Ex Drummer (2007)

"Stupid cow."

When some years ago I was reading this statement, I thought this is the most offensive and mean description of a woman what somebody can say. Above the mental and physical annihilation there is one more thing: the 'dot' at the end of the statement. Not an exclamation mark, but a dot. This laconic, simple voice was the reason why I started to read Herman Brusselmans. Without any expressed emotion, only hurting people.

The story of Koen Mortier's film is quite Brusselmans-like (actually the first film from his novels): We have a famous cynical author, Dries (Brusselmans' alter ego), who teams up with three handicapped guys to form a punk-rock band for only one gig. There is a stiff arm gay one playing the bass (you really don't want to know how his arm injured..), an aggressive-brutal women torturer on a guitar and at the mic, and there is Ivan, a deaf wannabe rockstar (guitar too). Dries – without any serious problems – needs to play on a drum. He can't play on it, so this will be his disability. Their name is The Feminists. Perfect.

"Mongoloid, he was a mongoloid, happier than you and me" – says their big hit, and you receives what you need. It is hard to find less political correct movie than the Ex Drummer. And above all the aggression and hatred there is Brusselmans' sceptic, cynical, emotionless voice which kills all your remained social sympathy towards these retards. Because Dries joins the group not out of fun (that would be mean already), but only because of his new book. The reason to participate in the band grounds only on sociological reason. An emotionless research.

Mortier's film follows Brusselmans' statements but replaces the dots to exclamation marks. The movie is aggressive, explicitly brutal – sometimes without any reason or motivation. Except this I can assure all the Brusselmans fans that they will find what they are searching for. Even the "stupid cow"-like statements. According to the director's exaggerated enthusiasm (. = !), this description goes to denominate not a woman in a library (De man die werk vond, 1985) but a character's own mother...

7/10

Forbrydelsens element / The Element of Crime (1984)

"I want to see Europe again for the first time in 13 years. But Europe is not the same..."

The film is the first part of Lars von Trier's grandiose Europe-trilogy (the others are: Epidemic and Europa), definitely not the best. With its dystopian film-noir style, strange characters, imagined dark-orange world there is something unique within the film history, but it doesn't mean that the film is 'good'. I know most of the people won't agree with me, but for me this film exactly points out Trier's bluffy way of directing, just as I mentioned earlier...

Actually the story is better than the film itself: We have an English detective (Fisher) who is traveling back to Europe to solve a mysterious crime. In some imagined country there is a serial killer, who murders small girls selling lotto tickets. Harry Grey is his name, aka the 'lotto-killer'. If it wouldn't be enough he mutilates his victims with a broken bottle. The whole story is framed by a psychological hypnosis of Fisher in Cairo, where he needs help to understand what happened in Europe, or more close to Trier's intention: 'what happened WITH Europe'...

"'The Element of Crime' sets out a series of mental exercises design to improve our understanding of the behavioral pattern of a criminal."

During his investigation Fisher follows this old method written by Osbourne in his book (Element of Crime). In order to catch him he turns himself into Harry Grey. But what happens if you are going too far with this identification? Or what if the killer is changing his method?


I suggested that The Element of Crime is not the best among the trilogy, but despite of its slow start it is still worth to give a chance and watch it. Do that.

7/10

Zwartboek / Black Book (2006)

I was really curious. Everybody claimed that the Dutch Paul Verhoeven's Zwartboek is one of the best films from 2006. Yes, I asked exactly the same question: Paul Verhoeven?? If it wouldn't ring the bell, I tell you: he is responsible for the Robocop, Total Recall (ok, I agree, that's a good one), Starship Troopers or Basic Instinct, moreover after Black Book, he is shooting now the second part of The Thomas Crown Affair. Nice oeuvre, but how fits a Dutch-Dutch movie into this row? After 145 well spent minutes I try to tell.

