andibert Reviews

The Man from Earth (2007)

Nice idea, but too absurd to be funny - contains SPOILERS!

[4/10 · 20 December 2008]

First of all: it is hard to categorize this movie. Until the last minute, I was not sure what to make of it. But then, when the final credits came up, I could just - laugh.

I am a bit surprised that most comments take this movie for a serious Sci-Fi movie. Admittedly: the plot is not that bad, the dialogues are entertaining (even though they are trying a bit too hard to be intellectual and witty), and it seems to make sense somehow - but then the story gets so exaggerated that it just draws the whole film down to ridiculous.

There are (at least) two points which deprive the movie of all its credibility, so you just can't take it seriously any more: the role the protagonist claims to have played in the bible age, and the role of the psychiatrist. Until this point, you can still follow the line, enjoying the discussion of the characters involved; but then - the whole plot gets blown into pieces by that absolutely absurd and ridiculous statement, which is too nonsense to make you actually think and too cheap to actually make you laugh.

I can, for the life of me, not see in what respect this movie could be considered intellectual. It is based on one interesting idea, but doesn't make much of it and leaves you wondering why you just spent your precious time on a half-baked fantasy story. I am not sure whether the director was aiming at being a Sci-Fi guru or a comedian - to my opinion, he failed in both.

After the Wedding (2006)

Aren't the saddest stories always the most beautiful ones?

[10/10 · 3 June 2007]

When I went to see this film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect, but as I had recently seen some danish/Scandinavian comedies ("Adam's Apples", "Together", "101 Rejkjavik"...) I suppose I expected something of the kind. God was I wrong. I'm not saying this movie isn't funny - on several occasions there are witted, well-placed gags and (Scandinavian) almost non-sense-jokes that made me laugh out loud, but the core of the film is rather serious - it is about fate, about love, about the drama of life, the very core of human being.

In the center of the story are three characters: a man and a woman who used to love each other but split up under dramatic circumstances, and the nowadays husband of the woman, a rich businessman with a strong character you don't quite know what to think about most of the movie. The ex-lover had escaped from his life to India to take care of poor orphan children and is rather being pushed back than returns to his past life in Denmark, where he lost what he never hoped to find again. The past events come to light in the course of the events, and the bitter feelings of yesterday poison the relationships of today. At first, it all seems a big coincidence, but the more you proceed the more it becomes clear that the events all seem to follow some kind of plan. Feelings come up and get swallowed down, things essential to one's life perturb the characters' minds and force them to have second thoughts about what they thought was past, and the spectator, not entirely limited to one character's point of view but focused on the "intruding" ex-lover's perspective, lives it all with the protagonists.

The scenes and settings are carefully chosen to emphasize the dramatic atmosphere, catching you with its strength and striking simplicity and not letting you go until the very last picture. It 's been a long time since I last saw a movie that impressed me like this one, coming back to my mind for several days, throwing up fundamental moral questions about good and bad, love and hate, life and death. And yet, in the end, unlike other Scandinavian movies of the kind which sometimes leave you alone and when the credits appear you wish they would continue and turn everything right (like "Festen" or "Lilja 4-ever"), after the two hours of this film you feel like everything's alright somehow, God chokes, but he never kills. I suppose you have to be Scandinavian to make a movie so impacting, so intense, so beautiful, so sad.

Curse of the Golden Flower (2006)

Epic, tragic, conventional

[5/10 · 27 May 2007]

