The central metaphor is "Charlie Kaufman as Jesus". Of course I love it!
Reviews
17 Reviews
Fifty Shades Darker
(2017)
Pretty light, actually
13 November 2018
"Fifty Shades of Grey," if I remember correctly, was pretty much content in setting up various subplots and side characters without ever developing their relevance or relationships to the main couple. It ended with Anastasia running away from Christian because he went too far during sex. Within the first ten minutes of "Fifty Shades Darker," the two are back together. In other words, if you've missed the first installment, it doesn't matter much.
One thing the predecessor had going for it, though, was the director Sam Taylor-Johnson, who actively worked against the laughable dialogue and uninspired plotting of the script. Together with her DP they even managed to sneak some interesting visual ideas into the thing. After a much-publicized falling-out, Taylor-Johnson has now been replaced with James Foley, and with her the last hint of subtlety has departed the franchise.
Which is not to say that "Darker" is, as its title and the marketing would suggest, is a more aggressive and raunchy chapter in the trilogy, far from it. The sex scenes (that's what we're here for after all, right?) are not too far removed from what you would see in your average James Bond flick. There's maybe a higher number of sex toys on display here, and there are even some breasts and buttocks to be seen, but all in all, given the franchise's reputation, I was expecting much more out of an erotic thriller about S&M. Most of the sex scenes are even filmed in the same way (shadowy silhouettes shot from the side) and have overbearing pop music going on in the background, so it's hard to get into them all that much. The movie just seems to stop every couple minutes to show us a music video.
Other than sex, the movie tries to sell itself by its thriller leanings. Throughout the movie we get glimpses of mysterious characters and hints of tension, but all of these suspenseful elements are always resolved just a few scenes later, usually by Christian appearing out of the blue. Whereas the first movie kept its subplots underdeveloped, this one is even worse. If being held at gunpoint and (later) potentially getting raped are only minor footnotes to the larger story and don't affect our protagonist for more than one or two scenes, why should we care about anything anymore in this story?
I guess it's the romance the film is about. However, I rarely had so much trouble suspending my disbelief during sex scenes. You know the trope of teenagers having sex while the killer stalks them in slasher movies? The whole of "Fifty Shades Darker" felt like that. During the first 40 minutes or so, there are only three types of scenes: People warning Ana about Christian, Christian behaving like a dick towards Ana, and Christian and Ana having sex. I'm not Alfred Kinsey, but I don't think that's how sexual arousal works. Most of the relationship talk happens through text messages and their dates are even more music-video like than the sex scenes. It's very hard to get into the love story, especially since Jamie Dornan is not very charming in this role (he looks the part, though) and Dakota Johnson acts constantly intimidated, speaking in a quiet voice so as to not disturb her boyfriend. You want to tell her not to get in cars with strangers, not see her have "kinky" sex with her millionaire lover.
There is indeed a thriller in this. If you replaced the pop music and the gentle Danny Elfman score with a Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross soundtrack, you'd have a less-beautiful, worse-written and woodener-acted David Fincher film about an abusive, dysfunctional relationship between an insecure weak-willed girl and a psychologically damaged rich playboy who preys on women like her. All the elements are in place, even Christian's relatives and other surrounding characters and the fact that Ana's friends only ever appear after two-thirds into the film, isolating her from real life, are in place. They just didn't wanna go there (probably because SM movies that actually break taboos aren't as easily marketable), so what we're stuck with is this mess of a movie with very little plot.
I know it's a cliché to hate on these movies, but I just don't see what makes them good in any way. "Fifty Shades Darker" doesn't look exceptional, the acting is bland, the story just repeats the same three or four beats for over two hours, the music is distracting ... Nope, this isn't good.
One thing the predecessor had going for it, though, was the director Sam Taylor-Johnson, who actively worked against the laughable dialogue and uninspired plotting of the script. Together with her DP they even managed to sneak some interesting visual ideas into the thing. After a much-publicized falling-out, Taylor-Johnson has now been replaced with James Foley, and with her the last hint of subtlety has departed the franchise.
Which is not to say that "Darker" is, as its title and the marketing would suggest, is a more aggressive and raunchy chapter in the trilogy, far from it. The sex scenes (that's what we're here for after all, right?) are not too far removed from what you would see in your average James Bond flick. There's maybe a higher number of sex toys on display here, and there are even some breasts and buttocks to be seen, but all in all, given the franchise's reputation, I was expecting much more out of an erotic thriller about S&M. Most of the sex scenes are even filmed in the same way (shadowy silhouettes shot from the side) and have overbearing pop music going on in the background, so it's hard to get into them all that much. The movie just seems to stop every couple minutes to show us a music video.
Other than sex, the movie tries to sell itself by its thriller leanings. Throughout the movie we get glimpses of mysterious characters and hints of tension, but all of these suspenseful elements are always resolved just a few scenes later, usually by Christian appearing out of the blue. Whereas the first movie kept its subplots underdeveloped, this one is even worse. If being held at gunpoint and (later) potentially getting raped are only minor footnotes to the larger story and don't affect our protagonist for more than one or two scenes, why should we care about anything anymore in this story?
I guess it's the romance the film is about. However, I rarely had so much trouble suspending my disbelief during sex scenes. You know the trope of teenagers having sex while the killer stalks them in slasher movies? The whole of "Fifty Shades Darker" felt like that. During the first 40 minutes or so, there are only three types of scenes: People warning Ana about Christian, Christian behaving like a dick towards Ana, and Christian and Ana having sex. I'm not Alfred Kinsey, but I don't think that's how sexual arousal works. Most of the relationship talk happens through text messages and their dates are even more music-video like than the sex scenes. It's very hard to get into the love story, especially since Jamie Dornan is not very charming in this role (he looks the part, though) and Dakota Johnson acts constantly intimidated, speaking in a quiet voice so as to not disturb her boyfriend. You want to tell her not to get in cars with strangers, not see her have "kinky" sex with her millionaire lover.
There is indeed a thriller in this. If you replaced the pop music and the gentle Danny Elfman score with a Trent Reznor/Atticus Ross soundtrack, you'd have a less-beautiful, worse-written and woodener-acted David Fincher film about an abusive, dysfunctional relationship between an insecure weak-willed girl and a psychologically damaged rich playboy who preys on women like her. All the elements are in place, even Christian's relatives and other surrounding characters and the fact that Ana's friends only ever appear after two-thirds into the film, isolating her from real life, are in place. They just didn't wanna go there (probably because SM movies that actually break taboos aren't as easily marketable), so what we're stuck with is this mess of a movie with very little plot.
I know it's a cliché to hate on these movies, but I just don't see what makes them good in any way. "Fifty Shades Darker" doesn't look exceptional, the acting is bland, the story just repeats the same three or four beats for over two hours, the music is distracting ... Nope, this isn't good.
The Uninvited
(2009)
Pointless remake #3847
11 November 2018
"The Uninvited" is a remake of the Korean horror film "A Tale of Two Sisters," which I have seen. Fortunately, my memory is not the best when it comes to recalling specifics about films I've seen, so I can't compare this movie too closely to the original. Let me just say that: Obviously, you should watch "Tale of Two Sisters" over this. It looks nicer, the acting is better, the story is more unpredictable, the pacing is more fitting. All of these are areas in which "The Uninvited" does not particularly stand out, at least in a good way, and this failure is heightened if you compare it to the original.
If you're done watching the Korean version, though, there are a couple things about "The Uninvited" that may surprise you. The story is not a point-by-point retelling of the original. This shows that there were at least some ambitions behind the movie beyond just making money out of Americans' unwillingness to read subtitles, and that is to be appreciated.
Most other attempts, though, to make the movie into anything more than a throwaway teen mystery thriller are in vain, sadly. The runtime of this movie is 87 minutes, which is a good length for a slasher flick but not for a movie like this. There is a severe lack of scenes that show the characters interacting in a natural way, as pretty much all of the scenes see our main character investigating the true motives of her creepy step-mother. Giving her more time with her father, or her sister, in the beginning of the film could have gone a long way in making me care for their relationships.
Instead, the movie wastes time with stupid nightmare scenes. Maybe the producers thought they need scenes like that in a horror film, but they have absolutely zero tension or suspense, because we KNOW that they are only nightmares and our heroine will wake up screaming and then the movie will go on as before. If these scenes were only visually interesting or inventive, there might have been some value to them, but most of the time you're just staring at a mostly-black screen and listening to ambient noise and jumpscare music. It's boring. The narrative sense behind the nightmares, of course, is to show that Emily Browning's character is traumatized. As if the rest of her scenes didn't make that obvious already ...
The acting is mostly fine, though Elizabeth Banks is not scary and Arielle Kebbel's character is annoying. If the movie had more depth, I might be able to tell you more about the acting or the characters, but they're all little more than archetypes.
As for the visual side, there is one very clever shot in the film that is a very smart example of foreshadowing (and, as such, telling you what it is might count as a spoiler so I'm not gonna do it). During the other 86 minutes, "The Uninvited" looks like every other American horror movie from the 2000s.
Also, on of the twists is quite predictable. I've seen the original, so that criticism might be unfair, but in the 2003 movie, the way the movie was written, directed, and acted made the reveal less predictable, whereas in this one I might have seen it coming even if I hadn't seen the Korean version before.
I appreciated that the movie has a slightly different story from its original, but they do so little with it that I can't recommend this remake to anyone.
If you're done watching the Korean version, though, there are a couple things about "The Uninvited" that may surprise you. The story is not a point-by-point retelling of the original. This shows that there were at least some ambitions behind the movie beyond just making money out of Americans' unwillingness to read subtitles, and that is to be appreciated.
