kos-27 Reviews

Youth (I) (2015)

mesmerizing and moving

[10/10 · 3 October 2015]

After the movie ended I could not bring myself to get out of my seat and leave the cinema. Soon I felt the urge to see it again for it has moved and mesmerized me.

Why did this movie have such an effect on me? There are several reasons: One is because the movie stays physically very close to its main characters – similar to the movie Birdman but with other artistic measures. The result is the same though - you get sucked into mental web.

Another reason is the way the main character is introduced - namely with a question posed to him. The storyline makes a full circle to get to the answer at the end of the movie. We are caught in this circle and taken along a philosophical journey through the meaning of life with all its important issues.

A third reason is the director's talent for subtle comic insertions that loosen the seriousness. Sorrentino manages to show the tragic moments not agitated and with an understatement which Michael Caine is the ideal actor to achieve.

It's not a movie about old people for old people. It's a movie about life for all people.

A role as important as the characters are the beautiful musical score and the visual presentation: highly artistic and with a lot of power of imagination and creativity. There are unusual and unexpected combinations of picture and sound, never seen like that before. It all makes a well-rounded entity and establishes Sorrentinos own authentic style.

This is an important movie to be ranked with Tree of life and Synecdoche New York.

Nymphomaniac: Vol. II (2013)

depression as a loss of lust

[9/10 · 19 June 2014]

The Movie Nymphomaniac (of course viewed as one) is the third part of L.v.Triers trilogy about depression. It seems to be the conclusion of the subject.

Like his previous enterprises it's a subject that takes him more than one movie to treat. Whereas the first part dealt with questions of the cause and the growth of a depression (Antichrist), the second part dealt with depression itself and its emotional impact (Melancholia). The third part Nymphomaniac shows us the therapy and the possibility of outside help - if at all possible - examining the relation between patient and therapist.

This is the background story but not the only subject because the patient Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) has a problem of pressing importance: she considers herself a nymphomaniac.

L.v.Trier always chooses women as his main protagonists to tell his point of view maybe because they are more vulnerable, more outspoken (ready to tell their story) and more honest.

As to what Nymphomania stands for in the movie I'm not quite sure: Among others it can stand for the lust for life and the uncompromising desire to live life at its fullest without having to sacrifice or be deprived of anything. The subject itself is fascinating especially since Eros (life) is the opposite of Thanatos (death). A third aspect (first being the structure – therapy, second the problem of Nymphomania as a desire for life) is how to handle Nymphomania visually and create a growing and believable story out of it.

L.v.Trier decides to unroll it like a lifetime confession illustrating the discovery of lust, the quest for it, the guilt of possessing it, the loss of it and the painful way of regaining it with all its consequences - if you take it as a metaphor for life itself.

A big part of transposing his view of life into the Nymphomania story has of course to do with L.v.Triers constant need for provocation, for taking the viewer (society) out of their comfort zone and confronting them with their own prudery and shame but at the same time using his special kind of humor – in fact this movie is actually very funny even in its bleakest moments.

He uses his immense knowledge and education (philosophy, literature, music, art) and puts words in the mouths of his main protagonists that could be his, quoting even his former movies.

Interesting is that even though he as a former patient (suffering from depression) sees himself as a part of the therapist as well but at the same time makes sure that we accept the impossibility of the two understanding each other. The end makes that absolutely clear revealing the biggest problem: how to unite two opposites - man and woman, patient and therapist, saint and sinner.

The movie is visually daring and obscene but also beautiful. Once you've seen it you cannot stop thinking about it and what it all means. And there is a lot to think about because although it is clear in its main features, there is a lot to discover and to decipher. Some details are probably very personal and will never be interpreted by the viewer to a full satisfaction.

Maybe it's not a very comfortable movie. It's a movie with a lot of pornographic elements fueled by L.v.Triers sexual fantasies and it's a very blunt and honest movie and at times a very tender and poetic movie, but it's always an unapologetic movie.

Not my favorite by L.v.Trier but among his strongest. To touch my soul completely (not only my mind) one point is missing, but still great: 9 out of 10

Avatar (2009)

eye candy with no substance

[6/10 · 16 February 2013]

It's very possible that this is an important movie in the field of CGI and 3D technology. In that category it is certainly a groundbreaking pioneer and it will have its followers. In fact it already has (life of Pi). The artificial world that was created was amazingly beautiful and imaginative.

