blubb06 Reviews

Prometheus (I) (2012)

I liked the geologist

[6/10 · 1 August 2012]

I don't have much to add to what the best-voted amateur critics have already been screaming about, only that it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. I went to a see it fortified against the underwhelming "sciency" bits, the bad character and plot writing, the ridiculous end of the "surgery" scene etc. If you grant that this movie is fantasy eye-candy, not sci-fi - because it seems anything interesting in that department comes from the left field, like Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" and Duncan Jones's "Moon" - it's possible to find something enjoyable besides the predictably great visuals. Looking at it from a certain social angle helps.

Everyone - yeah, really - is complaining how unlikable/unlikely the characters are. That's true, but it hasn't kept me from rooting for them, even if it was equally or more enjoyable to watch them get bumped off. Obviously these guys are interchangeable parts in a highly competitive, dehumanized corporate environment, with a genuine butt for a boss who openly wants the mission to fail, so she probably didn't pick the brightest spoons in the set to begin with. Nothing new here - take the 1980's anti-big corporation meme that Alien 1 made so fashionable and apply it to a set of scientologists (oops, the script calls them scientists) instead of a glorified flying warehouse crew. In space no-one hears you complain now, whether you're working class or intellectual snob. Is it any wonder these folks are so messed up? I hereby admit being one of the two persons who liked the geologist, he's sort of the anti-hero in this social nightmare by being so human, and such a dumb ass. Verily, there are no role models aka easily identifiable "character arc" clichés, which you can take as bad writing or meant deliberately. None of them is particularly interesting, but I felt like I knew or remembered these people from a bad dream involving my future career prospects. Many of us may feel we're surrounded by morons a lot of the time, but we still have to get along with them, so probably "Prometheus" is dual wish fulfillment for me, empathizing with the people you're stuck with and waiting to see them get surgically removed. I found all the "erratic" behavior totally convincing, that's how real people function.

Speaking of removal, what bothered me unexpectedly was the bad self-quotation - the "Ripley" log entry - at the end. Quoting yourself means you're really getting old. Hey, I'd almost forgotten Ridley Scott did the first Alien movie (irony intended). With all its flaws "Prometheus" has enough original ideas to stand for itself, a different (predictably female) heroine and thrust. Since it seems preordained we shall some day see part 2 of this story, I hope the Ripleygrams stay at a minimum or disappear altogether, like in a future "Director's Cut' that for once cuts what shouldn't be in there. Giger's alien emerging from between a superhuman caucasoid and a giant squid is enough of a tease to make me watch the Alien series again, one day.

Star Trek (2009)

Something to take your kids to

[6/10 · 16 November 2009]

... I assume, not having the personal experience. To be that grotesquely over-rated, a sizable part of the world's teens must have voted for it ;-) Pros: This is what a new Star Wars movies should have been like - a cool hero, a not-to-geeky cast, a slice of sex, humor and lots, lots of explosions! - without needless blood and gore. The story isn't too bad either, although not particularly brainy or emotionally challenging. This is a character-driven movie.

Cons: Well, for us ol'uns above thirty-five, the enjoyment lies in watching the kids have fun - there isn't really anyone or anything to identify with for boring grown-ups. I think I would have liked it - twenty years ago.

Hannibal (2001)

Full of symbolism like a dark dream

[9/10 · 11 August 2009]

Yes, it's disgusting, and Jodie Foster isn't in it. But apart from that, this is a very good movie.

Obstacle n°1 that kept me from appreciating it the first time around is -- yes, Julianne Moore brings a classical beauty (sort of) and her own kind of moral strength to the 'Starling' role. This time it's supercooled woman, not snotty-nosed little girl against the beast. Of the two, the rookie was more likable. In the Lecter-Starling tapes that were re-recorded with Moore, she sounds super-self-controlled -- all reflections on that earlier, more vulnerable self are gone. Pity, because it could have reflected how Starling has changed, and added depth to her character. But hers is not the starring role, anyway -- Mason Verger and the city of Florence outshine, or rather out-darken everything else, including the famous Dr Lecter, M.D. I only would have wished this great villain a better death.

Where 'Silence of the Lambs' was unnerving, 'Hannibal' is really straining to the point of nausea. It's not a movie one can easily fall in love with, because it's de-romanticizing the idol Lecter and putting him in the same club as Jeffrey Dahmer. No wonder some people find it disappointing. But get away from Lecter-worship and the image of Jodie-who, forget Thomas Harris's novel, and you'll not be bored. You'll still need a strong stomach, though.

Touch of Evil (1958)

The power of Black & White and the power of Orson Welles

[9/10 · 20 March 2009]

This is the Orson Welles film that exudes the most raw power, maybe his most violent and gripping film. If you liked it, I'd recommend his "MacBeth" from 1948 — although it's not quite the same narrative style, it does reshape Shakespeare's play into something like "MacBeth the Barbarian".

"Touch of Evil" is visually stunning, but also full of social commentary. This was in the 1950's after all, with segregation mostly still in place — Rosa Parks had refused to give up her bus seat to a white person only three years ago. In those times, the US-Mexican border was widely perceived as the dividing line between civilization and Darwinian wilderness. Welles deliberately turned established ideology on its head when he cast Charlton Heston as the Mexican "hero" of law and order with a blonde American wife, whose American views ultimately get her into trouble — she feels she'll be much safer about anywhere in the US than in Mexico City, which turns out to be a fatal error of "common sense". If anything, Wells sets out to expose the reality behind every facade — that's why Mexican soothsayer Tanja (Marlene Dietrich) has the final, enigmatic line: "Who cares what is said about people, anyway?"

This is a film noir in the true sense — it is dark and shockingly explicit for its time. But the fault lines between world views and reality, generalizations and intuition run both ways — Welles is too good a storyteller to make a narrow-minded "good vs. evil" tale. Heston, our "good guy", merely serves as the stick that stirs up a wasp's nest. Welles' character, the bloated "monster" of a US border police chief, is undoubtedly evil, but he is also shown to be right in the end. The planting of evidence to nail a criminal that you can't get to otherwise is morally despicable, but it also "works", in this case it brings on pressure to extract a confession. Like all like-minded individuals have claimed, "It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it", most recently in the form of the ticking time-bomb scenario, or "Wouldn't you torture a terrorist who threatens to blow up the world?"

