alexandermangoldt

The Billion Dollar Code (2021)

Extremely conventional storytelling spoils a good story!

I'm like forty minutes into the first episode and I am already bored as funk, excuse my French. I can't help but to compare it to THE SOCIAL NETWORK which is so much better on pretty much all levels (score, storytelling, exchanges between the lawyers, dialogue, voice-over, etc.)

There is just way too much explaining. We have the voice-over that chronologically explains everything, and just to make sure, even the actors do their fair amount of explaining. One example: When the two hackers/ nerds have their first meeting with the Deutsche Telekom, one of the hackers says that his fellow hackers would be ashamed of him to ask the Deutsche Telekom for money and that he hacked their network just a year ago. But at this point, it is already very clear to the viewer that the people working at and for the Deutsche Telekom are totally different from these hackers. So there is really no need for this explanation. And this is just one example. When the lawyers ask questions or interrupt their counterparts, it never feels genuine but rather like a device or tool to explain something to the supposedly dumb viewer. And I don't like being taken for a ignoramus when I'm watching a film.

So, no, I believe this is a good story, but the film itself is dull and boring.

No Time to Die (2021)

Messy, confusing, cringeworthy!

I'm in Italy, I want to visit my ex's grave, my current girlfriend doesn't mind, she's so cool. Oh no, what's that?, the giant tomb explodes as I am standing inches away from it. I am almost deaf, but other than that I'm fine, no scratch, apparently SPECTRE didn't send their best bomb team, but now I'm being followed, luckily I'm completely fit again juts minutes after a bomb exploded in my face. Oh, it must have been my current girlfriend, that's for sure, oh, I can't trust anyone, I'm so lonely, so melancholic, but first, I have to shoot these followers into pieces and then put my girlfriend, that treacherous be-hatch, on a train. Now I'm going to go fishing, oh no, Felix Leiter from the CIA is there with his intern, they want me to go on a dangerous mission, and so on and so forth, oh I am so lonely, iI think I want to start a family, kill the bad guy and save my daughter's dou-dou (teddybear) and strap it underneath my suspenders while a plethora of grenades rains down on me.

These were probably the most horrendous three hours of James Bond in my entire life. It felt like they wanted to film an analogy to the Brexit. Scriptwriters as divided as the British people about what to do with James Bond/ Europe, followed by an awful long process of nonsensical dialogue and ending in a mess that apparently nobody saw coming.

Worst James Bond movie in a very long time. Absolute cringefest, if you ask me!

Mare of Easttown (2021)

Entertaining and gripping, but with a rather disappointing aftertaste

Kate Winslet is great in this series, she unquestionably carries every episode with her acting skills. The atmosphere of this supsense-laden show is dense and seems very authentic. But: towards the end I felt that there was a little too much drama. Pretty much every family in this show has serious issues and can be defined as dysfunctional, so much so that I felt as if the director had taken the topics from a soap-opera and had tried to graft them on a more sophisticated TV-series. The last episode is a serious letdown with all its implausible twists and turns, culminating in a ridiculous sermon by the deacon, the church filled with the entire cast coming to terms with the most horrendous tragedies.

Let me say it this way: I seriously enjoyed watching the show, but I was left with a disappointing aftertaste and had a lot of questions regarding the plausibility of the plot.

BILD.Macht.Deutschland? (2020)

Julian Reichelt aka the Til Schweiger of the yellow press

I think this documentary is unintentionally revealing. I watched all 7 episodes like I would watch a car accident. It was gruesome but I still couldn't avert my eyes. However, sometimes I wanted to shut my ears because the music was suggesting drama and tension where often there was none.

And there is Julian Reichelt who really reminded me of Til Schweiger in some scenes: not overly sophisticated, not very articulate or well-spoken, a little chauvinist and an ostentatiously tough guy. Even his looks are similar to those of Til.

Then there are the reporters, who are in general more educated than their readership, but relenetlessly try to find arguments why it's good to work for a tabloid newspaper. The best argument comes from a reporter who says that he considers his move from the FAZ (quality press) to the BILD Zeitung a promotion, because at the FAZ he could or had to use elaborate language but now he is challenged to transform or condense very difficult topics into one catchy headline. But rather than condensing difficult topics they actually oversimplify matters so that their readers can feel the shock, outrage or indignation that really is the currency of the BILD. Reporters probably have to be in such denial in order to look at their reflection in the mirror every morning.

One typical example is given: According to the BILD, China is responsible for the Corona virus, hasn't produced anything but viruses in the last 60 years and therefore must foot the multi-billion dollar bill. Yeah, right, that really is condensation and has got nothing to do with xenophobic simplification. Thank you, BILD. By the way, according to this logic, we would also be in our rights to blame Africa for Aids and make them pay. Oh, I forgot, we're already making Africa pay.

There are worthy causes, too, like the cover story about the King of Thailand who thrives and prospers in his hotel in the south of Germany while his people are being oppressed. But again, the BILD just wants their readers to be appalled about this. The real investigative research is done by papers such as the SZ oder TV-channels like WDR who were able to prove that the King of Thailand is governing his country illegally from Germany.

Another revealing moment ist when a famous ex-soccerplayer (Mehmet Scholl) says that the BILD has so much information on pretty much everyone that you had better work with them or else they will destroy you. And that's exactly how they roll: give us information or we'll publish sensitive information about you. I don't know about you, but to me there is only one word for it: extortion.

