Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Downfall (2004)
This is one of the most amazing films I have ever seen.
11 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of the most amazing films I have ever seen. Although ostensibly the film deals with the decline, fall and suicide of Adolf Hitler, it's about much more than that. Indeed, Hitler's suicide occurs at about two thirds to three quarters of the way through the film, with the remainder concerned with the downfall (and perhaps redemption) of other characters.

I thought Bruno Ganz, who played Hitler, was terrific. Aside from the occasional hand movement which I thought bordered on parody, I really got a sense of a complete individual from his characterization. Those moments of tenderness and personality that are often shown, particularly when Hitler was in Bavaria. Those moments of rage and hysteria, evident in the stadium-style documentary footage of Hitler's speech-making. But there are other elements too... the shaking of his hand, for example, which I thought was meant to suggest Hitler had Parkinson's Disease and the matter of fact way in which he described how to commit a "successful suicide". I thought Ganz portrayed both the sanity and insanity of Hitler effectively.

People are constantly dying in this film, at their own hands or at the hands of others. I know this sounds odd, but after a while the death, destruction and suicide become the norm. I'm not saying it becomes acceptable, but I think through repetition, one is really given a sense of what it must have been like to have been there at the end. In contrast to the well known footage of Hitler making speeches in stadiums, it's a shambles. The army can't fight anymore. A time when half the soldiers are either drunk, deserting Hitler, or committing suicide. A time when life, seemingly, had little value, where death didn't seem to matter.

Perhaps the most distressing of the deaths, however, are those of Goebbels' children, as we're shown their mother giving them their lethal dose of something or other. Cyanide? But it's not gratuitous, their portrayal has a purpose. It, perhaps, gives an insight into why people were there until the very end... why Hitler commanded whatever he did even after his death. What is it that would allow someone to kill their own children for an ideal? Or was it because there was, seemingly, no other option? The film doesn't answer these questions, it just poses them.

Some of the reviews have described the film as sympathetic towards Hitler. Yes, Hitler is described as a character with more than one dimension, but it could hardly be described as sympathetic as he declares that, despite everything, he was proud of the Jewish slaughter. He also declares the remainder of the German people were idiots and weak. And Goebbels, I think it was, declares the people deserving of everything they got when asked to consider the need to protect the civilians because "they chose their destiny".

As for other central characters? Eva Braun comes across as a total idiot, totally unfeeling, except for the farewell letter she writes to her sister... but even then it's full of trivialities. This is not really a film, though, about Hitler, or even the people like Goebbels, Himler and Braun, it's about the people on the fringes around him and I think many reviews have missed the point about who the central character of the film actually is.

As it turns out, the central character is actually a young secretary employed by Hitler two and a half years before the end of the war. A young woman who probably falls in love with Hitler and who is, seemingly, chosen because of her beauty and not her skills as a stenographer or typist. Much of the plot line is about how she deals with the realization of what is occurring around her.

Another central character is a young Aryan-boy... blonde, blue eyes... who fights the war on Hitler's behalf as a member of Hitler Youth... but who also, somehow, survives which in some ways was a little distressing. Six million Jews died, but the young Aryan boy survives. A point to ponder.

For me, however, the most distressing part of the movie was the end which features the stock-standard "what happened to" feature of so many historical dramas. It amazed me that so many people had lived so long with the memories of the war and of the events portrayed in the film. And then, just when you think, that's about it, one of the central characters, the young secretary, is shown in documentary footage in her 70s or 80s, reflecting on her life. She tells the story of how, throughout the Nuremberg Trials, she was surprised at the extent of the Jewish extermination. And then, in a truly remarkable moment, she mentions how, in a moment of self-revelation, she recognized she could have known more, she, perhaps could have done something.

As such, this is a really important movie for just about everyone to see.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Great Performances: Jesus Christ Superstar (2000)
Season 29, Episode 11
5/10
Maybe with a few years down the track this 2000 production will seem better? Maybe not!
6 January 2005
I really love "Jesus Christ Superstar". As a young child I remember the hit songs and remember vividly seeing the 1973 movie at the local cinema in the small town where I grew up. I love JCS. I also couldn't help comparing this production, filmed in 2000 but which has just shown on Pay-Television in Australia, with the 1973 movie. Although I thought this was quite good, I thought the 1973 movie was better.

