Change Your Image
simonf
Reviews
Elementarteilchen (2006)
Avoid at all costs
This movie has as much to do with art or originality as a toilet graffiti written with lipstick. (Not that graffiti can't be art or original, but they very rarely are.) It manages to be, just because it can, extremely sappy and extremely crass at the same time, and proud of it.
In comparison with it "American Pie" is innocence itself, and "Sleepless in Seattle" is a sophisticated drama. Oh, and "K-Pax" is rigorously true to scientific facts.
Don't step in it.
(I went to see the movie accidentally without checking it out first, which I usually do. This experience reminds me why.)
Kung fu (2004)
Complete junk
The movie is nothing more than a bunch of unfunny, dumbed-down gags, gratuitous, cruel violence amid uninteresting, non-beautiful "martial" sequences. I had to leave halfway. The movie is made deliberately badly, which is probably the worst sin I can think of in this business. The only reason I gave it 2 and not 1 star is relatively good camera work. Stay away.
Comparison with Jackie Chun, Buster Keaton or Quentin Tarantino give this movie way too much credit. It does not even qualify as slapstick. It's a "Dumb and Dumberer"-type comedy.
You have been warned.
Kingdom of Heaven (2005)
The movie is a disaster artistically, and just a notch above disaster
Major spoilers follow.
Most of the characters act badly, including Bloom, and horrible direction makes things even worse. The movie resembles a comic book in that everything is done in the same tone and color, and the viewer is dragged from one scene to another which show what he is supposed to feel, only it's impossible to feel anything except for utter bewilderment.
That said, Saladin is very impressive, a wise, cunning, but humane figure. Some supporting characters are alive, but the main love line (completely fictional) is done horribly, horribly wrong. I felt no sympathy for the heroes, nor understood their motivations.
Now for the historical part.
BLACKSMITHS ARE NOT ABLE TO FIGHT MOUNTED KNIGHTS, USE SWORDS OR PLAN FORTIFICATIONS!!! A knight was trained in his art since early teen years! Balian was a few decades older at that period, and he was never a blacksmith or out of touch with his father. Balian, as well as Raymund of Tripolis (called Tiberias in the movie), *did* take part in the battle of Hittin, and not cowardly sat it out. Balian never planned the defense of Jerusalem, and his contribution to the relatively peaceful surrender was much cooler and more dramatic than shown in the movie - he came in to fetch his wife, promised Saladin that he won't help the defense, but then, asked by desperate citizens, went back and asked Saladin to free him from his vow, who nobly agreed to. Needless, to say, Balian never went back to France or had a relationship with Sybilla. Baldwin IV, the leper king, died a few years earlier than shown in the movie, was mute and blind by the end of his life, and he would not be able to wear a metal mask in the Palestinian heat. Finally, Richard the Lionheart did not pass through France on the way to Palestine, he went by sea through Sicily (land travel was much more expensive). According to military experts, the armor, clothing, weapons and siege procedures are highly inaccurate. Eg, you don't have just thin flimsy gates in a castle, because then they would be broken down immediately. You build narrow defensible passages inside towers.
Russkiy kovcheg (2002)
Tech marvel, cultural disaster
First of all, I am Russian. I don't have to apologize when I say that this movie is horrible. And here is why.
Ok, we are supposed to marvel at how so many people rehearsed for one non-interrupted shot. Cool, so Sokurov did it. A+ in logistics. Does it add to the movie artistically? *Can* it add to the movie artistically? Does it have anything to do with the movie's content? The only valid reason for it that I see is to create the media buzz. He should not have bothered.
I can almost see what the director thought. Hmmm, regular documentaries are boring... let's throw some plot elements in. The film is targeted at the Western audience... let's throw some cheap shots at the Russian culture to please the audience at first, and later we can refute them. It's good to highlight cultural continuity by showing people from different epochs... let's juxtapose them. It's the 21st century... let's make the movie a little existential by constantly wondering what's going on and a little surreal by doing some silly things...
Boy, oh boy. He should have stuck with a documentary. Or better, stage a few insightful but clear sketches with several key historical figures instead of showing them in passing through obscured windows. Poor foreign viewers think if that those scenes are unclear, they must be missing a lot of context that would make the scenes meaningful. Wrong! All the context is spelled out, and if it's hard to find the meaning, it's because it's not there. Catherine the Great running around in search of a bathroom is meaningful? Please!
