tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20773245374785917452024-03-14T06:13:47.331+01:00Elias and the MoviesMovie Reviews (and related stuff).Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-88256078070573433462017-07-29T15:42:00.000+02:002017-07-29T17:25:43.775+02:00Dunkirk (2017)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="20" data-original-width="60" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oxLMulvDfxw/TiLbd5naMtI/AAAAAAAAAFI/ipZl3dOLrSc1yA7VSt3wjmJwoXt5opRsACPcBGAYYCw/s1600/3%2Bstars.gif" /> - <u><b>Suspense/Expense</b></u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Wie Sardinen in der Dose stehen die alliierten Soldaten am Pier von Dünkirchen. 400 000 Mann sind 1940 am Strand der französischen Stadt eingekesselt. Vor Ihnen die raue See, im Rücken die feindlichen Linien, über Ihnen fallende Bomben. Angespannt warten sie und hoffen auf ein Schiff, das sie rechtzeitig nach Hause bringt. Die Zeit tickt. Jede Sekunde kann es zu spät sein.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a>Es ist eine beispiellose Rettungsaktion des zweiten Weltkrieges. Erstmals macht Regisseur und Produzent Christopher Nolan ein historisches Ereignis zur Grundlage seiner Geschichte. Doch anstatt seinen Film in politische Kontexte einzubetten, wählt Nolan eine introspektive Herangehensweise. Reduziert im Inhalt, steht die Form hier an erster Stelle.<br />
<br />
Schon mit der ersten Einstellung platziert Nolan den Zuschauer direkt in der Mitte des Geschehens. Miterleben steht im Fokus. Die Einführung beschränkt sich auf kurze Zwischentitel und ein Flugblatt, das die beklemmende Lage visualisiert. Von da an bleibt die Kamera meist dicht an den Figuren. In drei parallel laufenden Handlungssträngen folgen wir dem Ereignis auch in der Luft aus dem Cockpit eines Piloten und auf dem Schiff eines Rettungsteams. Die unterschiedliche Erfahrung der sich überschneidenden Ereignisse wird dabei hin und wieder herausgestellt. Nolans Ziel ist dabei jeweils eine möglichst subjektive Wahrnehmung aufzuzeigen.<br />
Der Zuschauer erlebt hautnah die Angst und Beengung durch den Verzicht auf Establishingshots und einer Außenperspektive. Close Up-Aufnahmen der Gesichter werden meist nur mit Totalen und Panoramaeinstellungen kontrastiert, um das Gefühl von Verlorensein und Isolation greifbarer zu machen. Der Film spielt so mit der Gleichzeitigkeit von Nähe und Distanz. Fast schon kann man die britische Küste vom Strand aus sehen. Die Rettung scheint so nah und ist doch so fern. Der Tod ist omnipräsent. Der Eindruck der Ausweglosigkeit wird weiter verstärkt, da den feindlichen Soldaten kein Gesicht gegeben wird. Oft sind nur Einschläge von Kugeln und Bomben zu sehen oder zu hören. Die Soundkulisse peitscht von Beginn an nervös nach vorn und kündigt die ringsum lauernde Gefahr an. So soll durchgehende Anspannung erzeugt werden. Man ist der Situation ausgeliefert. <br />
<br />
Eine Pause gibt es auch für den Zuschauer nicht. Im Krieg ist keine Zeit für inhaltliche Ausschmückung, Figurenzeichnung oder viele Dialoge - letztere gehören weiter zu den Schwächen des Films, wenn sie dann doch auftauchen. Damit rudert Nolan erzähltechnisch zurück und entfernt sich einerseits von der eher konventionellen Dramaturgie und Gefühlsduselei von Interstellar und auch von den oft kritisierten Vorwürfen, seine Filme zu sehr zu erklären, wie beispielsweise in Inception. Das tut auf der einen Seite gut, da sich der Film aufs Wesentliche konzentriert. Auf der anderen bieten seine Figuren, die auch von eher unbekannten Schauspielern verkörpert werden, hier kaum Idenfikationspotenzial, was die emotionale Anteilnahme erschwert. Auch der Zuschauer schwimmt etwas zwischen Nähe und Distanz.<br />
<br />
Vielmehr setzt Nolan auf die Techniken des Suspense. Zeit wird im Film dabei zum unsichtbaren Antagonisten. Ein Ultimatum jagt das andere, während die Konflikte sich zuspitzen. Wann kommen die Rettungsboote? Wie lange hält die Verteidigungslinie? Wann folgt der nächste Luftangriff? Wie lange reicht der Treibstoff? Wann kommt die Flut? Wie lange reicht die Luft, um nicht zu ertrinken? Nicht immer gelingt es aber die Szenen zur vollen Entfaltung umzusetzen. Um die Spannung zusätzlich aufrechtzuerhalten, manipuliert Nolan die Zeit seiner Erzählung. Die erzählte Zeit seiner drei Handlungsstränge variiert von einer Woche zu einem Tag und einer Stunde. Alle drei sind allerdings über die gesamte Erzählzeit verteilt. Das nebeneinander ausspielen führt zu einer scheinbaren Gleichzeitigkeit und einer Verdichtung der Ereignisse. Auch das Zeitgefühl wird dadurch, wenn man so will, relativiert, was wiederum mit der Subjektivität einhergeht. Anders als bei Inception hat die narrative Raffung aber keine inhaltliche Verknüpfung. <br />
<br />
So fehlt es auch an einem vergleichbar orchestrierten Finale und einer zufriedenstellenden Katharsis. Das Ende erscheint auch dadurch, dass die Dramaturgie wenig Höhen und Tiefen bietet, sondern von der stetigen Spannung lebt, recht plötzlich und fast beiläufig einzutreten. Das wirkliche Ausmaß des Ereignisses wird nur in wenigen Einstellungen deutlich. Auch das ist ein Nachteil der subjektiven Erzählung. Durch den Verzicht auf übertriebenen Bombast und Charakterisierung bleibt nur der Moment. Mit Dunkirk hat Nolan ein spannendes Konzept umgesetzt, dass aber gleichzeitig etwas unterkühlt und kalkuliert wirkt.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-eMt3SrfFU" target="_blank">Dunkirk Youtube-Trailer</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-5151164425205130992017-05-27T14:48:00.003+02:002017-05-27T14:49:50.057+02:00Sieben Minuten nach Mitternacht (2016)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" data-original-height="20" data-original-width="80" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CPSwrajb1OA/TiLbdW2YBvI/AAAAAAAAAF0/ZHvYC1vLwLYwbLR6Z5iom3HgXj7-odwAQCPcB/s1600/3%2Band%2Ba%2Bhalf%2Bstars.gif" /> <b><u>- Märchenhafte Trauerbewältigung</u></b></div>
<u><b><br /></b></u>Schweißgebadet wacht Conor in seinem Bett auf. Den introvertierten Jungen plagen nachts Alpträume. Tagsüber muss sich Conor nicht nur um sich selbst kümmern, sondern auch um seine schwerkranke Mutter. In der Schule hat er es nicht leicht. Er wirkt müde, sein Gesicht ist blass. Einzig mit seiner Mutter kann er hin und wieder lachen. Die meiste Zeit jedoch verbringt Conor allein und zurückgezogen, bis eines Nachts um sieben Minuten nach Mitternacht ein ungewöhnlicher Gast vor seinem Fenster steht...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Von seinem Zimmer aus blickt man direkt auf den Friedhof, auf die Kirche und eine große alte Eibe. Drei zentrale Motive des Films sind hier zusammengefasst: der Tod, der Glaube und die Lebenskraft. Wie bereits in seinen vorigen und mitunter sehr empfehlenswerten Filmen "The Impossible" und "Das Waisenhaus" befasst sich Regisseur J.A. Bayona mit existenziellen Themen. Der Umgang mit Tod und Verlust steht dabei im Vordergrund. Für den heranwachsende Conor ist es eine besonders schwere Aufgabe, der ohnehin nach Halt und Orientierung sucht, die ihm durch seine Lebensumstände verwährt bleiben. Da ist es kein Wunder, dass der Junge seine Emotionen nicht unter Kontrolle hat.<br />
<br />
Mit dem regelmäßigen Auftauchen des nächtlichen Besuchers wird Conor mit seiner Situation konfrontiert. Die narrative Verknüpfung von Realität und Fantastik ist wunderschön inszeniert. In visuell berauschenden Sequenzen aus weichen Zeichungen, farbenfrohen Malereien und atmosphärischen Animationen entführt das Wesen in märchenhafte Erzählungen von Hexen, Prinzen und Priestern. Die Gleichnisse stecken voller Lebensweisheiten und reflektieren die zentrale Handlung des Films, um seiner Hauptfigur Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten aufzuzeigen. Gleichsam ist auch der ganze Film dem Zuschauer ein Beispiel einer sehr differenzierten Auseinandersetzung mit dem Ernst des Lebens ohne einfache Lösungen und ohne eindeutige Wahrheiten. Außer der, dass der Tod dazu gehört.<br />
<br />
Von Ignoranz über Schuld, bis Verzweiflung und Katharsis - der Film zeigt alle Stadien der Trauerbewältigung in einem durchgehend nachvollziehbaren Prozess. Ein Prozess, in dem alle Gefühle berechtigt sind und in dem auch Widersprüche existieren können. Ebenso regt der warmherzige Film an zum Weinen und zum Freuen. Trotz des traurigen Sujets steht im Fokus des Films die Resilienz. Die Fähigkeit zu Akzeptanz und Überwindung. Die Ressourcen, dies zu kanalsieren und in die richtigen Bahnen zu lenken, sind alle da. Distanzierung, Glaube, Liebe und Lebenskraft. Wundervoll berührend in der künstlerischen Abstraktion und Bearbeitung dargestellt, verdient dieser Film den (vielleicht offensichtlichen) Vergleich zu einem Werk wie Guillermo del Toros "Pans Labyrinth". Fantastisch.<br />
<br />
<u>TRAILER:</u><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2Xbo-irtBA" target="_blank">Sieben Minuten nach Mitternacht Youtube-Trailer</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-38873665887446550992016-12-05T23:09:00.000+01:002017-01-27T17:35:50.309+01:00Nocturnal Animals (2016 - GERMAN ONLY)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oYD-EARV5Eo/TiLbeWnXA5I/AAAAAAAAAFQ/slES2OUJLPUjhND8UZrfsNUP2_rQQo3CACPcB/s1600/4%2Bstars.gif" /> <b><u>- Parasozialer Thriller</u></b></div>
<br />
Nocturnal Animals erzählt dem Zuschauer zwei Geschichten zum Preis von einer. Beide Handlungsstränge haben eine gemeinsame Schnittmenge, funktionieren aber auch unabhängig von einander. Dreh- und Angelpunkt ist die deprimierte Kuratorin Susan. In ihrer Arbeit sieht sie keinen Wert, in Ihrer Ehe ist die Kommunikation längst gestört und Schlaf findet sie schon lange keinen mehr. In jedem Blick kann man Schauspielerin Amy Adams dabei die Leere und Melancholie von den Augen ablesen. Als sie von ihrem Ex-Mann Edward (Jake Gyllenhall) einen selbstverfassten Roman mit dem Titel "Nocturnal Animals" geschickt bekommt, holen sie alte Wunden aus der Vergangenheit ein...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Susans Leben ist eine tragische Geschichte über Liebe, Verlust und Glück. Adams meistert es darin, mit wenigen Mitteln viel zu transportieren und das Innenleben der in sich gekehrten Susan sichtbar zu machen. Wie die Figur fühlt sich der Zuschauer in ihrem Zustand gefangen. Beim Lesen des Buches "Nocturnal Animals" muss sie immer wieder unterbrechen, so sehr wird sie von den Zeilen eingenommen. Es ist allein diese Erzählung innerhalb der Geschichte, die einen zufriedenstellenden Film hätte darstellen können. Was Susans Ehemann im Film zu Papier gebracht hat, ist ein packender Thriller, der direkt und in höchster Intensität auf der Leinwand in Bilder übersetzt und dem Zuschauer präsentiert wird. Jake Gyllenhall übernimmt dabei auch die Rolle der Buchfigur Tony Hastings, der Opfer eines entsetzlichen Verbrechens wird. Hilfe findet er bei einem texanischen Sheriff, der nichts mehr zu verlieren hat. Gespielt wird er brillant von Michael Shannon. Ebenso wie er, geben Gyllenhall und Adams einige der beeindruckendsten Performances des Jahres ab.<br />
<br />
Außergewöhnlich an Nocturnal Animals, dem Film, ist letztlich, wie unscheinbar und clever Tom Ford beide narrativen Ebenen ineinander verschwimmen lässt. Mit viel Liebe zum Detail konstruiert er Verknüpfungspunkte, die beide Geschichten zusammen in einen neuen Bedeutungsrahmen stellen und damit praktisch zu einer dritten, vollständigen Erzählung machen. Handlungen und Gefühle werden rekontextualisiert. Körper, Figuren und Rollen werden geschickt verschoben, um sowohl bei den Figuren, als auch beim Zuschauer Perspektivwechsel zu erzeugen und die Figuren und Emotionen erfahrbar zu machen. Der perfekt inszenierte Film und seine Geschichten ziehen einen von Beginn an in seinen Bann. Das Entstehen der beidseitigen Beziehung und Verbindung zwischen Zuschauer und Figur durch Identifikation und Mitfühlen mit den Figuren in einer Art parasozialen Interaktion wird vom Film in doppelter Weise instrumentalisiert, um auch seinen eigenen Figuren Entwicklungen zu eröffnen und deren emotionale Reise dramaturgisch noch greifbarer zu machen. Beide Handlungsstränge münden so in ein bitterböses Ende, das dem Zuschauer und der Figur Susans Schicksal vor Augen führt.<br />
<br />
Ästhetisch atemberaubend inszeniert von Regisseur Tom Ford, der bereits mit seinem Debüt "A Single Man" viele Kritiker beeindrucken konnte, entpuppt sich der Film als vielschichtiges, intelligent verwobenes Drama, das auch eine ganz elementare Kraft des Geschichtenerzählens zelebriert.<br />
<br />
<u>TRAILER:</u><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-H1Ii1LjyFU" target="_blank"><br />Watch the trailer for "Nocturnal Animals" on YouTube</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-49727159155190579912016-11-07T23:18:00.000+01:002017-05-19T16:17:43.649+02:00The Accountant (2016 - GERMAN ONLY)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-500c9WcqR9Q/TiLbei1hxdI/AAAAAAAAAFY/vghCJV8GfmIkkH3V9rVqFRLjZhqZstQ5ACPcB/s1600/star-full.gif" /> <u><b>- Bilanz: Chaos!</b></u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Ein Buchhalter (englisch: Accountant) zeichnet sich unter anderem aus
durch genaues Arbeiten. Beim Überwachen und Erfassen von
Finanzgeschäften eines Unternehmens zum Beispiel sollte alles geordnet
und übersichtlich ablaufen. Wenn das Drehbuch für diesen Film die Bücher
über die Bilanzen eines Betriebs darstellen würden, würden die Behörden
sicherlich schnell mit dem Hammer auf den Tisch hauen. Hier herrscht
absolutes Chaos!<br />
<div class="defaultbox">
<div class="rubrikLine">
</div>
<div class="rubrikLine">
<a name='more'></a>Wer schon mal
ein Drehbuchseminar besucht hat, hat sich zu Beginn eines
Schreibprozesses oft folgende Frage zu stellen: Welche Geschichte möchte
ich eigentlich erzählen? Was ist der Kern meiner Story?</div>
</div>
Im Falle von
"The Accountant" wurde diese Frage definitiv übergangen. So sehr, dass
es fast schon amüsant ist. Hier werden so viele Geschichten begonnen,
nicht zu Ende erzählt oder aus dem Nichts herauf beschworen, dass es
schwer ist, einen roten Faden auszumachen. Diese Kritik ist auch
ein Versuch, den Plot irgendwie nachzuvollziehen.<br />
<br />
Der Film beginnt mit einem Prolog, der sich später als Backstory
herausstellt. Backstory zu einem Handlungsstrang, der letztlich für die
Haupthandlung keine direkte Rolle spielt - mit einer Ausnahme: noch mehr
Backstory zur Verfügung zu stellen. J. K. Simmons spielt dabei ein
hohes Tier bei der Steuerfandung (oder beim FBI?) kurz vor der
Pensionierung, der eine hervorragend ausgebildete junge Frau namens
Marybeth Medina anstellt, um die Identität eines Mannes herauszufinden,
den alle nur den "Accountant" nennen. Auch sie hat nebenbei bemerkt eine
kriminelle Vergangenheit. Welches Ziel Simmons dabei eigentlich
verfolgt ist nicht so ganz klar.<br />
Gleichzeitig spinnt der Film einen weiteren Faden, der ebenfalls
Backstory ist: Ein Ehepaar leidet unter der Autismusstörung eines ihrer
beiden Kinder. Während die Mutter das Kind in eine Einrichtung geben
will, entscheidet der dominierende Vater, den Sohn selbst zu erziehen.
