| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Bats (1999)
 |
|
Summary: 'Bats' are no 'Birds'
The bulk of reviews for this little horror film would be rather negative. Having seen the movie before having read the reviews, however, led me to a partly similar, partly different, all in all unbiased reaction, which - this is to say - moves towards the more positive side.
Rarely have I seen a horror film as scary as this one. I don't mean to have been screaming and hiding behind a pillow while watching it; it would be quite unmanly to do so. But I felt scared. Great horror films enlarge your perspective, help you getting a different look on something. And I have to tell you, I think different about bats now. The dark side has been exposed, however unreal the scenario may have been. The fear but has been real. The horror has been real. Don't tell me the X-filean Fluke Man were real.
The featurette exposed the wish of the creators to make something like 'The Birds' but with bats. This isn't 'The Birds', the director is no Hitchcock either. The scenario is rather conventionally contrived, almost entirely predictable. Bad scientist (played by someone who always plays the bad guy) messes with Mother Nature to create a perfect killing machine for the DOD. Young and beautiful female scientist succeeds where the army fails. A Texas Sheriff does a decent John Wayne. All of this neither new nor nice to watch, except Dina Meyer of course. The effects however, contrary to what I've read, are great and believable, especially the sound.
In the end, this makes a movie with an intelligence quotient slightly higher than 'The Phantom Menace', but in terms of visuals, landscape, horror and effects this is thoroughly positive. The stupidity of the setting may also be satirical, but that's a long shot probably. As a satire, this would be brilliant, but can a satire be satire when it isn't recognizable as such? Thus remains a good horror flick and an average movie.
April 30th 2000
|
The Beach (2000)
 |
|
Summary: Inventive and intense
However one may think of DiCaprio as a person, as an icon, he proves again that as an actor he is able to overshadow almost everybody - especially when his age is taken into consideration. His devotion to the character he's playing always creates a vivid performance, he is the center of a movie even if there might be other main characters. He's proven this already in 'Titanic' and 'The Quick and the Dead', and with this movie it's more obvious than ever.
If it only were for DiCaprio, this film would be great in acting. But it also has a compelling story, great visuals and a classic conflict. It might seem strange to center such a topic around such a young character, but with DiCaprio it makes sense. His getting mad, even in the strange computer game sequences in the forest, becomes believable, especially with 'Apocalypse Now' being cited in the beginning of the movie. The greatest shock it is when all his playing, all his infatuation with war suddenly reveals its pointlessness, when he finally realizes the smallness of his options. Death strikes him not in the glorious way he conceived of, but in a more drastic and much more revealing way - his glancing into the abyss in the center of paradise makes him recognize all his vanity, makes him grow older - makes him more responsible. In a matter of minutes, he's growing up - doing just what he had denied for himself for so long.
The story of looking for paradise, of finding it, of discovering its dark secrets, of discovering the costs of it, of discovering its true face, that's something not rarely shown but rarely as great as this. One of the remarkable aspects of this film is how the general atmosphere changes from depicting a tourist-like, happiness-seeking, joyous lifestyle changing to a fight for survival - the most shocking scene perhaps being the blood trail on the sand, which seems to be like the turning point. This really is the first sign of a change - paradise will never be the same after these events, innocence is lost.
February 23rd 2000
|
Bedazzled (2000)
|
|
Summary: Bedazzling
The devil. A contract. The price, one's soul. Sounds familiar, somehow. Yet that's about it - this movie turns this aged concept into something fresh, new, twisted - both funny and pensive, insightful and with lots of awfully silly scenes of comedic horror, for the portrayal of which Brendan Fraser is a master. His talents lie both in slapstick and serious humor, which is always a good combination, as he was able to demonstrate already in 'The Mummy' and 'Blast from the Past'.
Elizabeth Hurley is a splendid devil, naughty and fiendish, looking terrifyingly gorgeous in every single scene - and also towering the movie with some classy elegance. With a devil figure like her, temptation was never an easier game.
The film, of course, plays by the rules of comedy, basically, but not without a sense of poetic justice and serious cosmological deliberations - it can be gentle as it can be infantile, and it can be utterly pleasing, a bedazzling experience.
