Category: Movies

Stardust

The first recommendation I have ever received for this film was from the friend of mine whose first name is 6451’s last name, harr harr. I know him far longer than I have known 6451, and he was a movie buff ever before I became one. It so happens that he rarely game me recommendations, and this one was a strong recommendation too. He said even his girlfriend liked it, the one girl my age that I personally know and admire at the same time.

Much later, I got the film in a wonderfully nice, large HD version – and it was totally worth it. It’s a simple, nice film of similar enjoyment as, say, “How to train your dragon” with great visuals and production values. Plus it had Rupert Everett and Robert DeNiro! (The only two good actors in the film though, unfortunately. Michelle Pfeiffer was surprisingly bad; she typically does much better.)

With Rupert Everett and Michelle Pfeiffer, there was a lot of the film that strangely reminded me of the 1999 version of “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”; similar characters, a slightly odd but amusing setting and people speaking with a weird accent (ha ha ha).

But really, for being a feel-good children’s movie, this film is extraordinarily well-written; with enough maturity in its humour that it can appeal to an older audience. Personally I was completely smitten with the film and think that it’s a great film to watch for relaxation.

Rain Man

“Rain Man” is one of those films you are supposed to watch because it’s such a classic. I think I have known it forever, but never came around to watching it. Originally it was another one of those films Shii recommended to me, and since I figured that we will not come around to watch it together, I decided to see it during a moment of strong urgings for it.

It clearly is not my favorite movie, let alone my favorite Tom Cruise film (I think my favorite would be “In the Name of Honour” because it’s a childhood memory). But I understand the appeal of the film, which obviously does not come from Tom Cruise but from the character of the autistic brother, and the relationship unfolded during the 7 day trip.

The said 7 day trip really got to my heart, and I could literally feel the beauty of the two brothers having pancakes together. I can see how the bittersweetness of the film captures the general feeling in beginning of the 1990’s. Touching films about people’s lives were very en vogue at that time, and many Hollywood movies I remember from my childhood fall into that category.

“Rain Man” also has the benefit of having a lot of naturally cute scenes. If there is something that differs “Rain Man” from your usual Hollywood melodrama, it’s how it managed to describe Ray’s autism with funny scenes without belittling it nor making it unrealistic. Without knowing all that much about autism myself, I think that both the actor as well as the writers did a great job with it. It surely must have had some positive effects on people’s awareness of the illness.

I am glad that I have finally seen this classic, even if it was not mind-blowing. It’s one of those movies I would show my children one day, when they are still relatively young.

In Bruges

I think a million have recommended this film to me, especially people who are into good stuff but not necessarily into movies (not the same way we crazy “cineasts” are at least). Of course that made me want to see the film and now I know why.

There are some movies that are of the type where I am incredibly impressed when I see it the first time but actually less the second time. I can see “In Bruges” to be one of these movies – while I saw it, I kept thinking how incredibly great it is. The acting, the storywriting, how everything beautifully fits together and how the story brings both tragedy and comedy together in such a skilled way. I loved the film when I saw it and probably have not enjoyed a film as much as this for a long time. (Long probably being a few months, the last film that thoroughly impressed me – that I can think of out of the top of my head – is “Die Ehe der Maria Braun”.)

The film also made me think; about coincidences that, of course, fit together in a film better than it does in real life – but then again, isn’t real life like a movie too sometimes? They are mirroring each other into infinity, that is sort of how I personally feel about it. It made me think about its main topic (an assassin accidentally killing an innocent child), and the morality that comes with it. Every character was a good person in some way and they tried to do what they thought they had to – and that is, I think, the beauty of it. It’s about life and death, and honor and how you should lead a life. The love story part was pretty much annoying (LOL the love interest is Fleur Delacour?) and didn’t even provide a fraction of the comical relief the interaction between the main characters themselves, but if you overlook that (and the sometimes very clichéd music), the film is quite a beautiful gem of great storywriting.

It seems “In Bruges” did get a lot of recognition from the critics – and it’d better do. For me, it’s at least or about as good as “Leon The Professional”, “A History of Violence” and “Gunslinger Girl”, when restricting yourself to stories with the same topic.

Nightmare Before Christmas

This is the movie of my childhood that I have never seen. Ever since I have met Shii, he wanted me to see this film and there is perhaps no other film I have seen so much merchandise of before ever seen the film.

Now, I suppose my childhood is definitely over. Over these many years (6, 7, even more?) I have developed an impression of the film that ultimately turned out completely different. I find the film less esthetic than Corpse Bride, especially the female main character, and the storyline shallower than any other Tim Burton film. On top of that, I think I have thought that the film would be a mix of Mexican “Day of the Dead” characters and the “Cabinet of Caligari” with the slightly evil humor of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”. To some degree, this is true (except for the humor part that is just completely missing), but something is still different from my imagination of the film as the ultimate children’s movie.

