| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 | ||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| | | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Edtv (1999)
 |
|
Summary: Solid fun - nothing more
While it doesn't reach the tragedy and intensity of 'The Truman Show', with which this film often is compared, needless to say why, it nevertheless delivers a both fitting and disturbing image of reality and society, criticizing not only the media but also a society which makes the media the way it is. Without an audience, there would be no television, no movies; without readers, no newspapers, no books; without listeners, no music, no speeches. Blaming the media is the easy part, but it is to a large degree mostly blaming the messenger.
The people being shown in 'Edtv' are normal people, normal in the way that they are common; they are ordinary - without any pejorative meaning applied here to that word. They are people from around the corner, living their normal, daily lives without the luxury of the so-called "high society". People like Ed Pekurny whose life is now being shown on tv, live, from morning to bedtime. He enters a world of lies, of disguise, of fame, of primarily monetary impetuses, is stripped off his privacy - to get his five minutes. He soon is confronted with an ever-changing reality, his publicity being a catalyst for several developments in his life.
'Edtv' is a more comedic approach to the topic of publicity than 'The Truman Show' is, but this is the only topic both movies have in common anyway. There is no point comparing them beyond that, this would do both films a grave injustice. 'Edtv' is a comedy, so its solution lies in the realm of comedy too - and Ellen DeGeneres is brilliant in her role as a tv producer. It is her who keeps both this movie and the tv show, "Edtv", running. Acting in general is a primer in this one, featuring also Martin Landau, Jenna Elfman (Dharma & Greg), Woody Harrelson and Dennis Hopper. Matthew Broderick sort of has to fight for screen time against the rest of the cast, but that's a usual problem when you have that much characters in a movie or in a tv show. But apart from these, from a filmmaking aspect, this one is rather conventional, again owing to the genre of comedy, and the story is that of the French film 'Louis 19, le roi des ondes' (Michel Poulette, 1994). But it still remains a solid movie with great acting and comedy, and quite some indication of depth and insight.
August 22nd 1998
|
The Elephant Man (1980)
Summary: Touching and subtle Usually, David Lynch's work is said to be either weird or strange. According to this kind of judgement, 'The Elephant Man' is his least weird picture, the one most easily accessible. The story is understandable, the persons in it not as weird as those in his other movies. So this is supposed to be a David Lynch film? But it is. Apart from the overall "normal" way of telling a movie (does something like that exist?), the film starts with a sequence of, yes, indeed, strange images - the elephant scenes. Also, at the end he returns to being different. He sort of uses the reverse scheme as he did in 'Blue Velvet' - there he framed the unspoken into the obvious, here it is the other way 'round. But to be honest, judging a director by the weirdness factor is dull and stupid. This is the beauty of Lynch's work: He might seem to rely on a certain, indescribable way of telling weird things, and so it is expected, and if it doesn't occur, something has to be wrong. But that shifts the focus, it distorts it into a direction which isn't helpful at all. I, too, expected something like this, and after having seen 'Eraserhead', I really was afraid of watching this one! Instead I got a beautiful, very emotional and caring story about a deformed man, John Merrick (John Hurt), who, with the help of a doctor (great as ever: Anthony Hopkins), is able to lead a normal life. The way the "Elephant Man" is being introduced is brilliant. First we get to see nothing of him, then he is merely being described and parts shown, and when we get to see him, the viewer is already prepared - and the person behind the distorted face can appear. Lynch uses some of his prevailing topics, the fight between Good and Evil, loneliness, love and also some humor. With his extraordinary sense of vision, we get a sight of London which is actually giving the impression of Victorian England. Lynch shows the ugly, the ordinary, the hidden - and he is able to show hidden beauty and hidden treasures where anyone else would expect none. Freaks become human beings, human beings but are thoroughly questioned - some fulfill their own agenda and show humanity, others on the contrary reveal the face of evil. Here, Lynch's themes become more obvious and lie open - and it finally is a David Lynch film for those who wouldn't survive the intensity of 'Eraserhead'.
| |
|
End of Days (1999)
 |
|
Summary: Piece of crap, but Byrne shines
Highly anticipated, 'End of Days' seemed to promise a great comeback of Schwarzegger's times as an action hero rather than a comedian. However, high hopes didn't pay off - nearly nothing in this movie was worth memorizing or even worth watching.
