Skyfall (Sam Mendes, 2012)

Finally, after a lot of studio trouble James Bond is back. The fans (including myself) had to be patient for 4 years. The expectations were high, Sam Mendes (American Beauty) would direct and Javier Bardem would play villain (remember No Country for Old Men?). Yesterday was the day, premierenight, a venue full of excited people. Two and a half hours later I had to conclude I was slightly disappointed. I’ll try to explain without spoiling.

In 2006 Casino Royale was a revelation. After a couple of mediocre and even horrible Bondfilms (Die Another Day) Bond was back. Daniel Craig replaced the somewhat slick Pierce Brosnan and gave Bond a more raw and realistic look. Two years later Quantum of Solace was disappointing. It picked up where CR left off but somehow the makers made a lot of wrong choices. The story was missing a core, the villain was a bit dull, same for the Bondgirl. It did raise some expectations for a continuation of the story revolving around a worldwide criminal network. And this is where my first point of criticism towards Skyfall lies. It ignores its predecessors outlined story.

The opening of the film, which is quite good, suggests an unfortunate death of Bond. Of course, (this is not a spoiler) he is still alive and decides to stay away from London for a while. When MI6 headquarters is blown up and M is in great danger, he decides to make his return. As he had to recover from some serious injuries, he had to undergo a lot of tests, especially physical. Based on this first hour Skyfall could have been named James Bond Rises. Besides this, we see the new Q (Ben Whishaw) and some funny self-aware remarks.

What follows is some great cinematography in the city of Shanghai. Bond is going after the source of the personal threats against M and he ends up in a casino. So far, so good for a James Bond film, perfect even. There is a pretty and vulnerable Bondgirl and a classic setting for what might become one of the best movies ever in the franchise.

In the first hour we don’t see the villain Silva (Javier Bardem). This works. The mystery around him is build up perfectly and the scene where he makes his entrance, with Bond tied to a chair, is one of the best of the entire film. Bardem portrays the charismatic and brilliant villain perfectly. He is smart, funny, creepy and appears to be in control of everything. What follows is a miraculously small victory for Bond. At this point the film turns and becomes very atypical.

Some of the scenes and developments instantly reminded me of The Dark Knight and what happens to The Joker. I am sure Mendes and the writers borrowed some ideas here. Of course this is fun and exciting but I wasn’t impressed after the Jokers, Hannibal Lecters and Jack Sparrows of this world. Again, Bardem is good, impressive even at some points, but his villain is not as memorable as for instance Blofeld, Goldfinger or Jaws. I will not go into detail about the rest of the plot, but let me tell you that it is not what you expect from a Bondfilm mainly because Silva’s motivations are personal. I believe that a Bond villain should aspire to take over the world and don’t let anything stop him. Silva is not a threat to the world. Compare here with Goldeneye for instance. Sean Bean plays a a villain who also has a personal history with MI6 but tries to achieve a higher goal by stealing a lot of money.

Another critical point is the absence of the Bondgirl. Bérénice Marlohe has a total screentime of 15 to 20 minutes maybe and plays no role in the final hour which disappointed me. On the other hand, the final hour can be characterized by great directing, beautiful photography but is definitely missing the grandeur of a Bondfilm. Skyfall is not a bad film, not at all even, but to me it didn’t feel like a continuation of a franchise I have been loving for years and years and this is probably why I felt disappointed. Casino Royale is still the best Bond of the last 15 years at least.

6.5/10

Swordfish (Dominic Sena, 2001)

I have always had a weak spot for high-tech action films. Despite it being on television often I’ve never seen Swordfish before. About time for a viewing with at least some expectations, especially regarding the cast (Travolta, Jackman, Cheadle). I was in for a disappointment, a big disappointment.

The movie has a great start. We see how John Travolta is giving a monologue about Sidney Lumets Dog Day Afternoon. He turns out to be in the middle of a hostage situation as the main villain and in control of course. What follows next is perhaps one of the most beautiful explosion scenes I have ever seen. The whole scene is a flash forward and as a viewer you’re expecting the history and preparation for this situation in detail. Unfortunately the movie gets rather messy after this brilliant opening. Errr, extremely messy.

Travolta is Gabriel Shear, a big shot criminal working under an American senator who wants to get his hands on dirty money from the government (known as operation Swordfish under the DEA). For this job he needs a brilliant hacker. Since the best hacker in the world was caught at the border and assassinated (by Travolta his own men) he needs the second best, the good-hearted Stanley Jobson (Hugh Jackman). Jobson needs a lot of money to hire a lawyer to get visitation rights to see his daughter. Shear offers him ten million to crack a bunch of codes and algorithms and Jobson instantly believes that that’s all.

Alright, so to be blunt: this movie sucks. I cannot think of many positive elements except the opening. The storylines are unrealistic, unmotivated and don’t create the desired suspense. In between Travolta and Jackman is the beautiful Halle Berry (this movie is probably best known for her totally unnecessary nude scene topping her salary with half a million). Her role is to be both a potential love-interest and a snitch (or not?). Well, let me tell you, both roles don’t work, at all. I simply didn’t care about her and what might happen to her. Secondly, the whole computer hacking part of the movie makes no sense and makes that you lose interest in the objective. When Travolta out of the blue starts shooting in the streets from his car you know that the film went downhill and cannot be saved by anything.