To some, the prospect of being right where it counts outweigh the times you could be wrong. The question rather becomes, where to draw the line? Welles' police chief oversteps his own line when he teams up with criminals to abduct and maltreat Heston's wife, in order to frame the Mexican and undermine his credibility. But his actions are a direct result of the need to cover up his regular misdoings.

Others have already raved enough about the cinematography — it's certainly among the best Black & White films ever made. And it has suffered least from the degrading cuts and re-edits most of Welles' films were subjected to after "Citizen Kane".

To get a comprehensive overview of Welles' films, I recommend the documentary "Arena: The Films of Orson Welles", which features many movie bits and a long interview with the maestro.

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

Like "Rebecca" without Mrs Danvers

[4/10 · 20 March 2009]

Knowing some of Orson Welles' other films, and what Welles himself said about "The Magnificent Ambersons" and how it was taken from his control and ruined beyond recognition, I can only heartily agree with his point of view.

This is one movie that starts out with a Welles setup and dies in a corny mess, something like Hitchcock's "Rebecca" with Mrs. Danvers taken out - Manderley ends up in flames, but just how it got so far must have been too distressing for a test audience.

All of Welles film have a strong narrative and ask interesting, often uncomfortable questions. If Welles ever made an apparently stupid, pointless movie, this is the one. Still, the first half is watchable for its props, like the quaint old automobiles. Just forget about the rest.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

The real thing?

[6/10 · 9 February 2009]

I watched this half-feature, half-docu-drama with mixed expectations. Why delve into the sordid past, unless you want to make a point about politics today?

In 1974, Richard Milhouse Nixon resigned the US presidency to avoid impeachment over his involvement in illegal wire-tapping and spying on his political opponents, namely the Watergate scandal. Déjà vu? The film doesn't omit the fact that he was pardoned fully by his successor, Gerald Ford, although the Watergate interviews make it pretty clear Nixon was guilty as hell.

Although he had been reelected by a landslide for a second term, to the liberal left "Tricky Dick" was one of the most hated figures in pre-Bush US politics, for his conduct of the Vietnam War, and his reputation of dishonesty. Having seen the real Watergate interviews, I can see why -- it's hard to find anything positive in an Ex-president who squirms and wriggles this shamelessly in his attempts to dodge a straight question. The real-life interviewee Nixon lacks any of the brooding fighting spirit of his movie counterpart. He can be adequately summed up as the "New Car Salesman of the Year", a homage Nixon earned in 1971. As this performance of this man was such an embarrassment, why resurrect and polish it for a movie? Does it bear any moral message, or is it an attempt to water down the impact of a president's "wrong-doing" by turning him into just another human being?

Judge for yourself. I found the real thing, the original interviews, a lot bolder and quite a bit more fascinating than this apparent look at the "Making of". Michael Sheen as Frost, the British interviewer, gives the impression of reenacting his "Tony Blair" role from "The Queen". Nixon, the main course of the banquet, rules the screen because Sheen doesn't have any weight to throw around. The script stays remarkably close to the wording of the real interview -- watch them side by side and decide which one is more dramatic. In this case, life wins out over fiction by a mile.

Moon 44 (1990)

Very watchable blue collar SF

[6/10 · 31 January 2009]

If "Moon 44" deserves to be remembered, it's for authentic atmosphere. It breathes 80's style SF realism, a cross between "Aliens" and "Blade Runner" -- did they pilfer Deckard's living room interior for their company headquarters scenes, by the way? Look closely...

It was Roland Emmerich's first genre movie before "Independence Day", and the two share the same flaws. Yes, it is full of stereotypes and the end is cheesy, by "B-movie" standards, but it also has some good drama and an interesting mix of characters. The real letdown is Michael Paré as the pretty face/mercenary hero -- a little more depth to his bleak and boring character might have improved the ratings. The main assets of the film are its visuals, they make for a totally believable outer space "mining" colony. This is a rather low budget production, but you don't see it. With some refinement to the story, and a few long shots and explosions more, it might have come out really good. This is one of those films that make you wonder, what if.

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Anniversary (2007 Video Game)

Good-looking, but painful

[6/10 · 14 January 2009]

Gaarrrrrrrrrrrrr... how many of you gave up this gem during the centaur boss battle :-?

I've never liked the feel of the controls since "Angel of Darkness" or "Legend" -- "Underworld" is only now beginning to change that. It took me a lot of remembering and a half-year of casual gaming to finish "Legend". I haven't finished "Anniversary" yet... although I was initially quite thrilled by it, way back when. This was a step back to classic Tombraidering, i.e. no-nonsense-"plundering World Heritage sites" and single-minded Lara, back when she/I didn't take time to think much 'bout Mommy or Daddy. Winston the old butler was enough social life for us.

Everything in the Folly(!) & the Coliseum still looks great, almost better than the original Tomb Raider -- almost, since Tomb Raider was cutting edge-graphics in '96, and it somehow still looks decent today (it can be run on XP, with a special installer). "Anniversary" has some promising parts that nearly match up to "Underworld" quality levels, especially when you run through half-lit places with vines touching your face. But on the whole, it's not really up to 2007 standards for the PC, and the levels -- or re-created levels -- are smaller than in 1996. The sightseeing objects still look good and sometimes great, and some new chasms and abysses that require complex jumps really evoke pure Tombraidering adrenaline; but what bogged me down eventually was the boss battles.

I don't know if console players can tell a difference between classic Tomb Raider and "Next-Gen" -- the old games required you to defeat "bosses" too, but on the PC this used to be ridiculously easy (since you can save anytime and anywhere, the challenge is to keep shooting and not accidentally blunder over any edges). "Legend" was challenging already, but relatively easy once I had figured out what to do. "Anniversary" is... well, tough.

I've only recently managed the Adrenaline dodge, and only after some vital tips. My Tombraidering instinct -- just keep shooting -- defeated me previously, it seems. And the game, just like in old times, has some issues with reaction time to keystrokes, or maybe it's my basal ganglia. The correct sequence is as follows:

• shoot until your enemy gets enraged (flashing red rage meter)

• stop shooting(!) and get ready to dodge

• once he/it charges you, (1) press direction key (left|right|back) and (2) press roll key, so Lara performs a rolling dodge

• after time slows down and the red target circles match, SHOOT -- once!

