Change Your Image
Hellmao
Reviews
Joker (2019)
Everything Must Go
With a zillion reviews already made, I just stress a few things: Joaquin Phoenix is on screen 95% of the movie, which is not bad, because it is Joaquin Phoenix. All these references Scoresese blablabla - lots of fuel for the spotters, but not relevant for the story. Finally, the well praised narrative - reality - imagination - illusion - thing is quite exaggerated, because it is all from Arthur Fleck's perspective anyway. Yes, all of it. Since he is a twisted loner with a serious mental condition, it still leaves a lot to discuss. And of course, he is a victim of circumstances. Personal suffering in a harsh, deceiving world made him go crazy. Destroy what destroys you. An extremely nihilistic approach. Does anything matter at all?
Alexander (2004)
Two strange conquerors
During a battle in India, there is a beautiful slow motion sequence that freezes briefly when Alexander is challenging the unknown and powerful the European horse versus the far bigger Indian elephant, the Greek conqueror versus the far bigger Asian mystery. To boldly go where no man has
well you get the picture. At nearly three hours, Stone takes enough time to portrait this amazing man as a conqueror that does not believe in western superiority and thus treats the people he beats in battle with unprecedented respect. Alexander the Great, the conqueror more civilized than modern ones
This part of the story is fascinating to see. Make up and art direction are fine and the presentation of two of the most important battles during that historic raid is sometimes amazing. You smell the CGI all over the place but you can't really see them right away on the big screen. Impressive.
Another important focus for Stone is Alexander's emotions. Since childhood, he is often surrounded by good looking males, but even in the scenes with his life-long lover Hephaistion, the most intimate they do is giving hugs, these modern hugs that spread on American television. Stone failed to make a statement here. It is widely known that bisexuality was a very common thing in those times so why make a big deal out of it? Almost 50 years ago Laurence Olivier explained in "Spartacus" that his taste includes both snails and oysters and Alexander admits to his suspicious wife that there are different forms of love. That is not really much of a progress.
The casting is odd as well. Anthony Hopkins is playing his role as a narrator no different than for a documentary on penguins. Colin Farrell is a good actor, but he never looks like an Emperor. When he desperately tries to convince his high ranks of following him even further into the unknown, he is just not mad enough for the emotional turn into madness fury he tries to deliver. Christopher Plummer just has to be wise and nobody will remember Angelina Jolie because of her acting. Val Kilmer as a lonely king and Gary Stretch as Alexander's loyal but increasingly desperate older brother save the day.
There are other strange things going on. Alexander's mother looks exactly the same during a stretch of 25 years, various animals escort some of the main characters, and in the last third of the movie a sudden "Macedonia, 7 years earlier" flashback does not make sense. Alexander's opponents in battle don't speak while the Macedonian conqueror himself cultivates a strong Irish accent. Stone was as historically accurate as possible on other occasions. The man is still a riddle. Maybe a commentary track on DVD would lift the veil, but then again would it make a difference ?
Match Point (2005)
Typing soap
After having been announced as the best Woody Allen Film in many years (like every Woody Allen Film somehow is), Match Point pulled me over the line and pushed me back.
The cast is credible and appropriate in their roles, but annoyingly stereotyped in their appearance and behaviour, with Scarlett Johanssons role as a slight exception. Also the world around Chris is stereotyped. The stock chart on his office desk is a gimmick and to show him pulling heavy business, he shakes hands with Japanese guys, saying "Sayonara". His heartless mother-in-law is THE heartless mother-in-law. To show how much Chris lost interest in his wife he doesn't answer to Chloe's remarks on earthquakes in China and the fact that a new planet has been discovered. In a restaurant, the former poor Irish guy is longing for roasted chicken, while the high society snobs prefer french cuisine and caviar, of course. Nobody ever works. This is daily soap style.
Allen uses these things to make us understand that the characters are all decadent and hollow, but that is very obvious already. The most disappointing thing, however, is the screenplay. This is the art that Allen used to push forward when he was writing short stories in the 70s, but in Match Point his type machine has lost all edges. I cannot remember a single sharp dialogue line. Because of his tendency towards stretching the plot (according to the IMDb, it is the longest movie he ever made), and the decision to mainly build the story on weak performing Jonathan Rhys Myers, the interest in any further human behaviour observation is lost half way. Chabrol or Malle describe these worlds much better.
Amazingly, many people love this movie, call it clever, intelligent, and recommend it for important awards. To me, that is truly astonishing. That's the good thing about movies. You can make up your own mind.
