Dierk Reviews

Munich (2005)

Asking questions rather than giving a simple answer

[9/10 · 2 February 2006]

*Munich* is a complex movie, reminding us that film makers and artists have to rather ask complex questions instead of giving simple answers. It is much more than just a plot about the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The movie is as much about war and what it does to people, about the difference in old-school wars against big numbers of enemies you can hardly discern when shooting and the modern war on small bands of terrorists you have to look in the eye, the beginnings of modern terrorism and the current state of it.

It's main theme is the problem that just causes may lead to terrible consequences taking one to the same moral level than one's enemy. Spielberg pictures life as it is: a continuum, not a series of distinct moments. You can suddenly find yourself on the wrong side without being able to point down to the one moment you went wrong.

Even after having watched the whole movie the viewer is unable to tell if or when the moral predicament gets awry. And that although the script gives us two Killings (and a "collateral damage") which are not on the original agenda.

Some critics take exception to the way the Israeli athletes in Munich are depicted as cardboard characters. But then, most of what happens in the Olympic village and on Munich's airfield is only shown in retrospect by Eric Bana's character, the leader of the Israeli killing team, who hasn't been in Munich. He envisions what we see and ultimately - in the world of the movie - don't know!

Not much of the original attack is shown from an outside, objective perspective: We see two US athletes helping the Palestinian terrorists into the village, how they get around in the deserted floors and how they enter the athletes rooms. There's also some glimpses of the media hype surrounding - and eventually sabotaging one attempt to free the hostages - the whole affair. Everything else is only Avner's imaginations.

King Kong (2005)

BIG movie - BIG mistake

[5/10 · 9 January 2006]

In short: There's a good movie hidden in Jackson's version, unfortunately he decided to not show it.

I think everybody already noted that Jackson needs to go back to film school and learn how to use an editing machine. *King Kong* is simply too big for its story. Curiously the writers and director not only magnified all mistakes already in Schoedsack/O'Brien's version of 1932, they also added their own.

Apart from one scene{1}, every sequence (and scene) in the movie goes on too long. I differ from most other critics by also noting that there's complete scenes in it that should have landed only on the bonus disc of a forthcoming Special Edition DVD.

The script is a nearly complete hack, it doesn't differ too much from the original, meaning it doesn't add anything - bad idea. I cannot quite see why a remake should be realised if nothing but computer graphics are to be added - particularly if the original still stands up quite well in every respect.

The script writers first take out the first mate from the original and replace him, rather elegantly, with Denham's film writer. So, it looks like they boil down the characters to a manageable number. Nope, not Peter Jackson, he puts back in a (black) first mate, gives him a completely unnecessary sub-plot with a deckhand, who is just dropped later on.

Other script problems:

• The love story between Kong and Ann Darrow is even more awkward then in the original. While in 1932 it was only slightly hinted at Kong being alone and quite enamoured by a white blonde, this time around we have a full-fledged love affair between a human and an over-sized, grumpy celery-eater.

• Why are the natives on Skull Island afraid of a big gorilla when at the same time T. Rex is roaming the jungle?

• Why do we see a *secondary* jungle on an obviously untouched island?

• Why is the American military laying New York to waste, don't they think Kong is able enough?

• How come some rather non-descript carnivorous dinosaurs hunt for the band of small two-legged primates even after a complete herd of Brontosauri just toppled over in front of them, ready to take?

There more plot details and sub-plots not making a lot of sense. And than there's dialogues to die of, not to "die for". People talk when they should run, people tell others what they just see for themselves, people babble pretentious idiocies instead of real-life lines. Hard to believe *Kong* was scripted by the same team having created spot-on dialogue for all three *Lord of the Rings* films.

Another mistake is the "hit the audience with an interpretation over the head". It's worse enough if a movie brings with it its own exegesis but it should at least be subtle. On the freighter the film crew takes one ship crew member is a tattooed Maori. I am quite sure this is not just a reverence to New Zealand but also a reference to *Moby Dick* (it's an Indian on Melville's Pequod). That's a nice touch.