It still doesn't work all the time, often Lara doesn't roll, but ducks/slinks sideways -- very useful for hungry Tyrannosaurs --, and most of the smaller animal kingdom doesn't leave you the reaction time to set up a dodge anyway. But one thing you can be sure of -- do it as often as you're supposed to, and your fingers WILL hurt.

Anyone else out there who is having problems, I'd advise you to download a trainer or the "Tomb Raider Anniversary loader" -- the T-Rex battle is Checkpoint 16 -- and practice the A-dodge in God mode. That way, it actually is kind of fun.

What more is there to say? Due to similar issues (keystroke reaction time), the jumps required to reach some goodies mean much trial & error, because unlike in the old blocky universe it's impossible to position Lara accurately or to be certain what can be grabbed -- chances are, it can't be (if you mind death-defying jumps, you probably shouldn't play Tomb Raider). But this is due to the schizophrenia of the "next gen" approach -- more to see, less to do with it. To old-school Tomb Raiders, this is by far the most annoying aspect in "Legend", "Anniversary" or "Underworld", besides the stupid "checkpoint" system and the sometimes game-obstructing camera. (Let's conveniently forget the "Angel of Darkness" catastrophe...)

Tomb Raider: Underworld (2008 Video Game)

A work of art ... with predictable(?) flaws

[8/10 · 14 January 2009]

As a die-hard fan of the Tomb Raider series I naturally had to have this game, the more so after reading the glowing reviews on Amazon. They turned out to be mostly true -- the game definitely is a feast for the eyes and lavishly rich in detail. Wherever you look, elaborate ruins, statues and vegetation abound. There are only 20 or so "levels" in six distinct areas to explore, but each one of them is spectacular. This is a satisfying reward for me (finally) getting a shader 3.0 video card. The game won't run on older hardware.

More good things first: Lara's interactive capabilities have further improved from her previous two adventures, her movements look more lifelike thanks to motion-capturing and scripted events, like pushing vegetation out of the way. More important is her extended repertoire of useful moves: She can now balance on horizontal poles as well as swing from them, stand on narrow ledges, climb alcoves by jumping from wall to wall and use her grappling hook more effectively (how about enabling her to use grappled objects as jump-off or -up points, once she's reached them?) So I'm happy to say the "next-gen" experience begins to approach something like the natural "feel" of the classic series, where YOU played the game -- Tomb Raider Next-Gen often feels more like the game is playing you! Thankfully there are no "Press this button now"-events, and no boss battles. The developers achieved their goal of re-invigorating the core qualities of Tomb Raider -- exploration and immersion. (But: If you're going to use new action keys, dear developers: Please include a comprehensive training level for newbies -- thank you! It greatly helps with the immersion when you don't have to look up the "throw away-key".)

For the most part, it simply looks & feels gorgeous. But the overwhelming richness in detail seems to have some inherent drawbacks -- the blocks of the world aren't obvious any longer, but they're still there. Just try to stray from the predestined path, and you'll know what I mean -- invisible walls everywhere; things & ledges Lara won't grab, low obstacles she can't jump over and even solid objects she'll fall through. There are some funny videos on Youtube -- but it's not really fun to encounter in a Tomb Raider game. This has been an issue since "Legend", but "Legend" and "Anniversary" combined don't have as much appetizing content as "Underworld", and the player stays hungry like the poor kid in front of the gourmet shop. Right now, all that detail is fake -- maybe we'll need next-but-one-gen computers to really use it? Good looks are a great device to keep players hooked, and I'm definitely saying: This game is a "must-see". But in terms of game-play the "next-gen" approach still has to match the classic series. And maybe it never will.

The story: It's quite good by Tomb Raider standards (meaning: the "meat" of the story is the most convoluted bundle of myths yet), but honestly it's the least I care about. I'm beyond my teen years, I'm used to skipping cut scenes... But in Next-Gen, they can't be elegantly avoided (and they're often great-looking respites from having to go through the motions :-(). To me, the classic Lara was never more than a cool placeholder for the player. Only when the series started to get old, the focus was shifted on Lara as a "personality". And I really, really, don't want to know her IQ or her cup size, but for the sake of the game I wish she'd get over that fixation about Mommy & Daddy for good. I kind of miss the humorous touch.

Some people have claimed the game is too short (true, it's the shortest of the Next-Gen games) and that it looks a bit rushed in terms of hidden objects and replay value -- I still haven't found all of them. But one more or less serious "bug" is the reload-checkpoint system that "forgets" where you moved objects before you died. I wish someone would take the time to make proper savegames possible again. On the other hand, I am getting used to the camera -- it's simply a matter of training. But -- Lara should be conveniently TRANSPARENT again when she blocks the camera! I have no idea why this still isn't implemented.

Conclusion: Go get it, even if it isn't perfect -- it's a great eye-opener. I'm already looking forward to the next one. Let's hope this quality and attention to detail can be sustained or even improved upon, and the Implementors find time & ways to make Lara's paths ever less linear.

The Last Legion (2007)

Gladiator meets (celtic) King Arthur

[6/10 · 5 January 2009]

I'd give this movie 6 and a half stars, it's a very watchable tale in the vein of "Gladiator meets King Arthur". Completely dreamed up, of course, and promoting a typically skewed view of the ancient world, but serious fans of Ancient Rome (like myself) shouldn't expect a big budget spectacle to be more interested in real history than Indiana Jones. It takes the ambition of an Oliver Stone to break up the usual mold of the "heroic fantasy with modern political overtones" genre as defined by "300" and "Gladiator". Anyone interested in the facts can read up on Wikipedia. In short: Not much is known about the last Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus, besides that he was deposed and succeeded by the Germanic king Odoacer, as a child. Augustulus' father Orestes came from modern day-Yugoslavia, had served under Attila the Hun (now there's a story!) and usurped the Roman throne. In terms of old-fashioned "Romanness" and claim to divine descent from the likes of Julius Caesar, Romulus Augustulus is about as true as the Roman legions of that time. But his (short?) life must surely have been interesting, and his vainglorious name embodies all the hope and hubris of an empire long past its prime.