Dabei wendet der Army General fragwürdige und teils sehr lächerliche
Methoden an. Seine engstirnige Weltsicht und seine pathetischen
Moralvorstellungen lassen ihn zur Karikatur werden. Wer anders ist, wird
nicht akzeptiert und muss kämpfen - im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes. Zum
Augenverdrehen ist die Szene, in der die beiden Söhne in fernöstlich
anmutendem Stil in der Kampfkunst unterrichtet werden. An und für sich
hätte das Familiendrama rund um den Vater-Mutter-Kind Konflikt aber
vielleicht Potenzial gehabt. Gerade wenn man dabei noch den Umgang mit
Autismus ins Zentrum gerückt und ernsthaft beleuchtet hätte.<br />
Die eigentliche Story des Films ist aber eine andere: Ben Affleck
spielt den mittlerweile erwachsenen autistischen Buchhalter, der von
einer Firma angeheuert wird, deren Finanzen zu überprüfen, wodurch er
auf kaum nachvollziehbare Weise auf der Abschussliste übler Gangster
landet. Angeheuert werden diese vom selben Firmenoberhaupt, der zuvor
noch selbst den Buchhalter engagiert hatte und den kaum ausgefeilten
Antagonisten mit schwachem Motiv (Geld) darstellt. In einem Subplot wird
eine zweite Führungsperson derselben Firma aufgrund von
Geldwäschegeschäften bereits von denselben Kriminellen erpresst. <br />
Nebenbei
trifft Affleck auf eine Kollegin, gespielt von Anna Kendrick, die
(natürlich) als Love Interest auftritt und ebenfalls um ihr Leben
fürchten muss. Affleck spielt dabei eigentlich grandios trocken und mimt
den sozial ungeschickten Buchhalter wirklich glaubwürdig. Für kurze
Zeit stimmt bei den beiden auch die Chemie. Aber auch der Ansatz des
Autisten, der doch noch Gefühle für einen Menschen entwickelt, wird
nicht wirklich verfolgt - obwohl er dennoch sein Leben für Kendrick aufs
Spiel setzt. Vielmehr heißt es ab hier: sich retten, eine Menge
Bösewichte töten und fliehen. Warum steht nicht so genau in den Büchern.
Kendrick jedenfalls, jetzt weniger glaubwürdig, nimmt die plötzlich
ausufernde Gewalt ziemlich gelassen hin.<br />
<br />
Währenddessen werden immer wieder neue Rückblicke ausgegraben. Über
Afflecks Familie. Über eine Beerdigung. Über einen Mittelsmann im
Militärgefängnis. Über Geschäfte mit Drogenkartellen, Mafiafamilien und
Waffenhändlern. Über eine Schießerei. Das meiste davon wird von J. K.
Simmons Figur in einem langen Vortrag erzählt - selten ungeschickte Exposition und das noch spät im zweiten Akt. Was hat das nun mit
irgendwas zu tun, fragt man sich. Warum ist das nun relevant? Und wie
lange geht der Film wohl noch?<br />
Immerhin bleibt sich dieser wirre, katastrophal erzählte Plot am Ende
insofern treu. Der in jeder Hinsicht lächerliche "Pay-Off" macht
dramaturgisch schlicht und einfach keinen Sinn.
Denn das Ende des Films ist das Ende zu einer Geschichte, die nicht
erzählt wurde.<br />
<br />
<u>TRAILER:</u><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBfsgcswlYQ" target="_blank">Watch the Trailer for "The Accountant" on YouTube</a> Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-73992670556361647672016-01-07T23:29:00.000+01:002016-12-08T23:30:41.102+01:00The Revenant (2016 - GERMAN ONLY)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CPSwrajb1OA/TiLbdW2YBvI/AAAAAAAAAF0/ZHvYC1vLwLYwbLR6Z5iom3HgXj7-odwAQCPcB/s1600/3%2Band%2Ba%2Bhalf%2Bstars.gif" /> <u><b>- Filmische Belastungsprobe</b></u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The Revenant ist eine Belastungsprobe für den Zuschauer. Vom ersten bis
zum letzten Moment eine viszerale filmische Erfahrung, ein rasanter,
kompromissloser Survival-Trip, der in seiner Inszenierung an Mel Gibsons
"Apocalypto" erinnert. Zuschauer sollten sich warm anziehen!</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a>In der
eisigen Wildnis im Nordamerika der 1820er Jahre zeichnet der Film eine
Welt bestimmt von roher Gewalt. So wunderschön die Natur sein mag, so
ist sie gleichsam tödlich. Überleben scheint unter diesen extremen
Bedingungen kaum vorstellbar. Die Naturgewalt wird hier zu einem
omnipräsenten Charakter, die im Kinosaal spürbar wird.Durch die raue
Landschaft kämpfen sich einige Trapper. Sie sind auf der Jagd nach
Fleisch und Fellen. Der Kundschafter Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio)
streift mit seinem Sohn durch den Wald als das Lager von Indianern
überfallen wird. Das Chaos der Schlacht wird durch die Kamera in
perfekter Choreographie festgehalten und platziert den Zuschauer hilflos
in der Mitte des Geschehens. Die Kamera bewegt sich wie ein eigener
Akteur durch die Menge, schwingt sich auf Pferde im vollem Galopp oder
taucht ab ins kalte Wasser eines Flusses. Mal bleibt sie nah an den
Figuren, mal schaut sie orientierungslos umher. Wie schon bei "Birdman"
wird oft über lange Zeit auf Schnitte verzichtet. Das brutale Gemetzel
wird fast zu einem poetischen Tanz.<br />Nur wenige der Männer können
fliehen. Es beginnt eine Odysee durch dichte Wälder, reißende Flüsse und
über schneebedeckte Berge. Es zählt nur noch eins: Überleben. Im
Angesicht des Todes beginnt die Gemeinschaft bald zu bröckeln...<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Alejandro González Iñárritu schafft hier zusammen mit Kameramann
Emmanuel Lubezki ein archaisches Epos, das teilweise unglaubliche Szenen
bietet, die man so vielleicht noch nie im Kino gesehen hat.
Insbesondere ein Kampf bis aufs Blut mit einem ausgewachsenen
Grizzlybären bleibt als atemberaubendes Set-Piece in Erinnerung.<br />
Sein Mensch-gegen-Natur Rachefeldzug greift dabei einige von
Iñárritus gängigsten Themen wie Verlust und Verrat auf, kann aber auch
als Statement zum Klimawandel gelesen werden. Das einzige, was in dieser
Welt, in der jeder gegen jeden kämpft und wo gut und böse miteinander
verschmelzen, noch von Wert ist, scheint dabei die Familie zu sein. Aber
wie in seinen anderen Filmen sind die zwischenmenschlichen Beziehungen
von Natur aus flüchtig und zerbrechlich.<br />
Was vor allem verblüfft, ist auch, wie radikal Iñárritu mit seiner
zweieinhalbstündigen Tour de Force die Grenzen des Mainstreamkinos
auslotet. Denn eigentlich lädt er hier mit Hilfe des vielleicht größten
Schauspielstars der Welt zu einem künstlerisch-angehauchten 135
Millionen Dollar teuren Genrefilm ein, der nicht nur aufgrund seiner
fast grotesken Gewaltdarstellungen die Ausdauer der Zuschauer fordert.
Die Preview-Vorstellung war brechend voll - von jung bis alt. Und
schaute man sich um, endeckte man schnell den ein oder anderen, der hier
wohl mit falschen Vorstellungen ins Kino gegangen war. Über große
Zeitspannen kommt der Film fast ohne Dialog aus und testet ausgedehnt
die Belastbarkeit des menschlichen Körpers. Dabei wird aber auch die
menschliche Geduld strapaziert. Insbesondere wenn Iñárritu wie so oft
zusätzlich überirrdische Motive einführt und sich in unnötigen
esoterischen Metaphern verliert. Die zweite Hälfte des Films kriecht im
wahrsten Sinne des Wortes oft dahin und kann nicht mehr an die schiere
Extase der ersten Stunde anknüpfen. Es ist ein anstrengender filmischer
Exzess am Limit und darüber hinaus. Die Story ist für die Laufzeit
letztlich doch etwas zu dünn und der Showdown eher ein Letdown.<br />
Nichtsdestotrotz ist es die Kühnheit des Spagats zwischen
wunderschöner, perfektionierter Inszenierung und rauem, düsterem
Existenzialismus, der große Teile des Films zu einem faszinierenden,
einzigartigen Erlebnis machen, bei dem eine Frage mehr als einmal
aufkommt: wie haben die das nur gedreht?<br />
<br />
<u>TRAILER:</u><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoebZZ8K5N0" target="_blank">Watch the trailer for "The Revenant" on YouTube</a> <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-89784867776395695512015-10-05T23:33:00.000+02:002016-12-09T18:40:21.847+01:00Sicario (2015 - GERMAN ONLY)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oxLMulvDfxw/TiLbd5naMtI/AAAAAAAAAFI/ipZl3dOLrScBU60paXiCaJmEXe--Z8qVACPcB/s1600/3%2Bstars.gif" /> <u><b>- Verloren im Drogensumpf</b></u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
Die ambitionierte FBI-Agentin Kate (Emily Blunt) führt ein SWAT-Team im
Kampf gegen die Drogenkartelle in den USA. Ihre Qualifikation verschafft
ihr einen Platz in einer Sondereinheit, die direkt an der mexikanischen
Grenze operiert. Kate ist schnell von der Härte des Vorgehens der
Einheit schockiert. Dienst nach Vorschrift ist hier Fehlanzeige.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Wer sich über die Frau in der vermeintlichen Hauptrolle freut, der
könnte enttäuscht werden. Denn die wird aufgrund ihrer sehr undankbaren
Position in all dem Trubel eher an den Rand gedrengt. Denis Villeneuves
actiongeladener Beitrag zum Kampf gegen die Drogen ist packend in Szene
gesetzt und vermittelt einen stimmigen Gesamteindruck. Den ein oder
anderen Denkanstoß findet man in dem Blockbuster auch, wenn man will.