Musically, this production was similar to the sound to the 1973 movie. Although a little more orchestrated - with less of the rock and roll soundtrack - this still sounded like JCS. They didn't try and "techno" things up for example. But although the singers are all very good, I didn't think their acting skills were up to scratch. Put frankly, I thought this lacked some of the raw emotion of the earlier film.

I didn't think the actors and singers portrayed the characters with the same level of sophistication of those in the earlier movie production. For example, I didn't think Glenn Carter as Jesus demonstrated the subtlety needed from the role. Unlike Ted Neeley, who in the 1973 film who portrayed Christ as someone clearly understanding of and in control of his fate, Carter portrayed an almost wimp-like Christ. I thought Jerome Pradon, playing Judas, seemed confused about his relationship with Jesus. Although in some respects, that's probably quite accurate, there were occasions within scenes - such as the betrayal scene - where his emotions seemed inconsistent. Although I thought he was let down by his acting skills, he had a good voice. I also thought Renee Castle failed to live up to the intense, honest emotions of Yvonne Elliman as Mary Magdalene. Althoguh Yvonne's version of "I Don't Know How To Love Him" can bring me to tears, I thought Castle's version failed to portray the emotion necessary... it was laboured and, perhaps, over-rehearsed.

Cinematic ally, this production reminded me of a 1980s/early 1990s video clip. Think Roxette. Think Heart. In many ways, I thought this production just tried "too hard" to be modern. Rik Mayal as King Herod in a "Chicago"-like burlesque. Pilate as a pseudo-leather queen. However, the bloody realism of the crucifixion scene, in particular, adds to the story of JCS in a way the 1973 film failed to. The blood. The heaving. One truly gets a sense of the physicallity of crucifixion. This was the one scene which truly moved me (to tears).

In 1973, I know there were reviews which criticised the film for probably the same reasons that I've been critical of the 2000 production. Maybe with a few years down the track this 2000 production will seem better? Maybe not!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
While the subject matter of the film is fairly grim, the movie demonstrates great warmth and humour.
6 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The movie has many twists and turns and I promise to ensure this review doesn't give away any of the crucial secrets. Even so, it's the warmth of the central characters which made this such an enjoyable experience. The central characters of the film are Paul Prior played by Matthew MacFadyen and Celia, played by Emily Barclay. I've been a fan of MacFadyens for a year or so now, having enjoyed his performances in "Spooks" and "Perfect Strangers". Curiously enough, as with "Perfect Strangers", this movie also has a focus on family secrets. Barclay is a very new actor, and according to the IMDb Bio, she currently works part-time in an Auckland video store.

MacFadyen's character is a world renowned photo-journalist who is brought back to rural New Zealand by the death of his father. Barclay's character is the daughter of an old schoolfriend of MacFadyen's character. Through a set of circumstances - the interview she conducts with him for school is hilarious - they become friends, connecting through their love of books and through MacFadyen's character's desire to ensure Barclay's character has the chance to achieve - like him - all of her potential.

In the background to this, we're given an insight into life in a small rural community in New Zealand where the teenagers are bored and the adults are divided amongst those who enjoy life locally and those who admire those who have left. Having grown up in a relatively small town myself, I recognised many of the aspects of community life, including the teenage farm party. And I recognised aspects of Paul and Celia's characters in my own life.

That said, I want to go there tomorrow. The landscape is glorious and I'd say, with the right attitude about life, you could live a wonderful life there. Mind you, you might also get bored. And there's something about the Patty Smith soundtrack to the movie which evokes the isolation and desperation you might feel.

While the subject matter of the film is fairly grim - the disappearance and death of the young girl - the movie demonstrates great warmth and humour. And for all of the reasons above, I'd highly recommend it to you.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I thought Geoffrey Rush's performance was fantastic and makes the movie totally worth watching.
6 January 2005
The story begins with the Goons and ends just after his role in the movie, Being There, thirty years later. A lot of the film features recreations of famous moments in Seller's acting life, such as appearing on "The Goons" or in "The Pink Panther". There are some particularly hilarious insights into his development of the "Inspector Clouseau" character, including an explanation of why he ended up hating the character so much.

As such, it really only touches the surface of his life story, but it does give you an intense understanding of the character. A character which, in the style of Greek tragedy, had a major flaw. For me, the flaw was Seller's total lack of confidence, perhaps due to his appearance, which he appears constantly to have overcompensated for.

Curiously enough, since Sellers is shown portraying great emotions, I was never actually moved myself, except perhaps for the occasion when he is violent towards Britt Ekland and in a particularly galling moment with his children.

