Change Your Image
niggbrotha
Reviews
Life in Cold Blood (2008)
Latest from BBC's The Life Of Series
Despite its name, Life in Cold Blood concentrates almost entirely on Reptilians, a subject that has been exhausted these days. So, in that respect, I will only discuss things that make this one unique. First of all, it's David Attenborough, whose pleasant voice and passionate storytelling keeps you plugged throughout the series. Then there are things inherent to using latest technology on reptile tracking, especially in behavior that hasn't been filmed before. One of that is the painstaking job of trying to film a rattlesnake making a kill, a task that took days and real personal hazards to complete. Another is the sound made by turtles mating, or filming lizards that give birth to live young and mate for life. Then of course there is this absolutely unique behavior among certain crocodiles who tend for young that aren't necessarily their own. The list of new things can go on... In a few words, for anyone interested into this class of Vertebrates, this documentary comes as a safe recommendation. What I missed was more covering of reptiles' evolutionary biology, which is such an interesting subject in itself: how they evolved from Amphibian-like creatures 300 million years ago and at least some consideration onto how they achieved their current diversity. Also, one order of reptiles has been completely ignored, the Tuataras, even though their behavior and biology contains aspects just as interesting that have rarely been filmed.
The scripted text binds the story together, whereas filming & sound is as good as one expects from BBC's nature series. What I missed was the artistic quality I've so much enjoyed in Life in the Undergrowth, who continues to stand as perhaps the most gorgeous nature documentary ever to be filmed.
A very fitting bonus is how each episode, and there are five of them, ends with a section that describes the process of shooting and other technicalities, as well as narrator's personal view on the subjects filmed. Attenborough's lifetime dedication and genuine marvel of nature's artworks are to be met with highest praise.
Africa addio (1966)
good movie, but disgusting comments
First of all I must say I'm currently filled with disgust with many of the comments expressed here. There is no reason for whites to take pleasure debasing themselves for acts they haven't personally been part of. If readers involved are so humane to forgive blacks for their past faults against whites (some of them portrayed in this very documentary), why can't they reciprocate this forgiveness for white men as well. The answer is more than obvious: their "humane" anti-racism is nothing more than mindless anti-WHITE racism using a rehashed Marxist rhetoric.
That being said, this unique documentary tries to cover the critical period when, caught between a climate of social unrest in their home countries (fuelled by "progressives" of the above type) and soviet-backed rebellions in their colonies, Europeans powers started to withdraw from their possessions. While doing so, they left behind their houses, their roads, their cities, their electricity, their civilization and never forgot to pour in billions in foreign aid for what soon became a hungry continent. How did the post-colonial regimes reciprocate? - They raped and massacred white nurses, who came there to provide FREE MEDICAL CARE for them. When a couple of white mercenaries went into a rescue mission and captured the ones involved in these unspeakable acts, one of the misguided viewers feels empathy for the black murderers (but none at all for the massacred white nurses)...
- They seized white estates using a "Africa for the Africans" rhetoric. Not a single "anti-racist" objects to this RACE right, although if we'd claim exactly the same for ourselves that would be, in their mind, "racism". Absolutely no compensation was given to the owners, as the movie shows. Once occupied by their "rightful" owners (according to anti-racists), estates went into normal African dereliction, horses were eaten and farmlands yielded no more crops. In no time, the same nation was begging for white man's MORAL DUTY TO HELP, although no amount of white financial compassion seems able to curb the "white devil" holly truth. Fact is, as the movie shows, each and every black African country followed exactly the same path: whites' properties seizing, dictatorship, bloody civil wars, begging for foreign aid, then while cashing in for the aid complaining that whites try to resurrect the colonial system by keeping blacks in a receiving state... Zimbabwe is the most recent example, while the acclaimed "new" South-Africa, where whites have been compelled through draconian international sanction to hand over the country they've built to its "rightful owners", represented through the voice of black communist leaders taught how to apply class struggle theories to a race struggle reality.
- They tried to line up and execute all remaining whites (Congo), only to be narrowly rescued by an US Commando. This act caused international uproar not because of Afro-Communist Congolese government's intention, but for US' intrusion into a sovereign nation's businesses...
- Soon upon consuming what whites left behind, African nations developed into Marxist dictatorships, as practically all of the "liberation movements" were backed by Soviet Union. The "dear leaders" imposed draconian control over their subjects, becoming unspeakably rich communists, while their naturally apathetic African subjects sunk into even greater destitution. The absurd linear borders, who kept rival tribes within the same country, while splitting others between two countries, have also contributed to an intrinsic lack of stability in African countries, where ethnic-based militia battle for dominance on ruins of a former colony.
Ultimately, this movie is unique among its own kind by showing glimpses of empathy for whites, which is quite simply considered RACIST (!) these days.
Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003)
thoroughly exemplary movie
Even though the story behind is largely fictional and the identity of the girl will always remain a mystery, it manages to resurrect not just Vermeer himself, but the very society in which he lived.
One of Netherlands' greatest Baroque painters, Vermeer was also a relatively moral bourgeois, concerned by his spiritual well being. This is pinpointed in the movie by his ultimate refusal to cave into a relationship with the servant girl. He ultimately stays behind his aging wife, his spoiled children and his untainted social status. Moreover, he actually diverts his feelings into an artistic direction.