Was Plot und Figuren angeht, ist der Film jedoch eher eintönig.<br />
So bleibt der ehrgeizigen Idealistin Kate nichts anderes übrig, als
sich den Befehlen ihrer männlichen Kollegen, angeführt vom arroganten
CIA-Agenten Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), unterzuordnen. Fast könnte man
dabei einen Exkurs in die Genderdebatte in Hollywood unternehmen.<br />
Während diverse Zielpersonen verfolgt, verhört und eliminiert werden,
um den dahinterstehenden Drahtziehern näher zu kommen, bleibt die
FBI-Agentin stets im Hintergrund und im Unwissen über den eigentlichen
Zweck der Operationen. Ihr ist nicht einmal klar, mit wem genau sie
zusammenarbeitet.<br />
Ins Zentrum des Films drängt sich Benicio Del Toro als mysteriöser
"Spezialist" für die Angelegenheit. Was genau seine Funktion und
Motivation ist, bleibt lange im Dunkeln. Nach einem furiosen Auftakt
hängt der Film deswegen im Mittelteil etwas durch, in dem der Plot ohne
Tiefgang an Zuschauer und Protagonistin vorbeizieht. Nicht zuletzt liegt
das natürlich auch wieder an der Passivität der Heldin, die den
Umständen ausgeliefert ist und ihrem Ausgangsmuster auch treu bleibt,
und dadurch kaum Spielraum für Entwicklung bekommt.<br />
<br />
In seinen besten Momenten wirkt "Sicario" tatsächlich wie ein
Kriegsfilm und ruft dabei unter anderem die chaotisch-hektischen
Gefechte aus "Black Hawk Down" und andere klassische Bilder in
Erinnerung. An drastischen Gewaltdarstellungen mangelt es dabei auch
nicht. Die Intensität der Gewalt und ihre ausufernden Ausmaße sind in
der Inszenierung durchgehend zu spüren. Kontrastiert wird dies immer
wieder durch die wunderschönen Bilder und Landschaftsaufnahmen von
Kameramann Roger Deakins.
<br />
Das Highlight bilden ein paar hochspannende Mann-gegen-Mann
Konfrontationen, wenn auch persönliche Konflikte in der Handlung nie
wirklich zum Tragen kommen.<br />
Ebenso wird die Bedrohung erschreckend greifbar. Der Krieg ist außer
Kontrolle geraten und spielt längst nicht mehr weit weg auf einem
anderen Kontinent, sondern zu Hause, direkt in den Städten. Während in
einer Straße die Kinder Fußball spielen, tobt in einer anderen ein
Feuergefecht. Klare Grenzen sind nicht mehr erkennbar.<br />
Auch Kate wird immer mehr klar, worauf sie sich hier eingelassen hat
und wie tief der Drogensumpf tatsächlich ist. Ihre Macht- und
Hilflosigkeit steht sinnbildlich für eine Politik, der scheinbar die
Ideen ausgehen, dem Problem Herr zu werden.<br />
Am Ende scheint die Botschaft die Einsicht zu sein, dass dieser
Guerillakrieg kaum zu gewinnen ist und man neue Wege finden muss, sich
der Situation anzupassen. Regeln und Moral scheinen dabei längst unter
Kollateralschaden verbucht zu werden.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
TRAILER:<br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PwwJ-18Y9g" target="_blank">Watch the trailer for "Sicario" on YouTube</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-72554988790923715412013-10-11T19:59:00.000+02:002013-10-15T20:00:25.660+02:00Rush (2013)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CPSwrajb1OA/TiLbdW2YBvI/AAAAAAAAAEI/1IZswy02LPc/s1600/3+and+a+half+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- This one's got a drive!</u></b> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Rush
is one of those movies that work so well that it will make someone who
is not interested in its basic setting in the motorsports world enjoy
this hell of a ride from start to finish.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a>Those
endless moments before the race begins, when the drivers start their
screaming engines for the first time, when every one of them is fiercely
waiting for the go, when nothing else matters for them and all thoughts
are focused exclusively on the situation, this is when the audience in
the theater can experience the adrenaline-fueled excitement that racing
seems to provide for these maniacs in their cars. Like a sacred ritual,
and with a sound that leaves your theater's seats vibrating, the opening
of "Rush" lifts the sport in new dimensions and makes it seem bigger
than it probably is - at least for most people. The visceral thrill
aside some of the magnifying input at the beginning of the film about
the drivers and their reckless undertaking of risking their lives every
time behind the wheels may seem a little pathetic at first but as we get
on, it will seem more and more appropriate as we take a close look at
two of them.<br />
<br />
Based on true events the film tells the
story of Niki Lauda and James Hunt and their rise to the top of Formula
One racing in the 1970s. The austrian born Lauda turns to racing early
in his life against the will of his parents. Without any support the
disciplined guy is working day and night to reach his goal. German actor
Daniel Brühl convincingly adapted the dialect in a very well rounded
performance.<br />
<br />
He has to start off his career from
scratch but his driving talent as well as technical expertise soon pay
off as he becomes a famous name in some of the more marginal racing
series. From the very beginning there is one English competitor giving
him a hard time on the circuits. Chris Hemsworth is taking on the role
of the tall, blonde womanizer James Hunt. When he is not driving he
seems to be more concerned with parties and alcohol. His temper and
unreliableness make it hard to find sponsoring for his racing team, or a
racing team to work with in the first place. But on a good day with a
good car he will do absolutely anything to be the first crossing the
finish line. It's some good work by Hemsworth who is best known for
blockbuster roles such as 'Thor'. He presents James Hunt not as a
superhuman racing star, but as a conflicted soul who just can't stop to
search for the kick of battling others going 300 kilometres per hour.
Before every race he throws up. It's the compulsive nature of his
obsession that is driving him. He shares it with Lauda. The two are
constantly competing also in private and in the media. They couldn't be
more different unless of course it's about their driving-ego.<br />
<br />
We
follow Lauda and Hunt through this period of their lives with all
sacrifices and succes all the way to the infamous championship of 1976.
But the film is not about fast cars. It's not a film about racing, even
though those sequences are terrific by themselves. It's not about who is
going to win the championship. There is a lot more to win and lose in
this game and Lauda and Hunt play it at their limits constantly pushing
each other one step further. To underline the film's interest in the
characters the filmmaker wisely decided to not take a side for either
Lauda or Hunt as a protagonist. They are both treated equally with kind
of the same screentime and without a clear hint on who to root for -
especially since neither of the two is overly sympathetic. This might be
a little irritating at the beginning when we jump back and forth
between the two but really pays off towards the end when it is clear
that there won't be a formulaic final match to decide over winner and
loser. The film is not Hunt versus Lauda, but rather Hunt versus himself
and Lauda versus himself. Their rivalry just provides the canvas for a
much more profound conflict peaking in an incident I don't wanna spoil,
even though Fans will know about it anyway. As so often a real life
story can provide real drama that could not have been any better if it
was entirely made up. And in the hands of director Ron Howard this
became a tense look on extreme people on the edge.<br />
<br />
There
are a few imbalances in the script, when sometimes we jump rather
quickly between the events while resting a little too long with others
but all in all the film zips along at a good pace. The only problem that
has to be criticized are the female roles who are all pretty
underwritten. In particular those attractive but narrow minded young
women who one after another fall for the venterous tough guy James Hunt.
If you wanna make them a real part in the story and not just window
dressing then flesh them out a little better. Even Lauda's wife seems a
little neglected even though she probably plays an important part to be
the counterpart to this obsession that plays out before her eyes and at
her expense. Is she or is she not the guardian angel behind him?<br />
<br />
However this flaw isn't enough to catch up with the rest of the film on home stretch. This film is a champ.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<u>TRAILER:</u><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA3XN54J8nY">Watch the Trailer for "Rush" on Youtube</a></div>
Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-4203276372038394682013-10-04T21:03:00.000+02:002013-10-04T21:03:06.602+02:00Gravity (2013)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oxLMulvDfxw/TiLbd5naMtI/AAAAAAAAAFI/FrJ9p29fU48/s1600/3+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- "2001" in 2013?</u></b></div>
<br />
If you ever wanted to be an astronaut as a child or if you are still dreaming of flying around in zero gravity then now you've got the chance!<br /><br />
<a name='more'></a>The opening of Gravity alone is worth the way to your multiplex. It will immediatly draw you into the film with its extraordinary imagery. From thousands of miles above we get a view on our little planet earth while a space shuttle is slowly emerging out of the infinite vastness. The film is an utter triumph of movement, camera work and direction. The first fiveteen minutes of the film - approximately - is indeed one long unbroken tracking shot with the camera endlessly revolving around the space shuttle while introducing us to the crew members. In front of stunning sceneries when the sun is rising up behind a planet or the black starry sky, Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and Dr. Ryan Stone are doing repair work and further adjustments. <br /><br />Stone, played by Sandra Bullock, is an astronaut rookie. Despite her training in the simulator the specialist has quite a hard time to adapt to the new environment. Her assistant however is an expert who is just about to mark a new record for the longest space walk by a human being ever, before finally returning to earth. George Clooney played a lot of cool blokes, but here - in zero gravity - his performance is as relaxed and laid back as ever. His character is an astronaut veteran and a space junkie who loves every second in these spheres and always stays calm und rational even under extreme circumstances. Via radiocommunication he constantly is doing smalltalk and jokes with the rest of the team while joyfully steering his jetpack. The camera is observing the scene, elegantly floating around from one character to the next. Just like any other object it is more drifting by than following a clear line. It's masterful camera work and definately a top candidate for the "Best cinematography" academy award. Most of it is done in very long takes which genuinely creates a feeling of really being right out there with the other spacemen. The 3D is the best since "Life of Pi" and for once I would advise you to pay the extra money, since this is probably the perfect setting for its use. The endless void really enhances the feeling of being lost in the middle of nowhere.<br /><br />When mission control sends a warning, the beauty and comforting ease this place has to offer is turned into a feeling of danger and claustrophobic loneliness in deadly silence. Few minutes later the wreckage of a russian satellite crashes into the shuttle with a speed of several thousand miles an hour. It's only the first of many action scenes and a true rollercoaster ride as things get torn into pieces and the astronauts are spinning around without any control. This is even intensified by extended POVs. We witness the panic first hand and it really made me feel dizzy after a while. So for people with a weak stomach, this is a sincere warning!<br /><br />After this fatal incident Bullock and Clooney, as the only survivors, start their way to the next station to return home. To be frank, the plot itself is not very interesting. Instead it follows common disaster movie patterns with obstacles like running out of oxigen or fuel and technical difficulties. It works well for the first half of the film but got a little repetetive towards the end despite its short 90 minutes of running time. Also there is a countdown concieved as a suspense element that - for me - did not really work. Here the editing seems to get in the way of the drama because with so little cutting it often does not feel like a lot of time is passing by. Moreover the backstory for Sandra Bullock's character is rather obviously written and only explored briefly. But it's enough to make her journey an evolving arc.<br /><br />So what makes the movie is primarily its breathtaking visuals and its atmosphere that really gives a sense of immediacy and let's the audience participate in the nerve-wracking trip. It's definately not Stanley Kubrick even though it naturally owes debt to the visual style and sound scheme of his visionary "2001: A space odyssey" from 1968. Nevertheless there is one particularly awe-inspiring shot in the last scene which picks up on the idea of evolution. It's kind of an inversion though since we start in space and move back to the origin. Rebirth is established as a theme earlier in the film as well, when Sandra Bullock drifts like a baby in one of the shuttles - another Kubrick reference, I guess. But these are spare moments. Storywise the film does not reach quite as deep as its looks suggest.<br /><br />But never did we get this close to an immersive space travel experience before. If you don't wanna wait for a time when flights into space will be a possible and affordable service to everyone then you have to buy a ticket for "Gravity" now.<br />
<br />
<u>TRAILER:</u><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufsrgE0BYf0">Watch the Trailer for "Gravity" on Youtube</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-55578891867898429582013-08-08T23:59:00.000+02:002013-08-09T12:15:58.710+02:00Trance (2013)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9mwc_UMPgyU/TiLbfBbW7dI/AAAAAAAAAEY/FXrH_m3V3QI/s1600/star-half.gif" /> <b><u>- Hypnotic? No, you may have just fallen asleep.</u></b></div>
<br />
I was never a fan of "28 days later", I really despised "Sunshine" but quite simply: "Trance" is Danny Boyle's worst movie yet. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>This is one of those occasions when a prominent name and a misleading trailer drag you into the theater just to find out that things are not always what they seem. If you think you are promised a psychotic mindbender you should adjust yourself to see only one thing bend: your patience. <br />
<br />
Trance isn't the next absorbing trip that "Trainspotting" was. Its 101 minutes of running time feel more like 127 hours. Like "127 hours" this film's setup is very simple. The great thing about "127 hours", however, was that it took that little idea of a man struggling to survive and made it into a compelling, emotional journey despite all its limitations and boundaries. Trance, on the other hand, starts out with an idea that isn't even remotely interesting in the first place and stays with it until things turn upside down and the film adrifts into complete idiocy.<br />
<br />
The film begins as a usual heist movie. Simon (James McAvoy) works as a security guy at an auction house. There he is responsible for all the artwork. In a voice over he explains the preventive measures and rules to follow in case there is a robbery. Simultaneously, a team of criminals infiltrate the latest auction trying to get their hands on a 25 million dollar painting. On his way to the safe Simon is confronted by the leader of the gangster's squad Franck. Next thing he knows is that he's waking up in hospital after a hard bang on the head. But that's just the beginning.<br />
<br />
Soon Franck and his gang return. They are still in search of the painting that had not been in Simon's bag. But since that incident Simon suffers from amnesia and he can't remember what happened nor where he has put the damn thing. The only chance to regain access to his lost memories is hypnosis. So, Rosario Dawson as hypnotist Elizabeth is hired to get this information out of Simon's mind.<br />
<br />
Most of the film is devoted to the process of getting closer to the truth. It's not a very exciting or dramatic goal to look forward to. The film wastes most of its time with meaningless interogation scenes and completely arbitrary obstacles that only delay a progress in the process as well as in the plot. Not a single line of dialog has some wit or insight. Most of it is talking about what happens or what the characters are going to do next. The film also establishes an incomprehensible love triangle and features a very obscure nude scene. There is something way off with this picture as many of the oblique shots and camera angles point out obviously.<br />