The film which inspired by real events tells a rather adventurous story of a young Jewish girl (strong debut of Carice van Houten - next time we'll see her in Singer's highly waited Valkyrie...) during the endphase of the Second World War somewhere in the German occupied Netherlands. Sounds almost banal, maybe even familiar, but don't think that you've seen this version already. There isn't any heroism, but more pacifism (must be Verhoeven's homecoming canossa after his Hollywood bitch-trip..) - there aren't Oskar Schindlers or Itzhak Sterns, but classic brutal Nazi figures (my favorite is definitely the disgusting Franken), traitors and rats among the Dutch resistence too. And there is an absurd love which shows the Holocaust more senseless and pointless than any other desperate efforts in film history.

But what is the Black Book's secret? Why it is worth to watch? Because the film unfolds its story almost without any emotional "comments", without any handkerchief-manipulation. It says how it was, or how it could have happened, and nothing more. Series of events which are going from A point to B. Calm, dispassionate, detached, ... simple, but with an affect on you! And this is the biggest contribution from a director who could have been poisoned with the Hollywood way of emotionalizing...

(The one, who will find the scene where the Zwartboek refers to the Basic Instinct will receive my first bobbyperu award:)

9/10

OFF: macbook hd crash

imageurl="http://js-kit.com/images/star-half"
imagesize="16x15">

The title is not about a strange movie, it is the nightmarish reality: my MacBook crashed on the other day, probably the hard drive is completely dead. Luckily I made from the most important part of my work and all the movies a safety backup, but the rest (music, photos and other written stuff) is disappeared forever. R.I.P.

The local Apple retailer promised a new hd next week (they have to order from Eindhoven (NL)!), so until that time the blog is going to sleep (it's not a big fun to work on your hundred years old grandpa pc...).

I hope you will find the way back here,
see you really soon!

-10/10

Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948)

"By the time you read this letter, I may be dead..."

It seems I'm focusing on Vienna nowadays. After Haneke's fragments on the other day here is Max Ophüls' beautiful melodrama from one of the most romantic city in Europe. Let's travel back in time until 1900...

Why we love melodramas? Mostly because of their common feature: the more simple story, the higher drama. Their common denomination is the impossibility of happiness, the never happening love. Desperate romances, cruel parents, deadly triangles, fatal misunderstandings, train station good byes. But what could be the top of all melodramas? I think when the lovers even don't know each other. Within the genre it's not absurd concept at all. For example the tragedy of Ophüls' film plays with this feeling, the tragedy of an unknown woman...

I cannot and don't want to hide my enthusiasm about this film. And I like this feeling:) The originally German Max Ophüls was one of Kubrick's favorite directors, and this knowledge is not like some filmhistorical advertisement. This fact "comes down" every single second from the screen. The beautifully directed, complicated camera-movements, the professionally planned and carried out framing and lighting, the meaningful settings are creating an image of a maximalist film-auteur. Just really like Kubrick was. The whole thing is a real eye-candy for every cinephile.

How to show a woman who trapped by love? Look at this plan:

Even if you're not a fan of the genre of melodrama, just watch it because of its fluently and perfectly pronounced film language.

9/10

The Brave One (2007)

"Someone is playing God out there..."

There is a commonplace idea: if you lose somebody who is important to you, you lose a part from yourself, too. You become a different personality. This is the origo of Neil Jordan's (The Crying Game, Michael Collins, Breakfast on Pluto) new film. Not the most original idea, which means the film should have extra values to explain this simplicity.

I won't sell any spoilers to uncover the start of the diegetic situation. Erica (Jodie Foster) and David (Sayid, I mean Naveen Andrews) are the happiest couple in New York (I hope my irony is coming through. just imagine them:)), until one night they stuck in a brutal gang. After some squabble they were beaten by the cruel hooligans. David dies, Erica becomes the most charlesbronsonian "vigilante supercunt" (not my words..), some champion of justice who cleans the dirt from the city. Wow, that's all. I haven't seen such an original plot before..