Later on the deckhand shows off a book he is reading - *Heart of Darkness*. Another nice touch, unfortunately deckhand and first mate start discussing Conrad's novel. Right in the middle of the third act (back in New York, just a moment before Kong gets away) the character played by Adrien Brody has to spell it out another time: "Denham is adept at destroying what he loves!"

The last trap Jackson falls into is the "make it bigger" paradigm: where O'Brien staged a fight between one building-sized ape against one building-sized T.Rex, Jackson threw in three big lizards {I know, they are not lizards, they are dinosaurs}. Where Schoedsack edited out a story-halting, gruesome scene with strange insect- and lizard-like creatures and a spider, Jackson creates an even longer story-halting scene with man-sized cockroaches and Anaconda-sized leeches.

The actors are well chosen - particularly Brody, whose development from bookworm to reluctant hero is brilliant; Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis (as Kong) are very good as are almost all secondary parts.

I do have some trouble with Jack Black, who at times is good and subtle, at other times hams it (especially when his outlook for adventure, a good yarn and money turns to obsession) but then lacks totally when he should overact.

Black's performance on the stage with Kong is too subdued, verging on non-acting in a bad sense. And the last sentence of the movie, as in the original doesn't work at all with him and his characterisation. It just sounds wrong.

When Robert Armstrong uttered it in 1932 it was a matter-of-factly statement, something that just fit his view of the world. It was an end to one story and a beginning of a new search. Black's Carl Denham is a cynic, he thinks only money drives the world. He's not out for a good story, he wants success. The sentence actually sounds lame in the new *King Kong*.

The movie edited down to 120 minutes (perhaps even less) would make a captivating adventure yarn.

{1}The Central Park scene, in which Kong and Ann Darrow "skate" on an iced over lake. Really good that one, shows what the movie could have been.

Asterix and Obelix vs. Caesar (1999)

Perhaps there are worse movies

[1/10 · 11 June 2005]

This surely shows how bad a picture can get when everyone tries hard and gives generous money to people who neither love film nor their subject - let alone viewers.

The settings look cheaper than on any 5th grade school theatre I've ever seen, the special effects, mostly computer-generated, must have been made on old Robotron machines by folks who have never even seen a computer mouse.

All that doesn't matter much since the actors, who have all shown quite good abilities in other motion pictures, ham it up big time, guided by a director with cheap TV movies in mind. Whatever Claude Zidi has done in the past to earn his name for entertaining comedies didn't remotely enter this venture.

Only two of the actors get something out of their roles: Roberto Benigni and Gottfried John. While the former is obviously the only one in the whole affair having a clear sense of farce, the latter goes over the top in his portrait of Cesar. Nonetheless, he is consistent in this.

Add to that a hodgepodge script, cobbled together from various Asterix stories. Unfortunately the authors forgot that any film needs a uniting theme, a plot and dialogues. Alright, there is dialogue in this ... and listening to it one begs for this to be a silent movie.

France once made quite good movies, particularly farcical comedies, but that was then. This film is now.

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Pop-culture buff's laugh along

[6/10 · 24 January 2004]

There surely is much to be said against this movie, as it definitely isn't Kevin Smith's best work. But, hey, it's hilariously funny, and obviously Smith's idea of nice afternoon out with the friends.

Yes, it is not *Dogma*, let alone *Clerks*, and poking fun at every movie out there isn't actually satire. Nonetheless, the laugh factor is very high, the parodies are deeper than in most other films, it even pokes fun of itself in a good manner (not as clumsy as for instance *Loaded Weapon*. The movie also makes some nice points about film and reality, and the Internet community. Just look out for all the times a loaded and cocked weapon is thrown to the floor or falls down without firing!

This is Kevin smith for the masses, as the film is watchable even if you don't know his sources and can't understand his allusions. Would I buy it on DVD? Well, perhaps, at a discount.

