Se, jie (Lust, Caution) (2007)

Do you like more Ang Lee or Wong Kar Wai? According to their complete oeuvre the answer is quite simple - at least for me. Kar-wai was always better in my eyes, the "real" Asian director: with his colours, storytelling talent, unbelievable designed clothes and interiors, perfect choice of music he embodied the 'difference', the extra value what you have never got from the Western cinema.

But 2007 came, and all these good working theories of their categorization have lapsed. They changed their roles: Kar Wai came out with some fake Hollywoodization of his whole career, which was compensated by Lee with his best movie ever. Lust, Caution contains exactly those elements, which were the ingredients of Kar Wai's mentioned 'difference'. Beautifully told story, low-key emotions mixed with stormy outbursts, unbelievable atmosphere provided by the whole design of the film, and perfect music.

It's a relief to write down these things, because the film didn't start this way. Actually it started exactly the way what made the distinction between the two directors. Women play mahjong around a table, when Mr. Yee (Tony Leung, who else?) enters the room, looking deeply at the most beautiful girl's eye and boom, there is love immediately. I just said to myself: Ok, this is Ang Lee, who isn't able to show those gentle, microscopic emotion-games, which made Kar Wai's In the Mood for Love so brilliant (if you want to know what I'm talking about, please check the latter lovers' first encounter in the staircase...). But luckily my hypotheses misled me this time: the story turns into a huge flashback (from 1942 to 1938) to show the origin of this exalted blink of an eye.

Because of the story is about Mr. Yee's and Wong Chia Chi's love; all the tragical-dramatical background is only a set around them: the drama of their relationship is a traditional love triangle, only the third pole isn't Yee's wife but the WWII, the Pacific War in Hong Kong and Shanghai. The tragedy's source isn't a third person, but the circumstances, the originally rotten situation of their "love".

To make the situation more understandable: Mr. Yee is working for the Japanese government, to serve the puppet government in Shanghai. Chia Chi is an orphan (her father left to England) who joins a theater troupe, which is actually a secret underground resistance cell with the main aim of assassinating China's traitor, Mr. Yee. Since the groupleader Kuang realizes Chi's abilities, they set up a plan: they are trying to get closer to Yee through Chi's acting "talent"...

Hidden emotions (Chi and Yee, Yee and Kuang, and the whole mahjong-table), sacrifices (Kuang's love towards the girl sacrificed for China's interest), lyings (could you lie to a face like Leung has?).

Some Chinese version of Verhoeven's Zwartboek. Hmm, actually it's a really good parallel..

8/10

Parents (1989)

[Finally I'm back to business. After a week holiday and some additional sickness I'm trying to be active again, so stay tuned.]

So, after a holiday let's start with an easy piece. At least I thought that Bob Balaban's cult movie is a perfect starter after a pause (the 'cult' isn't my definition: I found here among the top 25 cult films). "Comedy, drama, horror, mystery" - says the imdb, so it looked as a really good choice. Actually it was, but I won't tell you a secret if I express my disappointment: no, not about the film itself, but because I didn't get closer to the definition of a 'cult movie' again. Maybe it's my mistake (in the next months I'll go after this question really hard), forget it now for some weeks, and instead of some speculative theoretical explanations, focus on the film!

"Michael, the cellar is dark, your room is dark, everything is dark."

This time we have a normal family. Normal according to the standard way of living in the end of the fifties in some typical-terrible suburbs of the USA. An average middle aged mother with redred nails and already grandma haircut, then a fatface sweaty father with white socks and yellow cardigan (who call his son "sport":), and their son, Michael, a scared small guy, haunted with nightmares, who just doesn't fit to the narrow-shallow, idiot, I mean average 'family'. Or they are overly different? At least they have a real strange rule: eating meat all the time, for example every day for breakfast a fist-sized liver. For a weightlifter must be yummie, but for a 8-10 years old child it's even scary.

Michael's nightmares (shown surprisingly good in the film) are real? Or has he a bit more vivid imagination? The susburbs' fake Elvis-like happy-songs mixed with Angelo Badalamenti's sinister noise music plays with these double opportunities very well. At the end, you'll get all the answers - and you'll like it I promise. If you liked the Twilight Zone or the Tales of the Unexpected series, it's something for you.