Other than historical names like Romulus, Orestes and Vortigern, the movie is entirely fictitious and in part attempts to rewrite the King Arthur Saga, complete with Ambrosinus/Merlin conjuring up fire out of thin air and a "romanesque" version of Excalibur. Whether little Romulus, given his family background, would have seen Celtic emblems and rituals as anything other than barbaric hocus-pocus would be an interesting question. The historic Lord Vortigern, who is also said to have invited the Saxon invasion by settling the first Germanic mercenaries in Britain, is cast as a villainous celtic priest who wants to steal the fabled sword of Caesar from Romulus.

Two things I did not like: The over-pretentious, occasionally boring music and the predictability. The main characters besides Romulus are action stereotypes - Not-Red-but-Black-haired Sonya falls in love with Die-Hard-Hero, and together they do what is right until destiny parts them, or not. Given that we know that little Romulus definitely didn't regain his lost throne, it's fairly hard for the story-writers to come up with a meaningful positive ending. So it's basically "and they lived happily ever after".

Two things I did like: The costumes, the action and the overall making - nothing special, but not bad either - and the attempt to make something out of a neglected part of Roman history, if fictitious and by stealing other people's ideas, i.e. the Arthur Legend.

Children of Men (2006)

A film Stanley Kubrick should have made...

[10/10 · 20 December 2008]

... although I don't quite get what it's about, apart from the obvious. I'll give it a whopping 10 stars out of 10, just for being so radically different from the usual sterile and/or infantile crap on screen, especially in fiction films.

Most fans of the book appear to be disappointed with the movie. One commenter praised the book as "profoundly religious", which to me isn't exactly an appetizing label — rather the opposite. Instead, speeches and moral statements are totally absent from the film, realism and immediacy rule. The film does a very nice job in bringing its one (ligitimate) "religious" issue across: the miracle of human procreation. If it has a message, it is: Down with racism, blind faith and intolerance, Stop killing each other, and Try Not To F**k Up Humanity. Thankfully, these "messages" are implied and not preached with finger-pointing. The action benefits from leaving much to the attention of the viewer, rather than explaining loose beginnings or ends. A good fiction film is like getting thrown into strange and murky waters and enjoying the drift. So those interested in the whole story will surely watch it over, or buy the book.

It's a wonder this thing avoided the Hollowwood swamps of stereotypes and platitudes! Its saving grace must be in the down-to-earth "British touch" and/or the director's Mexican heritage. I wouldn't believe this same director made "Harry Potter", but documentaries — yes, definitely. The creators deserve praise not only for the realistic representation of shabbiness, squalor and violence, but for showing us believable human beings, which is a rare thing especially in "action" films.

All in all, nine stars for the experience, and one for the guts to make something that's surely not to everybody's taste.

Stupidity (2003)

The Mind of the Beholder

[8/10 · 19 September 2008]

The bad ratings for this movie prove once again that most voters here, if not everyone except me (readers excluded) is an idiot ;-)

It is not about defining what stupidity IS - I'm sure none of us needs any lessons on that - but exploring why stupidity is so desirable! Don't believe the text ads on this movie's own website; advertising people are tuned in to stupidity 27 hours a day and are making lots of money promoting stupidity - believe me, I should know. (They're only surpassed by the feeble-minded folks advertising NOVELS.) Stupidity sells, so it can't be that stupid after all.

I ass-u-me most of us would agree with the movie's take on certain political personae, but this should not stop us from picking our own noses. Is stupidity the only road to peace of mind in the Atomic Infotainment Age? Were our TV-less ancestors better off? Maybe not. If anything makes our times & age different, it's that TVs have blown up the individual's importance out of all proportion - how else is it possible that I feel I should be able to solve every problem on the planet with my informed opinion? Or the mad idea that War can ever be permanently abolished, now that so much is at stake, if all of us only really, really wish it.

Like Monty Python's "Life of Brian", the movie ends with a sing-along song and a note of black humor: "History is made by stupid people, clever people wouldn't even try..." We learn that someone in Vineland/New Jersey carries the distinction of having invented the word "moron", and the general history of IQ testing. Other than that, the educational benefit in negligible, but if you don't expect a solution to life's questions like you would from a BBC documentary, it's an enjoyable hour that leaves the brain ticking for a few more. On the other hand, you could benefit from a series of mantras near the end on how to become perfectly stupid:

"No thoughts are good thoughts..."

"Remember not to remember..."

"Shift the blame..."

(for the full course google up the guy's name afterwards... yes, I'm not kidding)

The World at War (1973–1974)

This is definitely not definitive...

[7/10 · 21 July 2008]

The BBC used the tried & tested formula to engage a Shakespearean actor as a focal point to deliver a colorful, (hopefully) gripping narration to the same sad old story. That worked out well in 1964 with "The Great War", and not so well with Kenneth Branagh in "World War I in Colour". I'm quite disappointed with this series - it has no proper time line, there's hardly anything new for someone who has watched some decent documentaries over the years, Olivier sounds bored (and bores me, too), factual narrative is left out in favor of adding "mood" to the film - an overflow of redundancy (and artsy pretensions?) is what kills the thing for me. Each episode on DVD has a superfluous introduction by the producer about what that particular episode meant to him - which I mostly skipped. If some of this time had been properly used, it might have been fascinating. Alas...

Still, it's long, it's extensive - worth watching. War documentary buffs, please provide some recommendations to fill in the details. I'm still looking for a comprehensive WWII documentary in English - the German side has been pretty well covered, most recently by Guido Knopp.

Dune (1984)

Lively imagery, bad storytelling

[6/10 · 29 June 2008]

I've just seen the 3 hour long Extended cut. It's still boring, but a stretch better than the incomprehensible theatrical version. It leaves much to be desired — above all, getting rid of the superfluous thought monologue voice-overs. Dune — a three hour opus told in whispers? Isn't film supposed to be a visual medium? They're particularly unnerving during the action-intensive second half. The music is mostly good and sometimes great, but fails to create suspense — lack of which is a feature of the whole. The special effects are still impressive, especially in the Giant sand worm scenes with lots of dust, but overall they could use digital retouching — the spice-blue eyes were obviously painted on, the blue-screen shots look mostly crappy, Paul's visions (which I imagine totally different, more like information overload)... Salvageable, but not yet there.