So where are then the cinematic excuses to use such a simple story? Maybe the embarrassingly obtrusive "background meaning" with all the American frustration (9/11 indirectly and Iraq literally), maybe Foster's acting (ok, it was a joke), maybe the style of the movie (the wobbling, spirally moving, slowed down camera doesn't create art, rather boredom), maybe the tiresome Hollywood-criticism (while the gang is recording their deadly attack they shout "Hollywooood")?

I don't know. One thing is sure: if you're interested into these topics, this kind of mixture of style, meanings and interests you better watch any Spike Lee's joints (the most relevant is the 25th Hour).

Because what you can do with Foster's "T-shirt-message" (from bee to eagle) or with such a conversation:

"You shouldn't smoke. It will kill you."

"I don't care"

Pff, come on, it's 2007...

By the way to criticize Hollywood is your choice, but then please don't give an end of your movie like this. It meant to be a happy end, but I wasn't at all...

6/10

71 Fragmente einer Chronologie des Zufalls / 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance (1994)

"- I love you.

- What do you have? Are you drunk or what?

- Yes, why? Not too much."

Michael Haneke is one of the best misanthropic director in the film history. His films about impossible communications, alienating cities, cultural misunderstandings give a very accurate but even more painful x-ray image about our contemporary world. This early one from him is one of the best example of this interest.

"On Dec. 23, 1993, Maximilian B., a 19 years old student killed 3 people in some bank in Vienna. Shortly after that he shot himself in the head."

The movie starts with these sentences. The film shows seventy one (71) sequences (fragments) which culminates to these events. It seems that the linearly told (chronology) fragments have nothing to do with each other (by chance), but the very end of the film the cruel and impassible puzzle is going to be complete. Network narrative from its best from the art cinema (to know what I mean: the same way builds its narrative Emilio Estevez's Bobby, too).

I said Haneke's films are full with frustration and anger. His movies don't give even a weak light of hope. But not their effect. As he told in an interview: 

"The people who make entertainment movies are the pessimists. (...) The optimist tries to shake people out of their apathy."

These movies (Code Inconnu, Funny Games (1997!), Benny's Video) don't entertaining at all for sure. But don't give you a chance not to think about them after their screenings...

8/10

He Was a Quiet Man (2007)

I suppose this will be the shortest post until now...

I really don't know why and how these kind of films appear in the cinemas. I hope it's not some kind of new trend of entertaining. The film's jokes are unbelievable primitive, the characters are over-overstressed, the story is a wannabe special with its forced and fake courage. The thing is full of CGI of course, without any reason (of course), just to distract your attention from the weak concept..

Brrr. It's a shame that on the imdb this shit has 7.8 points!!! I've seen big mistakes there but this one is definitely the craziest overrating ever. 

By the way is there a new trend that people give too high points? Just because nowadays every second week there's a film which enters the top 250... Anyway, I gave my nice balancing contribution and pushed one star for Frank A. Cappello's (American Yakuza muhahaha) new "film".

Do not forget: He Was a Quiet Man: Forget it!

1/10

C'est arrivé près de chez vous / Man Bites Dog (1992)

"I usually start the month with a postman. I get up in the morning and spend it pinching pensions. At the same time this allows me to locate old folks with money."

Benoit Poelvoorde plays a crazy and obsessive Benoit, who shoots a documentary about his everyday "real" life. He is like a mixture of some French nouvelle vague hero, for example Belmondo, and the Clockwork Orange's Alex: he is chain-smoker, emotionless absurd narrator-character with dangerous, violent crazyness. You know, that type which in his kindest mood is the most dangerous.

Ops, I almost forgot: he is a serial killer-music fan-priest.