<br />
So far the movie has been a superficial and slow-paced amnesia thriller with soulless characters and one nasty fingernail-pulling scene as its sad climax. This is about as entertaining as watching someone trying to find his lost keys. <br />
<br />
As we dig deeper into Simon's brain the movie starts using the hypnosis idea as a device to create multiple dimensions of narrative desperately trying to confuse us. But the screenwriters obviously have no understanding of how to set up such a multilayered story. Most of the time it's easy to spot when we are in trance. And often times these sequences turn out to not mean a thing. This is the worst kind of writing and the prime example of how to not do a movie that relies solely on a twisty ending. What a film like "Inception" did, was to set up its agenda in the first act and then demand the audience to follow through 1 1/2 hours of engaging plot on that basis. What "Trance" does is bore us with an uninteresting story for an hour and then throw everything into the garbage can to tell us that that's not what this is all about. As if we wouldn't have guessed it. And again, they keep explaining every turn with dialog. Those who are just a little suspicious won't have a hard time to figure out early who the key character is here. But the final revelation is so ludicrous and implausible, there is no way you can see that coming. The writing is as manipulative as some of the characters are.<br />
<br />
Let's hope Danny Boyle recovers from this project - hypnosis may help,
as they can do almost anything, at least to those who are easily
receptive. I don't think he put a great stamp on the film. His direction is tired and unremarkable. The soundtrack is irritating, the characters are hollow, their motifs either mundane or far fetched and the plot is on auto-pilot until it crashes into your head. <br />
<br />
"Trance" is a little bit of Guy Ritchie's "RocknRolla": silly and pointless but without the humor, the intertwining characters and dodgy plotlines. It's a little bit of "Inception" but without its ambition, clever structure and interesting narrative ideas. It's a little bit of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" but without its artistic merit and without a single interesting thought about human relationships. And it's complete trash.<br />
<br />
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4_bdS3_gr0">Watch the Trailer for "Trance" on Youtube</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-32989140436837510862013-05-30T00:11:00.000+02:002013-08-13T00:13:30.051+02:00The Great Gatsby (2013)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hhOanEPfxdU/TiLbcxpev9I/AAAAAAAAAEA/QceuHGfgwMM/s1600/2+and+a+half+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- Jay Gatsby is no Charles Foster Kane</u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Baz Luhrmann starts this fifth film adaptation of the hugely prestigious novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald with velocity and excitement but can't maintain any of it as all curiosity gradually decreases after the first act.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>Jay Gatsby, a young millionaire in the 1920s/30s, invites to parties at his mansion. High society is regularly surging to this place enjoying the extravagant festival even though noone of them seems to actually know Gatsby himself who is leading a reclusive life and is hiding alone in his fortress most of the year. There is a lot of gossip about the rich gentleman and some may even claim Gatsby doesn't exist at all. Still all guests are getting in over their head and let themselves go in these nights when the rich are celebrating themselves.<br />
<br />
Prohibition and ecomomic crisis provide a backdrop for the film and shows a society on the edge. It's absurd to see people indulge in all the luxury and exuberance while everything is going downhill. Away from their glamourous houses the city is dark and dirty. Caught in between the system is Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire). Though related to a wealthy family, the poor guy lives alone in a small house right next door to Gatsby's residence.<br />
One day his cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) makes a visit and persuades him to go to the party with her. This night will change Nick's life when he shakes hand with Mr. Gatsby himself for the first time. He becomes Gatby's close friend and probably his only friend.<br />
<br />
The film is told in flashback. When we meet Nick at the beginning of the film he is alcoholic and exhausted, obsessed by the person of Jay Gatsby. As close as he was him he couldn't quite figure out what had driven him. For his psychotheripist he writes his story down to clear his mind.<br />
<br />
It's this premise that provides the interest for the film. Who is Jay Gatsby? At first we only get hints and rumors. We may catch a glimpse of Gatsby through a window from outside his house. But once the prominent host reveals himself the film pretty quickly runs out of steam. From here Gatsby plays it pretty straight. There is not enough ambivalence to him to really make him interesting.<br />
<br />
From the second act on it is primarily a love story between Gatsby and Daisy with Nick playing the negotiator who sets everything up for the insecure millionaire. But just before Gatsby's desires are fulfilled, Daisy's fiancé is bringing it all to pieces when he's questioning Gatsby's noble motivation.<br />
<br />
A problem is also that Nick as the narrator of the story always stays outside of the conflict. His peculiar relationship to Gatsby is compelling in the beginning, since he is the only one the isolated man opens up to. But as the movie progresses Nick is pushed more and more aside when the film focuses on the love triangle. From a very distance he observes and reflects Gatsby's behaviour and his eventual failure. But he doesn't really contribute a lot to the drama nor does he prevent the film from falling into romantic cornball territory in the second half.<br />
<br />
I'm kind of caught in the middle with this one. It's not bad but certainly not the party everyone will talk about for years to come. If you've read the novel or have seen a different version of this, proposedly the Robert Redford one, there is no need to see it. If not, you may wanna try it but don't expect something overly exquisite. Nick Carraways conclusion is that Gatsby was a great man. Maybe. All I know is that the movie isn't so great. If there is one lesson to be learned here, it is in short: Money can't buy you love. <br />
<br />
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rARN6agiW7o">Watch the Trailer for "The Great Gatsby" on Youtube</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-52859273256134356502013-05-23T00:04:00.000+02:002013-06-18T00:11:56.033+02:00The Master (2012)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CPSwrajb1OA/TiLbdW2YBvI/AAAAAAAAAEI/1IZswy02LPc/s1600/3+and+a+half+stars.gif" /> - <b><u>Seductive and bewildering<br /><br /> </u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u> </u></b></div>
1952. A marine named Freddie Quell returns from war. But he is not the same man anymore. Fighting obviously left deep scars in his soul and on his body. His walk is unstable, his face always feirce and his stare empty. Freddie is in search of something which even he can't identify. Something to give him a hold and orientation. Aimless he wanders around, wasting his time, sleeping whereever he can find a place to stay. Every once in a while he gets into trouble. He is unbalanced and has an unreckonable temper. He can't controll his actions and his behaviour can revert instantly into violence. On his rambles through the states he coincidentally finds himself on a ship owned by Lancaster Dodd, a charismatic founder of a union named "The Cause". Dodd is strangely fascinated by Freddie. He offers him help and invites him to stay.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>In the cults inner circles Freddie meets new people and makes some new friends. Soon he is acquainted with the common methods like "Processing" that Dodd developed to cure mental illnesses. The Master, as Dodd is to be called, makes Freddie his prime patient. The procedure begins. Freddie, desperate as he is, participates even though he doesn't really understand what he is doing or where this thing is going, just like the audience.<br />
<br />
"The Master" is audacious arthouse cinema at its best. Arrestingly staged and masterfully acted. With his latest work writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson takes another step into uncertainty and loosens almost completely from narrative constraints or conventions. In opposition to his earlier ensemble pieces like "<a href="http://eliasandthemovies.blogspot.de/2012/03/boogie-nights-1997.html">Boogie Nights</a>" and "<a href="http://eliasandthemovies.blogspot.com/2011/11/magnolia-1999.html">Magnolia</a>" that were both relying quite heavily on narrative, he leaps into a lot more abstract, hardly tangible territory with a story that's deliberately missing a clear line to follow.<br />
<br />
First of all, the film's most captivating aspect is provided by the two main actors, who fight a highly intense psychological battle. Joaquin Phoenix embodies the insecure veteran in search for answers. The Master is played by Philip Seymour Hofmann, who perfectly finds the sweet spot between calm and eloquent composure and tough, uncompromising obsession. His character is always ambiguous and mysterious and resembles the presence and charisma of screen legends like Orson Welles.<br />
Still not everyone is convinced by the Master's doctrines. Radically he scotches critique from outside the community. But even within the cult, in his own family, there are people who doubt or reject his views. And does the Master believe in his own creation? What's the role of his mysterious and creepy wife (Amy Adams) who is constantly sneaking around in the background and seems to closely observe everything that's going on?<br />
Freddie, who is easy to manipulate, is increasingly confused by the inconsistencies he witnesses. He demands and needs clarity. He is the lost son, who has lost his way. But can he be sure if he found the right leader in the Master?<br />
<br />
Just like the drifter Freddie, the audience steadily undergoes the shifting stages of satisfaction, doubt and anger. The loose story often creates a feeling of being just as lost as the protagonist. But Anderson comes up with these strong, complex characters who easily can pull through the entire movie. Anderson is able to build up tremendous amounts of tension just through dialog and face to face encounters, especially in the unrelenting scenes of "processing". All the repetition and the uncompromising approach make it easy to empathize with Freddy and identify with his situation. Joaquin Phoenix gives the very best performance of the year, even though Daniel Day Lewis had the longer straw at the Oscars.<br />
<br />
Not from a lesser quality is the visual experience. As an advocate for old school film making and the slowly disappearing celluloid Anderson shot "The Master" in the rarely used, expensive 70mm format. By using long takes and intimidating close-ups the film establishes a hypnotic atmosphere that is supported by a weird, oppressive soundtrack playing in the background throughout the whole movie. There is also a wonderful tracking shot at the beginning of the film where Anderson demonstrates all his skill and class. A wonderful mix of movement and seamlessly shifting depth of field. Even if you find the kafkaesque story hard to digest, as a movie-lover you will certainly be able to enjoy this film on the level of state-of-the-art craftsmanship.<br />
<br />
Considering the story, it's about what you want to make of it. Anderson doesn't offer an easy answer. In one scene when the Master explains the long, burdensome way that one has to go to find catharsis, Freddie desperately responds that he just doesn't understand it. The Master soberly answers that he doesn't understand it either but that's what we are here for.<br />
<br />
Open-mindedness is essential for this film. But if you are willing to let it happen you will inevitable fall into a state of wonder and fascination. Like Freddie Quell you may search for an answer. Some moviegoers may find enlightment, others will be distracted by the unflinching and enigmatic work and probably be frustrated at the end of the film.<br />
<br />
Either way, this film is a phenomenon and this is my outing as a loyal follower.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WTM8eO1Oec">Watch the Trailer for "The Master" on Youtube</a></div>
Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-58667439471279673542013-05-07T22:06:00.000+02:002013-05-31T14:34:14.455+02:00Series Special: True Blood (Season 1 ... and a half)If you order 'Tru Blood' in "True Blood", you don't recieve "true" blood but a synthetic potion of fake blood that tastes rather awful. But if you are a civilized vampire in search of a meal and not willing to kill for your dinner then this is the market-leading, legal product to go for.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>"True Blood" - as you probably know - is only one of many popular series given to us by HBO network. This one features vampires which usually makes it attractive to a rather limited audience, disregarding the general vampire trend in the last couple of years for a moment. After reading the following lines you might be able to determine whether or not this series is for you. Speaking for myself this is one of the more disappointing series I got into lately - and the problem is not the vampires. Here are the main reasons why I don't like the series very much.<br />
<br />
The most interesting thing about the series so far, is the intro. I really like that soundtrack and the tasty licks playing to this weird, creepy collage of death, blood, nature and sex. Major themes that you would associate with this kind of material are all laid out here: racism and intercultural understanding, fundamentalism and religious belief, the nature of evil, life and death, sexual danger ...<br />
<br />
Now that's compelling stuff but looking at the plot most of these topics are suddenly missing or just superficially touched on. The basic setup of the series is that vampires and humans coexist and since the "bloodsucking freaks" have had their outcome, there is lots of political debate about cooperation between the two parties and about equal rights for the discriminated dead. Of course, there is a lot distrust and prejudice on both sides - primarily in the lines of the "normal" people. But these components fade into the background as the plot centers on relationships, on love and interpersonal issues. That is certainly not a bad thing in general and of course there are subplots about a murder, about the side character's struggles but all those really suffer from the central heart of the series that in its worst moments plays like a bad TV soap opera for teenagers.<br />
<br />
Season one is basically a coming of age story of a young virgin named Sookie who is living at her grandma's house and who has a very special ability that makes her kind of an outcast and therefore she is attracted by vampires who share a similar status. When one of their most charming specimen named Bill enters her life she finds herself confused in a love triangle.<br />
<br />
The most annoying thing about the series are many of the characters' interactions and the way they are handled. It is a repeating up and down of rapid mood changes and inconsistent behavior. The basic pattern with most of the characters is they are either overly happy or they are depressed. Those who are depressed won't hesitate to insult their closest friends and instantly get into a fight with everyone around them. It is a constant back and forth between dispute and conciliation and many of the characters act very selfish often times. All that makes rooting for the characters overly difficult. These people seem to have no feeling for using their social skills, no sensibility, no idea of how to properly communicate with others or deal with their issues in a mature way. It is quite annoying and another evidence for why this should be aiming at a supposedly similarly troubled teenage audience. <br />
<br />