February 4th/5th 2001
|
Behind Enemy Lines (2001)
 |
|
Summary: Washed-Out
There was nothing to expect from this one. Yet while most of it stayed true to some sort of washed-out concept of what an action-laden war flick is supposed to be, it does stand out somehow among those for a few reasons. Owen Wilson is not so bad, Gene Hackman is great as ever, and some scenes are quite disturbing and even attempting to deliver some sort of realism.
That doesn't save the movie from its ridiculous ending and some common stereotypes, but still, it's not that bad, really. Just not good either.
August 26th, 2002
|
Being John Malkovich (1999)
|
|
Summary: Preposterous and lame
Once I had seen the trailer, I was blown away and I just had to see this movie. Today's trailers may be much superior to those of the seventies or eighties, but even amongst the good ones that for 'Being John Malkovich' is outstanding. And with the ratings this film had generally received, I was caught by the hype. Unfortunately, I was fooled.
Some movies are really original. Others are derivative. But then there are those which try so hard to be original that the only piece of originality is the initial attempt at originality. The movie jumpstarts with some nice and indeed original jokes, most of which happen on the 7 1/2 floor, then loses pace while seemingly looking for a possible direction to take, until it finally evolves into a sort of tragedy. But at the time the end is reached, there isn't really any tragic left - only a big, boring, pointless and dull emptiness.
The movie tries hard, very hard, to be different and weird, and the only thing it actually can be is being stupid. The talents of John Cusack and Cameron Diaz are simply wasted and not discernible in this movie, only John Malkovich sort of shines, the appearance of Charlie Sheen as himself being a nice joke. I had the impression that at the beginning of the movie were only two ideas: The 7 1/2 floor and the hole in Malkovich's head. These two needed to be compressed into a story, and apart from some nice and interesting moments and its great potential, the movie was thoroughly disappointing, undeserving its hype, its high rating and good critics. This is a big hunk of junk, intermixed with some bright spots which are solely responsible for the still too high rating I've provided. And it's so sad, it could've been much better. Stick with the trailer instead, it doesn't get any better.
June 17th 2000
|
Bicentennial Man (1999)
|
|
Summary: Subtle and moving
Whoever has watched a single episode of Star Trek TNG will know about the android Data, the positronic man aiming for being human, perfecting his humor, fighting for his freedom, experiencing emotions. As Data's character is loosely based upon Asimov's Positronic Man and "Bicentennial Man", these conflicts and character traits will seem very common, even repetitive with this movie, although there is no real repetition, this is the genuine story here, any similarities arising from the book, the mutual source.
Once this is clear, once the philosophic nature is accepted, the movie is truly enjoyable - although most possible edges and conflicts are either removed or smoothened, reduced to a family audience level. This is not The Outer Limits, which features some Robot stories also. It isn't a science fiction piece; like in Star Trek, that's just the groundwork, the twist to allow for such a story to exist in the first place. But still, the conflicts are there, just in a more subtle way: The issue of slavery, of freedom, of surviving your friends and family, of aging, of life and death - that's also the brilliant thing about this movie: That Chris Columbus is able to tell this story in a gripping and touching way, not evading the conflicts but putting them into the frame of history. Time heals all wounds.
Not every movie needs a restless direction like 'Any Given Sunday' to succeed, sometimes it is just the story told in a great and comforting way, told by fine actors and solid effects. The only points of criticism I would have are the beautiful but boringly uninventive soundtrack by James Horner (who should try composing something which doesn't sound like a collage of all his previous movies) and the outlook of future technology and society, which I consider too tame and too slow in development. Given the current rate of progress and the future potential in 200 years, not even including probable contact with extraterrestrial life, the future as shown in this film is not entirely believable. One aspect about this I liked though: That besides skyscrapers and air taxis there will probably also be small country houses in a more old-fashioned style. But the most important aspect was the hope, the certainty the film provided: That humanity will not die out, that within all storms and perturbations, love is eternal, and death just a passage to another place.
March 15th 2000
|
Big (1988)
 |
|
Summary: Nice concept, but dragging
What does it mean to be a child? What does it mean to be an adult? - Both these question are being asked by this movie, both challenging the traditional concept of childhood as well as of adulthood. A boy, Joshua, being granted the wish of being big suddenly gets an adult body (Tom Hanks), without the mind of an adult. Inside, he's still a kid. Of course his mother doesn't believe him, so he needs to take refuge in the city and becomes vice president of a toy firm, even gets a girlfriend. The inner child somehow is being affected, he learns and adopts some kind of responsibility and has a sexual relationship. But around him, the adults are not really what they're supposed to be.