Apart from Gabriel Byrne's splendid performance, very much equalling Pacino's greatness in 'The Devil's Own', and apart from some nice theologic aspects, the movie has to count amongst the greatest disappointments and failures of all time. As soon as the hero of the story confronts us with his Austrian dialect, the film gets a touch of comedy, which doesn't suit it well at all. That would've been endurable if it weren't for further attempts at making a serious movie, a horror movie even; attempts which aren't executed further and which have to remain attempts, fragments.
The story turns out to be rather silly, overblown pathos which only becomes pathetic, on the other hand, it is not big enough - let's just summarize it: A suicidal drunkard who happens to be an ex-cop trying to stop the devil doing the wild thing with a chosen girl. The most abhorring of it all is the crucifixion scene, it would go way down from there if it hadn't already be low already. The effects in the climax are nice, but nothing more: They aren't suited to the task. A story about the End of Days could deserve a lot more greatness, decency and dimension. The much I like Schwarzenegger as an actor, this is the wrong movie for him, depicting not the End of Days but the end of art and entertainment.
January 27th / February 15th 2000
|
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
 |
|
Summary: Bad, boring, uninspired trash
This was the film opening 2001's Berlin movie festival, where it was almost universally regarded as a bad film. Never really trusting movie reviews, I discovered, however, a general high ranking at the IMDb - thus two opposing ends demanded a resolution, I watched the film, not expecting something great, yet neither something bad. This has been a very ambitious project, lots of efforts went into it. In vain.
Don't trust the positive reviews. From beginning to end, this movie is dull, boring, derivative and uninspired. The characters aren't introduced properly, their actions remain erratic, their motives unclear. Ed Harris' performance, though not excellent, is the only one standing out in a star-powered yet helpless cast. James Horner's music is a wrap-up of previous works of his, mostly Titanic, lacking almost every possible bit of originality.
The movie lacks pace, most of all, and the entire situation seems rather unrealistic - where's the battle, where's the fight? The sets may seem impressive, the effects solid, yet not breathtaking, money surely went into this. But money isn't enough.
This is not the way to kick-start a paralyzed and agonizing German and European movie industry. It lacks dimension, soul, intelligence, originality and something uniquely its own. Even that darn Star Wars phantom movie was better than this one. What a shame, and what a waste.
It's not about just telling a story about aspects of the Stalingrad battle. It should be about doing it right, making a great film instead of just telling a story. This is nothing but a piece of uninspired Euro-Trash, unable to hold up to films like Saving Private Ryan and Braveheart. I won't say not to watch it, on the contrary: It can be extremely funny, unintentionally, for it is truly, sadly, really bad.
March 20th 2001
|
Enemy of the State (1998)
 |
|
Summary: A wild ride
Let all your paranoia, all your worst dreams come true - all your nightmares of surveillance and shadow government. This movie is a rough ride, even more fast-paced and more radical than 'Conspiracy Theory'. Also the amout of technical gimmickry exceeds everything previously seen: And we are presented with an utterly disturbing and unnerving version of reality.
The brave new world portrayed here is that of technological capabilities making it possible to tear the life of a human being completely apart and to supervise every move; technology intended to be used to preserve the state and the welfare of the country - not to be used against it. And so the critical point is again the human factor: The same old story, but with stakes raised much higher.
Will Smith plays his role with vigor and believability, Gene Hackman as forcefully and spooky as ever. But despite a running time exceeding two hours easily, the movie never gets boring. Interesting also how easily the luck changes and the hunters become the hunted. And again, technobabble becomes irrelevant, is merely a tool, a factor in the equation: Finally, it is a story about not to give up, to resist a seemingly invincible adversary - to face the fate and vigorously fight it. Behind the machinery there are still human beings: Not at all almighty but as vulnerable as everybody else.
December 29th 1998
|
Entrapment (1999)
|
|
Summary: Solid through acting
Again I was proven right not to trust the reviews in German newspapers and magazines which gave this movie an altogether quite bad review. Instead I went to see it - thus having made the right decision. 'Entrapment' mightn't be a deeply philosophical piece, but this isn't really necessary. It's a beautiful movie with two very charming leads, also with Ving Rhames contributing his powerful appearance to it.
The topic of this film isn't such a new one, it is about thieves. But it is set in a technologically more challenging environment; today's thieves being confronted with high risks and high-tech security equipment making some "jobs" quite impossible, although perhaps "doable". The technobabble level is relatively moderate though, making it possible to follow the action without being an expert in the matter. The visuals are quite appealing, although the hype concerning the millennium was far understated, caught much better in 'Strange Days'.