Most other attempts, though, to make the movie into anything more than a throwaway teen mystery thriller are in vain, sadly. The runtime of this movie is 87 minutes, which is a good length for a slasher flick but not for a movie like this. There is a severe lack of scenes that show the characters interacting in a natural way, as pretty much all of the scenes see our main character investigating the true motives of her creepy step-mother. Giving her more time with her father, or her sister, in the beginning of the film could have gone a long way in making me care for their relationships.
Instead, the movie wastes time with stupid nightmare scenes. Maybe the producers thought they need scenes like that in a horror film, but they have absolutely zero tension or suspense, because we KNOW that they are only nightmares and our heroine will wake up screaming and then the movie will go on as before. If these scenes were only visually interesting or inventive, there might have been some value to them, but most of the time you're just staring at a mostly-black screen and listening to ambient noise and jumpscare music. It's boring. The narrative sense behind the nightmares, of course, is to show that Emily Browning's character is traumatized. As if the rest of her scenes didn't make that obvious already ...
The acting is mostly fine, though Elizabeth Banks is not scary and Arielle Kebbel's character is annoying. If the movie had more depth, I might be able to tell you more about the acting or the characters, but they're all little more than archetypes.
As for the visual side, there is one very clever shot in the film that is a very smart example of foreshadowing (and, as such, telling you what it is might count as a spoiler so I'm not gonna do it). During the other 86 minutes, "The Uninvited" looks like every other American horror movie from the 2000s.
Also, on of the twists is quite predictable. I've seen the original, so that criticism might be unfair, but in the 2003 movie, the way the movie was written, directed, and acted made the reveal less predictable, whereas in this one I might have seen it coming even if I hadn't seen the Korean version before.
I appreciated that the movie has a slightly different story from its original, but they do so little with it that I can't recommend this remake to anyone.
Incredibles 2
(2018)
Suffers from predictability, but the presentation is still very good.
11 November 2018
"Incredibles 2" sees the Parr family split up: Helen 'Elastigirl' is now given the crimefighting to do, while her husband has to manage the family. If I recall correctly, their roles here are slightly reversed from the original, which is interesting because both parents get to show off facets of their characters that were not fully touched upon in the older movie. That's what a sequel is supposed to do, after all.
The necessary result of the split-up is that the film is divided into A-story (superhero shenanigans) and B-story (domestic stuff) that have to come together in the last act. Unfortunately, the A-story is rather predictable and underdeveloped, the B-story lacks structure, and the connection between the two feels a bit forced.
But before I get too down on this film, let me talk a bit about the good things, of which there are many: This is still a thoroughly entertaining film! I did not see it in its original language, so I can't comment on the voice acting (the German dub is pretty good, if anyone cares), but the animation is nice to look at; just detailed enough to make the world tangible, but never to the extent that the film forgets it's a cartoon. There are some very neatly designed environments and set-pieces that ensure the film never looks dull, and though there are funnier Pixar movies, they never go too long without cracking a joke or two. There are also a great number of visual jokes and clever camera angles. The only negative to the visual presentation of the film is that some of the action scenes don't follow any rules of physics, so there is very little tension to them.
What made me have a rather middling reception to the film (at least compared to the first one) had mostly to do with the way the story was told. In the first act, the movie touches upon some interesting themes (Do we have to follow the law if the law is unjust? etc.), but it never gets too far in developing them before throwing in the generic villain of the week. The conflicts between the family are generally well-developed, but their solution is forced due to the formulaic structure of the movie.
Another big issue to me was that the Helen-goes-crimefighting storyline was painfully predictable. Though it had some cool visual ideas, you can see almost all of the plot points coming from miles away. The family subplot was far more entertaining, mainly thanks to the larger number of jokes. None of the character arcs were too far out of the ordinary (Violet's crush doesn't like her back, Jack-Jack discovers his powers, Bob is in over his head being the stay-at-home dad), but from the storytelling in these scenes it is clear that Brad Bird and company cared more about the character interactions and dynamics than the story. As a result, some of the shifts between the family drama and the action-heavy fight against the villain are less than fluent, because the themes are so disparate.
Like many other kids' animation films, this movie feels like there are two stories that weren't strong enough to hold its audience's attention on their own, so they threw them together and tried to make that work. As a result, "Incredibles 2" is a disappointment, but a minor one and measured against its (great) predecessor. So it's still miles above the last couple "Despicable Me" movies or similar films. I wouldn't rush out to buy the blu-ray, but the next time I watch the original, I might just make it a double feature.
The necessary result of the split-up is that the film is divided into A-story (superhero shenanigans) and B-story (domestic stuff) that have to come together in the last act. Unfortunately, the A-story is rather predictable and underdeveloped, the B-story lacks structure, and the connection between the two feels a bit forced.
But before I get too down on this film, let me talk a bit about the good things, of which there are many: This is still a thoroughly entertaining film! I did not see it in its original language, so I can't comment on the voice acting (the German dub is pretty good, if anyone cares), but the animation is nice to look at; just detailed enough to make the world tangible, but never to the extent that the film forgets it's a cartoon. There are some very neatly designed environments and set-pieces that ensure the film never looks dull, and though there are funnier Pixar movies, they never go too long without cracking a joke or two. There are also a great number of visual jokes and clever camera angles. The only negative to the visual presentation of the film is that some of the action scenes don't follow any rules of physics, so there is very little tension to them.
What made me have a rather middling reception to the film (at least compared to the first one) had mostly to do with the way the story was told. In the first act, the movie touches upon some interesting themes (Do we have to follow the law if the law is unjust? etc.), but it never gets too far in developing them before throwing in the generic villain of the week. The conflicts between the family are generally well-developed, but their solution is forced due to the formulaic structure of the movie.
Another big issue to me was that the Helen-goes-crimefighting storyline was painfully predictable. Though it had some cool visual ideas, you can see almost all of the plot points coming from miles away. The family subplot was far more entertaining, mainly thanks to the larger number of jokes. None of the character arcs were too far out of the ordinary (Violet's crush doesn't like her back, Jack-Jack discovers his powers, Bob is in over his head being the stay-at-home dad), but from the storytelling in these scenes it is clear that Brad Bird and company cared more about the character interactions and dynamics than the story. As a result, some of the shifts between the family drama and the action-heavy fight against the villain are less than fluent, because the themes are so disparate.
Like many other kids' animation films, this movie feels like there are two stories that weren't strong enough to hold its audience's attention on their own, so they threw them together and tried to make that work. As a result, "Incredibles 2" is a disappointment, but a minor one and measured against its (great) predecessor. So it's still miles above the last couple "Despicable Me" movies or similar films. I wouldn't rush out to buy the blu-ray, but the next time I watch the original, I might just make it a double feature.
Klassentreffen 1.0
(2018)
One of the worst movies of the year (hopefully ...)
3 November 2018
"Klassentreffen 1.0" is, on the surface, a movie like a million others: Three friends get invitations to their class reunion, and go on a road trip to their hometown, overcoming their midlife crises in the process and also getting drunk and making pre-pubescent jokes. Like "American Reunion," but German and twenty years later in the protagonists' lives.
As such, I was expecting some low-brow humor, a lot of sex jokes, maybe some nudity. But I was expecting those things to be fun. It's very hard to have fun when you're in the company of such unlikeable people as the main characters of this film.
The least terrible main character of the film is Thomas, played by the film's director and co-writer (among other things) Til Schweiger. Thomas is a talented, attractive and successful guy who needs to learn responsibility in order to commit to a meaningful relationship. In other words, Schweiger is the same character as in almost all of his self-written movies. What makes him the best of our three leads is the fact that the others are terrible, and nothing else.
Second best/worst is Andreas, played by Milan Peschel. Peschel was great in this year's "Der Hauptmann" ("The Captain"), and I guess he does a fine job here, given what he has to work with. His character is that his wife divorced him and now he's bitter; his ark is that he needs to be less bitter.
The worst character in the film is Nils, played by Samuel Finzi, who is also not a bad actor most of the time. He has even been good in some other Til Schweiger movies. In those, he gave his characters, which were mostly spineless betamales who can't stand up for themselves, some depth by playing up their sadness in some scenes. I guess he got tired of providing those flat characters with dignity that the script doesn't earn, so this time around, he doesn't do the audience that favor anymore. His character is that he has to learn to appreciate his family, and he also has hemorrhoids and cracks homophobic jokes a lot.
Lilli Schweiger, Til's daughter, plays the daughter of Schweiger's girlfriend who goes with the group to make sure Schweiger doesn't sleep around. The film could have some interesting dynamics between the two, but she just abandons the group at the midway point to have her own subplot, and is only shoved back into the A-story at the end of the second act. That said, her performance is fine.
Like I said, I was expecting some sexism and homophobia in the film, and it would make sense that the protagonists, even if they were well-written, would not have the most progressive and politically correct mindset. I can't fault the film for portraying disgruntled middle-aged men as somewhat chauvinistic, but I can fault it for not having any heart at all. Although all of Schweiger's movies are about family values of some sort (usually about committing to a relationship), and he even casts his daughter Lilli opposite himself (in a role named Lili, with one l), everyone in the cast, except Til Schweiger and his daughter, are written as hateful, intolerant, depressed, angry ... There is nothing redeeming about Peschel's and Finzi's characters whatsoever, which makes it very hard to find any of the jokes funny. It's hard to have a good time in a comedy where I hate every character, unless the jokes are at their expense or very well constructed. And the tearjerker finale is absolutely ridiculous, but that is spoiler territory I guess.
To wring some laughs from his audience, Schweiger resorts mostly to clichés. The teenage girl who has her life in her smartphone, the marriage counselor who seduces his female clients, the girl who is too stoned for sex -- if those character archetypes are new to you, you might have a blast, if the jokes were well-told -- which they're not, because even if there is a moderately funny joke, screenwriters Schweiger and Lo Malinke don't give you enough credit to find it for yourself. When our protagonists play the old "Burning bag with dog poo" prank on somebody, they go out of their way to explain to their audience that, when somebody tries to extinguish the fire, they will have to step on the bag which is, surprise surprise, filled with poop and so they will step in poop. Therefore, when that exact thing happens a few seconds later, you know that it is funny and you have to laugh. If Edgar Wright were dead, he would be rolling in his grave.
