Change Your Image
xroo-73772
Reviews
Belphégor ou le fantôme du Louvre (1965)
A classic TV series, albeit a very strange one.
"Belphégor" starts with an old man, who in over 30 years collected newspaper clippings about extraordinary phenomena. To protect them from the fallout of a possible war, he somehow managed to enclose them in tin cans. Is this scene necessairy? No. Is it memorable? Yes. This is how this miniseries works, it doesn't use the highway, it takes a scenic route.
Case in point: Belphégor. He isn't doing much. He is supposed to find some alchemical secret in the Louvre. There are some supernatural things happening, showing that he is a necessity for this task, but most of it remains a mystery. That's probably for the best, because dragged into the light these things tend to look rather stupid. In the end, the details don't matter. We've got the iconic outfit, the iconic mask, the inscrutable behavior. He is a phantom, other-worldly, he is the reason why people still remember this show. He is the main attraction, but he is far from being the only one.
Unlike too many TV movies from the 60s, "Belphégor" is never tediously slow or boring. Unexpected twists always keep the viewers interested and wondering. There are quite a few strange, remarkable scenes and there are some great actors, like René Dary, whose inspector Ménardie is very reminiscent of Jean Gabin's jovial and likable characters. The last name-less Sylvie, whose first screen role was in 1912, as the unfathomable, quirky Lady Hodwin. François Chaumette as the insidious millionaire Boris Williams. The museum watchman Gautrais (Paul Crauchet), called glug-glug by his colleagues. The leading actor Yves Rénier is very convincing as the pretty boy Bellegarde. And the legendary Juliette Gréco plays her role really well, too.
The silent version from 1927 - also with a runtime of more than 4 hours - is completely different. There is nothing supernatural, no good reason for the use of Belphégor at all. Why turning something that should have and could have been done without attracting any attention into a media sensation? It is close to the novel by Arthur Bernède, a rather trivial crime story that absolutely needed a spectacular gimmick to attract any attention. Belphégor 1965 wins triumphantly.
Belphégor 2001 is just another version of "The Mummy". The way the third variant of the Belphégor outfit is introduced, doesn't make sense at all, but without it there wouldn't have been any connection to the previous two "Belphégors". At least, for the first time the Louvre is real, and there is a real (CGI-) phantom. And for a few seconds there is a cameo by Juliette Gréco, la jolie môme.
Belphégor 1965 is an original piece of art. There will never be a better version and there is no need for one.
Jennifer's Body (2009)
Great Playful Teen Horror Film - Not a Comedy
Is there a single girl in the world that would accept the nickname "Needy"? Calling the main character, the ugly duckling played by Amanda Seyfried (She's great!), "Needy" sure feels like this is supposed to be a parody. Well, it isn't. It's just the author, Diablo Cody, having fun with a well-known plot, adding some spices to heighten the entertainment value. Another example: A line from the Prince song 'When Doves Cry' has its movie debut: "Animals strike curious poses, they feel the heat, the heat between me and you." Few will make the connection. It's a very creepy scene regardless. This is not just a vapid pop culture reference.
"Jennifer's Body" is not (just) supposed to shock and terrify, it's made to entertain, and it does. There are some surprising ideas and - very unexpected indeed - there is an emotionally satisfying ending that should send most viewers with a good mood back into the night. If there's any hidden political message, it's very easy to ignore. "Jennifer's Body" has a very playful undertone, but nothing is played for laughs. Calling this a "comedy horror film" is just wrong.
Punisher: War Zone (2008)
The Best Incarnation of This Anti-Batman
Marvel's The Punisher is a comic book fantasy about a single soldier who fights a war against the well-armed and evil armies of organized crime. He is the comic book reader's release valve after reading too many stories about highly ethical superheroes. Batman's fight against the Joker & Co is eternal. There will always be a next time. The Punisher is the anti-Batman, he isn't a chivalrous knight, he is an executioner.
"Punisher: War Zone" features the only incarnation of Frank Castle / The Punisher that's doing this character justice. Ray Stevenson's Frank Castle is dressed to kill and ready for war. He's got an arsenal of high-end weapons, supplied by supporters. Outside of a war-like scenario, in a fight against some random criminals, this would be overkill. The Punisher needs extreme challenges to justify his extreme measures. His antagonist is much larger than life, the evil, psychopathic and resourceful actual comic book villain Jigsaw, with an army of thugs. Some valid moral dilemmas pop up that make Castle seriously wonder if he'd already become a bad guy himself and should quit. But that's an important part of the story arc and not just a dirty trick to kill some time. This is a nicely scripted, fast paced action movie.
In "The Punisher" (1989) a black haired Dolph Lundgren is the sewer-dwelling Punisher. Bad guys have children, too. Why doesn't anybody think of the children? Well, he does. He tries to save some mobsters' children, who had been captured by a rivaling mob. Not a good idea for a Punisher-movie. In 2004's gimmicky "The Punisher", he (Thomas Jane) comes up with an elaborate plan to actually punish an evildoer (John Travolta), to make him feel the loss, the desperation this mobster inflicted on others. He should suffer - every minute, before the Punisher finally kills him. So yeah, he's just having a bit of fun here. But for the viewer it's rather tiresome. The Netflix TV series "The Punisher" (2017-2019) with Jon Bernthal is an annoying example for everything that went wrong with the Marvel universe, it's tedious and silly.
There is not much of a competition, this is the best Punisher film. "Punisher: War Zone" has it all: great optics, an appropriate story that's over-the-top and fun, and lots of good action scenes.