The final twenty minutes is where this film really becomes a nightmare. All logic and suspense go overboard. We go back to the beginning in the bank, where everyone involved turns out to be a retard. What follows are 23451 plot twists, not one of them making sense if you ask me. Perhaps I am missing something, but this is simply a horrible film. Its screenplay comes from the mind of Skip Woods (well, let his first name be a warning) who also wrote Hitman (I believe I fell asleep during this film!). The Imdb tells us that he wrote the script for the 5^th Die Hard, I am already disappointed…

2/10

P.S. : For the nerds: the two hackers in this film are named Stanley Jobson and Axl Torvalds.

Showgirls (Paul Verhoeven, 1995)

Alright, I like some of the movies of fellow dutchman Paul Verhoeven. Basic Instinct has been a personal favourite for years now and I believe his Total Recall and Starship Troopers are hilarious. In 1995 (great movie year!) he made Showgirls, the erotic tale of a girl who wants to make it in Vegas. The critics were brutal: 14% fresh on rottentomatoes.com  and a 4.3 average on Imdb. In my memory this film was not that bad, now that I saw it a second time I see that I was wrong. Showgirls is not just ‘not bad’, it is great!

Nomi Malone (Elizabeth Berkley) is a girl like many others: young, beautiful and she wants to make a career in showbiz. She hikes to Vegas and starts working as a stripper. Through her friend, who is assisting the big star in the Stardust Hotel dance show, she gets in contact with people who recognize her dancing talent and see her as a great potential. She is invited for an audition (which results in a great scene, credits go to the ruthless Alan Richins, who reminded me of one of the many talent show jurors we see too much on television nowadays). Nomi gets hired and soon the rivalry and sexual encounters starts. She works her way up, but at what cost?

Okay ladies, I'm Tony Moss. I produce this show. Some of you have probably heard that I'm a prick - I am a prick. I got one interest here, and that's the show. I don't care whether you live or die. I want to see you dance and I want to see you smile. I can't use you if you can't smile, I can't use you if you can't show, I can't use you if you can't sell.

What Verhoeven did with this film is making it a satire in every possible way. Through the tough Nomi he shows us what it takes to make it in showbiz city and how superficial and numb one has to become to get there. This is illustrated by for instance the character James (Glenn Plummer) who is persistent to make a good dancer of Nomi. There is a striking scene in the film where Nomi, already a big star at this point, visits a show of James where he performs his real genuine dancing act. His act is shred to pieces by the discontent audience, they don’t want to see art, they want nudity! This last notion is one Verhoeven incorporated in his entire film, great satire I would say.

Another hilarious scene is where one of the dancers has her kids back in the dressing room. As her colleague is abusing her verbally one of the kids starts to cry, not over the violent tone, not over all the nude people around that might make her uncomfortable, no, she heard the F-word. The kid must be traumatized.

I can imagine why people see Showgirls as a bad movie. Its story and acting is over the top, but the director wants to tell us more with this than one might think. I believe that besides the satire within the film Verhoeven is using the protagonist and the world she is in as a metaphor for America and modern society. Completely superficial, commercial and merciless if it comes to working your way up to the top. The Jesus reference (present in almost every Verhoeven film) is illustrative: in flickering neon “Jesus is coming, soon”.

8.5/10

Savages (Oliver Stone, 2012)

In the late 80’s and early 90’s Oliver Stone made some great films like Wall Street, Platoon, Natural Born Killers and The Doors. These movies were very decent and influential. Unfortunately Stone never managed to impress me with his more recent work like Alexander or Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps or one of the many president-biographies. You can imagine I was a bit sceptical about Savages, a film about two Californian pot growers whose services are wanted by a Mexican drug cartel. But luckily it seems Stone found his roots again and delivered his best film in years.

Chon (Taylor Kitsch) and Ben (Aaron Johnson) have a secret recipe to grow the best weed in the world and they have a really successful business. They share their girlfriend O (Blake Lively) in what appears to be a functional love triangle. When a Mexican drug boss Elena (Salma Hayek!) gets affected by competition and the financial crisis she wants cooperation with the two friends, who prefer to stay independent. When they turn down Elena’s non-negotiable offer her crew decides to kidnap their shared love-interest.

The synopsis above sounds a bit lame and unoriginal and I guess it is. But there are a few fantastic roles like John Travolta as a corrupt DEA officer and Benicio del Toro as Elena’s ruthless number two. Their acting is awesome, the dialogue is fast, witty and the action is brutal and effective. Hayek is very believable as a merciless drug boss but caring mother. The leads by for instance Lively (who is the narrator as well) are a bit disappointing but still good enough to get you through 131 minutes of fun and excitement.

Of course everything is somewhat predictable and done before a thousand times (the usual twists and turns), but Stone managed to execute everything really well and even impressed me now and then with his style. It almost looks as if he was inspired by Tony Scott’s Domino, except that Savages is somewhat slower and easier on the eye (luckily).

Yes, I believe that Stone is back. Savages is very entertaining and despite its slight predictably it is suspenseful and entertaining, very well done by the director.

7.5/10

Zerkalo (Andrei Tarkovsky, 1975)

"Tarkovsky is God"
- Lars von Trier -

As a moviefreak you’re always waiting for that moment when you find a pearl, a masterpiece, a movie that takes your breath away and is approaching your idea of a perfect film. With this in mind I made a shortlist of potential films that might be perfect. To prevent overkill I am spreading these candidates over time and it was about time to watch Andrei Tarkovsky’s Zerkalo or The Mirror. Let me tell you that this film is amongst the few films you watch in a year that really hit you and become a personal favourite, for me at least.

So far I watched Tarkovsky’s Stalker and Solyaris, both great films, but somehow I never considered them brilliant like some other filmlovers do. I was aware of the (lack of) narrative structure in Zerkalo and read somewhere how it has similarities with Terrence Malick’s beautiful Tree of Life (which was a unique film experience as well). After I found a good discount DVD version (as a real Dutchman) I decided it was about time to stop postponing and watch this poetic masterpiece.