The Descent (2005)
One Out Of Ten
Horror movies are a difficult genre. A brief look at the latest 100 will discover no more than 10 good ones. Even action movies have a higher quality rate. Maybe the reason is that horror movies can be boring very quickly. You may prefer the subtle creepy psycho approach or the bloody slasher style, you may go for some absurd over-the-top excitement or the dead serious close-up mess. Either way, you will agree that a good horror movie must be scary. Anything else is comedy, satire, trash - or a bad horror movie.
In The Descent, six sporty spice girlfriends meet for some exciting caving adventure, only to encounter weired opponents in a bloody fight for survival. The choice of claustrophobic dark grottoes and tunnels may help, but the big screen is merciless when it comes to clumsy lights and plastered rock. Harder screaming or faster editing can't save it. In "The Descent", however, production design, sound department and direction succeed in transforming a big bunch of very similar studio takes into a credible outdoor expedition. It looks like the real thing and that's a big achievement. You are also treated to a fair amount of gore, decent acting and there are references to film history classics like Deliverance, Alien, Predator or Apocalypse Now. On top of that, there is an intelligent twist to Sarah's descent into madness.
It's a pity that Neil Marshall was not able to build some more interesting conflict development between the main characters. Some inventive problem solving skills or fighting sequences would have been nice as well but it is all quiet on this front . There is nothing really interesting about the crawlers either and the weak explanation of their existence is quite stupid. But then again logic sucks, there was just no gear to go MacGyver and who has time for psychological drama when you got some ugly flesh eating demons on your back.
Neil Marshall sticks to pumping the dark and sinister setting iron to the very end and that is an acceptable decision. So you can invite yourself for a well made, good looking horror movie with a scary tone and a good sound. Not easy to find, these days.
A History of Violence (2005)
A history of boredom
Considering the very good ratings that A History Of Violence receives from many professional reviewers and movie fans alike, I am astounded. Some people find it a thrilling masterpiece. Well I don't.
After a brief opening sequence with psycho killers on the road, Cronenberg introduces the family of Tom Stall. Parents and teenager son gather around little daughter's bed to comfort her in the wake of bad dreams. Sweet. The next morning they have coffee and cereal food, get dressed, prepare for the day and talk everyday family talk. Yes, it is a happy family and after making love the parents tell each other how much they love each other. All nice and well. Of course, it does not stay that way. The thugs from the opening scene enter town and head for Tom's restaurant with thirst for coffee and evil. To avoid a bloodbath, Tom is forced to use skills from a dark past that make him the local hero, but also draw the attention of some big city mobsters from the same dark past. Tom has to change his identity again to fix the problem, leaving his innocence and a lot of corpses.
There are many disappointments in A History Of Violence. First of all, it is full of clichés. The high school bad kid and his sidekick, the local sheriff and the female TV reporter all look exactly how you expect them to look. All supporting roles keep pale and Ed Harris and William Hurt have little to say. Their motives and lives keep unfolded. Tom's wife character is not interesting, neither. When Tom is about to give up and confide in the local police officer, she prevents him from confession. She may have been upset because of being framed for many years, but now she thinks of her family. Stand by your man. The father son on violence could have been very interesting, but is abandoned when it began to unfold. Cronenberg does not work out any side plot and stays very close to his leading role. Anything around is left in insignificance.
Viggo Mortensen is very good as a low profile family man with a quite and deliberate mentality, but it is very hard to imagine the psychopath killer that Tom once was. When he is forced to give up his cover identity, there is no schizo frenzy, no Mr. Hyde touch and no visible struggle. He just goes on. Maria Bello does not look like a happy mid western family mom, but like a anorectic city woman that gets bored to death in a smalltown place. The only thing we get to know about Edie Stall is her faible for kinky sex. Ed Harris has an excellent suit and some good lines, but nothing to say. Later, William Hurt's character is left dead and meaningless the same way, both accompanied by stupid bodyguards.
No, this movie is not exciting, not well made, and does not add anything interesting to the reflection of violence. When Tom, amazingly recovered from various shot wounds, returns to his forever distorted family, it does not really matter how they live on. I already looked forward to leaving and did not even read the credits, my ultimate expression of disapproval.
Oliver Twist (2005)
no soul and no sense
Dear Roman,
After having seen your latest movie I was thinking about it for quite some time and I would like to ask you some questions on it. First of all, production design. Sorry to say, but the streets of London always looked like a film set. Some horse leftovers on the ground doesn't make any difference. Life in those streets was rather artificial, as well. How to describe that in a lively way, you can read in Dickens' book. Some scenery shots were really bad. Was somebody painting glass for you? Who was your gaffer? And then the actors: Most of them come from the London area, I suppose, but does that mean they are authentic ?
