| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Dancer in the Dark (2000)
 |
|
Summary: Great music, dull movie
Some movies desperately try to be things they aren't. Some movies try to be different and thus innovative, but in the end, they cease to be innovative but stay different - annoyingly, not pleasingly. Yet it is always a shame to see the greatest possible potential lost, to see great moments being destroyed by an overall bad aftertaste.
Björk delivers a stunning performance, Peter Stormare as well, and David Morse is even better than usual, frightfully realistic. Almost the entire cast seems utterly devoted to this picture, perhaps with the exception of Catherine Deneuve, who's just pale and uninteresting in this role.
The music is moving and typically Björk, the sad thing's just that the soundtrack album doesn't contain all of the songs, and even the ones featured seem to have been altered somehow. Anyway, the dancing scenes are shot beautifully and inspired, especially "I've Seen It All", "Forgive Me" and "107 Steps".
That's it, there's nothing more to it. As a selection of video clips, this would be excellent, yet it is supposed to be a movie. In that, it fails miserably. The story is contrived and utterly boring, so predictable that it hurts, with only some rare moments of inspiration as it seems. The end is made as being shocking; but it is too obviously made that way - and some scenes which were supposed to be shocking or sad just seemed strangely funny and ridiculous. If you want to see a truly great movie with a similar premise, I recommend 'The Green Mile', which is everything this movie isn't.
Yet the worst of all that's wrong with this film is the look. Why use handheld video? Why make erratic movements with the camera? There's no reason for it. It doesn't make the film more realistic, on the contrary. A steady movie camera provides much more depth and realism than what has been used here. Yet it does look a bit more familiar - if you prefer the look of a badly made home video. But there is no reason for it, not like it was necessary in 'The Blair Witch Project', where the video camera was part of the story. Here it isn't, it is just annoying and stupid.
A lot of the elements used in this film are right and perfect. The cast, the music, the dancing choreography, the idea of doing an overture. But every bit of potential is lost and destroyed by story, the missing atmosphere and an overblown and seemingly artificial need to deliver a moral message. This is bad, really bad. Maybe there should be a director's cut - just the songs and the dancing, everything else ommitted. That would be a perfect movie. But otherwise, this is just a big, ugly mess. What a shame that such a cast and such a music were wasted on this. A terrible B-movie with flawed and seemingly unsubstantiated artistic aspirations. But do see it - just for Björk's performance and for the music. Repress the rest.
October 19th 2000
|
Disturbing Behavior (1998)
 |
|
Summary: Victimized by wrong cuts
Of all so-called teen horror films, this is the one I surely cannot really find an opinion for. I am still sort of perplexed about this one, mostly because of its length, or rather, because of its brevity. 83 minutes of running time is something which almost has to be called an act of bravery in these days. But I couldn't watch it in cinemas, for here in Berlin it wasn't shown in English, and I refuse to watch an American movie in a dubbed version when there might be the slightest chance to watch the original. Dubbing destroys the atmosphere of a movie. Nevertheless I got hold of a DVD of this movie, and it actually proved worth it; and I really am glad not to have seen it in the theater. The reason being the wonders of DVD technology: More of a dozen deleted scenes, the original ending and the director's commentary being on the DVD.
The movie so both loses and gains with having access to these deleted scenes. It loses for I am totally perplexed how so many really important scenes could have been cut out of the movie; but it gains because these scenes give the film its depth. Brevity is something which might seem a worthy approach for a horror film, but it only works to increase the suspense in a slasher manner. But both atmosphere and horror can be lost. Brevity is the ideal choice when the concept behind the movie is simplicity - working well for movies like those in the 'Halloween' series; but with something like this movie, it has been very much the wrong choice. From some of his commentaries I understand that the final cut was not originally intended by the director, and he is right - the film fell victim to an act of mutilation. I can clearly see why extensive cutting sessions could be in place with the resulting movie still having well above 100 minutes of running time, but to truncate it that much - 'nuff said.
Still the movie holds great potential, the acting of the protagonists being extraordinary, only surpassed by the visuals, by the truely X-Filean atmosphere created by this X-Files director. But all of this is even outdone by the main titles, which simply are the utmost best I have ever seen. The theme of the movie though was similar to that of 'The Faculty', and with both movies having come into theaters at almost the same time, this one somehow was on the losing end. That's sad, for it could have done better - it would have been better in a less shortened form.
June 12th 1999
|
Dogma (1999)
 |
|
Summary: Funny, inspired, yet somehow lame
So this movie takes a satirical turn on Catholicism. So it does make fun of some elements, some very minor elements I'd have to add. So it does utilize propositions like that of a female God, a black Jesus and a thirteenth apostle. So it does. SO WHAT.
Funny thing about satires, they usually seem to be more rooted in the (supposed) dogma of the object of satire than the object would be rooted in the (supposed) dogma. Conflicts are most easily ridiculed in just discarding them, the search for answers abandoned for the sake of the search for a punchline. That's no ill will, it's the mechanics of satire. No offense intended in the obvious effects, rather in the subtext.
So it surprises - to say the least - that the mythology of this film is more than catholic. So it surprises how minutely an whole pantheon of angels and demons is being made use of. So it surprises that the very elements of what is superfluous in all verbal interpretations of the Bible appears in this film. This is not remotely a satire of catholicism, it is rather a satire of itself. All the aspects alluded to by this movie are nothing but minor, some are even utmost wrong. The color of Jesus is neither black nor white but unknown. The gender of God is neither male but female but unspecified (the masculine pronoun can also imply uncertainty) and utterly unimportant. The church condemned slavery once its scope was visible (cf. Las Casas), and it didn't stay passive during the Holocaust. Conventional "wisdom" is of no use here. The symbol of the Crucifix is no symbol of mourning but of rejoice and glory: As the death of Christ means salvation for mankind, as it furthermore implies his resurrection.
