Change Your Image
dieter-verhofstadt
Reviews
Joni Mitchell - Le spleen et la colère (2022)
Crammed documentary with glaring mistakes and omissions
For big fans like myself there was nothing new, except that "Song to a Seagull" was a cover of an early Clapton song ... which it isn't of course. That's a weird blunder to include in an already crammed documentary.
For not so big fans like my wife it painted a full picture of the artist and person, so that we could reflect "from both sides" afterwards.
The (female) directors did well in letting JM reveal what a female artist has to struggle through, like not being allowed to go to Woodstock because of a TV show and then see CSNY being flewn over to be in the same program. Or how she bailed out of a second marriage when haunted by the images of her frustrated musical grandmothers. Or how giving away her daughter is a stain on her image and a personal trauma, while many male artists have abandoned their children with much more ease.
They could have left in at least one whole song, like Little Green, or one whole performance on stage so as to show, not tell, what a great composer and performer she was.
Mostly one wonders what the point is of reducing such a career to one hour. And how on earth you would still and falsely credit a man for the greatest female songwriter of all time - and you could drop the adjective.
Borgen (2010)
Fully living up to the expectations
I'm halfway through Season 2 and that in my case says it all. I couldn't even keep up that long with Breaking Bad.
The good stuff is almost too much to list: phenomenal character development and acting, realistic plots, great interweaving of professional (political) and private life and how one affects the other, characters are kept in story as long as the story requires, not for their popularity or greatness - which reminds of The Wire. While it's hard to squeeze complex political issues and international affairs in one episode, they managed really well, even if that required the trick of pretending everything is decided behind closed doors, in evening hours. Cabinets or administrations don't come into the picture - which would arguably have been hard to do and boring too.
That brings me to the few weak points of the series. Especially in Season One, Borgen is almost a "huit clos" in the Prime Minister's cabinet, her house and the TV room. The hotline via the PM's spin doctor to the press and back is a little too convenient and for me it didn't help that the character was rather annoying. So terribly annoying that I could also not dig into the bright journalist's continually falling in love with him again.
Minor quibbles with an otherwise fantastic series. WIth Mikkel Laugesen it also holds one of the best villains ever.
Stay Close (2021)
I'll mention the music
Nearly every character is entangled with 3 other characters in a way that could only happen if they were locked up on a desert Island. Well, it's perhaps less of a coincidence if you decide to start a new life 1 block away.
But others have pointed out the laughable implausible plot. So let me mention the music which underscores every tense moment with chromatic movements and every moderate piece of action with a 200 bpm synth riff, just in case the main characters continuous overacting wasn't giving away the nature of the scene already.
This is suspense for toddlers and detective for the acute alzheimers.
Kastanjemanden (2021)
Red herrings abound in Nordic noir
My heart wants to give a high rating but my brain tells me not to. Let's talk about the good stuff first.
The theme of chestnut men with the haunting children choir singing is worthy of the best thrillers in history. It also perfectly links up with what turns out to be the main motive. The reveal of that motive - much more than the reveal of the killer's identity - sent a shiver down my spine. Not what happened in the farm but before that (no spoiler). That's really a great moment of television. Chestnut men having no arms and legs, sets up the gruesome crime scenes.
Unlike other reviewers I also like the character portrayal, even if the introverted female lead detective with her unsupportive - at first - male associate, has become a cliché of the genre. I particularly like Hess' storyline of being always on the move, revealing his own daemons to her daughter. Supporting characters, like Rosa's associate, her husband or Naia's stepfather, are also very well developed.
The problem lies with the story's development into all sorts of unnecessary, unrealistic and even outright impossible details. There's nearly always a point in nordic noir where you 1) know this is a red herring because there are 3 more episodes and 2) they won't bother to clean up the mess of loose ends left by it. I really wonder how these writing sessions go. There must be a lot of alcohol involved and then suddenly someone realises it's late and they call it a day without looking back. They could have left out 60% of their ideas and still end up with something as captivating but so much more credible.
