Change Your Image
reolew
Reviews
The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
Fun in the mid-eighties!
Going on something of a sentimental journey I recently saw two Disney animated features that were released in my childhood: The Black Cauldron and The Great Mouse Detective.
I was shocked.
I had always thought that in between Jungle Book and Aladdin Disney hadn't really delivered anything worthwhile (aristocats and robin hood being OK, basically because of the great character-animation, but never as good as the older stuff), but these films are both great. I'll stick to TGMD here.
The animation is simply irresistible. The London scenery is splendid, and the way the 'mouse-world' runs alongside real-life London is nicely done (The Great Mouse Detetctive, Basil of Baker Street, lives in a Victorian mouse-hole inside what appears to be Sherlock Holmes' home).
The characters are among the best of Disney's ever. They succeeded in making the detective an interesting character, which is not an easy thing to achieve. But the villain, Rattigan, is absolutely super: sheer evil surpassing even Cruella and flair and presence comparable to the ghost in Aladdin. The Watson of the story (dr. Dawson) is one of the most charming characters since Balou the bear.
The story is entertaining enough. But the most surprising to me is the freshness that the whole thing breathes. I didn't know that that kind of fun even existed in the mid-eighties. I can't wait till Disney will release this one as a special edition DVD. Try to check it out before that anyway, it's great!
Das weiße Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (2009)
fear and hope
Michael Haneke's latest film is a very gloomy picture. This is in itself not remarkable, since his movies are never exactly fun to watch. But in Das weisse Band the outlook appears to be grimmer than ever. According to the director, its story offers an explanation of the horrors that the European continent has witnessed in the course of the twentieth century.
The plot revolves around some dramatic, mysterious, even cruel events that upset a seemingly peacefull small town in southern Germany. The year is 1913, the first World War is, as we are informed by the voice over, close at hand.
The film opens as the village doctor and his horse trip, at full speed, over a piece of string, tied across the road. The horse dies, the doctor is hospitalized. Is it a children's prank that was taken a bit too far or is it an attempted murder?
To Haneke such a fall is almost a metaphor to life. His characters are prone to 'tripping' over unforeseen complications. The villagers however regard such an accident as fate. Everyone but the baroness (who found a lover in Italy) and the schoolteacher (who declined a prosperous future in the sowing-business of his parents) seems to have a genuinely fatalistic outlook on life. At one point in the movie the schoolteacher walks in on one of his students who is playing a very hazardous balancing-game. The boy explains that he gave God the chance to smite him. The doctors' fall is only the first of many disturbing events. Sometimes the cause is obvious, sometimes the cause is lost in the inky black communal conscience. Or do the children know more...?
When the children are to inherit the future, then the apocalyptic scenario of two world wars is a fitting inheritance for this generation. Or so it seems in this film. I wonder if Haneke's outlook is not equally fatalistic as his morbid characters'.
Still, it's not all fatalism or cynicism in this picture. Quite unexpectedly hope shines through time and again. In a little boy's offering his pet bird to his father, whose parakeet has been slaughtered. In the offering of music to a distraught soul. Even in a father's love for his children in the midst of a violent upbringing.
Das weisse Band is a very balanced film. Which is remarkable, since it moves between extremes. It is also a beautiful production. Shot in high contrast black and white, which gives the impression of watching silent- movie-footage. And the characters are acted out with love and depth. It is a film well worth watching, and it will surely give you something to think about for a long time.
Under Capricorn (1949)
odd Hitchcock, strange household
Under Capricorn is not the most beloved film in the Hitchcock oeuvre. In fact, it has a pretty bad reputation. One of the stars, Joseph Cotten, deemed it "under crapricorn", The master of suspense himself wasn't pleased with it. The question is, some sixty years later, is it really all that bad?
First of all, the movie stands out as an odd Hitchcock. It is a classic drama, with something of a Wuthering Heights-feel to it, set in 19th-century Australia. A story of the love between a stable-boy (Cotten) and an aristocratic lady (Ingrid Bergman). A young penniless aristocrat gets to know them as a well-to-do married couple with odd manners and a very strange household. The lady of the house lies in bed, delirious and depressed, the man is a gloomy, jumpy character and the maid a manipulative nurse Ratched. The situation is soon turned around, but there are ghost's from the past that complicate matters, and the drama unfolds. It's not a terrific storyline, but it is interesting enough. The cast is pretty great as well, especially Bergmann and Cotten (and how could they not be?). The cinematography is good, but not great. Most of the scenes exist of single shots, which is the way Hitchcock liked to shoot, of course. Very often the camera moves beautifully through the scenes and through the house. But it is not as gripping or convincing as in, say, Vertigo, where the cinematography is breathtaking. It's not really fair to judge this film for not living up to the standards of Hitchcock's best, but it doesn't anyway. In my view, the camera is always something of an extra character in Hitchcock films, adding to the suspense and the human emotions, etc. Under Capricorn lacks that extra little something.