For this I give the movie all ten points.

But in the movie industry there are different categories. More than half of the playing time - namely the scenes of the Avatar world - belonged more or less to the category of animated movies with CGI effects. It was made rather on the computer than it was behind the camera.

The question is: shouldn't Avatar be treated and rated like an animated movie rather than a motion picture with real actors? Even animated movies and are judged as whole, not only for their outstanding visual execution.

If you extract the whole high tech visual aspect of Avatar what is left of it?

-average acting (except Sigurney Weaver) (- 1 point)

-predictable story (- 1 point)

-full of clichés: bad military people versus native peoples preserving nature (-1 point)

-full of stereotypes: there are either good or bad characters (-1 point)

If the Avatar world would have been replaced (and played) by some real Aborigines, this movie would have been neither noticed nor watched.

I read somewhere that this movie is the equivalent for pop music hits: Today for the best tomorrow for the garbage.

Anna Karenina (I) (2012)

visual feast of the Russian soul

[10/10 · 17 January 2013]

Anna Karenina is maybe the most ideal piece of literature to be tried a new approach upon because it's a well known story with already numerous movie adaptations of it. Director Joe Wright must have had the same idea when he decided to create his version of the story. For me this is his best work to date.

This movie - almost as bold as Dogville - takes on a theatrical approach for its adaptation. This approach is being disapproved by a lot of people along with it being too beautiful and therefore shallow and empty.

Why is that? Isn't an artist supposed to look for new ways of expression? Isn't art allowed to be beautiful?

In a normal environment such a story can not really live without being perceived as unrealistic. Therefore it's being set up in the theater. Theatre is drama, feelings, exaggeration. It permits us to feel - even be part of the „Russian soul". There is a dynamic boost by constantly moving cameras, moving scene changes, frames flowing into one another like a giant river of dance.

There is not too much dialog. Only the necessary. Everything else is visual, either expressed through the dynamics of theater scenery or the acting. Colors are of essential importance - every dress that Anna wears has its own symbolism and reveals her mood o her state of mind. The actors represent exactly what they should. Yes, Vronsky is irritating, but he should be because his immature and sunny boyish nature is one of the reasons for this tragedy.

Everything is drama, everything is contrast, the colors tell the fate of the two love stories, one that starts highly and collapses and the other that starts timidly but ends triumphantly.

I was overwhelmed by the beauty of this movie. I want to watch it again and again.

The King's Speech (2010)

percentage shot

[6/10 · 3 January 2013]

I have just seen The King's speech, the movie who won some Oscars in 2010. I have to say I was disappointed which doesn't mean the movie is bad, but it certainly isn't as outstanding as its ranking may suggest.

The performances were good, but that was to be expected from such good actors. However the actors were playing stereotypes like we have seen too often in movies before. They were full of clichés like the Royal who becomes a friend with a normal citizen (message: restoring our faith in government) and shows that he is not a super human, even suffers from an impairment that can be overcome (message: if he can do it, you can do it, too).

It's an average movie for the broadest possible audience - I would call it a percentage shot movie. Everything about the movie felt calculated. The story was predictable and I had the feeling I was watching an educational didactic play. Schools should show this movie to adolescents.

There was nothing in its spirit to lift the movie and rise above the average, surprise me and make it memorable or at least linger in my mind, heart or soul for longer than the end credits.

I am aware that my review places me in the minority but I cannot ignore the calculating and uninspired aspect of this movie.

Cloud Atlas (2012)

loop of reincarnation

[10/10 · 28 December 2012]

Cloud atlas is a very ambitious and carefully constructed movie with a strong and important plot line. It tells six intertwined stories in one giant loop meandering through the movie linking the stories together either by a visual similarity, an idea or a character.

This enables the movie to develop an extremely well dynamic flow, almost like a vortex pulling you in making you care for the characters even if you aren't quite sure what they'll turn out to be....It's never boring and requires a big concentration and attentiveness to follow the multitude of players and stories.

But people are wrong if they think there isn't an equally strong idea behind this plot driven movie.

If you manage to watch the movie multiple times you will discover how well the stories are linked together. There is always a main protagonist in each story carrying out a task. The further we go in time the more important the task will be.

On the other side there is the theme of reincarnation. It's a an original, charming and even a funny adventure to let the actors play their reincarnations! Sometimes in a story their lives end senselessly but they each undergo a journey that makes perfect sense in the larger context developing their soul and linking their past, present and future together in a loop.