I wonder if the filmmakers actually understood that Julian Reichelt was manipulating them and pushing his own agenda which is to promote the BILD TV channel. Nobody I know has heard about the TV Channel and it's pretty irrelevant in the German media landscape. The documentary is however portraying it as the next big thing. It's also hilarious to see the hubris of both Julian Reichelt and his vice Paul Ronzheimer who appear on their own TV-channel and discuss topical issues as if their opinion would influence politics somehow.

So, if you want to learn how deluded the journalists at the BILD Zeitung are, then this is the right documentary for you.

Felix Lobrecht: Hype (2020)

Felix all over the place

Truth be told, I'm not a die-hard fan of Felix Lobrecht. I've watched a few of his bits on youtube, and in my view there are a few things he has got going for him: authenticity, freshness and a cheeky smile. But after watching this show, I believe that Felix Lobrecht is a comedian who hasn't found his inner voice yet, as stupid as that may sound. I'd like to give a few examples: I liked him best in this show when he shows some self-irony, for example when he scares some guys off (who attempt a robbery at his place) by just knocking against the window, when he hands his cellphone over to two crooks without putting up a fight, when he talks about his future in which all his friends have matured except for him or when he says that he's afraid of the hype about him dying down in the near future and leaving him in the ditches. I also like him when he criticises Saarbrücken for having cherished Adolf Hitler as an honorary citizen until 2001. These are moments in which he reveals some depth, the kind of depth that I have also noticed in the one episode of his podcast (Gemischtes Hack) that I've listened to. But the problem is: these moments are all too fleeting. He never dwells on any of the more serious topics, to be honest, he doesn't dwell upon anything at all, and, in the long run, this show turns out to be a little shallow. The other thing I don't quite understand is his use of foul language: at times, it seems like he's using it to gain street credibility (Berlin-Neukölln) or because he believes it will please his audience but that it's not him at all. Then there is the introduction where he makes fun of handicapped people and where he claims that it is perfectly normal and okay to laugh about them and that we all should relax and stop being so politically correct all the time. But the whole bit about the handicapped people is not really funny and there is no second layer here (meaning that it doesn't appear to be a role that he's playing). After this show I thought that Felix Lobrecht could develop into different directions: he could either turn out to be the next Mario Barth (which would be horrible) or a German version of Aziz Ansari (which I personally would hope for).

Tenet (2020)

It's a ludicrous mess.

This is the kind of film where people, when you tell them that you neither liked nor understood the film, respond: "Oh, you didn't get it, you need to watch it again. Fortunately, I'm very smart (and have a master in physics, just like Robert Pattinson) and therefore understood everything right away."

The whole film is a mess. The exposition is way too long and the rest ist just too confusing. I found myself very soon in my seat not caring about anything: the protagonist, the inverted bullets, nothing. I'm a fan of Christopher Nolan, but not to the point that I'd become an apologist for every flick he makes.

Hope Nolan does better next time. This thing is a waste of time and money.

Official Secrets (2019)

Down to earth, well-conceived movie

I enjoyed or rather appreciated this film from beginning to end. I'm not particularly a fan of Keira Knightley, but here she pulls off a stunning performance. All of the cast members seem to have been asked to downplay their own role or its significance and that makes the film even more compelling because less hollywoodish. The film doesn't portray Katherin Gun as a heroine, but rather as a scared woman that feels compelled to do what's morally right, regardless of the personal ordeal she has to face due to her indiscretion.

We are now into the seventeenth year of the Iraqi war, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, and almost 5000 soldiers from the coalition of the willing have died, and after watching this film you still wonder how Blair, Bush, Cheney, Lord Goldmsmith and all the other politicians that promoted this illegal war are still allowed to walk freely and have never been indicted for anythying. Instead they are invited on talk shows. Shameful.

This film clearly shows that Western democracies are at times no better than the governments of the oppressed countries they claim to set free. The only difference is that Western democracies allow for a movie industry and a freedom of press that expose these atrocities committed in the name of goo.

Werk ohne Autor (2018)

Pros and cons

Let's start with the pros: the film has great visuals, a superb cinematography that lends itself well to the pacing of the film. This together gives the film a depth that I sometimes miss in Hollywood movies where a scene rarely lasts longer than a few seconds.

The music is great, too. It's probably the three together (visuals, music, pacing) that made me feel comfortable throughout the watching of the entire three hours that the film lasted.

I also liked the parts that were about art, although the portrayal of Eastern German versus Western German art is fairly stereotypical and clearly designed to illustrate the main differences to viewers unfamiliar with German art.

The actors did a fairly good job, expecially given the fact that some scenes weren't easy to play and a bit over the top, which leads me to the cons of this film.

The first scene that was over the top and slightly cringeworthy is the scene with the bus drivers bumping their horns so that Elisabeth can indulge in her descent into madness. I believe that this descent into madness happened rather quickly and the scenes designed to show her descent into madness were a bit blunt (smashing a glass plate against her head, et cetera).

The villain Professor Carl Seeband is a cold-hearted character and rather one-dimensional. His unscrupulousness throughout the entire film makes his meltdown at the end of the movie rather unbelievable. Speaking of his meltdown, I must admit that I was expecting more of a climax at the end of the movie. I can't help to think that the film simply petered out and did not keep the promises it made at the beginning.