I recently saw this movie because I liked the previous films of the director ("Hero", "House of Flying Daggers"). As expected, the picture overwhelms you from the first moment with colorful and impressive settings, costumes and decorations. However, I found it somewhat difficult to think myself in the situation of the characters of the movie, as there does not seem to be a certain character the story is focused on; and, additionally, as western/European spectator you may find it hard to get into the setting as it is strongly determined by traditional Chinese custom and history. The storyline reminded me slightly of some Greek tragedy - the patriarch ruling his kingdom and his family with a cruel hand, the hand of destiny causing almost impossible coincidences, eventually leading to a (unconscious) romance between sister and brother, the monumental struggle of vast armies and heroes for honor and power. Nonetheless, I had the impression that the story was maybe just a little bit too simple as it can finally be distilled to a rather conventional family tragedy with elements of personal ambition and mother-child relationship. Moreover, virtually all the movie plays inside the emperor's palace, which is beautifully modeled, but the story just does not have the depth to fill a movie playing almost in a single location - a little bot more or intrigue, of surprise, of background would have elevated the film to the class the big Chinese movies define. Additionally, some of the computer effects, especially city/palace backgrounds, seemed somewhat obviously digital and almost cheap. Summing up: Good movie, but nothing there hasn't been before.

Erik the Viking (1989)

Poor, poor, poor

[26 November 2004]

What on earth happened to the rest of the Monty Python's? This is not funny, this is not entertaining, this is not even a B-movie. If you liked the classic Monty Python movies (Life of Brian, Holy Grail), you will hate this one. If you still liked the later, a bit more bizarre ones (Jabberwocky), you will hate this one. And if you like a movie just because it features Terry Jones and John Cleese, well, then you will have the biggest disappointment you can imagine. They do appear, though. But what's missing is a proper plot, a decent soundtrack and production, and any kind of humour that could make you at least smile for one second. This could be a children's story if it wasn't so boring, dull and poor. The pathetic love-story elements are beyond being ridiculous. This is a new dimension of trash, but not an enjoyable one. If you liked anything of what Jones and companions were doing before, do yourself a favour and DON'T watch this movie. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

A glorious piece of nothing in the shape of the greatest story ever told

[3 May 2004]

As many others, I do not claim to know what happened more than 2000 years ago on Gethsemaneh, I do not claim to have understood the bible and its message in its entirety, and I do not think that I can tell other people what they should believe - I think no man can do either of these things.

What I can say is that this movie is remarkable, impressive, different.

Firstly, there is no real storyline: the characters are not introduced, the events are not self-explanatory, and the quotations are not explained; if you do not know the bible or other stories on this subject, you are not going to understand anything.

Secondly, the movie is brutal. Violent. Bloody. I do understand that a movie on the crucifiction of Christ has to be brutal somehow, but what we see here is more than many people can bear. I have to admit, the violence has its effect: the spectator feels with the poor, wretched guy whipped out and tortured over and over again. But wouldn't that be the case in any other surrounding? I understand violence in films as a means to tell the audience something; so what is the message behind this bloodshed? That Jesus suffered a lot for us? I personally can't really get any sense out of that.

To me, this movie does not further the religious feelings of anybody. The graphics are impressive, the score generates an authentic atmosphere, the acting is good, but in the end - what is all this about? The flashback quotations lose their meaning without further explanations what Jesus and his deeds, his love mean to the other people; the fact alone that beautiful Monica Bellucci sympathetically watches him die with a painfully distorted face is not enough to give the audience a feeling of what all this really means.

In short, the Passion could be a powerful movie, but it misses the opportunity to transport any content and thus runs the risk of being just the pretentious work of a person who doesn't really know what he wants to tell us - at least that's my personal impression.

101 Reykjavík (2000)

You won't stop laughing

[9/10 · 30 January 2004]

This is one of the funniest movies I watched recently. A 30 years old guy, still living with his mother, refusing to get a job and quite retarded in regard to any relation with the opposite sex, runs into one crazy situation after the other, and his complete disability to handle them simply makes you scream out laughing. Yet, the humour in the movie is not of the dumb slapstick or nonsense kind, but, with some exceptions, actually quite intelligent, as social issues like sexual orientation, identity and general problems of way of living are dealt with. The spanish girl, as an intruder in the rather decadent and boring scenario of small Reykjavik, raises questions and perturbs the world of the small family perfectly by first seducing the son and then the mother, though unwillingly. Great acting. If this movie had a broader audience, it could really have become a big hit; now it encants only a limited number of spectators with its (very un-nordic) warm, easy and comfortable atmosphere and leaves you very satisfied. Big recommendation!