On the other hand, however, I know that the film is something special unpreceded in history – and without a doubt, Tim Burton is never going to be able to make a film like this. Not with “Corpse Bride”, and most certainly not with “Alice in Wonderland”. The atmosphere and the style of “Nightmare Before Christmas” is absolutely special; the film’s darkness is not disguised by any unnecessary happiness or cuteness, and I find it quite impressive how a musical film for children can contain so much sombre depressiveness. Sure, it has a silly happy end, but I am still very smitten with so much bravery.

The cutest item of the film is Zero… it’s the strangest companion ever (and the one from “Nausicaä” is the cutest), but I like it very much with its red nose. <3

Finally, I’d say it’s a nice film with great songs, and for my personal history with it I will most definitely keep it in my heart (and perhaps give it a second try one day when I’ll watch it with my own children) but right now, I’d say I am a little bit underwhelmed by it, perhaps due to my high expectations.

What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?

Rain is the most idiotic name for a girl possible, I can’t believe Woody Allen thought up that name. But even though I wasn’t a big fan of the movie (why not anyways?), the actress was memorable enough and I was amazingly surprised when I recognized her. She always talks the same way though, no matter what kind of role; is that a bad thing though? Woody Allen himself does the same thing.
She is not the only character… Except for the mother and the sisters, I feel like I have seen every actor in the film somewhere else. I looked them up and saw that most of them were in many insignificant movies I have sort of seen in the past – now ho weird is that?

“I want to move away.” I wish Gilbert had said that when he was asked about what he wants. I think that he is a lovely character who is more than just a one-dimensional good person, but Arnie is definitely much more interesting. Leonardo Dicaprio is surprisingly great in this role, oh my God. I mean… how the heck is it possible that he was this cute at 19 years? Normally I don’t like the depiction of actually crazy people in movies, especially because I don’t know much about how they behave, yet I cannot imagine that they would do a good job in a Hollywod movie. Nevertheless, I thought young DiCaprio did a good job and showed the right mix of loveliness and annoyingness for me to enjoy the film.

More than anything else, I think that the movie is an unexpectedly nice slice of life film. A few things are happening, but not really much, and more than anything else, it’s a character film and not very easy to watch. The environment is depressing, Gilbert’s life is more than depressing and it seems like spending your whole life caring about nothing but other people is possibly the most tragic thing in the world.

Unfortunately the tragedy also comes with a huge amount of kitsch, especially in the scenes with “Rain” and Gilbert… The scenes with Arnie are much better, and at the end of the film, the amazingly sappy music didn’t bother me as much anymore. There was a certain beauty to it.
It’s too bad the music doesn’t perfectly complement Sven Nykvist’s wonderful cinematography by turning the thoughtful shots into kitsch.

Somehow I can’t say that I truly enjoyed watching the film; for that, the film was just a little bit too sad without having a cartharsis function like “Au hasard Balthasar” did. But I am glad that I have finally seen this film that I have always meant to see ever since “Titanic”. (You know how back tthen, the magazines were all like “Leo is actually a good actor, just watch ‘Gilbert Grape'”?)

Hannah and Her Sisters

Errr… Somehow there is something extremely wrong about this movie. The dialogue, the mannerisms, especially the way people speak is absolutely Woody-Allen-like (think “I can’t believe it!”) But unlike for Diane Keaton and, to some degree, Mia Farrow, the Woody-Allen-ism doesn’t really suit the actors in the film, let alone Michael Caine. In this case, it’s destroying an otherwise lovely film – for the first time in a Woody Allen film, I didn’t feel any connection to the main love story. Even though it perfectly makes sense (some guy in love with his wife’s sister, is there anything more simple and dramatic than that?) and I like Michael Caine a lot, I thought their relationship was more awkward than anything else.

The problem with a Mia Farrow film is the appearance of Mia Farrow. Oh God, I hate her, hahahaha. She still has a horrible voice and she doesn’t do much. Luckily she is not really the main character her, despite the title of the story. It’s still disturbing when you see Hannah and Elliott though. It just feels so wrong when he’s all “I love you” – eek, I guess that’s the point.
Perhaps what I really dislike is the 80’s style of the film? But then again, it never bothered me in, say, “A Fish Called Wanda” and Jamie Lee Curtis surely looked absolutely weird in that one.

The actually lovely character in the film is Woody Allen – as always. It’s too bad he wasn’t much more than comic relief in the film, because an existential relationship-stricken Woody Allen is always a great addition to his own films.

Now where are the great reviews for the film coming from? So the greatest thing of the film is the journey the characters take – they change and in many ways, this is indeed Woody Allen’s “Fanny and Alexander”. The homage to that masterpiece is pretty beautiful, and it brings up questions such as religion, the meaning of life and all those little Woody Allen details that make this film. I think my favorite scene was the one in which Woody Allen’s character Mickey and Holly get together, where Mickey tells her about how he found his own revelation by watching a Marx Brothers film. That is so lovely and real and wonderful that this scene alone makes the film worthwhile to see.