Thrill Seekers (1999 TV Movie)

Script better than most time travel stories

[7/10 · 18 January 2004]

This movie will never be seen as one of the great classics, it is much too pedestrian in execution for that - sadly. The actors are mostly competent as is the direction, but with the exception of Catherine Bell and James Allodi none is really good, sometimes delivering lines as if just reading from cue cards.

What is really intriguing is the script, which does not rely on the typical B-movie thriller baddies. All characters really *are* characters, the supposed baddies actually have good reasons to hunt down the two main characters. There's even two juxtaposed dialogues spelling it out for the sake of the usual couch potato.

Even more surprising is the stand on Free Will the scrípt takes as Casper van Dien tells Catherine Bell that their hunters may try to safe their own past, but he has all his future in front of him. As long as we cannot predict the future in any meaningful way (lets say with 100% assurance) we have a contingency of decisions, which all influence the future.

In the hands of a more visionary director, with some changes to the cast and made for the big screen it could have been one of the best sci-fi thrillers for a long time - and much more interesting than *Blade Runner* or the second and third installment of *Matrix*.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001)

Great fun; scrap logic

[6/10 · 2 January 2004]

Hey, now, who couldn't like such a silly enterprise? Well, perhaps anybody more interested in Ingmar Bergmann's comedy or Woody Allen's darkness.

There are, surely, lots of mistakes, errors and omissions in this pure, entertaining fun in the vein of Rider Haggard, Ian Fleming or old school space adventure. I could point to the not very wise choice in casting some of the characters, or to the total lack of any characterisation. Not to speak of logic. Although there is one moment in this flick, which really should have been a bit more logical; to give away no spoiler - how can there be a spoiler in a movie lacking logic? - let's just say that something very funny can be observed when Lady Lara escapes from the Khmer temple (witness her adversaries and ask yourself what they are doing just before she comes out ...).

But all this doesn't really matter, this movie is just a helluva fun ride; it never takes itself too seriously (one of the freat errors with the latest Bond films), it always shows that it is a video game come alive. And don't forget its main assets [sic]: Angelina Jolie, who not only looks gorgeous but acts in a movie that doesn't ask for it. My favourite example is her facial expression whenever she kills of a baddie or a monster, Lara really likes to be on top ...

Something's Got to Give (1962)

Unfinished but could have been brilliant

[15 November 2003]

I was lucky enough to watch the about 40 minutes or so that had been "finished" before Ms Monroe met her untimely end. Even these are much better than the Doris Day version, which was done a year or so later. Ms M. clearly shows that she is a great actress not just a pair of you-know-what walking around.

It looks as if Dean Martin, Marilyn Monroe and George Cukor aimed for much more than just another comedy. Sad it never came to light...

Good Bye Lenin! (2003)

Brilliant character piece and satire

[9/10 · 20 September 2003]

I am not quite sure why so many - particularly German - commenters have trouble with this movies brilliant mix of comic and serious aspects. Every good satire ever made does this (i.e. *Gulliver's Travels*).

Like the current trend of "Ostalgie" (nostalgia for Eastern German ways of living) it may just be a bit much for some. It is really not too easy to understand that the people of the GDR did live their private lifes while the big ideological blocks stood head to head. And this private, quiet life is what most of them like to remember.

******Slight spoiler ahead*********

But this film goes much deeper, mainly due to the exceptionally good Kathrin Sass. Although most viewers I've heard talking about the movie and all reviews I've read pointed out the unrelenting communist in the character she plays, I urge you to look at her face whenever she talks with others about "her" socialist home country. At one time we are told about her former husband by her, together with another scene - when her son coincidentally is in one of the "We are the people" demonstrations and she sees what happens to him - this makes her stance towards the socialist regime quite clear.

*********Spoiler end*********

Enjoy it wherever you are, even if you have to cope with subtitles.