What I really liked in this film is the following: At first sight it seems that everything is overacted, especially the parents' roles. All their adult gestures seems to be forced and that's why sometimes grotesque. But if you accept that the whole film is shown through Michael's child-point-of-view [the choosen picture is very common in the film], 

then sooner or later you'll realize that the whole theatrically overdone acting serves the aim to give you back those feelings what you felt when you've been a child. When all the adult things were strange, incomprehensible, and not only sometimes scary.

Balaban's movie brings back you in time when you've been afraid of the monsters under you bed and ghosts in the closet. When you could think that everybody is an alien around you who is playing a role in some terrible experiment (as a child I had this idea at least:), when The Stepford Wives were more a scary option for you than a sociologically motivated distopia.

I would say watch it, but for vegetarians I wouldn't recommend.

7/10

The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

[I still don't have the definition of the cult movie, but I'm working on it...]

"I would like - if I may - to take you on a strange journey" - says some odd narrator-like criminologist holding in his hand a case-book of "The Denton Affair". Yes, the movie is about a couple, Brad and Janet (by Susan Sarandon), who left Denton to visit Dr. Everett Scott (or Dr. Everett von Scott!...) in the middle of the night on a late November evening. But a huge storm crossed their way and aims, and they had to find help in a remote castle, where the "Annual Transylvanian Convention" was held. The place is full with strange characters, but the most weird is among them their leader, Dr. Frank-N-Furter, a transvestite from the transsexual Transylvania (don't ask why is the latter part of the syntagma, the reason must be some sick alliteration). Anyway, they are partying quite hard, involving the couple (for me Sarandon is the real monster with her scary huge eyes...), and creating a Frankenstein-type muscle figure called "Rocky Horror". (He isn't the scariest: my personal favorite is Riff Raff, the boss' hunchbacked servant (played by Richard O'Brian, the film's music- and screenplay writer), who's voice was later imitated by Dr. Evil from the Austin Powers series:).

Ow, I almost forgot: the film is a musical (btw you probably knew this important detail even if you haven't seen the movie - see my missing definition of the cult...). It means - what a surprise - they are singing. A lot. I mean they are communicating with each other mostly through songs. Just like you've seen in the new - mostly overestimated (by me too) - Tim Burton film. Actually it is perfect to compare these two films, ...because they are so different. The Sweeney Todd's best parts are when they are (Depp and Bonham-Carter) not singing - and Jim Sharman's RHPS's big moments are when they are. Burton's movie as a musical is a failure, Sharman's musical as a film either.

It seems I don't like the musical-films or film-musicals. But listen, here comes my real point: Have you seen Brian de Palma's Phantom of the Paradise, which was released ONE year earlier than this famous-cult (grrr) Rocky Horror PS?? If not, you should immediately! That is the movie which deserves all the appreciation and cultic status what the latter one owns. But as our heroes say: "Madness takes its toll" - it seems even in our taste and film historic honor as well.

To summarize: if you're Susan Sarandon's fan, you should watch it (let's say she isn't "overdressed") / if you want a real horror show you shouldn't (but doubtless de Palma's film) / if you like musicals you should (the music is really ok) / if you have expectations coming from its cultic fame (>†π#@!), you definitely shouldn't / in one word: this time you decide.

but at least I warned you: "Don't get hot and flustered, use a bit of mustard!" :)


5/10

The French Connection (1971)

"Mr. Devereaux, is this your first trip to New York? Why did you choose to come by ship?"

The strong Gene Hackman, the ugly Fernando Rey, and the cool Roy Scheider. Finally I paid a really old debt today when I decided to watch William Friedkin's The French Connection (5 Oscars!). I remember, when I was around ten sitting in our local movie theater waiting for the E.T. checking all the stills from the forthcoming films. It was approximately the middle of the eighties (back to my home country that time we had to wait really a lot for some of the films), and that time I was sure that this movie wasn't made for me. Blue-grey colors, dark smelly streets, raincoats and long American cars. It looked too real. Some years, even a decade later the movies from the '70s became my favorite ones, but somehow this classic slided out from my hand. I suppose the reason was the director himself. Here is the time to confess, that The Exorcist (1973) is really not among my all time best films...