Still, most of it is very well done. The decors, the whole setting, are very convincing, even for today's standards, the acting is good, the story is OK. Eventually it is quality that you don't very often get. Check it out.
The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)
family drama
To start: I have never seen the original 1934 version of The Man Who Knew Too Much, so I'm not able to compare the two. All I can say is that I really liked this one.
The story is very basic: A well to do American couple (played by the inevitable James Stewart the lovely Doris Day) is vacationing in Morocco, where their son is kidnapped and taken to London. This is because the father stumbled upon some information about an assassination that is to take place in the near future. Of course they're not to inform the police, etc. They follow the trace of the hoodlums to London, where they try to rescue their son.
As always in his films, Hitchcock excels in building the tension by using the conflicting worlds: one world where everyone seems to act normal and business is as usual, while at the same time a drama unfolds. This kind of tension is often missing from modern day thrillers. Hitchcock also makes a great deal of the dilemma the parents are faced with. As the moment of the assassination draws nearer and nearer, they realize that the lives of two hang in the balance. This tension reaches its masterfull conclusion in the famous Royal Albert Hall sequence, where Day proves to be a very convincing leading lady. It's one of Hitchcock's best scenes (the obvious inspiration to Scorseses Key to Reserva).
It is not one of Hitchcock's very best (it ends rather odd, not to say hasty and the storyline is not really brilliant anyway), but it is basically an almost flawless production. Scenery and cinematography are great and so are Stewart and Day. In fact I find them the best Hitchcock-couple I have seen so far (North by NW is close). Highly recommended to anyone who likes to enjoy good film-making.
Touch of Evil (1958)
help yourself
Touch of Evil is one of the most acclaimed Orson Welles' movies, the others being Citizen Kane and The Trial, of which I am a huge fan. For some reason it has taken me some time to be able to see this one, so expectations have been building up for some years now. I must say, I haven't been disappointed.
The cinematography is, as always, beautiful, sometimes spectacular. The opening scene is especially daring. A tracking shot, from a crane, lasting several minutes, switching focus, back and forth, between a pedestrian couple and a moving car. It seems impossible, but it works beautifully.
The cast is also very attractive. It stars the somewhat robust Charlton Heston and the attractive Janet Leigh. Heston is a young, idealistic law enforcer (Vargas), who is surrounded by characters of a more dubious nature. Welles' character, Hank Quinlan, being his counterpart. Joseph Cotten makes an appearance, as does Marlene Dietrich, in a great role. We follow Vargas in a struggle to maintain his righteousness and Quinlan as his mask drops, revealing a corrupt policeman.
However, the excellent storyline learns that there's more to it than meets the eye. There's always a second, and then a third glance. We learn that Quinlan has good reason to work the way he has up to now. We learn that Vargas may not be able to uphold his clean status forever ("I am not here as a policeman, but as a husband" he proclaims towards the end of the movie, in a rage). In the middle of the movie, Vargas is in a grocery store, which is tended by a blind girl. The camera focuses repeatedly on a sign that reads: If you're mean enough to steal from the blind, help yourself. This, obviously, supposed to be something of a motto for the movie. Who are the blind? Lady Justice, for sure. Also the wrongfully accused (But are there really any in this story?) But in the final scene it may be Vargas who tries to 'steal' from the 'blinded' Quinlan...
As in The Trial, Welles shows his skills as a storyteller, one being able to enrich his story with morality and careful study of human behavior. The whole thing reminded me of No Country for Old Men, because of the story, but also the excellent cinematography. Both movies cross the American-Mexican border now and then. Of course, in Welles movie there's never any comedy.
All in all, I highly recommend it to anyone who isn't afraid to watch a movie more than ten years old. It's excellent.
Le procès (1962)
Fragmentary masterpiece
This is one of my favorite movies of all time. And that is basically because I've never seen anything like it.
What I most look for in a movie is beautiful camera-work, good editing, good storytelling and, preferably, good acting. The Trial has it all, and all in its own unique way.
The camera-work is daring, dazzling. Welles, as a director, always tries to look for the grand, larger-than-life images. Every shot is unique and beautiful, especially when Welles himself makes his appearance; first clouded in cigar smoke, next behind a steamy-hot towel, the removal of which makes the man himself produce clouds of steam. An amazing sight. Of course black and white is the only way in which (t)his kind of cinematography can be fully appreciated and realized.
The story develops at a very high pace, there's no time to wonder what the heck is actually happening. This way the audience can really feel the tension and paranoia of the world in which Josef K. tries to survive. The editing is smooth, near perfect.
As much as I am a fan of this movie, it's not a flawless masterpiece. Its retelling of the famous novel by Franz Kafka is a bit too fragmentary. There's usually no telling how much time has passed between scenes. The editing gives you the impression that every occasion follows the previous one immediately, though through the conversations we are, now and then, informed that weeks may have passed. This, and other things, leave a somewhat haphazard impression, even when still watching the movie. The characters never really go beyond blind paranoia, absolute fright, suspicion, irony, mystery... There's never any middle ground. I'm very much OK with this, but not everyone will be, I suppose.