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

soon to be a cult movie

[9/10 · 13 October 2012]

This movie is an absolute surprise! It starts as a dumb teen horror flick but then „mutates" into something that looks like a Truman show rip-off only to end up like nothing you have ever seen before. It's an astonishingly original genre mix that is multi layered in its storyline as well as in its ideas and plays clever with clichés, stereotypes and archetypes.

It's thrilling from beginning to end; full of ideas - sometimes too many to handle - you keep guessing what way the movie will turn and - unlike so many movies these days - you're not going to be right, not even in the last minute. Of course it's not flawless: Maybe at times it is just over the top, I mean flashy exaggeration of gore – in the best tradition of American movies.

One could say it's a typical movie of our times because it is a synthesis of sociocultural phenomenons such as game and reality shows, big brother voyeurism, video games and phony politicians. It is in fact a cleverly disguised satire of all these phenomenons and at the same time a satire of its main genre, the horror movie itself.

Prometheus (I) (2012)

A shadow of his former self

[3/10 · 8 June 2012]

Mr Ridley Scott has made a new film: Prometheus - a Science Fiction movie

The title is promising: Prometheus is a figure from the Greek Mythology, the creator of the human race. Considering that Ridley Scott made some great films (Blade runner, Alien, Thelma and Louise) I was looking forward to seeing this one.

What a disappointment! After a promising start and an impressive visual introduction à la Space Odyssey (interesting: Michael Fassbender) the movie gets more and more stereotype and predictable. The whole plot along with some scenes reminded me strongly of Alien. It seemed that Mr. Scott was counting on gaining new fans who didn't see Alien more than he was afraid of his old fans uncovering his lack of talent and originality.

For someone who knew Scott's former movies, this was bound to be a disappointment: Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing that had a real connection with the myth of Prometheus, not once suspenseful. Instead: brainless entertainment packed with special effects - not badly done - but soulless like all today's blockbusters, boring and without any real reason of existence. A pale copy of his old movie idea in Alien.

At the end, as was somehow suspected, the first Alien monster is born and it's clear that Prometheus was meant to be a prequel to Alien (how it all began) But all in all it made no sense at all.

1 point for Mr. Fassbender

1 point for Noomi Rapace

1 point for the promising first 15 minutes.

The rest is not worth mentioning

The Grey (2011)

Into the fray

[8/10 · 17 May 2012]

It becomes clear very quickly that Grey is not a simple action movie and that its plot derives probably from a short story. It's a philosophical allegory about life illustrated through an action plot.

The men on the plane stand for all people. The wolves stand for the obstacles that are imposed on us during our lives. They won't go away and we will be constantly challenged to come to terms with them.

We are born and we die and in between we wonder what's important in life and how to live it without fear or regret. We are presented by possible answers throughout the movie: Give in...kill yourself...hang on to your beloved...fight until the end.

The poem written by Ottway's father is the key note of the movie: Go in and fight as if it was the last day of your life. At the end Ottway does exactly what the poem says. Whether he survives or dies we don't know but it's not important because the way (life) is the goal (purpose).

This philosophy isn't everyone's favorite but it's certainly a possible and valid view on life and more realistic than many others.

It's not important if the wolves are «real» or if the dangers are depicted realistically. The question is if the allegory disguised as an action movie functions as a hole and the answer is yes. Apart from that it's not any less realistic than any Bond movie.

Liam Neeson is very authentic in this movie as is the whole cold northern landscape and atmosphere. There are some lengths but all in all it's an entertaining movie that makes you think.

Shame (2011)

Trapped in a circle

[10/10 · 17 May 2012]

Shame

Now and then I get overwhelmed by a movie although I don't relate to its subject. One example is the movie Billy Elliot , another is Shame.

The movie Shame is a drama about a brother and sister who came from a broken home where something bad happened when they were children. We don't exactly know what - whether it was abuse or incest - but it had a destructive impact on their emotional and social development. As a result of their damaged personalities the brother became a sexual addict incapable of any emotional relationship (not even with his sister ) and the sister became dependent for love and self destructive (suicidal).

The movie tells us the story slowly: We discover what is going on bit by bit. We are shown scenes from the brother's daily routine accompanied by a beautiful score rather than heavy dialog. The movie brilliantly mirrors the mood and the emotional state by powerful acting from both, Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan. The facial expressions, especially the eyes of Mr. Fassbender, say more than thousand words. He plays a difficult role (how do you know how to play a sexual addict?) and yet he is capable to give a fascinating performance without being sexually more explicit than necessary, even managing to seem tender, vulnerable and desperate.