Of course, writing isn't everything when it comes to humor. Timing and sound also play large parts. As for the timing, the editing of this film is atrocious. Every scene has an amount of cuts that rivals any Michael Bay action scene, even when the characters just sit around and talk. As a result, all of the slapstick is completely butchered, because we never see somebody getting hit, falling and landing all in the same shot. These are things that happen very quickly, so our eyes can't adjust quick enough to make out what is happening if you cut around every few seconds, so we're not really seeing the joke happen.
On the other hand, the editors of the film (David Kuroc and, again, Til Schweiger) see fit to have the scene in which Nils gets his testicles stuck in a sauna bench play for ... I didn't look at the time because my phone was turned off, but every second of that joke was one too many for me. The setup is just too implausible, and it doesn't really go anywhere. They just repeat the setup over and over, and then the scene ends. However, I do have to give them props for having the guts to put close-up shots of testicles in a mainstream comedy rated 12+. At least in regards to balls on film, Schweiger is pushing boundaries.
What I also found very distracting was the choice of music in the film. There is no original score in the film, at least none that I could make out. Instead, the film music were just pop songs. They almost never fit the mood of the scene, and when they do, it's too rare to consider it anything other than a coincidence. Music supervisor Martin Todsharow apparently just put the music on the film at random. At a couple points in the film, they just let one song play through two tonally completely distinct scenes. It doesn't matter that much, because almost every song has the same mood anyway.
"Klassentreffen 1.0" is sloppily made, unfunny, and you might even call it hateful. That being said, in the screening I was in, everybody else seemed to disagree. Til Schweiger knows his audience, and his audience know Til Schweiger, so both don't expect the most from one another, it seems like. Or maybe there is a very specific type of humor in this movie that I just don't share. I don't know. Anyway, there are already two sequels planned for this film, so we'll probably get to see Schweiger learn responsibility and commitment again next year, and the year after that. I'm not looking forward to that.
As such, I was expecting some low-brow humor, a lot of sex jokes, maybe some nudity. But I was expecting those things to be fun. It's very hard to have fun when you're in the company of such unlikeable people as the main characters of this film.
The least terrible main character of the film is Thomas, played by the film's director and co-writer (among other things) Til Schweiger. Thomas is a talented, attractive and successful guy who needs to learn responsibility in order to commit to a meaningful relationship. In other words, Schweiger is the same character as in almost all of his self-written movies. What makes him the best of our three leads is the fact that the others are terrible, and nothing else.
Second best/worst is Andreas, played by Milan Peschel. Peschel was great in this year's "Der Hauptmann" ("The Captain"), and I guess he does a fine job here, given what he has to work with. His character is that his wife divorced him and now he's bitter; his ark is that he needs to be less bitter.
The worst character in the film is Nils, played by Samuel Finzi, who is also not a bad actor most of the time. He has even been good in some other Til Schweiger movies. In those, he gave his characters, which were mostly spineless betamales who can't stand up for themselves, some depth by playing up their sadness in some scenes. I guess he got tired of providing those flat characters with dignity that the script doesn't earn, so this time around, he doesn't do the audience that favor anymore. His character is that he has to learn to appreciate his family, and he also has hemorrhoids and cracks homophobic jokes a lot.
Lilli Schweiger, Til's daughter, plays the daughter of Schweiger's girlfriend who goes with the group to make sure Schweiger doesn't sleep around. The film could have some interesting dynamics between the two, but she just abandons the group at the midway point to have her own subplot, and is only shoved back into the A-story at the end of the second act. That said, her performance is fine.
Like I said, I was expecting some sexism and homophobia in the film, and it would make sense that the protagonists, even if they were well-written, would not have the most progressive and politically correct mindset. I can't fault the film for portraying disgruntled middle-aged men as somewhat chauvinistic, but I can fault it for not having any heart at all. Although all of Schweiger's movies are about family values of some sort (usually about committing to a relationship), and he even casts his daughter Lilli opposite himself (in a role named Lili, with one l), everyone in the cast, except Til Schweiger and his daughter, are written as hateful, intolerant, depressed, angry ... There is nothing redeeming about Peschel's and Finzi's characters whatsoever, which makes it very hard to find any of the jokes funny. It's hard to have a good time in a comedy where I hate every character, unless the jokes are at their expense or very well constructed. And the tearjerker finale is absolutely ridiculous, but that is spoiler territory I guess.
To wring some laughs from his audience, Schweiger resorts mostly to clichés. The teenage girl who has her life in her smartphone, the marriage counselor who seduces his female clients, the girl who is too stoned for sex -- if those character archetypes are new to you, you might have a blast, if the jokes were well-told -- which they're not, because even if there is a moderately funny joke, screenwriters Schweiger and Lo Malinke don't give you enough credit to find it for yourself. When our protagonists play the old "Burning bag with dog poo" prank on somebody, they go out of their way to explain to their audience that, when somebody tries to extinguish the fire, they will have to step on the bag which is, surprise surprise, filled with poop and so they will step in poop. Therefore, when that exact thing happens a few seconds later, you know that it is funny and you have to laugh. If Edgar Wright were dead, he would be rolling in his grave.
Of course, writing isn't everything when it comes to humor. Timing and sound also play large parts. As for the timing, the editing of this film is atrocious. Every scene has an amount of cuts that rivals any Michael Bay action scene, even when the characters just sit around and talk. As a result, all of the slapstick is completely butchered, because we never see somebody getting hit, falling and landing all in the same shot. These are things that happen very quickly, so our eyes can't adjust quick enough to make out what is happening if you cut around every few seconds, so we're not really seeing the joke happen.
On the other hand, the editors of the film (David Kuroc and, again, Til Schweiger) see fit to have the scene in which Nils gets his testicles stuck in a sauna bench play for ... I didn't look at the time because my phone was turned off, but every second of that joke was one too many for me. The setup is just too implausible, and it doesn't really go anywhere. They just repeat the setup over and over, and then the scene ends. However, I do have to give them props for having the guts to put close-up shots of testicles in a mainstream comedy rated 12+. At least in regards to balls on film, Schweiger is pushing boundaries.
What I also found very distracting was the choice of music in the film. There is no original score in the film, at least none that I could make out. Instead, the film music were just pop songs. They almost never fit the mood of the scene, and when they do, it's too rare to consider it anything other than a coincidence. Music supervisor Martin Todsharow apparently just put the music on the film at random. At a couple points in the film, they just let one song play through two tonally completely distinct scenes. It doesn't matter that much, because almost every song has the same mood anyway.
"Klassentreffen 1.0" is sloppily made, unfunny, and you might even call it hateful. That being said, in the screening I was in, everybody else seemed to disagree. Til Schweiger knows his audience, and his audience know Til Schweiger, so both don't expect the most from one another, it seems like. Or maybe there is a very specific type of humor in this movie that I just don't share. I don't know. Anyway, there are already two sequels planned for this film, so we'll probably get to see Schweiger learn responsibility and commitment again next year, and the year after that. I'm not looking forward to that.
The World of Kanako
(2014)
Extreme, but eventually too shallow
3 November 2018
"The World of Kanako" opens with a quickly edited five-minute sequence of people doing nasty stuff and saying nasty things, where I can almost piece together what is happening, but not quite. Then the main character is informed that his daughter is missing, and we get an opening credits sequence akin to the intro to a pulpy crime drama show. Looks like my kind of film, I thought.
Before I go on any further, I should stress that all the people in this movie, with very little exceptions, are bad people. There is nary a redeeming quality to be found among them. That said, they are all acted very well, and have very distinct qualities (all of them bad). There is our main character, Akikazu, with whom his actor, Koji Yakusho, is obviously having a lot of fun. Although he doesn't have more than two emotions, anger and fury, Yakusho manages to keep him fresh and entertaining throughout. With a less talented actor in this part, the movie would have been unwatchable.
My favourite side character in the film is police detective Asai, played by Satoshi Tsumabuki, who stands out for constantly smiling and licking a lollypop. He is obviously annoying to our main character, but never to us as audience, which is a feat very few actors pull off well. He also brings a lot of humor to the film, which is always welcome in such a bleak world as the one of Kanako.
The plot of the film, as mentioned above, kicks in after Akikazu's daughter, Kanako, has disappeared. Now he's looking for her, slowly revealing her true character in the process. Which includes a lot of violence in all of its shapes.
The film is very unpleasant to watch, with many a scene that made me cringe due to its extreme violence. Some of it is darkly comical, some of it is perverse, all of it is over the top. I personally liked that, because it is very true to the characters, and it's nice to see a movie push boundaries in such a blatant and bold way. "The World of Kanako" is basically an exploitation film, but it's done with enough style and wit to not make it seem pointless.
The editing style of the film is also very abrasive. It reminded me of "Spring Breakers," which I enjoyed a lot. If you liked that movie too, you might like "Kanako." I don't think it worked as well here, though, because unlike "Spring Breakers," this movie has fairly complicated plotting at times, and the intentionally confusing storytelling got quite irritating. Which is also true to the characters, I suppose, but unlike the extreme violence, this element of the film seemed more to be done for shock value.
The biggest weakness of the film is that the story, after a reveal fairly early on, basically stalls, and everything Akikazu learns after that point is just an extension of that information. This makes the movie's more uncomfortable elements seem very shallow, because there is little else driving the film forwards other than nastiness, and I wasn't invested in anything that was happening. I guess the director was going for a "violence begets violence" kind of message, but if so, the movie could have been at least half an hour shorter and it would have had a bigger impact.
