Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Herr Tartüff (1925)
It's still Murnau
This is the fourth Murnau i've seen, after Nosferatu, Sunrise and Faust. I admire the work of Murnau for it's beautiful compositions an camera movement. Murnau is able to translate the mood he want's to set into composition and movement without being artsy for the sake of it.
Tartuffe has quiet a story behind it. Apparently, Murnau was forced by contract to make this film. So this film is to Murnau what Spartacus was to Kubrick. Even though it's still a Murnau picture: again Murnau knows how to give a quiet flat story more depth by suggestion and style. I liked the film, it's hasn't got the outdoors scene's that Sunrise and Nosferatu had, or the huge sets and special effect of Faust, but still it remains an exciting film. Don't hold back by the negative reviewers of the film, this is, by all means, not a bad film. It's just that Murnau made so much breathtaking stuff in his other work, that this film seems not so historical interesting. But if you're a fan of Murnau's other work I'm sure you'll like this as well. Make sure you'll watch the Masters of Cinema edition. It has a great documentary about the making of this film. It gave me a lot of new insights about the film and about Murnau.
Il cartaio (2004)
My girlfriend and i rented this film to have an entertaining night. Some kind of cheesy horror flick, we thought. The name Argento sounded familiar to me, i've not seen any of his films, so i thought we did OK by renting this.
After 5 minutes of watching we already knew that this was a mistake: the acting looked horrible and for some reason unknown to me, the film was dubbed. The dubbing is one of the baddest examples of dubbing i've ever seen. The dubbed sound isn't mixed or properly taken care of.
Later on we found out that the dubbing and acting aren't the only bad things about this film: the plot looks like it's been written by someone on drugs. There are SO many plot holes that all actions lose their function. Besides that, clearly no one bothered to do some research on police departments, poker games, or any other aspect displayed in this film. Therefore this film is an insult to anything the film shows.
Baddest of all is the music. any kind of tension or other mood is completely ruined by the dominant soundtrack of the film. I'm sure that EVERYONE who ever made music on his PC could have made something better.
besides that i expected gore, but this movie could be PG13.
This Argento dude is a filmmaker from who i hope never to see a film again. a I'm sure that if you make a film yourself, it'll be better.
Die Blechtrommel (1979)
An Empty Shell
The Tin Drum is about a boy, Oskar, who refuses to grow. All around him, peoples lives are being destroyed by the 2nd WW. Oskar and his tin drum make hideous noise when Oskar sees cruelly around him. Unfortunately, The cruelty that Oskar sees, are not the same as i see. That makes Oskar quite an annoying little boy.
Oskar tends to represent the socialism in Germany, he drums for political reasons. but meanwhile he also drums for his own egocentric sake: his mother cheating on his father, anyone who doesn't like drumming. That hasn't got anything to do with the WW situation. This leads to the strange point where i don't know whether i am supposed to like Oskar or not. Is this film intended to make my own opinion about The WW2? Or is this film intended to dislike Oskar? To bad that great images are ruined by the fact i can't FEEL anything when seeing Oskar. He just makes me wonder (what the heck does he want!?) Nothing more then that.
Hard Candy (2005)
too bad. A well chance missed
Hard Candy is not your average movie. It's made by director David Slade, know for his videos for Warp. As a director he shows some great stuff. Nice camera-work, lightning and colors. A beauty to the eye, i'd say. The Acting to is top notch. Both Patrick Wilson and Ellen Page play believable characters who evolve throughout the film.
So, why did i rated it as a 1 star film? Because the story is as weak as it can get. the director probably (i'm not really sure about it) wanted to show 2 people being wrong. pedophile and a little girl that takes revenge. And revenge is always a bad solution. But instead of showing 2 people being wrong. We are forced to see 1 person as good, and the other as bad as can be. While it might be an interesting duel, it's an all 1 way attack. Almost forcing the viewer into making 1 person a hero and the other a loser. Therefore, i'm not really sure if the director wants us to choose. If he did, he'd made both party's more balanced out in their actions. But the end of the film, clearly indicated 1 as a hero and 1 as a loser.
The thing suggested here are almost unethical. To bad that the complex situation given is handled so bad. To bad that everything except the story are good. but the story is SO bad, that the whole film drowns in it. drown in hate and subjectivity, this looked like propaganda to me. in 2006 people should be more smart.
I saw flex completely. And it SUCKS! i love windowlicker, Come To Daddy and Rubber Johnny, so i was excited to see an other Aphex Twin - Cunningham collaboration. But this one horribly failed. The seventeen minutes can easily but to down to 5 minutes without missing anything. The Aphex Twin sound scape has it's moments, and so do Cunningham's visuals. But 17 minutes is waayyyyy to long to tell the story. A lot of repeating images and a lot lot of nothing. Though it lacks the story. Cunningham makes symbolical pictures just for being symbolic, not to show a deeper meaning. He does not add a punchline.
The whole project seems the push the limits to avant garde. What repulsive images can we bring to the screen without losing the title ART? Because Cunningham definitely tries to put the ART-stamp on this one. The Story is about the struggle between man an woman. Cunningham tries to make the story universal, but i can i no way relate to it. A man beating a woman and raping her as a battle of the sexes. what a perversive Joke. Close ups from his penis shows he means business, but do not add anything. I'm not easily disturbed. And i am not disturbed by Flex, but this just seems like some pointless film making. Violence or nudity should make a point if shown. But here no point is made. just trying to shock people on a very cheap way.
Note how the another posters says "I really enjoyed watching people get up and leave". That's a good way to watch this film: Don't enjoy the film, enjoy the way it makes people sick. enjoy how you as die-hard cult lover are though enough not to leave. Cunningham seems to have had the same idea.
Shows this to your friends, to show how underground-cult you are for having seen this. Other than that, no use for this experiment. Try the music videos again.