What about the children? Nice faces put in old clothes don't make poor homeless pickpockets. They speak like well educated middle class kids and their life didn't appear miserable at all. Head of the gang Dodger looked like he enjoyed playing in a movie. The dog was not scary, Sykes wasn't scary, and what was Toby Crackit for in your version ? Finally Oliver. Well, he had to endure some bad treatment, but I did not see the desperate yet strong boy that Dickens described so well. Did you?
Frankly, Roman, I was bored. I love books, I like movies but this one was all so predictable and uninspired, and it is much too long. You had one excellent idea, however. Ben Kingsley. What a presence! Fagin is the one character that really lives. In the end it seems you wanted to give Ben an extra dramatic scene to let him prove how good he is, but he doesn't need to proof anything anymore, you know that.
So please forgive me when I ask: Why did you make this completely unnecessary movie ? Contract obligations ?
Respectfully,
Hellmao
Starship Troopers (1997)
Bugs and mirrors
An alien race threatens mankind. The bugs are coming and they are ugly and dangerous. After heavy fighting for freedom the planet can be finally saved. Sure, the whole thing comes in the jacket of a state-of-the-art action movie. It is not about insects from outer space, however.
There was a lot of fuzz about Heinlein's book and what Verhoeven's adaptation displays in the movie. Doesn't it promote militarism? Is this gory over-the-top violence really necessary? Some protagonists behave kind of odd and bad, and the wrong ones die. People even were concerned about the uniforms. Good guys in Gestapo-outfit? It is an amazing complaint since the key to this movie is the human world that "Starship Troopers" describes.
Good looking kids engage in sending stupid messages to each other during the class, while the teacher explains that brutal force is the strongest power to solve problems. It's a global community in which coming from Buenos Aires does not mean any Italian or Latin roots any more. There is no place for love in this indifferent world, where men and women sport together, take a shower together, fight together and die together. "Citizenship" has to be earned in battle, since the only real defender of human values is the soldier. It is a world with an obsession for guns and competition, in which telepathic skills are contracted immediately by the secret police. They are convinced of their own superiority, think big and consider individual human life a very limited value. These guys wear fascist-style uniforms because they are fascists. That's the whole point. Welcome to the United States of Earth.
Starship Troopers contains some wonderful ideas, presented with the whole range from subtle irony to rough rudeness. A map points at the rear end of the galaxy to locate evil. TV soap stars are casted as leading roles and they also act like in a soap. Most of the teachers are mutilated. When Rico battles the first tanker bug, they look pretty much alike and his size compared to the bug is quite the same as a real bug's size compared to man. Later, a traumatized general will be speaking the magic words: "They are like us" . Final victory is apparent when the enemy is found "afraid" and has been made possible by "a drill instructor who captured a brain" . This is not about bugs, but men.
The strange thing is, many people still just don't get it. This statement does not mean any disrespect to the perception of anybody who does not understand this movie. Me, I don't understand most of Frank Zappa's compositions, and I don't understand most of the exposed work at any Museum of Modern Art. But I can clearly see the touch of genius in this cynical and inventive movie called "Starship Troopers".
Independence Day (1996)
Popcorn
Director Roland Emmerich blends the essential ingredients of the patriotic blockbuster cocktail loads of action, family values, national identity, religious faith, cool heroes, very recognizable evil, and a happy end.
Any alien invasion movie has the right to be completely stupid and maybe even the duty to be completely illogical. In this matter, Independence Day really delivers. Miraculous last second escapes by an airplane, a spaceship and even a dog, explosions in space, the earth rotating with monster speed, extremely bad aiming aliens who can travel light years and use a doomsday machine only to get tricked and beaten by Jeff Goldblum. Yes, the celebrating-stupidity-list for this one is impressive and at one point we can clearly see the Fresh Prince of Bel Air smacking a guy in a rubber octopus outfit in the desert.
Unfortunately, Independence Day has not much more than that. The destructions of Empire State Building, Capitol and White House do look good on a big screen, but so does a giant marshmallow man. Paul Verhoeven showed a little later in "Starship Troopers" what irony and sarcasm can do in movies with alien enemies. Here we only see fast food simplicity. A big bag of Popcorn.
