Change Your Image
walloschke_breslau
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Drive-Away Dolls (2024)
Don't have false expectations - that might be the key to enjoying this one
I was going to give it 1 star. But I recommend you scroll a bit and read JohnDeSando's review titled "Wacky and absurd--just like the B-Movies half a century ago.".
Then you understand the background a bit more. And that it actually could be seen a bit differently. Also differently from my initial perception, having seen it last night. Knowing who Tricia Cooke is sheds a different light on the depiction of lesbians.
It might indeed be seen as some kind of lesbian Russ Meyer film. Although way more "harmless" and with a lot of rather cheap jokes.
But if you want to see the film, I think that is right attitude. Do expect absurdity and it not being fun in a sense that a masterpiece like "The Big Lebowski" is fun. The humor here is too cheap for me.
Also, I would have liked to feel more chemistry between the two actresses. I didn't really feel it. I did not feel that this could be real. I found them both to very flat, very cliché and I did not feel any chemistry. It was all too much on the surface.
Plus, I felt that lots of things did not make sense. What's up with those psychedelic sequences? In "The Big Lebowski", the sequences made sense. Here they were completely disconnected, in my opinon. The film is a weird patchwork, probably indeed best seen as an ode to sapphic lust (google that, if you also did not know the word "sapphic").
Expect a light and absurd ode to sapphic lust which humor that is not really very funny. Some light lesbian Russ Meyer, too many times crossing the line to cheap humor.
A bit less cheap humor and some more real emotions and this might have worked for me. Perhaps.
This really is a cheap B-movie. If this is your expectation, then you might enjoy it. It is possible, perhaps. Just don't think of Coen masterpieces and get your hopes up. Don't have such wrong expectations.
I expected something else. And I was disappointed. In order to avoid that, this may be good to read before considering to watch it.
La boum (1980)
Being a teenager
Someone please explain to me how a silly film like "American Pie" can get a higher rating than this one? What does that say about IMDb and its users?
But perhaps that's cultural differences as well? I'm European and I spent one year at an American college. After that, "American Pie" seemed more like a documentary to me. But well, I can see lots of Americans can relate to this film as well. So that can't be it.
I could not relate to "American Pie" as a teenager and I cannot now.
"La Boum" I could very much relate to as a teenager and I watched it again now and have to say that it's more than just nostalgia.
Where "American Pie" (wikipedia seriously uses the term "coming-of-age") presents being a teenager as being all about sex and has the silliest jokes one could imagine, "La Boum" takes teenagers seriously and is actually about first love, not about sex. It's not about cheap laughs either. Yes, you have comedy elements, but mostly, it's a coming-of-age film. Not a coming-of-age drama, no. It's not a deep film. But it's about being a teenager. First love, the whole emotional rollercoaster, trouble with your parents etc.
I also think that it has a great soundtrack. I like listening to it, just not "Reality". That's a song that belongs in the movie, fits perfectly. It is a big part of the film, sets the tone (= first love, not first sex). And the headphones scene: Yes, to me that's a depiction of falling in love I can feel.
Music-wise, what I enjoy listening to without watching the movie are the Rock N Roll and Ska songs though.
I recommend to watch this film if you want to watch some coming-of-age film that is not too deep but still takes the protagonist and her feelings and problems seriously, while at same time being diverting and charming.
If your teenage years were focused on getting laid, you won't be able to relate and will not like this film.
It's very 80s but I think it has aged very well, because the topics are as relevant as ever. At least my experience of being a teenager I do see represented here. I can relate.
Schnick Schnack Schnuck (2015)
Refreshing!
First of all: This is porn. If you do not want to see people having sex, do not watch it.
Then again, it is nothing like regular mainstream porn.
What I like about it: This is porn that I can relate to. You see regular people, not porn actors. In fact, they are not even actors at all. Average students. No dumb porn clichés. You see natural smart modern and open-minded young people, like you can meet at university. One critical review called the actresses "unattractive". Wow. Completely missing the point (and: seriously?). If that reviewer does consume porn I do not want to know what kind.
This film is not good because it has an amazing story. Guess what, it doesn't. You do not get deep stories with problems, like you would in French or Spanish films on the border of pornographic content. Personally, I never liked that kind of combination. Could someone for once just show sex in a positive way, without any problems? Yes, it is possible.
This film's strength is showing regular people and being very sex-positive. Showing modern life at its most open. Nothing more, nothing less. But that is a lot in a world full of very questionable depictions of sex.
This is a view of sexuality I can relate to.
I cannot agree at all with most things labelled porn. The picture of men and women you see mostly disgusts me. It starts with the types of people - types I cannot relate to at all. And also, it's mostly ridiculously acted and stereotypical.
Luckily, you can find alternative porn nowadays which is different, showing natural people having sex. Feature films in that area are still rare though. This is one of the few. I would count "9 Songs" as another one.