The director succeeded in choosing the right visual sequences significant for capturing the essence of a sexual addictive behavior: The giving in to the uncontrollable urge alternating with remorse and self punishment. There's a reminiscent deep despair overshadowing even the slightest pleasant moment. I's a masterfully delicate movie, a tightrope walk, never vulgar, never common or stereotype.

The movies composition is a circle: It starts off and ends with an encounter on the subway. Life is a circle that goes on and on.

Manderlay (2005)

brilliantly political

[9/10 · 28 December 2011]

If Dogville is a movie about human nature Manderlay is a movie about social nature, it is a very political movie.

Manderlay works on many levels: It appears to be a story about oppression of the black people (and slavery) in America. In fact it's an allegory about society in general. How is a just society supposed to function? Is democracy the ultimate political possibility? These are the basic question we ask ourselves since the beginning of time.

Lars von Trier chose America because it is the dominant culture of our time. It could be (like in Dogville) any society, even a family. The point is that the movie shows the unmasking of terms like "democracy" and "freedom".

This story has so many levels, it could even be an allegory for all the wars that the West has fought and still is fighting in order to "impose democracy" and to "help" the oppressed peoples.

The movie is made like Dogville and it is no less valuable than Dogville but because Dogville was the first and blew me away I prefer it slightly to Manderlay .

The Tree of Life (2011)

a new kind of movie

[10/10 · 1 June 2011]

This movie is an important contribution to a new age of film making. Time will show if it was just a single effort or if there will be other filmmakers to join in the revolution - if they can.

It's the first film that is able to touch the soul of viewers without a conventional storyline or without even been understood properly - like abstract ideas of "God" or "Beauty" that we don't understand but are touched if we experience it. Mr Malick created a movie that mixed together visuals and music without a real storyline or dialog and still tell us his view about the meaning of life. It's a movie that touches our senses, our emotions, our mind and our soul and it keeps on living in us (like the recurrent light in the movie) long after the movie has ended. It's importance grows every day. I want to watch it again and again it's like an addiction. There are few thing in life that can do that trick, maybe love and art. The tree of life is both.

Black Swan (2010)

Solid but predictable expressionistic ballet thriller

[7/10 · 27 February 2011]

I must say I am not convinced this movie has really earned such an outstanding rating. It is not more than a solid thriller. Here are my reasons:

An outstanding movie must have something unique and original about it - either the plot or the way of execution or the message behind it. This movie has none of the above. The subject (plot) is familiar and seen many times before: obsession and exaggerated ambition combined with a weak personality lead to a tragic outcome. In this version the setting of the movie is embedded in the world of ballet. I liked the ballet scenes and I was especially impressed by the expressionistic dynamics of the beginning (the dream sequence) and the end (the metamorphosis into the black swan). The rest was not more than a thriller with a predictable outcome (no twist, no surprises) smoothly executed and with good acting (as are all American movies).

But...the movie didn't move me. It didn't linger for a long time in my mind...except for Natalie Portman's performance -it was impressive how she turned into a ballet dancer.

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

the mind as a constant obstacle to life

[10/10 · 5 June 2010]

Synecdoche, NY is a philosophical movie about our existence. Mr. Kaufmann shows us the common denominator of being human through the life of his main protagonist Caden.

We all want to live life as happy as we can. But as soon as we start to think we start to produce fears, doubts and insecurities that interfere with our needs. Some of our most important needs are the need to love and to be loved. Happiness - if ever achieved- lasts only for a very short time. Sooner or later you burn out (the burning house). There's also the need to connect with our children and the need to leave something behind after death. Caden fails in all his attempts to fulfill these needs.

The most agonizing need seems to be to overcome loneliness. In his lifelong play Caden tries to communicate his life to others. By replaying the most important moments of his life (by other actors) he manages to get outside of himself and to watch his own life trying to understand it and at the same time trying to connect to the outside world (his audience) to overcome his loneliness. After a lifelong analysis through the play he realizes death is the only constant company through life .

Besides these capital themes Mr. Kaufmann is also commenting society: our vanity, our preoccupation with diseases in the losing battle to beat mortality and our inability to connect to each other.