But. Step back two years in time. The 'connection between the axis of Marseille and New York is about drugs of course. 1971. The streets of Brooklyn are starving for some dope; the demand is really high (higher than the under construction WTC towers already visible in the background). Alain Charnier (for me he remains Bunuel's Ray) is the French connection, who promises 60 kilograms 89% pure junk. An "absolute dynamite". According to this circumstances, he is planning to deal with the highest distributors: Weinstock is the head of the New York drug mafia, they and even more their interest found each other pretty easily. But - as it used to be - there are cops in these kind of tales, too. Popeye (Hackman's Oscar winning acting, his best after (chronologically before) as Harry Caul in Coppola's masterful The Conversation) and Russo (Scheider couldn't participate in the sequel, because he was shooting another important classic in 1975...) get the tail of the case accidentally. And these guy's instincts are never at fault. At least not in Hollywood.
What I really liked is the way how the film is developing their investigation. The movie tells as much to its viewer as Popeye and Russo understands the pieces. We learn step by step the role of all the characters, who first seem like some never solvable puzzle...

Two more things. The minimalist score is a perfect choice. Don Ellis' "music" isn't a real soundtrack, it is more only the "sound" of the heights of the scenes. Connected to this, another plus is the atmosphere: The recent American Gangster isn't a bad one at all, but I starkly assert that if Ridley Scott's film gave the real feeling of the late '60s, early '70s, then after Friedkin's atmospheric realism you might take a shower.

"Did you pick your feet in Poughkeepsie?" :))

Watch it, of course.

9/10

Á l'intérieur (Inside) (2007)

Bloody hell! And almost literally...

Some post ago I confessed that I'm not the biggest fan of the new Spanish horror-thriller stream. They are mostly stylish, wannabe shocking directors with sterile, ephemeral look. If you feel the same but still hungry for a real shocking experience, it seems you need to visit another country. I'm getting more and more convinced that France produces the most disturbing movies in our age. The warning sign was released by Alexandre Aja: he was only 25 when he shot the memorable Haute Tension in 2003, which was followed by David Moreau's and Xavier Palud's Ils (Them) in 2006. Those were definitely scary, but what I've just seen...
Now here we have another French duo: Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury made something really special, something really ................ (find a good expression which covers 'brutal', 'disgusting', 'scary', 'disturbing', 'bloody', 'terrible', 'sick' and so on!)

The "story" is quite simple. We have a pregnant girl, Sarah who suffers a car accident. Her boyfriend dies, and now she is living alone in an apartment (with a small black cat, what else..). Expecting a baby. Alone. The night before the childbirth a scary woman knocks on her door. She knows Sarah. She is not coming with empty hands: she brings your worst nightmare to the house. And a huge scissors too, of course... (After this I was sure already that Beatrice Dalle isn't 100%, this actual role is only my confirmation:).

Bustillo and Maury know a lot about film history. They are comfortable with any slasher or gore elements, but what is even better, they are familiar even with the art house as well. Antonioni (Blowup), the early Polanski (Repulsion, Rosemary's Baby), Haneke (Funny Games) are among the referred masters, depends what the story needs at a certain moment. During watching even a Japanese movie popped into my mind too: if you've seen 2LDK, then you know why:)
And here is the necessary weak point: as it used to be, the spilling blood flushes away the plot. Motivations, characters are subordinated to the arteries and other splashing organs (I know that some of you will like it especially because of this. "It can happen anytime, anywhere, without any particular reason" - But exactly that's why I believe that the "reason of the violent massacre" as a motivation is weak OR useless).

Usually I would give a tag 'watch it', but this time I need to warn you with a 'you decide' one. I'm not joking: it's really not an easy piece (see the dots above...). And one more serious advice: If you're expecting a baby you should forget it immediately.
Have a nice dream for me tonight... I hope at least.


7/10

All About Eve (1950)

What a surprise: Joseph L. Mankiewitz's film tells Eve's story. Very straight, classic, conventional and maybe a bit long.