The Invention of Lying (2009)
Sounds like a lame comedy sketch, turns out to be a great movie
The very concept of lying is for the people in the fictional world of "Invention" unfathomable. Unlike their predecessors, the aliens in "Galaxy Quest" (1999), they are also mean spirited, egocentric, gossipy, and they offer way too much information about what they've done and what they think. Basic courtesy is unknown to them. It's a bleak world, this world of truth tellers. This is the necessary premise to make the invention of lying - including things like flattery and storytelling - have really big consequences, hilarious and otherwise, and to allow a more favorable view of lying than it objectively deserves. But this is just fiction, a scenario, so that's alright.
Judged by the trailer and the beginning, "Invention" is kinda nice and mildly amusing, but most likely bound to become silly and boring. Well, it isn't. Thanks to the great script, co-written by Gervais, it turns out to be a surprisingly good movie, engaging and with more depth than it could be reasonably expected. At one point, Gervais is actually acting. Most of the time he is just Ricky Gervais, which is fine. This might very well be the perfect Ricky Gervais movie. And it already looks quite a bit like a classic.
Dream Scenario (2023)
No Comedy. Actually Rather Sad.
In the beginning, "Dream Scenario" looks great. A very strange and original idea turned into one of the rare movies that are well made and surprising, a lighthearted, imaginative, surreal farce, a bit like "Being John Malkovich". But in the second half it takes a very different route. It turns into a horror movie and ends in a sea of sadness. No laughs, no fun. Something exiting gets boring and frustrating. Everything goes dark and dies. A terrible, all too common concept for movies. A widespread cliché claims that this is real (non virtual-reality) life, that this is the hallmark of art.
Nicolas Cage is perfect in the role of the trist, bogged down professor. It might very well be his least appealing character ever. Maybe the whole thing is supposed to be just a late midlife crisis nightmare this guy has. Dreams are not known for their dramaturgical finesse. This could be the best way to enjoy "Dream Scenario", viewing the whole film as a single longwinded dream. Surely, this must have been the secret artistic idea that guided the writer/director Kristoffer Borgli. Sometimes, "art" is the last resort, the last excuse.
Sliding Doors (1998)
"Sliding Doors" is definitely worth watching once.
Trying to cheer up Helen (Gwyneth Paltrow), who is in a very bad mood, James (John Hannah) asks her "Remember what the Monty Python boys say?" Her guess is probably everybody's: "Always look on the bright side of life", an encouragement that's quite a bit on the corny side. But James cites a very different quote: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition". Completely nonsensical in this context, also something nobody is expecting. It's a strangely constructed joke that might very well work - the first time. And it does lighten up Helen's mood a bit.
Helen misses the last subway train, before a disruption indefinitely ends the subway service. She takes a another, an ill-fated way to get home. In a second version a little thing changes and she catches the train. This movie tells the interwoven stories of the two very different paths her life takes. Different love story, different career, different hairstyle.
"Sliding Doors" is very well constructed. James has some very funny lines, Gwyneth Paltrow looks great, most of the time. Unfortunately neither of the two parallel tales is especially entertaining in itself. There are some boring, even annoying moments. The unique construction takes its toll. The end might be considered as a compensation for many of this films weaknesses. In a way, it's the only logical, the only possible ending. Well done, architect!
Daredevil (2015)
Good First Season, Okay Second, Useless Third
The first season feels like a very long movie. It tells a gritty and realistic crime story, keeps away from the more fantastical superhero clichés. There are some surprising twists and there isn't much that seems unnecessary. The story could have been told with one or two episodes less, and that's not much for a TV serial with 13 episodes. (8/10)
Hardly anything is supernatural. Matt Murdock was blinded as a child by some stuff that also gave him special senses that much more than just make up for his loss of eyesight. Other than that he's a normal guy and in fights he gets hurt, badly, a lot. He and his friend Foggy start their career as independent lawyers in "Hell's Kitchen", an area southwest of the Central Park in New York. Slowly they get deeper and deeper involved in the criminal machinations that afflict their quarter. At night, Murdock moonlights as a - yet - nameless vigilante, dressed in black and wearing some kind of bandana that covers the upper half of his face.
The main villain is Wilson Fisk, one of Marvel's first iconic supervillains, the quadratically shaped Kingpin. The original Marvel claim was that there is not an ounce of fat in his body, it's all muscles. Maybe he fell into a tub of radioactiv lard? A live-action version of him would have been ridiculous. Eventually they turned him from a crypto mutant into something like a sumo wrestler, a mere human. And that version is played by Vincent D'Onofrio with rare comic correctness. D'Onofrio is big (1,92 m), with a massive physical presence, he dominates the scenes he's in, just as this crime boss is supposed to do. His Kingpin is sensitive, extremely intelligent and strong, extremely violent-tempered und brutal.
The second season is very different. It's much more like a regular superhero show. Murdock finally got his Daredevil costume. Two supervillains or maybe heroes discuss with him the main question of the season - and of (super) vigilantes: Is it justified to kill really bad guys? The robotic ex-soldier Frank Castle (Punisher) and the spoilt rich girl adventuress Elektra are very much in favour of terminally finishing their jobs. The lawyer and catholic Murdock is opposed to the idea of killing anyone, he is not just into justice, he is into law and order. The main villains in the second half of the season, the ninjas from the ancient mystical organization "The Hand" are not bothered by such questions. They are doing things that are not well explained, but certainly supernatural - basic comic book stuff. Compared to the first season, the second is a bit all over the place, with too many different storylines. Karen Page, the first client of Murdock & Foggy, and later on their secretary, is now a legit journalist. Her story feels forced and unnecessary. All in all, season 2 could have been better if it had been told in just 9 or 10 episodes. (6/10)
The third season cancels the second, there is no continuation, it's back to season one. Daredevil is wearing his old clothes, Wilson Fisk is the main villain, it's a gritty crime story. But the way it is told is extremely long winded and uninvolving. Two many times Murdock/Daredevil is just a supporting character in his own show. The main focus is on Karen and on some new, fairly uninteresting characters. Fisk's mannerisms get more and more tedious. He's got nothing new and is no longer an enigmatic force of nature. In the end, all the storylines meet, more or less satisfyingly. But it is rather doubtful that many viewers will make it through the predominantly boring episodes. The story should have been told in 4 instead of 13 episodes. (4/10)
The Bricklayer (2023)
Generic Spy Thriller With Scraps Of Originality
People who are into bricklaying should be warned: There is less than a minute of it in this movie, a single brick is actually laid. The authors just needed a strange title to attract some attention. The philosophical background given is something like: Bricks don't lie, or rather, they don't tell an untruth. Not the greatest of wisdoms, but nobody remarked that before, ever.