Kurt Barnerts relationship with Professor Carl Seeband is also difficult to grasp. On the one hand, Kurt Barnert ist shown as this free spirit who doesn't care about conventions, but when it comes to his father-in-law, he is awfully servile and silent. I expected him to speak up to his nastiness but he never does.

One can't help but compare this to 'The lives of others' and it loses on so many levels (actors, storyline, climax) that FHvD might turn out to be this one-trick pony that cannot go back to the originality of his first feature film.

I sincerely hope he proves me wrong some day.

Huge in France (2019)

Gadlessness! Let me say that again...Gadlessnes!

It's probably not fair to judge a TV-series after watching its first episode, but...uhh...how do you say in English..uh, yes, what the heck, I'm gonna do it anyway. I believe in French the word comédien can stand for a comedian or an actor whereas in English you usually distinguish between these two occupations. Well, I believe that Gad is a great comedian, for example, I've watched his piece The cigarette (where he talks like someone who is trying to get off of cigarettes while actually trying to get used to them) more than a thousand times and I can still laugh at particular scenes from that sketch. I also like his authentic and natural way of doing stand up, he seems like a very likeable guy. Which brings me to my first criticism: In HUGE IN FRANCE, Gad is not likeable at all. He plays a narcissistic celebrity that acts like the sun king and expects to be admired in the US as well. He spends a lot of time showing Youtube videos of himself to random people, expecting them to be impressed. This doesn't only make him look unsympathetic, it also makes him look incredibly naive. Then he meets his assistant and treats him like dirt and this leads to a bigger problem when he meets his biological American son Luke and his foster father: they're not likeable either. So you have no character to root for in the first episode (unless maybe the Asian assistant) and that makes it difficult, sometimes cringeworthy to sit through the first episode. The culture clash that this TV-series is supposed to thrive on doesn't do the trick for me either, because Gad's English is good enough to get around LA with. Sure, he has a thick accent, but as a viewer I simply don't buy the scenes where he is looking for words. For example: when the Asian guy shows him the apartment he is supposed to live at, he says that the apartment is a ..uh..how do you say it... s**thole! It's simply unbelievable that he doesn't know the word s**thole, especially when, a few scenes later, he uses the expression 'bo*b job' without having to ask for it.

I could go on. But enough said. If you want to watch a likeable Foreigner in Hollywood TV-series, watch HELLO LADIES with Stephen Merchant.

Dunkirk (2017)

Great film...but exceptional...I'm not sure!

First of, I enjoyed (for lack of a better term) this movie. I wasn't exactly on the edge of my seat, but there was suspense and I wasn't bored one bit by what I was offered on screen.

Having seen quite a few war movies (Platoon, Apocalypse now, Saving Privat Ryan, Full Metal Jacket, All quiet on the Western front, etc.) and having read a lot of war novels (The Naked and the Dead, The Thin Red Line, From Here to Eternity, etc.) I have come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as an anti-war movie or anti-war film. It is my contention that young men will continue to be easily lured into the military because it offers something they supposedly miss in their private life: action! I know, because when I was eighteen I signed up for an additional two months to my mandatory military service because I was keen on getting away from home and I had no idea what awaited me. Fortunately, I didn't stay long enough to be picked for IFOR or KFOR.

Dunkirk will not keep young men from joining the army for certain aspects that I find in a lot of war films. For example, the protagonists are almost always good looking (Fionn Whitehead as Tommy) and they have always a great character (Tommy aka Whitehead protects the French soldier who poses as an Englishman). War also allegedly offers young men the chance to prove themselves, to grow and to turn into men (Tom Glynn-Carney as Peter - Mr. Dawson's son). Apart from that, you also have acts of bravery and heroism that appeal to young men (Tom Hardy as the heroic pilot who risks his own life to save that of others). And there are these moments of patriotic triumph that you find not so often in Dunkirk but which do exist and seemed to me typically Hollywoodish (not sure this word exists): the moment when the private boats arrive or the moment when Commander Bolton aka Kenneth Branagh sees the boats arriving and says "HOME".

All in all, I don't see how an entertaining film like this is supposed to make young men consider war something dull and boring. An actual anti-war movie to me would be a man who refuses to pick up arms and kill other men and escapes to a place where there is no war and hides there until things blow over. I just don't see Christopher Nolan making a film about that and turning the protagonist into a hero.

Be that as it may, I'd like to point out the things I liked about the movie: The fact that most of the film is about survival and not heroism, the fact that almost no CGI was used, the fact that the pictures are beautiful and impressive in every sense of these two words, the fact that it mostly spares us typical (American) patriotism and the fact that the German soldier remains almost completely invisible instead of being portrayed as evil as it happens in so many other war movies.

But there are also things I had problems with: The score by Hans Zimmer. Don't get me wrong, I like the score, but I believe some scenes would have worked better if there had been silence. I perceived the music in this film as a tool intended to dictate my feelings, and I don't like it when music tries to tell me what to feel. Especially the boat arrival scene was a caesura to me, until that moment I had experienced the film as rather naturalistic in style and then in this scene it turned into Hollywood.