For the body-double-vacation-house episode alone I subtract 3 stars. Flat earthers are more convincing than this particular plot line. How do you take fingerprints from a body you haven't found? How did Mr X find the grey van before the assembled Danish special forces AND vanish too? And how does Bekker's fascination for the cold case at hand turn him into a tool in the hands of the killer? That's no mastermind at work but a real magician right there!
I could keep poking holes at the story all night. The theme and the actors deserved better writing but I think they, like me, are getting used to it.
Fiskepark (2019)
Outright bizarre
Contrary to my fellow coutryman who did the other review, I did not finish the series but watched enough to have good reasons for it.
This is not the first parody of the "true ..." genre, nor will it be the last. In Flanders we've had the ultimate spoof reality series with "Het geslacht De Pauw", a perfect piece of satire made by Flanders' best scenarist who unfortunately also turns out to have taken the idea of womanizing way too far, a fake travelogue from the same author which I couldn't savour all that much and the godfather of fake reality television, "In de Gloria". So our small half-country has a tradition with the genre, even with the main actors playing themselves, so that it's hard to understand what's real.
While this balancing act was in perfect equilibrium in "Het Geslacht ... " and the public was already used to the idea, Thomas De Soete still manages to throw us off with the kind of manufactured self pity, centered around an alleged failure of his as a TV maker in a recent past, that makes you wonder if the self pity and indulgence isn't actually real.
I won't even try to summarize the plot as it doesn't really matter. Nothing is meant to be real in this bizarre story. That's rather clear from the start but still the series claims to play with reality. No it doesn't. Or was the intention to be funny? I didn't think it was for one moment. It was awkward from start to finish, or at least where I decided to end the experience.
The most symbolic scense are those where fellow media figures turn up to awkwardly admit to only be in as a favor to their friend, doubting if they're actually doing him a favor supporting this bound-to-be-a-failure. It's meant to be in jest but it feels embarrassingly real.
At best this is a piece of art in the tradtion of René Magritte and Belgian absurdism. At worst this is a total failure in the tradition of the Pak de Poen-show. It's memorable because it's so uncanny. I can see why people who like their humor on the absurd side, would be die hard fans of this. I can also see why the majority of people, including me, thinks this isn't funny or artistic, merely weird or cringeworthy.
This ambiguity makes me give 5 stars. Watch it at own risk.
Springfloden (2016)
Slow paced character development and crime resolution
We watched this one straight after the disappointing "Karppi" and it's of a whole other caliber. First of all, here's a plot that unfolds slowly and realistically. There are two sub-plots, one of which serves as a red herring, the other to bring the antagonist to the main character into life. All three stories develop in parallel and have only a few junctions, none of which you need any suspension of disbelief for. This leads to a very thorough character development with some amazing acting performances, notably by Kjell Bergvist.
I withdraw one star for the final twist which was as needless as it was chronologically impossible.
Series 2 brings about more credible storylines, equally unfolding slowly, allowing for even more interesting characters, with notable acting this time by Saga Samuelsson. I'm sorry for talking in review clichés but I don't want to spoil anything. Well written, well shot, well acted, well directed ... with a few unforgettable side shows coming from Minken, Rune Forss and Märten.
The Tudors (2007)
Capturing the spirit of the times with captivating acting trumps the inaccuracies
First: about the overwhelming criticism of the historical errors. Michael Hirst could have nipped that in the bud if he had not made some strange choices which didn't add anything to the drama or the plot.
But you don't get a completely mistaken rendition of history. 95% is actually correct. The Tudors does in fact an amazing job at bringing the spirit of those times to life and even correct some of the clichés that exist about those characters. Notably:
- The flabbergasting importance of religion to people in those times.
- How "bloody Mary" was rooted in her personal history.