You might call this Belgian film as a black mockumentary or whatever you want. One is sure, if you like Aaltra (actually the same team did), if you want to see a flute in somebody's ass (not joking), or just if you need a fresh, new idea, Man Bites Dog will be your movie (the title is used today as a Belgian reality sketch program)! Film in a film with professional amateurism. I really don't need to write more about it. A must see!

9/10

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

Big director, big expectations, mediocre movie. Sidney Lumet was – and I believe is still – better director than this work. I mean nothing is wrong with the film, but that is the best what I can tell you about it. We have a perfect non-linear story (1 step back, 2 forward), unavoidable twists, tricky overlaps in the plot, chilly tension, drama and even / finally Marisa Tomei's boobs  on the screen (I won't copy here – the net is gonna be full with them soon..). But nothing's more, and it's just not enough from a director who is responsible for The Pawnbroker, Equus, Serpico, 12 Angry Men and so on...

By the way if we are talking about breasts: if the uniqueness of the story, or Ethan Hawke's forced and overacted play deserves zero point then Philip Seymour Hoffman will save the day (even he has definitely bigger tits than Tomei's). His entrant is quite ... how I should describe it ... "powerful" already and it's just going better during the film (in addition he has my most wanted car too). He is one of my favorite actors after the Happiness. There he was a traditional prick, but here is such a prick, who thinks he is the king of the pricks – and he thinks right without a doubt:) He even admits it:

"You're a prick, Andy"

"I always was" (– replies with the most ... prickiest (?) smile)

But this movie isn't funny at all. Everybody knows the story (only infants shouldn't read further). Two brothers (Hawke and Hoffman) going to make a "mom and pap" operation: their plan is to rob their parents jewelry shop to earn money (wow) and even more from the insurance. I think the Coens at this moment would stop to read further the story...

The film is about the antecedents and consequences of a crime. What else? Whatever.

6/10

Control (2007)

"Existence, well, what does it matter?"

These are the first words ("Heart and Soul" from the album 'Closer') of Anton Corbijn's excellent movie about Ian Curtis, the frontman of the legendary band called Joy Division. And these words will be the key for the whole (life-)story too...

It is possible if Corbijn's name is already familiar to you. For me the Dutch was the most luckiest photographer ever. I remember I learned his 'strange' name as a teenager when I was reading music magazines like Metal Hammer as a Bible, and decided to be a photograph myself (actually I became). After Jonathan Glazer's and Spike Jonze's cinematic debut I was waiting for his unavoidable film the most. When I heard that he is working on a book of Ian Curtis' widow, I knew it's gonna be something real authentic.

"We're Joy Division. You're the crowd."
I was getting familiar the band relatively late. One of my friends gave me an LP (!) around the end of the nineties, and the unique sound didn't let me leave anymore. I'm not a music critic so my explanation might be rather funny: 'my' Joy Division contains a weak but raw guitar sound, a merciless bass, and a drum which sounds like hit on a pillow. And almost forgot: the whole thing is closed in a can:). Maybe Corbijn's pictorial definition is more accurate: he gave in his movie a mixture of Bowie, Iggy Pop and The Exploited. I suppose he has right with these impressions.

I don't know and actually don't care how real is the story or how faithful is Sam Riley's act in the role of Curtis. I know one thing: his performance is brilliant. His face is the saddest I've ever seen on the canvas. The R.E.M. clown Michael Stipe's arm-gestures are a joke next to his powerful marching-lurching stage presence. We'll see him again very soon I guess...

Some line earlier I said the word 'authentic'. Corbijn just continues the British 'free cinema' where Reisz, Richardson or Anderson left it some decades earlier. He found even a "new Malcolm McDowell" too:) Just compare with the JD's guitarrist from the film (James Anthony Pearson).


Ok, with my enthusiasm I could continue until the morning. Instead of that take my advice: go back in time to the early seventies to the grey English town, Macclesfield, turn the volume to the max, and sit front of your screen. Closer...

10/10

I Am Legend (2007)

"Oh my God!"
"God didn't do this Anna. We did!"