Bottom line: This film is good and thought provoking, but other war movies have done that before, so I don't think Dunkirk stands out among the other war movies I have seen. It's different in parts, but it is also a very typical war movie in other parts.

War Machine (2017)

Good, clean anti-war movie

I've been abstinent from IMDb for quite some time but just watching War machine and considering the bad ratings it has gotten so far gave me an impulse to write a review.

First off: This is a good movie. At the beginning of the movie Brad Pitt overdoes it a bit in his caricature of General McMahon and I was quite frankly expecting a few laughs in the following. But this film is not a full-fledged comedy and I don't think it was meant to be.

In the course of this film I got used to Brad Pitt's seemingly overdone gestures and postures and took them as genuine features of the General portrayed.

There are a few scenes which I really liked about the movie: The best moment to me was when Tilda Swinton in the role of a German journalist reveals by intelligent interrogation that General McMahon lives in his own world where battles and wars are either lost or won. She makes it clear to him and the rest of the world that wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan can never be won because they do not fit the pattern of wars such as WWII or WWI, with a clear cut enemy and clear front lines. She (Tilda Swinton aka German journalist) has understood what the Generals and the political leaders of the coalition forces have failed to grasp or do not want to grasp. She questions the general's sense of self and it seems that she is the first person that gets through to the General and incites him to question himself.

The one and only battle scene of the film was, in my humble opinion, done very well, too. You see a group of American soldiers in a deserted, strategically totally unimportant area fighting a battle against three Taliban snipers. In the fight, a young soldier manages to kill the snipers by an act of bravery but kills an innocent boy as well. The supposed hero turns home from battle as a broken man. That's in a nutshell what war does to any young man.

When Brad Pitt aka General McMahon flies in to tell the Afghan people what it is they are trying to do and wants to draw a bigger picture they all just kindly ask him to leave. He tries again to make them understand, but to no avail. Even the metaphorically used expression 'If you want to make an omelette you have to break some eggs' surprisingly fails to win the hearts and minds of the Afhhan people.

The only reason I can think of why this film is unsuccessful is because it is very critical of the American foreign policy/ military and Americans (that is my contention) in general don't like it if their army is ridiculed. Another reason might be that people expected battles scenes but as I've said, there is only one.

Bottom line: If you want to understand how futile the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are, go see this film

Django Unchained (2012)

gratuitous violence..run of the mill plot...yep, must be a Tarantino

Okay, okay, of course, at first, me too, I thought that this was going to be a movie where Schultz and Django set out to find the three brothers that they go huntin' at the beginning, but no, within ten minutes they find them and that's that, so, soon I find out that the real plot is to get Brunhilde back, and to make this movie a flick that the adjective artsy-fartsy is worthy of bestowing upon, Brunhilde is of course an allusion to the great German myth, but let's face it, a gossamer-thin plot like this doesn't deserve to run on for what seems an endless three hours of shootouts, shootouts and more shootouts, and as for for Schultz, it must have been a real cinch for Waltz to play this character because he is more than just reminiscent of the character he played in Inglorieus Basterds, it's more like THE EXACT SAME ROLE, just take away the clothes and you've got Hans Landa, okay, he is less evil and weird, but the sophisticated language had me thinking, Can Waltz do more than just learn elaborate monologues filled with words nobody uses in everyday language by heart and recite them as he wishes, boooring, boring, could we please have the old Tarantino back, where dialogs were actually witty and humorous (Pulp Fiction) and were violence was still gratuitous but at least lent itself well to the characters that were shown, come on, this flick doesn't deserve the praise that it gets, it's more like Tarantino is developing into this one-trick pony and because of pure idolatry you don't want to see that Tarantino has done his contribution to cinema and won't create anything new.

Battleship (2012)

Comedy of the year

I went to see this movie at a late night screening on Saturday with a buddy. Unfortunately, the movie was being shown in a theater with comfortable lounge seats, so we had to pay extra. We both more or less knew what we were in for: A Transformers spin-off with great looking but mediocre actors, plot holes in abundance and the usual cheesy and temporarily corny American patriotism. But we thought: What the heck, if the action is spectacular, we might be able to forget about all that.

Ten minutes into the movie, we realized that we wouldn't. Taylor Kitsch playing Alex Hopper is so over the top the protagonist that has character flaws at the beginning and turns out to be the good, noble soldier at the end, that it hurts. The whole movie smells of NAVY propaganda from the start, with the proud but honestly strange looking veterans, the blatant display of battleships, clean white uniforms and blonde babes that fall for all that.

When the Taylor Kitsch character turns from former felon to highly respected naval officer, we knew we had to do something. In tacit agreement, we changed our perspective and started to think of this movie as a comedy and not an action movie. And, quite frankly, that did the trick for us.

We laughed, chuckled, giggled and kept rolling our eyes for the rest of the film. We laughed at the fact that technologically developed aliens could be annihilated by simply dazzling them with sunlight (if only they had worn better shades, strange that RAY BAN missed out on such a great product placement opportunity). We laughed when we saw Peter MacNicol (as Secretary of Defense) asking stupid questions about the nature of the attack so that the dumb viewers get what 's going on. We chuckled when we learned that the USS Missouri, a museum battleship, is still equipped with all its explosive weaponry. We giggled when the veterans came out of nowhere to go on their last mission (as if they had been living and waiting on the USS Missouri for 50 years) and we had to roll our eyes when Liam Neeson, whom I admired in Schindler's List and found great in Taken, lowered himself by acting out some dreadful scenes in a horribly flaccid film.

