This movie isn't so much bad but rather pointless. Just before the credits roll in an ominous white 'for Douglas' fades in out of the black. I seriously hope that the director doesn't refer to the late Douglas Adams, author of the highly successful Hitchhikers 'Triology' cause frankly Douglas will be turning in his grave, seeing what has become of his utterly enjoyable books. Let me tell you about the high points, few that there are. The most funny bits are actually when Stephen Fry reads from the original book and the pictures are merely illustrations. Which just makes you wanna go back to the books and read them all again rather than watch another minute of this half baked adaptation. The marketing strategy is only to obvious. The Hitchhikers guide has sold more than 16 million copies, so we try to cash in on that popularity by making a film with the same name regardless of the fact that it is rather tricky to adapt for the screen. I am a big fan of the books and I thought the trailer to this movie was quite funny, but unfortunately the movie isn't. Naturally, you are bound to be disappointed when you finally go to see a movie version of books that you love so dearly but was that charmless white robot really the best they could do for the highly likable character of Marvin the depressed. To name just one of the major let downs. One of the books outstanding features is Adams' sheer inventiveness and shameless exaggeration. Condensed into a 100 minute movie the many ideas suddenly appear utterly random and arbitrary. I think it would be rather tricky to follow the plot of the film without having read the books and nearly impossible to understand what is so extraordinary about the books on the evidence of this film. I won't even bemoan the fact that so many of my favourite bits never made it into the film script, but the parts that actually now make up the story don't seem particularly funny, nor imaginative, nor clever. And a bit predictable at that. Halfway through you just don't care anymore and all you want is for this mediocre movie to be over and done with.
Reviews
11 Reviews
Ultraviolet
(2006)
Citizen Kane it ain't
26 June 2006
Let's be fair here. Anyone that attends a movie sporting a poster like Ultraviolet and expects believable characters, an intriguing plot and world class acting is a bit of a fool. In my experience, those scantily clad action babes with big swords aren't really famous for their Shakespearian dialogs. However, I think the reason why this one really sank like the proverbial turd in the swimming pool is that the director trusted Milla's looks to disguise the fact that there isn't really anything remotely coherent or interesting going on here. Well, maybe he managed to lure enough folks into the cinema before word got out what a mess this is.
What I find slightly irritating is that with just a little bit of effort, this could have been at least bearable. So Wimmer has the star, he has the computers, he has the money and all he can come up with is this half baked demo of fight scenes that look as if something went wrong during the editing, i.e. as if they used only the footage that was supposed to be deleted. There are so many awful things about this movie that it's impossible to list them all and hard to pick the worst scene. One of the absolute low points is undoubtedly the bike chase. You can't help but ask yourself why anyone bothered. I mean, during the test screening someone must have had the guts to stand up an let the producers know how utterly boring and pointless this is. Frankly, you suspect that the producers had nodded of at this point already, otherwise they would have canned the project there and then. Personally, I think it would have been so much more exciting (mind you it would be impossible to have it less exciting) to have Milla simply jog down the block with a villain or two in hot pursuit. Instead you get Milla on a bike in cyberspace, some inept gunmen inside two choppers that fail to miss Milla with such precision that you can't help but feel cheated.
Half the time the image screams 'blue screen' at you and at other times you simply want to fast forward cause if there is one thing worse here than the rather boring action scenes, its the utterly laughable dialog in between. Right at the beginning Milla introduces herself with 'My name is Violet and I was born into a world you may not understand.' Spot on you think a little later, as this movie fails to make any sense whatsoever. The only thing you actually understand is that in the highly unlikely event that our society deteriorates into anything remotely resembling the world of Ultraviolet, becoming a guard is not a very wise career move.