Unlike almost every other movie I watch it is impossible to explain what is so great about this film. It is plotless, the story is about a man’s memories and fragments that are linked to him and his memories, and doesn’t create any puzzle or suspense-element what usually really draws me in a good film (perhaps the meaning of the film is a puzzle, but the director claimed otherwise at the time). This one is just (which is enough!) beautiful! Every shot is a painting and all these paintings are edited in a way that it creates a dreamlike rhythm and makes it a visual poem. The film builds around history and memories (just like Tree of Life), and for me created a nostalgic feeling that grew and grew during its length. It is a unique film (just like for instance my favourites Persona and L’année dernière a Marienbad) in the sense that there is none other like it (at least not that I am aware of, if there is, let me know!).

Zerkalo instantly entered my list of best films ever. It is aesthetic perfection, one of the reasons why I watch films, to be overwhelmed and experience poetic beauty. I will not spend more words, just watch, no, experience this perfect movie!

10/10

The Long Goodbye (Robert Altman, 1973)

My previous investigation of the 70's Altman movies has already led me to McCabe and Mrs. Miller, a movie that can be classified as anti-western (as in the western movie genre). Two years later Altman made what is known to be his view on film noir called The Long Goodbye, from Raymond Chandler’s novel and again with protagonist Philip Marlowe (Elliot Gould). Our private eye hero had a bit of a transformation and unlike the cool and hard-boiled Philip Marlowe we know from for instance Howard Hawks his The Big Sleep, this one is a bit different.

The movie kicks off with Marlowe trying to feed his cat. He even goes to the supermarket in the middle of the night to get the right brand of cat food. When it turns out to be out of stock he tries to trick the little creature by replacing the food with a different brand. Unfortunately for him the cat doesn’t buy it and runs off. This scene, which is quite funny, is typical for the Philip Marlowe of the seventies and Altman’s universe. When I tell you that he is more interested in the wellbeing of his cat than the four topless neighbour girls practising yoga on their balcony you’ll get the idea.

The main story revolves around two interwoven plotlines. Firstly and old friend who is in trouble shows up on Marlowe’s door and asks him to give him a lift to Mexico. No questions asked Marlowe helps him. When he returns home the cops are waiting for him and he spends a couple of nights in jail and he finds out his friend apparently killed his wife and committed suicide in Mexico. Secondly a woman, living next to his friend, hires Marlowe to find her husband, a writer who has some mental- and drinking issues.

Just like the 1946 adaptation of the Marlowe story The Big Sleep, starring Humphrey Bogart, The Long Goodbye has quite a complex story, but this is about the only common element it has with the classic noir film. Philip Marlowe is portrayed by Altman as someone who still lives in the 50’s, he smokes, wears a suit and tries some wisecrack remarks on cops and crooks, but somehow they don’t have the desired impact (anymore). Furthermore there seems to be no interest in women and the private detective cannot even manage to trick and later find his own cat. All of this smells like another anti-genre movie from the director who did this before, as I mentioned, and would do it again in the nineties with The Player.

And again he does a great job. Forget about the plot, it is not at all why you should watch this one. This picture contains some memorable scenes that are alone worth it and are illustrative for the satirical tone Altman chose for. We see how Marlowe arrives at a party (in a suit) and gets chased out of the house by a dog, how he has to strip together with a group of criminals (including a silent Arnold Schwarzenegger!) and how almost every genre cliché is successfully reversed by Altman. A classic!

"Well, that's you Marlowe. You'll never learn, you're a born loser."

8.5/10

The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan, 2012)

(May contain mild spoilers)

Finally it is there, the movie everyone has been looking forward to after The Dark Knight, considered by many as The Godfather of the superhero movies. And it deserves this status. It had great action, suspense and one of the best villains ever in the Joker. Quite a challenge for Christopher Nolan to live up to the standard he created. I was curious and full of expectations, especially since I could really appreciate his Inception, but this film fails to impress on many levels and I am afraid this is the first weak film of the British director. I’ll try to explain.

Of course Nolan is smart enough to know that he could never replace the Joker, and after the tragic death of Heath Ledger he had to create a different villain. He succeeded by creating Bane (Tom Hardy), a force of nature, pure muscle, evil and just like his predecessor not someone to bargain with. Unfortunately the director puts himself in trouble by creating someone who seems undefeatable. Halfway the film (in a great scene) we see how Bane kicks Batman’s ass and almost literally breaks him. Bruce Wayne goes to a prison-well from which only one person ever managed to escape and our hero has to overcome his own demons to deliver a happy end. With this knowledge I expected an intelligent non-physical solution to defeat the brute villain, who gave the ‘power to the people’ in Gotham city, but as it turns out a lame plot twist and ‘discovery’ about Bane give Nolan the easy way out. I expected much more from a filmmaker who usually comes up with inventive and intelligent scripts.

Hereby I haven’t mentioned the voice of Bane that made me laugh on a number of occasions and I am sure I was not supposed to laugh (his sound approaches the alien-villain from the first Men In Black picture, if you recall)

Apparently Nolan chose to find a role for most members of the Inception cast because there are a lot of new characters in The Dark Knight Rises. Some of them are completely redundant (think of the two businessmen trying to take over Wayne enterprises) and with characters like Catwoman (Anne Hathaway), Miranda Tate (the beautiful Marion Cotillard) and some new policemen (one of them the talented Joseph Gordon Levitt) the movie is full, too full. Its length (164 minutes) feels too short for good character building and emotional involvement and feels too long regarding some of the plot developments.

