| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Carlito's Way (1993)
 |
|
Summary: Terrific
What shall I say. Al Pacino, Sean Penn, Brian De Palma, a mob story, great photography, great acting, solid story, tough things happening, suspense, music, atmosphere, stylization, it's all there. Terrific from beginning to end, that's what a movie should be.
August 6th/26th, 2002
|
Carrie (1976)
 |
|
Summary: Wanna-be Hitchcock, partly
Brian de Palma is often being compared to Alfred Hitchcock, a comparison which can be interpreted in two ways. On the on hand, it can be understood as an hommage, a positive judging of de Palma's ability to create suspense. On the other hand, however, it could also be understood as mimicking and plagiarizing, and also as a lack of own ideas. 'Carrie' seems to be a mix of these alternatives.
I cannot judge the film in connection with Stephen King's story, which I have not read. That may not be a bad thing as it allows me to judge the movie as a self-sustaining entity, which it is. The story and development of Carrie is portrayed somewhat believably, taken the assumed assumed existence of the shown paranormal phenomena for granted, and the audience can very well relate to her pain and feel sorry for her fate. The portrayal of the mother, on the other hand, is nothing but ennoying and ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, Piper Laurie does a great job in acting, it is rather her role which is unsatisfying, implausible even more. This is the stereotypical religious fanatic, but somehow it doesn't seem to fit, it seems too convential a concept, maybe because it has been used so often. But granting that 'Carrie' predates most post-modern horror movies, the conventionality may have originated precisely from this story. That doesn't make it any better or any more plausible, but it at least defends the use of the motif in it.
Another annoying thing is the misuse of the musical motif from the shower scene from 'Psycho'. This is too obvious and unworthy of an otherwise good approach, but it puts this into the plagiarizing faction. What is rather unlike Hitchcock, is the graphical portrayal of violence in it. The climax of the movie and its gore factor are something definitly non-Hitchcockian, as Hitchcock was not only a master of suspense but much more a master of understatement and decency. De Palma uses this method, too, in the first parts of the film, making it seem a bit boring even, but also underlaying it with a certain unnerving feeling of something which is yet to come.
The ending is giving the movie another spin, which could be good if it weren't for the fact that de Palma did a similar thing in his later movie 'Dressed to Kill' (1980). This makes the end of 'Carrie' seem contrived and deliberate, which is perhaps a good way to describe the entire experience of this movie. Everything feels clean, deliberately and meticulously planned, yet without spirit and heart, without soul and without the madness and haze a true horror film should lay bare. This is artificiality at its best, still producing a suspenseful thriller, but also revealing its artificial core.
De Palma fails to create a genuine horror experience. What he does is to deliberately use convential elements, put them in the right order to achieve a pre-calculated effect, using a bit more blood than necessary to make it outrageous enough to let it seem unconventional, and to provide it with an ending which could have been unnerving if it weren't for the cleanness of planning involved. There is no experimenting, no true originality in it. It is just a job well done. That would bee too little if 'Carrie' would be a movie of the nineties, but as a movie of the seventies, it may very well be considered a milestone, despite its weaknesses. If there is something like a prototypical mixed bag, here you have it.
September 20th 2000
|
Cast Away (2000)
Summary: Grippingly Realistic The story of Robinson Crusoe being widely known, any film with a similar premise has to face this competition from the book sector - while there are not that many films dealing with the topic as such. But coming from Zemickis, and starring Hanks, 'Cast Away' surely has expectations running high, deservedly. The film tells its story via a very strong lead, embedding this tale of isolation and desperation into a real-life frame, using both conventional and unconventional means. The lack of music through most of the film is extremely unnerving and gives it an added sense of realism. Add the performance of Tom Hanks, and you get a cinematic experience which is thoroughly outstanding and - which is especially true for the year it was released in - equalled only by a small number of worthwhile films. Zemeckis has struck twice this year, and on both occasions he has outdone himself. The sheer simplicity of 'Cast Away' and the intelligent suspense of 'What Lies Beneath' strike deep into the audience's heart. This may be due to a central truth and honesty at work in all of his films: Something for which 'Cast Away' is the epitome. Time is crucial for our society, we cannot allow ourselves the "sin of losing track of time" - but if we do, we might discover that there is truth beyond time, truth beyond the restrictions of society, of whatever society, of whatever age. And at the end, we may be cast away in our own world also - standing at the crossroads, having to make our own choices, privately.