We left the movie theater laughing and waited to see if the movie goers who had obviously liked the film went to the cloakroom to pick up not only their jackets but their brains, too.

Bottom line: If you want to enjoy this movie, think of it as a comedy.

We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

Artistically brilliant, but ….

From an art-house point of view, this is probably one of the best films of the year. The opening sequence with throngs of people engaged in a tomato battle lends itself well to the associations we generally have when we think of the color red. Red is a color that can be considered a general theme of the movie. Later on in the movie, we see Tilda Swinton scrubbing the red paint from her porch, a quite simple but effective metaphor: There is blood on her hands, because she didn't respond appropriately to her son's weird behavior.

The director also uses food in an artistic way. Throughout the entire movie we see shredded food, sandwiches with red jam turned upside down and lychees devoured by the evil son. All this to give the entire movie a notion of I don't know what, disgust maybe. This artistic take on the topic illustrates the feelings of the mother, her feeling of guilt, her inaptitude to come to terms with the tragedy and her confusion as to what really happened. Like a poem is often a better way of conveying the feelings one has regarding a particular subject matter, this movie describes the feelings of a mother whose son went on a killing spree better than a documentary probably could, but that's about it when we talk about the advantages of an artistic take on the subject matter. If, regarding this movie, we venture to take a reality check, the film has quite a few shortcomings. For example: The son goes on a killing spree at his school, however, not one single scene shows him at school conversing or interacting with class mates or teachers. The film focuses on the family and on the family only, so why does he kill his class mates? The bow and arrow massacre also is hardly credible. If a guy shot students with a bow and arrow instead of using a gun, it's hard to believe that he could manage to kill so many in a gym. After the first arrow, wouldn't the students run towards him, wrestling him down before he could take a second shot? The film also wants to make us believe that Kevin was born evil (the Play-the-ball scene), negating the fact that many of the real school shooters were ordinary children until they were bullied by their class mates so extensively that it gradually changed their personality and perception of life.

And the reactions of the parents: John C. Reilly again plays a doofus character who has no clue whatsoever about what's going on in his family, while at the same time being a successful and well-off man who can afford to buy a great house and many other things. Sorry, but it doesn't wash. Bottom line: If you are into art-house movies this is a great movie, if you want to learn something about school shootings, refrain from watching this.

The Tree of Life (2011)

Mother, Father....where did you hide the plot?

As many others have before, I'd like to point out that I actually am a fan of Malick's work. BADLANDS was captivating and THE THIN RED LINE had me on the edge of my seat.

So, naturally I went to see THE TREE OF LIFE. The first ten minutes made me brace myself for a great movie. Beautiful cinematography, the portentous voice from the off, meaningful dialogues and great acting.

But what happened then? I believe this happened: Malick found a chemistry set in the studio and accidentally dropped some of the bottles containing colourful liquids and all of a sudden ordered his cameraman to film the concoction being dispersed on the floor. Then he and the cameraman experimented with more fluids and thought it looked like the milky way or whatever.

Then Malick said: "What a shame that these ink-blot like pictures don't fit the movie. Ah, nevermind, we'll work them in anyway!"

And that's why I had to sit to twenty minutes with pictures of a Rorschach-Test gone awry. And when the dinosaurs showed up, I couldn't help chuckling.

Dear Terrence, let me remind you: You are a director, not the messiah or the next Ron Hubbard. You know how to tell a story, but next time, please make sure you have a story. This was a load of I don't know what.

When Malick finally, after seemingly endless twenty minutes, goes back to the Brad Pitt character and his family, you find yourself not giving a damn about them.

After two hours I left the cinema, wondering what had made me stay till the end. Truth is I still don't know.

Das Blaue vom Himmel (2011)

Less is more

Just came home from the premiere, for which I managed to get some tickets. To be honest, I felt like I've been sitting through two hours of endless boredom. The story had no surprising twists, the plot was conventional as well as the narrative structure (flashbacks alternating/ overlapping with the events of 1991). The whole cast was overacting, as if the director had been standing behind the camera and in each scene shouting: "More, more, I want this scene to be intense". Hence, every actor overdid it and many scenes seem as if they were intended for a theater play, not a movie. Many of the scenes seemed to me overly theatrical and melodramatic. One example: The young Marga stands in the field, chopping wood, when suddenly her ex-husband Juris appears . In his arms he is holding the baby of his lover, Ieva. Every facial expression of the two actors seems so exaggerated, desperately trying to convey the message: "Oh, it's all so incredibly tragic, we can hardly stand it". And Karoline Herfurths position to the camera is completely unnatural and just for effect.

The plot was predictable, twenty minutes into the film I knew that Marga wasn't Sofia's real mother, but that, in the end, the Sofia character would grow to accept it and reconcile with her oddly behaving mother. The Alzheimer scenes were far too many, one scene and we know, OK, old Marga is losing it, no need to rub it in by showing scenes in which she talks gibberish. If we just look at the craftsmanship of this film, I believe we have found the one positive aspect. Pictures and music were well paced although the music was a little too much at times as well. I guess in the end I'm looking and hoping for a German cinema that is a little more controversial, disturbing. A cinema that is obnoxious, confusing and gut-wrenching. This film isn't any of that.