At first it feels like Nolan is trying to give us a message (like Bane is) with a revolution and an ‘approaching storm’ (financial crisis).Wayne enterprises invested in Green Energy, but soon the tool for nuclear fusion becomes a weapon and there are too many subplots and situations to give these themes the attention the director may have intended. The whole movie feels like Nolan had to cut a lot of material. This becomes clear in the last half hour, with some chaotically edited action and again some unoriginal and simple solutions, instead of balanced and clever developments as we are used from the director.

So am I just negative about this film? No. Most of the time The Dark Knight Rises was enjoyable but this is mainly because of the same reason the third Godfather film is for instance. As a viewer you are still on a high from the previous films. There are some memorable scenes between Batman and Alfred (the great Michael Caine), one almost perfect action sequence (I refer to the first appearance of Batman after the Wall Street heist, with the police force chasing him as they see him as the killer of Harvey Dent) and some powerful scenes where Batman/Bruce is struggling in prison.

But overall the movie is disappointing. It doesn’t have the unpredictability of the Joker, emotional involvement (like the death of Rachel in The Dark Knight or the ending with Jim Gordon and his son) and stunning action sequences. The ending of the saga contains cheaper action (not literally I am afraid), a weaker script with various plot holes and unoriginal solutions. Let’s hope this is an incidental ‘flaw’ from a director who usually delivers and deserves credit for both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

5.5/10

Elena (Andrey Zvyagintsev, 2011)

Russian director Andrey Zvyagintsev made a big impression on the arthouse movie world (and myself) with his debutfilm The Return, a very intense family drama portraying the relationship between a father and his two sons. Elena is the directors third film (I still have to watch his The Banishment) and shares the family thematic with The Return. Just like many other arthouse films it became a slow and dense picture, which is good in most aspects but unfortunately cannot top the director’s debut.

The title character Elena is an older woman who has a relationship with the wealthy and somewhat distant Vladimir. They have met in a later stage of their life and have been married for two years. Elena has a grandson who has to go to the army since the family cannot afford to send him to university, which apparently is his only way out. His parents, Elena’s son Sergey and his wife, are unemployed and don’t really intend to do their best to find at least one job. To make matters worse they just had a baby. Not a very bright future prospect.

Elena asks her husband Vladimir for financial funds to support her lowlife son and grandchildren. Vladimir, who has a troubled relationship with his only spoiled daughter, refuses to pay for them, since he believes the family could try harder. Elena’s offspring is portrayed as the typical drinking and antisocial lowlife, positioning Vladimir in a righteous position from an audience point of view.

When Vladimir ends up in the hospital after a heart attack he gets reunited with his daughter Katya. This results in one of the best scenes of the film. It contains great dialogue, acting and some interesting insights. Katya has a very hedonistic lifestyle and doesn’t deserve a potential heritage according to Elena, who gets more and more desperate about her family situation since Vladimir keeps refusing to support the ‘lazy bums’.

Just like he did in The Return, Zvyagintsev uses some beautiful imagery and long takes to portray the different family situations. Vladimir (and Elena) lives in a very cold and well organized house. He has daily structures and routines and just like his apartment his life seems to be in perfect order. This can’t be said about the household of Elena’s son Sergey. His messy, small, disorganized house is both a metaphor for his life as it is a realistic setting. The social differences are very well displayed and may be recognizable.

I will not spoil anything, but as to be expected (for those familiar with the director’s work, and as an arthouse cliché almost) this movie has no Hollywood ending, to say the least. The ending gave me an uncomfortable feeling and I am afraid Zvyagintsev gives a realistic insight in the social differences and cause and effect for in this case the Russian society (but it seems pretty universal).

Despite some good scenes, beautiful shots and metaphors Elena is not perfect. It doesn’t always manages to keep your full attention due to certain story developments (you might call it partly predictable in a way). Somehow I expected more from especially the last half hour, but the director chooses to let us observe events that only give us an idea of social patterns and doesn’t deliver the expected climax. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t distinguish itself from a handful of other films within its genre (think of some English kitchen sink pictures). Nevertheless Zvyagintsev manages to make a very decent and compelling observation of the differences and choices the different social classes tend to make. He is definitively a talented and promising filmmaker. Elena will not be remembered as his best film I believe.

7.5/10

Mission: Impossible III (J.J. Abrams, 2006)

Oddly enough I never watched the full MI movie series before. The first Mission: Impossible from 1996 was the first ‘proper’ film I saw in the cinema. Therefore it carries a lot of sentimental value and I still believe it is actually a good movie. After I ‘incidentally’ saw the 4^th film last year I was pretty disappointed and decided it was about time to watch numbers 2 and 3. The 2^nd one was pretty bad as well but the 3^rd oddly enough was a very entertaining and intelligently constructed film. I will try to explain the difference.

Let’s start with the first one, why was it good? Of course the complexity of the plot (let’s say it is more complex than the other 3 or for instance Inception) made it challenging, but I think in this case the director (Brian de Palma) managed to create a lot of suspense mainly by introducing every mission properly and explain its urgency to the viewer. Of course the movie has its flaws, but I believe it did pretty well what it was supposed to do: create an entertaining suspenseful action film.

About the second one. I will not spend too many words since I will compare most elements in my review of the third movie but director John Woo for me failed in most elements where the movie should and could score points. The story is usually more or less the same for these films (or a James Bond film if you wish) so this is not where the film can distinguish itself. This can be done in chemistry between male and female leads, the villain, the choreography of the action scenes and the suspense created.