Besides, a key role in the final victory belongs to a lunatic, saving the world through personal sacrifice in a suicide mission to beat the technically far superior enemy invaders. It's all a matter of perspective.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Feeling the Force again
Revenge of the Sith repairs the disappointment of the first two episodes. It has a good story, good action and good acting. Politics are not unnecessary complicated, as in Attack of the Clones, but simple and deceiving. The Jedi Council's motives may be true and good, their actions are not and it is them who allow the evil to take root in Anakin. His drift to the dark side of the force is carefully prepared even though a little short breathed in the decisive moment. Hayden Christensen is a credible Anakin, torn apart by love, ambition and politics and Ewan McGregor finally looks like a Jedi Master on screen. Ian McDiarmid's emperor dwarfs both. A good story and good acting have been missing since the first minutes of The Phantom Menace, and George Lucas finally pulled it off. R2D2 in action and intense showdown duels add to the pleasure, as well as very nice editing of Anakin's and Padme's destiny.
Revenge of the Sith cannot touch the first two and a half Star Wars Movies, nevertheless, for various reasons. More ships, more movement and more firing during fighting action do not make it more exciting. The excessive use of light sabres is tiring, in particular when handled by an uninspired General Grievous. The dragon that Obi-Wan rides is ridiculous. Padme has changed from a determined and graceful leading politician to a simple-minded woman without significance. The senate remains faceless even when Palpatine proclaims the first galactic empire. I would have loved to see some good old school Star Wars characters, thrilled by the speech, their excitement caught in adequate close-ups. What a fantastic moment this could have been for the prop department. Chewbacca would have deserved a better introduction than the weak squeezing-in of his people. Finally, I liked Yoda more when he was not digitally created.
But lament is misplaced, because Lucas has brought back the emotion and that is a great achievement when the outcome of the plot is already obvious. You want Grievous to be eliminated; you get annoyed by Mace Windu's politics and fascinated by Palpatine's tactics. And when young Darth Vader, already transformed into a ruthless slaughterer of children, is left in over-the-top mutilation, closer to ashes than to life, you can only feel sorry for him. That is powerful cinema indeed. Yes, the Star Wars feeling is back.
Tempus fugit (2003)
Can You save the world ?
Meet Ramon, a low profile loner in Barcelona, superhero comic strips fan and too shy to approach the nice woman he sees walking the square every day. A small existence lacking any excitement. But then, in the middle of the night, a time traveller appears in his bedroom with a strange message: A small box of medication, Tempus Fugit, can bring you hours or days back or forward in time, and Ramon has a mission. He has to save the world. It sounds quite simple, but things get difficult for Ramon when the box is lost and his football crazy neighbour and his dog get involved. Will Ramon be able to save the world ? Does he still want to after finding out to be the chosen one because he is meaningless ? Tempus Fugit was produced for TV, but has made its way through various european film festivals with great public recognition. Rightfully so, because Enric Folch has made a friendly little movie with good actors, a plot full of little twists and turns and some very funny moments. The whole thing works very well on a big screen, and we can leave the cinema with a smile on our face: Little things can have big consequences and if we dare to change our daily routine and jump over our shadows, we don't need superhero skills to save the world. With a little luck we can even find the love of our life.
Half Past Dead (2002)
A mountain of boredom
This is, for different reasons, a very very bad action movie. First of all, Seagal is terribly out of shape. He looks old and fat, plays like he has to fulfill an annoying obligation and his fight scenes require creative editing or plain replacement. Secondly, his opponent is a very weak villain. This is about a smart and mean masterbrain and Chestnut does not deliver. So what about the action ? Well, the two parties permanently shoot at each other in different locations of the Alcatraz jail. They shoot wild and bad, because compared to the amount of required ammunition, the bodycount is rather low. There is nothing to save this movie. There is not a single good line and not a single good joke. The little psychological interlude with 49er One and judge McPherson is ridiculous. So what does it have? Well, the usual Bell helicopters, silhouettes moving in blue light and slow motion, doors riddled with bullets and 1000 Watt lights shining through the holes, characters jumping through the air while shooting, loads of weapons coming from nowhere, a long black coat containing a bold black guy and a thin wooden box containing 25 tons of gold. The pain continues to the very last take, a hopeless approach to lighten up the closing credits. Californian beachboy Don Michael Paul was writing and directing. At least this mountain of boredom comes from just one simple mind.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
A scientific approach to God
Many of the discussions about 2001 A Space Odyssey refer to the transcendental and unreasonable ending, that seems to be anything but a conclusion. Rather than trying to give an explanation for it, I would like to point out why there can't be any. If there is still anybody who has not seen this movie, please see it prior to reading on.