To top it all, the resolution to the film comes out of nowhere and is very tedious to watch. I don't want to spoil it, but to me, it felt like I was cheated.
"The World of Kanako" is certainly an interesting film, and I get why somebody might like it, but it didn't have much of an appeal to me outside of its sheer extremeness.
Before I go on any further, I should stress that all the people in this movie, with very little exceptions, are bad people. There is nary a redeeming quality to be found among them. That said, they are all acted very well, and have very distinct qualities (all of them bad). There is our main character, Akikazu, with whom his actor, Koji Yakusho, is obviously having a lot of fun. Although he doesn't have more than two emotions, anger and fury, Yakusho manages to keep him fresh and entertaining throughout. With a less talented actor in this part, the movie would have been unwatchable.
My favourite side character in the film is police detective Asai, played by Satoshi Tsumabuki, who stands out for constantly smiling and licking a lollypop. He is obviously annoying to our main character, but never to us as audience, which is a feat very few actors pull off well. He also brings a lot of humor to the film, which is always welcome in such a bleak world as the one of Kanako.
The plot of the film, as mentioned above, kicks in after Akikazu's daughter, Kanako, has disappeared. Now he's looking for her, slowly revealing her true character in the process. Which includes a lot of violence in all of its shapes.
The film is very unpleasant to watch, with many a scene that made me cringe due to its extreme violence. Some of it is darkly comical, some of it is perverse, all of it is over the top. I personally liked that, because it is very true to the characters, and it's nice to see a movie push boundaries in such a blatant and bold way. "The World of Kanako" is basically an exploitation film, but it's done with enough style and wit to not make it seem pointless.
The editing style of the film is also very abrasive. It reminded me of "Spring Breakers," which I enjoyed a lot. If you liked that movie too, you might like "Kanako." I don't think it worked as well here, though, because unlike "Spring Breakers," this movie has fairly complicated plotting at times, and the intentionally confusing storytelling got quite irritating. Which is also true to the characters, I suppose, but unlike the extreme violence, this element of the film seemed more to be done for shock value.
The biggest weakness of the film is that the story, after a reveal fairly early on, basically stalls, and everything Akikazu learns after that point is just an extension of that information. This makes the movie's more uncomfortable elements seem very shallow, because there is little else driving the film forwards other than nastiness, and I wasn't invested in anything that was happening. I guess the director was going for a "violence begets violence" kind of message, but if so, the movie could have been at least half an hour shorter and it would have had a bigger impact.
To top it all, the resolution to the film comes out of nowhere and is very tedious to watch. I don't want to spoil it, but to me, it felt like I was cheated.
"The World of Kanako" is certainly an interesting film, and I get why somebody might like it, but it didn't have much of an appeal to me outside of its sheer extremeness.
Venom
(2018)
"I'm killing you, I'm so sorry."
3 November 2018
At its core, "Venom" is the story of Tom Hardy making friends with an intelligent goo from outer space. That earns some points for weirdness. Sadly, the movie as a whole is not bold enough to fully embrace its weirdness, constantly undercutting the inherent darkness and brutality of the Venom character with cheesy humor and tired superhero movie tropes.
There are some things that work okay in this movie, though none work exceptionally well. The cast is maybe its strongest asset, but makes the uninspired script all the more annoying. Seeing Michelle Williams, an amazing actress who has been incredible in almost everything I ever saw her in, be reduced to "the girl" is saddening. Riz Ahmed, though I admire his being cast as the mad scientist character in theory, is very believable as the scientist but could have been a lot madder. And Tom Hardy is clearly trying to give Eddie Brock some dimensionality, but in some scenes, it seems like he's not taking this whole thing very seriously. I can't blame him.
The script to a superhero movie doesn't need to be devoid of any clichés or familiar tropes, but if it employs them in such a liberal manner as in "Venom," there needs to be some self-awareness in it. Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect director to make a script like this one work, because "Zombieland" was a very self-aware movie, and on top of that, it had good sense of character and even drama, in spite of its inherent silliness. But for some reason, he can't do the trick for "Venom." I could forgive the film for its other flaws if he had played it more for camp, but as it is, the movie seems like an unintentional parody. You might enjoy it on that level.
Much of the dialogue, especially in the first half, is filled with cheesy one-liners and clichéd jokes that, while they did get a few chuckles from me, it was mostly for the wrong reasons. There is a particularly painful scene of Eddie Brock embarrassing himself in a fancy restaurant that reminded me of early-2000s mainstream comedies in the worst possible way. Overall, although a few of the funny scenes in the film are genuinely entertaining, it's mainly because of the talented actors in the piece and the details they bring to the table. But generally, the jokes in "Venom" more often fail than they don't.
Another aspect of the film that could have redeemed some of its narrative and tonal flaws is the action. But here lies maybe the biggest weakness of the film: there is not that much action in it, and what little we get is awfully staged and edited. Even during the one-on-one fights in the first act, the director fails to make the stunts look like Tom Hardy is actually doing them -- which he might have, in which case this flaw is all the more unforgivable. Later, when the action goes bigger, we are treated to an atrocious chase sequence in which the filmmakers completely fail to give us any sense of location, so all we see are random shots of cars, faces, and streetlights, with no indication as to where those things are in relation to our main character. And for the finale, they decide to pull out every tired superhero movie cliché in the book. I could list them, but that might count as a spoiler, though if you've seen any superhero movie in the last ten years, suffice it to say, you will not be surprised by anything in the last 20 minutes of "Venom." Or rather, the last 40 minutes, because the credits sequence alone is 20 minutes long, during which the filmmakers saw fit to give us an almost comically formulaic mid-credits scene (if you consider the fact that the movie has a mid-credits scene a spoiler, you might enjoy the last fight scene) and an ad for an upcoming kids' movie. Classy.
Although I did not like "Venom," it should be noted that I did have fun watching it. It is, like "Suicide Squad" two years ago, an entertaining trainwreck, and for that matter, it might even be one of those cheesy blockbusters that might be redeemed in couple years' time. But today, it feels very derivative and uninspired.
There are some things that work okay in this movie, though none work exceptionally well. The cast is maybe its strongest asset, but makes the uninspired script all the more annoying. Seeing Michelle Williams, an amazing actress who has been incredible in almost everything I ever saw her in, be reduced to "the girl" is saddening. Riz Ahmed, though I admire his being cast as the mad scientist character in theory, is very believable as the scientist but could have been a lot madder. And Tom Hardy is clearly trying to give Eddie Brock some dimensionality, but in some scenes, it seems like he's not taking this whole thing very seriously. I can't blame him.
The script to a superhero movie doesn't need to be devoid of any clichés or familiar tropes, but if it employs them in such a liberal manner as in "Venom," there needs to be some self-awareness in it. Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect director to make a script like this one work, because "Zombieland" was a very self-aware movie, and on top of that, it had good sense of character and even drama, in spite of its inherent silliness. But for some reason, he can't do the trick for "Venom." I could forgive the film for its other flaws if he had played it more for camp, but as it is, the movie seems like an unintentional parody. You might enjoy it on that level.
Much of the dialogue, especially in the first half, is filled with cheesy one-liners and clichéd jokes that, while they did get a few chuckles from me, it was mostly for the wrong reasons. There is a particularly painful scene of Eddie Brock embarrassing himself in a fancy restaurant that reminded me of early-2000s mainstream comedies in the worst possible way. Overall, although a few of the funny scenes in the film are genuinely entertaining, it's mainly because of the talented actors in the piece and the details they bring to the table. But generally, the jokes in "Venom" more often fail than they don't.
Another aspect of the film that could have redeemed some of its narrative and tonal flaws is the action. But here lies maybe the biggest weakness of the film: there is not that much action in it, and what little we get is awfully staged and edited. Even during the one-on-one fights in the first act, the director fails to make the stunts look like Tom Hardy is actually doing them -- which he might have, in which case this flaw is all the more unforgivable. Later, when the action goes bigger, we are treated to an atrocious chase sequence in which the filmmakers completely fail to give us any sense of location, so all we see are random shots of cars, faces, and streetlights, with no indication as to where those things are in relation to our main character. And for the finale, they decide to pull out every tired superhero movie cliché in the book. I could list them, but that might count as a spoiler, though if you've seen any superhero movie in the last ten years, suffice it to say, you will not be surprised by anything in the last 20 minutes of "Venom." Or rather, the last 40 minutes, because the credits sequence alone is 20 minutes long, during which the filmmakers saw fit to give us an almost comically formulaic mid-credits scene (if you consider the fact that the movie has a mid-credits scene a spoiler, you might enjoy the last fight scene) and an ad for an upcoming kids' movie. Classy.
Although I did not like "Venom," it should be noted that I did have fun watching it. It is, like "Suicide Squad" two years ago, an entertaining trainwreck, and for that matter, it might even be one of those cheesy blockbusters that might be redeemed in couple years' time. But today, it feels very derivative and uninspired.
Very well-made satay western
16 June 2018
"Marlina" is a wester-slash-road-movie about an independent woman fighting back against male aggressors and seeks redemption or justice for herself. Throughout her journey through the desertlike rural area of Indonesia and its small villages (if you can call them that -- they mostly consist of single houses surrounded by desert and a solitary, dusty road), Marlina encounters a number of women who, if not as violently as Marlina, have in some other ways experienced injustice from men who were not condoned for it.
