Reviews

A good choice of films and some clever remarks. But: "Movies", according to this documentary, were made only in the US. And: the film doesn't give you the time to study single scenes or shots. It is an overview for people who don't really watch. Typical CNN, typical American and typical superficial. Evaluations mostly without reason. So it is not more than a string of reminders of great moments in cinema history for those who know the films. Scorsese, who adds a few short statements, has made better documentaries on the history of (not only northamerican) cinema. But if you don't spend more than 15 $ or Euro on the DVD it is okay.

This short film makes it clear, why there may be a bridge over the Kwai, but not between someone who grew up with Hollywood and someone who grew up with "Battleship Potemkin", "La strada", "Jules et Jim" or "Stalker". Wim Wenders once mentioned, that the Americans have colonized our subconscious. How true. It is the great misfortune of the ruling understanding of film. And it is the result of the sheer fact that USA is where the big money is. That is bad enough. But the expression in the faces of people like Milius makes it even worse. Compared with them, Fellinis Zampano is a likeable person.

Like most of the "Making of"-documentaries, this one is so terrible boring, because everyone finds everyone and everything great. These documentaries are no more and no less than PR-clips with standardized camera positions and routine editing. Why not discuss the political meaning of the Geneva Convention rule, that officers and officers only in prisoners camps are not to be forced to manual labour. One could suggest that "The Bridge on the River Kwai" is a snobbish film about the British upper class in wartimes. I prefer to see Alec Guinness as a ladykiller. And I don't need to know how the film was made. It speaks for itself. And whoever suggests that "The Bridge" is one of David Lean's best films doesn't know his early films from "Great Expectations" to "Hobson's Choice". The world has become a victim of Hollywood's measures.

This series could be enjoyable, if there wasn't the constant overacting of Terri Garber as the female villain. Her permanent change from smiles to mischief in her facial expression seems to have no end. Even David Carradine is a likeable character in comparison to her. Garbers' dilettantism spoils the merits of North & South. Terri Garber earns an award for the worst acting in American TV. And the directors are to be taken into responsibility for not avoiding the crudest clichés of malignity and intrigue. This applies to Book I as well as to Book II. And by the way, talking about clichés: the depiction of the revolutionary Virginia should at least now be regarded as denunciatory. Only American "patriots" find it necessary to have her steel silver. Imagine a film in which a fighter against Putin is characterized like this woman in opposition to slavery.

Rose is supposed to be six years older than she was at the end of the seventies series. Well... It isn't easy to make 35 years look like 6. But who cares. After all, Jean Marsh is the clip between the legend and it's sequel.

An exceptional series for many reasons. If only Elizabeth McGovern wouldn't keep smiling and cock her head permanently. This might be meant to characterize her, but it gets on one's nerves.

Even if the script would be funnier: the "effervescent personality" of Meg Ryan gets on your nerves to an extent that makes you want to escape. Namedropping isn't enough for either a comedy or criticism of Hollywood.

A film about Margaret Thatcher that prides itself of being not political is in fact reactionary. It gives no impression of what Mrs. Thatcher has done to the common people. At second thought: Could it be, that Meryl Streep is overestimated because she overestimates Margaret Thatcher?