Reviews written by registered user
|195 reviews in total|
Great performances of uniformed men (Nazi's?) in town, great musical arrangements on the side and a lot of cultural references and newspaper headlines here. Furthermore a pretty boring total spectacle, for next to some religious philosophy the film itself only offers us some nice images, mostly the faces of the Nazi men responsible for it remain on the back of your head after viewing this flick. What beautiful eyes those Nazi boys had! As if the direction was focused mainly upon pardoning one's own responsible activities in the Second World War. But why didn't the woman near the ending have no armpit hair where there definitely should have been knowing the Germans in those days the way I do??
this movie is not a good movie. I've seen quite some good movies, and this is not one of them. I'm a big Denzel Washington-fan, but this movie makes me dislike the man more than I could dislike Carmen Elektra in Disaster Movie. Denzel Washington was not acting at all, he was just repeating his act of Man on Fire. at least he must have listened to my comment on that movie and played here on constant 'I'm on overdose'-scale/-attitude. at least the best part of the movie came in less than a second at the beginning, when Denzel wook up next to a very beautiful woman. at that point in the movie (the beginning, thus), I simply knew that this movie was gonna be dynamite; it didn't get any better than that. be careful with movies that show a naked woman at the beginning; it is all they have to offer. the rest of the movie will be in most of the cases one big bugger. this movie proofs this theory once more. if you want a nice television movie, sure, you have to be here, but for the rest, not worth a single price. if this movie does win any price, it just would show that Hollywood has nothing more to offer. the movie goes down, long live the plane. unfortunately just a bit too little scenes of the actual flight, and no mystery, but big time disappointment. show it again and I'll puke.
philosophical ideas go together with boring quotations of lovers and friends through life while we witness total blackness, white flashes and images of naked women through the past of the main character. references to poetry, paintings and daily pleasures are basely the main items of conversation together with admiration to fascist ideology. the story is nothing more but (three??) drunks speaking to one another, bluffing about their (love) life. it wouldn't be that dull if it was a bit interesting. and yet, it's this lack on fascinating items that's so mind-blowing. how is it the stupid things are always the most impressing ones? perhaps it's the combination of beautiful (naked) women and music on freezing and re-freezing photographs that's captivating that much. the conversations are worth listening to either, especially the protagonist's vision on sex with friends (and this for a movie from 1969!), it really entered my mind completely. besides the naked pleasures and sexual references between the drunks, we find lots of posters of porn flicks and photographers at work near the presence of the same beautiful women with good records on the background and tripping images mixed between each other the way Kenneth Anger did this in Lucifer Rising, Jack Smith in Scotch Tape or Andy Warhol in Chelsea Girls. actually, the whole movie could be described as one great acid trip. is there any hidden meaning in this film, like the director's opinion over some matters?? well, we see lots of female faces over female bodies and female hobbies. it's all females and girls through one another. the pictures of the kids throughout the women situations show the misunderstandings Abie Thoms had as a kid, maybe Marinetti was his way to deal with his childhood problems, expressed with the very weird, hairy male figures in this picture and the naked women all over. seduction leads to nakedness leads to sex lead to children to seduction and all over: Marinetti is a film about life, as it states itself: 'life in art'. I have no doubts about it that David Lynch based his Inland Empire on this flick, for soon everything turns out to be a real urban nightmare... this kind of love is pretty masochistic. sexual horror and mechanical teasers, it's all possible in Albie Thoms' "Marinetti" (but no idea what the title's all about). one thing is quite obvious, Thomas was a big Brakhage fan, and a bit of Deren and Akerman can be found in him as well. Marinetti proves this all, but I do doubt if I would ever have the patience to watch this video-music reference mix again.
okay, so what is happening on Film in which there appear edge lettering sprocket holes dirt particles etcetera?? well, it's a good question. first of all, we must remind ourselves here that we are watching a film that has been put together with a very well meant intent. the only thing that could make you wonder is what the intent of Owen Wilson was with making a movie like this which is really about nothing at all (except for the terrible soundtrack that could make a horse fly over twelve cattle and some letters flying over the screen). is this movie about those letters, I wonder? is it a secret message that the director is projecting to the viewers? is he really supposing we would take the time to see what letters they all are? is there really any point in this? does he even try to make a point at all?? maybe Owen Land was just trying to be friendly to an ex-love out of his life (see the picture of the woman on his left and the hidden meaning of the letters together on your right). oh yeah, this is really making me happy, for I have nothing else to do than to connect those letters... finally, we witness a few seconds of darkness before the film ends. with this darkness, the 'music' disappears as well. the end of a love affair? goodbye Nashville? who might say... I bet Owen Land could!