His girlfriend, Susan (Elizabeth Perkins), also has some very child-like attributes, likes to play. His boss (great as always: Robert Loggia) shares this acceptance of his inner child. But there are others; the ex-boyfriend of Susan's wearing an iron mask of sincerity, hiding himself from the outside, protecting against being hurt, but his defensive measures turn into aggression and paranoia, giving him characteristics of a bad child, of an envious child. He also won't listen to reason, even less to emotions.
Josh, inside still a kid, likes to play - his job also is sort of a game, and, best of all, his professional occupation are toys. But he is far away from home, has to pretend he's kidnapped Josh to being able to tell his mother he's okay, and he still has his best friend (still a "complete" child) around, with having less and less time to spend time with him. He's an adult now - so he's supposed to be doing adult things. His sexual and emotional relation to Susan is helping him with that, but still, he feels alien in this world of grown-ups.
What is childhood, what is adulthood? Do those terms come naturally, or aren't they constructions dictated and formed by society? What is the natural state? When born, we are children. When we grow up, we become adults. That's what society wants us to believe. But still, we want to play games, want to meet with friends, possess a certain curiosity. But the games we play are different, the stakes have risen - and maybe it's those risen stakes which have formed a new element in life, an element differenciating between child and adult: Responsibility. But still it seems to me that adulthood is like a mask or a suit we are putting on, trying to prove to the world how grown-up we are. Old people don't have to do this any more, which frees them from that sort of social conditioning - grand-parents can play with their grand-children in a much freer way. The Robert Loggia character proves this in the movie - he is much too grown-up to having to prove it all the time.
'Big' is a piece of Hollywood magic, and it works on various levels. It might seem like a kids' movie, but it definitely isn't. It is much more complex than that while at the same time maintaining the façade of childish innocence. 'Big' sort of anticipates some elements of 'Little Man Tate' in respect to how the child is able to deal with the expectations of the outside world. The movie, however, also has it's weak points. One of them is photography, which isn't really showing something special. Also the music stays somehow in the background. That might be appropriate in respect to the film, but it's a bit too conventional. The ending, too, was anything but satisfying, but perhaps dictated by storytelling. Still this is a very refreshing and insightful movie with great performances and also some fun in it, making some interesting points about childhood and society.
April 26th 1999
|
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
|
|
Summary: Not scary, but innovative and intense
This movie is actually bigger than the mere film - much more interesting even is how it gained such a strong following and publicity. A giant media hoax - isn't that the most hilarious way to promote a movie? With this strategy, it was even able to outdo Star Wars; and while 'The Blair Witch Project' has the tiniest budget, not only compared to said concurrent, its quality is the better - indirectly proportional to Episode One.
Once you get used to the documentary style and the characters, once the niceties and joking of the first quarter of the film is done, you start to shake your head when you observe how most imperfectly these three guys are prepared for their trip. I was best prepared for it, however, as I just finished a short book on survival in the woods. Every possible mistake you could possibly make, they made too. That's annoying? I guess, it's rather realistic concerning to the fact that indeed lots of people get lost in the woods. It could indeed happen to everybody.
When you've given up trying to tell them to do this or that, or to simply follow the creek downhill, you'll suddenly get drawn into the suspense and desperation created by this film. Never have I seen that much real fear and angst in the eyes of an actor - the horror unfolds without any single monster being neccessary. That's brilliant, and it seems like the epitome of the principle that "less is more".
If you have the chance, get the DVD - there's a 44 minute documentary about the missing students on it; that's the real McCoy - the hoax preceeding the release of the film in its most outrangeous and cheeky. Both combined are a strong argument to make you question the reality and solidity of the media - may that be intentional or not.
December 30th 1999
|
Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000)
|
|
Summary: Bad to the bone
It must have seemed an impossible task to do a sequel for 'The Blair Witch Project', a movie deriving its energy mostly from posing to be a documentary instead. The hoax, the buildup, the hype, however, all this had to stay a singular experience: For you simply cannot repeat something which is simply singular per se. And a 'normal' movie as a sequel, who would have wanted that? So the endeavor, to me, had to seem quite pointless - and I was only mildly excited as I entered the cinema, having read some bad reviews about it. I was wrong - luckily. What I got instead was probably one of the very best horror films I've seen till today - and I've seen a lot.
