Change Your Image
ron-van-wieringen
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Nr. 10 (2021)
Big disappointment for me
Let me start by saying that I'm one of the biggest Van Warmerdam fans out there. I saw all his films, most of them many times. The reason I love his films so much is that in all their absurdity they are totally believable.
Partially that's due to splendid acting, but also because the strange twists and crazy behaviour makes sense within the movie construct. Let me explain this: take for instance The Last Days Of Emma Blank, where Van Warmerdam plays the dog. Or in The Dress, where an old man pays a hooker, just to get a kiss. This seems absurd, but when you find out why he does that, it makes total sense.
So the movie follows a set of rules, which creates a world that is mad, but logical.
This is the biggest problem that I had with Nr.10.
The movie has only one plot twist, which is a big one. From that point, the leading roles suddenly switch to other people, the scenery changes, the story appears to be a totally different story than you thought, etc. It's more than the level of absurdity that you expect from Van Warmerdam. Which is great!
But there are a lot of elements that remain absurd and unacceptable within this world. To name a few:
- why is Gunther's daughter Lizzy secretly filming him?
- why doesn't anybody notice Lizzy when she's filming?
- in what way is the fact that Gunther is born in Germany, contributing to the story?
- The Germans in this movie speak German amongst themselves (just like we expect from Germans), but why are the Germans talking English to everyone else?
- The Germans seem to have an interest in Gunther's life. It's unclear why, but I can guess (he's one of "them").
-The Germans also start interfering in Marius' life, which doesn't seem to have a reason or any added value. After all, Marius is not one of them. And if their intervention has any effect on Gunther's position, it's negative.
- Gunther appears to be from Germany originally and now living in Holland. Then where did he get his Flemish accent?
- When Gunther arrives in Germany, it becomes clear that he speaks fluent German (which is not strange for someone who is originally from Germany). Then why does he speak English with some of the Germans?
- Gunther is shown a video recording of his mother. Later, Lizzy discovers that the video probably is fake. Why doesn't anyone do anything with this information?
- Gunther is told that he is the only remaining sould from the original group of twelve. Nevertheless, when their journey begins, we see a larger group of people. Who are they?
Apart from this, the final scene is a total failure. It insults the Catholic church and doesn't serve any purpose in the story.
My verdict for this film: Van Warmerdam got carried away with all the special effects and forgot to fix a serious number of plotholes.
The multi-dimensional characters, the interesting sub-plots and the great acting all result in a just-adequate rating, but can't save the movie, in my opinion. The plot holes are just too deep.
Inception (2010)
Visually impressive but do you really think I'm stupid?
In 2014, we've seen every possibility in SFX, so it should all come down to Storytelling, Character development and Credibility. So let me go into that.
The story is based upon a few aspects of dreaming that the viewer can recognize: dream time passes quickly, circumstances that the dreamer is in (rain, cold, music) tend to enter the dream and you immediately wake up when killed.
The story starts with these commonly known facts, which is good, highly original and promising. Then it wants us to believe a series of additional details and exceptions, that are unveiled bit by bit. Up to a point that you say "Hey but wait a minute, do you really want me to believe this too ?" The suspense in the film comes from the fact that this information is held back and unveiled just-in-time. Without Cobb's explanations throughout the movie no one would accept the story.
Let me sum up some of the additional rules that you will have to accept in order to appreciate the plot. And the serious flaws that come with them.
Rule: it's possible to enter someone else's dream. All you need is a futuristic device with old fashioned wires and a big button. You hook up four dreamers and then you press the button. One of them is the owner of the dream, the others are visitors. Because the machine is not wireless you must have all four people in the same room. But no matter how much the people are messed with, the wires hold and the machine keeps working.
Rule: If you enter someone's dream, you can extract information from it. Furthermore, it's possible to insert information into the dream (hence the title 'Inception'). Much like the way people are influenced when hypnotized. Hey, wait a minute, wouldn't hypnosis be a much easier way to achieve the same amount of influencing? With much less danger to the villain (Cobb) too.
Rule: It is possible to work out a scenario beforehand and take it into the dream, thus creating a dream that follows a script. But the worlds that are created in the dream are nothing like dreams as we know them. The dreams in Inception look more like worlds from a modern fantasy-movie. There's much emphasis on Ariadne's ability to create labyrinths in the dreams, yet none of the dreamworlds actually is a labyrinth and it's not clear why they must be. Therefore it's unclear why Ariadne, being a constant nuisance, is taken into the dreams. Her only justification in the script is that Cobb needs a reason to keep explaining everything. So, in short, she impersonates the viewer. In that case it would be smart to make her more likable.