It's a sad and a funny movie but it's a true movie, like looking in the mirror. What do you want more.

All the Pretty Horses (2000)

too many pretty horses

[6/10 · 28 March 2010]

May contain mild spoilers

All the pretty horses is a movie based on a Cormack Mc Carthy novel by the same name. I read the novel after I had seen the movie because I wondered why the movie left me so empty inside after watching it. I couldn't say that it was bad but I couldn't' find the passion and depth I usually find in Mc Carthy's work. The funny thing is that even after having read the book I couldn't find an instant explanation why the movie didn't work. The director didn't leave anything out and yet, the magic of the book was "lost in translation".

I will try to name some possible reasons:

1.The first thing that strikes me is the age difference. Matt Damon- though young looking-plays a teenager of 16,17 years. He can't hide the fact that he's over ten years older. Since one of the main themes of the movie is the coming of age, it doesn't work because the main protagonists are already grown up.

2.A second problem is Mc Carthy's poetic language that is totally neglected in the visualization. A director should know how to transfer the poetry of words into pictures. It's not impossible – many have successfully done it. If he can't do it, he should pick another type of genre to direct where poetry isn't needed.

3.There are some recurrent motives in the book like the guilt (and responsibility) the main protagonist feels for the death of a young boy. A second important motive is his respect for parental figures because he never had a real one. Unfortunately in the movie everything is told with the same pace ignoring to underline important motives or set priorities. The director seems to have one universal stylistic device and that is showing horses in all possible variations. It is just not enough.

Shutter Island (2010)

even better than the book

[9/10 · 28 March 2010]

Shutter island is a very good movie. It is visually striking, it is well casted and the story is told in a fascinating way, taking care of the the dynamic of the development as well as the message. You can watch it as pure entertainment and yet take something home with you to think about. The visuals are striking and the colors are exceptionally beautiful. The visions/hallucinations are intentionally treated by adding more color so they are more lively and intense than reality itself what actually is one of the important issues in the movie. I felt that the movie was well paced and I didn't think that there were made any mistakes in editing. Scorsese did everything aware of its purpose and certainly not as a result of accidental errors or sloppy work. The whole movie is shown from the perspective of the main protagonist and his point of view (or state of mind) bearing in mind that it isn't necessarily the truth. There was also a controversial debate on the musical score which I find fascinating and also absolutely well applied. This movie shouldn't be reduced to its plot twists or to compete who'll guess it first because it's so much more than that. The quality of this movie is that it can be interpreted in a lot of ways and people shouldn't fight about who's right. That's what makes a good movie – a lot of talk, a lot of ways to look at it and a lot of genres it can be put in. I personally will watch it again.

Irreversible (2002)

life is a path from Heaven to Hell

[9/10 · 14 November 2009]

Irreversible is a movie I have to comment after the difficult Antichrist, because they are often compared to one another due to their level of violence. It makes us wonder how much graphic violence a film needs and whether it is justified or even necessary.

For me Irreversible was even more difficult to watch and to endure than Antichrist. Maybe because the violence was so meticulously lifelike. But the movie is exceptionally well conceived and composed - I can almost say that its level of violence is justified.

The story line is told in reverse (similar to Memento) starting with the end and going back to the beginning. Irreversible - The title condemns it to alarming finality: you can't undo it, can't change anything anymore because it already happened.

The movie begins with an extreme event which is portrayed in an almost unbearable and infernal way. The suspense is increased by every scene leading backwards in the chain of events in order to see what caused it. Sometimes it's more interesting to know the cause of something than the event itself. This cause-and-effect chain is shown like a vicious cycle of violence in reverse: the scenes become calmer and more positive as the movie goes back in time.

The strong impression of this movie is amplified by the general knowledge that we are watching something that already happened and not something that has the hope of an uncertain future.It ends with a beginning that is so beautiful and peaceful like Heaven. Like all beginnings or blank canvases: everything is possible. But for those who saw the movie it's clear that it's an illusion because we know what will happen.

The movie ends with the sentence: Time destroys everything. We're left alone with this sentence to reflect on what it means in the movie and in general. How can something good lead to something bad? Are all our lives leading from Heaven to Hell?