The motto of "Bricklayer" is: "If you understood everything I said, you'd be me." This arrogant and stupid claim is made twice. All the fight scenes are very hectic, dark, opaque. If you could see everything the cameraman saw, you'd be him. The movie starts with an enigmatic killing of a journalist. Don't expect to get a good explanation. If you understood everything the authors wrote, you'd be them.
It is getting harder and harder to come up with variations of the same old same old, to find some little niches that can still spread sparks of genuineness. The seasoned viewer has to concentrate hard on the suspension of disbelief - the amount of bodily harm Vail (Aaron Eckhart) can take would make John Wick jealous - and on the little likable things. Aaron Eckhart has some good moments. His sidekick Kate (Nina Dobrev) has some - in this age - really surprising moments, and she gets a totally unexpected final scene. Watch out for dogs, there is a running gag about them. The hat wearing little man Radek (Clifton Collins Jr.) as the villain surely is an unusual choice. The location, Thessaloniki, Greece, isn't very exiting, but new.
"The Bricklayer" isn't a good or even a memorable movie. But it is not a total waste of time.
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
Imperialist Visits Earth, Threatens Annihilation, Gets Celebrated
First times can be awkward. This "First Contact" is the most awkward thing ever. The level of incompetence on both sides is galactic. Klaatu, the ambassador of a highly evolved civilization, doesn't know what he's doing, at all. He doesn't have a plan. He knows the language, but he doesn't know how to communicate. He is secretive about his mission, but he demands that all the leaders of the world should assemble, so that he could tell them his message all at once and in person. He can't understand why they decline that request. He is the most arrogant, aggressive and inept messenger of peace ever. His civilization obviously doesn't believe in wireless communication, in diplomacy, in psychology, in basic courtesy. It's: Do what I tell you to do - or die. He surely didn't come to make friends.
The mindset of "The Day..." is very, very strange indeed. It's one of the first "First Contact" movies. Neither the author nor the director had any experience with this storyline, and it shows. For the First Contact Klaatu hides his face behind a helmet and he draws a device that looks like a terrifying weapon - how stupid is that? Klaatu is supposed to be a wise and dignified victim of humanity's ignorance. There is not a hint of critique of his unintelligible actions. He is still presented as a messianic figure and mankind as a primitive backwoods bunch that should just shut up and obey. This clumsy political message is actually annoying. Though: Compared to the disgusting mindset of the charmless remake from 2008 this is still a much more humane and likable movie.
"The Day..." has a lot of charme and some iconic moments, but it is not a classic. It shares most of its pleasures with other science fiction movies from the 1950s. Terrific black and white aesthetics, great design, great cars, great simple-mindedness.
The screenwriter only took the basic premise from the original story. In Harry Bates' "Farewell to the Master" from 1940 an ovoid "time-space traveler" materializes close to the Smithsonian Institution. Two days later, a humanoid with a friendly face, raising his right hand to show that he is unarmed, and a giant robot walk down a ramp of the ship. The humanoid says: "I am Klaatu and this is Gnut." - and he gets killed by a hidden assassin with a rifle, who thinks that the Alien is the devil. Klaatu is dead, Gnut freezes and doesn't move for three months. The rest of the story is completely different from "The Day..." and quite bizarre, with a gorilla and sound clones. It's a curiosity, it couldn't have been turned into an appealing movie like "The Day..." has been, for decades. Well, maybe it will, when AI is ready to visualize the innumerable science fiction stories of the 30s, 40s and 50s in glorious black and white films.
Troy (2004)
A Well-Known Story Told In A New And Appealing Way
This is a review of the Director's Cut.
Wolfgang Petersen's "Troy" is a down to earth version of Homer's "Iliad". The Trojan horse doesn't look like a big toy, but like a brutal and very strange thing from another time. There are no gods, who force the hands of men. The war isn't really about a woman, but about power. "Troy" is about men that cause trouble, because they are weak (Orlando Bloom/Paris and Peter O'Toole/Priam) or powermad (Brian Cox/Agamemnon), and especially about the great men, who have to fight and die for them. The "Iliad" is a heroic epic, it tells the story of the fight of the Greek hero Achilles against the Trojan hero Hector. It therefore ends with the victory of Achilles, with the death of Hector. The fall of Troy is subsequently told at the beginning of the "Odyssey", Homer's second epic, with Odysseus as the new hero. In "Troy" he (Sean Bean) only plays a minor role, even in the end, with the vicious and violent victory of the Greeks.
It's the duel between Achilles and Hector that interested Petersen, because duels were very much his thing. "One or the Other of Us" (1974), his first theatrical feature film, featuring Jürgen Prochnow, "Enemy Mine" (1985), his first US-movie, "In the Line of Fire" (1993), Clint Eastwood vs. John Malkovich, "Air Force One" (1997), Harrison Ford vs. Gary Oldman -- they were all about duels.
Achilles is the hero of the "Iliad" and he, Brad Pitt, is the undisputed hero of "Troy". Petersen made sure that he got months of special training, so that Achilles would move and fight like nobody else. "Troy" doesn't just tell you that Achilles is an unique fighter, it shows you in every fighting scene that he is. At one point somebody steals his suit of armor to lead people into a battle, but Brad Pitt had to be his stunt double, to make the deceit believable. The big fighting scenes are actually a weakness of this movie, because with all the amors and helmets it is sometimes impossible to see who is fighting who. In this movie about the Trojan war the actual war is the least appealing thing.