Not being an Indonesian woman myself, I cannot account for "Marlina"'s accurateness in depicting gender discrimination in the country, but it is probably safe to assume that director Mouly Surya is not particularly interested in providing deep insight the mechanics of sexism. "Marlina" is a feminist film in the same way that Tarantino's "Kill Bill" movies or "Mad Max: Fury Road" are feminist films: They portray strong female characters taking revenge on or otherwise trying to dismantle a chauvinist society that has wronged them. The specifics of the villains' ideology don't matter much -- in one scene near the beginning, one of Marlina's robbers compares her cooking to his sister's and his mother's, inviting the question, how does he treat these women that he apparently has some respect for, if he compares their cooking to that of his potential rape victim? The movie never attempts to answer or expand upon that question or similar ones, as all of the men in the film lack more-dimensional characterisations.
That is not meant to be a criticism of the film, though, as Mouly Surya wisely makes it stylized enough to make it work as a simple genre movie, a revenge tale set in an uncaring and rough world of rapists, thieves, and cowards. When Marlina rides on horseback on the sandy road, with the cut-off head of her rapist under her arms, the film enters almost surreal territory. This is helped by a great Morricone-esque score that, in several of the largely slow-paced scenes, builds tension.
Thankfully, in contrast to the men, most of the women in the film are given much deeper and more well-rounded characters to play. Even the comic relief character, an elderly woman who enters the drama as she is on her way to bring her nephew's wife his dowry, deepens the universe of the film's story (and gets a couple laughs, as well). Novi, a pregnant friend of Marlina's, is probably the most developed of the side characters here, and her arc is a very powerful subplot in the film. And of course, Marlina herself is played very well, too. It's admirable that, even if the movie overall is, by default, black-and-white in its characterisations, Mouly Surya allows her protagonists to show weakness, too, when they are confronted with potential danger and trauma.
The landscapes are beautifully shot, and although I would assume the film is a rather low-budget production, it never looks as cheap as it probably is. That's because the cinematographer has a very good eye for composing their images, and the lack of production value never shows. Another element that greatly deepened the film's impact is the soundtrack. The film is very slow-paced, so framing the shots in a way that invites you to look at them for a couple of seconds longer and laying good music over them that suits the mood of the story was very vital to the film's success, and in my opinion they pulled that off very well, for the most part.
The biggest downside of the film is that the slow pacing doesn't always work out perfectly. Because the story is so simple (and, quite frankly, if you've seen other rape-and-revenge films before, you know how these movies work), there are long stretches of film in which you know exactly where it is going, but it takes the story too long to get there. It's not always equally entertaining. Also, the lack of dimensionality in its storytelling can be a bit boring after a while. However, the high points are so high that I can easily forgive the film for some of its flaws and recommend it almost universally.
Not being an Indonesian woman myself, I cannot account for "Marlina"'s accurateness in depicting gender discrimination in the country, but it is probably safe to assume that director Mouly Surya is not particularly interested in providing deep insight the mechanics of sexism. "Marlina" is a feminist film in the same way that Tarantino's "Kill Bill" movies or "Mad Max: Fury Road" are feminist films: They portray strong female characters taking revenge on or otherwise trying to dismantle a chauvinist society that has wronged them. The specifics of the villains' ideology don't matter much -- in one scene near the beginning, one of Marlina's robbers compares her cooking to his sister's and his mother's, inviting the question, how does he treat these women that he apparently has some respect for, if he compares their cooking to that of his potential rape victim? The movie never attempts to answer or expand upon that question or similar ones, as all of the men in the film lack more-dimensional characterisations.
That is not meant to be a criticism of the film, though, as Mouly Surya wisely makes it stylized enough to make it work as a simple genre movie, a revenge tale set in an uncaring and rough world of rapists, thieves, and cowards. When Marlina rides on horseback on the sandy road, with the cut-off head of her rapist under her arms, the film enters almost surreal territory. This is helped by a great Morricone-esque score that, in several of the largely slow-paced scenes, builds tension.
Thankfully, in contrast to the men, most of the women in the film are given much deeper and more well-rounded characters to play. Even the comic relief character, an elderly woman who enters the drama as she is on her way to bring her nephew's wife his dowry, deepens the universe of the film's story (and gets a couple laughs, as well). Novi, a pregnant friend of Marlina's, is probably the most developed of the side characters here, and her arc is a very powerful subplot in the film. And of course, Marlina herself is played very well, too. It's admirable that, even if the movie overall is, by default, black-and-white in its characterisations, Mouly Surya allows her protagonists to show weakness, too, when they are confronted with potential danger and trauma.
The landscapes are beautifully shot, and although I would assume the film is a rather low-budget production, it never looks as cheap as it probably is. That's because the cinematographer has a very good eye for composing their images, and the lack of production value never shows. Another element that greatly deepened the film's impact is the soundtrack. The film is very slow-paced, so framing the shots in a way that invites you to look at them for a couple of seconds longer and laying good music over them that suits the mood of the story was very vital to the film's success, and in my opinion they pulled that off very well, for the most part.
The biggest downside of the film is that the slow pacing doesn't always work out perfectly. Because the story is so simple (and, quite frankly, if you've seen other rape-and-revenge films before, you know how these movies work), there are long stretches of film in which you know exactly where it is going, but it takes the story too long to get there. It's not always equally entertaining. Also, the lack of dimensionality in its storytelling can be a bit boring after a while. However, the high points are so high that I can easily forgive the film for some of its flaws and recommend it almost universally.
Avoid this
5 June 2018
There isn't even a year between this and the release of Til Schweiger's previous film, "Keinohrhasen" ("Rabbit without Ears"). Thankfully, he didn't write the script this time around, so in the ever-growing Schweiger canon this film stands out: Instead of making a romantic comedy about an irresponsible manchild who learns to commit to a meaningful relationship by the end, this one is a broad medieval comedy. It has therefore more in common with similar German period spoof films, like the "7 Zwerge" ("7 dwarfs") movies or the earlier films by Michael Herbig, although none of these are set in medieval times.
A big advantage of Schweiger giving screenwriting duties to other people is the fact that he plays a different character than in all his other movies. His stale performance in "Keinohrhasen" didn't convince me of his acting talent, but I found him rather enjoyable here. He is still sloppily mumbling through his lines and his face muscles rarely move, but put a silly wig on him and write him as somewhat socially awkward, and you can make his role kind of funny and refreshing.
All the other players in this movie, most of them television personalities rather than actors, don't venture out of their comfort zone, and are therefore not as refreshing. The casting of Thomas Gottschalk as King Gunther is technically spot-on, but unfortunately Gottschalk takes his role far too seriously. Same for Udo Kier. The only genuinely good performance comes from Rick Kavanian, but that doesn't mean he made me laugh.
That's because the script is painfully unfunny. Some of the comedy bits are lifted from better films, and stupid pseudo-gags are extended way beyond what is appropriate. Which might be the reason behind the long running time. There is no justification for this movie being almost two hours long, it just makes its glaring writing and pacing issues even more apparent.
Many movies like this feature some anachronistic jokes, which often makes it hard for me to develop some interest or belief in their fictional worlds, but those jokes are often reserved for quick one liners, and since these films are typically quite fast-paced, they don't take me out of the story. In "1 1/2 Ritter," however, the pacing is painfully slow, so there is nothing to compensate for all the jokes that don't land or take you out of the movie. The performances, as described above, are very low-energy, so even they don't compensate for the lack of genuine comedy writing. Compare this to the movies I listed as comparisons above (which, mind, are no masterpieces either).
As a director, Schweiger is clearly out of his depth directing action scenes. A movie like this doesn't need good action because, unlike most historical dramas, the story doesn't require extended fight scenes, but that didn't stop Schweiger from including them anyway. And because he apparently couldn't afford a stunt double to perform some good choreography, all of them consist of rapidly edited close-ups of Schweiger going "hrrrng!" and violently punching his enemies.
As for improvements: At least the pictures in the film have a little more colour in them than in "Keinohrhasen," the camera work in general is pretty good, and the soundtrack is well-placed and might even be listenable if you listen to it independent from the movie.
A big advantage of Schweiger giving screenwriting duties to other people is the fact that he plays a different character than in all his other movies. His stale performance in "Keinohrhasen" didn't convince me of his acting talent, but I found him rather enjoyable here. He is still sloppily mumbling through his lines and his face muscles rarely move, but put a silly wig on him and write him as somewhat socially awkward, and you can make his role kind of funny and refreshing.
All the other players in this movie, most of them television personalities rather than actors, don't venture out of their comfort zone, and are therefore not as refreshing. The casting of Thomas Gottschalk as King Gunther is technically spot-on, but unfortunately Gottschalk takes his role far too seriously. Same for Udo Kier. The only genuinely good performance comes from Rick Kavanian, but that doesn't mean he made me laugh.
That's because the script is painfully unfunny. Some of the comedy bits are lifted from better films, and stupid pseudo-gags are extended way beyond what is appropriate. Which might be the reason behind the long running time. There is no justification for this movie being almost two hours long, it just makes its glaring writing and pacing issues even more apparent.
Many movies like this feature some anachronistic jokes, which often makes it hard for me to develop some interest or belief in their fictional worlds, but those jokes are often reserved for quick one liners, and since these films are typically quite fast-paced, they don't take me out of the story. In "1 1/2 Ritter," however, the pacing is painfully slow, so there is nothing to compensate for all the jokes that don't land or take you out of the movie. The performances, as described above, are very low-energy, so even they don't compensate for the lack of genuine comedy writing. Compare this to the movies I listed as comparisons above (which, mind, are no masterpieces either).
As a director, Schweiger is clearly out of his depth directing action scenes. A movie like this doesn't need good action because, unlike most historical dramas, the story doesn't require extended fight scenes, but that didn't stop Schweiger from including them anyway. And because he apparently couldn't afford a stunt double to perform some good choreography, all of them consist of rapidly edited close-ups of Schweiger going "hrrrng!" and violently punching his enemies.
As for improvements: At least the pictures in the film have a little more colour in them than in "Keinohrhasen," the camera work in general is pretty good, and the soundtrack is well-placed and might even be listenable if you listen to it independent from the movie.