Antichrist (2009)

overcoming depression

[7/10 · 18 October 2009]

As a fan of Lars Von Trier it was a big challenge to watch, interpret and rate this particular movie. There are two (or probably more) ways to look at the movie:

 1 - On the basis of the storyline this movie is a psycho thriller horror movie about a woman slowly losing her mind. By reading stories about evil towards women in the past ages she becomes an evil woman herself possessed by a supernatural power from the woods, maybe a ghost of a witch reigned by nature (nature is Satan's church). The hunted becomes the hunter. The movie is constructed like a thriller: At first you are being lead in the wrong direction (she is the victim) and at the end there is the final showdown where all the cards are played. It is influenced and inspired by Asian horror movies. I can't agree with numerous interpretations that this movie is about the loss of a child and its parents deadly grief. One can not ignore the fact that the wife started to lose her mind long before her child died. The child's death is an event that destroys the balance between husband and wife and unfolds the storyline. The return to Eden (the place where all existence started) is the catalyst of their true natures.    

2 - There is also an other aspect of the movie, much more difficult to discover and to interpret, because it's not a parallel story, it's more like a Bosch painting made of symbolic elements. The movie was a very personal experience for Lars Von Trier. He made it during his clinical depression and it helped him overcome it. Knowing that adds a psychoanalytical dimension to  the movie - it becomes almost a picture of Von Trier's state of mind. In a depression you pass through phases like grief, pain and despair. The symbols for it  are the deer who can't give birth (Grief), the fox who is eating his guts (Pain) and the raven who cannot die (Despair). They all are a picture of a diseased state of mind where chaos reigns. The woods are Trier's subconsciousness and He and She are the parts of his psyche: his Anima (She) and his Animus (He). His Anima stands for Eros and Tanatos, his unbound creativity, and his Animus stands for his ratio. Probably the cause of his illness was an overpowered Anima that suppressed his Animus. The bridge that is so important to cross is the connection between chaos and rationality: In order to be able to function again Von Trier has to destroy his Anima to be free from her dominance. The end shows a new beginning for him. He is cured and balanced. The women without faces are the possible new Animas of his future personality, harmless and peaceful. This movie is in no way misogynous because it's not about the actual nature of men and women but about archetypes, raw forces that reign everyone's mind, in fact the whole world. Chaos reigns - that's why there will always be wars, death and pain,rationally inexplicable.  

Rating - Lars Von Trier tried to mix a simple horror story with personal experiences (depression, psychoanalysis) and general statements about the nature of things by using various symbols. This mixture, though breathtaking in every sense at times, doesn't function without friction. There is a sense of overloading anxiety counter posing calm, beauty and extreme brutality. Sometimes it's even irritating  because it tends to destroy the flow of the movie. It lacks the smooth and natural air. Everything seems to be rationalized and analyzed. But the most important flaw is that there is no clear and powerful message and that one has to „fight" for any interpretation. That's why so many people perceive it as shallow. I'm sorry to say that Antichrist (what's with the title?) doesn't reach the utter genius of some of his previous movies. But maybe this movie is only meant to cure his director and not to communicate a statement to the outside world.

Let's interpret it as a personal healing interlude.

Gran Torino (2008)

It's the deeds that count

[10/10 · 28 March 2009]

This movie is a one man project: Clint Eastwood, 78 years, main actor, director and creative brain behind this movie. It seems as if this movie is his final work and his last one - maybe not as a director but as an actor in his own movie.

Hasn't he always been Walt Kowalsky? When he was younger he was Dirty Harry and later on Frankie Dunn, his character in Million Dollar Baby. In fact, these two movies are particularly similar because the characters are almost identical: They both dislike church, think badly of family and get attached to a stranger who becomes like a son / daughter to them. They have a soft spot under a tough shell.

Many viewers have written that Walt's character changes throughout the film. I don't think so. I think people never really change and Walt doesn't either. In the beginning we don't know him so we judge him by his outside- his looks and his behavior: We don't like him. Throughout the movie we get to know Walt and in the end we even love him. We are the ones that change our opinion about Walt.  

Gran Torino goes deliberately against all trends of today's world: Walt is an grumpy old men, impolite and primitive, he has bad manners and is absolutely politically incorrect. All these attributes make him a very irritating opposite of the so called ideals of today's public world: fashionable good looks, sweet talk, slick appearances and phony political correctness.  

Walt (and Clint) doesn't like the direction today's world has taken. Its society is phony, weak and superficial.Talk is cheap. Nobody seems to deliver. He is ready for real sacrifices in order to make the world a better place? Are we?  