| |
|
The Cell (2000)
|
|
Summary: Visually remarkable
Serial Killers are a topic covered quite exhaustively by shows like Millennium, Profiler and The X-Files, and with Hannibal Lecter still lurking in the background. Thus movies like 'Se7en' feel somehow superfluous, and any other variation on the topic has to be fighting very hard to deserve being called original rather than derivative.
'The Cell' succeeds at first through its visual aspect - through its visualization of the killing mind. It also succeeds through its shockingly realistic portrayal of violence - and through the story's being told from a very human and vulnerable - and vulnerated - perspective.
What is distracting, however, is the uncritical use of pop psychology, and the solution feels rather rushed to, uninspired, lacking a climax. Thus you can somehow get the impression that the visual overkill is somehow seriously lacking true depth, and not even the acting of Jennifer Lopez and Vince Vaughn - and the obtrusingly small part impersonated by Patrick Bauchau - can divert attention from the rather weak and more or less conventional story. If you're simply interested in great and absurd visuals coming to life with a solid musical score, 'The Cell' can be a revelation. Otherwise, don't expect too much, for this is yet another movie suffering from an imbalance between content and form.
December 5th 2000
|
Charlie's Angels (2000)
|
|
Summary: Hip, Fun Action
Recently, there probably hasn't been a movie I could possibly have been less enthusiastic about than 'Charlie's Angels' - and I couldn't possibly have been more wrong.
While recycling oldest and deadest TV shows might somehow seem strange and even utmost unimaginative a concept, McG succeeded in firstly realizing this by not taking everything so seriously, and secondly, by delivering a solid and spirited action movie nevertheless - parodizing everything within the range of Bond in general, both Mission Impossible movies, and - of course - 'The Matrix' - but doing so by unleashing an odd mixture of reverence, satirizing and inventiveness. The fight scenes are marvellously shot and choreographed, the story is rather surprisingly complex, the characters have some depth even - but mostly, this is just plainly and insanely funny.
Everything, starting with the inventive use of the Columbia Pictures logo, the in-flight movie, the introduction of the Angels, the cast as such and the general atmosphere is not just right but even better - and I'm not even a fan of Drew Barrymore's. Yet every single ingredient is perfect - and Bill Murray's the topping. Refreshing and hilarious - a great departure from the overall seriousness of other action movies.
December 5th 2000
|
Chicken Run (2000)
|
|
Summary: Cute and funny
It may not be a coincidence that the title of 'Chicken Run' rhymes with "fun". For that's the essence of this movie, a joyride of extraordinary proportions; great, intelligent humor mixed with a special cuteness which could rightfully be expected from something by the creators of Wallace and Gromit.
Mel Gibson has a different hero role to speak this time, and he seems to enjoy it every minute. The chicks, however, deserve even more credit. The animation is unbelievable, and you really need to remind yourself that everything you see is made of clay. Great film, great soundtrack, great mixture of tragical and comedic elements. When will we see the next film by Peter Lord and Nick Park?
October 1st 2000
|
The Cider House Rules (1999)
 |
|
Summary: Good acting, lengthy and boring film
This movie being one of the major candidates for this year's Academy Awards, I had quite some high hopes. These hopes, however, haven't been met by the film.