But who is this 'Eve'?

"The golden girl, the cover girl, the girl next door, the girl from the moon. Life goes where she goes. (...) You all know all about Eve..."

...and so on. Instead of these rather gibberish explanations of the film let me make it straight: Eve Harrington is a young girl who enters the devilish registers of the New York theatre scene. Actually when the film starts she is on the top, receiving the biggest prize what an actress can get. Everybody applauds, except two women. One of them (Karen) will be our guide, as a narrator she will tell everything / All About Eve.

The other one is Margo Channing, Eve's ideal. [fade in - flashback on - we are at the beginning of the story] Channing (the vampish Bette Davis) is the biggest actress of her age and Eve worms herself into Margo's "dressing room" immediately. Through her pliable behave Eve's theatrical career kicks high - but her personal charm sinks with the same speed. The emotions change fast around her: from pity to love then fear and hate. "Eve, Eve. The Little Miss Evil."

The story is worn and known, what is more interesting is the context, the background. The New York theater scene and its anxiously scared relation to Hollywood as some feared, unknown, far threat. At the same time it is funny that this "theater film" is one of the biggest Hollywood classics ever made. We will know everything about Eve, but the film tells even more about the known but never psychologized star-system of the fifties, or about the painful generational-shift within this system, among its stars.

From this viewpoint Bette Davis' Margo is a cousin of Norma Desmond (another icon, Gloria Swanson) from Sunset Blvd. - yes, even from the same year. Their "out of fashion" characters are Hollywood's and the Broadway's nostalgic cry on the big times. Quoting Desmond and Joe Gillis from Wilder's masterpiece is the best way to express this passing 'bigness':

Gillis: "You're Norma Desmond. You used to be in silent pictures. You used to be big."

Desmond: "I •am• big! It's the pictures that got small!"

It seems I went far from Eve, but believe me: Eve's story is just some excuse to talk about this progression and the nostalgic feeling towards the good old times. And Mankiewitz speaks this language fluently.

If I was talking about the generation-shift in the system I shouldn't forget to mention that in this film appears a little star who will shine more and more in the next years... Marylin Monroe impersonating in this particular film and in reality as well all Mankiewitz's fears... The fears which appears best in the last shot with a thousand "Eve-clones" - predicted quite accurate what will happen / what happened in the last 50 years in Hollywood and in the star-system generally...

7/10

Sleuth (2007)

As you probably recognized I'm quite amazed with quotations from the movies which I review. The films are most of the time more talkative than we would think. They are using their lines like thier physical objects: there aren't guns in the films without shooting with them = there aren't sentences which haven't got any meaning or significance. At least the comparision is true according to the classic way of storytelling.

So if I need to find a talkative quotation from Kenneth Branagh's theater-like Sleuth, I would pick the following one:

"The shortest way to a man's heart as I'm sure you know, is humiliation. 

It binds you together."

And probably this would or should be enough to tell about this film. Because it's plot has secrets, twists and surprises. A lot, as we might expect from a talented writer called Harold Pinter. [OFF: Does anybody an idea how I could have his other play Betrayal directed by David Hughes Jones? There isn't available with region code 2 at the main ordering sites. ON.] Btw, if you look closer, you will find acting Pinter in the film...

According to the above mentioned twisty plot, this time I won't go any details about the mouse-and-cat story of Andrew Wyke (Michael Caine) and Milo Tindle (Jude Law). Rather telling why I gave (only) 7 points.

If you have a movie like this which has very (very..:) limited characters, you might expect some stunning performances (the screwy story itself working only one time - so the performances need to compensate on that). And you can't, an I bet won't be disappointed with such a professional (theater)actors like Caine and Law. But - and maybe you won't agree with this - I believe that this is the major problem with this film: the acting is so good what you can't stand during 90 minutes. Did you feel in the cinema that somebody made his or her role "too perfect"? I'm talking more about Law than Caine (funny fact: Caine played Law's role in the previous film version of Sleuth in 1972:). I really don't know how to express my problem, perhaps like this way: He is doing theatrical, not cinematical. Hmm, haven't got better explanation, but hopefully got my idea...