Rule: In the dreams, it's possible to have a similar device to enter dreams. Creating a dream within a dream within a dream. But, in a deeper level dream, some of the above rules do not apply. For instance, if you are killed in a second level dream, you will not wake up, you will remain 'down there'. On the other hand, in many scenes people's lives are being threatened and they never seem to worry. The other rule that does not always seem to apply is the fact that the dreamer's circumstances are taken into the dream. For instance: if the dreamer is sitting in the back of a van and the van falls from a bridge, the weightlessness caused by the fall becomes a factor in the dream. So,the four people in the dream (the hotel-scene) become weightless. But the dream of these weightless people does NOT become weightless. This happens many times (when bouncing and shaking because their seat is tossed around, etc) and is totally inconsistent. If the people are freezing, their dream is not influenced. But if they are getting wet, the dream is influenced. Please, it does not need to be logical, as long as it's consistent.
Rule: if there are more characters in someone's dream, they are hostile towards the people who entered the dream. Even worse, some people (Mal) are so hostile that they keep entering dreams in order to try to kill everyone. This has you on the edge of your seat, until you think 'why?'
Rule: It is important to know whether you're dreaming. Therefore you must bring a 'totem' into your dream with which you can test if you're dreaming. All characters take a 'totem' but you never see anyone actually use it. It is unclear why Cobb tells Ariadne not to show her 'totem' but does demonstrate his own.
Rule: After the dream is over, you remember nothing. Except for the one thing that Cobb wants you to remember.
Rule: time spent in a dream is twenty times the length of the dream. This is important, because if you have a four hour airplane flight, it gives you eighty hours of working time in the dream. But an important part of the story is in the second level dream (the weightless hotel scene), all of which is within the time frame of the van dropping off of the edge of a bridge. A real drop would take about three seconds. So the time spent in the hotel is one minute. In the hotel and elevator we see half an hour of action at least.
These are the major flaws. There are numerous other errors in the script (if the city is folded up, why does the light not change?) so the only way to enjoy this movie is to not think and just enjoy the graphics. The only factor that carries the story is the brilliant level of acting from DiCaprio and Page. This and the SFX are the only reasons to reward this highly overrated movie with a 5.
Borgman (2013)
Brilliant but awkward
Alex van Warmerdam took a great risk with this movie. We are already used to the fact that Van Warmerdam breaks traditional rules of storytelling and dialogue, but in this movie he also breaks patterns that his own fans thought they knew from him. The result is a film that is incomprehensible in more than one way. Usually, if some important characters (a vicar with a loaded gun, for instance) are introduced in the first scene, they return later. In this movie they don't. Usually, if a few famous names are hired (Ariane Schluter, Pierre Bokma, Eva van de Wijdeven, Annet Malherbe) they are given the larger roles. In this movie they aren't. Usually, if strange and disturbing things happen (dogs enter the house, people get murdered) it will be explained. But not in this movie. Usually there is at least one character who is sympathetic, strong, smart. Usually if there's a bad guy terrorising a family, there also is a good guy to defend them. Usually if a group of evil characters takes over someone's house, they don't abandon it in the final scene. Usually if someone gets punished, sooner or later the reason will be explained.
Even die-hard Van Warmerdam fans will have trouble understanding this movie. Fans are used to seeing strange families who are having trouble understanding the world. Borgman shows a totally normal family that is terrorized by some evil people. And we never get to know why. So at the end of the day, nothing about this film is normal. In the end, Van Warmerdam leaves us with an unfinished jigsaw-puzzle. Unfinished? Hell, I think I'm missing half of the pieces!
I have thought about a verdict for some time, but in the end I think it's simply brilliant that Van Warmerdam breaks with all the rules including the rules that he himself introduced into Dutch filmmaking.
Tony 10 (2012)
Brilliant and touching
In the best (new) Dutch film tradition, Tony-10 is a beautiful film about a very unusual subject. After taking over a crane company, Tony's father is appointed secretary of state. This in itself is a very unusual story line, but it becomes much weirder (in a good way). Since Tony's father is away from home a lot, Tony starts to suspect that his father is in love. With the queen, that is. Tony decides to pay the queen a visit and tell her how he feels. He breaks in into her palace and finds her training on the ping-pong table. From that point on, there is a lot of charming interaction between Tony and the queen when they work together trying to straighten things out. The story evolves around the divorce of Tony's parents (of which he blames the queen) and has a lot of very beautiful, deeply touching moments. The queen is played by a charming Anette Malherbe. This actress, being the wife of Dutch film-maker Alex van Warmerdam, knows how to behave naturally in a bizarre story and puts down a wonderful performance. The young boy who plays Tony (Faas Wijn) also does a wonderful job. Throughout the story he is very credible, though being in an incredible story. The story is supported by great performances of Tony's mother and teacher. In short: go see this film, it's brilliant.