What I find slightly irritating is that with just a little bit of effort, this could have been at least bearable. So Wimmer has the star, he has the computers, he has the money and all he can come up with is this half baked demo of fight scenes that look as if something went wrong during the editing, i.e. as if they used only the footage that was supposed to be deleted. There are so many awful things about this movie that it's impossible to list them all and hard to pick the worst scene. One of the absolute low points is undoubtedly the bike chase. You can't help but ask yourself why anyone bothered. I mean, during the test screening someone must have had the guts to stand up an let the producers know how utterly boring and pointless this is. Frankly, you suspect that the producers had nodded of at this point already, otherwise they would have canned the project there and then. Personally, I think it would have been so much more exciting (mind you it would be impossible to have it less exciting) to have Milla simply jog down the block with a villain or two in hot pursuit. Instead you get Milla on a bike in cyberspace, some inept gunmen inside two choppers that fail to miss Milla with such precision that you can't help but feel cheated.
Half the time the image screams 'blue screen' at you and at other times you simply want to fast forward cause if there is one thing worse here than the rather boring action scenes, its the utterly laughable dialog in between. Right at the beginning Milla introduces herself with 'My name is Violet and I was born into a world you may not understand.' Spot on you think a little later, as this movie fails to make any sense whatsoever. The only thing you actually understand is that in the highly unlikely event that our society deteriorates into anything remotely resembling the world of Ultraviolet, becoming a guard is not a very wise career move.
Mothlight
(1963)
I'm beginning to see the light
1 February 2006
It's rather tricky to rate and review a 4 minute film but I'm gonna try anyway. From the very beginning so called "experimental film" has dealt with the material of the film as such and there is a whole tradition of films made without the help of a camera. You can scribble on it, you can scratch it or as it was done here, you can glue two dimensional and transparent objects to it, then sandwich the negative onto it and let it run past a light source in order to expose it. Some people still think that film depicts reality, whereas all it really does is depict a reproduction of reality. But surely there must be another reality than what Hollywood is trying to sell us and Brakhage's approach is as simple as it is beautiful. In Mothlight wings of insects and thin leaves flutter over the screen and since each frame has no relation to it's preceding image, the outcome is rather fidgety. However, if you relax and stay focused at the same time you will realise that watching Mothlight is like staring at a bright light that is surrounded by moths. When I watched it for the first time, I thought the effect was rather impressive. You might argue that you don't go to the movies to watch moths flutter around bright lights but there is so much more to it. Experimantal film has always questioned our way of perceiving the world and Mothlight is no exception. Only it's also very beautiful and thus very entertaining.
Living in Oblivion
(1995)
And ................. Action!
31 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's common knowledge that filmmakers that run out of ideas or can't come up with a decent story tend to make a film about film-making itself; merely throwing together their recent experience and hope that it will result in a fascinating feature. We have been subjected to some real dross over the years but 'Living in Oblivion' is the proverbial exception to the rule, in that it isn't merely a conglomeration of "funny" disasters but they are assembled around a rather ingenious idea. As with every flick about film-making you have the different levels of the movie itself and the film that is in the making. This allows the director to switch between those different realities and blur the line between what is real and what might be merely a reproduction of reality. The basic location is a low budget film set run by a fairly incompetent and neurotic staff and apart from all the technical difficulties, true disaster strikes when the human factor raises its ugly head. The film can be roughly divided in three parts. In each part, hopelessly overworked director Nick Reve tries to cope with all the problems that can and inevitably will occur on any set and tries to prevent the whole thing from falling apart. With moderate success I might add. I don't know if you have to be interested in film making as such or if you even have to have some first hand experience to relate to this movie but I would have thought that its all kind of self explanatory. Although we would never have suspected it, the first two parts are dream sequences, thus giving the whole thing another level and hence another layer of reality, whilst the last one depicts the shooting of a dream sequence in real life. Quite clever methinks. However, the line between dream and reality is not quite as clear as you might think cause occurrences and events from the first two parts lead to what will happen in the third. All this is rather clever but what makes this an utter delight from start to finish is the directors eye for detail, how the whole thing just builds up and the great cast that is kinda stereotyped but spot on nevertheless. From the crappy catering and the bossy floor manager to the vain actor and the arty farty director everything fits just perfectly to depict an authentic scenario of underground film-making. I'm not really into comedies as such but I laughed out loud on several occasions during 'Living in Oblivion'. I really enjoyed it all the way through, but then maybe I'm a bit biased as Steve Buscemi is one of my favourite actors.