Considering Bill's age it is quite strange how his relationship to Sookie is like one of two fourteen year olds, often pumped up with pompous cornball dialog that could be taken directly from a third-class TV-show. I don't know how often I heard Bill groaning the name "Sookie" in this annoying apologetic whiny tone. One or two times I just wanted to turn it off.<br />
<br />
Sam Merlotte who is one of the more consistent amongst the main characters, is the other guy secretely in love with Sookie. Occassionally he says some dumb things but it seems to be the foolish-side of his character not the stupidity of the screenwriting speaking. Sam also is pissed off sometimes but he seems to have a good reason and he is never mean-spirited or selfish expressing it. Most of his anger is actually coming from deeper fears and concerns about other people and his own insecurities. Apart from that some of the minor roles are quite compelling, too. And yes, it also gets bloody sometimes, but at least Season 1 is rather tame so don't expect furious carnage like in the opening of "Blade".<br />
<br />
Then the sex scenes. There are plenty of them not counting the moments when people are doing other sex-related things. Now this is not a bad thing per se and some of you might just think 'the more, the better'. What bothers me is the way of implementation of these scenes. I see that sex and, more precisely, sexual tolerance and sexual responsibility is a major theme but to me it felt like the scenes were often playing for nothing else but for the show, for itself, as an attraction. This seems like a cheap way to get attention ('Game of Thrones' is even more exploitative in that regard).<br />
<br />
There are things in the series that I like and now that I am into it I will probably keep watching. But just like 'Tru Blood', the drink, "True Blood" is not the real deal. It is enough to keep vampires, you and your interest from starving but it isn't nearly as stimulating or exhilarating as it could be.Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-22380230306662210162013-05-01T01:18:00.001+02:002013-09-30T20:08:45.206+02:00Sightseers (2012)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oxLMulvDfxw/TiLbd5naMtI/AAAAAAAAAEM/-5uESmfa2Tg/s1600/3+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- A murderous adventure</u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Haven't posted a review for a while but on vacation I got to know some really wacky people I have to tell you about. Their names are Tina and Chris, they are from England and have planned to go on a trip through the country with their caravan. What is supposed to be happy holidays is soon going down an unexpected road in this deadpan black comedy by director Ben Wheatley.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>"Show me your world!" says Tina, genuinly excited about the time she is about to spend alone with her love Chris whilst her moody, suspicious mother is absolutely opposed to the fact that her daughter starts a life of her own. The latter is a classic figure: egocentric and mean, self-righteous and - until this point - in total control of every step of her daughter, full of self-pity and distrust for Chris.<br />
<br />
Tina, who has probably spent her whole life in this house is certainly nervous to leave but at the same time it is liberating. At the side of her darling Chris, who seems to be a quirky but gentle guy, she feels confident. On their way through the country they visit pencil museums and other fancy places and they meet both enemies and friends on camping sites and on visitations. It's a lot of fun. But every once in a while when something is not working out the way Chris wants it to he reveals a different side of him full of anger and unease. Then after another arguement at a campsite Tina realizes that Chris has a secret and a very questionable way of dealing with his problems. But more importantly Tina also finds out something about herself, something she didn't even know that it existed. They continue their journey ... while more and more people drop dead along the way ...<br />
<br />
I kept thinking a lot about Sightseers after it was over which relativized the surprising impression the film had created in course of the screening and the ambivalent feelings towards it. I was quite irritated. But there was something off with the tone of the picture. I was not really as entertained in the laugh out loud way I had expected - but I was not really disappointed either. There was something more to it that could be easily overlooked if you're going in with wrong expectations. There are laughs in it for sure and the humor has the correct vibe but most of the time I was rather smiling than laughing and, considering the rather quiet atmosphere, the rest of the theater did not fall of their chairs in that regard either. But what was so surprising was the rather complex and extremely dark subject matter.<br />
<br />
Of course it's the awkward situations, the crude, british humor and the bloody edge that helps to set the tone. But it's the film's story and the unusually interesting and conflicted characters that stay in your mind. On top of that the whole 'Bonnie and Clyde'-relationship aspect ascribes a certain poetic note to that love existing and even flowering under such circumstances and I can tell you that the ending offers an absolutely ingenius, hilarious and thought provoking punchline.<br />
<br />
Funnily enough the film I was reminded of - in terms of theme not tone or style - is Lars von Trier's "Antichrist", which is as far away from a comedy as you can get ... unless of course you find genital mutilation funny. But what Antichrist is about is in the end the exact same thing that Sightseers is dealing with, too. That is to say: Two people going out into the countryside to explore their evil nature and eventually start to embrace this previously unknown or at least suppressed side of their personality. In both cases it is the woman who comes to this realization that there is some kind of brooding, dark spirit inside of her and like Antichrist Sightseers occasionally features scenes filled with mystic symbolism and strange reoccuring motives like witches and witchcraft and that kind. <br />
<br />
It's this quite consuming darkness underneath and the evolving protagonist that mark the highlights of this trip. I probably wouldn't drive a thousand miles for this tourist feature, but when you are just passing by it is definately worth the stop.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyg9aRqlUxM">Watch the Trailer for 'Sightseers' on Youtube</a></div>
Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-30438800068570717202013-02-24T15:59:00.001+01:002013-02-25T10:44:25.439+01:00My Oscar Picks 2013In November last year, Kathryn Bigelows "Zero Dark Thirty" still seemed to be the prime contender for "Best Picture". Almost every (American) critic loved it. But when the nominees were announced things changed by almost 180 degrees. Bigelow wasn't even nominated in the director's category and all the controversy surrounding her film weakened its chances. Lincoln then seemed to be the most obvious choice. But the last couple of weeks showed another unexpected trend. Ben Affleck's tense thriller "Argo" was sweeping most of the important awards including DGA, PGA, SAG and Critics Choice Award. However, Affleck is also not nominated as best director which is really odd since he got the appreciation by the Directors Guild. So if "Argo" wins best picture after all the recent buzz it would be only the fourth time that the corresponding director would not recieve a trophy. It's gonna be an interesting night this time.<br />
<br />
So here are my guesses in all 24 categories:<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><u><b>Best Motion Picture of the Year</b></u><br />
<br />
"<b>Argo</b>" will win deservedly.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Daniel Day Lewis </b>will drink all their milkshakes as Lincoln.<br />
<br />
<u><b><br />Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role</b></u><br />
<br />
I would vote for Emmanuelle Riva for "Amour". But I guess the award will go to <b>Jennifer Lawrence</b> for Silver Linings.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role</b></u><br />
This is gonna be a close race between Robert DeNiro, Tommy Lee Jones and Christoph Waltz, even though I guess Waltz would rather be a surprise. I'm going with <b>Tommy Lee Jones</b>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role</b></u><br />
<b>Anne Hathaway</b> for Les Misérables<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Directing</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Spielberg</b> is gonna win. Second choice would be Ang Lee. Haneke could be in for an upset maybe.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen</b></u><br />
<br />
Somehow this could be the category for Tarantino this time. But I think his screenplay was rather undisciplined. My choice is <b>Haneke</b> and his screenplay <b>for Amour</b> which was just brillant.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published</b></u><br />
<br />
Argo needs to win more than just one award, I guess. But this will fall to<b> Tony Kushner for Lincoln</b>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Animated Feature Film of the Year</b></u><br />
<br />
Well, frankly I haven't seen any of these so I am going with the most popular choice: <b>Wreck-it Ralph</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Foreign Language Film of the Year</b></u><br />
<br />
Maybe the easiest category of the night: <b>Amour</b><br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Cinematography</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Life of Pi</b>: <b>Claudio Miranda</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Editing</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Argo</b>: <b>William Goldenberg</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Production Design</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Lincoln</b>:<b> Rick Carter, Jim Erickson</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Costume Design</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Anna Karenina: Jacqueline Durran</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Makeup and Hairstyling</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Les Misérables</b>:<b> Lisa Westcott, Julie Dartnell</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Life of Pi: Mychael Danna</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song</b></u><br />
<b><br />Skyfall</b>: <b>Adele, Paul Epworth("Skyfall")</b><br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Sound Mixing</b></u><br />
<br />
As every year, the sound mixing/editing category is hard to estimate... I have no idea to be honest.<br />
<br />
<b>Les Misérables</b>: <b>Andy Nelson, Mark Paterson, Simon Hayes</b><br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Sound Editing</b></u><br />
<b>Zero Dark Thirty</b>: Paul N.J. Ottosson<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Achievement in Visual Effects</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Life of Pi: Bill Westenhofer, Guillaume Rocheron, Erik De Boer, Donald Elliott</b><br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Documentary, Feature</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Searching for Sugar Man</b>: Malik Bendjelloul, Simon Chinn<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Documentary, Short Subject</b></u><br />
<br />
Not seen any of those either ... <br />
<br />
<b>Open Heart</b>: Kief Davidson, Cori Shepherd Stern<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Short Film, Animated</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Paperman</b>: John Kahrs<br />
<br />
<br />
<u><b>Best Short Film, Live Action</b></u><br />
<br />
<b>Curfew</b>: Shawn ChristensenEliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-2799935660744740492013-02-22T20:12:00.003+01:002013-02-22T20:12:40.357+01:00Director's Diary - Part 4: All that remainsHell, we thought this was gonna be fast and easy. Basically what we had to do were some detailshots, a couple of shots of the monitor while being in a chatroom and getting a call, and two tracking shots through the hallway. The one thing that we hadn't have a solution for so far, the thing we thought was the most difficult to do today, was then brillantly solved by our cameraman in a couple of minutes.<br /><br />
<a name='more'></a>What we needed was a blinking button that said "1 new message". And we needed that in one of the takes we had shot on Tuesday in the other room that would play on the computer. He simply took a still from that take and included a nice button in one of the cornes using photoshop. Then he used a program on his laptop to automatically switch between that still frame with the button and one of the same frame without the button in it. Worked fantastically. <br /><br />Other things turned out to be a lot more problematic. Again, there was loud music playing next door for a while that made shooting with sound impossible. And then it's just many small things that you don't think of beforehand. We needed some scenes in a chatroom. We had chosen one of those free access things ... but today we needed a shot of our antagonist joining that chat we (our protagonist) were in. So we needed a second computer to log in. But since we had only one internet access on location the second computer had to go online via iphone. JavaRuntime was also not installed on that computer which is why we lost another few minutes. We then realized that this particular chat wouldn't show when people entered or left so we decided to just join and just type a message like "... has entered the room" in ourselves. It worked just fine, I guess.<br /><br />It was funny whenever we wrote the lines we needed in the chat or made some close ups of hands typing on the computer the other people in the chatroom really wondered what we were talking about since for them it just didn't make any sense the way we repeated ourselves for the takes and all that. We even made it into the ignore list of some user.<br /><br />For the some close ups we used my hands instead of the actors' hands because he wasn't available anymore today. Hope noone will recognize that *sigh*. But I guess it will be just fine. For the very last shots through a hallway we used a wheelchair for the camera movement. Sadly we had to do some compromises here, again. It wasn't even ground there and we had some little shakes in there and also the hallway was the only time we didn't find a proper way to light it without being too dark the further we got into it or too revealing which wouldn't fit the mood.<br /><br />But since compromise is the thing I started on with this special, it is also a good way to finish. After four days of shooting the only thing left is one short scene with a third role that we found an actor for just yesterday.<br /><br />I hope we didn't forget to shoot anything, if so it is all my fault. It was my responsibility to keep track of everything. But I think it'll work. We'll realize that in the editing process. I'm out.<br />Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-89181706461020999712013-02-21T20:09:00.000+01:002013-02-22T20:11:36.137+01:00Director's Diary - Part 3: Lucky Number ThreeOn day three we had to film the most difficult scene in the film. It was a short tracking shot that was really hard to do for the cameraman as he had to go from a static position for some short lines of dialog to a free walk through the room following the protagonist out the door and around the corner with the camera in hand, all whilst regulating the focus at certain moments. It certainly wasn't looking "professional" in the end but for our purposes I thought it was fantastic. I was surprised of how good we got it.<br /><br />