It's a shame, really. On the up side: the sets, the aliens... the costumes are mostly fitting for the characters and hard to imagine any better (this goes for everything but flying machines, training devices and Atreides uniforms). I can only imagine what a more story- and action-oriented director would have achieved with this high quality of production design. The movie suffers from too many static scenes. They create a certain atmosphere, but also slow things down. The portrayal of Paul falls (un)dramatically short of the triumphant ending, which isn't entirely actor Kyle McLachlan's fault — he isn't the Luke Skywalker type, but never truly gets a chance to reveal himself. His visions are what defines him and makes him a demi god, but on film they're boring. The movie tries to make up for its slow pacing by cramming more unimportant details in than necessary, but doesn't reflect the hero's journey in an engaging way. Compared to colorful people like the Harkonnens, Gaius Helen Mohiam, Alia or even Jessica, Paul looks plain, dull and stiff.

One could argue that the film's simple good-versus-evil or "How-I-built-an-Empire" story doesn't really do Frank Herbert's novel justice — like "Lord of the Rings" without Gollum — but I could live with the ending if the rest was more engaging. It has its moments, but they're countered by things that make me cringe — the Fremen, when they're not fighting, look more like a bunch of string puppets than a fierce army. The book also creates certain expectations for them to look oriental (I haven't noticed one prominent no-Caucasian in the entire cast). Stilgar is a sissy. Gurney and Duncan should have been merged into one character. Baron Harkonnen would have needed more brains to make a truly great villain and set him apart from his minions Feyd and Rabban. The climactic scene where Paul learns of the death of his father is totally mediocre. One keeps waiting for McLachlan's great performance that never comes. Everything... is... simply... too... slow.

I much prefer the book in terms of entertainment value (seriously), but I would have missed something had I never seen this film.

Mein Vater, der Türke (2006 TV Movie)

Very personal journey

[8/10 · 28 April 2008]

Documentary filmmaker Marcus Attila Vetter goes on a personal quest for his Turkish father, who had left Marcus' German mother as a child and returned to his Turkish wife and family. The encounter opens up many old wounds, but ends on a happy note.

A very emotional film with beautiful music by Sezen Aksu and Kazim Koyuncu, and a declaration of love to the filmmaker's Turkish family. It also shows the conflicting cultures of both countries, as well as the universality of human emotions.

No soundtrack to the movie has been released, but Sezen Aksu's song "Kücügüm" is available on her album "Deli Kizin Türküsü". Other songs include: "Gelevera deresi" and "Koyverdin gittin beni" by Kazim Koyuncu and Sevval Sam.

Baader-Meinhof: In Love with Terror (2002 TV Movie)

Well worth watching

[8/10 · 27 April 2008]

I saw this on Youtube by accident. It's made up of interview clips and archive footage, mainly from the 70's, of Germany's "Baader-Meinhof gang" i.e. Red Army Faction, who targeted German politicians and industry bosses in their terrorist struggle against the evil "imperialist" state, rather like a much deadlier version of the "Weathermen" in the US.

Knowing the German language helps. The narration is sometimes ludicrous and misleading, like when RAF leader Andreas Baader is labeled a "German Charly Manson type" - they may have a bad LSD trip in common, actually. It's not always obvious whom, or if the narrator is citing. The movie title suggests this could be a sensationalist b-movie piece with an agenda, but this first impression is quite false. Thanks to the sparse narration, it's a refreshingly open, balanced and quite fascinating look upon pieces of Germany's half-forgotten, but still controversial history. The RAF may be dead and disarmed, but their slogans and world views are very much alive and kicking.

The Crucible (1996)

Impressive and haunting

[10/10 · 19 April 2008]

A powerful, modern adaptation of Arthur Miller's play about the 17th century witch trials in Salem, Massachusetts, where 19 people were hanged for witchcraft and one tortured to death. Of course, Miller took artistic liberties with the truth: Most importantly, he freely invented a love story between the two main characters who were, in reality, 11 and 60 years old.

Winona Ryder, Daniel Day-Lewis and Joan Allen excel in their roles as points of a triangle of forbidden love, repression and spiritual purity — ultimately, what the title "The Crucible" is about: Do you sign away your soul, the honest truth and your reputation to save your life, sacrificing others? Day-Lewis' character could be a time traveler, unwillingly dragged into the Middle Ages, where superstition was rife and the devil very real. In that respect, we never left the Stone Age — we are, by our very nature, self-serving animals. The witch trials, as portrayed here, are a display of natural selection in action: to purge society of the undesirable, one's unpleasant rivals and out-lived authority figures, or those who dare to tell us things we don't want to hear, even if it means the ultimate price. Given the right incentives, it could be anyone. It could have stopped with the Salem girls themselves — except in reality, they were between 9 and 12 years old. From time to time, it seems human society needs sacrificial animals, mad dogs or stray lambs, complete with remorse and self-disgust soon afterwards, and shoulder-clapping a few years later how much it has moved on since. Oh Lord, deliver us from temptation — but only yesterday.

This film shouldn't be forced upon teens and schoolchildren just because teachers can't make up lectures that can be endured with open eyes. It's for adults, with its multi-layered characters and multi-colored social strata that movie time allows only a short glimpse at. It's simply enjoyable for all its dark beauty and romance. Only in the sense that the bad, or rather: the ugly who play along or keep their heads down, ultimately "win", is it a morality play. No-one is entirely evil, with maybe the exception of Judge Thomas Danforth, at whose motives one is free to guess. Again, one shouldn't confuse fiction with reality.

The film deserves extra credit for its self-restraint — it doesn't show off gory torture techniques or live burnings (again) à la The Name of the Rose. Fortunately, Salem used the practice of hanging. I missed some of the end titles where it says that Abigail Williams, according to "legend", ended up as a harlot (and died at age 17, Wikipedia tells us). Hell hath no fury but a ((enter gender here)) scorned, is a well-worn chauvinism among ((enter gender here)), but it's the only cheap trick in the movie. Hell hath no fury but our longing for freedom, and the movie-John seems to have liberated Abi from quite a lot, but not quite enough. Even in those times, sylphing naked through the woods must have been very refreshing — especially, since mini skirts hadn't been invented.