It's All About Love
(2003)
Fairytale of New York
31 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone who expects another 'Festen' is going to be disappointed and I was no exception. It's unfair to compare this big budget flick to Vinterbergs Dogma Masterpiece and still you can't help but feel that he was more at home within the cosy perimeters of his Danish community than playing around with the big boys in NYC. Joaquin Phoenix as John jets over to New York to get his wife Elena (Claire Danes), a world famous ice skater, to sign the divorce papers as a mere formality. But it soon becomes apparent that things are not what they seem and life is not as jim dandy as some people make out. Due to some serious health problems Elena wants to retire, but her management is rather keen to keep the show going so they came up with the cunning plan to import some Elene lookalikes from East Europe and give them some proper skating lessons. Thus they can take her part should Elena be no longer fit to perform. Uhhh, wicked! Although there are some nice moments and clever ideas, in the end I had the feeling the film just wanted too much and couldn't just decide on where to go. Partly Science Fiction, partly Love Story, partly social study and partly conspiracy theory the different elements just don't add up to a believable plot. At the end our Lovebirds trudge through the snow to meet their untimely death, but by then you are past caring as there are already too many loose ends. Take John's Brother Marciello for instance (a rather small part for Sean Penn); at inter walls we see him hanging around in various aeroplanes, blabbing happily away into his cellphones and talking to what I can only assume is John's Mailbox. I'm sure he parts with some riveting information, only I don't really care as it apparently has no relevance on the main story. In fact, I got the impression that he was added as an afterthought to highlight the family element. Don't get me wrong, most of the movies I really care for are rather confusing but this one seems not so much confused but runs around like a headless chicken. At first the Love Story seems to really take off, but before you get a chance to identify with the leads, everything falls apart. The whole movie is beautifully filmed and especially the scene where the three clones do some ice skating practice with Elena before they got snuffed in a rather cruel fashion is a powerful image. Yet at no point Vinterberg manages to come up with a natural tension between form and content as he did so well in 'Festen'. There! I did it, after all, I couldn't help to compare this to my favourite Vinterber movie. Shame on me.
Keine Lieder über Liebe
(2005)
No more films about jealousy please
30 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
At the core of the extremely simplistic plot lies a fairly corny scenario. Markus and Tobias are brothers. A few years ago Markus has slept with Tobias' girlfriend Ellen. Now Tobias is not too happy about it and still holds a grudge. Sounds boring? The director must have thought the same, so in order to spice things up a bit he gives the brothers a 'bohemian' background, i.e. one is a musician and one is a filmmaker. So Markus tours Germany with his band of assorted Indie nerds while Tobias has the ground breaking idea of making a film about his brother. Thus they drive around Germany and -don't you just know it- a few days into the tour Ellen joins the wacky bunch and the plot thickens; at least that's what the director wants us to believe. In truth it just provides an opportunity to place the troubled Ménage à trois in the back of the bus and let them discuss love, life and related expectation at some length. Well, if I want to hear some half baked ideas about such complex issues I nip around the corner to my local pub. Not even filming on location in Berlin, Hamburg and a string of seedy indie venues can give those dull characters any streetcred. Shot and edited unmistakably in Dogma style the director apparently aims for maximum authenticity and to give him his due, technically it leaves very little to be desired if you favor shaky footage that is rather grainy due to lack of additional lighting. However, as yet another schmaltzy dialog pops up, you can't help but think that the setting is nothing but a marketing strategy. Neither the cursory glance at the problems of film-making nor at being a musician propels the bleak plot a single inch forward as they don't affect the action in any form. If those more than common problems would be discussed in such a dreary fashion by two bank accountants from Lüchow-Dannenberg, no-one would give a toss and it would have be more than unlikely that this project had found financing, let alone an audience. As a great deal of the promotion traded on the fact that the whole concept incorporates real musicians from Tomte and Kettcar (Germany's current toast of alternative rock) and all the gigs where filmed in front of a real audience, it came as no surprise that the fictitious band of Markus would put out a CD to coincide with the release of the film. In fact, as the band is depicted at great length performing song after song without any relation to the drama at hand, at times I felt as if I was watching a promotional video for the album. To provide some form of climax, no matter how contrived, the wrecked mother gets dragged to one of the shows and predictably it all ends in disaster. But for all the grime, sweat, booze and tears that are thrown in to give the story some meaning, the plot remains unimaginative and shallow. However, if you are a fan of aforementioned indie poppers Tomte and Kettcar (and I know there are a great many), this might hold some interest for you. Plus, Jürgen Vogel is as enjoyable as ever.