Down by Law (1986)

Fascinating filmmaking far away from Hollywood

[8/10 · 27 January 2004]

Wow, what a movie. Far away from Hollywood, Jim Jarmusch creates a world where you don't need drama, pathos and action to fascinate the watcher. Because fascinating is exactly what this movie is. A plot in the classical sense is almost completely missing; the scenes, in their simplicity sometimes reminding of theater, follow each other without ever creating real suspense; neither griping action nor complex dialogues are there to excite the spectator. And still, with ease Jarmusch fills more than a hundred minutes with a story you won't take your eyes off. It is hard to tell what the atmosphere of the movie is really based on, the characters, the setting, entirely in black and white, the music - probably all of it. Again, like in Jarmusch's later movie "Dead man", speed is an important factor: everything moves slowly, without haste, as there is no dramatic climax you could hurry towards; yet, boring is a word that certainly doesn't fit this piece of cineastic art. On the other hand, though some of the scenes seem quite surrealistic, it is not a really artistic movie breaking with all the traditional concepts of filmmaking; it is more a movie in classic shape with an unconventional story, not trying to shock, to confuse or even to make you think so much; this movie doesn't need all this to get your complete attention. You could probably speculate a lot about the meaning of the movie; to me, this seems highly unnecessary. Just let it unfold its atmosphere. Judge yourselves, but I was excited in a very special way by every scene of this motion picture, giving me one of my best cineastic experiences of the recent time.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

Boring, boring, boring

[3/10 · 11 September 2003]

Before watching this movie (which I was quite much looking forward to) I watched the first parts of the "trilogy" once again to dive into the great dark-futuristic scenario to be able to get this movie the right way. I am not saying that the predecessors were great movies in a sense of intellectually or artistically qualitative films, but they created a really impressive atmosphere and were just good entertainment.

This movie is different. The whole background is taken from the older movies, no new ideas. Just action. Action, action, action. All the time. Man, how I was bored. I admit, the special effects were good, but you can't save a movie just with that. The dialogues (the few that there are) are really embarassing, both for the actors (especially Arnold S. who once again shows that he did NOT become famous for his skills as an actor, but for his unvoluntary comic) and for the spectators.

If you really want to watch this movie, I recommend that you don't do it without several beers and a good company you can discuss how bad with how bad it was afterwards. The only good point I could find was the (hidden) criticism of the US-defense shield. But that couldn't make up for all the sad rest. Sad. Really Sad.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

Don't expect Homer but plain sympathic Humor

[14 June 2003]

I did not expect too much of this movie, but it's often these movies that give you a really good time watching them - so did O Brother Where Art Thou.

OK, I have to admit, you can hardly consider this film a "big one", as the jokes are often on a really low level, but that's just the kind of humour the Coen Bros intended to use, and it makes the movie, as for me, really really enjoyable.

Well, that Homer- and Odysseus-thing in the marketing seems way too emphasized to me, as I could only find some parallels to Homer's ancient poems that you could find, with a little effort, in dozens of today's films (the siren-scene even seems to be taken into the movie only to justify the use of this big poets name, as it does not really fit the rest of the story...), but, well, I didn't except to watch a literature adaption, but an entertaining, funny movie, and that's what I got - and much better than I expected.

The concept is not a new one, Clooney as the educated rascal with the heart in the right place and tons of rustical sayings that relativate his educated impression, but it is put into practice in an ironic, sometimes naive, but always sympathic way - and that's what you watch movies for, the impression that they leave, not a consistent story or a moral realization (which this movie does not claim to transport).

After all, you are left with a movie that is just fun watching, not only for the jokes, but also for the beautiful pictures and the bizarre characters. It's hard for me to tell what this film told me, but I liked the way I was told it. Why aren't there more of these films?