"Troy" is an epic movie with a simplified, partly changed, but still epic story, with more complexity and truth than it could be expected from a "sword and sandal" film. After 20 years of not aging, it's already quite save to call it a timeless classic. Maybe this was Wolfgang Petersen's masterpiece. After this legendary strenuous effort he didn't do much more.
One of the very strange aspects of "Troy" is the talk about becoming a legend, somebody who would be remembered for thousands of years, which is obviously an anachronism. No Greek could have expected that "eternity" would last that long. So who became most legendary, except for Odysseus? Homer, the guy who turned the whole thing into a lasting legend. Helene, the legendary most beautiful woman. Paris, by his association with her. (The town's name is just accidentally the same.) Hector? Forgotten. Achilles? Just a heel. "Troy" is a fabulous celebration of Homer's real heroes.
Horton Hears a Who! (2008)
The Most Fantastic, Absurd Story Ever - Turned Into A Great Movie
Has there ever been a stranger, more otherworldly story than Dr. Seuss's "Horton Hears a Who!"? This is complete and utter nonsense. Everything is absolutely impossible. This is fantasy in its purest form. It should be equally impossible to turn it into an engaging and funny movie. But that's exactly what happened. The passion and artisanship that made this movie possible is amazing. The attention to detail, the courage to not - or heardly ever - compromise, the quirkiness, and - above all - the seriousness is disarming.
This is a labour of love, easy to be loved. In the end, two kids will save the day and the "villain", the Sour Kangaroo will be redeemed. After all, just like everybody else, except for Horton, she couldn't hear any Whos at all and had to assume that it was just a stupid prank by Horton, a scheme to make fun of everyone. She, the mother of a little boy, isn't a bad person.
The repeatedly proclaimed message of the movie - "A person's a person, no matter how small" - isn't a very deep thought (A dog's a dog, a drink's a drink...), but kids will nonetheless very much appreciate the sentiment. Horton is a perfect kid's movie - for the whole family and everybody else.
Bolt (2008)
The Only Dog Movie Saved By A Cat
The premise of this movie isn't very appealing. A dog that's a very successful TV star, has to be kept in the illusion, that everything happening during the filming is real. The threats are real, his superpowers are real, his victories are real. That's the only way to make sure that he will display the real and raw emotions, the audience loves so much about the show.
The movie really starts to get funny, when by some accident Bolt is shipped to New York and - for the first time in his life on his own - has to get back to L. A. He meets the hilarious cat Mittens and the very differently hilarious hamster Rhino, and he has to survive real, suspenseful and amusing adventures. In the last chapter, "Bolt" is getting highly dramatic and emotional.
"Bolt" is surprisingly well made. It might seem like a by the numbers plot, but hardly ever do those numbers add up as well as they do here. This is obviously the work of highly professional people who loved what they were doing and wanted to do it as good as possible. In retrospect, they were pretty successful. So don't let yourself be put off by the silly premise and introduction. When Mittens, the cat appears, everything will be alright.
Doctor Who (2005)
Great Start. Ends in Darkness / Dalekness
The regeneration of "Doctor Who" was made by people who really loved and understood the Original Series, and who managed to take the best elements into a new and technically improved era. The first season is a pleasant surprise and still looks great - not only for a TV show.
Christopher Eccleston (Series 1, 2005), the first new Doctor, the 9th overall, fits perfectly into this role. He is quite a bit eccentric, goofy and inperfect, reviving the self-ironic undertone of the OS. The episodes are fun to watch, telling inventive adventure stories, just like they are supposed to do. Too bad that this strange man hated his job and left after the first season.
David Tennant (Series 2-4, 2006-2008) is a very serious Doctor, sometimes even a fanatic. Harry Potter and Marvel had infiltrated the world of the Doctor. He acts like a superhero, he does things, the Doctor is not supposed to do, like letting a flash run through his body. His only tool, the Sonic Screwdriver, originally just used to open doors with, has turned into a magic wand that does everything the Doctor - telepathically - wants it to do. The stories are getting more grandiose, at the same time the deconstruction of the Doctor starts. Sometimes it looks as if he's got tired of all the doctering.
Matt Smith (Series 5-7, 2010-2013) is again delightfully goofy, his companion Amy Pond is one of the best ever. But the show is getting annoyingly self-absorbed. Too many ideas from previous seasons are recycled. Too many episodes revolve around the Doctor himself and his Tardis. And it is getting too dark. It's all about death and destruction. The whole universe might be destroyed, the Doctor is going to die (for real this time), his whole race, the Time Lords, face extermination.
Peter Capaldi (Series 8-10, 2014-2017) is the greyest and most haggard of all Doctors. The always optimistic, always curious, always forwards looking adventurer is gone. What's left is a big pile of baggage. It's not just him. The whole show has grown tired and wants to die. The insidious deconstruction of the Doctor was successful.
There is not much science in this fiction. Time is stupid. If the time traveller doesn't know what's going to happen, he can do whatever he likes. But when he does know and tries to change it, all hell will break loose. In the OS the logic of time travels have been kept in the background, the new one forces it into the center of attention and "explains" it with some preposterous nonsense.
A crucial influence are the horror comics of the 1950s. The Daleks, invented in 1963, look and behave like robots, but they are actually the vehicles for squid-like mutants, who live all their life in the darkness of their pods. A truly gruesome, horrific idea! The Ood, invented in 2006, are squid-faced, mostly peaceful monsters, future humans use as slaves - instead of anime inspired robots. The "Weeping Angels", invented in 2007, deadly creatures disguised as graveyard statues, would have been even too silly for a 50s comic. The Tardis, originally just a machine with some technical difficulties, that made time travel always a bit of a gamble, is turned into a supernatural, mystical being. This show has never been big on technics, computers, robots, but the illogical, magical, dark site became much more dominant in the relaunch.