Die Another Day (2002)

Starting out to be great, just to fall the more

[3/10 · 23 April 2003]

Yes, this could have been a great, a classic Bond. It isn't. The pre-title sequence is breathtaking but nothing we haven't seen in a Bond movie already. Not really disappointing but a bit mediocre. Until the end when Bond becomes imprisoned by a sadist. and with the actual titles this film shows what it could have been, it is simply the best credits sequence since *Goldfinger*, using background and foreground in various ways to show what happens to James during his imprisonment.

And the film goes on to be a brilliant mixture of serious spy thriller for grown-ups and kiddie entertainment when Brosnan reprises his Robinson Crusoe role for some cheap and some not so cheap funny moments. After his resurfacing in Hongkong the movie takes up pace rolling further on the tracks of a serious spy thriller in the mold of *From Russia With Love* or the first two Harry Palmer movies.

Everything begins to slide down, first slowly then with ever more speed, when script and director more and more rely upon typical action sequences in the Ice Palace sequence. Some of those images are quite nice but lack the nerve-racking grittiness of early Bond films and the tongue-in-cheek irony of the Moore era.

From the moment Bond and Jinx leave for Asia it's down the drain, the last twenty to thirty minutes of *Die Another Day* are stupid, unbelievable, totally unrealistic and look like a badly programmed video game. These last two or three reels are so bad they work extremely against the brilliant opening and still good middle sequence. The solution to the plot may be good in a third class "Sci-Fi" fantasy manga, but in a Bond movie it is totally out of place. At least the viewer should have gotten a good looking sequence. But what we see is much worse than the worst action scenes in *Spider-Man*. I'd appreciate it if EON would first solve their trouble with ordinary blue-screen projections before taking on the intricacies of CGI.

BTW, Madonna's title song and video are much better than many "critics" write; the video is even better than the second half of the film proper. Her performance is as bad as the superfluous addition of the character she "plays".

Three Kings (1999)

Brilliant satire

[10/10 · 11 April 2003]

Apart from the great direction and superb actors the script shows to be timeless; it's not - like many a war movie before - dated a few weeks after release but remains topical to a point where the fiction and deliberate satire becomes reality.

Not that a movie could hold off political decisions, but isn't it funny that everything we see in *Three Kings* is re-enacted for real in the Persian deserts?

Sad that there haven't been many critics and moviegoers seeing the potential and quality of this film when it came out first; perhaps in Europe this film was even more ignored than in the US, many a critic shunning it as "just another war movie". And that in the light that Russell did include a standard "Saul-to-Paul" happy-ending - and making it believable and original.

But that is one of the main points for the film: The director took many a standard seen, one would expect in a war film, and gave them original twists.

Belongs right at the top together with *M.A.S.H.*; much better than *Saving Private Ryan* (which isn't half-bad either).

Back to the Future Part III (1990)

Definitely much underrated

[8/10 · 14 September 2002]

This movie has been underrated from its release to this day. Even the producers and director underrate it.

If you see the film out of context of the other two you will watch a nice and well-done Western parody, which on the one hand tries to mock typical cliches and on the other hand conveys something about real life on the Frontier. Isn't it quite funny how the "educated" Marty McFly falls for every cliche he has seen on TV? Even the gunmen (Tannen and his gang), who themselves try hard to *be* the feared Jesse James' of their valley, are baffled by Marty's view on the West.

Almost everything that connects this part to the other two is nothing more than icing on the cake, knitting together some loose ends (i.e. Marty's inability to play the guitar). It doesn't add anything to the characters or plot or story. Nonetheless these in-jokes are brilliantly executed, coming nice and easy, not with big fanfare.

I really recommend this film - although, let it be noted that it is not the brilliant and innovative movie that *Back to the Future * is. Or s dark a satire as the second part; it's just plain old fun with real characters.

An American Werewolf in Paris (1997)

The Big Rip-off

[1/10 · 9 February 2002]

Well, what can be said about a "horror comedy" that features neither horror nor comedy? There are no characters in the film, but much too many plot lines - all underdeveloped and mostly superfluous.