It's such a simple story (some say it's too simple) but stuffed with so many important issues! Once you start thinking  you realize the movie has covered them all - mainly through Walt's character: sacrifice and death (redemption), real values („they don't make them as they used to"), religion, family („relation by choice"), the future vision of society (not the white race..).  

In its own way it's a kind of a feel good movie even if there is nothing much pleasant at first sight. The message of the movie, though bitter, gives us hope and makes us feel right, because its heroic role model character teaches us the real values of life and makes a lasting impression.

A movie must see for everyone!

The Reader (2008)

ambiguous drama about guilt

[9/10 · 21 March 2009]

I have to write about this movie because I read so many comments on Hanna being a monster. Nobody is a monster in this movie. The message of the movie is: We are all neither good nor evil, we are always a mixture of both. The world is not a black and white place, it's not even gray - it's multicolored. And if anyone sees Michael only as an innocent victim, what about not telling  anyone about Hanna's secret? His statement could have saved her life.  

Both protagonists – though in a totally different way - suffer from the same very human character flaw: They both have a secret they want to hide by all costs because they are ashamed of it. In order to hide this shame they both do things that are wrong. Their actions are somehow always human and understandable. (Whoever thinks he's above it suffers from an illusion.) They both eventually get eaten up by guilt and their lives take the course of their consequences.  

This movie is a dark and ambiguous story that upsets our values of morality showing victims as possible culprits and culprits as possible victims. The question of guilt is not being easily answered here. This movie won't help you understanding life better but it will make you think about life and maybe your personal guilt.

On one side there is the law - our justice. But there is a second justice system within each of us: We judge and punish ourselves more appropriate than any court of law could ever do. Sometimes our own morality is even more radical and cruel than the one of the "law". When we judge ourselves, we often get "life" or even a death sentence - with no possibility of parole.

Even though I read the book and knew the story I was deeply moved by this movie. I did not give it a ten only because in my opinion the movie only partially succeeded in showing the devastating impact that Michael's first love experience had on all his upcoming relations.

Dogville (2003)

a groundbreaking truth

[10/10 · 1 March 2009]

Since this movie is rated under 8 - which is a shame - I decided to write a comment and to rate it.  I would like to give it more than a 10 because it's a true work of art.  

Outstanding art changes a viewers perception and leaves a lasting impression on him because it tells an absolute truth. This movie is such a truth.   It is a work without compromises and with a clear vision what it should look like. The stage-like  minimalism is a means of purifying our senses and getting the message across as clear and as strong as light.  

It's a film about our society, be it America or any western civilization of today. Americans shouldn't be offended by it because it¹s the truth.  

It's about the mechanism of power. The powerful exploit the weak. That¹s how society works: First it's nature, then it's the animals, then it's the slaves, then it's entire nations.  

The easier it is to manipulate a person the more we take advantage of her ­because we can. The weak and the kind hearted are the first to go under -like Grace. There is no sense of justice or moderation in our behavior - as long as we can easily get what we want. It's a creeping process we're not even aware of.

Primitive people do it with violence (wars are the most direct way of showing power). Clever people do it in a more subtle way. The most dangerous are the ones who manipulate you seemingly unintentional - like Tom. He seems likable at first but at the end he's the worst of all.

This is a masterpiece in showing how we slip into bondage (either as the oppressor or the oppressed) without realizing it. In the end there is no easy way out other than destruction and death. I hope this movie didn't describe the end of our world!

It¹s a movie with biblical proportions, it¹s a so called big, important movie, a true masterpiece.

Amélie (2001)

a feast for all senses

[10/10 · 22 February 2009]

This is one of my most favorite movies.

Since there has been written so much about this movie (why it is so good) and since I agree with all of them I was trying to get to the bottom of another phenomenon.

From time to time I read or hear negative, total irrational and almost hate outbursts about this movie and I ask myself why there are so many extremely aggressive negative reactions to such a charming movie. I think I have some kind of an answer.

I think hardboiled realists are the ones who have extreme difficulties with this movie. They just can't cope with all the excessive fantasy and imagination in this movie. They are overburdened coping with a hero who is not mainstream, an outsider not getting along with reality and yet winning in the end.

It's interesting to deduce from the hate arguments another strength of the movie: Outsiders should be encouraged to be themselves no matter what because they give the world its individual, original and creative mark and that's what makes this world so unique in its mixture of reality and spirituality.

Bravo Jeunet.