The movie reaches its crescendo with Sellers' performance in "Being There" in which it's suggested the reason why Sellers so wanted to play the man without a personality was because he, himself, had no personality.

A few people at my workplace commented they thought the movie was far too stylized. Although I can see their point, and I agree I was never really touched by the movie, I thought Geoffrey Rush's performance more than made up for this. Rush plays not only Sellers, but several other characters in a Sellers-like "Dr Strangelove" kind of way, and achieves all of it with gusto. I also really enjoyed the performance of Miriam Margoyles as Sellers' mother, Peg, with whom he seems to have enjoyed an intense, almost Oedipal relationship.

I thought Geoffrey Rush's performance was fantastic and makes the movie totally worth watching.
39 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
De-Lovely (2004)
6/10
Recommended, but not a "must see".
6 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The film shows Porter looking back on his life as if it was a stage show. As such, it's highly stylized and wonderfully visual. Indeed, one of my favourite moments is when Porter instructs a singer who is having difficulty with the song "Night and Day", because of both the words and the passion with which the instruction is given.

But mostly, the movie tells the story of Porter's relationship with his wife Linda. Although Porter was mostly gay, the marriage is portrayed as the most important relationship in his life, whereas the relationship with Bill in his later life is almost dismissed, perhaps even portrayed as opportunistic. Indeed, there's a line later in the film where someone says to Bill, "this wouldn't have happened if Linda was here". In some respects, Linda is a little too perfect, a little too accommodating of Porter's sex life with men, while he remains the celibate mostly-adoring wife. If the relationship was like that, fine, but if it wasn't, I think it's a flaw in the movie.

Nonetheless, Ashlea Judd's portrayal of Linda is terrific. And even though I don't normally like Kevin Kline, his performance is also very good. There's only one or two scenes when Kevin Klein plays Kevin Klein.

Mostly the music is incorporated into the film brilliantly, although there are moments when I thought the inclusion of a line was strained, such as when Linda dies, when the following lyric appears

Ev'ry time we say goodbye I die a little, Ev'ry time we say goodbye I wonder why a little, Why the gods above me Who must be in the know Think so little of me They allow you to go...

It was just a little too much.

The movie's end is sad, but not sentimental. I don't think it's a spoiler to say "he dies at the end"

Recommended, but not a "must see".
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The film comes to a happy ending, so I guess that's a good thing. Really enjoyable!
6 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
It would be far too simplistic to label Goldfish Memory as Love Actually meets Queer As Folk (US Version) but there are elements of both productions in this movie.

In many ways, this was the movie that "Love Actually" could have been. Unlike "Love Actually" which had too many plot lines going on, this film concentrates on three or four main plot lines and it does them well! But there are also elements of the US version of "Queer As Folk" with its emphasis on the common experience of gay and lesbian culture and the close friendships that gays and lesbians can experience. Mind you, there are shades of Go Fish when Angie describes the rather incestuous nature of a Dublin lesbian dinner party. Curiously enough, Red doesn't appear to have any gay male friends.

Actually, the two most rounded, and most interesting characters, were Red (played by Keith McErlean) and Angie (played by Flora Montgomery).

And while I really enjoyed seeing the intimacy of their friendship, I was a little disappointed when the plot line went down a predictable path. Actually, a few of the plot lines went down the predictable path and that's what I thought was a weakness in this movie.

And because of the predictability, although there are moments of genuine emotion I wasn't especially "touched" by the movie. I also thought there were moments of great implausibility; is everyone in Dublin bisexual, gay or lesbian or at least "on the turn"? The one straight male in this is Tom (played by Sean Campion, a 40 something university lecturer - who bore a remarkable resemblance to a younger Neil Tennant from The Pet Shop Boys - is the real loser. The movie starts and finishes with his tragic pickup lines about the memories of goldfish and reading Goethe in German (didn't Mouse like that in Tales Of The City, too?).

Although the version screened in Perth at the Gay & Lesbian Film Festival looked like it had been videotaped off television - complete with screen problems! - the scenery of Dublin was terrific and made me want to go back there. I'd forgotten there were so many bridges over the Liffey.

Despite some misgivings, I think it's a good film. And I can really relate to the film's central premise that, as far as love is concerned, human beings are just like goldfish which are said to have three-second memories... we forget how hard love can be when we fall in love again.

Anyway, the film comes to a happy ending, so I guess that's a good thing. Really enjoyable!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed