Change Your Image
mwmerkelbach
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Mahler auf der Couch (2010)
A failure on any level
The historical film is a difficult genre. For its individual genres there is an abundance of pigeonholes and also individual clichés that have grown through a long history of literature and filmmaking. It is not easy to avoid their pitfalls and to appear truly independent and adequate to its history. However, there are also positive examples where it succeeded and a historical material unfolds its richness in the adaptation by authors and/or film directors, e.g. Luchino Visconti's mini-series "Ludwig II" from 1972 with Helmut Berger, Romy Schneider and Trevor Howard.
Mahler on the Couch" by Felix and Percy Adlon shows in all categories how not to do it. The film is proof of a failure all along the line and presents the misery of German film since the 1970s - not only with regard to the historical material but also with regard to all conceivable formal criteria.
Loaded to the bursting point with superficial drama and that stilted, vain, purely external acting that is so typical of West German film - even the opening fails completely. Johannes Silberschneider as Gustav Mahler becomes a cliché image of the type of artist the bourgeois imagines. From the script and the staging he is draped to the point of ridiculousness as a tormented genius. From the very beginning, the character of the role appears as a distorted image - an expression of a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of the authors.
Such a buffoon should have been the composer and conductor Gustav Mahler? And such a vulgar snipe with her adolescent airs and attitudes, Alma Mahler as portrayed by Barbara Romaner, was his dearly beloved wife? The female counterpart comes across as arrogant, bitchy and above all banal - largely defined by her promiscuity. The viewer is also sold the thirty-something as a "high school student" who doesn't change a bit on the outside during her entire phase of life with Mahler.
Setting for setting, the audience is served the well-known, year-old, stale seriousness of German filmmaking, which reaches a further low point with "Mahler on the Couch". But... attention, art with a smile! Or to put it irony-free: Television entertainment masquerading as art.
No, the Adlons don't leave out a single footprint in the course of their little film with its TV aesthetics, until the imposition of it is full to the brim. Unerotic sex scenes, stiff theatricality from the textbook of acting school, unbelievably vulgar behavior of individual actors with taboo-breaking signaling like in 1968... All this seems grotesquely embarrassing - above all Mathias Franz Stein as Alma's piano teacher Alexander von Zemlinsky, who is hardly bearable. The portrayal of psychoanalysis is also terrible. Good heavens, that's Sigmund Freud for the poor!
You don't have to have read Freud in the original, which is true for me after all, to clap your hands over your head inwardly in the movie theater. That oh-so-popular quotes from Freud's writings serve to confirm general half-knowledge about the background and procedure of psychoanalytic methods. The whole pseudo-session as a hook for the critical illumination of biographical shoals in the relationship of Gustav and Alma Mahler is nonsense. At the end, "Sigi" bends over "Gustl" and whispers to him that he is not "master of his own house. Unbelievable!
In the last two decades I have seen excellent cinema from Scandinavia and also from Austria. There is a tradition of cinema in Europe that always produces something surprising. Why does this not happen in Germany? When will we finally succeed in stepping out of the shadows of the 60's and 70's and present something that is not pompous, stilted and irrelevant in its overdramatic nature? Mahler auf der Couch" is yet another "arty" piece of work that makes you increasingly lose faith in a turn for the better in German cinema with pretensions.
Odds Against Tomorrow (1959)
Film Noir's final chapter is a masterpiece
The experts count and categorize. That's why they are called "experts". The experts of film noir name "Odds Against Tomorrow" the last movie of the classical era. It's the one that marks the definite end to film noir, which started in 1941 with Huston's "The Maltese Falcon" and Humberstone's "I Wake Up Screaming".
So for the last time we get a black-and-white crime movie that recalls many of the necessary elements of the classical period of film noir and transcends most of these into a unique and classy drama that already foreshadows shapes of things to come. Let's take a look at the cast and you'll know what I mean. We have film noir icon Robert Ryan who played in noirs like Max Ophul's "Caught" (1949), John Cromwell's "The Racket" (1951) and who collaborated with Robert Wise ten years ago in "The Set-Up" (1949). We have Gloria Grahame who played the female lead in Fritz Lang's "The Big Heat (1953) and in Nicholas Ray's "In A Lonely Place" (1950). Shelley Winters: "He Ran All The Way" (1951) and "Night Of The Hunter" (1955). Ed Begley: "Sorry, Wrong Number" (1948) and (also with Robert Ryan) "On Dangerous Ground" (1952). Will Kuluva: "Abandoned" (1949) and "Crime In The Streets" (1956). OK, this is not a "Who's who?" of film noir, but it is a strong cast of noir veterans - plus singer and newcomer Harry Belafonte, who also financed this movie! - reunited for the very last time. Its director Robert Wise, truly a master of black and white movies, also brought us "House On Telegraph Hill" (1951), "The Captive City" (1952) and the amazingly underrated "Born To Kill" (1947).