Winterreise was better.

Der Baader Meinhof Komplex (2008)

What you see is what you get (nothing more)

I watched the movie at a teacher's screening in Wuppertal on a Sunday morning. I was quite impressed with the accurate and detailed portrayal of the RAF and the events of the so called 'German fall' (Deutscher Herbst). I myself knew of many of the events beforehand and thanks to documentaries such as Veiel's Black Box BRD and Breloer's Todesspiel I was able to compare. For the two and some hours that the movie lasted I was on the edge of my seat. None of the scenes were boring, everything was well paced (at times maybe a little too fast paced) and I felt like I was being taken back to the important past of my native country. However, at the end I felt a little empty. The documentaries I just mentioned focused on only one story, but these documentaries were better because they gave us an in-depth analysis of the opposing forces (the bourgeoisie, the elite and the socialist rebels).

The portrayal of Meinhof and Baader seems accurate, too, but often I wondered if Baader really was the small-time crook he's made out to be in the movie. Except for Meinhof and Ensslin nobody seems to have some really deep thoughts about what was (is) wrong with our society. Mohnhaupt played by Nadja Uhl isn't explained at all, she's just there all of a sudden and we just go along thinking that she is in it for the same reasons as everybody else (Which are???).That way the movie seemed a little biased, as if trying to tell us that the RAF was mainly criminal and not so much political. Although I believe that a lot of their motives were right, even though they didn't justify any of the actions.

Bruno Ganz as Herold is allowed to play his character in a way that everyone thinks of the German government at the time as a dignified and moderate administration although I don't believe that to be true (after all, Herold said that he can only cure the symptoms of the RAF disease but not the disease itself, yet he didn't do anything to make the German people understand that the RAF is not altogether wrong when it accuses the German people of laziness, cowardice and complacency).

Now, leaving the movie, I figured that there was nothing much left to talk about. The teacher material that we received was pretty useless, because it doesn't offer any interesting topics for discussion. I for one think it would be interesting to discuss the present situation (bureaucracy, war in Iraq, terrorism) with the situation of Germany in the 70's. We are still dealing with many of the problems that caused the insurgency and civil disobedience back then, yet today we don't do anything at all. We are dissatisfied with the Bush administration, we oppose the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we suffer from a financial crisis mainly caused by the deregulated free market economy (capitalism) and we watch the divide between the rich and the poor getting bigger and bigger.

However, the youth of today doesn't protest. Why not? Maybe because we taught them well that in the end it's everyone for themselves and that it's best to be obedient, docile and commonorgarden if you want at least a little security in your life. One of the stronger scenes was the one where Ensslin accuses Meinhof of jerking off on her socialist theories instead of actually doing something. That's where you can see how Meinhof was influenced by the RAF. Finally she met some people who were willing to take action instead of just talking and philosophizing about a better world. This scene lends itself well to the follow-up scene in which Meinhof helps Baader to escape from prison. The jump from the window sill is a the same time a jump towards extremism.

Well, all in all, I think it's a good film to get people interested in Germany's past but it can only be the beginning of a more subtle analysis of what the RAF stood for and what it was trying to do.

2 Days in Paris (2007)

Yes, once again, Miss Delpy is quite annoying!

Well, this movie sucked from the get go. Ever since I saw After sunrise, I can't help myself thinking: Oh, Julie, please, shuddup, will ya! In this movie I thought she was even more annoying than ever before. In each movie she always plays the bilingual card, trying to make herself pass off as so intelligent and witty. But in the end, she's just a lame Woody Allen spin-off, especially in this movie. Everything seemed so tagged on, especially the conversations. They were made to look as if they were improvised, done off the cuff, but really they were just annoying. If those things pass off as witticisms these days I really am starting to think that something's wrong. How on earth does she get the money? Even for the low budget this isn't money well spent, but money down the drain. Julie, stop making films about your life and please, please stop taking yourself oh so seriously!

Extras (2005)

The British are lucky! The y have funny and witty comedians!

I've just watched pretty much all of the episodes on youtube, and I have to admit that this is probably one of the funniest and most sarcastic and at the same time wittiest TV shows I've seen in a long, long time. Ricky Gervais is a marvellous actor and just the last episode, the Christmas special, proved to me that he's not just a comedian but a really good actor, too. The scene in which he's on Big Brother for celebrities and just starts his short but astute speech against the contemporary media and their abuse of power just left me flabbergasted and gobsmacked. It felt as if he talked right from his heart and really meant everything he said. And I'd like to congratulate him on the risky decision to make the last episode not as funny as those before but instead giving it a less light-hearted touch. It moved me and I thought it was really deep.

So, you British people out there, consider yourself lucky for having such great comedians and comedies. You have no idea what kind of stupid comedies we're forced to watch here in Germany. Most of it is just a cheap spin-off of what you do. For example, we have a German version of the Office, which isn't bad, but it's still nothing but a spin-off.

Maybe the German language just wasn't meant to be funny.

So, good bye, and if you ever meet one of us: Don't mention the war!

Reign Over Me (2007)

A critical review

I have to admit, this movie moved me to the extent that I burst in tears. However, I always think about things twice, and instead of writing a eulogy that would define the film as flawless and impeccable, I prefer taking the risk of a closer look.