Life Is Beautiful
(1997)
but this film is not
30 January 2006
Admitively, I'm not a big fan of Benigni and I don't consider his kind of humour as even remotely funny, but what makes this exercise such a truly unbearable experience is that good old Roberto chooses the Holocaust of all things as a gloomy backdrop to make himself shine all the more.
Its always a big risk if the same person directs, writes and plays the lead and to my knowledge only Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, Vincent Gallo and Woddy Allen can get away with it. But all of them have some kind of self-deprecating approach. A quality that is completely absent with Roberto Benigni. What makes it all the more annoying is, that most of the people fall for it, as was evident in the cinema when I watched the film.
So in order to make himself look good he writes a script that places himself in the middle of some very mean and nasty Nazis. Thankfully he doesn't need to bother with characters as everyone knows that the Nazis are are the epitome of evil anyway. But portraying himself as the tireless adversary of the oppressors isn't quite enough for Benigni. In order to hammer it home to the everyone that he is the good guy, he puts himself in charge of a cute little child, that he has to protect from the trauma of concentration camps. Sometimes this is quite easily done. As the two of them wander aimlessly around the grounds, they happen to come across a huge pile of bodies. We haven't realized this at first cause there was some very spooky fog floating around. Protectively Benini shields the boy's eyes from the unappetizing sight while the music reaches a dramatic crescendo. What a nice guy. This might seem like nitpicking to you but as they were apparently deported to a labour camp and not to an extermination camp, they wouldn't have come across such a sight. But any historic accuracy is secondary to Benigni as long as something gives him another opportunity to make out what a emphatic, altruistic and considerate character he is. Its so unsubtly done, it has to insult anyone with a bit of intelligence.
I know, coming up with a comedy set in the Third Reich is always a tricky business but Lubitsch and Chaplin have proved that it can be done. Benigni though fails on all fronts. Some scenes are shamelessly nicked from 'the Great Dictator', in another some raw eggs are placed in a hat and you think that this is so corny and predictable and he can't possible have the villain don the hat (ha ha) and yet he does, and even worse, the audience around me behaved as if this was the funniest thing they'd ever seen. Well, if this is your kind of humour you're in for a real treat.
Its always a big risk if the same person directs, writes and plays the lead and to my knowledge only Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, Vincent Gallo and Woddy Allen can get away with it. But all of them have some kind of self-deprecating approach. A quality that is completely absent with Roberto Benigni. What makes it all the more annoying is, that most of the people fall for it, as was evident in the cinema when I watched the film.