Also the plot of "Odds Against Tomorrow" is reminiscent of many, many other movies within the noir cycle. Some of those are very obvious to identify, when you already watched them before you've seen this one. Often mentioned is a parallel to Ed Dmytryk's "Crossfire" (1947), because of Robert Ryan starring in the role of a violent and psychotic racist there too. But in this respect there's also an influence of Martin Ritt's noirish social drama "Edge Of a City" (1957) with Sidney Poitier as the father of a young Afro American family, who is in somehow similar trouble as Harry Belafonte is in "Odds Against Tomorrow". Other noir movies definitely left traces like Phil Karlson's grim "Kansas City Confidential" (1952) with an ex-cop hiring some crooks for the perfect bank robbery. Stanley Kubrick's "The Killing" (1955) comes to mind as a movie that marked an end too, because it shows a surprisingly human face of crime – ordinary people driven by loneliness, frustration and despair. Kubrick's modernized and more drastic version of noir is close to the French caper movie "Du Rififi chez les hommes" (1955) by film-noir-director Jules Dassin. With New York City of 1959 captured very dynamic and beautiful "Odds Against Tomorrow" also reminds us of Jules Dassin's "Naked City" (1947) and John Huston's "Asphalt Jungle" (1949). Finally in the climax we have an obvious and strong parallel to Raoul Walsh's noir classic "White Heat" (1949).
And then
there is John Lewis and The Modern Jazz Quartet. The score of "Odds Against Tomorrow" adds something new and exciting. This is not the string driven routine you had heard so many times in any kind of movie from way back then – melodrama, western, comedy, musical or even pirate movies. Besides the scenery and the words jazz music is kind of a third language here – and it makes sense. It is cool, dramatic, impulsive, urban, different. In a way it is perfect. We had jazz in film noir before: "Criss Cross" (1949), "D.O.A." (1950), "Kiss Me Deadly" (1955) and especially "Sweet Smell Of Success" (1957) already recognized the potential of modern Afro American and Latin American music for that kind of movie. But it is "Odds Against Tomorrow" which fulfils that promise for the first and last time within the cycle of classical film noir. It wouldn't take long to water it down to the standardized use of "easy listening" jazz for nearly any sixties TV crime series – from "77 Sunset Strip" to "Hawaii Five-O". Robert Wise was not afraid taking the "real thing" to balance the strong social issues of his content with means of aesthetics. Directors like John Cassavetes were following these paths to reinvent the making of movies as a form of art.
Well, after the era of Senator McCarthy ended American movies got a chance to change the setting and to change the tone. On the heels of Orson Welles' dark and gloomy "Touch Of Evil" (1958) and the timeless masterpiece "Sweet Smell Of Success" (1957) the unjustly forgotten "Odds Against Tomorrow" marked another step on the way into the vivid and rebellious sixties. Harry Belafonte was the first artist on whose records a youngster named Bob Dylan played his harmonica. And with Allen Baron's "Blast Of Silence" (1961) we see a movie that was – besides referring to the nowadays totally forgotten "Murder By Contract" by Irving Lerner (1958) – very obviously influenced by this final chapter of classical film noir. Don't hesitate and take your chance! This one is out on DVD in the US and in the UK. It is surely not for everyone, but it is a very special treat for those who really enjoy a powerhouse cast led by one of the most innovative b&w movie directors of all time. I also recommend Eddie Muller's excellent and extensive comment on "Odds Against Tomorrow" in his very own book entitled "Dark City – The Lost World Of Film Noir". I'm not an expert, but he truly is.
3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Film noir actors in first rate drama
Two giants, one movie! I truly admire Glenn Ford and Van Heflin for their excellent work in a type of movies most people don't relate these actors with: film noir. Van Heflin is terrific in "The Strange Love Of Martha Ivers" (1946), "Possessed" (1947) and Joseph Losey's "The Prowler" (1951). After watching those movies I became a fan of him. And for me it is similar with Glenn Ford. "Gilda" (1946), "The Big Heat" (1952) and "Human Desire" (1953) are my favorites of him. Many Americans associate both actors with western – a genre that doesn't mean much to me.