'The Cider House Rules' is not a bad film, on the contrary. It just isn't a very good film either. The story has its touching moments, and also the thematic range is not at all uninteresting. The story, however, is too predictable, too simple, too weak even. In subtlety can lie great strength, as in the case of 'The Straight Story' or 'American Beauty', but here it is lost, rather appealing to kitschy moments and simple sentimentality. No great heights are reached in this movie, neither in story, nor imagery, nor music. The acting is decent, but doesn't seem to carry any great challenges anyway.
It amazes me how this little film could possibly have landed on the candidates list for best picture, while Lynch's masterpiece didn't. This is a very forgettable piece with less than a handful of moments of interest or potential, any decent made-for-tv movie could've done better.
March 22nd 2000
|
City of Angels (1998)
|
|
Summary: Intense and beautiful
The remake of 'Wings of Desire', the American version of the German-French co-production by Wim Wenders, shares some of the same elements with its predecessor, as well as a similar premise, but apart from that, it is a totally different movie with a totally different story. This one is much more emotional, in its photography far superior as well as in its music and atmosphere. That doesn't make 'Wings' a bad movie, it just makes its remake better. Also, there are much more angels in this one, they are virtually everywhere. And the pain the protagonist angel feels when he can't share the humans' priviledge of a physical life is much better portrayed by Nicolas Cage. And then, the story develops in a different way (and also ends differently). But so much for the comparison.
The concept of guardian angels is somewhat revived by this movie, it is both a comforting and disturbing concept: Comforting because of the invisible assistence we are given, and disturbing because our privat life might not be that private as we might think. That increases our resposibilities, and it should also increase our motivation and brighten our outlook on life. Also, and that counts for both movies, they contribute to a new definition of what it means to be human: Instead of denying the physical aspect of human life, it would sometimes be much more honest and productive to accept it as a part of humanity, and not just to accept it but also to embrace it. But that shouldn't divert us from responsibility.
I've already mentioned that this is a very emotional movie; it's an organic unit of pictures and music and text, as organic as it could be. Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan deliver probably their best performances ever; and what the title of the predecessor, 'Wings of Desire', merely tried to suggest is now visible through every minute of this movie; Seth's, the angel's, longing for experiencing the physical world in every detail is most clearly portrayed. This movie clearly belongs to my favorites.
November 28th 1998
|
A Civil Action (1998)
|
|
Summary: In subtlety lies strength
A poker game. That's what this is about: A poker game whose players are lawyers, whose cards are the law, the evidence and means of manipulation, and whose bets are the victims and lots of money. The stakes are high, and at the surface inaction is more prevalent than action. That's why this movie is not at all an action movie, that's why everything seems to flow just in a strange and even motionless way. It's a civil action portrayed, and the people who have criticized this movie for it's lack of obvious action should take that into account much more thoroughly. It's not a police story, it's lawyers against lawyers against money.
John Travolta is brilliant in this piece, he just is a great actor. Robert Duvall was said to be even better in this one, well, he's great too, but I like Travolta's performance much better. The story itself, modelled after a real case, follows different rules because of this relation to reality. Therefore the ending is not what one might suspect; but it is something perhaps very much typical for the legal system. Not every move is obvious, the most important decisions are made on a much more hidden level, in a much subtler way. Subtlety - that's a key element of this movie. It also has some really humorous scenes in it, plus superb visuals. The best scene is Travolta in his car reliving the death of a child.
According to the general subtlety of the movie, the music of Danny Elfman is subtle too, although a bit too subtle for my taste. Also, I have some problems with making a movie after living persons, with those persons still alive. That's a bit too much of hero worship. But it still is a great story, and an outstanding movie.
April 26th 1999
|
Collateral Damage (2002)
 |
|
Summary: Painful
What is it with Schwarzenegger trying to make serious movies? He's perfect for comedies and parodies, but please, not for something like this. Maybe some other lead could have saved this from its utter ridiculousness, but maybe it's just a load of stereotypical crap crafted together for some political purpose and sugar(?)-coated with some painfully one-dimensional patriotism. Maybe it's an honest film after all, maybe it's just the collateral damage done to Hollywood by power-play politics pre- and post 9/11.