So, I gave everyone a fair warning, yet I also highly recommend it. Terrific.
Quantum of Solace (2008)
ode to past bondness
I recently saw this latest addition to the evergrowing Bond-cycle in a theatre and it took me a couple of days to form something of an opinion. Because, boy, this is an action-packed movie, I mean absolutely action-PACKED. The film doesn't even kick off with the traditional gun barrel-shot (we get that at the end of the movie). We just fall into the story where it cut off at the end of Casino Royale. And this happens to be a car chase. A chase that doesn't seem to stop throughout the movie. There is some dialogue. It concerns, however, more with Bond's state of mind, his coping with affairs, his dealing with Vespers death (it is impossible to grasp any of the content of this film without having memorised the plot to CR), his trying to tell who is friend, who is enemy, than with the plot.
Originally, the scenario must have revolved around a plot. However, the film as presented, doesn't deal with it at all. It deals with closely following Bond, with hardly any explanation regarding his whereabouts, in rollercoasterspeed. The buildup is connected to the locations. Every 12 minutes or so, Bond moves from Siena to Haiti, to Austria, to Bolivia, etc. And every 12 minutes or so, another action sequence is kick-started all over again.
I've read serious complaints on the lack of Bondness of this flick. As far as some elements (plot, irony) are concerned I can agree, partly. However, there's more to the Bond-tradition than meets the eye. And I think Marc Forster has done a tremendous job in accentuating some Bond-elements that have always been present, but always on the side. The car chase with which the movie opens is very Goldfingerish. Not to mention the oil-covered dead girl, being an obvious ode to the terrific shot (also on an hotel-bed, in the exact same angle) in that movie. The chase on the Siena rooftops takes place during the famed equestrian races. There is an opera scene that is so magnificent, that it is probably the best I've ever seen in any Bond film. It has, in all its visual splendour, "Bond" written all over it.
Apart from that continuity, it is obvious that it's not just Marc Forster who is trying to reinvent Bond. The producers have taken the recent actor-change as an opportunity to not just re-style Bond, but to make him believable, to give him (probably inspired by Bourne) a drive, an ongoing reason to be what he is. Quantum is, in that respect, a worthy follow-up to CR, which was clearly a better movie though.
For every director this 'new Bond' presents some difficulties, but also opportunities, which will make the series more interesting, less predictable, less cartoonish. The main challenge is probably to stick with irony and to steer clear from sarcasm and cynicism. Forster chose to avoid that whole area, which is, for me, the great weakness of QoS. Still, one heck of a ride: 4 out of 5.
Het echte leven (2008)
the (un)real life
Director Westdijk is probably the most talented filmmaker in the Netherlands. However, since his very good debut 'zusje'(over ten years ago) he hasn't really delivered anything worthwhile. 'Siberia' was an OK follow-up, visually, but the story was somewhat disappointing. The same goes for 'Phileine zegt sorry'.
Now with his latest picture, Westdijk is supposed to deliver some kind of magnum opus. He has worked on the film for over 11 years, mainly perfecting the script.
'Het echte leven' is a film in a film. Character developments of crew-members slowly start to merge with those of the characters in the film they are making. This type of storytelling is like tight-rope walking, but Westdijk pulls it off.
The leading lady, Sallie Harmsen is incredible. As with 'zusje'(which featured the debut of Kim van Kooten) Westdijk proves he has a talent for scouting talent. And, of course, a talent for directing actors. Ramsey Nasr is also very good in his role as the director/leading actor.
It is he who stimulates the merging of real-life and fictitious character-development, but it affects himself as well.
The story develops smoothly and the movie is overall very enjoyable, visually near perfect. But I have to say that it doesn't leave a very big impression. We're supposed to be affected (I guess) by the emotional distress the leading actors end up in. But that just doesn't happen. Pity.
Still, it's a pretty good movie, the kind you will want to watch more than once. I will kindly leave the option open that it may grow on you when you will.
Dr. No (1962)
chemistry
wow. what a movie this actually is.
all right, the pace of the first half is a bit slow, though it would not have felt like that in the 60s. But it totally pays off in the 2nd half. In fact,it is the director's patience which brings it home. The terrific scene with dr.Dent in the 'dome-room' is unsurpassed throughout the series. At that point you slowly start to grasp where this is building up to. Honey Ryder emerging from the ocean ('are you looking for seashells?' 'No, I'm just looking.'), Joseph Wiseman (dr.No) casting forth his shade (great cinematography, a lot is shot in twilight, a very good job for 1961). What also is great: Bond being pushed down in his chair, taking a beating, but we don't even get to see it, because the camera coolly follows Wiseman as he lifts from his chair and leaves the room.
Ever since, the series is obsessed with finding locations even more dramatic, spectacular and beautiful than in this one. This gives you an idea of the visual splendour of dr. No. Best locations, best Villain, best Bond, best girl. top notch.