<a name='more'></a>We began finishing the last dialogue scenes from other perspectives. Our lead actor would do it in smaller bits than we did it with our lead actress the day before. So we also shot a lot more takes. But he was really good to work with and did respond really well to our instructions. What impressed me with him was that he could repeat something he had done before the very same way in the next take(s). A good skill that made things easy. <br /><br />Another challenge was two wide angle shots from below the ceiling in two corners of the room since there was a whole lot of stuff in the room - and since it wasn't our room we couldn't just throw out all the shelfs, books, boxes and so on. So how could we got the camera up there in a solid position? The first solution we had wasn't actually solid at all. We put a chair on the bed that was there in that corner and put the camera tripod with its three bases ... <br /><br />Since we weren't shooting in controlled environment we also had difficulties with the people living next door. Sometimes we would shoot in the hallway when other people were just leaving their rooms and consequently ruining the shot. Later that day someone turned up loud music so we had to wait unless we wanted some heavy metal noise on our audio tracks. But since they did us a great favor of letting us shoot there at all we didn't want to bother them all the time or insist on not playing music the whole day and stuff like that.<br /><br />Then we moved on to shoot all the rest of the plot with the protagonist. We finished everything with him in the frame which was really great since he told us in the morning that he probably wouldn't be available tomorrow anymore. Since it's my job to coordinate the things I really hope I haven't forgotten anything important to shoot. We really have done a lot of work today. It's also nice to see how much more efficient compared to the first one. It was a lot more focused, a lot better prepared and just more experienced. Even in those three days, I think we learned quite a lot.<br />Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-39124507324403613032013-02-20T23:34:00.000+01:002013-02-22T20:16:05.413+01:00Director's Diary - Part 2: Surprises of each kindNew day, new room, new angles. We needed some time to accomodate and set everything up again. <br />
we then kept shooting a lot of takes for the dialogue counterpart to what we did the day before, this time with our protagonist. While recording his parts and reactions we ran a take from the day before for him over the computer screen. I was surprised of how great it worked. Also, to hear those takes in context made them sound a lot better and a lot more convincing which was also a positive surprise. It was a little more relaxed than yesterday, too since we got another two days time.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Tomorrow we'll do another one or two angles for parts of the more emotional dialogue, maybe not from the tripod but a hand held with a little movement in it. What will follow are the more complicated shots with camera movement and such. But work wasn't done when we left the set. For two takes where we showed all of the lead actress parts on the computer screen in the other room we had to get a rough cut of her to show exactly those takes we wanted to see in the final film. So we had to go through the takes and compare them to find out what we wanted in there. <br />
<br />
Then bad surprise: whilst we were editing it we suddenly discovered tiny deadbeats in the takes where the film would just jump for a split second. It was really disappointing to see. No idea were it came from. I hope we don't have these errors in all of our material, that would be really annoying. Still, there is no way to redo it so we have to live with it. Another thing that was quite unsatisfying was our own fault as beginners. Some of the additional takes of the small parts we didn't like that we had shot later yesterday where too different to implement them in between some of the other takes.<br />
<br />
After the hard first day, I actually wanted to go to bed a little earlier today. I also had to get up one hour earlier - at 6 am. With the editing we did I arrived at home at 11pm. Well, there has to be a downside to all good things. I'll get more sleep on sunday when filming will be done. Oh, well ... the second part is usually the darkest. Let's see where things go from here and if things get resolved.Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-6148003214668115392013-02-19T22:48:00.000+01:002013-02-24T14:02:41.690+01:00Director's Diary - Part 1: A hard day's night<b><u><i>"Fucking amateurs!"</i> - Walter Sobchak</u></b><br />
<br />
The very first thing you learn when making your own movie for the first time is that you'll have to make A LOT of compromises and accept the fact that the movie won't turn out the way you want it to. Two friends and I already realized that in the preproduction for our little student-film project.<br />
We already faced a couple of problems organizing everything we thought we would need. If you have no time and no money, you don't have a lot of choices. If, on top of that, you don't have any experience in film making (aside from a little theory maybe) it is a really rough time.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>All we had was an idea for a ten-minute short. What (extra) equipment are we gonna need? How much can we afford? Where will we find actors? And more importantly, who will want to work for us and spend time and effort without anything in return? Where would we shoot? Especially when you need a very specific location - as we did - this is a tough question. What other techical challenges might wait? In our case we had not chosen the easiest setting for this first introduction to film making. An extended sequence of two people interacting only via webcam while the camera stays in the protagonist's room throughout. How go about it? Shoot in real time? How to direct both actors who sit in two different rooms miles away from each other? How to record the sound in both rooms when only shooting in one? Just a few of many, many questions we had.<br />
<br />
Gladly our cinematographer (the one who does the camera, lighting and such, you know?) had the connections and he was the only one with a little bit of experience. He had been into photography for quite a while and generelly had more technical understanding than the other two of us. He recruited the actors and came up with a lot of good ideas for the technical implementations. The film would not have been made at all, if it weren't for him, I guess - at least it would have been a total disaster.<br />
<br />
So while I was writing a terrible script in three days and then reworking it in details (even until we were shooting along with the actors) time was running and running and we were all doing other business for university alongside (at least we should have done so). Suddenly, it was like two weeks before we wanted to start filming and still we didn't really have the right location(s) and no actor for one of the smaller roles. It was hard to coordinate the timetable anyways. There was no way we could rearrange things. Filming was set to be about four days and it had to happen that week. Fortunately, a friend told us about a room of one of her fellow students would be living in a fitting location. Finally, we had a place to go and the first day of shooting was near. <br />
<br />
So, we decided to shoot the part of the leading actress first without counterpart. With only 5 people in total working on set, even now that was just enough. Our leading actress already arrived with us. But we were still figuring out how to frame the shot and how to light the scene. We could have done that a day earlier, yes ... if we, and the people living where we wanted to film, all had nothing else to do ...<br />
<br />
It was a tight schedule. We had to get this sequence done on that day. We arrived at 9 a.m. and had to be done at 6 pm. That may sound like a lot of time but it was less than we thought. If you do it for the first time things just need a little longer especially with such a complicated setting<br />
Firstly we had to do the whole sequence in a take since we needed the video of it within two days to play all the way through in one shot; also it was useful for the other actor reading his lines.<br />
<br />
Of course there were unexpected technical problems. Since the actress had no actor to interact with, one of us had to read the lines of him. BUT of course the one couldn't be in the same room since we needed the actress' sound alone, also the "correct" parts in between her lines. So we decided to get our guy (in this case a girl too) upstairs and talk to the actress over the computer with in ear headphones. It just didn't want to work right. The connection was instable and took a long while to be fixed - and later reoccured. Along with other problems and preparations we then started shooting the first take at around 12.30, if I remember correctly... probably even later.<br />
<br />
Our lead actress was a friend of one of my collegues. It was quite impressive that she had memorized almost the whole sequence in one day since we had called her last-minute when we knew we were going to start shooting. She is a very extroverted person. Also, she's coming from theater where everything usually is a lot more impulsive and dramatic by nature than it is in film. I think she did a very good job for the more intense parts. But we had a few problems with lines in quieter moments. We shot the sequence three times in its entirety. Then we continued with additional takes on specific lines or parts that we weren't quite happy with. <br />
<br />
I was doing kind of the "director's job" even though it is a collective work of course. Everyone of us would contribute to the direction and all that, but most of the time it's better to have clear assignments of tasks and responsibilities just to work more efficient and economic. Our camera man stated himself that he was so focused on that, that he couldn't really concentrate on the actors at the same time for example. Now, I dreamt of being a director one day anyways - who doesn't. But I found out that I am probably not a natural talent. It was quite hard to put into words what I had in mind sometimes. Some of it led to misunderstanding between myself and the actress, but I guess she forgave me. Also I had problems with being too fussy about things. Of course you want to get it as close to "perfect" (which I had told myself in advance would mean 'acceptable') as possible. But I really had problems with pointing out on things I didn't like. I just didn't want to offend anyone or be too "selfish" about things. Of course I know that she wouldn't have any problem with me complaining about the way I want the things to be. I guess, this is something you'll be able to handle better with more experience. <br />
<br />
I think in the end for total amateurs like us (like me, at least) it turned out just fine. Even though I had abandoned the desire to get it perfect in the first place ... and it would be a lie if I told you I was 100% satisfied. But even professionals usually aren't - at least from what I read, so what the fuck.<br />
<br />
When we finished shooting, preps for the next day began. What would we need? What have we forgotton? What problems could be solved beforehand? When I finally arrived at home I realized how tired I actually was. I cooked meal as I, like everyone else in the crew, hadn't have proper lunch. Then eating, relaxing, packing bags for the next day. Setting the alarm to 6 a.m. And finally, sleeping.<br />
<br />
No wait! First I have to finish writing this entry. So, last but not least, after all the complaining I have to point out that this first day was a really great and interesting experience and that I (we) had a lot of fun with all the people and funny takes and accidents. <br />
I can't really say that I am looking forward to tomorrow though, because it will be a very hard day again, quite a bit more complicated than today. But hey, we willingly brought this onto ourselves, we wanted the trouble and now we have to deal with it. In that sense, good night!Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-7579793692069747602013-01-25T22:15:00.000+01:002013-02-24T13:39:04.894+01:00Hunger (2008)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CPSwrajb1OA/TiLbdW2YBvI/AAAAAAAAAEI/1IZswy02LPc/s1600/3+and+a+half+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- A stomach-turning experience, but an experience nontheless</u></b></div>
<br />
The most peculiar thing about "Hunger" is that it finds beauty in a film that depicts people being tortured and treated like animals, caged in cold, dark cells and living in their own excrement. It will certainly leave a bitter taste in your mouth. But at the same time writer/director Steve McQueen constructs his film so carefully that you can neither take your eyes off the screen nor stop to admire what you see.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The political and biographical backdrop for the story is provided by real events that occured in a prison in 1981 Northern Ireland. There, a leading member of the IRA, Bobby Sands, started a hunger strike on the first of March that lasted 66 days and followed several other forms of protest before. At first Sands and his fellow prisoners had refused to wear the common prisoner's clothes then they began the "Dirty Protest" where the prisoners would essentially dispose their excrements all over the walls of their cells. The inmates wanted to gain the status of polical prisoners. But the government didn't give in.<br />
<br />
The last days of Bobby Sands' life were dirty, brutal and silent. The film tries to recreate what it felt like to be part of the protest. It's not so much about the political issues surrounding it. It does not try to find explanations or reclaim the background situation. Rather it's a portrait of pointless agony and suffering, a tragedy that took place behind thick walls while people outside were marching through the streets and politicians debated without any will to compromise. Meanwhile people are starving in isolation deeply believing in their case and convinced that their resistance has impact. Considering the hopeless situation inside the prison the prisoner's faith makes the whole thing even more despairing.<br />
<br />
At the beginning it isn't even quite sure who the protagonist is. I guess, it isn't that important. Bobby Sands is just the symbol figure for all the mayhem and disgrace - on both sides. The camera observes the men quietly in their cells. Little insects that enter through the small barred window fill the room with a little glimpse of life. McQueen repeatedly catches moments like this and lets them ring in almost poetic manner. The story plays out with very little dialog and MC Queen composes every shot with patience and thoughtfulness. In often very long takes he creates an almost surreal atmosphere in this place where time seems to stand still. His approach shows a director with great confidence, who knows exactly what he is doing and is deeply convinced of it. It surely doesn't feel like a first time job.<br />
<br />
When the prisoners have to leave their cells though, the tone of the picture suddenly changes. The audience becomes one of the victims in the sudden bursts of violence. Now the editing is fast, the camera disorienting. It's masterful work as prisoners are being dragged through the hallways, in and out of rooms, endlessly beaten by wardens. We witness it first hand through POVs while other people around are brutally mistreated too. <br />
<br />
Where does this end? Well, I kind of indicated it already, but it isn't really a film that relies on a surprising outcome anyway, so there is no real spoilers to worry about. A key scene in the film is a conversation between Sands and a priest done in a single shot that lasts 15 minutes. The static camera implies that things won't change. It's not an exchange, no back and forth, no arguement. Bobby Sands has long made a decision. He and his fellow prisoners believe in what they do. He will not change his mind for anything until their demands are accepted. This radical attitude becomes a theme itself and is really frightening if you think about it.<br />
<br />
Its themes may be disturbing but its presentation is truly elegant. An artful and intelligent film. Watch it and make sure to enjoy your next meal.<br />
<br />
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9IiUbBV4zc">Watch the Trailer for 'Hunger' on Youtube</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-67776052496935777822013-01-17T13:19:00.000+01:002013-10-27T11:58:18.732+01:00Django Unchained (2012)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CPSwrajb1OA/TiLbdW2YBvI/AAAAAAAAAEI/1IZswy02LPc/s1600/3+and+a+half+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- Tarantino Unchained!</u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I guess Mr. Tarantino couldn't resist to turn everything up to eleven when dealing in his most beloved genre - the spaghetti western. Like a hyperactive, young kid in the playground or maybe like an untameable, hungry dog breaking loose, he is running, jumping and kicking around his latest film in relentless pleasure while his hero Django, an obvious Afro-American reincarnation of 1966's Franco Nero, is riding, shooting and kicking around slavetraders in pre-civil war Mississippi. The result is a lot of fun and a lot of chaos.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a>Jamie Foxx plays the black cowboy, one of ten thousands of poor, suffering slaves, who is violently separated from his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). He is then freed by a german dentist-turned-bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz who needs Django's help identifying three criminals. Christoph Waltz gets some of the best lines in the film in a role similar to his Oscar winning personification of Hans Landa. A kind, eloquent man whose profession it is to kill people. When Django hears about the bounty hunter's working routine, he is delighted by the idea of getting paid for killing white men. But the only thing he cares about is saving his wife who is still enslaved and currently in possession of Calvin Candie, a heartless, sadistic business man, who invests in human flesh. In the name of love and justice Dr. King Schultz offers Django to join him on his trip to Candie's residence on Candyland. With his mentor on his side Django is on his path of vengeance.<br />