The computer generated creatures look bad, a bit like Disney versions of oversized rats without a tail. The walking dead are the biggest rip-off apart from the title, the shall look like the dead in Landis' movie, but are far removed. They just look like bad actors with abit of plastic and bull's blood added.

Two plot lines really showed some promise (the love story and the "company" story), but failed as miserably as the director, the writers, the SFX department, the production and the actors.

The Searchers (1956)

The greatest western and maybe the best film ever

[10/10 · 12 July 2000]

Well, a bold statement but true. Many people think there is not much characterization in the movie, I think they are wrong. The film is about character and family much more than about shaping America (which is a secondary theme). Ethan Edwards is a man who has lost everything when we first meet him. He lost a war (the Civil War), he lost his love (evidently his brother's wife) and therefore lost his home. As the title song implies, he will always wander to find his peace. When he returns to his brothers farm he tries to get back a family - and the Indian raiders destroy instantly. From now on he seeks only revenge. In a lot of scenes he tells of his hatred of everything Indian but his eyes betray him in two key sequences: After the first cavalry attack (we see only the result) Edwards looks at the older white woman with his nieces baby doll, and we know that he knows that the way the Indians are treated is wrong. The second sequence is when his niece comes to warn him. He lets her talk with Martin and looks at her lovingly until she says "I am one of them" and starts talking Comanche. He realizes that he has lost her, too. Afterwards he bequeathes his belongings to Martin - another dreaded Indian. But Martin is like a son to Ethan and everything he says and does to him during their search speaks of love and care - he actually wants to save Martin from his own unrest. After bringing his lost niece back he will wander on because he knows that his peace may lie in wandering on - searching (for) his soul. All actors are so good that it hurts, the viewer becomes really a part of their life. The only other film in which Wayne was as good is his last one *The Shootist*. And watch for the "madman" Hank Worden!

Alien: Resurrection (1997)

Underappreciated

[8/10 · 28 May 2000]

This movie may not be what hard core SF fans or critics wanted to see in the Alien series. But nevertheless it is a very good film.

Jeunet -- and the producers in choosing him as a director -- found the funny elements in the Alien saga and made a mostly bizarre sci-fi comedy. Well, it is not the kind of comedy Chevy Chase may stand for. It is a distinctly European kind of humour in the mold of Monty Python.

It would be a mistake to give anything away concerning scenes but be aware of some really, really good laughs that will stuck in your throat. Jeunets satire reminds one of the pictures of Hieronymus Bosch, either you like it or not. Oh, and be aware that Jeunet does not need as much "shock" scenes like previous directors but uses much more graphic violence and splatter effects.

Another thing: With all its gross humour the film delivers some of the most endearing and emotional scenes ever in a sci-fi flic.

Alien 3 (1992)

Much better than critics have said

[8/10 · 28 May 2000]

One of the good things about the Alien saga is that every instance in the series has its own vision. The first one was a class 1 gothic horror movie, the second showed us a war in space. The fourth one gave us a satirical comedy with splatter elements. And the third? Well, it is not that easy to categorize as it shows much more of a personal vision than a genre.

Alien 3 seems to me the psychological society play. Fincher is more interested in the drama of the small group of people than in the action sequences. This led some critics to write that the final chase is poorly staged. Seeing it now -- some 8 years after its initial release -- the scene is not bad but was just unusally filmed. What wonder since Fincher is one of the new breed of directors, trying to invent new perspectives. Like the one of the Alien with its distorting big "head eye".

Funny enough, if you watch Aliens and Alien 3 directly after another, the non-professional fighters in the Alien 3 behave more professional than most of the professionally trained Marines in Aliens. Yes, there are some whining scenes but when it comes to fight the inmates in Alien 3 do their duty. which cannot be said of the Marines who take much longer to even try to save their lives. and even than it's just some of them (and there are not many who survive the first Alien attack) who seem to remember what they are there for.

The overall look of Alien 3 is great and shows us how to tend a Future vision without loosing grip on reality.