Horror nowadays has a very strange problem: It has become popular. Nothing wrong with that? Usually I'd tend to agree. But popularity mostly leads to a general softening and smoothening of a phenomenon - as something gets accepted by a larger audience, it will be judged by this larger audience, meaning, it loses its niche position and is subjected to a very different process of opinion-making than before. If horror is only watched by a handful of people, i.e. those used to it, it can be much more drastic - but once the audience gets larger, the stakes - money-wise - are higher, so you don't want to alienate your audience. That's the classic conflict between independent and studio productions. That doesn't mean that there can't be good studio-produced movies, on the contrary, yet nothing beats the independence you get with, well, independent productions. There's yet another factor: Money. Studio productions can be larger, thus enabling a greater use of effects. That may be good for action movies, but it can be a death blow for a decent horror film: For horror can work best when it's done subtly and less directly: Once you show the monster in full, once you expose it, it's over, the thrill is gone.
Today, horror is all over movies and television. Older shows like The Twilight Zone and the (more or less lately) revived Outer Limits are rather clinging towards a mixture between horror and sf, aiming for an obvious moral message. But it has been Twin Peaks to start today's horror wave, with The X-Files and Buffy the Vampire Slayer - as well as their spin-offs, Millennium and Angel - delivering horror to a larger audience, so that there's plenty of monsters you could get used to. Yet that's just the tip of the iceberg. All of these are the good shows, the flagships, so to say, well-versed in storytelling and mixing horror with humor. There's nothing wrong with that, they rather exploit the cult than the cult exploits them, and they are still able to be creative, the active shows that is. But all the other stuff, Poltergeist, Profiler, Psi Factor, Charmed, even Sabrina the Teenage Witch - all these are rather created by the cult, they are either too dark or too pointless to count. This, of course, is a highly subjective analysis - but I reckon that none of these would survive if the big ones died. Horror may seem popular, but true horror is still a fragile construction - illustrated by the death of Millennium. Yet not even that's my point. Elements of horror, or mimicking the big horror shows, can nowadays be found even where they are rather not suspected to exist, like in JAG, Star Trek: Voyager or even Ally McBeal. Movies like 'Scream' posing as "scary movies" are anything but scary, yet they have made horror a hip phenomenon, or rather, what they consider to be horror. That's partly what I meant by smoothening, and even John Carpenter, the otherwise justly so called "master of horror" has given us such a strange creature as 'Vampires'. The more refreshing it is to - finally - once again have a movie which deserves to be called a horror film - a movie which doesn't care if it's too smart, too incomprehensible for the average redneck, a movie which is bloody and ugly and simply bad to the bone.
The first Blair Witch movie was about a group of kids going into the woods searching for some ancient myth, being totally unprepared both mentally and in terms of equipment. The end left the audience guessing. Part two now is sort of a continuation - now without the handheld video camera, without the cheap feeling, without the mockumentary character. Yet the premise is the same. Part one fucked with people's minds, part two does the same - only on another, less obvious level. This is a "real" movie, with a soundtrack - which is extraordinary, to say the least - and filmed with the help of a movie camera and lots of sfx and vfx stuff to make it real, not giving away too much, however. You have still strands of the mockumentary background running through it, so the sequel is rather a continuation than a rip-off, taking the original concept to a different level. This time, the crew is better equipped, larger, more experienced. Yet this can be a disadvantage, too - and of course, something gets wrong. Yet this is not your ordinary slasher flick, it's horror - maybe that's what some reviewers don't understand. Horror happens inside you - it's not big blobby monsters hopping around, it's psychological. You'll know what I mean once you see it.
This movie is a reminder that the topic of horror is nothing nice, nothing comfortable, nothing to go to bed with at night. It is about confronting an audience used to smoothened fairy tales with the real ugliness which lies beneath the surface of things - and it follows the post-modern attack against the conventional perception of reality. And it is about deriding this utterly ridiculous notion that science and the scientific method would be able to finally unmask the unexplained. Reality is far more complex, and if seen from this movie's perspective, you better watch out. Some things are not what they seem to be.