<br />
What is essentially a simple, straight forward revenge story is put in a not quite so straight forward plot. Tarantino offers enough gags and one-liners to keep us entertained throughout and it is great to listen to his dialogue, especially when delivered by these actors. I especially want to praise Leonardo DiCaprio in a rather unusual role for him. Rarely before has he played a villain in his career and never has he been this evil and creepy. His nuanced, multifaceted performance of the insane Calvin Candie is the best in the film. But as usual he was overlooked by the Academy for an Oscar nomination.<br />
But still, with its 165 minutes the film is clearly overstretched. The two crusaders are shooting their way through the states, while Django is preparing himself for the important stuff. A long time we are going through rather insignificant set-pieces before actually arriving at Candyland. Usually, Tarantino is a master in constructing these brillant individual scenes that work on their own as small cinematic gems. Remember the opening scene in "Basterds". The scene in the bar. Or almost any scene in "Pulp Fiction". In "Django" there are less memorable set pieces than in his best work which is quite surprising. But of course Tarantino is so in love with his own writing that he seemingly can't take any of it out to tighten up the film and get the plot going. Taking a look at the last draft of his script that had been around for months before the films release you can see that he actually cut some of it down already. But some of it is really unnecessary particularly in the film's grand finale. Once Django has tasted blood he can not get enough of it. For sure, all the cruelties of slavery have to be paid back many times higher. Some may cheer to see the screen covered in red. It's mostly white men's blood that often appears like artistic paintings on white surfaces. The bodycount comes close to "Kill Bill", I guess. But besides Tarantino's skillful depiction of carnage he is just not able to kill his darlings and get to the end of the film. The third act comes deliberately delayed but we didn't really need the extra round to be honest. But tell that to Tarantino.<br />
<br />
His excessive violence and inflationary use of the N-word has already knocked off lively discussions again. In some interviews Tarantino got quite angry about this same old question pointing out that his attitude towards movie violence hasn't changed a single bit in the last twenty years. Does his film glorify violence, particularly towards white people? Well, it is Tarantino's retelling of history, empowering the supressed black race at that time. The film is therefore loosely linked with his previous one and supposedly part of a coming trilogy. But more importantly it is a revenge film and a cinematic nod to countless of genres, including blaxploitation, classics and Tarantino inspirations, that doesn't take itself too seriously, sometimes almost drifting into self parody. It is deliberately gross. But as he has stated in interviews the underlying theme is very important for Tarantino. His goal however, was not to portray the period historically accurate - which was much more brutal than he could apparently have ever done - but to simply get this dark topic of American history back out there into the minds of the people. Considering all the controversy, he suceeded.<br />
<br />
The film is his own Candyland. With glooming eyes, the young kid in him obsessively tries to get a piece from everything he can possibly find. It may be too much. But as Quentin stated himself: revenge is messy. Django is the dark angel on judgement day. He won't back down. He won't show mercy. I, however, do forgive Tarantino for this fairly undisciplined but joyful ride.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUdM9vrCbow">Watch the Trailer for 'Django Unchained' on Youtube</a></div>
Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-63362978642127160932013-01-14T00:43:00.000+01:002013-01-20T12:25:54.616+01:00Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CPSwrajb1OA/TiLbdW2YBvI/AAAAAAAAAEI/1IZswy02LPc/s1600/3+and+a+half+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- Life through the eyes of a child</u></b></div>
<br />
When the Oscar Nominations were anounced a couple of days ago, there
were - as usual - some surprises ... but this time also of the positive kind.
From some critics you could even read that the Academy had done a pretty
good job this year. The members showed a lot of love for Haneke's
"Amour" but even more interesting was to see the indie hit "Beasts of
the Southern Wild" being particularly strong in the major categories.
Whether that happened by accident or conscious decision, either way the
nominations are not undeserved.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The
film had been a crowd pleasing festival hit before and got a lot of
critical acclaim as well. Now it recieved nods in four categories including 'Best Film', 'Best Writing' and 'Best Director'. Underdog Benh Zeitlin unexpectedly took the fifth spot amongst the directors and kicked obvious candidates like Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino and Ben Affleck, who just won the Golden Globe in this discipline, out of the race. The biggest revelation though is the adoreable
actress Quvenzhané Wallis who apparently lied about her age to enter the
audition for the film. She was five when she got the role and now, she
is the youngest actress ever nominated for an Academy Award.<br />
<br />
Her
powerful lead performance is the heart of the film. She plays
Hushpuppy, a tough and headstrong young girl with a peculiar, unique
understanding of life. Together with her father she is living in a place
called "Bathtub", a wilderness surrounded by water, depending on
self-supply and always threatened by weather and flooding. The community
of the Lousiana bayou is one sworn in family. They proudly call this
place "home" and they enjoy their way of life. At the beginning of the
film there is a wild party that let's us forget about the raw
environment for a moment and dive into a lively, joyous spectacle that
this place offers aside from all the rough times.<br />
<br />
It's
hard to imagine a living in the swamp, the modest barracks, in a room with
all the animals and - in the case of our protagonist - even without a
mother. The girl's mummy "swam away" so she believes. She knows quite a
lot about life and death already but she embellishes and expands it with
her own fantasy to grasp it. Little Hushpuppy may look weak and
vulnerable but is a fearless girl with ernormous presence in front of
the camera and an unswerving look in her eyes that would make "Richard
Parker" from "Life of Pi" instantly run away ... or swim for that
matter. Other than the tiger Hushpuppy is used to all the water around
her. She was born in the area and grew up accepting these unbelievable
living conditions as part of her little world.<br />
<br />
Her father
is doing everything he can to prepare his daughter for the future. Their
relationship is the central conflict. Sometimes he seems to be rude but
it is all for her own good. All the lessons he has taught her must
assure that she is able to get through this life without him. He wants
her to be able to care for herself, he wants her to be ready for the
storm. <br />
<br />
And there is a storm coming, literally.
Together the people of Bathtub fight the forces of nature and other
threats personified by government officials who urge them to leave their
homes. Big challenges for a young child, but she stands up against it
with the believe that everything in this world is somehow connected and
even the smallest thing can make a difference and have great effect.
Hushpuppy's innocence is loveable. Things can be so simple when seen
through the eyes of a child. It's a warm-hearted story that breaks
life down to the essence and shows what is important. Being there for
the people you love, staying true to yourself and defend what is yours.
Wealth, luxury all that doesn't exist in Hushpuppy's world and she is
not missing anything of that.<br />
<br />
In a wider context there
is also political undercurrent to find if you want to. The subplot about
a enforced displacement and up-to-date climate change issues hint on the
conflict between industrialized countries and less developed countries.
While the advanced countries exploit nature and are responsible for its
decay and the effects that has on all people, they also enforce their
ideology on the developing parts of the world and force them to adapt to
their way of life. But there is a different rhythm playing in a place
like Bathtub. The people don't want to leave. They would not just give
up.<br />
<br />
Neither would Hushpuppy. All the subtext aside it
is her story. It is her rise to a member of this society who is willing
to fight for it. The visualization of her change in the film's climax is
as original as it is thrilling. It is set up a long time before. At the
inevitable face off it comes down to Darwin's rule about the survival
of the fittest. Hushpuppy is right up there and able compete. So is the
film.<br />
<br />
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u><br />
<b><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF7i2n5NXLo">Watch the Trailer for 'Beasts of the Southern Wild' on Youtube</a></b>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-77000211491008173902013-01-01T23:09:00.000+01:002013-01-08T20:56:16.088+01:00Happy New Year ... for the movies?<b><u>A quick look back and ahead</u></b><br />
<br />
Thank heaven the conspiracy about the end of the world was baloney! We are still here and will be able to enjoy many more movies in the future. But will 2013 be able to live up to the really strong last year 2012?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>We had record breaking box office hits for the mainstream crowds with movies like "The Avengers", Nolan's final chapter of his insanely popular Dark Knight-series and a mostly hailed rebirth of MI6 agent James Bond. There was also a lot to like for the more sophisticated moviegoer. Ang Lee showed all his expertise in his philosophical adaptation of the allegedly unfilmable novel of "Life of Pi" and that 3D can actually be used in an interesting, artistic way. Michael Haneke's "Amour" was a quietly breathtaking meditation on love and the festival hit "Beasts of the Southern Wild" took over audiences by storm.<br />
We are still not done. Especially here in Europe there are quite a few 2012 films that still wait to be released. One of them is surely "Django Unchained", the newest from writer/director Quentin Tarantino - and second part of a loose trilogy, so he says. Personally, I am most excited about the new film by my favorite filmmaker Paul Thomas Anderson "The Master" which sadly opens not before late february in my country but has already made many critics' top lists. So for some of us 2012, a great year for the movies, is not even over yet. <br />
<br />
But what can we look forward to in the new year? Here are some anticipated flicks and those I am personally most keen to see so far.<br />
<br />
The first film you have to talk about has actually been in limited release in the US already and was better recieved by the American press than any other movie in the last months - it will be interesting to see the reactions of the foreign press. But its wide release in the states and around the globe is set for 2013 which is why I will put it on this list. The film I talk about is of course Kathryn Bigelow's new movie "Zero Dark Thirty". Her next film after the oscar-winning "Hurt Locker" back in 2009 may be one of the most controversial films of this decade. It's is a procedural about the hunt and killing of terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden. Can this explosive topic make it as a dramatized film? Oscar-buzz says yes.<br />
<br />
The bad news for the next year is that we will get an awful amount of sequels, reboots and remakes again. Superheros will still occupy the big theaters in 2013. There is Iron Man 3, Thor 2 and Kick-ass 2. One of the hottest amongst them is certainly the new superman movie "Man of Steel" not least because of the involvement of Christopher Nolan who produced the film. Let's see how this turns out. Also presumably on the plus side for the blockbusters Guillermo Del Toro's new movie "Pacific Rim" could be a contender as well as a new zombie apocalyse in "World War Z" starring Brad Pitt.<br />
But we will also get the third "Hangover" to feel sick again, a fifth part of "Die Hard", that should have been in its grave for so long and a SIXTH part of the tedious "Fast and Furious" franchise. Furthermore there will be updates of classics including "Carrie" and another "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" in 3D. I could go on with this for a long time. On top of that we will have to deal with a new Michael Bay movie called "Pain & Gain" - with the emphasis on pain, presumeably. <br />
<br />
However, there are a couple of remakes that could turn out to be actually good. There is much talk about the new personification of "The Great Gatsby" this time played by Leonardo DiCaprio. Is this a chance for Leo's first Oscar? Two other remakes that I am both sceptical but also curious about are new versions of "The Evil Dead" and "Oldboy". Spike Lee is a strong name for an American interpretation of the manga comic but I simply love the original film by Park Chan Wook too much to be really happy about it. <br />
<br />
Park, coincidentally, has a new movie out himself. His first American work "Stoker" is one of five films that I really can't wait for! Here are the other four:<br />
<br />
Another man who explores new territory is frontman singer/songwriter Dave Grohl from the Foo Fighters (my favorite band by the way) sitting in the director's chair for the first time with his documentary "Sound City". It's not only a portrait of that most famous production studio where countless legendary artists recorded their music but also a general look at music production and its change over time - driven by the love for good handmade music.<br />
<br />
Martin Scorsese is just filming "The Wolf of Wall Street" embodied by his regular actor of choice Leo DiCaprio, a collaboration that makes the visit at the cinema a no-brainer! The film will probably hit theaters late in the year. From an old master to a younger generation of directors I go with Robert Rodriguez and his return to Sin City. The sequel to the brillantly made, brutally funny and extremely stylish comic by Frank Miller is a movie to kill for.<br />
<br />
Last but not least, my most anticipated film of 2013 so far is of course "Inside Llewyn Davis". The new film by the great Coen Brothers is set in the 1960s folk music scene in New York. It should be opening in the US in february. If you live anywhere else you'll probably have to wait for it a little longer. But stay on your toes and pain will hopefully be followed by gain.Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-80365073866548052942012-12-31T16:58:00.000+01:002013-01-18T19:52:10.503+01:00Life of Pi (2012)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CPSwrajb1OA/TiLbdW2YBvI/AAAAAAAAAEI/1IZswy02LPc/s1600/3+and+a+half+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- Sometimes you have to take a leap of faith - but Ang Lee hesitates</u></b></div>
<br />
"Life of Pi" tells an unbelievable story that you will want to believe. Ang Lee's artistic parabel about spirituality, life and truth offers moments of heavenly delight and visual wonders but occasionally reveals too much of itself and doesn't allow itself to fully drown in its magic. There was no final enlightment in "Life of Pi" for me but much of it is genuinly fascinating. <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>For Pi it was a life changing experience. He is lost in the middle of nowhere. A drifter on the pacific who lost his family on a sinking ship. Now he's stuck on a life boat as the only survivor of the tragic event. But he is not alone. Accompanied by a tiger he has to fight hunger, grief and despair. He is looking into the abyss and finds something intangible. Eventually he puts his fate into the hands of god.<br />