Most of the elements mentioned above are much better portrayed and executed in Mission: Impossible III. Let’s start with the male and female lead. In this film Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) got married and wants to settle down. Of course the mission calls when he has the rescue a girl he trained and sent out in the field. When he can’t manage to save her the situation becomes personal for him and he wants to go after the villain Owen Davians (Philip Seymour Hoffman) who after being held hostage and threatened by Hunt promises to go after Hunt’s wife. This creates a sense of urgency we as viewers can understand. Compare this to the 2^nd film, where the relationship between Hunt and the female lead was forced and therefore felt unnatural, the sense of urgency was missing for me there.

Then the earlier mentioned villain, with personal favourite Philip Seymour Hoffman the choice could not have been better for any film that needs an intelligent evil villain. Period.

Finally, the suspense. In every respect this film beats its predecessor. First of all, the choreography of the action sequences is much better. The style of John Woo couldn’t interest me much but the most important reason for this lies in the preparation. Let’s for instance take the masks Ethan Hunt and other characters tend to use in these films. Of course this is a gadget we take for granted, let’s not point out the differences in eye colour, length and manners of characters that could make this feature an unlikely one. The usage of this feature should somehow be introduced to us to make it credible I would say, this is exactly what Abrams does in the third film when Owen Davians is about to be kidnapped and Ethan will be impersonating him. We see how the mask is created and that it takes time to do this job well, this creates great suspense. In the second film the masks came out of nowhere, which annoyed me.

Last but not least: the missions. In the second one we have some kind of deadly ‘Chimera’ virus, which somehow can be spread by someone who is infected. There are some plotholes in this story. Abrams makes a very intelligent choice in the third film by not giving the viewer any details about a dangerous compound called ‘the Rabbit’s foot’. Not knowing what it is makes it scarier, this always seems to work. More or less the same holds for the presence of the villain, in the third film Hoffman doesn’t have that much screen time making him more mysterious than his predecessor in the second film. The missions concerning the deadly compounds are set out differently, just like in the first film Abrams prepares his viewers very well in how to get what they are after (in the third one this is the villain in person). Woo failed to introduce the scene of the heist in the second film and as a viewer you kind of fall straight into the action.

All in all, the 3^rd film can measure itself with the first Mission Impossible film and I believe that director J.J. Abrams took a good look at what went wrong before. Of course, not every role is acted well, and there are some flaws but overall he created a very credible and suspenseful action film which I can strongly recommend.

7.5/10

Rock of Ages (Adam Shankman, 2012)

"This man spews out three things: Sex, hateful music, and...sex!"

A rock musical, it sounds too good to be true. Normally I would never be thrilled to watch a film made by the director of Hairspray and Bringing Down the House, but when I saw the trailer a couple of weeks ago I was excited to see this one and I am proud to say this movie is already my guilty pleasure of 2012.

The story is total crap. The small town girl Sherrie (Julianne Hough) comes to the big city to make a career as a singer. She runs into Drew (Diego Boneta, who looks like Matthew McConaughey’s little brother) who works in the Bourbon Room, a famous rock temple about to go bankrupt. Drew of course has his own aspirations as a musician and of course the two of them fall in love. And of course later on when Drew has success in the industry something goes wrong, and in the end...you can guess.

Secondly there are the two owners of the Bourbon Room (Alec Baldwin and Russell Brand) who have tax issues. The major’s wife (Catherina Zeta Jones) is determined to shut the rock temple down and especially has something against rock god Stacee Jaxx (a brilliant role by Tom Cruise).

This synopsis sound lame and cliché and has been done a thousand times before. The filmmakers obviously didn’t take it serious since they use minimal time to tell this story and focus on the strong and funny performances by the supporting actors and last but not least on the great rock music from the eighties. Music from bands like Def Leppard, Journey, Twisted Sister and Whitesnake are integrated into the storyline, or maybe not, I believe that the story was built around the songs, since the corny 80’s lyrics fit perfectly to the story.

And then Tom Cruise as Stacee Jaxx. When I saw the trailer I was afraid that he would only have a cameo appearance but fortunately he has a lot of screentime and clearly enjoys every minute of it. The sheer fun he and actors like Paul Giamatti (his manager) have can be felt perfectly and makes this film ‘Nothin’ but a good time’. The scene between him and the Rolling Stone journalist, going under the brilliant name Constance Sack (Malin Akerman), is priceless. Besides all the fun, Rock of Ages ridicules some of the developments in the music industry. There is a funny development regarding a shift in pop culture (if you like New Kids on the Block it’s likely you disagree) that must be loved by anyone who is into rock music. The film also dares to ridicule the rock culture in a way as well with some gay thematics, hairstyle and the extreme adoration of a rock idol (“When my hamster died, your music got me through it”).

If you plan to regard this movie as a serious one you will be disappointed. If you, just like me, love eighties rock you will find this picture a treat. Enjoy the pleasure the actors are having in their performances and the spoof-factor (which I think is present). Don’t compare it to classics like This is Spinal Tap or Almost Famous, but just sit back and relax.

7.5/10

Cosmopolis (David Cronenberg, 2012)

Cosmopolis, the latest production of David Cronenberg (Videodrome, A History of Violence) resulted in a lot of discussion amongst the critics at this year’s Cannes Festival. After watching this film I can completely understand why. After his (for me) disappointing A Dangerous Method I was curious and even excited to watch this one in which the director supposedly went back to his roots. Personally I wouldn’t agree with this statement but this movie is for sure a typical Cronenberg mixing the ‘old’ and ‘new’ side of the filmmaker.