So in order to make himself look good he writes a script that places himself in the middle of some very mean and nasty Nazis. Thankfully he doesn't need to bother with characters as everyone knows that the Nazis are are the epitome of evil anyway. But portraying himself as the tireless adversary of the oppressors isn't quite enough for Benigni. In order to hammer it home to the everyone that he is the good guy, he puts himself in charge of a cute little child, that he has to protect from the trauma of concentration camps. Sometimes this is quite easily done. As the two of them wander aimlessly around the grounds, they happen to come across a huge pile of bodies. We haven't realized this at first cause there was some very spooky fog floating around. Protectively Benini shields the boy's eyes from the unappetizing sight while the music reaches a dramatic crescendo. What a nice guy. This might seem like nitpicking to you but as they were apparently deported to a labour camp and not to an extermination camp, they wouldn't have come across such a sight. But any historic accuracy is secondary to Benigni as long as something gives him another opportunity to make out what a emphatic, altruistic and considerate character he is. Its so unsubtly done, it has to insult anyone with a bit of intelligence.
I know, coming up with a comedy set in the Third Reich is always a tricky business but Lubitsch and Chaplin have proved that it can be done. Benigni though fails on all fronts. Some scenes are shamelessly nicked from 'the Great Dictator', in another some raw eggs are placed in a hat and you think that this is so corny and predictable and he can't possible have the villain don the hat (ha ha) and yet he does, and even worse, the audience around me behaved as if this was the funniest thing they'd ever seen. Well, if this is your kind of humour you're in for a real treat.
Eraserhead
(1977)
crucial, cruel and not really a feel good movie
30 January 2006
For all its flaws Eraserhead still remains in my top 25 favorite films of all time. You can love it or hate it, but I think it would be very hard not to be touched by the very suggestive imagery. Lynch meddled with surrealism, the aesthetics of Edward Hopper and the dark side of the soul in most of his films but it was never more gripping or convincing than in his first full length film. In Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive he made just too many concessions to the mass market, while this is a perfect symbiosis between experimental and narrative cinema. Watching it you get the feeling he was making exactly the kind of movie he wanted to, or needed to and there are just a very few films that fall into that category methinks. Frankly, you have to take into consideration that it is obviously low budget, but how Lynch employs his humble means to maximum effect is simply breathtaking and provided a blueprint for fledging filmmakers all around the world. There isn't much of a plot, the whole thing is basically a never ending nightmare about getting to grips with fatherhood, and yet that seems more than enough to keep our anti hero occupied for 90 minutes. Taking his inspiration from silent movies and German Expressinist cinematography (i.e. Film Noir), Lynch takes the audience on a tour de force through the bleakest and most depressing scenarios you can imagine. A seriously disorientated Jack Nance stumbles through an industrial wasteland, feels decidedly out of place at the home of his fiancée and finally cracks up in the kafkaesque claustrophobia of his hotel room. It always holds the perfect balance between sinister fantasy and drab reality so that although there isn't much acting or action to speak of you remain on the edge of your seat the whole time through. Lynch went on to make some memorable films, but he never managed to capture the emotional depth of Erasurehead again. All this said, I would like to discourage you from watching this film should you, or your girlfriend/wife be pregnant. Also, as this is most definitely an underground/independent classic, it might not appeal to your common multiplex visitor, but if you have any interest in what went on off the beaten track in the 70s, this is a pretty good place to start.
Sommer vorm Balkon
(2005)
solid, yet average
30 January 2006
Although this was hailed by the critics in Berlin as yet another masterpiece of German film-making I can't really see anything special here. Solid acting, solid script, solid camera; but at no stage does this film become more than the sum of its parts. Its set in the trendy part of former east Berlin and revolves around the friendship between unemployed shop window decorator Katrin and the stereotyped blonde Nike, an old people's nurse. At first glance they have nothing much in common apart from living in the same house, both being single and both having taken an unhealthy liking towards vodka. The plot itself is rather trite; we just fade in on their everyday problems and yup, you've guessed it, there are men involved. Then, after the usual complications that come with love, friendship and too much drink we fade out again. To give the whole thing a little more depth, a kid is thrown in for good measure. Still, after the credits rolled in I asked myself, whats the point? Three days later I couldn't remember much of it anymore. True, there are some good lines and a few mildly amusing scenarios, but the story stays rather predictable all the way through. I reckon this film is supposed to depict life as it is but if life is that dull, I don't really see any reason to make a film about it. My summers in Berlin are usually a bit more entertaining, that much I know.