The Secret Rulers of the World (2001– )

Dances With Lizards

[9/10 · 18 March 2008]

British journalist-writer Jon Ronson takes a refreshing, entertaining and sometimes shocking view at the world of conspiracy theorists: Does the Bilderberg Group secretly run the world? Are the Powerful Elite sacrificing children at Bohemian Grove? What really happened at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City Bombing? Who are David Icke, Alex Jones and the Anti-Defamation League? I highly recommend to watch his series "Crazy rulers of the world" as a complement, and read some of his essays at www.coldtype.net — he's a much better writer than Michael Moore.

The best of the five parts for me is "The legend of Ruby Ridge", an incident hardly known outside the US that exemplifies all the cultural differences between gun-controlled, "civilized" Europe and the wild, sometimes unfathomable West. In the 1980's, Randy Weaver, a gun-toting, non-conformist, white underdog with Neonazi ties took his family to live in a remote cabin on the hills of Ruby Ridge. According to interviews in the film, federal agents tricked Weaver into selling them illegal sawed-off shotguns, to coerce him to spy on the Nazi group. Weaver refused and was issued a court date, where he failed to appear and let it be known he would not be taken off his mountain alive. What ensued — after a whole year in which the Weavers had time to develop their paranoia — was a full-blown law enforcement assault. A police officer turned activist narrates how US marshals killed the family dog and shot 14-year old Samuel in the back with automatic weapons, after the boy had sprayed them with a shotgun for killing his dog. Weaver's daughter Rachel, then 10 years old, recalls how her mother was shot through the head by snipers while holding the baby. "They were everywhere", she describes the confusion and terror inside the Weaver house. This is contrasted with media snippets where the killing of dog and boy is ridiculed and sneered upon, while protesters rally outside the siege cordon with Nazi groups holding up "Death to ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government) placards. The Ruby Ridge victims, dead and alive, were turned into martyrs with their very own protest song. Rachel, the only fully innocent and rational human being in front of the camera, had to endure a live performance for the film. I wanted to slap the artist, and Randy Weaver double.

US law enforcement, Randy Weaver, Alex Jones, "Big" Jim Tucker and numerous other protagonists offer a tunnel view into the depths of the American mind, while David Icke is a British creation. I had never heard of him. Like his American ilk, he is targeted by the Anti-Defamation league for alleged "Anti-Semitism" and hailed by extreme-right-wingers for code-talking about the Jewish elite as "lizards", while Icke himself insists he really, really, really means Alien Beings From the Nth Dimension that have somehow infiltrated humanity. Once again, given the reptilian behavior of our leaders, many would agree they must be extremely cold-blooded and/or in dire need of burning an effigy of conscience in Bohemian Grove once every year. Icke is the perfect example how groups all across the spectrum can read their paranoid fears into almost everything. The spooky thing — watch the very worldly "Crazy rulers" series —, is how ideas mutate and spawn new ideas, or may be reinterpreted along the lines of very old ideas. So the ADL, with all the history of Jewish suffering in mind, may have a right to jump at shadows. On the other hand, they fit the description "conspiracy theorists" perfectly.

The true followers of Icke or Jones may be few, but much of what these two say and experience in the movie strikes a true chord. And Jones is sexier than Noam Chomsky — I've watched Jones's documentaries as enjoyable attacks on my wits, until I got to the water fluoridation part. Jones is arguably the most intelligent of the bunch. There is a real conspiracy, and it's been going on since time immemorial and involves all of us, to a degree. Call it human nature. The Germans bore Hitler — whom American right-wingers can only twist into an idol of freedom because the basic concepts of solidarity have been so thoroughly demonized in this one-man's country —, like people bear evil all over the world. It's only when they themselves become outcasts that they speak up. With few, but remarkable exceptions like Chomsky, John Pilger, Ilan Pappé, Ramsey Clark, the Ploughshares groups or any whistle-blower who paid with his career. Ordinary people pay the heaviest price, they are usually denied their share of glory or even recognition.

Jon Ronson deserves credit for braving controversy and going out to investigate the fringes of society, and thereby shed reflected light-beams on the attitudes of the whole.

The Secret Life of Brian (2007 TV Movie)

This film is so funny, they banned it in Norway

[7 March 2008]

(Swedish advertising tag line in 1979)

"The Life of Brian" was recently voted "Best comedy of all time" in Britain. The Pythons regard it as their jewel. Quote Terry Gilliam: "This film does give hope to people who still want to think ... and laugh."

From his humble birth on, Brian (Graham Chapman) is mistaken for the messiah. Later, when Brian is grown up and joins the Judean People's Front in opposition to Roman rule, he is again mistaken for a Messiah, and in addressing his mob of would-be acolytes, Brian pretty much sums up the theme of the movie: "Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!!"

Even before its release in 1979, "Brian" was notorious for allegedly mocking the life of Christ, but it was arguably the Pythons' greatest artistic, as well as commercial success. EMI chief Bernard Delfont turned down the script barely a few days before the crew was supposed to start shooting. George Harrison of the Beatles, one of the Pythons' "greatest fans", stepped in as the "savior". While the Pythons were still filming in Tunisia, the British organization "Festival of light" started a dedicated campaign to brand the new movie as "blasphemous" — a charge the Pythons still deny. The film ultimately received a British AA (above 14) rating, but to quell any riots still got banned in various communities and even countries, like Norway. Overseas, it was opposed by Jewish Rabbis, Catholics and in the Protestant "Bible Belt", but nevertheless generated some 20 million $ in revenue there.

This hour-long documentary delves into the controversy's history through new interviews with the Pythons (now in their 60s) and critics of then and now, including original behind-the-scenes footage for the fans and clips of the most (in)famous clashes, such as a late-night BBC II talk show from Nov 9, 1979 featuring John Cleese/Michael Palin vs. Mervin Stockwood (clergyman) and born-again Christian Malcolm Muggeridge. It is part of the two-disk set "Monty Python's The Life of Brian: The Immaculate Edition."

The Pythons always had the nerve to offend. The doc's narration is not what you would expect — it attempts a curious mixture of timid, respectable, British style and speech bubbles straight out of the illustrated manual "Hype for Dummies": "This is the story of one of the greatest films and one of the greatest cultural battles of modern times... (Flying Circus is) one of the most influential comedy programs Britain has ever produced..." Brian (Chapman) must be rotating in his grave. Perhaps nothing can illustrate better that "Brian" probably wouldn't be made today. Still, it is a treat for those of us who missed all the fuss.