First what's first: The movie has an undeniable impact on the viewer simply because it starts out and continues as a slow-paced movie that doesn't try to blow you away with the actual scenes from 9/11. Thumbs up for this stroke of genius, because, unlike Stone's WORLD TRADE CENTER this film fortunately doesn't focus on the attack itself but on the fallout which, similar to the fallout of a nuclear explosion, is hardly visible but nonetheless dangerous and devastating. The psychological impact, the sheer devastation that 9/11 caused and the havoc it wreaked on the American people is almost palpable in this movie. I think Binder managed an astute observation of the American post 9/11 society and Sandler in my opinion sky rocketed from an average comedy actor to a real talent who delivers a performance worthy of an Oscar.

However: In the film BLOOD DIAMOND, the Di Caprio character says and I quote: "Ah, these Americans. Always want to take about their feelings". Now, I don't want to belittle their sufferíngs, but I sure would like to make a comparison. Ever since 9/11 the entire world is confronted with mementos, memorials and commemorations of 9/11. The Hollywood industry and writers such as Safran Foer more than allude to 9/11 in their works. Now, this huge amount of cultural products, dealing with 9/11, turn the death of 3000 people into the biggest tragedy of this young century. The number of books written on the subject and the number of films directed on this subject, and I say this with all due respect, blow the importance of this atrocious crime somewhat out of proportion.

Fact is: People die every day due to unjust actions and horrible crimes committed by bad or simply lost people. We have a war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Birma and lots of other countries. On a daily basis, we forget about the poverty the African people suffer from and we tend do empathize with them to a lesser degree than with the American victims of 9/11 simply because they are black and because their lives don't have much in common with our Western lives. Africa neither has the money nor the potential to commemorate their national tragedies in a way America can. So, what I am saying is this: The reason why we feel more for the 3000 victims of 9/11 and their families is because we are constantly reminded of 9/11. Not a day goes by without a newspaper article, a film or a book that discusses 9/11.

In conclusion: I commiserated with Charlie Fineman, but I wasn't sure whether I had the right to feel for him more than for a Hutu who lost his entire family in the Rwandan civil war.

You catch my thrift?

Auf der anderen Seite (2007)

Almodovar goes politic!

Much of the first scenes of this movie had me thinking about Almodovar. It was slow paced (like most of Almodovar's films) and it started off on a story about a Turkish hooker and her senile, old-aged Turkish lover (Almodovar's films sometimes are about hookers, always about twisted love stories). However, a political and religious note soon came into play, as two Turkish men find out about the Turkish whore, and tell her to repent (the director misleads us with a purpose, wanting us to think, that Yeter - the Turkish whore - will get killed by these men because she is insulting the Muslim faith). But then, to our surprise, Yeter gets accidentally killed by her old lover, who, in the beginning charming and accommodating, soon turns out to be an old fool who thinks of women as objects you can buy at the mall.

Very soon, the impression of watching an Almodovar film faded. Instead the film turned more and more into a Greek tragedy. Unfortunate events are leading to tragic results and we are faced with the death of two female characters, both sympathetic to the viewer.

Now after Lotte died, the screen turns black and we see the title of the film. For a second there I thought the film had come to its end and they'd play the credits. Instead the film went (dragged) on, an we were shown a third part of the film, in which two protagonists of the two different stories are united and try to get over their loss. I thought that this third part was rather weak, and I would have given this film an 8 out of 10 if this hadn't happened.

Now, I'm not sure what the film is about: Political issues are mentioned (enlargement of the European Union, human rights situation in Turkey) but not really tackled. What constitutes the core of this film, is human relations and the inherent tragedy of people who are what they are (I am especially thinking of the scene in which Hanna Schygulla says to the political activist from Turkey: Or maybe you're just a person who likes to fight).

As I know Turkey only from vacation and from the few Turkish people I know, I'd like to know how Akin is received in Turkey. Whether they think of him as a traitor or as a person who belittles the Turkish culture? I think that the way he displays Turkish people is controversial, to say the least.

Air Force One (1997)

America, fock yeah

Now I admired the director Wolfgang Petersen after seeing DAS BOOT. This was a flick where I thought: Can't get any better. Of course, at the time, people obviously considered Hollywood a smart career move, but if we now take a look at Petersen's Hollywood films, I really think he should have stayed in Germany. Sure, he wouldn't have the money that he's having at his disposal now, but remember: DAS BOOT had a rather infinitesimal budget and nevertheless managed to thrill, enlighten and entertain millions of viewers. Now, what do we have: A German director who directs patriotic and nationalistic filth that invites the average American Joe to believe in the moral and military superiority of his own country. A movie that doesn't really discuss the topics at hand and divides the cast into good and evil with no shades of grey at all. There's one scene where Gary Oldman as the terrorist aboard the plane says to the president's daughter: Do you think your father is a better man because he's wearing a tie and a suit and because he uses smart bombs? I found this scene to be very interesting, however, in the film it is not dwelt upon. Instead we get Harrison Ford playing the father and leader of clean, wholesome politically America and being politically correct and charming and funny and whatnot. What's the moral of this film: God bless America and no place else.

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Great flick, but what's with the ending, dude?