Eric Packer (Robert Pattinson) is a confident 28-year old billionaire who lives in New York City. He is a brilliant Wall Street prodigy who bet a lot of his capital on the yuan’s exchange rate. We follow him in his limousine on his way for a haircut. While losing most of his capital as the rate is going up Packer calmly discusses his philosophies with co-workers, friends, security guard and his lovers. All of this happens in his limo, he even gets a prostate exam while talking, and in the outside world the riots and threats against his life are getting worse and worse.

The long monologues and dialogue especially in the first hour of the film can easily be qualified as monotone and therefore dull. Even though some of the theories and topics are very interesting (consider we are in the near future) it is hard to keep your attention. Most of this appears to be due to Pattinson’s performance, but as the movie progresses we learn that this is exactly the point, and I think Cronenberg chose the Twilight-star for a very good reason. Not only does he have the right looks for this role, his lack of emotional expressions and somewhat cold manners are exactly what Eric Packer is like.

Of course a parallel could be drawn between Packer and Patrick Bateman, the protagonist in Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho, but there are some important differences. First of all the fun is missing in Packer’s monologue, it is not about his favourite bands or how he wants to kill women but about less superficial and more intelligent subjects. The comparison is very strong for the relationships Packer has, especially the one with his newly wed. In a few occasions these scenes had strong similarities in emotional (or lack of ) involvement. Patrick Bateman claimed not to ‘exist’ emotionally. Packer is craving for kicks and emotions, since the spoiled billionaire doesn’t seem to be impressed by all the dangers around him. It’s like nothing can or will hurt him. (Yes, when his favourite rapper dies, the whole world cries, what a future prospect!)

The dull start of the movie could easily spoil the rest and I can imagine a lot of viewers give up after a while, I have to admit I had a hard time getting involved with any of the characters (again, this is probably what Cronenberg wants) but after a while a dark and depressing mood struck me, this feeling is amplified by the impending soundtrack which reminded me of the director’s 90’s classic Crash.

The strongest part of Cosmopolis is the final scene with a brilliant Paul Giamatti who was a former worker for Packer. The role Giamatti plays shows how much better an actor he is than Pattinson, but again, his lack of talent is not problematic at all, it is functional I would say. Some typical Cronenberg stuff and great dialogue makes a thrilling final. The director takes a risk with this film and balances on a thin line between (functional) dullness and making a philosophical statement about the future. For me it partly worked, but I will probably not watch it again soon….

7/10

TRON (Steven Lisberger, 1982)

So, here is another classic from the science fiction genre, probably the movie genre with the most potential as it comes to creativity and visuals. In my opinion the infinite possibilities for writers have led to some awesome films, for instance Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey has been and still is in my personal top 10 for years, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner is coming close. But I feel there are a lot of disappointing ‘classics’ as well. One of the biggest problems I have with some scifi’s is that filmmakers tend to overdo their ‘gimmick’, they sometimes seem to forget how to tell their story properly and put all the effort in action, special effect and visuals. This is exactly my problem with Steven Lisberger’s TRON.

The story in its core sounds interesting. Computer programmer Flynn (Jeff Bridges) lost his job because one of his colleagues Dillinger (David Warner) stole the games he wrote and is now the president of a software engineering firm called ENCOM. This information is stored in the mainframe computer, which he tries to hack. This computer is protected by an artificial intelligence called MCP (Master Control Program, not as creative as HAL, IBM alphabetically 1 letter shifted). When Dillinger finds out this MCP wants to hack and gain control of the Kremlin and Pentagon it blackmails Dillinger to reveal his plagiarism. When Flynn breaks in at ENCOM to hack the MCP he gets sucked in the computer mainframe entering a virtual reality and has to find his way in the digital world to beat Dillinger, who is in control, to get his recognition regarding the popular video games.

As I mentioned earlier, the SF genre has a lot of possibilities in a lot of different fields. Think about time travel, space travel, aliens, future prospects etc. I am generally a big fan of the type of SF where one or a few details have been changed or are different compared to our conventional world and that are told properly in a ‘conventional’ real-world film (Donnie Darko, Primer or Brazil). Films like Star Wars, Star Trek of Serenity are usually too ‘chaotic’ for me, there is simply too much going on or possible to keep me fascinated (I admit that I do like the old Star Wars, especially The Empire Strikes Back). Like I said I have the same problem with TRON, it started off promising but in the second half when we have entered a new virtual world there is so much going on that I lost interest.

Suspense, mystery combined with emotional thrills and involvement are in general some of the key ingredients that keep a good story going. Elements which the great directors master to integrate adequately in their films. In the SF films I qualified earlier as being too chaotic I meant that they are chaotic in the sense that the story doesn’t seem to be the most important element of the film. Especially when characters are having special skills of which I am not aware I can get really annoyed since it often breaks the coherence and puzzle element of a good story.

Director Lisberger clearly focuses on his visual imagery and I guess it is mind-blowing for the early eighties, but at the same time he proves not to be a great storyteller and fails to create a coherent suspenseful story (for me at least). The message he tries to tell us has been done before and much, much better (Kubrick). I will not go as far as to say it is a bad film, therefore it is too unique and visionary in its animated imagery but TRON is definitely not my cup of tea.

5.5/10

Walkabout (Nicolas Roeg, 1971)

When I prepared for my Australia trip 1,5 years ago I stumbled upon a number of movies in the Lonely Planet guide. I am not sure anymore if Nicolas Roeg’s Walkabout was in there, but I would say it is obligatory for anyone who somehow relates to this beautiful country. Many hail this movie as a masterpiece and I can fully understand why. I will get into the cinematic qualities shortly but first I have to say it was a very personal experience for me, having been a guest Down Under for a year I felt somewhat melancholic watching the red hot desert, the kangaroos, the carpet pythons and even listening to the buzzing blowflies made me want to go back. Disregarding my personal attachment this movie is a pearl!