But "3:10 To Yuma" is an outstanding western. The movie is not even as close to film noir as "Pursued" (1947, an interesting and very watchable misfire by Raoul Walsh) or even "Yellow Sky" (1948, an underrated western by William Wellman). Its Director is Delmer Daves, who once directed two remarkable film noir himself – "Dark Passage" (1947) with Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall and "The Red House" (1947) with Edward G. Robinson. But "3:10 To Yuma" is not your typical western. With its overwhelming black-and-white-cinematography by Charles Lawton Jr. and an incredible bunch of character actors it works more like an Akira-Kurosawa-movie for me. Did you ever heard of Ford Rainey, Robert Emhardt or Leonara Dana before? I did not! But all of these actors made me recognize one more time, what a strong cast really means. Everybody was believable and convincing to the last detail. Hats off to such a professional way of working it out!
Of course Glenn Ford took his chance and stole the movie. His terrific performance is worth watching until the very end. Ford's portrait of Ben Wade – though full of holes and contradiction – is highly interesting and dynamic. This is not an action filled average western story like you've seen so many before. Yes, there is an echo of "High Noon" (1950), which I personally don't rate very high. But "3:10 to Yuma" is more a character study. And also Van Heflin – a bit too heroic and cliché driven in the end – has a meaty part while struggling with his own misery and his desire towards a better future and against the option of having none.
No, I didn't forget about Felicia Farr as Emmy, and her exciting and liberal relation to Ben Wade. It all adds up to a movie that is definitely not like anything else from the mid fifties. Watch it! You won't regret it.
Six Feet Under: Everyone's Waiting (2005)
Last 5 minutes: Great idea that is not working out
KISS means "Keep It Short + Simple". It is always a good advice. Alan Ball created what in the future might be known as the greatest show on television ever. SFU is simply amazing – the script, the editing, the directing and the actors were assembled in an astonishing piece of work. It's pretty hard to make it work for 63 episodes over 5 years, but Ball managed to make it progressing even better the further it went. Every single move the characters made was convincing and within the spirit that lead the series from the very start. Ruth, Claire, Nate and David, and also Keith, Brenda, Billy, Lisa, Rico, George, Vanessa were believable human beings. Before watching SFU I experienced this type of dramatization only in first rate (mostly classical) novels. Then Alan Ball ended the whole thing with another fascinating idea. But for the first time he attempted to create an ambitious BIG BANG... and it did not work out.
To extend the whole idea of dying and death (that SFU was built upon) into the future definitely could have made a strong point. But you'd have to be able to transfer and picture it in a way that is as 100% convincing as the entire rest of it. Ball obviously tried to make it work in a way Stanley Kubrick did in the finale of "2001: A Space Oddity" (1968). In this classical sci-fi movie the music and the images were melting together in an extreme performance of man(kind) facing eternity. Alan Ball was reciting movies, TV shows, literature, pop music, subculture and all kinds of contemporary images successfully throughout the whole series and mentioned that particular movie of Kubrick before. Don't forget: SFU started in 2001 and in that respect his idea could have worked as a remarkable metaphor on different levels! But despite near Kubrick SFU ended on "Planet Of The Apes".
The ending of SFU – talking about that last 5 minutes of Claire driving to NYC with all that future images Ball cuts into her ride! - is simply laughable. The actors faces (instead old of age) look like the masquerade they obviously needed to wear. Some of the characters deaths are meant to be funny, but (for the first time) the humor is silly, and that mainstream pop song "Breathe Me" by Sia is forgettable crap. Out of the blue we get a music video that is partly cheap 70's sci-fi comedy and partly 90's MTV style. Yes, I know: not all of the songs in SFU were great, but for certain purposes they were always perfectly chosen. Yes, I know: Not all of the clothing or the looks were great either, but they always did suite the aim of all the gifted writers and directors. Nearly everything in SFU was believable and mostly awesome. Its rare moments of weakness were easily to excuse, because in total this was the most amazing TV show I've seen in my life.
Its very end was an unexpected failure. It marks a BIG BANG instead of a KISS. It is pathetic instead of cool, and it is sentimental instead of touching. It left me cold and disappointed and I still ask myself: "Why end it like this?" Any other way would have been a much better choice. One thing I wanna make sure is that I'm not blaming SFU's creator Alan Ball for being unable to give his very own show the finish it deserved. He managed to make it work for 63 episodes and lost track within the last 5 minutes. Hats off to the one who revolutionized the experience of watching a television show. That's exactly what Alan Ball did to me. 5/10 for the last episode; 10/10 for SFU in its entire glory.
Whispering City (1947)
Magnificent Mary Anderson in fine film noir
I did not expect too much, when I picked this one up on ebay for about a $ 1,50 plus a little extra for postage. The artwork on the case did appear "noirish" and looked a little better than on most of these features from the forties and fifties that belong to public domain. I already found a couple of well written positive comments here on IMDb that convinced me to give it a try. The technical quality of the only available print on DVD (from Alpha Video) is far below average, which is a pity indeed. It's that bad that it looked like copied from an ancient super 8 print as somebody else stated out. Though that was a reasonable disadvantage the movie took me in from the very start, and I went through it without having a break.