Rabbit Without Ears
(2007)
Long, dull, unfunny, clichéd
4 June 2018
When "Keinohrhasen" (or, "Rabbit without Ears") came out in 2007, it was a really big deal in Germany. Having been a young kid back then, I revisited this film out of morbid curiosity a couple days ago, and I must say, it really doesn't hold up that well.
The story is, of course, terribly formulaic, which in and of itself doesn't mean the movie can't be good. If the performances are likeable, the jokes land, and the film is well-executed, I could forgive "Rabbit without Ears" for its clichéd plot if it at least offered me a fun ride. Sadly, Til Schweiger's film doesn't have enough charms to distract me from its faults.
The positives of the film are mostly found in the performances: Nora Tschirner as the female lead is pretty good. Her shy, somewhat awkward demeanor is elevated by her natural charm, so that feels rather authentic. And although he has since become one of the more annoying actors working today in German cinema, Matthias Schweighöfer can, in small doses, bring a welcome amount of energy into the film as Schweiger's sidekick. These two are probably responsible for most of the laughs that the film got out of me.
Now for the negatives. For starters, the images are really ugly to look at. I suppose Schweiger is a huge fan of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" because he has put a reddish-brown filter over every single shot in his movie, just like the Coens did seven years previous. But while the Coens' film's atmosphere and gorgeously shot landscapes were somewhat enhanced by the nostalgic sepia tones, Schweiger's film, which takes place mostly indoors or in the cold, sterile megacity that is Berlin, seems utterly claustrophobic. He did the same thing in his previous feature, "Barefoot," and while it already didn't work there, it at least fit with the more melancholic mood of that film.
Another element that brings the film down is, unfortunately, Schweiger's performance. He is awfully wooden in the main role, and giving the role to someone younger and more agile would have made the fact that every woman in the film seems to fall for this guy a lot more believable. He seems mostly cold and uninteresting from beginning to end, with the few moments in which he genuinely develops some chemistry with his supporting cast not being enough to sell his character arc. The fact that said arc has been done so many times before (for example in Schweiger's earlier "Barefoot"), doesn't help to make his performance more bearable.
The script is not exactly well-written, either. Every character in the film could completely be described with their respective character trope. Til Schweiger - Womanizer with commitment problems. Nora Tschirner - ugly duckling. Matthias Schweighöfer - comedic sidekick. Rick Kavanian - angry boss. It doesn't help that there are very few funny jokes in the movie.
I expected the worst before going back and watching this film again, and while "Keinohrhasen" was better than I expected - not by much. If the film were shorter, funnier, and better to look at, it might make for a decent enough junk-food-like flick, but I found it rather tedious and boring.
The story is, of course, terribly formulaic, which in and of itself doesn't mean the movie can't be good. If the performances are likeable, the jokes land, and the film is well-executed, I could forgive "Rabbit without Ears" for its clichéd plot if it at least offered me a fun ride. Sadly, Til Schweiger's film doesn't have enough charms to distract me from its faults.
The positives of the film are mostly found in the performances: Nora Tschirner as the female lead is pretty good. Her shy, somewhat awkward demeanor is elevated by her natural charm, so that feels rather authentic. And although he has since become one of the more annoying actors working today in German cinema, Matthias Schweighöfer can, in small doses, bring a welcome amount of energy into the film as Schweiger's sidekick. These two are probably responsible for most of the laughs that the film got out of me.
Now for the negatives. For starters, the images are really ugly to look at. I suppose Schweiger is a huge fan of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" because he has put a reddish-brown filter over every single shot in his movie, just like the Coens did seven years previous. But while the Coens' film's atmosphere and gorgeously shot landscapes were somewhat enhanced by the nostalgic sepia tones, Schweiger's film, which takes place mostly indoors or in the cold, sterile megacity that is Berlin, seems utterly claustrophobic. He did the same thing in his previous feature, "Barefoot," and while it already didn't work there, it at least fit with the more melancholic mood of that film.
Another element that brings the film down is, unfortunately, Schweiger's performance. He is awfully wooden in the main role, and giving the role to someone younger and more agile would have made the fact that every woman in the film seems to fall for this guy a lot more believable. He seems mostly cold and uninteresting from beginning to end, with the few moments in which he genuinely develops some chemistry with his supporting cast not being enough to sell his character arc. The fact that said arc has been done so many times before (for example in Schweiger's earlier "Barefoot"), doesn't help to make his performance more bearable.
The script is not exactly well-written, either. Every character in the film could completely be described with their respective character trope. Til Schweiger - Womanizer with commitment problems. Nora Tschirner - ugly duckling. Matthias Schweighöfer - comedic sidekick. Rick Kavanian - angry boss. It doesn't help that there are very few funny jokes in the movie.
I expected the worst before going back and watching this film again, and while "Keinohrhasen" was better than I expected - not by much. If the film were shorter, funnier, and better to look at, it might make for a decent enough junk-food-like flick, but I found it rather tedious and boring.
Don't. Get. Out!
(2018)
Entirely unnecessary remake
30 May 2018
"Steig. Nicht. Aus!" is a remake of the Spanish thriller "El desconocido" (or known in the USA under its equally non-specific title "Redemption"), and as the older movie is currently on Netflix in my region and I like to compare different adaptations of the same story, I watched the Spanish film before going into the German update.
So, having seen the same story a couple days prior, my problem with "Steig. Nicht. Aus!" wasn't as much that it was terribly made (it's at least more watchable than most movies I would give 3 stars), it's that the movie gave me nothing new that I didn't already get out of "Desconocido". In fact, some aspects of the remake are a few steps below the original.
Take, for example, the opening scene, which is the only scene that writer-director Christian Alvart doesn't lift from the Spanish version: Our main character talks to a strange woman on a plane about his fear of flying, which stems from his not being able to just step the vehicle and get out. Get it? Because he won't be able to get out of his car either, once the film stars proper. Foreshadowing!
The opening scene quickly morphs into the that of "El desconocido," and from that point onwards Christian Alvart's script is little more than a German translation of that movie's script. This practice of making the same movie again in a different language is very irritating to me, because the experience of watching this movie can be almost completely replaced by watching an earlier movie - and one that is much better made.
Much of this movie revolves around main actor Wotan Wilke Möhring sitting in a car and talking to people on his phone. Sadly, he is no Tom Hardy (or "Desconocido"-star Luis Tosar, for that matter). He alternately under- or overacts, leading to some unintentionally funny moments. Luis Tosar in "El desconocido" was able to portray different levels of concern and panic, slowly growing more stressed as the film went on. Möhring just gets rid of every emotion that isn't extreme anger or slight uncomfortableness.
The direction is equally unsubtle, with many cheesy zooms in Möhring's face when he is in beast-mode. The music is also quite overbearing, at least in the beginning. The supporting actors do a good job, and the film is overall probably quite watchable if you've got nothing better to do with your evening. If you have the choice between this and its predecessor, I would strongly advise you to watch the other one, though.
So, having seen the same story a couple days prior, my problem with "Steig. Nicht. Aus!" wasn't as much that it was terribly made (it's at least more watchable than most movies I would give 3 stars), it's that the movie gave me nothing new that I didn't already get out of "Desconocido". In fact, some aspects of the remake are a few steps below the original.
Take, for example, the opening scene, which is the only scene that writer-director Christian Alvart doesn't lift from the Spanish version: Our main character talks to a strange woman on a plane about his fear of flying, which stems from his not being able to just step the vehicle and get out. Get it? Because he won't be able to get out of his car either, once the film stars proper. Foreshadowing!
The opening scene quickly morphs into the that of "El desconocido," and from that point onwards Christian Alvart's script is little more than a German translation of that movie's script. This practice of making the same movie again in a different language is very irritating to me, because the experience of watching this movie can be almost completely replaced by watching an earlier movie - and one that is much better made.
Much of this movie revolves around main actor Wotan Wilke Möhring sitting in a car and talking to people on his phone. Sadly, he is no Tom Hardy (or "Desconocido"-star Luis Tosar, for that matter). He alternately under- or overacts, leading to some unintentionally funny moments. Luis Tosar in "El desconocido" was able to portray different levels of concern and panic, slowly growing more stressed as the film went on. Möhring just gets rid of every emotion that isn't extreme anger or slight uncomfortableness.
The direction is equally unsubtle, with many cheesy zooms in Möhring's face when he is in beast-mode. The music is also quite overbearing, at least in the beginning. The supporting actors do a good job, and the film is overall probably quite watchable if you've got nothing better to do with your evening. If you have the choice between this and its predecessor, I would strongly advise you to watch the other one, though.
Freedom Bus
(2013)
Doesn't go deep enough
29 May 2018
"Freedom Bus" is about a German-born Egyptian's attempt to educate the people in Egypt on democracy. Unfortunately, the methods he uses are not fully explored in the film: All we get to see are some of the preparations he and his team take to finance their project, and then some people on the street arguing or watching educational videos.
I don't feel that I got a very deep insight into the political situation in Egypt at the time of filming, as nothing much happens in the film besides the bus going from town to town. What was quite nice to see, however, is the portrayal of the confusion, fear, and hope that the Egyptians felt during this time, as we get several scene of either the Freedom Bus personnel or the civilians they meet expressing their expectations and grievances.
If you are absolutely interested in politics in Egypt and you have 90 minutes to spare, "Freedom Bus" might be nice to kill some time. But I doubt you'll learn anything new from it.
I don't feel that I got a very deep insight into the political situation in Egypt at the time of filming, as nothing much happens in the film besides the bus going from town to town. What was quite nice to see, however, is the portrayal of the confusion, fear, and hope that the Egyptians felt during this time, as we get several scene of either the Freedom Bus personnel or the civilians they meet expressing their expectations and grievances.