Now, I had better write something while the memory is still fresh: Anyway, I saw this movie in a theatre yesterday, and, two minutes into the movie, I was already captivated. Bruce Willis as John McClane is better than ever and I always liked the way he turns a male chauvinist pig into a likable and even adorable character. The plot is easily understandable but still exciting enough to be not discredited as flat and dull. The action scenes are both hilarious and stunning and they grab you by the balls (excuse my French) and keep you breathless for the entire length of the movie. However, there is one major flaw to this movie: the ending! I thought all the action scenes were quite realistic and even when Bruce Willis killed a chopper with a car I wasn't laughing or chuckling to myself because the scene defies gravity or whatever. But to the end, when a jet plane (F-13, I think) tries to shoot the truck I caught myself thinking: O.K., now they're overdoing it a bit. It reminded me a little of TRUE LIES which was a very unrealistic film to the extent that it was laughable. Well, all in all, it's still a great flick, but I wish someone had taken the director aside when he was shooting the truck/jet plane scene and had told him: LESS IS MORE! But, other than that, great entertainment: Kudos!

Germany's Next Topmodel (2006)

Embarrassing!!!

Germany's next top model is the epitome of nowadays television: brutal, cynical and embarrassing. People (like me) watch it not because it is witty and entertaining, but because it takes the mickey out of its participants by luring them into the most self-denigrating situations. The question that automatically comes up is this one: Why do 17 to 21 year-old women agree on being displayed on TV in such ridiculous way? Let me give you a possible answer: Most likely because they aren't mature enough to understand that real success and quality takes a lot of time, blood and sweat and cannot be (as the show presupposes) achieved within a few weeks.

I wasn't particularly interested in the first season of this program, as much as I am not really interested in DSDS (the German version of American Idol). I zapped on to the program once in a while and laughed as much as everyone else at the lack of talent that the participants (or dreamers) displayed. But I always felt ashamed of watching it because I know that the producers don't really care whether the people watch their show because they hate it or because they love it as long as they help to get a better TV rating.

Now I am more or less into Germany's next top model and I can't help but lashing out against it on a public platform. The reasons why my criticism of this program is so harsh shall be given in the following paragraphs:

• The first season created a public upset because a young woman was chucked out of the show. Although this young girl was everything but obese, Heidi Klum and her colleagues defined her as "too chubby". When people criticized Heidi Klum for this behavior she excused herself by saying that she didn't make the rules of the fashion show. But if she lives by them and if she does everything to be in full compliance with these rules, it is (at least to me) the exact same thing. Accepting the rules is equivalent to making them.

• The young women don't show any criticism whatsoever regarding the principles and rules of the show. Their private phone conversations with their boyfriends and family are monitored and shown on TV. The sole possibility of becoming a top model coaxes them into waiving their basic human rights. The parents of these young girls don't intervene and the public viewer gets to see the most intimate details of these young women.

• Like in a cockfight the girls are being played out against one another in order to make the show more interesting. Jealousy, hatred and "Zickenterror" (I'm sorry, I don't know how to translate this German word into English) are being artificially created. The more the participating girls hate one another the better the TV ratings.

• The show has quite a disturbing influence on young German women. The show makes them believe that there is a slight chance for them to gain money and fame without any particular talent. Once they are on TV they have the chance to become part of a business where you don't have to be anything but extroverted and deprived of free will.

The one good thing that this show does (at least for me) is this: I used to consider the cover models of magazines as the most beautiful women in the world. They made me believe that the girlfriends I had had where only mediocre and not exceptionally beautiful. Thanks to Germany's next top model I can have a closer look at these cover girls that I used to adore so much. And now I think that many of them, being beautiful on the outside, are often ugly and immature inside.

If this were a public letter to Heidi Klum, I'd say: Dear Mrs Klum, I'd appreciate it if you developed some sense of responsibility and stopped making shows where people are judged by their looks and nothing else.

300 (2006)

Hitler would have liked it!

Movies like these often make me wonder about the decision finding-process of an actor. For hypothesis' sake, let's take a journey into Gerard Butler's mind after reading the script: "Hmm, okay, sounds pretty much like a gory battle film to me. There isn't much of a story, but the public these days really seems to be into epic war movies, probably with the war in Iraq and 9/11 and all. Now, some of the scenes, especially those at the beginning remind me of something I learned in history class, I think it had something to do with Hitler and survival of the fittest. I don't really endorse these values, but the film seems to. Well, I'm only a second rate actor and I haven't had my big success yet, so maybe, taking on the role of Leonidas might be a good idea and an excellent career move, since the film is provocative, to say the least, and even if it turns out to be a bad movie with fascist tendencies, people will still talk about me. And all these months at the gym will finally pay off, because I get to show my sexy body throughout the entire movie. I won't be wearing much, accept for some briefs made of leather and a red cape around my neck. The text isn't too hard either, I don't have to act much, all they want me to do is shout and shout in a belligerent way like the warmonger I see on TV all the time. Yeah, I think I'll give my agent a call. There's nothing good on TV, so what the heck, let's do this flick".

To the film itself: After twenty minutes into the movie I got bored. A juxtaposition of battle scenes, monsters that looked like prototypes from the LORD OF THE RINGS and a more than stupid side story with King Leonidas wife and some gossamer thin malice spun by a third rate playwright. Whether this film endorses fascism or not doesn't really matter, because this film boils down to one simple adjective: stupid!