Let me ask a question. Why did Alfred Hitchcock choose Mary Anderson for "Lifeboat"? Because she really could act. She is that good in "Whispering City" that I got hooked by surprise. Paul Lukas and Helmut Dantine also deliver strong performances in a story based on a solid script with some interesting twists and turns all along the way to the very end. The final climax was a bit abrupt and all too easily done, so the movie didn't quite got an ending that did suit the whole story fairly, which I think is disappointing. And though I hardly found anything far beyond belief while watching it, a few things come along much too quick in the end.
Besides that, this movie is a nearly forgotten and obviously ignored gem that definitely needed to be rediscovered and completely restored like "Woman On The Run" or "Kansas City Confidential" with whom it can compete. It is not those dark and grim type of film noir like "The Killing" or "Force Of Evil" - both are in fact superior movies. But in my opinion "Whispering City" belongs without a doubt to the better half of that period and I'd recommend it to everybody, who is interested in that. "Whispering City" also proves that way back then the Canadians were hard drinkers too. Well, that might also be a fact, because its director was a Russian immigrant. Watch that movie, and remember Fyodor Otsep, because he did a fine job.
Private Hell 36 (1954)
Underrated Siegel/Lupino noir that inspired Stanley Kubrick
Decent people struggling for keeping things going are suddenly tempted by a large amount of money coming from a long gone robbery. With its moral ambiguity and twists and the main focus on character development the writing and acting of "Private Hell 36" is above ordinary crime movies from that period. It is exactly what makes this early Don-Siegel-flick a true film noir despite a conservative crime movie posing as one. If you don't expect too much action and can relax while watching a slow paced middle section, which builds up tension carefully and therefore convincing, this one will give you a very enjoyable watch. Forget about the voice-over at the very end telling something about "good cops, bad cops", because that was simply the way they had to handle things in the fifties to avoid censorship. Besides the fact that Howard Duff appears a little too stiff once in a while, Ida Lupino, Steve Cochran and Dorothy Malone make it a real fine treat. I also liked the jazzy score - typical for that period on one hand, but perfectly creepy and surprisingly "modern" on the other.
It is very obvious to me that Stanley Kubrick was highly inspired by this one for his very own sensational film noir "The Killing" that came out the year after. The race track as a central location, money blown out of an opened suitcase, a trailer park as a hiding place and especially the Ida-Lupino-character, which is very close to the one of Marie Windsor in "The Killing", brought that suggestion immediately up to my mind. In comparison to other movies at IMDb "PH 36" seems a bit underrated to me, maybe because everybody's expecting crime movies to be extremely fast paced as those that are made since the early 70's. In fact "Private Hell 36" is a grim little noir and for its fans that does mean something else. 8/10
Les voraces (1973)
A totally forgotten gem of early seventies decadence!
Dark, decadent, morbid, passionate - and 34 years later still the strangest memory regarding my very own personal history of watching movies since I was five years old. Despite the fact that this French/Italian production from the early seventies delivers incredibly strong performances by Helmut Berger at the peak of his career, the always excellent Francoise Fabian and the fabulous Paul Meurisse, that it shows you wonderfully filmed locations, and comes up with a solid script including a couple of interesting though perverted characters, the movie itself disappeared totally out of sight. Maybe you need to know Europe or even European or Italian movies to get along with it - I'm not sure about that. But I cannot understand why Les Voraces" (German title Die Gefraessigen") fell into a black hole of total obscurity like hardly any other movie I've ever watched before and since.
To be honest, I saw it once. This must be more than 30 years ago. It was a strangely compelling experience that left stills and traces of dialogue in my mind for the rest of my life. We're used to get and take those little bits and pieces of modern day poetry and art from movies like "Casablanca", "The Godfather" or "The Third Man ". But "Les Voraces", which in my opinion is an excellent but also decadent, hard boiled and erotic Italian film is at least the opposite of those classics I mentioned. It is forgotten and neglected for reasons I can't understand. In fact I am still the first and only one here, who gives it some of the credits it deserves. "Les Voraces" was never available on video tape and it is not available on DVD. In case you'll get a chance to watch it, don't hesitate and take your chance. Because if you're in love with the so called "cult movies" from that surely interesting period, you won't regret it!