Sokurov missed a tremendous chance of driving home the tragedy of the 1917 revolution by contrasting just a few shots of the Winter Palace being taken over with the opulence that reigned before. The Russian history as shown is exactly the kind of history regular viewers tend to abhor - confusing, irrelevant, muddled. And with the amount of publicity the movie got abroad this could have been a watershed event giving foreigners a glimpse into the wonderful, heart-rending, controversial chain of events that defined Russia. This screw-up of a movie is unforgiveable.
And, oh God, the dialogue is terrible. The subtitles won't appear to make much sense, because the spoken words are equally stupid (and not lip-synced well, it appeared to me). Senility is not the least flattering thing that comes to mind. In the movie genre, if the protagonist wonders where he is, then let the plot resolve the enigma. If the plot is about something different, then, for pity's sake, stop wondering and have the protagonist (and the viewer) accept the mystery and move on. The constant repetitions of the informational tidbits (very few in number, btw) are incredibly annoying. Are they supposed to sound meaninful and profound? The blind woman is out of place. The sailors are incongruous. The foreign visitor himself is supposed to represent a 19-th century Frenchman de Custin, who wrote a scathing critique of tzarist Russia. Instead we see a doddering old fool.
What a shame.
Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)
Deep and refreshing...
I am not going to repeat other comments other than to express the sheer delight, artistry and completeness of this movie. Walt Disney Co should really close shop and bow out now - nothing it ever did compares to "Spirited Away".
Funny how such an alien world feels completely true-to-life. The director must be a very enlightened man indeed - he knows that he can afford to break the rules as much as he wants, because for him it is impossible to break the rules.
Remember how you felt when you first came into this world? Of course not. It was wonderful. It was frightening. The world was illogical (not that you knew about logic then). It lacked any explanation (not that you needed explanations then). Things just were, and you lived with them and were changed by them.
And you also came in through a tunnel...
Le violon rouge (1998)
Could not watch it :)
Everyone seems to love this movie... thought I'd throw a bit of contrariness...
Usually I enjoy well-made European movies (and even occasional American ones :). I am not as far into art that I can really enjoy Fellini, but I hope to get there. However, I literally could not watch Red Violin. I barely managed to sit through 15 minutes of it and had to stop. It was completely, unreasonably uninteresting. However, the problem is not with the movie, it's with me.
I don't dig music. I am not tone-deaf, and I enjoy an occasional tune on the radio. (And when I do, violin isn't my favorite instrument. It's too squeaky, IMO :) I own only maybe a couple of CDs, and do not have any urge to buy any more or to listen to music in general. And apparently, the movie loses everything when you take out the interest in music. Without it, the first 15 minutes of the movie is just a soap-opera-style sequence of events, totally bland and non-gripping. I simply do not care what happens to the instrument and to the protagonists.
I wish I could say it's a masterpiece... I did not see it as such.
East Is East (1999)
Not for Hollywood-weaned babies
I liked it a lot. As soon as I saw the statue of Christ dancing to the parade music in the very beginning, I realized the director is my kind of fella. Far from Hollywood standards of what a comedy (can't mix intelligent and silly) or drama (the lost should see The Light) must be, the director shows the life as it is (I mean, he shows the life as I see it :), leaping from fun to tragedy that soon may turn into love. There is no emphasis on the bright or dark sides of family life, they both offset and complement each other. Life just goes on, and the plot is not tied neatly at the end.
Yes, not much of Pakistani culture is shown positively in the film (regrettably - it would add more depth). But come on, you politically correct bigots, this is not the Official Textbook for the Grade School! The kids who grew up in the English culture would feel exactly as they do in the movie about the restrictive Pakistani customs. Have you forgotten what it is to be an irreverent teen?
The acting is superb. I didn't notice it, because I believed the story too much to be distracted by idly watching the actors perform. My only complaint is that the Mother's swings from suffering to obedience seemed slightly forced to me.
The Game (1997)
Good movie, lousy ending
*****SPOILERS HERE***********
Damn Hollywood! Until the last five minutes, it was a dark, serious, philosophical tale that questions the reality itself, a brilliant conspiracy theory. If it ended when Conrad was killed, the movie would be pretty decent: it would tell that you only create the reality by believing in it.
But this! Not that Christmas carols are a cheesy art form: "Groundhog Day" has the same ending which fits perfectly. But I think it's the peak of bad taste to mix such strong ideas with such obvious pampering.
My only consolation is in one minor detail. Did anyone notice that after Conrad reappears, his shirt is bloodied not only in front, but also behind? There is only one natural explanation to it, and hopefully the masterminds have not had time to daub the red paint there. The meaning I would like to see is that Conrad really was killed. And the reason for his walking and talking is unknown but sinister...