If you are absolutely interested in politics in Egypt and you have 90 minutes to spare, "Freedom Bus" might be nice to kill some time. But I doubt you'll learn anything new from it.
Avengers: Infinity War
(2018)
It's about as good as it had any chance to be
7 May 2018
If you consider yourself a fan of the Marvel universe, you can stop reading here and just go watch "Infinity War". Of course, your mileage out of it will vary depending on your investment with the MCU, so it should be stated that while I have seen all the other movies in the franchise save for "Doctor Strange" (just haven't gotten around to watching it yet) and even a couple of their TV series, I wouldn't consider myself a big fan. That is to say, I don't generally rewatch most of the films in the series, though I have enjoyed all of them, some more, some less.
I was not expecting to like this movie as much as I did. Bringing together all the characters from 18 different movies, most of which I have half forgotten since their respective release dates, in a two-and-a-half-hour superhero science fiction action epic that inevitably is going to act as a jumping-of-point for another couple of sequels and also has to throw in fan service for people who have been following this franchise for ten years much more obsessively than I did, that sounds like a movie that could make my brain hurt a lot. Thankfully, "Infinity War" is about as good as a movie like that could realistically be. If it were any better, I would seriously have to call it a masterpiece.
Especially in its first half, "Avengers 3" is incredibly entertaining. The various meet-ups of Marvel characters seems fairly fluent (though there are a few convenient coincidences that drive the characters together), and the superhero banter rarely gets in the way of the story. Thanos is a good villain, and the script goes a long way in making him out as an intimidating and interesting threat.
The Russo brothers have also staged their action scenes quite well: Though there are a few moments where the camera movements were too quick for me to make out what part of the carnage I was seeing, most of the fight scenes are a lot of fun to watch, thanks to great cinematography (when it was filmed in an appropriate tempo) and choreography. For the kind of movie it is, there is even some restraint in those scenes, as the final battle doesn't outstay its welcome and most of the action scenes feature a rather small amount of villains - though fans of gigantic battle scenes obviously need not worry, there's enough of that, too.
Emotionally, the film is - as advertised - much darker than the rest of the franchise, though Team Feige is too smart to turn their flagship movie into a depressing, joyless melodrama. As in their own movies, the Guardians of the Galaxy sometimes even ruin emotional scenes for me with some ill-placed punchlines. But there's still many moments in which even amidst all the effects-heavy destruction you can see how good the actors in this movie are.
There are a couple of missteps that the movie takes, most of them all but inevitable. Not all of the 30+ main characters of the story would have needed to be in the film, and occasionally their presences are a bit distracting, if only for the fact that I found myself thinking "What is --- doing right now?" when a scene doesn't give them much to do and instead focuses on the bigger players. Furthermore, as was hard to avoid, making the Avengers split up into several sub-groups on their own individual quests means dividing the main story into many subplots, and, not all of them are equally interesting. Particularly frustrating is the part of the film in which a number of action scenes happen simultaneously in different places, yet as if that wasn't enough they also had to throw in a slower scene that runs concurrently (and would have fit much better into an earlier section of the film).
This film is far from perfect, but the fact that I enjoyed it at all is a minor miracle to me. If you've enjoyed (most of) the Marvel movies up to this point, it almost goes without saying that "Avengers: Infinity War" is a must-watch. I would not go as far with my praise as others have, but I did have a great time watching it.
I was not expecting to like this movie as much as I did. Bringing together all the characters from 18 different movies, most of which I have half forgotten since their respective release dates, in a two-and-a-half-hour superhero science fiction action epic that inevitably is going to act as a jumping-of-point for another couple of sequels and also has to throw in fan service for people who have been following this franchise for ten years much more obsessively than I did, that sounds like a movie that could make my brain hurt a lot. Thankfully, "Infinity War" is about as good as a movie like that could realistically be. If it were any better, I would seriously have to call it a masterpiece.
Especially in its first half, "Avengers 3" is incredibly entertaining. The various meet-ups of Marvel characters seems fairly fluent (though there are a few convenient coincidences that drive the characters together), and the superhero banter rarely gets in the way of the story. Thanos is a good villain, and the script goes a long way in making him out as an intimidating and interesting threat.
The Russo brothers have also staged their action scenes quite well: Though there are a few moments where the camera movements were too quick for me to make out what part of the carnage I was seeing, most of the fight scenes are a lot of fun to watch, thanks to great cinematography (when it was filmed in an appropriate tempo) and choreography. For the kind of movie it is, there is even some restraint in those scenes, as the final battle doesn't outstay its welcome and most of the action scenes feature a rather small amount of villains - though fans of gigantic battle scenes obviously need not worry, there's enough of that, too.
Emotionally, the film is - as advertised - much darker than the rest of the franchise, though Team Feige is too smart to turn their flagship movie into a depressing, joyless melodrama. As in their own movies, the Guardians of the Galaxy sometimes even ruin emotional scenes for me with some ill-placed punchlines. But there's still many moments in which even amidst all the effects-heavy destruction you can see how good the actors in this movie are.
There are a couple of missteps that the movie takes, most of them all but inevitable. Not all of the 30+ main characters of the story would have needed to be in the film, and occasionally their presences are a bit distracting, if only for the fact that I found myself thinking "What is --- doing right now?" when a scene doesn't give them much to do and instead focuses on the bigger players. Furthermore, as was hard to avoid, making the Avengers split up into several sub-groups on their own individual quests means dividing the main story into many subplots, and, not all of them are equally interesting. Particularly frustrating is the part of the film in which a number of action scenes happen simultaneously in different places, yet as if that wasn't enough they also had to throw in a slower scene that runs concurrently (and would have fit much better into an earlier section of the film).
This film is far from perfect, but the fact that I enjoyed it at all is a minor miracle to me. If you've enjoyed (most of) the Marvel movies up to this point, it almost goes without saying that "Avengers: Infinity War" is a must-watch. I would not go as far with my praise as others have, but I did have a great time watching it.
Mr. Deeds
(2002)
What's the point in watching this?
30 April 2018
Maybe it was a mistake seeing this movie the day after watching the original. Since the movies are structurally very similar (despite several sources stating it was only "loosely based" on "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town"), but it's clear that Steven Brill is more interested in making his "Deeds" a broad comedy, while Capra's version also boasts a good love story, a family-friendly lesson about sharing, and, well, heart.
While the loose structure of the original already worked to its detriment, forward momentum is even less present here. Most of the scenes could be arbitrarily rearranged and you wouldn't notice. Occasionally, there are funny scenes (read: moments) sprinkled in, but overall I found this movie quite dull. It's not as offensively awful of much of Sandler's more recent filmography, which is a plus, I guess ... But there's not much to enjoy either. In fact, three days have passed between me watching the film and writing this review, and I can't remember much of it anymore.
The best actor in the film is John Turturro as Deeds's butler. Turturro appears instantly likable, which I couldn't say for Sandler. He plays Mr. Deeds like any other role, which makes the miscasting very blatant. Judging from this movie, Sandler can't play nice guys without seeming stupid. He's known for playing guys who are more cynical than Deeds, and when he acts as somebody more naïve and innocent, he comes across a either dumb or creepy. It's a terribly forced casting.
While the loose structure of the original already worked to its detriment, forward momentum is even less present here. Most of the scenes could be arbitrarily rearranged and you wouldn't notice. Occasionally, there are funny scenes (read: moments) sprinkled in, but overall I found this movie quite dull. It's not as offensively awful of much of Sandler's more recent filmography, which is a plus, I guess ... But there's not much to enjoy either. In fact, three days have passed between me watching the film and writing this review, and I can't remember much of it anymore.
The best actor in the film is John Turturro as Deeds's butler. Turturro appears instantly likable, which I couldn't say for Sandler. He plays Mr. Deeds like any other role, which makes the miscasting very blatant. Judging from this movie, Sandler can't play nice guys without seeming stupid. He's known for playing guys who are more cynical than Deeds, and when he acts as somebody more naïve and innocent, he comes across a either dumb or creepy. It's a terribly forced casting.
Rocco
(2016)
Some very interesting scenes, but doesn't go far enough overall
30 April 2018
"Rocco" opens with porn actor Rocco Siffredi talking about a "devil between his legs," his dark side that is permanently threatening to destroy his life. It's too bad that the filmmakers never make any effort to expose this devil and instead seem give their subject complete control over their project. The result is definitely interesting, and sporadically very funny, but unfortunately shies away from Rocco's darkest fears and the low-points of his life.
For those unaware, Rocco is a porn actor known for very rough scenes, though apparently (judging from this movie, at least) the work atmosphere on his sets is quite friendly and supportive of the women he works with. You could obviously question if the team is always this nice to the actresses, even when they are not being filmed by outsiders or the women decide in the last minute they don't want to do the really hard stuff, and since the directors rarely interview the porn stars without Rocco present, that element of the film doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. We just have to believe the movie that Rocco is always a nice guy to every girl he has sex in front of a camera with, and your willingness to sympathize with the main character in his more emotional scenes will likely depend on wether you go along with that or not.
Speaking of emotional scenes, there are a couple in which Siffredi talks about his family life growing up, or his family life now, and in these moments he seems honest and open about his feelings. However, once more the film suffers from a lack of outside perspective from people who might give a more critical account of our star's private behaviour. The scenes with his sons in particular are awkward to watch, and you can clearly see how uncomfortable they are with being filmed while their dad talks to them about porn.
Most of the movie is centered around Rocco with very few outsiders commenting on the man or his work. One is his wife, though we only get a few lines from her about how great a guy her husband is. Another is his cousin and co-worker Gabby, though he serves more as comedic relief (the disappointed look on his face after Siffredi simplifies a set piece he thought of is hilarious and sad at the same time) than he does provide a different viewpoint on the hardcore scenes he films. The only person who manages to take the spotlight away from Rocco and affect the way we see him is fellow porn actress Kelly Stafford, who stole the movie for me. Not only does she offer a female opinion on porn of Rocco's caliber, her friendship with the man, which ostensibly goes much deeper than a mere business relationship, is also very believable and heartwarming.