- That Henry VIII was actually an energetic, smart, playful and beloved king in his early days.
- Why we know most about the Tudors thanks to the writings of the emperor's ambassador Eustace Chapuis.
- Henry's obsession with a male heir (and why is well is explained in the extras)
The acting in this series is of the highest standard. The facial expressions of Cromwell when he understands his power is waning and he can't do anything about it. The grimaces of Thomas Boleyn when his life is spared, contrary to his children. The seducing nature of Anna Boleyn.
Season 3 was the weakest. We could have done with less of an explicit display of Catherine Howard's youthful naivety.
I understand some don't like JRM's acting. It's borderline in many ways.
Otherwise a historical drama that surpassed even our appreciation of Rome.
Black Mirror (2011)
Watch this one, no, watch all of them
Not every episode is equally fantastic but even the weaker ones stand out as great television compared to 99% of what's out there otherwise.
If you want to give it a try, then start with The Entire History of You, which probably embodies the spirit of this anthology best.
Nosedive is a little closer to reality but will still wreck your nerves.
If you want to see how reality has already caught up with futurism, watch The Waldo Moment, actually one of the worst episodes.
For Black Mirror in full display, watch White Bear, 15 million merits or San Junipero.
For an overdose: watch White Christmas, three BM stories in one.
Oh, well, watch all of them. You won't regret it.
Karppi (2018)
When an unconventional cop is also staggeringly ineffective
I don't know if it's hard to write a decent story line or whether producers think it doesn't matter, as viewers need atmosphere, suspense and some character development. Myself I find it hard to appreciate a series if the story line is as badly developed as in Karppi
The plot of the whodunnit is not that implausible. See spoiler below. The major theme of the eco-business woven around it is not what downgrades Karppi either. It makes for a very interesting canvass on which to paint the murder. There's some good acting in that part of the story too.
Is it the cliché of a police(wo)man not playing by the book? No, I can live with that, although it would be a nice effort for a series to picture an effective cop who does.
No, it's the extreme ineffectiveness of Karppi, whose "intuitive approach" leads her from one red herring to another, leaving behind her a trail of burnt houses and casualties, only to realize in the last episode that the murderer buried the victim with a bouquet of flowers, leading her to the most obvious matching profile, the erie unmarried neighbour whose occupation is ... flowers.
It could have been the husband too, as Karppi's associate Nurmi reminds her of the homicide statistics, but his whereabouts at the time of the murder are only cleared in episode 11.
You don't have to be a cop to know this is not how policework is done, or should be done. I sympathized with her boss, urging her to stay away from the case but repeatedly showed mercy when she made another blunder during private hours.
What are the writers trying to tell us anyway? That a mom should stay with her kids, because she'll screw up the case anyway?
4 stars for the electricity between the main actors, the inconsolable widower and the renewable energy theme.
Så som i himmelen (2004)
Accessible symbolism at the expense of realism and subtlety
After a short but captivating build-up towards a story of redemption or revenge, the scene in the bike shop provided an early warning this was going to be a feelgood fairy tale rather than a psychological drama. Once you accept this, the movie becomes watchable but still not great.
In retrospect, the storyline isn't too bad, neither is the acting per se. The major issue with this movie is the director's choice to scaffold the symbolic story with all possible clichés in characters and relationships, while making every single development of those characters explicit through dialogues or dedicated scenes.
"As it is in heaven" does a decent job at making symbolism accessible to the masses but does so at the expense of realism and subtlety. This explains why it was a box office success but failed to grab any awards, even domestic ones.
1983 (2018)
Wait, who's that woman and why is she in the church?
With Netflix series the major mystery to unravel for the viewers is: are the writers planning to bring this to a satisfying closure, or are they keeping everything open, in case the series draws enough viewers to make a second season? I always hope for the former and all too often am disappointed to find out it's the latter.