Anyway, it's not a waste of time to spend - a bit less than - 90 minutes for this (actually I really loved the brave cinematography and the whole color-palette of art design).

You can call it a benefit-performance, I would call it some kind of home theater. Literally.

7/10

Southland Tales (2006)

"This is the way the World ends. Not with a whimper but a bang."

Richard Kelly (yep, Donnie Darko!) re-written T.S. Eliot lines (The Hollow Men) are circulating for a while in different cinematic contexts, but after the Southland Tales' disasterous Cannes premiere in 2006 we had to wait more than a year to enjoy it (the original 160 minutes became 144 in the theatrical version). Kelly gave enough time to read the prequel comics which shows the first three parts of the story. Southland Tales, the movie tells the final 4th, 5th and the 6th chapters. So here is my first, crucial advice: do not watch the film before reading these comics! Download or order them I don't care, just one thing don't forget: I warned you, without them the film might be a "bit" confusing... (Even if the first ten minutes tells briefly about the previous happenings a'la The Kingdom..)

"Two identical souls are walking on the face of the Earth. What will happen if they will shake hands?"

It could have been the main question of the movie (literally it is), but you feel already that cannot be so simple in Kelly's film. What else then? Damn, I felt that I cannot avoid to answer this question...

What if Iwould say it is about the end of the World? About the dead end (what a talkative expression...) of the American politics, about the end of all the dreams of today's technical and social visions. A perfect, actual, that's why very scary distopia about our straight way to the Hell, where the teenage sex is already a pop song, where an Orwellian police (USIdent) controls all our lives, where some Neo-Marxist underground cells are the only "hope", where Boxer Santaros

(omfg: The Rock!), a very bad actor (inside and outside of the film's world, too), and Krysta Now, some

cheap porno-media celeb are the key figures, our heroes...

Everything is started with tho flashes. Almost didactic: the collapsed WTC towers in Kelly's film transformed into two devastating nuclear mushrooms. In the 4th of July (when else..), 2005 Texas disappeared from the Earth. The World War 3 started, and the unavoidable - and well known - consequence came: oil shortage hit America. Only the new juice, the so called Fluid Karma can replace it. But that one has even bigger consequences. And "This is the way the World ends..."

... and the story starts. 2008, 3rd of July, just before the new presidential elections in the USA. Familiar, isn't it?:)

It's a typical "love or hate" film. You will hate because of the terrible acting, the confusing story, the not realistic but more stylistic visuals. And you will love it because of the same. The terrible acting is part of the concept: Kelly's unbelievable brave decision to use these characters just strenghtens the desperate situation. What a world we have with this "heroes"? Then the confusing story: it isn't at all - but you need to read first the comics, as I told you. That's all. And what about reality? I'm sure that the cinematic values within the sci-fi genres were never rooted theirselves into the ground of reality. Hey, if you tell a (Southland) tale, don't be afraid to use less realistic techniques. Kubrick, Lynch, and yes, even Fellini did the same. I believe Kelly is in a very good track, and if he won't be disappointed about the temporary, ephemeral critics (that made big the mentioned directors), and realizes that the aim is not to repeat the Donnie Darko's universal success, he can be part of these cinematic elite...

A bonus picture is necessary according I mentioned Fellini. Got it?

"Have a nice apocalypse!"

10/10

Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

"There are 4 ways that I can defend a murder:

Nr. 1: It wasn't murder. It was suicide or accidental.

Nr. 2: You didn't do it.

Nr. 3: You legally justified like self defence.

Nr. 4: The killing was excusable."

Let me start with a short story. Last summer I was lucky to spend some days in Vienna. One hot night I went to a garden cinema to watch Otto Preminger's Laura (1944). Actually that's a special one according to its mysterious storytelling. I'm not talking about its story, it's about its narrative, the way how it tells a "murder" case. In 1944 that film was quite exceptional according its unmarked changes between objective and subjective sequences in its diegetic world. This typical narrative feature of art films were rediscovered again only the late ninetees in Hollywood.