The Daleks, Doctor Who's main antagonists, have always been the weakest point of the show. They are a prime example of form following function. The requirement was: It shouldn't look humanoid, like a guy in an armor, but there should be a person inside to move the Dalek and its 3 sticks. One stick with a camera, leaving them with a rather narrow range of vision, one stick with a weapon, and a third one that looks like a plunger and allows them to push big buttons. Toppled they can't stand up again. They can't even help another Dalek to do this. Their only goal is to destroy everything and their distorted robot voices are always on the brink of a nervous breakdown. Their catch phrase is "Exterminate, exterminate!" In the 1960s they've been a staggering success in Great Britain, but for the rest of the world it is hard to accept that these silly cone-shaped trash cans are supposed to be the most dangerous foes ever. Episode six of the first new season is about the last Dalek. Great! Finally! Sadly not true. The Daleks are still the main villains of the relaunch. In the OS they have been portrait as nearly unchanged throughout the ages. Suddenly they can fly and are even shape shifters. Why did these new creatures still had to look like Daleks and be Daleks?
The recycling of corny old enemies - Daleks, Cybermen, Sontarans, The Master, Davros - and the retelling of their old stories is one of the biggest mistakes of the new "Doctor Who". There should have been great new inventions, adventures unburdened by ancient concepts. The "Doctor Who" template is open to literally unlimited possibilities. Same old, same old is very far from being the best of them.
The main enemy of the new "Doctor Who" was of course the spirit of the times, the obsession with the destruction of heroes, with darkness and death. In the end, the Daleks won.
Alphaville: Une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (1965)
A Bunch of Grown-Ups Playing Pretend
Alphaville (Paris) is totally controlled by a tyrannical A. I. that - in the name of science - brutally fights against all human emotions. A secret agent, Lemmy Caution, armed with a magic gun and poetry, will try to get rid of it. The setting is strictly contemporary, the "future" exists only in the - largely improvised - dialogues. A dubbed version could tell a completely different story. As emotions are outlawed, the work of the actors has been very easy. There is ONE never before seen idea: A soldier shoots a man, sentenced to death because of his public display of emotions (no, not "hate"), with his machine gun. The victim drops into a swimming pool where 5 girls with knives finish him off. Two dozens of soldiers and men in black watch. There is no blood in the water. If you want a picture of the future, this is the one you get from "Alphaville".
Alphaville (Paris) is the center of the universe. Everyone else lives in a different galaxy, therefore people don't talk about other towns, but about other galaxies. That's - no joke - the most obvious element of science fiction in this movie. The A. I.'s omnipresent voice is that of a cancer-victim's mechanical voice box. With all the chainsmokers in the 60s, it was a save bet that this could be the voice of the future. If the computer sounds and behaves like a tired, sick old man, why a computer? Because this is "science fiction", stupid.
It is never explained, how a computer - or his creator - could seize power in Alphaville. Somebody did something and now Lemmy Caution arrives and does something different. There might be some rhyme, but there sure is no reason in this story. The computer makes words disappear by removing them from the dictionary. This only works, when humans do this to computers, not the other way around. Godard just made stuff up as he went along. It was the young, fresh, new way of doing things. Scripts, logic, plausibility are for squares - "Alphaville" is art, satire, child's play.
How can anybody call a movie that's been made with such carelessness and incompetence a spoof? Will anybody watch this and think "This is a funny parody of something?" Nah, "Alphaville" has never been considered to be a comedy. There are some moments that might trigger laughter, some action scenes, some too ridiculous dialogues. But the target of such laughter will always be this movie itself.
Neither is "Alphaville" a dystopian vision of any relevance. Science vs. Poetry is a bogus conflict. A society run by poets would be an awful idea, though in the 1960s, when "poets" were still a thing, it might have been a good idea for a funny movie. This is just one of Godard's amateur hours, like "Masculin féminin", a movie he released only months later. Same vibes (Art? Parody? Failure?), equally outdated. But with the help of the subtitle - Masculin/Féminin or: The Children of Marx and Coca-Cola - it turns into one of the most prophetic mantras from the 1960s. Jean-Luc Godard - terrible movies, but visionary, poetic inventor of movie titles. That sounds about right.
The Killer (2023)
"The Killer" Will Kill Your Time. And He Will Leave No Trace.
You've all seen this story before, but never this intensely boring, never this predictable, never this smooth, without twists, surprises and suspense. The movie starts with the voice-over of the hitman: "If you are unable to endure boredom, this work is not for you." He is talking about his profession, but it can be seen as a fair warning - or a great, cynical joke that most people will only get, when it's already too late.
This is a very dry version of the cartoonish "John Wick"-movies. But while Wick only kills his colleagues, Michael Fassbender's Killer will also murder the innocent. He is not a likeable character, just an emotionless, highly efficient tool. The only hint of his personality is that he always listens to the 80ies band "The Smiths", self-pityingly lamenting "I am human and I need to be loved" or revelling in violent phantasies, "If a double-decker bus crashes into us". It is probably supposed to humanize him, but it is just annoying.
While "The Killer" bears some resemblances to French crime movies of the 60ies, it is actually based on a series of French comic books that started in 1998. The only surprise bigger than that is that this drab, forgettable, useless film is made by David Fincher. As the story sounds - and is - incredibly stale, it's his name that will draw in the audience. "The Killer" is bound to destroy quite a bit of his reputation.