No matter how the real story was like, the painting itself is a flawless masterpiece, making good usage of camera obscura and color nuances. I find it totally unbelievable the idea his daughter served him as a model. There is no physical resemblance between father and daughter and the "obscene" attitude of the girl (signifying innocence on the brink of vice) would be hardly reconcilable with a father's image of his own daughter.
There is no point to spoil the whole plot. Suffice to say it holds together fine and remains thoroughly believable. Acting is not just good, it is outright masterful. Scarlet Johanson's portrait of the girl is an work of art by itself. She plays hers role with such utter conviction and splendor, it left me deeply moved. Everyone is left to admire the quiet strength of character that emanates behind an illiterate servant girl's unspoiled physique. She is beautifully contrasted with the wife, where power is only external (in status and possessions such as jewelry), while the one beneath is a scared aging woman afraid she'll never going to exert the same influence she had onto the painter when she was younger. But the movie remains true to the age and there are no saints or villains in the story. One finds compassion even for the wife, whose attempts towards physical contact are met with indifference by hers husband.
Instead of being just a love story, this movie concentrates upon the emotional torment behind the act of artistic creation. The legacy of Flemish school will always be mankind's greatest artistic achievement into the art of painting. Its overall high level of quality and unmatched power of creativity could simply no longer be sustained by future generations of painters, who had no option but being parts of a slow decline process. Comparing Vermeer to Picasso, one can only deplore how much our art has degraded (if present at all among modern "artists").
Just as Pilate of Pontus once argued, I found no flaw in this beautiful movie. It is heartfully recommended to parents and children alike as a healthy alternative to the bleak output of our movie industry.
Der ewige Jude (1940)
propaganda
First of all, this is clearly a propaganda movie. Its purpose is NOT to provide solid rational expertise against Jews' questionable actions and political views, it's an attack on Judaism itself, from its Semitic beginnings to "progressive" political, social and "artistic" currents Jews have advocated. The movie's purpose is to instill visceral hatred of Jews, portraying them as "ferments of decomposition" and enemies of Europe ahead of time. The reason for doing so is very simple. From 1933 onwards, Jews have unleashed a vicious media campaign against Hitler after seeing their influence on German social and political sphere practically annihilated.
The "Wandering Jew" tries to document a Jewish conspiracy against European nations from immemorial times to WW2, whose outburst is thought as being the product of Jewish machinations. It portrays Jews as obligate parasites feeding on the wounds of their hosts, emitting substances that prevent the organism from reacting against the infection. In Nazi views such substances are: moral relativism, Bolshevism, degenerate art. To them, Nazi propaganda juxtaposes the hard-working, handsome, virtuous Aryan, carrier of an idealized (and politically charged, as seen in the sculptures always portraying people of Aryan type) image of European culture (thus delegitimizing the latter's irretrievable path towards decay, whose cause becomes attributed to Jews rather than its own exhaustion).
An interesting fact is the way this relation is portrayed belongs to radical Socialist propaganda, thus invalidating Jews' ridiculous claim that Nazism is the embodiment of capitalism (so-called "far-right"). On one hand, we have the Jew who hates work (which means, in Socialist parlor, PHYSICAL LABOR) and accumulates wealth through illicit means (by exploiting, deceiving, cheating), on the other we have the Aryan working enthusiastically under a factory's protective shadow. Being born in Communist Romania, I recall this image in just about every communist poster. After all, if one replaces Jews with Bourgeoisie, a communist would easily identify with the movie's message.
By far the most memorable scene is the one of Kosher slaughter. I won't spoil it, because I advise every one of you to watch this movie and decide yourselves what is true and what is untrue. The agony of the poor animal moved me deeply but it is also a cheap attempt to stir up additional public wrath.
Yet everything is done in such a flimsy fashion that it convinces no one. Its primary purpose, that of converting lost souls to the "Aryan cause" is NOT served. It would have done a much better case if the "documentary" would have stuck to modern realities. For all these reasons, I rate this as bad propaganda movie, technically inferior to Jews' own propaganda movies against Nazi Germany.
Ran (1985)
overrated
I watched this movie a couple of days ago and, despite its credits given by critics, I must admit not liking it at all. The script is indeed potent, but the way it's materialized fails much behind the director's goals. First of all, this had to be a dramatic movie, while it's actually not. Drama is realized through superficial means and honestly convinces no one. It rather depends on costumes, declamations, stereotypic behavior and forces of nature to achieve something which had to be achieved through EXPRESSIVE ACTING alone. The story drags and the empty space is filled by artsy artifice. All characters are one dimensional and badly acted. Some may argue overacting is a respectable Japanese fashion, but I still don't like it, because it forbids someone to immerse into the plot. The only interesting (and realistic) character is Lady Kaede, also the only one enjoying a respectable performance.
The first battle scene is outright ridiculous. Blood has orange colors (!), dead heroes stack one against another in a "dramatic" mass of arrows and bullets. Everyone dies except, of course, our main character, bound to have a more dignifying fate and miraculously surviving masses of stray bullets. If the movie ended there, having the main character avoid capture by committing seppuku, or even fearing taking his own life and letting bullets do the work, I would have found the movie enjoyable. But the movie goes on much more into a totally contrived and predictable direction. The end was exactly as I had expected.