But how this story connects to the other movie of Preminger, the Anatomy of a Murder from 1959? First of all this film's storytelling doesn't trick the viewer: its narrative is linear, causal, perfectly sober. Just like a juridical argument in a court, as the film actually is. Preminger's film mirrors its story in its storytelling. Just perfect. The other - maybe coincidental - detail is, that this film has its own Laura as well: and this one isn't less mysterious as the previous was 15 years earlier. After the Laura "met" last summer, my intertextual motivation (Bordwell: Narration in the Fiction Film, 1985) told me to be cautious against this "name".

So, the plot is a typical courtroom-story, from its finest: We have the brilliant James Stewart (the most sympathic character Hollywood ever had) as Paul Biegler from Iron City, the small-case lawyer (one day he was a district attorney, of course...), who gets involved into a hard case by a strange, seductive woman (Laura). He should defend Laura's husband (Ben Gazzara, ow yeah!), a murder, who killed Barney Quill, a man who raped his wife. If he raped at all... You remember, we have a Laura...

Just look at this talkative picture right in the beginning of the film: from left to right: a cagey lawyer, Jimmy Stewart, then the femme fatale-like Laura (of course behind sunglasses) and her husband, Gazzara the murder, who even himself doubts in his wife:

In the courtroom, during the trial of the case we are having more and more pieces of motifs and details, getting closer and closer to the decision of the 12 juries, but at the same time we reach less and less certainty about our characters' innocence or guilt. The movie doesn't want to judge, it lets you to make your decision. It gives what it promises: a detailed anatomy of a murder case. And it makes this really perfect!

Before watch it (for lawyers, defender or prosecutor is obligatory), just the usual small infos, these time with pictures:

- the movie's title was designed by Saul Bass, the uncrowned king of Hitchcock's and many others' collaborator (check his unbelievable impressive list here). His motivated association for Preminger' anatomy:

- the film's score was composed by Duke Ellington. Moreover he appears in the film as Pie Eye in a bar playing a four hand piano piece together with James Stewart! That's cool, really:

- and finally we have Mr. Dancer, the - almost perfect - prosecutor. Yep, George C. Scott aka Dr. Strangelove, personally:)

10/10

Le Locataire (The Tenant) (1976)

"You know, there is something odd going on in my building..."

If you know only The Ninth Gate or The Pianist from Polanski, it's better to start to watch his early movies. Because they are much much 'better'.

What 'better' means? For me the unbelievable ability to build up atmosphere. Polanski's Repulsion (my personal favourite from him: 10/10), or Rosemary's Baby (2nd fav.: 9/10. btw the worst news of the week is here) has something what cannot find easily in other movies. You need to know the early De Palma's or Roeg's films to understand what I am talking abo

ut. This ominous, cryptic mood around their narratives shaped the thrillers in the best years of American filmmaking which was definitely the seventies. Today's horrors' digitally sterile pictures and predictible flicks are far behind these masterpieces's frightful diegetic worlds.

What's their speciality? Just listen this observation of the protagonist:

"I found a tooth in my apartement. In a hole. Wrapped in a cotton wool."

What? I mean what a morbid baffling situation!

Ow, and what is the film about? I wouldn't dare to spoil your excitement, so here is the starting point of the story: Trelkovsky, the timid but curious (just you and me, right?) everyman (played by Polanski himself) is applying for an apartment in a dark, mysterious block of flats in Paris. Monsieur Zy, the owner tells him that the previous tenant, Simone Choule jumped out from the window, now she is in a hospital. Zy can't rent out the apartment until she is alive...

 

Don't let yourself mislead by these three dots. The story is much (much) more sick than you would think now:)) (Lynch learned a lot from Polanski, I mean it. Just check out one of the last scenes when the old people approaching the wounded Trelkovsky. The mysterious old couple from the Mulholland Drive is a relative of these scary ones...)

Anyway, The Tenant (atmospherically photographed by Bergman's Sven Nykvist..) is a definite must see, even if I could give only 8 points, according to the earlier mentioned favourites from Polanski.

"If you cut off my head, what would I say... Me and my head, or me and my body? What right has my head to call itself me?"

8/10

Die Fälscher (The Counterfeiters) (2007)

"Earning money as an artist?

Earning money with printing money is quicker. It's a shortcut."