Utopia (2020)
7 Hours of "So Bad, It's Good" Is Way Too Much of an Only Occasionally Hilarious Thing
Utopia (2020) is astonishingly different from the original Utopia (2013). If you've watched U13, you'll still be surprised by U20. Sadly, it is also much worse than U13 - and that wasn't great in the first place. But its flaws were covered up by overwhelming visuals, speed and a consistent air of vagueness and mystery. In U20 everything is much simpler. There is no big conspiracy, the bad guy is - obvious from the very beginning - John Cusack's creepy sect leader with his army of underlings he keeps pestering with his catchphrase: "What did you do today to earn your place in this crowded world?" The best answer seems to be "I killed a lot of people." - "Jolly good, my child!"
There are quite a few examples of such cartoonish nonsense. A crowd gets on their knees and begs a leading health official: "Please! Please! Free the vaccine!" - and she will actually do it. A good guy kills another good guy - casually and for no reason at all - and the friends of the dead don't really care. Funny, how this show mixes up "good" and "bad". The big caper in the final episode is a prime example of the complete ineptitude of everybody involved. Was it written by A. I., filmed by a crew of robots? It might make you angry, very angry, but it should make you laugh.
The basic plotlines are fundamentally silly. A bunch of ugly watercolor paintings - blindly accepted to be the genuine sequel of a famous, beloved graphic novel containing secret knowledges - are offered for sale, attracting fans and ruthless killers. This kooky comic is somehow the biggest concern of well-meaning genocidal maniacs, who out of the goodness of their hearts work hard to save the world from over-population, and whose long-term philanthropic plans are very close to coming to fruition.
In U13 these ideas are handled with some delicacy to make them digestible. Subtlety is not the strong suit of the authors and the directors of U20. Everything is just blatantly grotesque, absurd, unworldly, stupid. It wasn't the story, it was the style that made U13 successful. So why this clumsy remake? Too much of a "Britannia rules the genes"-vibe for an American audience?
U20 is most certainly not meant to be a parody, and considering the gruesome topics it sure seems mighty inappropriate to call it a laughing stock. But that's what it is. Some scenes are even hysterically funny. Those scenes are the only ones worth to be remembered.
Utopia (2013)
Season 1 is - technically - excellent, Season 2 is useless
Season 1 is a by the numbers thriller. A "diverse" group of people is drawn into the machinations of powerful evil doers. What are the bad guys really up to and can they be stopped by some average random people? But the story is fast moving, with many twists, a lot of action and stunning visuals. It is also surprisingly violent and with a high body count. In the end it doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is mostly a fun ride. It's a 300 minutes long action thriller with only a few unnecessary scenes.
What it's not: a serious political tale. It is much closer to the James Bond universe than to the real world: a world-threatening conspiracy by a few fanatics, a brilliant mad scientist single-handedly doing all the virological research, an unique, unstoppable killer - and everything presented with so much style that plausibility doesn't matter much.
Neither is "Utopia" a warning. If anything, it promotes some malicious concepts. The authors only half-heartedly criticize the well-meaning genocidal maniacs, whose philantropic objective is to save the world from over-population. There is no debunking of their all too common cartoonish priorities that led them to think of mass murder as the only option. One member of Team No Genocide is even persuaded to join Team Genocide. The kooky heroes of "Utopia" look for secret messages in comic books. The messages in "Utopia" are neither very original nor true.
As for the second season, it sure feels as if the authors had nothing more to tell. It starts with a prequel episode and gets more and more ridiculous. It hits rock bottom with the last scene of the last episode, which definitely killed any idea of a third season. There is no need to watch the second season, it doesn't add anything useful to the first one.
Wham! (2023)
Andy & Yog's Magical Adventure
There are hardly any talking heads in this documentary. Even the old Andrew Ridgeley can only be heard, but is never seen. The story is basically told with archive footage. And what a great story this is, a bit like the Mozart fantasy in Amadeus (1984), but this time in real.
Two teenagers, who behave like stupid teenagers and are considered to be idiots by many experts from the music press, turn out a string of catchy songs that are still - 40 years later - well known and liked. They authentically embodied the youthful energy, genius and lust for life that's at the heart of pop music. When they ended the Wham!-project in 1986 with their final concert, nearly exactly 4 years after the release of their first - and unsuccessful - single in June 1982, the best reason given was that they considered themselves no longer to be adolescents. A rare realization.
Andrew Ridgeley was the moving spirit of Wham!, the energy. George Michael - nicknamed "Yog" by Andrew - was the genius. He became more and more obsessed with writing and producing songs, obsessed with the number 1 spot in the charts. He created most of the music, but turned a bit into a megalomaniac. During his solo career he wrote immortal songs like ... I don't know, actually. Aside from from the first post-Wham! Album, Faith (1987), he only released four more, from 1990 to 2004, with fine, but unremarkable music.
The Wham!-Story is unique, fabulous, magical. Does this documentary reveal the whole truth about this seemingly impossible success? Probably not. But it does a good enough job offering plausible explanations. It should satisfy most of its viewers.
Looks That Kill (2020)
A tall idea for too small a story
This is not a comedy, it's a tragic Love Story. The girl Alex has a life threatening heart condition. If she's too happy, she will die. The boy Max has a life threatening face condition. People who see his naked face will die, instantly and happy. Why? That's not really explained. He doesn't have a terrible hairdo like Medusa and his face is quite ordinary, there is no trace of celestial, excruciating beauty. He always conspicuously bandages his head, covering his forehead, his nose and his chin. So these must be his most deadly parts.
But the face thing is just a secondary aspect of this movie, a selling point. This is not science fiction or horror, this is a romance story that could have been told without supernatural elements and for that kind of story it's okay. Alex and Max are likable enough to keep you interested. The fraudulent labeling is annoying, though.