The facts: 2009: We found the viral cure for cancer ("Dr." Emma Thompson announces our destiny). 2012: 90% of the Earth's population became a frantic zombie (their voice were vivified by Mike Patton:))). New York's only (...) survivor – Robert Neville (Will Smith arggh..) – still believes that the terrible disease reversible. His aim is to survive as long as he finds the antidote.

I could talk about the film's cinematic premises (focusing only those which based on Richard Matheson's novel). The Last Man on Earth from '64 or The Omega Man from '71 (my childhood's most disturbing cinematic experience!) are different than this version of course. You might even say those are better, and you have probably right. But I'm quite sure that Robert Neville from 2007 doesn't care with his predecessors. Leave the useless comparison too, and watch this version as an easy entertainment. Even a film critic doesn't need to be a film critic all the time.

Easy movie – easy comments. I believe this is the best way to approach Francis Lawrence's (Constantine) dollar-factory film. You shouldn't be angry because of obvious mistakes (twilight vs. shadow), forced meanings (the hollywoodish philosophy of Bob Marley), terrible CGI (the zombies seemed like copies from The Mummy but hey, that was another century!) or weak jokes (the Shrek-scene, the dog on a treadmill and actually Will Smith himself).
And hmm, somebody should tell me why playing golf expresses the best the dead city's atmosphere?

It's not worth to ruin your easy amusement to search problems. You'll find a lot I bet. I felt similar after the Transformers movie: you know exactly what kind of stupidity is on the canvas but don't want to leave the cinema. You feel how Bob Marley sung thousand times in the movie: "It's gonna be alright"...




...and finally: if you liked the film (or if you didn't) check it out in a comic form!

7/10

The Fountain (2006)

[It seems I survived the holidays, but still in Hungary, so the danger is alive: the more food the less blog entries:)]

But back to business: today's post is an old debt. Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain was released already two years ago surrounded by mostly mixed critics. I felt that I will be on the negative side of those, I tell you why. For me his earlier works were all overestimated films. Especially the Requiem for a Dream (2000), which really disappointed me (Pi (1998) was ok, but nothing else...). I remember when I've seen the Requiem first time it made me almost angry because of its attitudinize-way of storytelling and acting. After a while reading lots of positive comments and enthusiasm I gave the film another chance but the result was the same. Now you understand my feelings towards pushing finally the play button on The Fountain.

"Death is a disease. It's like any other. And there is a cure. A cure! And I'll find it."

Let's start straight. Aronofsky remained one of the most wannabe arty-farty directors in my eyes. His film is good only for one reason: You cannot avoid to think about his way of moviemaking, more precise the way how he tries to catch some art-house attention via his style or way of storytelling. You even start to think about the notions of kitsch or the pursuit of effect searching. Where are the borders of the artfilm and the desperate "claptrappy" narrations? Why I call Wong Kar Wai's or even Kim Ki-duk's films perfect kitsch and why I cannot stand the "same" from others like Aronofsky? What is the difference between mush and slush?

I have some simple feelings for these questions. I used the word 'feelings' instead of 'answers' because I understand the subjective nature of these problems. I wouldn't dare to say that Aronofsky's film is 'bad', I just feel. Myself, from my film-socialized world. I feel that the storytelling is redundant, the acting is overdone (the beautiful Rachel Weisz is just unbelievable forced here), the repetitions are too much, the style starts to ruin the story, the devotional ideology kills the film. By the way, mentioning Kar Wai: I have the same problem here as I suggested about his last movie. If you are not in a middle of a splitting up relationship, it won't work, or even worse: it is going to be kitschy. The same with The Fountain: If your actual girlfriend isn't dying (hope not), then you won't be touched at all. Because it is ""too much"".

Sorry I haven't got better explanation than this "too much" why I called this film the perfect example of a 'claptrap'.

Don't believe the imdb, it's not 7.6 at all...

5/10