re-telling of the story some spice, but the idea went out in a puff in the end.

The choice to stick to the graphic novel's conspiracy-take and involvement of the Freemasonry, which Moore himself, with good reason, didn't insist on being the most promising one, decides a course, of course, one that had already been taken once with 'Murder By Decree', and by taking it a lot of rather interesting theories, indicators and characters have to go out the window, but here we go.

'From Hell' is pure entertainment, shallow, spotless, with a camera-work good for the eye, lines that fit together and no claim for authenticity. It kept me watching, mainly for the never ceasing fascination with the Whitechapel-murders, leaning back for the ride. It's not a very good movie, though. I'd give it a well-meaning 4, but the Graham-Kelly, so present throughout and in favour over a chance for an interesting Mary Kelly, spoils it. Hence a 3.

And: will there ever be a truly engaging, good movie about the subject?

In Her Skin (2009)

The bravery to attempt explanation - an uncomfortable yet compelling watch

[8/10 · 13 June 2011]

From time to time you'll find filmmakers who won't have it easy on themselves. And when it comes to an attempt to explain such a thing as the murder of 15 year old dance student Rachel Barber you have to be such a filmmaker, as from the outset you won't be allowed to seek refuge in the cliché representation of a villainous male predator. Barber had been killed by her former sitter and neighbour Caroline Reed Robertson, here Caroline Reid, and it's her motivation that lies at the heart of the ongoings and the movie. Thus it was a wise and well working choice to have the story being told from 1st the victim's family's before the culprit's point of view, finally from that of the victim. After the very astute and convincing observation of the parents the most harrowing of these sections was the intimate dive into Caroline's world. The director was probably well advised not to mention Caroline's lawyers' suspicion that she'd been abused as a child, but within moments after her introduction it becomes clear that 'something profound must have gone wrong. Her neglecting father isn't let off well, and we're already induced to ask ourselves where abuse begins, e.g. with the bereft of the most basic of all children's rights and needs, love. Caroline grew into adulthood with no bricks to erect even just the most feeble confidence and self-respect. Instead she was consumed by self-loathing, unhappiness about her appearance and probably afflicted from very early on by that most vicious enemy that comes with alienation, loneliness. A malignant process furthered by incompetent parents whenever she attempted to make herself heard. Caroline's inner world is presented in much detail, foremost by acting, then also by her extensive diary-writing and scribbling on paper and walls. In contrast with the suffering of Barber's family one cannot accuse of an attempt to excuse, meanwhile it is vital to explain. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison, hence while we're looking at a saddening world of distortion and disturbance hardly any of us will be able to fully comprehend, she was not declared legally insane, a distinction that poses a problem in contemporary psychiatry outside crime as well: if you're not psychotic you have – problems. No matter how clearly ill you are. The acting throughout is superb, with a special praise for Ruth Bradley as Caroline. She gets everything right, in particular the ricochets between desperate outbursts of uncontrolled self-hatred and sudden walls of defense. It's to fear that Bradley will fall victim to contests of model-prettiness and less controversial role-CVs in the movie industry, otherwise offers should rain down on her. In all, each actor's understanding makes them optimal extensions for North's filming tools, down to the realistic depiction of the traumatizing of Rachel's family. It's an uncomfortable yet compelling watch with no holes barred, making it hard if not impossible to rely on a quick condemnation of the murderess despite the graveness of the deed. My voting-system might be different from that of others, giving 10 to movies that have a power equal to a revolution, hence my 8, leaning towards 9, shall be a deep recommendation.