August 26th, 2002
|
Conspiracy Theory (1997)
|
|
Summary: Paranoid and suspenseful
Jerry Fletcher (Mel Gibson) is alone; alone against the world. He is fleeing his past which is hunting him at the same time; he has dedicated his life to conspiracy theories, becoming a master in recognizing the masks around him, of unveiling secrets which try to remain secret. But his only real human contact (Julia Roberts) doesn't believe him.
That changes when she gets the privilege to enter his life. She experiences firsthand the terror Jerry is going through; and she starts to believe him. Now she is being hunted, too - both are fleeing a secret machinery for a still unknown reason. With some plot changes on the way and shifting alliances, the hunt procedes.
Apart from the acting of the main characters, this film is an interesting composition. The music enjoys kind of a sarcastic undertone. In addition to that, this movie is sort of a guidebook to conspiracy theories. Black helicopters, governmental assassins, shadow governmental groups within the intelligence community, surveillance at the grand scheme. Patrick Stewart seems to enjoy being the bad guy time and again, and Mel Gibson is as heroic as ever. But just one question: Is it coincidence for such films as this one and 'Enemy of the State' appearing during the era of The X-Files?
December 29th 1998
|
Contact (1997)
Summary: Great First let me say that I wasn't really a fan of Jodie Foster's. Then let me say I didn't really want to watch this movie. I was on summer vacation in Las Vegas, we stayed in the 'Circus Circus' hotel and I chose to walk to the MGM cinema at the far south end of the Strip. It took me about 40 minutes at about 100 degrees to get there, and I wanted to watch 'Air Force One', but reconsidered because my sister wouldn't want to watch 'Contact', rather AF1, so I chose to choose 'Contact'. My first notice was that they played Mozart before the movie started. That really surprised me, because in Germany they run nasty commercials instead, mostly for alcohol and cigarettes. So I was relaxed when the film started, the air condition had already made me feel better. Then the opening sequence came. Wow! (I don't usually use this word, so please notice this as something important) It was terrific, and I instantly began to like the film. It was such a straight story - the story of one brave girl's life. The Tom Skeritt character seemed for the actor to be a chance to get away with his Sheriff Brock image. I haven't yet read the book by Carl Sagan but I will when I have the time. So I can only comment on the film story. I don't like this idea of the way space travel shall be possible, and I don't think this is realistic. We will have starships that can travel faster than light. I'm sure about that. But then this wasn't the way the message of the film was about. This is not a film about contact with aliens. Not about space travel at all. It is a film about belief, about very personal belief. She does argue that she cannot think God exists because their is no evidence, she on the other hand is a scientist. But then, at the end, she does believe what she saw - even if there is no obviously evidence (For sure there is - the tape contains hours of static, not just seconds). The suspense that is build within the movie is terrific. There are those moments that can make the viewer really nervous. That is the appearance of the signal as well as the scene where the solution is discovered as well as the scene where the second machine is revealed. Those moments make me loose my words, and I believe this film succeeded to be one of my favorites.
| |
|
Cruel Intentions (1999)
 |
|
Summary: Wicked and hip
I do not know the previous versions, neither do I know the novel. I don't care - and it doesn't matter. Every movie has to be given a chance to be judged on what it is, and not, on what it could've been.
'Cruel Intentions' proves to be quite an entertaining movie with great acting, stunning sets and equally great dialogue. Furthermore, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Philippe and Reese Witherspoon are a hell of an acting team. The movie's weakness lies perhaps in the starting sequence, which looks a bit uninspired; but its opposing end, the final scenes with 'Bitter Sweet Symphony' playing to the pictures, is only the better.
October 30th / November 9th 1999
|
|
| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 | |||||||||||