<br />
His struggle to survive is a spiritual journey of self-discovery. So fantastic is it that years later Pi's story still evokes the curiosity of other people. A young writer is interviewing old Pi to write down his story and to find out what happened to the man himself. However, the story Pi has to tell does not begin with a sinking ship but starts way earlier in his childhood. The first act of the film is a little mellow. It shows Pi growing up, confused of what to believe and torn between different world views and multiple religions. The latter is not playing for laughs but is there to point out that the deeply religious film doesn't take a side and is open for anyone to embrace it. <br />
Pi's family, particularly his father, a zookeeper, try to guide him and help him choose his path. Then one day the family decides to move to Canada along with all their animals. <br />
<br />
The most exciting part of the film is of course when Pi is face to face with the tiger. There are unforgetable scenes in "Life of Pi" that arouse feelings of total freedom. Cut off from the world, detached from your mind and from yourself. It's entering a dream-like state when Pi's spirit is able to escape his misery and leave the boat to a place beyond words and reality. In the majestical presence of the king of the jungle the film unleashes all its power. There are scenes you've never seen before and images that seem to capture infinity.<br />
<br />
In its greatest moments the film's thoughtfulness and beauty reminded me of the films by Terrance Malick, most recently "The Tree of Life". "Life of Pi" is more accessable but probably not quite as accomplished. In its core it is clearly a movie that should have been made for an arthouse theater but is ultimately playing at every multiplex - at least in my country. To be honest about it you have to realize that the film has clearly been watered down to reach a wider audience, which is its biggest flaw. Firstly this is evident as the movie constantly tries to lighten up the otherwise earnest, calm and thoughtful subject matter. A few times I thought it was told a little too humorous and cheerful. On a side note I could mention that the name of the tiger kind of bothered me, too. It is "Richard Parker" and it is always spelled out completely instead of just calling him Richard for once. <br />
Much more important is though that the film is a parabel. It should tell its story, it should give us the context to base the interpretations of its metaphors on. It does. But it should have also left us with open minds and not point too heavily on what it wants to say. But it kind of does. Uncertainty is an essential part of the films story. Pi's tale is at times bewildering but it's meant to be. There is no final answer. It is about letting go. Is it the truth? What does truth even mean? The important thing is what you want to believe and accept as being true.<br />
<br />
In the end it is director Ang Lee who is not able to let go. He is revealing a little too much of his fable. The film is afraid to break loose and completely enter transcendental spheres always keeping one foot in more grounded realms. A more uncertain and even more abstract ending would have been more elegant and advantageous for the story. But it seems like Ang Lee, whose previous achievements include works like "Brokeback Mountain" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", was not quite believing in his own vision. He seems to be in doubt, he seems to be too concerned about his audience. And he makes sacrifices to not lose anyone on the journey.<br />
Some of it is literally explained on screen which is sad as most of that would not have been too hard to figure out anyway. Consequently the lazy moviegoer will probably not think too long about the life of Pi. It's not like there is nothing left for those who want to start their own search though. But as the one in doubt will likely have a harder time find to god, "Life of Pi" doesn't quite find its way to greatness. But some Oscars may already be waiting at the end of the tunnel anyway.<br />
<br />
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kY2znHZLxk"><b>Watch 'Life Of Pi' Trailer on Youtube</b></a></div>
Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-86328843625574315102012-12-23T15:32:00.000+01:002013-01-20T12:26:14.421+01:00The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hhOanEPfxdU/TiLbcxpev9I/AAAAAAAAAEA/QceuHGfgwMM/s1600/2+and+a+half+stars.gif" /> <b><u>- All too expected: a trip we've been through before</u></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
In the first round of their journey director Peter Jackson sends his sorcerer Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and a good dozen of dwarfs on a mission to recapture their former homeland inside of the "Lonely Mountain". But despite the running time of nearly three hours they are not getting too far in the first film of the trilogy and there are reasonable doubts about the trisection again which is more likely to be a commercial decision than an artistic one. A shorter, more compact approach with more concentration on the essentials would have been more advantageous for the saga's kick-off. While the Hobbit is not the disastrous counterpart to "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace", as some had feared in the forefront, it is also no "Lord of the Rings" ... or sometimes a little too much so actually ...</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<a name='more'></a>The prequel to the popular fantasy series lacks some crucial qualities considering depth and atmosphere. Boredom on the other hand is not one of its major components either but all the pleasure is from the rather shallow, superficial kind. Then unfortunately much of it also feels too familiar like we have seen the same thing before. The set up is all too similar to "The fellowship of the ring". The beautiful landscapes are certainly still nice to look at but somehow there is a feeling that we have been through the same adventure before.<br />
<br />
Other than its older brother "The Hobbit" never achieves a similarly immersive level of poignancy and tension that was present in the fellowship's company. One reason for that is just the members of the troop. Aside of the brave dwarf leader Thorin (Richard Armitage) who sees his duty and destiny in returning the home of the dwarfs to his people and leading them back to their roots even if this means death, all the other ones of his tribe are completely one-dimensional. Thorin has his principles, his honor and his pride that often swaps over into dourness. Furthermore his life is enlighted and fleshed out by flashbacks into the past even though some of these expositional excourses are implemented rather practically than elegantly into the film. All the other dwarfs stay stereotypes without distinct personalities. This results in missing dynamics within the group. Especially protagonist Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is rather weak in the first half of the picture and can't really stand out alone against the dwarfs. The hobbit joins the expedition with lots of reservations after previous hesitation. Thorin is sceptical too. But Bilbo doesn't really have a partner at his side to bring his inner conflicts properly on the screen. Gandalf is mostly busy with something else and so Bilbo looks a little lost sometimes. That wasn't the case with Frodo who always had his loyal friend Sam as an outlet for his emotions. Also Gandalf - who has probably learned from this story - was more of a mentor to him than he is to Bilbo. On top of that there was interesting tension in the interaction with characters like Aragorn and Boromir. Here the strong, present roles are mostly missing. In case of Bilbo that changes in the moment when Andy Serkis also known as Gollum shows up - but that is over one and a half hours into the film. The two share the best scene in the picture and probably the only moment of profound emotional content.<br />
<br />
The beginning of the film in particular wanders rather slowly and stresses patience especially because there are no interesting characters to introduce anyway. After an appropriate backstory about the dwarf's race origins, their war and their displacement the little community teams up at Bilbo's house in the shire followed by an elaborate welcome and two musical acts of which (at least) one is totally dispensable. Finally the trip is about to begin. But unlike in "The fellowship of the ring" there is no sense of threat or tension throughout most of the film. First obstacles like (overly) dim-witted trolls are taken down and soon the voyagers are hunted by orcs. A second magician named Radagast has a short appearences after they meet him in the woods. He had been compared to Jar Jar Binks from the first Star Wars episode by some sceptics before but he is far less annoying and can be quite sure not to be deleted out of the movie by angry fans. The problem with his character is that he initiates a subplot that is not dealt with any further at all in this first installment. But that was probably inevitable.<br />
<br />
Not as inevitable as it was to make the journey that monotonous. Discounting a short break at a well known elven city where you'll meet some old friends, most of the events seem to be more like a line up of random fights with no-name monsters. Real antagonists are hard to make out or stay passively in the background. Hence the action becomes a little repetetive and insignificant. One scene in particular involving some rock-like giants plays solely for asthetic reasons without a coherent context or necessity. It's another part in the film that could have been shortened or left out completely. The best sequence of the film begins with the appearance of the skinny, schizophrenic creature Gollum, who is at that time the keeper of Sauron's ring. This little therapy session is intercut with the film's most exciting action sequence. In a furious rollercoaster ride through regiments of orcs Peter Jackson demonstrates his rich imagination and creates a very funny chase supported by exhilarating camera movement. It's a joy to watch the very playful but not laughable show.<br />
<br />
However, there are humorous moments in the film that cross the line and feel so corny and dull even though it's by far not as bad as I had worried. But one or two mood-killers are in there just like in the last two Lord of the Rings movies. One is delivered by Gandalf in a really, really lame joke at the beginning. His role is also quite problematic in terms of its dramaturgical function. Multiple times he appears to be like a kind of "deus ex machina". Repeatedly he is responsible for crucial turns and very, very unsatisfying plot development as a result. <br />
<br />
<i>LITTLE SPOILERS AHEAD</i><br />
<br />
He is also guilty of denying the conflict to reach a first climax. Even for the opening of a series the ending of the film lacks any kind of pay-off. Where the fellowship of the ring split up at a very tragic point in their journey, "The Hobbit" leaves us with a much less moving, memorable finale. <br />
<br />
<i>END OF SPOILERS</i><br />
<br />
"The Hobbit" doesn't really draw us back into the world (yet). The film offers enjoyable popcorn entertainment for most of the time but much of it is just too familiar and too unremarkable with hardly any moments to remember. And this is just how the first round ends: with a shot that you should be able to anticipate long before it arrives on screen and with the feeling that - at least for now - the film is rather moving in circles.<br />
<br />
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u> <br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-D79P1ScdU">Watch the Trailer for 'The Hobbit' on Youtube</a>Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2077324537478591745.post-40260035032465857062012-12-16T17:35:00.000+01:002014-06-07T19:13:37.266+02:00Ted (2012)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-nDRIftnYA_4/TiLbdLrp-WI/AAAAAAAAAEE/-sIiU_PwK6s/s1600/2+stars.gif" /> - <b><u>Ted-ious!</u></b></div>
<br />
Okay, now that I have drunken a couple of beers it may be the right time to review Ted, the box office smash hit-comedy written and directed by the man who gave us "Family Guy" and "American Dad", Seth MacFarlane. Political correctness is of course thrown over board in this crude, obscene and ultimately tedious film.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>This is an R-rated comedy that really isn't for kids even though the set up may suggest something else. Like in "Toy Story" or the less prestigious "Indian in a cupboard" it all starts with a young kids dream that his stuffed animal would actually be alive. The boy in question is Mark Wahlberg as John Bennett who discovers that his wish has come true and that his teddy is able to talk and think and drink ... and behave like an asshole ... . It is a fucking miracle and John's new best friend is soon a famous TV sensation. The two grow up and spend every fucking day of their fucking lives together. It's not quite clear whose fault it was but both Ted and Marky Mark never got quite passed their teenage years. He is a dreamer, undisciplined, childish, aimless. And Ted? Well, he is a fucking teddy bear - but not the cute and fluffy type. He is rather a drug-abusing, sex-obsessed, foul-mouthed monster whose only ambition in his teddy-life is to hang around with his best friend, consume drugs, pick up women and watch movies. But this has to change if John wants to keep his relationship with his girlfriend Lori (Mila Kunis) intact.<br />
<br />
Like with so many "Family Guy-" Episodes, Ted provides a couple of really funny gags but the rest of it is just a waste of time. The hugely successful comedy has about three good laughs in it and some other lines that we have literally seen in MacFarlane's TV-series before. It's quite interesting how recognizable MacFarlane's style is here. I wonder if that means he is a true original or that he ran out of ideas for new stuff and just got repetetive. Anyways, the few hilarious moments in the film could play on youtube as a clipshow and would be equally satisfying. But since this is a feature film we now have another 90 minutes of plot to get through.<br />
Blimey! The teddy-bear aside, this is one of the most formulaic love stories I have seen in a long time. The moment Ted left and Mila Kunis appeared on screen the film descends into a horrible borefest. Not that looking at Mila Kunis isn't enjoyable for a couple of minutes ... but the plot is so lame and so predictable and most of all so in the focus. I am not sure about this but I felt like the movie spent more time with the relationship between John and Lori than with Ted. She enforces his transition to a sincere man and demands that he has to get more distanced towards Ted to grow up. But even though Ted is soon out of the house the two buddies still meet regularly and John falls back into former behavioural patterns again and again. Is it just Ted's influence or his own fault? Anyway, John finds himself in crises and even his superman-like hero Flash Gordon doesn't help him further. Then Ted returns in a moment of realization.<br />
<br />
To speak in the movie's favor: it is not making any secrets of its sillyness. All the good bits are full on and the high level of self awareness is present throughout. Alongside there are tons of references to other movies that may be fun to spot for the geeks. But it's all a form of compromise and just not enough. They will give you the laughs for something in return. In this case that means to take the loss and accept the story that the makers had to put around their jokes. But it's really not a good deal. You have to ask yourself if you want to sit through 110 minutes of film to find that out. Ted is a fad! It is like someone who tells everyone that he has this brillant joke but it takes a long time for him to tell you and after countless minutes of impatience you find out that the punchline wasn't worth the wait.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<u><b>TRAILER:</b></u></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fbo_pQvU7M">Watch the Trailer for 'Ted' on Youtube</a></div>
Eliashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11021614669281284565noreply@blogger.com0