December 9th 2000
|
Blue Velvet (1986)
Summary: Truly a classic, insane and beautiful Most movies tell a story, some do it well, some don't (some even don't have a story at all, like 'Star Wars Episode I'), and even less do it in a way that's not only breathtaking but also highly insightful and at the same time frustrating. David Lynch, as ever, unfolds a masterly conducted dream-world which lies at the border between the obvious and the unknown. He permeates this border not by preaching, not by explicit over-talk or demystification, he looks at it and presents us just that: A glance into the abyss, and at the same time, a glance into the brightest and finest light of humanity. With Lynch, both belong together and flow into each other, both gently and brutal, both discreet and shockingly realistic. Blue Velvet begins and ends with an outlook at a paradisal front view of life in a Middle American small town - framing it into titles with a blue velvet background. Then enfolds a strange and dark world as Jeffrey (Kyle MacLachlan) finds first the ear and then Dorothy Vallens (Isabella Rossellini), both leading him right to the devil in the person of Frank Booth (Dennis Hopper). The theme playing out here is paralleled by some of Lynch's other works, like Twin Peaks, 'Wild at Heart' and 'Lost Highway', while it looks a bit different in his earlier works like 'Eraserhead' and 'The Elephant Man'. Lynch seems always to tell variations on a central theme - which is not necessarily a bad thing, and with Lynch, it just comes naturally: For the theme he plays on is both utmost simple and infinitely complex, it's the nature not only of humanity but of creation. The symbolism he uses not only utilizes images from nature - it also can be applied to nature. Good and evil, hate and love belong to this as much as curiosity and emotions. While there are always sexual undertones, nothing we see is just what it is. And so, amongst scenes which might indicate this being a usual erotical crime thriller, sequences are built in that make this something greater, something entirely different. Characters become symbols, the lines between characters disappear even - Jeffrey and Frank might be the antagonists, but Jeffrey most of all is opposed to Frank because of the influence he feels coming from this madman - because the madness and evil of Frank is already lurking inside of himself, he is not just fighting another man but more like the very idea of him, the very concept of darkness. When Lynch and his work is being characterized as dark and strange, as showing only the dark and ugly parts of society and nature, this might seem true at first glance but utterly wrong in the big picture. Darkness he uses to contrast it to brightness - the darker his setting, the brighter the final message. At the end, it is the voice of love that will prevail, at the end it is the robin coming to the house (it struck me like lightning once I realized that there is a robin shown in the titles sequence of Twin Peaks). This concept is nothing new - it is as ancient as literature and art. The darker the threat the brighter the victory, the nobler the crusade. Another thing Lynch does is to defamiliarize our reality, and I'm sure there are people who would hate him for that. When he deconstructs these nice little pictures we have in our mind, these blind-eyed approaches to the world, he might destroy some illusions. But again, and I do repeat myself here, he does so not for the purpose of just doing it (at least that's what I assume him to do, how dare I pretend to know what he thinks) - the concept is simple: Are you happy living with a lie, or with a deception? It mostly is fear which prevents us from looking at our dark sides, at the darkness lurking around the corner. But while fearing darkness is understandable, it is dangerous to fear affirming its existence. Denial might seem like the easy way, at first. And so we see Jeffrey together with Sandy (Laura Dern) enter this strange new world as some kind of adventure - unprepared, unknowingly. You cannot outrun the devil, the darkness inside - but you can be prepared. And at the end, the same white picket fence with the red roses suddenly looks different because it has a new context, a new sub-text rather. This is what art is made for, to give us a new perspective of things. For me, David Lynch's vision succeeded again in this goal. see also: Dark Matters, Beyond the Obvious
| |
|
Boogie Nights (1997)
|
|
Summary: Interesting yet artificial and lengthy
This is a movie about the seventies and eighties. But that's not the ugly part yet. A movie about the porn industry - what's that? But yet, there's a neat twist to it: P.T. Anderson's direction turns this strange creature into a gripping tale, his disturbing realism giving the story suddenly a significance it would otherwise rarely deserve.