Caboblanco (1980)
Dominique Sanda was a miscast
Caboblanco" is not a bad movie, but you can easily divide its strengths and weaknesses. Fernando Rey and Jason Robards are the strongest actors. They both deliver great performances as they usually do. Charles Bronson does a solid job too. I think that he is often underrated as an actor, because of the decent quality of most of his movies. J. Lee Thompson directs this one in classy old-school-manner that could have produced a far better movie in case the script would have been above average, which it is not. The cinematography, the photography and the choice of locations are truly first rate. And J. Lee Thompson had the spirit and the feel of a director. He was born to do, what he did.
Most of the supporting actors are pretty cool as well. But Dominique Sanda was a miscast. Her wooden and strangely impersonal acting did confuse me from the very beginning. She seems to be completely lost in nearly every scene and any suggestions of mystery to her character are not convincing at all. The chemistry between her and Cliff (Charles Bronson) doesn't work out at all and that's a pity, because everything else and everybody else seem so carefully chosen.
But the main point to criticize is the script. It delivers some nice ideas, but too many loose ends and open questions. Why do scuba divers let the submarine explode that obvious, though they must have known, that the wreck was not the one everybody's looking for? Why did they kill the fisherman, who was diving for oysters for centuries? How come that Cliff was perfectly placed to rescue him, when the British agent Lewis was trying to escape through the jungle? These plot holes do not fit to an excellent script, which only could lead to an excellent movie. It's a pity, because Caboblanco already got many fine ingredients: competent actors, a perfect score by Jerry Goldsmith, marvelous locations and a stunning cinematography! In the end it's only a decent action flick worth watching once for fans of Charles Bronson and/or J. Lee Thompson.
It's interesting to realize that the theatrical version of "Caboblanco" shown in Argentina is 15 minutes (!) longer than the one we watch nowadays in the US or Europe on DVD. My whole impression of the movie might have been influenced by the fact that it was heavily cut, which seems to be possible as soon I think of those "plot holes" I already mentioned. I think it's necessary to get that uncut 102 minute print to be published as soon as possible.
Last but not least: Do not forget to check out the perfect Bronson/Thompson collaboration "Murphy's Law" (1986), which is the most underrated B-movie of the decade.
Murphy's Law (1986)
I love this movie!
I'm not a typical fan of Mr. Charles Bronson, whom I always respected for his appearance in 'Once Upon A Time In The West' (1969). There he was excellent throughout the whole movie. But I found 'Murphy's Law' really weird and entertaining, when I saw it first time by accident on TV. The atmosphere is terrific, the acting of both Charles Bronson and young Kathleen Wilhoite is convincing and I enjoyed their absurd relationship very much. Only Carrie Snodgress is a bit over the top and too much of a cliché in her attempts of being totally evil. But if you like b-movies because of their more 'realistic' approach contrary to those perfect illusions built up by the big ones, this is one you should definitely watch. It's dirty and obscure, a low life mystery placed in L.A. and I personally enjoyed it from the very start till the very end! Fantastic showdown anyway: a lot better than in those more recent, critically highly acclaimed crime movies I saw during the last 10 years. Hey you harsh critics, what's wrong with this one? "Murphys Law" has a solid plot, which is much better than most of those useless complicated stories of contemporary high-tech-productions. This Bronson/Thompson collaboration is definitely entertaining and surprisingly underrated. Give it a try! It's worth it.
No Way Out (1987)
Extremely disappointing
Competent actors in a partly interesting plot that's been finally ruined by an unbelievable "stupid" ending!
Let me give you some examples of that totally unconvincing script: A call girl (Sean Young) is driving around in the limousine of the Minister of Defence of the United States of America while having sex on the backseat with a marine officer (Kevin Costner) she met at the US President's dinner party an hour ago for the first time in her life! While driving the couple around the US Defence Minister's chauffeur thinks that this is very amusing! Sorry, but who really think that this is the way they live in Washington????
In another scene the Minister of Defence (Gene Hackman, who is the best actor) talks about top secret subjects while having his feet on the desk and holding his hand onto the telephone. Who is on the other end of the line? The Minister did not not finish his call, and he did not hung up. We don't know. Does he? Where do the witnesses, who still could recognize Farrell (Kevin Costner), suddenly disappear shortly before the climax takes off? They were a first-rate-danger for nearly 10 minutes of movie time, but then...? No explanation! Finally Farrell writes the name of one of the CIA agents on the computer print, where the golden box is listed, that obviously never had been a present from a foreign politician to Brice (Gene Hackman). What shall that piece of paper proof?
It simply proofs that as soon you start thinking about the plot it turns down to dust. As somebody else stated: "No Way Out" is a boring and extremely dated movie. It is a total mystery to me that it finds so many die hard fans here on IMDb.