Apart from that, it was an okay film and definitely not a Woody Allen I would necessarily recommend. It didn’t make me laugh either, sadly. It seems like Woody Allen is doing better with his homages to Fellini (Stardust Memories) rather than Bergman (Deconstructing Harry, Hannah and her sisters).

Stalker

This is exactly what I imagine science-fiction to be like. Amazingly suspenseful despite its slow pace, and with a dialogue that goes beyond just being pretentious, it actually makes you think. There is something that reminds me of Janacek’s Glagolitic Mass, because of how they evoke this notion of God, or more like this feeling of God, without primarily being about religion.

Indeed, “Stalker” makes me think of the human condition, and ask questions such as “What are we afraid of? What do we want? What is life? What does the world really look like? Is there a God? Why is Tarkovsky capable of making such incredibly beautiful movies?”
I am not sure what I should think about the dialogue in this film. On the one hand, it does feel pretentious to me; on the other hand, there is a beautiful simplicity to them that I forgive Tarkovsky for making his characters contemplate metaphysical questions throughout the whole film.

So what is my innermost wish? I don’t know, and to be honest, I totally expect it to be something scary as well.

The wife’s Monologe… it’s so Ilke “Ulysses”. und ich hab ihm zuerst die Arme um den Hals gelegt und ihn zu mir niedergezogen dass er meine Brüste fühlen konnte wie sie dufteten und das Herz ging ihm wie verrückt und ich hab ja gesagt ja ich will Ja.

“Stalker” is a road trip, except on a very, very weird road, and a large portion of this film’s merit is indeed its impressive cinematography. A science-fiction film shot in the middle of nowhere, among ugly ruins and without any special effects whatsoever cannot possibly look so stylish, beautiful and atmospheric – or so I thought before I saw this film.

In fact, the film piqued my interest in the science-fiction genre again, much more than “Blade Runner” ever did. I think that the premise of the Zone is very intriguing; it combines adventure and action (how to get the items and out!) with a supernatural world in which everybody has their own motives for wanting to get into the Zone. This kind of background setting has the potential to become something like Kino no Tabi or Mushishi: An episodic series where the different items would be like the multitude of mushi to the people who get them – or try to get them.
Even if the book is short, I totally want to read “Roadside Picnic” now.

Finally, I am so glad that – after having ignored Tarkovsky for years and years – “Stalker” is the first film I have seen. Somebody should have told me that this is dystopian science fiction! And that Tarkovsky loves Teshigahara’s “Woman in the Dunes”. There is so much I am interested in: His short film “The Killers”, “Ivan’s Childhood”, “Andrei Rublev”, and especially “Solaris” and “Mirror”.

The Seventh Seal

After I saw a Fellini film (the other director besides Bergman that Woody Allen absolutely loves) and “Au hasard Balthazar” (another grand film from the Arts&Faith list I have always wanted to see), I figured the next film for me watch absolutely had to be from Ingmar Bergman’s faith cycle, with Tystnaden, The Virgin Spring, Through a Glass Darkly and Winter Light. Since Tystnaden is not on Netflix, I figured I shall just go with this film, especially considering that it has been on my to watch list ever since I started this blog.

I knew nothing about the film, the only thing that intrigued me was that the main character is playing chess with Death, determining his fate through that. And now, it turns out that one of my undergrads (an Indian to boot!) has seen the film as well, and he recommends “The Firemen’s Ball” to me. Wow.
He also reminded me that the Georgia Tech library has a million movies you can rent… I should perhaps do that instead of getting even more addicted to Netflix.

At any rate, I thought this film is much more inspiring than “Au hasard Balthazar”. Balthazar is great because of the allegories, the sadness and the symbolism (and annoying because of Marie’s storyline); “The Seventh Seal” is great because of what it actually shows (and annoying because of nothing particular except I am not a big fan of the Middle Ages).

Indeed, a historical film about the Middle Ages is probably the least interesting for me among all times. But “The Seventh Seal” shows how much humanity was in that time. I found one particular funny scene very typical for Bergman (Incredible, right? A typical Bergman humor!), where blacksmith and his wife got back together and Jöns predicts the next sweetness she is going to say to appease him. Pure humorous brilliance. It made me of Loris commenting on his friends’ ongoing chess game like it was soccer.

Most of the film is serious and meaningful though. Facing death constantly in the film, the whole film is about the most haunting questions in the world: What is life for? What is God doing out there? Why are we born and why do we die? The fact that Bergman is able to bring in so many amusing scenes into a bleak film in black and white is absolutely wonderful.