It tells the story of a father (who works in mining, still the main driver of Australia’s flourishing economy) of two children who took them outback and commits a bizarre suicide. The teenage girl (Jenny Agutter) and her younger brother (Luc Roeg, the director’s son) end up in the deserted but beautiful outback and seem doomed until they run into a 16-year old Aborigine boy.

Director Roeg started his career as a cinematographer (Lawrence of Arabia, Fahrenheit 451) and this is visible throughout the entire film. He captures the endless beauty and harmonious nature in a poetic way like for instance Malick can and uses intelligent editing. His obvious message lies in the visual contradictions between nature and (mining) industry (mainly towards the end). The cross-cutting between the Aborigine boy slaying a Kangaroo and the conventional butcher says a lot but there is more. Like Roger Ebert points out in his spot-on review there is also the issue of communication.

There is definitely a sexual attraction or tension developing between the 14-year old girl and the Aborigine boy but since they cannot communicate the black native (who has no problems communicating with the younger brother) has to fall back to his ritual dance which doesn’t have the desired effect. One could interpret this as if the cultural differences get in the way of natural developments in a number of ways as pointed out by Roeg.

A lot of the problems that are going on in Australia with the Aboriginals are left implicit by the director and are visualized by the surroundings and how both cultures are treating animals and especially nature. Roeg does make explicit that 'western' Australians and Aborigines are in two different worlds together with the striking scene with the abandoned car, not very subtle, but effective. On the other hand this film doesn’t explicitly points out the country’s history of genocide (this is what happened!) but leaves room for interpretation. It may not reach every viewer, but instead of making a 'standard' moralizing picture, we got our visual and poetic masterpiece.

I saw the final sequence 4 times and I believe it is one of the most beautiful and at the same time depressing scenes I ever saw. For a film from the early seventies it is scary how it predicts and criticizes developments that have expanded more and more over the years. I believe it is not just criticizing the Australian mining industrialization, Walkabout is a general statement about man's attitude towards nature.

9/10

Hwal (Kim Ki Duk, 2005)

Asia produces a lot of movies that are getting more and more popular in our western filmworld. One of best known movie-countries for us is probably South Korea. Director Kim Ki Duk stole my heart after I saw his Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring and Bin-Jip (3-Iron). Of course I want to watch all of his movies (I am a cinephile…) and today it was Hwal or the Bow.

Like many great movies this picture deserves its credit for the feeling and mood it gives you as a viewer (for me this is something where Ki Duk always succeeded so far). The director is not shy of showing us some of his trademarks again which are, in this case, minimal dialogue and a story on a single isolated location.

In Hwal the location is a fishing boat owned by an older man around 60. His only company a 16 year old beautiful girl who he will marry the day she turns 17. The boat serves as a fishing location for visitors, some of them are talking about the rumours that the girl went missing when she was 6 and her parents are still looking for her. The old man, equipped with bow and arrow, is very protective of his fiancée and fires warning shots towards anyone who shows an interest in the young girl. The old man also predicts the future of his guests if they request, he does this with a very odd and dangerous ritual. After this the little girl whispers something in the man’s ear after which he tells his guests their future. Apart from this ritual the two main characters are not talking at all.

When a younger guy visits the boat, the isolated girl fancies him instantly and the two seem to fall in love. Of course he is chased off the boat at first by the old man, resulting in alienation from the girl towards her future husband. But can the love between the two young people be stopped by the old man eventually?

The story about this somewhat unconventional love triangle begs for at least some dialogue from either the old man or his fiancée but Ki Duk manages to tell his story without and this is exactly the strength and talent of this director. The imagery and colouring is beautiful as usual and the director shows again how to tell his story with minimal text but optimal acting performances and directing. The final act of the movie is bizarre on the one hand but I have to admit it gave me goosebumps, merely because of an awesome soundtrack.

Not as good as his earlier mentioned masterpiece Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring but again a great film from the Korean master of cinematic poetry. Poëcinema if you wish.

8/10

Kárhozat (Béla Tarr, 1988)

Opening take: A bleak industrial landscape with the background noise of a coal power plant. The camera slowly zooms out and we see how some guy is witnessing the daily industrial process from his room. It’s a take of a couple of minutes where basically nothing happens but it sets the tone if it comes to the mood of the movie and the environment we are in.

With this scene I started watching my first Bèla Tarr movie called Kárhozat or Damnation. It is black and white, has long takes with an extremely slowly panning camera, no establishing shots, making the images fascinating and even though it may look empty at first, there is so much to see. I wouldn’t call it beauty, the movie is not an advertisement for Hungary, but the cinematography is awesome!

The plot is absolutely not important but I will try to summarize it. We see a somewhat depressed recluse in his local bar Titanik. He falls in love with a blonde singer. The owner asks him to participate in a smuggling scheme. He asks the husband of the singer to do the job so he has his hands free with her. We see how the protagonist is trying to get to her, sometimes subtle, sometimes violently, sharing his deep and philosophical insights with her and the viewer.

Again, this plot is just a means for the director to give us an impression of the bleak circumstances of a country in the last years of a Communistic regime. The movie puts its viewer in a depressive mood with ease and hypnotises with beautiful images and camerawork. Tarr chooses to repeatingly focus on rain (in both dialogue and visually), stray dogs and sad surroundings. I believe that he deliberately chose for a black and white movie to make it as bleak as possible.