wow! what was Kenneth Anger thinking to express with this short documentary??? we see a lot of paintings, check. paintings of a Christ-like, check. the title refers to the devil, check. we have a nice tech-no beat on the background, check. so what does it all mean? was Anger trying to implicate a dark unknown hidden secret about Christ and paintings of Aleister Crowley?? off course not. this movie doesn't make any sense, but it's wonderful in the way it doesn't. if you watch it closely, you get the mysterious feeling you are being sucked into the painting. now, that's a special thing to say about a movie. first time I watched Brush of Baphomet, I was like: oh my God! the painting is getting hold of me... and it's true, you know: the colours of the paintings are so remarkable unreal, that they start to replace the reality we live in. very soon, my home became to resemble one of Crowley's paintings. lucky for me, this experience did not last very long. it changed back the way it was. the thing I am trying to say is: please see this movie, it will change your life in ways you cannot imagine.
one could easily wonder how it is possible that Kenneth Anger still is able to make movies today... isn't he like really old by now? yet, he continues to make movies as if he were only twenty-three. what an oeuvre! off course, one cannot deny the impact of his experimental short film Scorpio Rising on MTV and it's music clips, now it is those music clips of MTV that has probably been the greatest influence on Anger's newest flick, 'Missoni', and boy, what a rush once more! it's a montage (it's an Anger, how could it be anything else than a montage) containing lots of really modern dressed (or as good as naked) people, in a way which resembles Puce Moment and Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome, as well as Lucifer Rising and Invocation of my Demon Brother. yes, this one short is the top of them all, it picks out its best ingredients and makes something totally new out of it with new images that will appeal to a young audience. way to go Kenneth Anger! you rule!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
some people get stuck in time... that certainly is the case with the portrait in Porträt einer Bewährung. as always, Kluge play with concepts like time, warfare and the results of defeat. in fact, every Kluge short movie can be seen as a case of psychological denial of the main figure in an environment with facts happening on a different scale of the main character in question. Porträt einer Bewährung offers us the chance to see history happen again through the eyes of an innocent bystander, who gets involved in more than he'd like to be, thus creating our present (or his future in the past storyline) reformed by his own thoughts. it may sound silly when you put it like that, but the real question is whether or not this will happen to ourselves. will we become old and naive in a world we can't follow because of the values we learned to appreciate in our youth? possibly. and perhaps that possibility makes this movie so great to watch.
one may question how the times have changed, and with it, the educational values of our society system. one may also ask, why isn't anyone there who has got the same guts as Alexander Kluge had when he made 'Teachers in Transformation'. it's a short glimpse of pure genius. with this short experimental movie, Kluge draws lines between education and situation, and how the two of them value our morals. it all begins very innocent, but very fast the slow pacing rhythm goes a little bit too fast, and the point of view of the subject becomes something totally different: how politics change our mental states. for the better? for the worse? Kluge makes no direct judgment, however, it surely is understandable after watching 'Teachers in Transformation' how he for himself viewed the subject of his short film, which contains some striking images that will never leave your mind after viewing.
when you see many (experimental) movies made by Stan Vanderbeek, you can easily categorize them, or as we say, find the similar elements between them to find a way to understand the meaning of his films, or at least try to do so. Science Friction definitely is not his best one, but it affirmed what I was thinking about him: that mister Vanderbeek uses images like eyes and hammers to make his point. but what is his point actually? in Science Friction, he shows us many known faces from around the world, and plays with them as he always does. most important here are the references to authority and the universe. if, and this is a personal approach toward Vanderbeek, Stan uses eyes to make us see we are watching while being watched (I know how strange this may sound) and hammers as a metaphor for violence in the society we live in, we can conclude we are watching violence that is violating us in an artistic way. in effect, it may represent our way of living with, near and close to each other. this way we forget we're just a little spot in the endless universe, which was created by violence and constantly uses that violence to change in little bits we can't see with our own eyes, but maybe we could by viewing a Stan Vanderbeek movie. it's all about representing life as we know it in an artistic way, nothing more, nothing less. this may not directly be science fiction, but because of his frictional approach, this sure is rightly called Science Friction. to conclude, I didn't like this one, but all the other Vanderbeek experimental pictures I saw already, I really adored. long live Stan Vanderbeek, even if he's passed away a long time ago. but maybe this could be a nice topic for one of his movies: contacting from the afterlife to give us messages hidden in everyday objects mutilated on the small screen.
Stan Vanderbeek's A la Mode is a work of pure genius. As always, he makes use of many known things on many other levels and ways of saying other things using mutation, reformation and reviewing, thus creating something totally different. A la Mode can be seen as his piece de resistance. It uses a lot of faces we don't know and normal objects we use everyday. by building many layers with/of these things we know, he gives us the feeling we know what he's meaning with a certain scene, yet he manages to double cross us and force us to view things his way, an abnormal way perhaps, but the message is clear nevertheless: I believe Stan tried to make us acknowledge the hypocrisy in which we live, work and eat. nothing is what it seems. we trust the things we create, giving our fate to something like clothing (mode). but fashions are made and deleted everyday, so we must be careful to trust ourselves instead of something artificial as clothing. but by saying that, Stan actually tells us not to trust anything, even his movies can be falsely interpreted. if what he tells can be seen as false, how can we be sure that what he's telling is the truth? maybe the things we know are right and he's wrong... something to think about.
|Page 1 of 20:||          |