Going beyond showing spirituality in the form of a Passionsgeschichte like “Balthazar” or Dreyer’s “Joan of Arc”, this film shows ourselves, how a humble man struggles in an environment where both the imagery of God and Death are everywhere. The terror in the girl’s eyes when she was about to be burnt to death, the sudden kneeling down of people upon the view of flagellants… with all this, Bergman reminds me how much I dislike religions and how incredibly dark the past especially of Catholicism was. Religious fanaticism is the main reason why I have a certain contempt for the Middle Ages above any other time. There is nothing beautiful from that time except… the beauty of the Notre Dame de Paris.

In terms of what it transports, the film would have been so much greater if it was able to capture what I would call ‘the emotion of faith’. Whatever practices they had in the Middle Ages is the exact opposite of what makes my heart tremble. I grew up protestant, but with parents who visited churches on every trip they make to other countries. Every time, I was smitten with grandeur of Catholic churches, it’s a feeling I have never felt in any non-Christian church. The first time I did not feel this solemnity in a church was in Krakow which must have been when I was 18 or 19. I had turned into a complete atheist by then. Moreover, the most significant remain of my “religious childhood” is the fact that I start praying when something really, really bad happens to me. It’s not even necessary conscious, it’s more that at these times of crisis, a thought (precisely quoted) such as “Lieber Gott, bitte lass mich das durchstehen” would slip into my mind. I’m not kidding, I really think “lieber Gott” (dear God). I see this concept of God so much clearer in Fellini’s films or this incident when I was in Frankfurt and walked into the beginning of a mass, I saw girls kneeling down in front of a statue of the Virgin Mary, with a humbleness I thought impossible nowadays. I don’t believe in that stuff (that just goes against my reason and common sense), but in a movie, I feel something like piety. Religion is like science fiction, except this comparison fails at many levels.

Enough confusing unrelated ranting: I feel like “The Seventh Seal” has brought me one step closer to myself – what I am and what I like. Perhaps in that respect, Bergman is the most wonderful filmmaker of the twentieth century. On the other hand, since this film cries “Bergman!” to me from all sides, I don’t know what I would think about it if I were not a Bergman fangirl.

Au hasard Balthazar

I have fought myself for years until I finally watched the film today. I can’t even remember anything comparable except maybe for “Inland Empire”. But what am I supposed to say, I am actually very scared of the sadness lying upon this film. It’s for the same reason why I would never watch “Lilja 4-ever” or “Breaking the Waves”: I don’t think my weak mind can handle it. What is so great about films that are all about suffering?

Now “Au hasard Balthazar” is not entirely like those. The first time I tried to watch the film, the incredible sadness of the film completley hit me; the second time, I still cannot decide what I prefer, but ultimately there is a certain disgust that goes with it. In some ways, Marie absolutely makes no sense, in other ways, she behaves like a typical female cliché: Someone abuses her and she thinks she loves him; she offers herself to some old, ugly man and the very moment she does, she starts insulting him. And in the end, she denies a possible relationship to her only love and the only worthwhile man in the whole story. Of course!

There is a part of me that really likes how the film is made. The whole imagery of Balthazar is absolutely wonderful… and then there is a side of myself that has feelings and which is immediately angered upon the view of the happenings in the film. I also don’t like movies about “the good” and “the bad” in which people who are good are amazingly good (Jacques) and the ones who are bad are evil beyond comprehension (Gérard).

By the way, there is something very, very disturbing about talking German, writing a blogpost in English and watching a French film at the same time. What happens then is that I start writing “dans un…” in the blogpost, and I only discovered my mistake when I had difficulties continuing that sentence.

In the end, I definitely do not like this film as much as literally everybody else, although I see its aesthetic appeal and the greatness of the mise en scène of the film. The beauty of the Balthazar storyline makes up for everything, and the end alone is worth to see this unusual film.

Amarcord

If there exists something such as a slice of life film, I think “Amarcord” it is. Who cares about “Aria”? “Amarcord” makes you feel like you are actually in the film. Now of course there are episodes that are better or worse than others, but the fact that I was thoroughly entertained during the first 20 minutes of the film made me get into it very quickly.

It doesn’t matter whether life really is like that in Rimini, it feels like this film is taken just out of life and that’s the beauty of it. I don’t know when I have seen this the last time in an actual movie.
The film is a full of wonderful details: People running out of the movie theater because it started raining, boys playing pranks with their teachers, a crazy man climbing onto a tree, crying “I want a woman”. That is what this film is about, and I can’t think of anything comparable really. While I was not sure if I liked the episodic character in “Roma” (mainly because I felt that most episodes in “Roma” were absolutely boring), I think it is the only way to make a film such as this one.

I have always been unsure whether I liked Fellini. Now that “La Strada” was extraordinarily brilliant and “8 1/2” is a masterpiece, I guess I can’t help but like Fellini now, right?