It's too bad this film wasn't bigger and did not lead to a wider discussion of porn. German public-broadcasting radio station Deutschlandfunk had an interesting feature about it. Generally, it did not get much attention though. I think that would have been good. There are far too many people out there whose views of sex have been influenced by the kind of questionable mainstream porn you can find everywhere.
It's not a coincidence that the female part of the screenwriter/director/producer duo was doing a PhD in art history, with the topic "art and pornography".
Clearly, the two filmmakers are very critical towards mainstream porn and want to contribute to establishing a more positive kind of porn. If that is interesting to you, give it a try. I wished that there would be a big wave of this new kind of pornography, even feature films. The world needs it, in the name of healthy positive views of sex.
Letnie przesilenie (2015)
Disturbing revisionism?!? Oh my...
I just watched the film and feel that I have to react to the review by hof-4, who, unfortunately, got just about everything wrong and perceived it as anti-Polish and pro German revisionism written and directed by a Pole (a bizarre thought to start with, right?). Here a few corrections:
1. "The German soldiers apparently live in bucolic harmony with the locals and are depicted as rather nice fellows; in their first scene they devoutly thank the Lord for the meal they are about to receive. Some are bumbling, cute incompetents in the mold of the TV Nazis in Hogan's Heroes."
We do not see many people in the film. Of the Polish locals, one is killed by what you called "a nice fellow". They also kill two people they find in the woods. Probably that is jews though. So I will get back to that later.
As for the German soldiers, we get to know three of them a little more. The ruthless Oberleutnant, who personally kills two people (the supposed jews) and has people murdering three more, including burning a woman with a baby. Then we have Odi. Who does not seem like a killing machine but wants to do his job in order to not get into trouble. And to be able to see his wife and kid again. Then we have Guido, who is the only one not functioning. Who at too young age is at the front because he was caught listening to Jazz at home. The "bumbling cute incompent". Do you serioulsy think that no one like that can have existed? The no German soldiers had any doubts about atrocities? To depict that would have been wildy inacurate stereoptypes. Many were traumatised by these things as well. Anyway, back to the film.
All the others (like the Feldwebel), we just know that they do what they have to do. The former Oberleutnant apparently was a drunk (it is mentioned) who did not made the whole thing seem a bit like a holiday. Nevertheless, we do get to know that these soldiers did kill jews on patrol even then.
So what did you want to see? None of the Germans you see are depicted as innocent. They kill people. And if you think that all German soldiers were just fanatic killing machines you are wrong. Many also were like Odi - they did as they were told, even when it came to killing Jews and civilians. Which does not make them innocent. That is how war works. And no, the film does not indicate that all but one are nice blokes. You have three types: The fanatic, the one following orders and the one not wanting to follow orders but still doing it (Guido kills three people). About the rest of the German soldiers it's all speculation. We know they killed Jews before. Not much more. The Feldwebel screams at Guido and Odi. But we do not know him either.
2. "This implicitly perpetuates the canard that only the SS death squads, not the Wehrmacht itself were responsible for atrocities against civilians in Poland and other Eastern European countries."
Nonsense. We see six jews in the film. Five of them are killed. Two are shot, a mother with a baby is burned alive. So much about "nice people". Another one dies by the river (he had jumped off the death train). Only the sixth one is lucky. We also get to know that one Polish man wanted to help two jews but he was too late - they were shot by these nice German soldiers patrolling.
Also, the death camp is close. Trains must have arrived recently. Clothes can still be found. And we get to see four jews (or two, in case the two shot in the woods were Polish civilians) who were on the run.
3. "Partisans are depicted as murderous psychopathic interlopers."
Where did see you these? The girl Bunia is a jew, not a partisan. Neither is she a psychopath. She lost her family. But I guess you mean the Soviets in the end. No partisans. You got something wrong here.
4. "...and such nagging questions as summary execution of civilians for partisan actions (or for any other reason) are glossed over or attributed to a single Nazi officer straight out of Hollywood Central Casting, Department Bad Nazis."
It's a 90 mins film. It won't tell whole story of WWII in Poland. About partisans there is nothing. We only see a very limited amount of people in the film, which tells the story of mainly three people. Polish civilians we see about 10. Of them, it is one being shot. Or three, if the two in the woods are Polish who just happened to be at the wrong place. Romek is lucky he makes it.
5. "In one of the first scenes a Pole voices his approval of the murder of Jews. Yes, there were many antisemitic Poles, but there were also many that protected, assisted and in many cases saved fugitive Jews. And, at any rate, Polish Jews were murdered by Germans, not by Poles. Auschwitz was planned, staffed and run by Germans."
Then you should also remember that in the beginning Leon mentions Poles hiding Jews. Plus, Romek helps Bunia. Plus Karpiuk helps hiding Bunia. And we get to know that he tried to help others before. And you reduce the message of the film to one Pole voicing his approval of the murder of Jews? You have to be kidding me. About the film making clear who killed Jews, go back to point 2.
What I find disturbing is that you did not understand the film. Many things you missed, other things you got wrong.
I suggest you watch it again. Perhaps then you can understand how a Polish writer and director could make such a film. A film that is not revisionist at all.