Bennie Stout (2011)
Charming and entertaining
This movie had something for everyone. The fact that the story is situated in the beginning of December and has a strong relation with the traditional celebration of Saint Nicholas' birthday, makes it very, VERY Dutch. In a way, you can compare it to 'Alles is Liefde' which is also unmistakably Dutch in its setting and theme. An important difference, compared to 'Alles is Liefde' is that Bennie Stout uses the story of Saint Nicholas in such a way that it is very credible for little children, whereas Alles is Liefde shows you the fictional side of the story. Bennie Stout has a beautiful story-line that is filled with entertaining details (such as the absence board on Saint Nicholas' boat that says 'Piet present/absent' ten times, the detailed pepernoten-factory, the raft constructed from taai-taai, the acrobatic stunts of the Pieten, etc) and humor on both children level and adult level. The setting in an old Dutch village about a hundred years ago is brilliant and gives the audience one beautiful scenery after another. People who love nice shots and beautiful pictures will really love this film. Not that it has many beautiful people (most of them are ugly), but the gorgeous Hanna Verboom makes up for all the others. She is very well chosen for the part of the tender, caring, beautiful but tormented young mother. Of all adult actors she undoubtedly gives the best performance. The child actors are also very good: Koen Dobbelaer (Bennie) is brilliant and very charming, he makes it very credible that he's not really bad, just a little clumsy. His 'enemy' Pieter Lossie (Roderick) is just as charming, though a little naughtier. For the role of Saint Nicholas there was only one serious candidate (Bram van der Vlugt) and I think Johan Nijenhuis was very lucky to have him for this part. One thing about the script that I liked very much is the fact that although the story has many strange and irrational elements, coming from the original myth (naughty children are really abducted by Saint Nicholas, all of his assistants are called Piet, the children are put into large bags, the Pieten climb in and out of chimneys) the actors act as if these things are completely normal. At night, the abducted children sleep in bags hanging from the ceiling, like it's completely normal and totally accepted. When the children are taken away, their parents react as if it's totally sane and inevitable. I like this absurdity a lot, it makes the movie really stand out. And I think it gives this movie a typically Dutch feel (see Alex van Warmerdam's Ober or Emma Blank or the two Paard van Sinterklaas movies). The last thing I want to mention is the music. I never heard so many variations of the traditional Saint Nicholas songs: jazz versions, classical versions, disco, opera, you name it. To paraphrase Saint Nicholas himself: "I can never get enough of Sinterklaas Kapoentje, it's such an evergreen".
Well, to make a long story short: there's something in this movie for everyone, it does not spoil young children's belief in the Saint, has a great story, it's very entertaining and very well crafted.
Ik ook van jou (2001)
Very good and very bad at the same time
I'm watching the film as I'm writing this review. At the same time I am also reading other user reviews. And I must say that I do agree with a lot that's said in the other reviews, but also disagree with some.
First, the story is quite shallow. I must say that I don't like stories that build on exceptional situations like borderline syndrome, because the effect of that is that there's no real explanation for (in this case) Reza's behaviour. She behaves in a strange way and the viewer needs to have some sort of an explanation for that, which the story doesn't give you. But at the same time, Angela Schijf is brilliant in the way she acts. You can see that she really tries to make the most out of this terrible script. Her acting is very convincing, which is a real achievement.
Eric's behaviour is strange in a way too. Eric only reacts with surprise and disgust. But he never tries to find out more about her and never tries to help her. He says "it's killing me too", but you don't see that in the story. Eric is more like a spectator. He writes about Reza, but we never get to know what he's written. And to make it even worse, he also is the narrator of the story and being the story-teller he has to pronounce some pathetic lines. The entire film consists of flash-backs while he's telling the story to (again) a new girlfriend, Silke. The new girlfriend, beautiful as she may be, is completely useless in the story. So also this actor, Anthony Kamerling, is handicapped with a very bad script. He also makes the best of it and acts very very well. But the audience will never feel compassion or even understanding for this character. He's just annoying.
Third, I want to mention Fraser, Eric's friend. He has to pronounce such terrible lines that it's astonishing that Beau van Erven Dorens succeeds in making them sound to convincing.
Some of the bad aspects of this film are so typically Dutch. In Dutch films dating from before (say) 2003, the sound is very bad. It sounds like the actors have their heads in a bucket. Sometimes you can hear the acoustic qualities of the room they're in, sometimes you don't. Sometimes a living room sounds like a bathroom, sometimes a bathroom sounds as acoustically dead as a garden. Sometimes the sound is harsh, sometimes flat, but mostly hard to hear or understand. About the visual quality: although the images are beautiful, the image quality is bad. Colours are flat or washed out, in dark scenes there's a lot of noise, it's never really crisp or sharp.
The most annoying thing in my opinion is the sex. There's so much nudity in this film, sex is so important in the story and both Angela Schijf and Anthony Kamerling have such beautiful bodies that you would expect the film to be (at least) a little bit sexy. But it isn't. None of the nude scenes have an erotic quality to them and with such beautiful people it must have been really hard to make it this un-sexy.
In short: brilliant acting in a terrible picture. A complete waste of talent.