Satantango
(1994)
Nearly eight hours of pure bliss
29 January 2006
This is my favorite film of all time and its such a pity that it gets screened so rarely, but who can blame the cinemas as not too many people are prepared to take Tarr's advice and call in sick in order to spend eight hours at the movies instead of going to work. Also, I reckon this is one of the very few films you actually have to see on a big screen, so even if it was available on DVD, it wouldn't do much good. I've seen it three times so far and I got blown away every single time. So I really urge you to give it a go if this epic masterpiece comes anywhere near you. First time I saw it was on the Berlin Film Festival in 94 and I have to admit I wasn't really prepared to sit through the whole thing, but after three hours I was completely hooked and when the credits finally rolled in, I was rather sad that it was over. I would have liked to spend another few hours in this strange and compelling world. OK, the plot in itself is kinda depressing and bearing in mind that it runs for so many hours, not that much happens, but to complain about the absence of jolly dialog and action packed stunts would be completely beside the point. You just have to be willing to go along with Tarr's approach and once you accept that storytelling here is a bit different to what you are used to, the whole thing it is more exciting, entertaining and gripping than everything you've ever seen. Tarr's main achievement in my view is that he creates a completely new form of imagery and its so utterly convincing that I still wonder why it never caught on big time. Instead of editing the takes into a scene during post production, he shots almost everything in one go with the help of a steady cam. As the takes are as long as 7 minutes (just a spirited guess, I never timed them) and involve occasionally more than 9 actors its just utterly amazing how Tarr choreographs actors and camera in a way that it seems perfectly natural and you get to see exactly what you need to see. Well its pretty hard to explain if you haven't seen it as it really is so different from everything else. What can I tell you? Every single frame is aesthetically a revelation, thus making this an utter delight from start to finish. I could harp on endlessly about why I love this film so much. About the absolutely convincing atmosphere, the great acting, the inventive use of lighting, how the story unfolds, the subtle use of humor, but as it is with all great love affairs, words fail to even hint at the magnificence of Sátántangó. Go, see and believe.
a war flick that outstays its welcome
29 January 2006
Quite clearly, this must be the most overrated film of all time. Right, if you are into special effects and fancy dresses, you get treated to some eye candy, but does this really justify three hours of nearly plot less costume drama. Halfway through the film it struck me that this is nothing more than some kind of violent war movie. Basically you get extremely tiring and brutal battle scenes that alternate with extremely tiring and boring dialog (usually one of the participants is dying, which makes communication a tad tedious). While 'Fellowship of the Ring' still had some humorous elements and a bit of a storyline, the third part comes across as a show reel for what computer animation can do today. But even that is not fully convincing. That little mutant that guides Frodo and his mate up the mountain remains a virtual character through most of his movements. As all the prime movers have already been established, the carnage starts annoyingly early. But hey, why bother at all with giving the cast some depth? As all the good guys are very cute, noble, good looking and dashing and all the bad ones are extremely ugly, mean, evil and nasty, every protagonist remains positively one dimensional. The condemnable moral being that ugly beings can't be nice. Well, being hardly a handsome object myself, I take offense to that. But what I really object to is the glorification of violence that is present throughout those excruciating 192 minutes, combined with unbearably stagy dialog to justify it. Hey, killing can be great fun. Though to give the director his due, this might not be Jackson's fault, but Tolkien's. However, no reason to like this monstrosity any better. Maybe I'm just a bit old fashioned but everything I like about films, i.e. great acting, an intricate script, an unpredictable plot, imaginative camera-work and clever editing is conspicuously absent here. I liked the fight with the giant spider though. Only for escapists.
Tell Your Friends