Kellen Moore, the author and director, didn't do much with his big idea, he really didn't think it through. He should at least been smart enough not to debunk his claim that Max's face has optical magic powers by showing it bare. And the idea that Max was born with his curse is just silly. The faces of a newborn, a 9-year-old, a 16-year old don't look the same. Some kind of explanation would have been easy, like: One day he found a medicine that made his acne totally disappear - and the curse started ... On the other side it's obvious that a simple nose job could have ended his curse, or a beard, or make-up, or big framed eyeglasses. The ridiculous mummy design he has chosen instead is, again, just silly. On one occasion he has to wear a pouch - yeah, much better!
In 1982 the great cartoonist Charles Rodrigues told a similar story, "Deirdre Callahan", about a girl with such an hideous face that everybody, who sees it, dies a horrible, self-inflicted death. Her curse starts with a specific event. She gains her power after some plastic surgery goes awry, from there on her face is - obviously - never shown, she always wears a bag with a pretty face painted on it. Rodrigues created an elaborate and darkly funny story from his original idea with lots of crazy things that happen to Deirdre, or rather to the world around her. It is still hilarious. Compared to deadly-faced Deirdre deadly-faced Max is quite a disappointment.- One last thought: This movie is from 2020. The Canadian MaiD-programm really took off in 2021. Just saying.
Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure (1989)
A movie of perfect harmony
"Excellent Adventure" seems to be made by 16-year-olds, for 16-year-olds, with 16-year-olds. Keanu Reeves - 25 at that time - looks especially childlike and immature. It is hard to believe that any adult would ever come up with ideas that are so fantastically ridiculous, so unashamed nonsensical, so childishly megalomaniac.
But there is something else that's childlike about "Excellent Adventure": It has a disarming innocence and purity. This is clearly not a movie mogul's idea of a cash-grab. It really feels like some kids with exuberant imagination, no care in the world - and no real understanding of the world - are out of control and just having a lot of fun. It's this vividly perceived authenticity that makes "Excellent Adventure" such a great movie for the 16-year-olds of all ages. Even a lot more people will find the youthful energy and hope of Bill & Ted appealing, consider their teenage slang, their skewed worldview and their big dreams of never before seen success to be kind of cute. In it's own way it is charming, unique and remarkable. Still, you might experience it as just tedious and unfunny: Congratulations, you are clearly a mature adult. Seriously, good for you. "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure" isn't in harmony with the whole world. Nothing is.
"Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey" (1991) is a worthy successor, very different, same vibe. "Bill & Ted Face the Music" (2020) is an abomination, unauthentic in every possible way, it totally denies and rewrites the history of "Excellent Adventure" and is - in complete contrast to the Excellent one - very uncharmingly stupid.
John Wick (2014)
This feels like a very good comic book movie
The World of John Wick is different from the one we live in. His wife had died and after a hold-up he instinctively sees a chance to snap out of his sadness and lethargy. He has been an assassin, a legendary mafia killer. Everybody knows that, even his friendly local policeman. Now he has a reason for revenge, to go back to work -- to live, to kill.
John Wick's world is the world of organized crime. His vendetta will not lead him anywhere else. He's fighting against the Russian mafia organization he formerly worked for. His most important quality - repeatedly stressed by his former boss - is that he is 'a man of focus', which in a society with rampant attention-deficit disorder might well be considered a superpower. This world of crime is a rules-based order with draconic punishments for transgressions and its own currency, golden coins of a very inexactly defined value. In "John Wick I" the superstructure of the organized crime is represented by the hotel Continental, a gentlemen's club where everything is about honor and rules. It is a silly idea, but here it is just an unintrusive subplot giving this shoot-'em-up actioner an original and intriguing flavor.
Keanu Reeves looks great, this is his most iconic role. The plot is straightforward, not too simple, not excessively complicated, the action scenes are pleasently staged and timed. It is so far from reality that it feels like a comic book adaptation, but if you can accept that, JWI offers a really good time. It doesn't go too much over the top.
The three sequels do, head-on. The nearly almighty, all-knowing government of the crime world, the 'High Table', becomes the center of the Wick-story. It's not organized crime, it's totally controlled crime. Sometimes Wick's world seems to belong to the "Matrix"-universe: Suddenly everybody turns into an assassin or passers-by completely ignore ongoing fights. Everything is about rituals, rules, Table manners. John Wick killing an endless queue of faceless thugs trying to off him gets more and more boring and ridiculous. In JW4 John Wick's main adversary is a blind super shooter, another man of focus. They are openly mocking their audience.
The original "Matrix" and "John Wick" movies are great, because they walk the line between a conventional, relatable story and one that's just pretentious and nonsensical. Their sequels left the golden vagueness and embraced the most silly elements of their predecessors. Visually JW2 to JW4 are marvelous though.
Joker (2019)
The cheers are bewildering and incomprehensible
The Batman Connection is a complete hoax. 'Joker' is actually a bleak, elegiacal social drama film about the deplorable life of a nearly fifty-year-old guy, who doesn't have a real job and isn't especially well liked by anybody. He has got some severe psychological problems, is plagued by something like a Tourette syndrome: If he feels stressed, he falls into fits of laughter, but this laughter doesn't sound funny, it is fake, aggressive, derisive. Therefore he shouldn't have a job, where he is forced to interact with strangers. He does the opposite. He works as a clown at kids' birthday parties, potentially traumatizing the little ones. And he tries to be a stand-up comedian, even though his own mother tells him that he isn't funny at all. Arthur Fleck is a very unsympathetic character, an all around douchebag. He daydreams about the things he wants to happen to him. It is not clear, what is supposed to be reality and what is just dreaming. Everything could be a dream. That's annoying in every movie.
The politics of 'Joker' are childish: The world is unjust. There are rich people and there are poor people, and the rich don't care about the poor. Worse: A poor guy sits in the subway, he just wants to get home after a tough day. Some Wall Street brokers in suits enter and beat him up, while singing: "Send in the Clowns" - that's the kind of evil people in Gotham have to deal with on a daily basis. And it is making them mad! Those evil rich people! Let's riot! And they do.- This world is even too silly for a comic book.
