No_Future Reviews

Submission: Part I (2004 TV Short)

A sincere picture of despair

[9/10 · 7 February 2006]

I decided to watch this movie after seeing a wholesale war erupt over 12 cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, in January 2006. After watching the cartoons, and remembering the previous fuss over Submission Part I, I decided to see myself what all the fuss was about. Frankly, I was not shocked at all.

Basically, the only mental step required for watching this movie is to look past the symbolism, and look at the story itself. The story is told by a women who strives to live by all the principles of Islam, yet feels neglected, abused, and very unhappy in her live. As the story itself is sandwiched between the beginning and ending of a Muslim prayer, it can be regarded as a despairing cry to her God, on why her position needs to be so miserable.

The film is meant to provoke a discussion about the role of women in some Muslim households, or in Islam as a whole. It is sad that many people apparently were unable to look past the symbolism of Koran texts on female bodies, and see this movie for the sincere cry for help that it is.

Good: 9/10

Downfall (2004)

Gripping and sobering view on the end of a chapter in history

[8 November 2004]

I decided to go and watch "Der Untergang", partly out of curiosity, partly because of the controversy it generated in Germany. The 155 minutes the movie lasted were 155 minutes well spent, though.

Der Untergang gives an almost documentary-like view into live into Hitler's bunker in Berlin during the last view days of the 3rd Reich. The whole atmosphere and acting is very believable, and at times I found myself wondering whether I was, indeed, watching real footage from those days in 1945. The movie carries an "end-of-the-world" atmosphere in which, bit by bit, everything is destroyed.

**** SPOILER ****

The movie contains some hard to stomach scenes. Other viewer already mentioned the scene in which Mrs. Goebbels calmly kills 6 of her children, but there are many more. One of the scenes I found particularly disturbing is set in the streets of Berlin. Here, a "crew" of mostly children (Hitler-Jugend) man a flac-cannon. As it becomes clear that their position is desperate, a number of them decide to commit suicide. At that point, a perhaps 12 of 14-year old girl has an older officer shoot her (before he kills himself), while she presents the Hitler-salute with a face full of determination. Terrible.

**** END OF SPOILER

The thing that sets this movie apart from, say, Schindlers List, is the fact that it forces the viewer to realize that Hitler himself was, indeed, a human being. It's convenient and easy to dismiss Hitler as a monster, or as a non-human, because that way one doesn't have to think about why the terrible events in WWII happened. Such an attitude breeds complacency, which is a dangerous thing: The longer we deceive ourselves that something like this will never happen again, the more probable it becomes that, at a certain point in time, the exact same problem will stab us in the back again.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004)

Flawed, but very interesting and thought-provoking

[26 July 2004]

First things first: Yes, this movie is flawed. Flawed in the artistic sense (IMHO, many scenes seem to ramble on for too long), flawed in the sense of truth (some of the "facts" Moore presents are not completely true), and flawed because the movie presents a rather one-sides argument.

It seems that the both factual inaccuracies and the political one-sidedness of the movie cause most of the fighting over this movie. Looking at the riot from a non-US perspective, it seems that the political left is admiring the movie because some of the facts are true, and the political right is bashing the movie because some of the facts are false. What I see from people of the political right is _fear_. Not because the movie goes directly against their motives, or because it's anti-Bush, but because is forces them (and worse: other people) to do the one thing that many people are truly afraid of:

The movie forces them to think for themselves. It forces me to think for myself, that's for sure.

Think about about: Is the fact that a movie isn't 100% true (or maybe even made specifically to be non-100% true) a reason not to see it, or to fear it? Yes, the movie might be engineered to influence people, but if you're aware of that, that doesn't influence you anymore. So go and see it: you will have to think. And you might even enjoy that!

As for the movie influencing my own opinion: Here in Europe, where we have balanced and independent news agencies, I already knew most of the "shocking facts" that this movie presents. The only things new to me where the many many business-relations in which Bush and son are entangled. Had I been an American, it wouldn't have changed my voting-decision much.

Go see this movie. And think!

The Sum of All Fears (2002)

Could have been a 9/10, if only...

[7/10 · 18 August 2002]

After reading a brief plot-outline, I decided to watch this movie in a theatre. I was expecting an easy and smooth action-flick for two hours, but TSOAF definately exceeded my expectations. The movie raises a very serieus global issue, and the possibly devastating effect the actions of only a few rogues can have. Which is not to say that the movie is flawless though, but explaining this points requires me to use spoilers.

<SPOILERS!>

From the start, the scene is set for your average action-flick; a lost bomb finds its way to a number of people poised on setting the stage for WW-III. The acting, the scene, the way in which the CIA is deceived etc. are not bad, but not great either; I made me expect the average plot in which the good guys stop the bomb at the stadium from going off 3 second before it would have exploded.

The point at which the movie starts to exceed the level of average Hollywood movies is the 5- to 7-second areal still-shot of Baltimore: a powerful yet subtle hint at what's going to happen. It made me wonder: "Would Hollywood really have the guts to...?". And they did. Being a physicist, I must say that I was pleased to see a technically rather accurate depiction of a nuclear explosion: it is absolutely silent, until the shockwave arrives (the shockwave travels faster than sound, so indeed things must be silent before it arrives).

As I stated in the one-line summary, from this point on the movie could have become a 9/10, if only... That is: if only the story would have proceeded in a realistic way from this point on. The realistic scenario would have been a full-scale global nuclear shoot-out. In this way, the point about how fragile our world really is would have come across in a much stronger way. I do understand Hollywood's (or Clancy's) need to entertain a large audience, since in the end they make their living by doing so. But please, this could have been done in another way than the all-too-American bs in which this One Righteous Man Saves The World All On His Own! The scenario which the people in Air Force One think of: nuking Russia's ICBMs to make them back off, possibly at the expense of a limited number of USA cities, would have done perfectly as an ending: the world would not have been destroyed completely, yet a very strong message would have been conveyed!

In addition, I very much agree with many of the other customers, who rightfully scorn Hollywood for not having the guts to follow the book, and depict the arabs as the bad guys: not because all arabs are bad guys, but because given the events of last year, this would have conveyed the point even more strongly. Yes, this would have been shocking! Yes, this would have caused people to walk out on the movie, too shocked to watch more! But it would have been realistic and strong!.

If only.... A missed opportunity!

Amélie (2001)

Set your cynicism aside and be surprised.

[9/10 · 5 July 2002]

First off, I'm a hardened fan of black and depressing arthouse movies. These films, while making one feel uncomfortable indeed, show reality in an uncompromising way, as opposed to most of the crap Hollywood churns out. The average feel-good Hollywood movie, if anything, makes me want to throw up.

Not Amelie, though! I was genuinly surprised that this movie was capable of moving me, which is rare for a love-story type of movie indeed! I was delighted to find a movie that, instead of throwing a high-speed sequence of scenes full of bravoure at you, presents a slow- paced subtle story.

(SPOILER) An example of the movie's subtlety is the scene in which Amelie and Nino finally meet face to face. No, we don't need an orchestra bursting out in a musical finale. No, we don't need two people falling into each others arms immediately. No! No! No! Rather, we get a scene in which not one word is spoken, not one sound is present, in which the two people carefully touch (and finally kiss, but subtly!). THIS SCENE TAKES OVER ONE AND A HALVE MINTUE! Delightful, and very romantic!

Le Fabuleax destin d'Amelie Poulain comes at a price though. You should, no, you must conciously set your cynicism aside for two hours. But it's worth the effort in every respect.

Highly recommended!