Bravo Amélie.

I'm a Cyborg, But That's OK (2006)

and now for something completely different

[10/10 · 7 February 2009]

What a lovely movie !

First it seems like one of those "trying too hard not to make sense  and to be different" kind of movies but as the movie unfolds everything falls into place creating a beautifully made story functioning on many levels: as a romantic love story, as a psychological study about puberty, as a therapy guide for anorexia or as a film about the meaning of life. There's something for everyone in it. It even is funny and visually beautiful.

What does one want more?

After the film I found out that the director was the same who made Oldboy and it somehow made sense because both films have an extreme authenticity and originality.

It's a film for everyone - almost – only hard boiled realists will have their difficulties with it, probably the same ones that didn't like Amélie.

Revolutionary Road (2008)

Mainstream cinema with a touch of existential agony

[8/10 · 24 January 2009]

It makes me sad when a movie had the potential to be outstanding but only turns out OK. I was looking forward to this movie because I loved the novel. It had everything: a good story (the most important element), a good director, talented actors. Yet still the result didn't reach the books complexity, intensity and subtlety.

Why is that? I think it's not enough just to take the written dialogs and put them 1:1 into the movie. The written material should have been better elaborated to visualize the depth of the agony. Too many times words were chosen instead of other visual means - or just silence. Sometimes less is more. If you compare it to The Hours (the middle story with Julianne Moore) you see how the characters are better expressed in a shorter time frame and in a more subtle way.  

I liked more the first part of the movie that nicely built up the tension and set the stage. The second part, the final exchange of blows reminded me more of a boxing match (with words and punches) than of a subtle existential denouement.  

The actors  were good, but not great. I liked Di Caprio's performance almost more than Winslet's, but neither of them could truly reveal the deepest secrets and fears of of Frank and April Wheeler. Sadly the result was too superficial, too conventional in its dramatic outline without any risk taken- almost too flawless.  

It should be seen as an elegant and fairly successful piece of mainstream cinema whose main credit is to to give viewers something to think about and as an impulse for the brilliant novel to be read again.

Not bad but not strong enough.

Blindness (2008)

excellent social study with philosophical statement

[10/10 · 31 December 2008]

The movie Blindness is the third movie by Fernandno Meirelles after City of God  and The Constant Gardener. Mereilles is one of the most inspiring filmmakers of our time. He made this movie based on a novel.

After a few bad reviews ( especially by the usually most competent film critic Roger Ebert) I was only more intrigued because I didn't  believe Meirelles could have made a bad movie. I also read the novel after I saw the movie to check if it's true what a few people wrote that the book is better than the movie but I couldn't agree less. The movie adapted the book perfectly and only left out the parts where the story repeats itself.  

I can only say  - a brilliant movie. I don't understand why some people didn't like. They surely disliked it for the wrong reasons: disturbing picture, violent scenes...it's ridiculous to object to artistic measures! Why do people only like feel-good movies, empty shells with good looks and wizards of technology with no brain stimulation?  

Blindness is an intelligent philosophical, psychological and social study about people in extreme situations like a war or a plague epidemic or a nuclear catastrophe. In this movie it's a sudden virus that causes blindness. Blindness makes a person helpless and deprives her of the „human" surroundings and familiar social structures. When you take them away all that's left is a basic animal behavior based only on the survival instinct. Such a subject cannot be handled with beautiful Hollywood-like soothing pictures. They have to be disturbing trying to portray a sudden state of blindness and social chaos with all its consequences.  A filmmaker has to transmit a literary pattern into an appropriate visual realization.  

The  actors are brilliant – not afraid of showing the ugliness of being dirty, naked, deprived of all the basics that define you as a human being. The key-figure is the only seeing person (played by Julianne Moore). She is the one blessed with the eyesight but also with a huge responsibility to lead the blind into „the light". She's a biblical figure, like Moses or Noah, or a political leader with a vision in dark times of despair.

In a very tender and fragile way Meirelles pictures the interpersonal relations between the main characters, for example the loneliness and isolation of the seeing woman or the true friendship and love that ties the blind group members together. This makes the movie more genuinely emotional than many so called love story movies.  

The ending is the only possible one, the only one that works.The mad circle of a war, an epidemic is over. Humanity can start to regenerate itself...maybe it has learned something this time.  

This movie has emerged at the right time, at a time when our world is in desperate need of leaders who have a vision of what our future world should look like.