Well, after a lot of recommendations, i finally saw this film. I must say i'm impressed. This movie has a seriously high entertainment value.
From the very beginning the film bursts into action; a butcher shows his sick "delicatessen". The hero enter the screen and completely fills it both by screen and by acting. Just like Amelie, everyday activities are shown in an unusual way. All these little details are shown throughout the film, making it never boring or slow to watch. the plot is quiet simple, but due to the details and little subplots, it becomes an exciting story.
The story takes places all inside one building. This old should-be-abandoned building contains the lives of a own community. We as viewer get the feeling that there is no outside world. As the hero enters we all know what's gonna happen: he will be the next meal. The daughter of the butcher falls in love with him, and tries to save him from what's gonna happen. other families deal with their own absurd(!) situations, but all are connected to the butcher, witch is shown as the whole building reacts to the butchers actions.
The film is shot in sepia, and contains a lot of close-ups. Close-ups of faces, things, everything. This really drawed me into the story. but i must say, i needed a moment to get used to that. It's all very hectic and wild.
the acting is fun, direction intense, use of music is good, plot good. What more do you need?? This is a must for everyone who likes Amelie and/or terry Gilliam. Bizar, absurd and exciting!
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Well, too many opinions already, but i'll add this one anyway.
I haven't read the book. I think one does not need to read the book to see any movie. Reading the book leaves you with images that can't be transformed to a film. And reading the book after wards leaves you with the images the film has set for you. So i'm not gonna read the book now. That aside:
The theater was fully packed, so the bar is raised high. Although it's really a mainstream film, it has a long running time. I didn't mind that, but a lot of other people did, getting bored around half way trough the movie. Well, that happens with the MTV generation :)
So, probably the book was better. This 2 1/2 hour flick was to short to tell it's story fully. A lot of things happen, and some interesting theory's didn't get much attention due to the total length of the story. That's the biggest issue for me.
The main story wasn't too difficult to follow for me. But it's the little theories that should make this movie interesting. And some theories now get about 1 sentence attention. That's just too little. The story quickly moves on to the next scene. The main story isn't to interesting, but that's not really objective for me to say. So i'll leave that up to you.
I agree with a lot of people that the acting sucks. Especially the performance of Tom Hanks (weird since he usually isn't a bad actor at all). The rest is average, and because there is a lot of dialog in this movie, it shows. Making the average/bad acting twice as irritating. The dialogs aren't to interesting. could've worked it out better.
So: everyone knew this movie's gonna make a lot of money. So did Ron Howard. And thus he didn't make something special out of it. Sloppy... This movie could've been so much better.
Although not what i suspected a good movie. The DVD package says "EXTREME SERIAL KILLER" and "(...) eat his victims" Seriously wrong quotes. This movie has no gore in it at all. You wouldn't now Dahmer was a cannibal if you didn't read the DVD. It focuses on the personality of a person witch happens to be a serial killer. Very seriously made. But it's a portrait, not a horror movie. Somewhere halfway the movie the storyline splits into the recent and the past. Leaving parallels between Dahmer and his victims showing how Dahmer turned into a lonely f*cked up boy. It's truly great to watch: superbly played on emotions. Jeremy Renner is great as Dahmer. And no complains about any other characters as well.
Too bad this movie chose such bad marketing. It leaves everyone in the suspicion that this is something else. Maybe that's the reason why this movie is rated so low...
Cha no aji (2004)
i prefer coffee (get it hahahahahhaha)
Before seeing this film, i had not read anything about it. I just saw the poster and thought it was a nice slow film with theme's and an interesting subtle plot.
The movie has GREAT images, and GREAT scene's in it. i was immediately taken by it. But, after 1 hour, still NOTHING happened. And that's exactly the weakness of this film. We had break halfway trough the film. My girlfriend and i had a drink and we listened to other people chatting about the film. someone said: "Finally a movie that makes you think!" and "very, very moving".
It's so typical that people say this. Acting all smart and insinuating that they see all kinds of theme's and symbols. But this movie does NOT have symbols, and the only theme is: daily life. because it leaves you with nothing to think about. Everything get's explained throughout the movie; after a scene ends so does that little story. No tension is build whatsoever, and no plot is introduced. Just a family with "normal" lives. The film has some great moment where an interesting development could have happened, but no development worth mentioning happens. So walking out of the theater in the middle of the movie leaves you with the same feeling as walking out at the end of the movie. The movie has nothing to say.
But the images and a lot of those short scene's make up for that: Slow camera movement from great angles, great use of color and contrast. The best way to watch it is to view a couple of scene when you have nothing better to do. You can walk in and out of this movie without missing a thing...
this is one great movie. The best i've seen in a long time!
The main story: 2 nerds build one strange machine. The eventually find out that they can travel back in time for a short time. "that sounds great!" they think. But the question is: what consequences does it have: leaving double persons, affecting all kinds of things. thinking what they REALLY want.
The reason why this movie is so great, is that it provides a new vision on time travel. While movies like "back to the future" only play with the idea of changing things, Primer shows the complex consequences of changing things. Groundhog day for the experienced.
Besides the great plot, the movie has a nice soundtrack, a some great images, and very natural dialogue.
The movie is extremely low budget, and the first movie the director made. The low budget thing doesn't show. And because it's the directors first movie, it's fresh and something completely new. the only problem with this movie is that it's so complicated. So if you're interested in seeing it, rent it for a long time, and watch it multiple times. Or just buy it. It's a short movie with a LOT of information in it...
Recommended for those who like discussing movies for a looooong time ("so first he did this, then.... no. Or was it the other way around?"). and those who are in for some new science fiction. This is also a great stimulus for all who have idea's about making movies, but think they can't afford to make one (read the trivia).