Bob Roberts (1992)

... or how I learned to stop worrying and love politics

[10/10 · 4 March 2008]

"Times are changing back, times are changing back, times are changing back today...", sings ultra-right-wing politician/folksinger Bob Roberts. Grandmommies & -daddies who know just-who-the-heck Bob Dylan was might remember his song "The times, they are a-changing" — yeah, that was waaaaay back when Grandmommy & Granddaddy wore flowers, made free love and smoked marijuana to make their hair grow faster. And peace, No-to-Vietnam, civil rights and all that hot sh*t, in the year I was born (but not in the USA).

Somebody else pointed out the Dylan documentary "Don't Look Back", from which several scenes were derived — including the one where Bob Roberts and his blonde co-singer practice their hymn "We're marching for self-interest" while Bob checks his stocks on his laptop. In 1967, Joan Baez sang "Pretty Polly".

Polly, pretty Polly, come and go along with me / Before we get married some pleasure to seek

He led her over mountains and valleys so deep / Polly misjudged him and she began to weep

Sayin' Willie, Oh Willie, I'm afraid of your ways / The way you've been ramblin' you'd lead me astray

He said, Polly, pretty Polly, your guess is about right / I dug on your grave the best part of last night

I don't know much about US politics, although I sometimes wonder why they apparently have only two political parties since at least 200 years. But "Bob Roberts" is not an American movie, although it portrays the rise of a pure-bred American Hitler. Those two parties exist virtually everywhere, at least in every Western "democracy", and although they take turns every few years and have other names, the underlying power structure is the same, as their politics are increasingly the same.

This is a movie for the grassroots, a socio-political comment and a satire. It's supposed to stimulate the little gray cells, look at our leaders and our TV screens and ask, are we getting what we signed up for? What is the truth, and do I want to know?

Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)

The award-winning documentary you're not going to see

[10/10 · 3 March 2008]

... at least not on Discovery Channel.

Said director Alex Gibney recently (on DemocracyNow): "Well, it turns out that the Discovery Channel isn't so interested in discovery. I mean, I heard that — I was told a little bit before my Academy Award nomination that they had no intention of airing the film..."

Discovery Channel has bought the exclusive TV rights for the next 3 years, but Gibney hopes they can be persuaded to sell them "for a profit".

And it is a powerful film. Although it reveals nothing new about the torture and degrading techniques we've become accustomed to over the last three years, it puts politician's faces and statements in context with a "real" victim and a name: young Afghan Taxi driver Dilawar, who was arrested at a checkpoint for alleged involvement in a rocket attack. Five days later he died at Bagram, after two days of continuous beatings, standing up in chains inside his solitary confinement cell. The American coroner checked "homicide" on his death certificate and handed it with the body to his family, who couldn't read English.

The film then takes us along the ride from Afghanistan to the present day. Dilawar was only the beginning, and one of two detainees who died from torture roughly at the same time. Today, about 180 people have died in custody, 38 with "homicide" on their death certificates. Dilawar's torturers tell their story. They took the rap, they repent, but is this justice? What's the bigger picture, the one that's usually glossed over, and the reason Discovery deems this documentary "controversial"?

Alex Gibney dismantles "Torture the American way" just like he did the Enron scandal in "Enron: The smartest guys in the room", from the inside to the bigger inside, like a Russian doll. You will hear the words "war crimes", see the infamous torture memo, Abu Ghraib photos and film, Kiefer Sutherland torturing with electric wires, Guantanamo, Cheney, Rumsfield, Bush and their lawyers wriggling around the t-word and egging on that "we must take our gloves off". "We have to work the dark side, if you will. We're going to spend time in the shadows", says Cheney.

"But... is the dark side stronger?"

"No. Quicker, easier, more seductive. Anger, fear, aggression, the dark side are they.

"Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny."

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (2003)

A real scoop

[10/10 · 1 March 2008]

It's really rare that you get an inside view at a media deception that has been so widely reported as official "truth" and caught so many "news" agencies with their pants down. This movie, in my view, deserves every price there is in journalism - it's objective (yes!), courageous and a real "scoop". It can do without comment, fake scenes or leading questions - everyone, including Chavez equally gets to make fools of themselves in their own words. The filmmakers "only" had to keep track of events and keep their cameras rolling.

The Venezuelan elite teaches us "How to depose of a President and sell it as a victory of democracy". It's amazing that they lost in the end - so far. From what I know, the biggest TV station involved only got its terrestrial license revoked, they're still broadcasting via cable and satellite. I highly doubt whether George W. or Barack Obama would be that tolerant after an attempted coup. But then, they don't have to worry.

The fact that the "Chavez supporters shoot innocent civilians" scam was so willingly repeated around the world reveals just how biased the so-called "free" (established) media really has become, or has always been, only more so. An important lesson to anyone interested in what "really" goes on in the world.

The famous "objectivity" challenge always comes into play when journalists dare to oppose the mainstream view, or reveal unwelcome facts that accuse "us" - it has been true with the effects of the Atomic bomb, the US secret history of spreading "democracy" around the world or the Iraq war that, according to Johns Hopkins, has killed 1,3 million Iraquis by now, not to mention the 60,000 Afghans (in 2003) that are never mentioned. To be objective, Saddam Hussein was less damaging to his people than the US. And the US is ready & willing to be more damaging to the Iranians that he was.

I'm quite curious about the upcoming trial of some Khmer Rouge leaders before the International Tribunal in The Hague, whether there will be any mention of "our" involvement in supporting and training Pol Pot's guerrillas in the 80's, when they had been largely defeated by the Vietnamese. Probably not.

All the more reason to turn to the Independent media for balance, if not exposure of fraud.

Star Trek: Enterprise (2001–2005)

Captain Kirk is back! - almost

[7/10 · 23 February 2008]

Somebody called it "reinventing Star Trek" - I haven't watched the old series in years, so comparisons are unfair. This is definitely the most "real" Star Trek yet, which may be one reason why some hard-core "fans" hate it so much: Star Trek used to be great escapism. "The Next Generation" was so successful because it teleported us even further into that glorious future, where all of humanity's great flaws had (almost) been eradicated or, at least, brought under control. This new series takes us right back even before Captain Kirk, to the days of the first Warp flight that will (maybe) see our race emerging from the crib of the solar system, and there's still plenty human in humanity.