What does it mean to be a thief? And why is it so appealing, so easy to sympathize with these characters, apart from them being impersonated by Sean Connery and Catherine Zeta-Jones? - Why do they steal? Not for the money, that seems clear. Perhaps they once did it for the money, but now it's more about the excitement, the mere thrill - to see whether it's possible or not to do it. The challenge is more important, the experience of it. But apart from that, it is also unmistakenly made clear what business they're in: Two agents sent to catch Mac were lost. The myth of theft being a crime which hurts nobody is not being upheld by this movie. This is also a piece about trust - "First we try, then we trust" is quite a pessimistic approach, but fits to the business. This movie is excellent entertainment, and when considered more thoroughly, it presents some points of discussion. But mostly its energy is being derived from the performances of its actors.
May 30th 1999
|
Eraserhead (1977)
Summary: Be warned Be warned - this is the most frightening movie I've ever seen, although I still don't know why. David Lynch's work always being sort of cryptic, this movie seems to withstand all explanatory attempts. There are always some elements which seem to belong into a certain category, but when seen in the light of another Lynch movie, everything might change. I see Lynch's work as everything belonging together, each movie or tv show being another incarnation of a basic theme. Have you recognized the floor in X's apartment? It's the same red-white zig-zag floor as in the Black Lodge from Twin Peaks. The movie works via its images and via the soundtrack. Regarding that, this is the only movie I've ever seen for which the term sound-track can actually be applied correctly. There is almost no music, just the background sounds. Industrial noise, dark images, the ordinariest situations transformed into the most horrifying extreme, its frightening elements extended into the worst possible nightmare. The images are just unbelievable, and so is the pace of this piece. And just as unbelievable is the acting. I've never before seen anything like this movie. To categorize it as an art film would do it no justice, it just doesn't fit into any category. It is horror, but it is so strange that even this genre seems too small that this one could fit in. You just can't believe it until you've seen it by yourself. And it provides a new definition for what intensity means, and it was the first movie I had to switch off after an hour, to take a break from it. A movie that you will like because of its greatness, and a movie you will hate for its horror.
| |
|
Erin Brockovich (2000)
Summary: Both Great and Blah Julia Roberts shines in her role, so does her partner, Albert Finney, in this retelling of yet another tear-wrenching true life story with an ecological message. Apart from the performances and Roberts' attempt of maybe altering her image as the proper pretty woman, nothing out of the ordinary happens, nothing we haven't seen before one way or another. It may be executed perfectly, but a perfect execution of a pointless concept will stay pointless itself in most cases, as in this one.
| |
|
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
Summary: Simply a masterpiece What could have been expected from the trailers, from magazines and newspapers, all of those things in relation to this both controversial and highly anticipated film, Kubrick's last, has been a deception, showing only parts of the whole and creating a certain expectation which would do the movie grave injustice - and on the other hand, play right into the hands of this film. This is no sex film, no erotic thriller, no romance; it contains elements of those and shapes them into something altogether different - but into what? I just know one thing: It scared the living shit out of me. *** SPOILER WARNING *** Please, for your own good, do not read any further into this one when you haven't yet seen the film. Horror is inherent in everything I've seen from Kubrick so far; and again, horror does not mean slasher. Horror comes from Latin horrere: to frighten. And this is one of the many facets of this movie. But it develops slowly, almost unnoticable. The movie starts in a relatively unscary way, almost is comedic in some elements. The first cut into chaos and darkness is when Bill is called to a medical emergency Victor has with his hooker girlfriend; the scene at first seems both unreal and too real at the same time, it disturbs both the flow of the movie and what we first've seen from Victor. Beyond the obvious lies a completely different reality, masked by several ways of deception. During the following conversation between Bill and Annie that evening cracks appear in the reality of Bill's marriage, and when he leaves for another emergency, he perceives the world differently, but still isn't willing to give up his convictions. It is only when he talks to his pianist boyfriend that he really gets active, now he is willing to get his adventure. On his way, when at the costume rental shop, he again sees things surface which he wouldn't have believed before, especially when returning the costume. The movie up to then proceeded to a certain point, increased its weirdness factor step by step and still had Bill unwaveringly standing his ground. He always was able to undo the things he started, he was able to retreat, he just wanted to look, from further action he