Kárhozat was the first Tarr movie I watched and it was exactly what I was expecting. It is not digested lightly and the images contain so much sadness in every detail that I will wait a while before I’ll watch another one. The director does not use establishing shots but positions his camera close to the objects or characters he is observing resulting in some surprises when he slowly pans to a different corner (for instance the off-screen diegetic music, there always seems to be a musician in every corner). This unconventional trademark technique makes every take interesting and creates an undefinable suspense.

This filmmaker got my attention and I will try to watch more (his next one Sátántangó has a runtime of 450 minutes, so I may have to schedule….) but I will make sure to be in the right mood and circumstances. Definitely not your conventional popcorn film!

8/10

Angst Essen Seele Auf (Rainer Werner Fassbinder, 1974)

Rainer Werner Fassbinder, another well-known director on my watchlist. And why not start with his most acclaimed work Angst Essen Seele Auf ? When I read the synopsis I was afraid it might be a somewhat judgmental and politically polarizing picture. And even though the director portrays a one-sided ignorant human species at first, I think he ended up with a picture from a pretty nuanced point of view.

On a rainy day Emmi (Brigitte Mira), an elderly German cleaning lady, finds shelter in a bar frequented by mainly Arabic workers. One of them, the sympathic but somewhat simple Ali (El Hedi ben Salem), asks her to dance and one thing leads to another. He ends up in her apartment, witnessed by the narrow minded neighbours who joke that she may be buying a new carpet. Emmi falls in love with the Moroccan and she decides to marry him so he can live with her. The response of her community is flat out horrible. Her children freak out when she brings them her news and claim never to talk to her again. Her colleagues start ignoring her and even when the odd couple is having a drink, the bar owners are constantly staring at them (deliberately overdone by Fassbinder). Emmi is slowly losing it but Ali keeps pointing out that they are not the ones who are bad.

So far it seems that the director wants to give his audience a black and white view on the problematic situation but slowly things are turning a little bit, giving the movie a nuance boost and making it a great picture. Of course a fresh relationship between an elderly woman and a much younger foreigner creates friction and their marriage is tested in a lot of ways. It also turns out that Emmi her environment appreciates and needs her more than she thought at first (even the racist grocery store owner is missing his regular customer).

Fassbinder clearly marks out the good and the bad ‘Germans’ that are involved in this racial question. Every supporting role has a well-defined function, there is the landlord who assumes Ali is a lodger at first and points out that Emmi is not allowed to have a lodger. When he finds out the two are a couple, he is not resisting. The same holds for the police. When they are called out by some concerned neighbours who claim to be bothered by the Arabic music playing in Emmi and Ali’s apartment their reaction is neutral. The director makes silly judges out of the ordinary people who are in Emmi her world, not the whole world.

I am very content with the film style of Fassbinder. He is often framing the couple in a box or is secluding them from their environment. Surely he is overdoing some of the situations but it strengthens the point he wants to make. The best example of the overdone ignorance is maybe the character played by himself, as the male chauvinist son-in-law of Emmi.

All in all a great picture, not only because of its sharp message in interesting times (the maker is even hinting once or twice to WW II), but surely also because of a smart film style, good acting performances and an overall realistic script.

8/10

Carrie (Brian de Palma, 1976)

Like I stated a couple of reviews ago, I am not a big fan of Brian de Palma as a filmmaker, at least I think he is somewhat overrated. Nevertheless he did make some (cult) classics that I feel I should watch. One of them is his version of the well-known story from Stephen King, Carrie.

I remember watching the first 10 minutes some years ago after which I decided to turn off the TV. Why? Maybe it was because of the horrible opening scene (I mean that it is cinematic kitsch, not necessarily horrible pictures) or because Sissy Spacek annoyed me. To start with the latter, I actually appreciate this actress much better after watching Badlands and 3 Women. Perhaps inspired by the horror-fun of Cabin in the Woods I saw recently I felt like watching Carrie, and I am afraid it did not fully convince me….

De Palma is doing an OK job in telling his story at first. After the shower scene (which is a key scene of course, but unnecessarily stretched in my opinion) we get a good grip on the situation Carrie is in, who is merely an outcast because of her extremely religious mom, portrayed perfectly by Piper Laurie (Twin Peaks). The rest of the cast is kept on the surface, motivations of even Bobby (who is ‘forced’ to take the unpopular girl to the prom and seems to develop feelings for her) are not explained by de Palma. Of course we feel the build up towards the climax at the prom (somehow I knew what was going to happen, just have a look at the dvd cover or movie poster…) but the way towards this scene is not exactly perfect. De Palma devotes a lot of time to certain characters (John Travolta….) which doesn’t seem to add anything and as a result the impact of the prom scene is not as overwhelming as it could have been, but luckily it still is a very strong sequence.

Obviously the director has been putting all his skills in this one notorious scene, and he keeps stretching which builds up suspense effectively, even though we know what will happen. Also we have created some sympathy for the title character. De Palma’s talent makes the prom scene very effective, which again shows that he is a great director (but a good director doesn’t make a good filmmaker necessarily).

Last but not least, overall this picture is not that scary. I guess it was in the 70’s regarding its status, but I never felt a lot of suspense and wasn’t shocked at all, something I did experience during for instance The Exorcist. The horror genre has renewed its standards over the years of course (think about some more realistic movies like Eden Lake) but I was expecting a bit more from such a classic.

This movie didn’t fail completely but some different choices (more character building or background) could have made it a great film. Now I will merely remember it because of one or two great scenes and a strong performance by Spacek, who again proved to be one of the great actresses of her time.

6/10