The first episode I happened to see was, of all, "In a Mirror, Darkly". That really got my attention. It's a Nazi version of Star Trek - incredibly brave on the part of the producers, and still my favorite. If you don't know "Enterprise" yet, try this: It completely blows your mind about everything Star Trek supposedly stands for, and opens you up to a new experience.

The whole series encompasses basically one story: A genetically enhanced super-race threatens to shake the balance of the universe and destroy fledgling humanity along the way, with help from the future. This background menace reveals itself a little more with each episode, although there may be different riddles and new sub-plots in every one. It's very easy to miss out on the progression of events, especially during seasons 3 and 4. In order to understand everything, they have to be watched roughly in sequence. I'd start with season 3 because it's simply the best.

Human drama is the overall fabric. It's all driven by more adrenaline than brains, but so was Captain Kirk (Hey, that's why he needed Mr. Spock!). As opposed to TNG's mostly humorous or "clash of cultures" approach, this means dirty, petty "real" drama - drug abuse, mental illness, plain xenophobia and a good deal more sex and violence than we're used to. More special effects, too. But last, not least, good acting, especially by Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) and Scott Bakula (Jonathan Archer), who each have a journey to go through. Because "Vulcanism" has already been so clearly defined, T'Pol has much greater freedom to behave differently. Dr. Phlox is the first member of a new alien race, the Denobulans, who have a very different take on monogamy from that of George W. Bush. The rest is pretty standard fare, you'll be right at home, except that it feels almost like home - they even have a DOG on board, how sub-light-speed! And I'll never use a transporter without second thoughts again.

In me, it provoked a lot more thoughts and dreams than TNG. We may actually fly to distant moons to mine ore, and colonize the moon within this century, in ships that look very much like the freighter "Fortunate" (from the episode "Fortunate son"), and then - who knows? If we come that far before blowing each other up, that's something.

The best thing about this experiment is its ambivalence - you're not entirely sure the "Enterprise" will survive, or even if they really deserve to. They struggle, they fall, and yet they get up again - that's why, like another commentator has put it, I came to "like those guys".

Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Disappointing German voice acting in Special Edition (DVD)

[7/10 · 22 February 2008]

One of my favorites of the original Star Wars Trilogy, and I know every line by heart in German and English.

George Lucas, of course, couldn't keep his fingers entirely still, and when I talk about it now I mean the latest DVD version of the Special Edition. But compared to its sequels, it is the one that has gained the most from CGI.

German fans, unfortunately, have to put up with the rather destructive efforts of re-dubbing Darth Vaders voice in two little scenes with seven dialog lines: his conversation with the emperor and another scene at the end of the movie. The original German voice, Heinz Petruo, had unfortunately died in 2001. But even so, all that needed to be added was one sentence:

Vader: "How is that possible?"

The studio didn't use its sophisticated mix-mastering equipment to rework the original tapes, move the other six sentences around a little and get a guy that, with a few audio filters, sounded roughly like the original voice to speak those four words. They did a completely new dub. It proves the engineer knew how to apply filters, but the voice acting is best described as talentless, and the manager who hired him should only do commercials.

Now, Mr. Lucas, which number was I supposed to call if I'm not satisfied with sound quality?

On the other hand, I think he deserves more praise than he got (at least from me) for his efforts to preserve the magic of the trilogy. I recently had the rare opportunity to watch a "genuine" Laserdisk edition of the original movie. It's closer to the real cinema experience because there is no PAL speedup, which produces a slightly slower pacing and darker voices (something NTSC viewers are not aware of). But even with the lower image resolution, it had noticeably aged. The stop motion animation looks jerky, the spaceships too static, color mismatch and compositing lines jump into view, things we never noticed - because they could not be done better at the time. All these things were fixed in the Special Edition.

So without the remarkable devotion of mastermind George Lucas, the first three Star Wars films in their original form would be slightly dusty "classics" today, like Flash Gordon or the Frankenstein films, with special effects that look occasionally funny.

George Lucas kept the trilogy alive for a new generation. Still, the originals preserve movie history. They breathe the flavor of the 70s and 80s in their sound effects and interior designs, and their inferior technical quality serves to draw attention to atmosphere, acting and story - at least for me, it was never mere fascination with special effects. They only serve as make-believes.

Without history, there is nothing to look back to.

Reign of Fire (2002)

"Only one thing worse than a dragon: Americans!"

[8/10 · 15 February 2008]

I can't imagine why this title has such an unexpected low rating on IMDb, and I don't really care. This is a a beautifully atmospheric post-apocalyptic fantasy flick. You'll probably wish to see more of the dragon(s), but when it is flash bang on screen it's worth the money. The fact that one rarely gets a good look at it before the big finale makes it all the more menacing.

The editors used color grading to enhance the dramatic effect, so everything before the climax is shaded either dirty-gray or fiery-red - and there is a lot of fire, as the title suggests. A bald Matthew McConaughey riding a tank with the barrel sticking up between his legs is a memorable image, while the scene that has Quinn and Creedy reenact the highlights of "Star Wars" for their custodial children is virtually unforgettable. A funny mixture of English dialects one rarely gets to hear on film adds a flavor for non-native speakers with a taste for the original.

There is a lot of subtle drama and good acting on screen, especially for an action movie. McConaughey has the only cartoon character role, but that's what he does best. The creators used every bit they could tell a story with, from the paintings and sketches on the medieval castle's walls to the faces of the children. So sometimes it feels like a mixture of The Name of the Rose and The Lord of the Rings with a comic book, but the mixture is truly original.

The film has its (commercial) shortcomings, mainly that the big action scenes are too sparse, and what is there looks too minimalistic for fans of (expensive) Bruce Willis-style overkill. Some CGI flyover scenes would have established a better sense of time and place. On the other hand, the notion of fantasy creatures taking over requires a stretch of the mind. The story focuses on the struggle of a tiny group of survivors, and the battles of the rest of the world show up only as news flashes in the prologue. The split between drama and nitty-gritty action, fantasy and realism is maybe what distinguishes it above the average. And there is the stunning visual beauty of the images. It's definitely not going to gather dust on my shelf, but be watched again from time to time.