Overall, if you're interested in how porn scenes are filmed, this film might be of interest to you. Just don't expect it to be very critical of its subject.
For those unaware, Rocco is a porn actor known for very rough scenes, though apparently (judging from this movie, at least) the work atmosphere on his sets is quite friendly and supportive of the women he works with. You could obviously question if the team is always this nice to the actresses, even when they are not being filmed by outsiders or the women decide in the last minute they don't want to do the really hard stuff, and since the directors rarely interview the porn stars without Rocco present, that element of the film doesn't hold up to much scrutiny. We just have to believe the movie that Rocco is always a nice guy to every girl he has sex in front of a camera with, and your willingness to sympathize with the main character in his more emotional scenes will likely depend on wether you go along with that or not.
Speaking of emotional scenes, there are a couple in which Siffredi talks about his family life growing up, or his family life now, and in these moments he seems honest and open about his feelings. However, once more the film suffers from a lack of outside perspective from people who might give a more critical account of our star's private behaviour. The scenes with his sons in particular are awkward to watch, and you can clearly see how uncomfortable they are with being filmed while their dad talks to them about porn.
Most of the movie is centered around Rocco with very few outsiders commenting on the man or his work. One is his wife, though we only get a few lines from her about how great a guy her husband is. Another is his cousin and co-worker Gabby, though he serves more as comedic relief (the disappointed look on his face after Siffredi simplifies a set piece he thought of is hilarious and sad at the same time) than he does provide a different viewpoint on the hardcore scenes he films. The only person who manages to take the spotlight away from Rocco and affect the way we see him is fellow porn actress Kelly Stafford, who stole the movie for me. Not only does she offer a female opinion on porn of Rocco's caliber, her friendship with the man, which ostensibly goes much deeper than a mere business relationship, is also very believable and heartwarming.
Overall, if you're interested in how porn scenes are filmed, this film might be of interest to you. Just don't expect it to be very critical of its subject.
Freddy Got Fingered
(2001)
I almost hate myself for liking this
29 March 2018
In his directorial debut, Tom Green plays a 28-year-old slacker who still lives in his parents' basement and dreams of becoming a successful Hollywood producer of animated TV. This seems to be a standard setup for a late 90s/early 2000s raunchy comedy, and the supporting cast of characters (Rip Torn as his strict dad, Julie Hagerty as his more understanding mother, Eddie Kaye Thomas as his cocky younger brother) as well as many comedic set pieces (an embarrassing evening at a fancy restaurant, Green's visit to his friend in a hospital and so on) could be seemingly plucked out of any post-"American Pie" teen flick of its time.
What makes "Freddy Got Fingered" special -- and, in the eyes of many critics, one of the worst comedies of all time -- is the film's constant overstatement of every trope it borrows from its peers. Example: A sentimental scene near the beginning, in which Rip Torn tells Green to make him proud, doesn't just end there, as it would in your average Adam Sandler film, it continues with both father and son repeating the word "proud" a couple of times with increasingly indecipherable pronunciation. In fact, many a scene features Green's character just repeating the same sentence over and over, making his nonsensical dialogue even more absurd. If the director wants us to laugh with the movie or at the movie in moments like this I don't know. Does it matter though?
I laughed at that scene, and I laughed at several other, much more surreal scenes, none of which had any bearing on the plot because there isn't one, not really. The titular incident isn't brought up until almost an hour into the under-90-minutes picture, and I don't think it was mentioned again in the last 20 minutes or so. Instead, what you get is 87 minutes of non-jokes, non-scenes and non-sequiturs.
When the movie doesn't exaggerate borrowed tropes, it follows the main character's weird antics, none of which are funny per se but resulted in unbelieving laughter. I'd have a hard time explaining why I laughed at some of the things in "Freddy" but hate most seemingly similar movies, but I did, and that's all that matters.
Some of Green's antics you might be aware of through hearsay (the piano-and-sausages scene is quite well-known), and if you are, your mind will probably already be made up as to whether you want to watch this film or not. For everyone else, it's probably best to watch it with friends, or better still, people you don't want to hang out with again.
What makes "Freddy Got Fingered" special -- and, in the eyes of many critics, one of the worst comedies of all time -- is the film's constant overstatement of every trope it borrows from its peers. Example: A sentimental scene near the beginning, in which Rip Torn tells Green to make him proud, doesn't just end there, as it would in your average Adam Sandler film, it continues with both father and son repeating the word "proud" a couple of times with increasingly indecipherable pronunciation. In fact, many a scene features Green's character just repeating the same sentence over and over, making his nonsensical dialogue even more absurd. If the director wants us to laugh with the movie or at the movie in moments like this I don't know. Does it matter though?
I laughed at that scene, and I laughed at several other, much more surreal scenes, none of which had any bearing on the plot because there isn't one, not really. The titular incident isn't brought up until almost an hour into the under-90-minutes picture, and I don't think it was mentioned again in the last 20 minutes or so. Instead, what you get is 87 minutes of non-jokes, non-scenes and non-sequiturs.
When the movie doesn't exaggerate borrowed tropes, it follows the main character's weird antics, none of which are funny per se but resulted in unbelieving laughter. I'd have a hard time explaining why I laughed at some of the things in "Freddy" but hate most seemingly similar movies, but I did, and that's all that matters.
Some of Green's antics you might be aware of through hearsay (the piano-and-sausages scene is quite well-known), and if you are, your mind will probably already be made up as to whether you want to watch this film or not. For everyone else, it's probably best to watch it with friends, or better still, people you don't want to hang out with again.
All the Money in the World
(2017)
Great acting in a good movie
22 March 2018
What makes "All the Money in the World" a suspenseful thriller isn't so much its plot, as it is rather stale, at least in the beginning: The Getty grandson gets kidnapped, the mother worries, the elder Getty refuses to pay the ransom. The story picks up in the second half of the film making it a genuinely exciting thriller, but for much of its running time, the film is content in simply alternating between scenes of family drama and Getty junior interacting with his kidnappers.
What is so fascinating about "Money" are the characters that inhabit the story: Michelle Williams, naturally, carries many of the dramatic scenes as a desperate but strong mother and the emotional anchor of the film. Her role could easily have been reduced to acting sad and crying all the time, but the script and Williams's performance give the character a welcome amount of strength and intelligence, without ever making her seem cold.
Christopher Plummer as Getty senior is given multiple scenes of monologuing and showing off his character in a more relaxed habitat, and Plummer nails all of them. While Gail could, in a less competent movie, have easily been played too emotional, JPG could have come off as too cold and inhuman. But the scenes are written and acted in a way that suggests a more complex character behind Getty that we just don't get to see. You don't become the richest man who ever lived without changing your personality. This aspect of the character is always present in Getty's speeches and the early interactions with his family, and goes a long way in making J. Paul a fascinating role. A biopic of this man's path through life would likely have made an even more compelling movie.
There are even some nice interactions between the younger Getty and his kidnappers as well, and Romain Duris, who plays the center character of the gang, manages to be sympathetic and seem almost like a friend to his victim, and then completely bounce back to being threatening.
The only major actor who doesn't stand out positively is Mark Wahlberg. He is merely competent, which is a shame because he shares almost all of his scenes with either Williams of Plummer, and if they had gotten and actor who could have held their own against those giants, it might have made the best moments of the film into something far better. His character arc could also have been given a little more attention. Fletcher Chase could even have worked better as the central character of the piece, as he is the closest out of anyone to an audience surrogate.
All in all, Ridley Scott's latest is definitely recommended for anyone who wants an entertaining and well-acted crime drama. It most likely won't be regarded as among Scott's best, as I felt sometimes I wanted to see more of the drama than it was showing me (Getty sr.'s backstory, Chase's character arc etc.), but I can't imagine much hate coming toward it.
What is so fascinating about "Money" are the characters that inhabit the story: Michelle Williams, naturally, carries many of the dramatic scenes as a desperate but strong mother and the emotional anchor of the film. Her role could easily have been reduced to acting sad and crying all the time, but the script and Williams's performance give the character a welcome amount of strength and intelligence, without ever making her seem cold.
Christopher Plummer as Getty senior is given multiple scenes of monologuing and showing off his character in a more relaxed habitat, and Plummer nails all of them. While Gail could, in a less competent movie, have easily been played too emotional, JPG could have come off as too cold and inhuman. But the scenes are written and acted in a way that suggests a more complex character behind Getty that we just don't get to see. You don't become the richest man who ever lived without changing your personality. This aspect of the character is always present in Getty's speeches and the early interactions with his family, and goes a long way in making J. Paul a fascinating role. A biopic of this man's path through life would likely have made an even more compelling movie.
There are even some nice interactions between the younger Getty and his kidnappers as well, and Romain Duris, who plays the center character of the gang, manages to be sympathetic and seem almost like a friend to his victim, and then completely bounce back to being threatening.
The only major actor who doesn't stand out positively is Mark Wahlberg. He is merely competent, which is a shame because he shares almost all of his scenes with either Williams of Plummer, and if they had gotten and actor who could have held their own against those giants, it might have made the best moments of the film into something far better. His character arc could also have been given a little more attention. Fletcher Chase could even have worked better as the central character of the piece, as he is the closest out of anyone to an audience surrogate.
All in all, Ridley Scott's latest is definitely recommended for anyone who wants an entertaining and well-acted crime drama. It most likely won't be regarded as among Scott's best, as I felt sometimes I wanted to see more of the drama than it was showing me (Getty sr.'s backstory, Chase's character arc etc.), but I can't imagine much hate coming toward it.
Tell Your Friends