refrained because of his marriage and his convictions. This changes once he enters the masked "ball". And it is also at this point where the movie takes a dramatic turn of events, it changes into what I would describe a horror movie; although this term mightn't be applied here without general consent. Anyway; setting, music, the masks, the movements of the people, the action - all of these elements suddenly changed the viewing experience. Shocking? You could say so. The masked congregation itself is a classic element of horror - it is a secret sub-society which appears to be very powerful; any outsider is in a great danger of being deprived of his life. It is a ocnspiracy theory which is similar to the things seen on The X-Files, but here it is not about little green men but about sex. And suddenly, I came to realize another connection, that with David Lynch's movies, especially with the 'Twin Peaks' series, with 'Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me' and 'Blue Velvet'. An up-to then innocent bystander is drawn into the realm of darkness by his curiosity (as with Agent Cooper and Laura Palmer; Donna Hayworth in the Pink Room; and Jeffrey in Dorothy Vallen's Apartment). Especially the scene in the Twin Peaks movie in the Pink Room apparently seemed similar to this. Bill is drawn by his curiosity into a situation he cannot solve by himself. He suddenly is surrounded by the masked crowd, paralleling Alice's dream, and he is saved by this women who had warned him earlier already. But his leaving the "party" leaves him with a feeling of guilt which will haunt him further throughout the rest of the movie, throughout the rest of his life. When he is followed and his movements being monitored, it is no coincidence that he breaks when confronted by Alice with the mask: He is broken deep inside of him already. But not even Victor could convince him otherwise. The betrayal of the seemingly best friend is also kind of an element of horror, furthermore, when this friend appears to be taking part in the deception and in the crime. The death of the woman, of Victor's hooker girlfriend, as well as the unclear future of the pianist, stand in clear contrast to what Victor is telling. This gives the thing another turn of the screw. After telling it Alice, their lives are changed. They can only go on by ignoring it, by pushing it aside and by trying to survive anyway. Their marriage suddenly seems to be a much more complicated arrangement than before. This is one of those movies where you cannot really believe what you're seeing. The scenery is great, the places usually infinite and vast, especially the apartments. There is no sense of claustrophobia in these rooms, not in the first parts of the movie. The scenes in the masked party are outstanding, especially when you see Bill and his savior speak - you cannot see the faces behind the masks, and when they speak, it looks really spooky or dream-like. Masks are always somewhat spooky, especially when the impression on the face depicted on the mask collides with the actions of the person. A smiling face acting in an aggressive way is quite demonic. - Kubrick's choice of actors proves to be a success; with Tom Cruise he got the perfect innocent-looking guy, and Nicole Kidman can show what a great actress she really is; and it's also nice to indeed have a married couple perform as a married couple, as it is nice to see a Christmas tree in every single scene. One controversial part of the movie is the nudity, but it is an essential part of the movie, it serves a purpose different from the obvious one. The film is for me almost undescribable in its impact, and when I drove home from the cinema I couldn't turn on the radio, I was still a bit dizzy. It's a great film to say goodbye, and with Kubrick's death the world lost one of the greatest directors of all time.
| |
|
Escape from L.A. (1996)
Summary: Nice parody, so-so movie John Carpenter seems not to take himself too seriously with this sequel to 'Escape from New York'. But I can see no real problem with that. Kurt Russel shines, and the other characters are hip caricatures of their predecessors. The dimensions are totally overblown, the conventions of science fiction served only half-heartedly by telling the history of the future, but this half-hearted approach is the essence of this movie. Unless I'm totally mistaken, this is intended to be a parody of himself - and in that, it succeeds, more or less. A parody still has to work. 'Escape from L.A.' does and doesn't, mostly it doesn't at the end and approaching the end. Some things are just too much. The flying and surfing is simply overdoing it, and it is just for the effect. There I don't really believe the cheasiness to be intentional, this smells of B-movie, "B" like in "Bad". That's sad, as it destroys an otherwise perfect parody. Snake is back, indeed, and his misanthrophic attitude can be refreshing, especially in the end. The music by Shirlee Walker sounds interesting, however, it's not the same as her brilliant contributions for Space: AAB. The special effects are good, with some painful exceptions like the underwater sequences. It seems that especially after the equally unbalanced 'Vampires', Carpenter should decide whether to let his voice get lost in mediocrity or to again create something utterly unique and excellent - which he has proven so often that he is able to do so.
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
 |
 |
 | |||||||||||