It is impossible for Arthur Fleck to be the Joker, when Bruce Wayne is just 10. Nearly all the actors have been at least 36, when they first starred as Batman. Joaquin Phoenix's Fleck doesn't have the dark wit, doesn't have the evil genius, doesn't have the physical strength of the Joker. But he will have all of that when he is over 70 years old? That's a joke, right? This joker is as threatening as the leaf on the Canadian flag, without his handgun he's got nothing. This is probably the worst origin story of a super villain ever. Worse, again: This leaf is actually presented as some kind of a hero, as a revolutionary messiah.
They could have told the same story without the comic book references. Maybe they were going to and changed it later on, and so New York became Gotham, but they forgot that there's no Wall Street in Gotham. The film would have been certainly better without the bogus Batman baggage.
Too much about 'Joker' feels just wrong: the story, the world, the mindset. Selling it as a smart and sophisticated comic book movie is super annoying and villainous. This is a - very successful - cash grab.- A sequel should be titled: Death of Badman - Birth of Paradise. That would be appropriately silly.
Mad Max 2 (1981)
Mad Max 2 ist the defining Mad Max Movie
"Mad Max 1" is basically just another biker movie, like Russ Meyer's "Motorpsycho" (1965). That title and the tagline "Bike riding hoodlums flat-out on their murder cycles" would have worked for "Mad Max 1", too, and really well.
For "Mad Max 2" George Miller invented a whole new world, a vision that turned it into one of the most influential movies ever. MM2 is fundamentally different from MM1. The vehicles are different, the clothes are different, the whole esthetics are different. Mel Gibson's character is the only connection to MM1.
MM2 is not perfect, the story surely isn't. But the script is tight and action filled and there is a bunch or great, colorful characters, like: the beastly mohawked villain, the feral kid, and of course the quirky gyro pilot, who in today's world would have gotten his own movies or TV show, and rightfully so. There are a lot of new, crazy ideas. Miller must have been very inspired, when he wrote the script and directed this movie.
Sadly, he couldn't re-enter this state of grace. The script for MM3, "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome", is a mess. Everything is bigger, less impressive. Instead of one feral kid, there is a whole tribe of them. Instead of a tanker chase there is a train chase. Instead of the gyro pilot there is a totally different pilot, played by the same actor. The eponymous "Thunderdome" is only in it for about 10 minutes. This would be an interesting scientific study: "The energy sources in MM3 and 'The Matrix' - which one is more insane?" So yeah, it's all a bit silly, even more so if you've just watched MM2. It will look like a parody.
Thankfully, nobody needs to watch MM1 to unterstand MM2 - or MM3 to see a continued storyline from MM2, there is none. These are three stand-alone movies. (Yes, a forth one, "Fury Road", exists. It doesn't matter.) In the USA "Mad Max 2" was called "The Road Warrior", and that's a much more reasonable choice, because this is not just a part of something. "The Road Warrior" is one great movie.
Sunshine (2007)
A Psychedelic Trip to the Heartless Sun
So you want to throw a bomb into the sun, eh? Do you have a rocket? Do you have a magic bomb that would actually make a difference? Great! Point the rocket towards the sun, make sure it won't hit Venus or Mercury. Shoot! That's it, you can't miss the sun.-- That's too easy? You need drama, and a lot of it? That's quite a different task. Very difficult. You don't need scientists, you need a drama queen for that, and some magic pills to really think outside of reality's box ...
The most trippy of Sunshine's inventions is the sun deck on the space ship, a special room for crew members to watch the sun. Why? Only a - pardon my language - 'technician' would ask such a question. The sun looks gorgeous, really far out! Watching people spacing out while they lose themselves in the close-up of the sun is the main attraction of this movie, its real raison d'être. A second very innovative invention is the villain. That couldn't be any normal villain, he had to be really extraordinary. Therefore he looks like an entity from a demon dimension. Granted, that's insane, but insane FUN ... for some.
Without the magic pills there's not much fun to be found in "Sunshine". The first part is bleak, boring space ship routine. The second part is over the top nonsense, empty gimmickry with nothing making any sense at all. So shut down your brain and enjoy. Or stay clear and be vexed. It's probably best to just skip this silly movie and instead listen to the unwise words of Manfred Mann's Earth Band: "Mama always told me not to look into the eyes of the sun. But mama, that's where the fun is." 'Blinded by the Light' (1976) is famous/infamous for having the most nonsensical lyrics ever. Nobody cares. That's the prerogative of music. The preposterous "Sunshine" was not and will not be that lucky.
PS: In Greek mythology, Icarus couldn't accomplish his mission, because he came too close to the sun. The fact that the space ship in "Sunshine" is called "Icarus" seems to insinuate that in this future there are some very influential people from Team Sun on Earth.
2010 (1984)
They didn't make contact, but they made some money.
The cryptic ending of "2001" was perfect for that movie, turning it into a religious experience, into pure space mysticism. A sequel seemed to be impossible, and this turned out to be true. From a technical point of view "2010" is a fine movie, contentwise it's a failure - just like the mission of the "Discovery Two" to Jupiter that constitutes about 80% of "2010". It turns out to be completely irrelevant. They don't achieve a thing. Did they trigger the big event at the end of "2010"? That idea is a silly as this big event itself. If you know some basic facts about the solar system, this "amazing" event turns from being just ridiculous to being really annoying.
They took some elements of "2001", went through the motions, did stupid things to create some action, did even more insane things to create some sense of awe. They didn't actually have a story to tell. In the end, this was just a cash grab, obviously. The best way to watch it might be when it's on the TV while you do something else most of the time.
Just one infuriating detail: Not once, but twice an artificial intelligence about to get shut down asks: "Will I dream?" This is an allusion to Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and to Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?". Hopefully it is merely meant as a joke. But it's not funny, it's cringe, super cringe.