1945. Monte Carlo. The WW2 is just over. A silent, mysterious man arrives. Loaded with money. A lot of money.. The camera / our view blocked for a second and suddenly we are in 1939. Berlin. Because the story, I mean The Story starts then and there...

A story which tells about the Jews, concentration camps, cruelty and humanity, Nazis (cruel and human, too, of c.) throught all the already seen stereotypes. The Austrian Stefan Ruzowitzky's – Oscar winner(!) – film doesn't show anything which wasn't shown before. His Counterfeiters doesn't do more but counterfeits the cinematically well known topic.

Terrible soundtrack, very bad acting, mediocre cinematography, almost original story. It's getting better, isn't it?:) What's original in this thousand times played situation? Maybe the Devil's circle in it. The agreement between the counterfeiter Jews and the Nazis in the kz lagers. As long as they support the Nazis with their counterfeited pounds and dollars, the war is sponsored and goes on against... the Jews. As long they won't make the banknotes, the war will be over, but then they won't be useful for the Nazis anymore. I said 'deal' – I wanted to watch it. As I said the story gives a good frame, but what's inside has nothing to do with originality or filmmaking in 2007.

This year the Oscars went quite good hands. The Coen brothers and PTA for his epic masterpiece received what they deserved. And then coming this film as the best foreign movie. It must be a really bad joke from America to claim that The Counterfeiters is the best non-American film. It's degrading to compare this against their truly good ones this year. Everybody knows (ok, except the Academy) that the best foreign (non-American) film from 2007 is Mungiu's embarrassingly perfect 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days (wasn't nominated at all). But I suppose it was written several times, several places.


"I'm not giving the Nazis the pleasure, of feeling ashamed, to be alive."

I'm not giving Hollywood the pleasure, of feeling stupid, to be proud on this.

5/10

Into the Wild (2007)

I could write really long this time, but I won't. I could write a lot about this movie to prove it how temporary are its values. But I won't because it doesn't deserve it.

The funny thing is it hides its ephemeral existence with a layer of universalism. It "tells" about the big powers of mankind, society and the original values of nature and Earth. It even uses a true story to earn dramatic sideeffects via the shown "reality". But I have to wake you up from your emotion-driven amazement to point out the real aim of this film. Actually I believe you realized yourself too that this film is a political statement of Sean Penn. It's nothings problem with his view and criticism on things of today (Bush followed by Bush), but I'd like to remind everybody that we are talking about a movie which exploits the above mentioned big values to order of its real propaganda. And that's not so nice..

"Money makes people cautious." Right, it must come from the Devil:) "Career is a 20th century invention." That's stupid, but the main idea is coming through. The elder Bush is on the tv about the neccessity of war. Understand it. We know Penn's arguments for a while, and I said it's ok, actually I agree with him some extent. But what I don't like is to use a real and actually beautiful story of Christopher Johnson McCandless to argue about this temporary shit around us. Because I'm sure that McCandless made his "breakaway" in the early nineties from the society to forget all this ephemer, petty political circus and the whole "hype" around it delivered by the so called society. I'm sure he never wanted to be a protagonist of a film, especially not in that one which exploits his character in order to force through some temporary message.

Next to this ethical question the biggest problem of this film is its demagogy. It formulates its real aims too obvious. I know if you want to deliver a successful propaganda you shouldn't need to be too complicated and indirect. But then don't be surprised if the protagonist draws the conclusion right into your face: "Happiness is only real when shared." McCandless needs to die to prove us: if you leave society you won't solve the problem. You need to change the world around you. Actively. Now.

That's what I call disgusting demagogy (Of course the film landed within the best 150 film ever made on the imdb. Ridiculous. America's conscience through the small stars).

Kerouac, Rousseau and now this poor McCandless are turning/disturbed in their graves. They are used for something they never wanted to express. How his diary says? "Ultimate freedom. No phone, no pool, no pets, no cigarettes." That's right, but then no politics either please.

Shame on you Mr. Bush. Shame on you Mr. Penn.

3 stars for the soundtrack by Eddie Vedder and 2 for Emile Hirsch who is really getting better and better actor.

bonus: pictures of McCandless' real and the film's "magic bus":

5/10