But still, this is neither 'Hard Eight' nor 'Magnolia'. This is certainly due to the topic, but the film's also simply too long. What works in 'Magnolia', long scenes of seeming irrelevance, doesn't work here - which seems to be due to the music mostly. 'Magnolia' is a piece of music which happens to be underscored by pictures, but 'Boogie Nights' lacks that, it lacks a continuous soundtrack which could save long, endless shots, and while the absence of music has its relevance too, it just doesn't seem to work in the long run.
Another detail missing is the terrific acting P.T. Anderson was able to incite in his other films. Mark Wahlberg is no Tom Cruise. Burt Reynolds doesn't work either. Philip Baker Hall has too little scenes (which feel rather like an out-of-place cameo). All the other actors do their job but seem uninspired somehow. This is just fatal in a movie about people and their relations.
All in all, the movie feels strangely artificial and forced, lacking life and charm. This is a documentary which wants to be a movie, but it stops just a little above mediocrity. What saves it is just the direction in most parts. Perhaps it is just the topic, and probably another director would have failed even more. But nevertheless, 'Boogie Nights' is simply overrated, worthwhile only during rather rare moments.
August 31st 2000
|
Bounce (2000)
 |
|
Summary: Cathartic
Pain is the most governing principle in this movie, pain and suffering, and catharsis, the quest for the latter, the quest for something like redemption, understanding, healing; and sometimes, you just fall in love, unplanned, unexplainably, unconditionally. Sometimes it just happens, but if something's standing in the way, something causing said pain, it may all even get worse. Now, do you want that to happen - or are you brave enough, and scared, to go along and face it, making the right choices?
Ben Affleck and Gwyneth Paltrow are great in this tale of love and suffering, both playing believably and authentically. Add to this some nice observations, some beautiful pictures, and you have a great little film for the suffering and for those who are aware that they still need to find their way.
February 4th/5th 2001
|
Boys Don't Cry (1999)
|
|
Summary: Realistic and moving
Realism in movies is always a double-edged sword: On the on hand, it may be an unorthodox method to tell an old story in a new and gripping way, on the other hand, it can manifest itself in blurry, badly-lit videotape pictures and Jerry Springer-inspired acting. But because realism is something more or less new in Hollywood, it is applied more and more often - with differing results, and somehow, 'Boys Don't Cry' seems to move into the rather flawed direction in the beginning.
However, the movie manages to overcome the initial weak points and proves to be something new indeed, something speaking with a new voice, something which is telling new stories also. A lot of effort goes into making this as realistic as possible, and the acting especially on the part of Hillary Swank is top-notch, indeed deserving an Oscar.
The effort, sadly, shows, and everything feels like a lot of effort went into it. The realism feels enforced sometimes, the camera perspective to be deliberately unconventional. The movie tries hard to look like not trying hard, it doesn't come as naturally as it should. So while there is a certain realistic feeling to it, this is being undermined by the unconventiality ex machina, by an intense trying to be modern, or rather, post-modern. This somehow lessens the effect of the movie, but only to a small degree. What remains, is still a gripping and sometimes terrifying experience, told in a different way than usual.
September 20th 2000
|
Bringing Out the Dead (1999)
|
|
Summary: Simply insane
Somehow, insanity seems to have been the general motto of 1999. But with 'Bringing Out the Dead', it is portrayed in the most disturbing and rough-cut and lively state. There is no refuge, just temporary silence. There is no sleep either, and seeing Nic Cage so desperately sleepless didn't quite help me feel awake, but that doesn't meen I would have become tired throughout this film. On the contrary: I was as awake as never in weeks. But as soon as it was over, I needed a cup of coffee.
The city as portrayed here is a ghostly jungle of restlessness and desperation. Solutions cannot be found, there is no peace, no rest, just postponing the inevitable. There is no certainty, no safety; the only constant being the omnipresent rush of civilization. The paramedics have to collect the pieces, but the insanity is only beginning at the hospital. Compared to this, E.R. is tame and slow.
Apart from acting (could you possibly expect less from Nicolas Cage and John Goodman?), the amazing photography and movement and cuts do the rest. This is not just a modern 'Taxi Driver', it is even better, Scorsese having outdone himself. But as strange as this may sound in the context of this film, even in its disturbing pictures it is still capable of giving some hope and even closure and comfort.
May 15th 2000
|
|
| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 | |||||||||||