Face/Off (1997)

Very big disappointment

[3/10 · 22 April 2000]

Ok, I really wanted to see this movie since nearly everybody seemed to like it. I really hoped that the film was not just hyped -- and was disappointed. The story is convoluted with way too many ideas, most of which would make excellent movies for themselves. But as it stays *Face/Off* just became an overlong explosion much like *The Rock*. The script has lots of logical errors, like a governmental agency lead by an emotionally involved man. Really, Sean Archer would only do some archival work, if anything, after losing his son through a sniper. And what about his marriage? I cannot understand (in any movie), how a stressed marriage is rescued just by some shoot outs? And why is it just a handful of bullets that can make "wild" teenager into good suburban citizens? And why does nobody wonder how (the wrong) Archer could possibly deactivate the big bomb in just one minute when all the experts could not do it in hours?

And what of Cage and Travolta -- well, I haven't seen this much hamming (especially on Travolta's side) since ... William Shatner after 1962.

To be fair, some scenes of the movie are quite good, like most of the first twenty minutes, the prison sequence and Cage (as Archer) with the criminal friends after his escape from Erehwon.

If you want to see a good action movie (or any kind of good film) this is not the one to go for.

When Harry Met Sally... (1989)

One of the great romantic comedies -- not just of the 80ies

[8/10 · 21 February 2000]

A really funny film: very good actors, brilliant ensemble work. The dialogue is good (even if not as funny as that of *Philadelphia Story* or *Four Weddings and a Funeral*). All comparisons to Woody Allen's films are deadly wrong; *When Harry...* is FUNNY and not all self-indulgent. Highly recommended for everyone, especially when you have anything to do with a relationship either working or broken, new or old, well, whatever.

Armageddon (1998)

Sheer unadulterated fun

[8/10 · 23 January 2000]

Ok, the plot is not very logical most of the time, the characters are not really developed (well, both artistically and the persons in the movie). But it is fun to watch, it looks good, it sounds terrific it uses its fabulous cast brilliantly especially Bruce Willis who underplays -- coming up with a very funny parody of himself.

As said above, the movie is sheer unadulterated fun without any message apart from "Do your job, do it good and you'll be brave!"

The World Is Not Enough (1999)

Great movie, minor flaws

[9/10 · 10 January 2000]

Well, it is not that hard to rate this James Bond better than its four predecessors: it's fast paced but takes its time. It actually developes plot, story and character. You really find acting in the film -- lots of acting, from Judi Dench through Robert Carlyle, Sophie Marceau up to Pierce Brosnan. The script has some good (and some not so good) jokes; some jokes concerning Q became stale if not quite cynical after his death in a car accident. At some points you find even tragedy in the movie, last time seen in the unlucky but good OHMSS. Another interesting thing, the movie has direction! Michael Apted was the the best decision for many a year (including Martin Campbell, who is not that bad, but was a bit to heavily counting on fast paced comic book action), he directs not just one action scene after another but takes interest in the characters. Now for the flaws: they are minor because the flawed scenes are still enjoyable. One is the neither very funny nor suspenseful action sequence in the caviar factory. Rather bad looking. And then, can anybody tell me what Goldies role was meant to be? The only good thing about it is a nice joke in the casino ... but they are doing nothing with him. To end on a happy note, the film looks good (does anybody remember the ridiculous closing sequence of Tomorrow Never Dies, in the pool?) and has all the typical ingredients of the Fleming novels and the early films.

Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)

Brilliant

[10/10 · 10 October 1999]

This is a "one-in-a-thousand": Everything fits together perfectly (yes, even Andie MacDowell). The cast is wonderful, every actor playing -- no, being -- his part. every wedding is shown in its own style with the first one looking most of the time like a professional video made for the wedding couple. And then there is the brilliant script by Richard Curtis, arguably the best screen writer working in the movie industry today. All his lines sound real but are very funny and fit together (watch for the last wedding and Andie MacDowell's tip for Hugh Grant).

With all the good films of the last few years especially from Great Britain this one stands out and tops them showing that there are still mature people with a good sense of childishness in the motion picture industry!