Five episodes into this series' first season, I am pretty sure it's one of those attempts to make a multi-season series. There are so many loose ends I'd call it a "spaghetti-histodrama" and not because of there being mafia included (there is). Every new episode at least 3 new characters are introduced and by now I can't even track anymore whether it's actually a new or a recurring character (wait, who was that woman in the church?)
In this dystopian alternative history, there are three levels of plots: there is international diplomacy/warfare going on, involving US, Russia, Poland, Iran, Israel and ... Vietnam (the Vietnamese connection is one of the weirder but more consistent plot lines) and it's not clear who's on which side. There is a looming civil war, involving local terrorists/resistance, the mafia, the police, the national security, the party system and the army, with foul play going on in each of those sides, while it's equally unclear which sides team up. And then there are multiple characters trying to figure out what happened to their families in 1983.
It feels like they had a team of 10 writers who brainstormed in isolation and when bringing together their story lines, no one wanted to sacrifice theirs.
A few exceptions aside -the naive party princess coming of age- the acting is not too great either but I reckon the actors had to recite their lines from script because how on earth can they figure out what their character would say in that situation. Which situation?
So why still 5 stars? I came for the Polish language and despite the fact that the native speakers seem to dislike the dialogues, I'm happy to hear the language at play. The screenplay is spectacular at times. And while they failed to choose among the zillion plots, most of them actually have great potential. The suggestion of a "reichstag"-alike event in 1983 is strong enough to support a whole series.
So I'll watch it till the end but I'm pretty sure I will be overall disappointed.
Proximity (2001)
Two movies for the price of one
I saw this alleged B-level movie on a sleepless night. Although these conditions hardly qualify to say that a movie caught your attention because it was so good, I must admit I found it very intriguing, not because of its quality, but because of half its quality. I'll explain.
The strange thing about this movie is that it appears to be made in two stages, clearly distinct in cinematography, script and acting. I'm not saying it was, but it would explain why these two parts are so different.
In the "background part", the mechanics of the Justice For Victims movement are displayed, with victims and relatives lamenting the abstracted judicial system which is too lenient on perpetrators and does not care about the victims' justice. The movement's chief sets up an alternative circuit, where perpetrators are killed or "sentenced to death" so to speak, paying the killers with money financed by the victims, while some of it sticks to the hands of the movement's chief and the corrupt prison manager. This whole idea of restoring the old "eye for an eye" has been crafted very well, with sublime acting by the victims in an almost documentary fashion, and the intense characterization of the chief, whose motives are revenge, money, power and some true sense of justice altogether. It installs a double bind with the viewer, who sympathizes with the victims but struggles with the morals of revenge outside law.
The "foreground part" however, starring Rob Lowe, is your way below average stupid "escape, run and get shot at" B-movie, with only a handful of villain guards and a mole inmate running and shooting about, complete with a romantic happy end, pulling the movie away from reality entirely.
I could not help but feel that this movie was initially based on a sublime script, when half way some box office oriented but lame producer entered the scene, replaced the story writers with cheap off-shore scenarists and added a bunch of stars to turn it into an easy going action movie. It must have gone like that. How else to explain the discrepancy between the two parts?
Match Point (2005)
Some negative marks
Since all the comments here have been very positive - and you may read those splendid reviews first - let me give a few negative marks that I'm surprised few people seem to have given.
- It is difficult to believe Rhys-Myers' personage is capable of deluding his allegedly intelligent wife, while keeping his lover hanging on the telephone. You wouldn't give him that credit. - It is even harder to believe he has been a professional tennis player, holding his own against Agassi or Henman. His being a pro player wasn't necessary for the plot, so I wonder why they insisted on having him display his mediocre tennis skills. - While the movie does a very good job in giving us the feeling of boredom and superficiality that govern the posh atmosphere he's gotten into, several scenes take simply too long. - Finally, I couldn't bear with the tension building and hardly ever resolving, but that may be a strong point of the movie as well.