But apart from these missteps, the rest of the film is - as implied in the beginning - a huge disclaimer, otherwise strongly rooted in catholic belief. The usage of mythology is rather voluptous and exhausting, although it does always stop (short) of being ridiculous, thus surpassing the awful 'End of Days'.
The film is saved by its superb and even sublime mixture of horror and humor, of seriousness and laughs. What may fail as satire gains in entertainment and even spirituality. The acting is superb in every scene, Alan Rickman's performance even outdoing Fiorentino's, Affleck's and Damon's. A truly entertaining comedy and solid movie, its greatness however diminished by some easy thrills and distortions. Totally harmless and in its essence almost catholic.
April 30th 2000
|
Donnie Brasco (1997)
 |
|
Summary: Solid
Yet another mob film, but at least it's Johnny Depp playing in a good film, not his usual selection of disappointing wannabes. Somehow I feel Al Pacino is less devoted to this one, but that may just be the role he's playing. Everything's perfectly made and choreographed, not everything's over-explained, there's gentleness and bluntness together, but somehow, it drags a bit, doesn't quite reach the greatness of its predecessing mob stories. Nevertheless, it's good stuff, and pretty solid.
August 6th/26th, 2002
|
Dragonfly (2002)
|
|
Summary: OK
Kevin Costner may actually be able to finally deliver a great performance, and he's coming very close with this film. Actually, it's not that bad at all. It's kitschy, but it does have some moments of emotional truth. Kathy Bates is great as ever, no matter how small her role may be. The effects and atmosphere are quite right, the music by John Debney may be a bit too much, the general pathos does seem a bit pathetic sometimes, somehow, it may just need a bit more of an edge. But for feeding a general depression, that's the right film.
August 26th, 2002
|
Dragonheart (1996)
|
|
Summary: Beautiful fairy-tale
Sometimes there are movies that are just a classic. Sometimes there are movies that have a kind of appeal that cannot be explained, cannot fit into any scheme. Sometimes there are movies where everything works together perfectly - photography, music, actors, dialog, humor, tragic, imagination. Such a combination can be called movie magic.
'Dragonheart' is such a movie. The sfx for the dragon are astounding, but not surprising in the age of 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Lost World'. The story is of epic dimensions, it is a story that would work in any time frame (except the dragon perhaps). The fight against a madman, against an evil oppressor; the fight against evil itself, and also the inevitability of this fight - and about its dimensions. There is always a price to be paid.
Randy Edelman's score fits perfectly into the movie, he has created a music that portrays all the tragic and sadness and humor and heroism the movie has; revealing the bilateral relationship between pictures and soundtrack.
July 12th 1998
|
Dune (1984)
Summary: Underestimated, powerful, falsely cut No, I haven't read the book yet. No, I haven't seen the (unauthorized) long versions yet. But yes, I liked this movie, and yes, it did make sense to me. Is there a contradiction in that? Not to me, but according to the bulk of comments I've read on the respective IMDb page. Most striking of all is the notion that David Lynch was the worst choice for this movie. Pardon? I guess someone is mistaken here. This is a David Lynch movie. Go see this crappy Star Wars if you want cheap entertainment. See 'Dune' if you wanna see a great movie. But some of the comments show a truth: It is about expectations. Why does everybody howl at the thought of a book transferred to the movies? Of course it will not be the same! It's a different medium! Why does everybody exclaim their outrage over David Lynch's style? They expected something different, very well. But in 'Dune', Lynch does things strange to the sf genre - he 'Lynchifies' it; and I can somehow understand that some people would be surprised about the direction his style takes at times. But no one having seen any of his other works should be surprised by this. And for me, I'd say he was the perfect choice for this movie. The film has its problems still, but these arise from the producer's side, not from Lynch's, who didn't have final cut. So after approx. ninety minutes the movie starts to increase its pace, it starts to rush through the story. David Lynch himself wasn't happy with the end result, but I guess that's always the case when you have to give over control to somebody else. But still, even if the movie could have been a lot better than it is, there is nearly no point for criticism. Most things end up diferent than they might've been - that might be sad sometimes, but it can also be a chance. And some things are that great that even if you take something away, it will still work. It might not be what was originally intended, but that's somehow in a very ironical sense a very aspect of Lynch's own work - the organic aspect of it, things you don't get under control. He made something and had to watch how it was altered by somebody else. But I do not believe in coincidence, not really. This movie is extraordinary in several aspects, like production design, effects (for its time), and acting. When you have people like Kyle MacLachlan, Brad Dourif and Patrick Stewart, what else do you need? Lynchian imagery sneeks into this giant studio film with pictures of water, of waves and of smoke. The music sounds less Lynchian, but it fits perfectly into the film. I don't know when I'll read the book(s), but I do not feel it's necessary, the film is self-sustaining enough. The things which cannot be explained - isn't this a Lynchian aspect too? Why does everybody want an explanation all the time? Perhaps there also is none? I must admit I didn't really like the movie when I watched it some years ago as a kid in a dubbed version with maybe the first half of the movie missing because somehow the VCR screwed it up. But when I saw it now in its entirety, I was captured by it, it was breathtaking, full of beautiful images, and with a very drastic edge of darkness.
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 | |||||||||||