Who are we? Where do we come from? The questions raised in 2001 A Space Odyssey, are truly fundamental. In Kubrick's adaptation there is something much greater than human brains.
The visible part of it, a black monolith, does not change at all in its appearance throughout space and time. It is constant. The apes meet it with fear and excitement. Millions of years and a single, famous cut later, human tools have changed and the approach to the monolith is far more reasonable and thoughtful, but communication is still impossible. The apes do not understand, that touching it made them discover the use of bones as survival tools. The astronauts on the moon try to analyze the monolith only to suffer physical pain. At least, man has now been able to identify it as a source of radio waves addressed to something.
The search for truth, however, is painful and lethal for everybody. Even HAL's quest remains unanswered, as he cannot cope with emotions, and when he is shut down, he is left in ignorance and confusion. Extraterrestrial intelligence here is not visible in flying saucers or aggressive insect-like life forms, but in a plain structure, and that is all we can understand from it. Maybe it was really something like the monolith that made life on earth start to think in the first place.
A rather scientific approach, given the fact that without certain elements originating from asteroids that hit planet earth from outer space, molecular development of life forms on this planet, quite possibly, would not have been possible. We are star children anyway.
Of course we cannot understand what is going on as we share Dave's vision in the end. When different matter meet in structured order, Dave experiences his own mortality. How and when he dies is irrelevant. He faces the same power that we witness when physics and biology melt and a planet and a foetus are alike. When we finally see creation as a size- and timeless, truly universal energy, we can only discover that we are still far from being able to understand it. How do you explain God ?
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
Missing a lot
Kill Bill has turned out to be a rather incomplete piece of art, because a lot is weak and a lot is missing. Here is what I mean: First of all sophisticated choreography and editing do not hide that Uma Thurman cannot fight. The training sequence - unmissable element for any decent martial arts revenge movie-is poor. The way the Bride finishes off her first victims in the hospital is rather uninspired. Her ex-squad sister looks kinky but quite out of shape and has not a single good line. The Bride uses the best sword ever made and O-Ren-Ishii praises its quality in her final breath - so why don't we see it being manufactured? There could have been many ways of making it a memorable sequence. The Yakuza Dinner scene does not pull any strings. The Go Go Yubari character is great, but the introduction of her violent madness is boring. She kills a poor idiot in a bar - is that the craziest thing she did? There is no fine dialogue. Then this whole movie is slow and rather short, while some scenes are still too long - why cut it in two? There are also scenes I did not understand, like the motorbike ride, extensive exposure of the list with Bill's hand and the sheriff's senseless conclusions on the wedding slaughter scenery. Bill himself was too stupid to kill the Bride but then finds it below standard to kill her in the hospital ? The mountain of preparation time that Tarantino has taken, cannot be found back in the movie. It looks like the script has been glued together in weeks. In the end, there are many open identity questions involving husbands, parents, daughters, Bill and the Bride. This Who is Who-idea can only work if you really burn to know the solution, a feeling that I frankly miss. So, despite Sonny Chiba, a beautiful animation sequence and the gorgeous snow falling in the garden showdown, this movie is like the band at the restaurant: Looking better than it is.
xXx (2002)
Poor XXX
In the opening sequence, a spy dressed in 007-outfit, is shot during a "Rammstein" gig in a cave-like setting. What could have been a nice reference to this "James Bond, make way for something new" idea is completely spoiled when the movie imitates every possible James Bond item including a Q-character presenting a car with special gadgets. Much of the stuntwork is spoiled by extensive repetitive slow-motion, hysterical cutting and surprisingly poor special effects (i.e. the avalanche). The "good guy" on the run on a motorcycle, chased by the bad guys and the bullets hit the ground in two lines to the left and right for half a minute. Boring. About the plot - okay, that's not fair. And now the man: XXX has big muscles, big tattoos, some fashionable rock star equipment and is fashionably bold. He kicks on adrenaline and himself, he hardly speaks more than one sentence and has a range of one and a half different emotional expressions. He is a pain in the ass for everybody and very quick in breaking secret service clerks' noses, but he is politically supercorrect, fights the evil because he does not find it nice if many innocent people get killed and smoking is dangerous, of course. The only thing missing is an MTV-tattoo on his chest. Anyway, probably one of the contributors to the message board is right by saying: "This is America." XXX II or XXXX or whatever the sequel may be titled has probably supporting roles for Britney Spears and Fred Durst and a plot around a dangerous new drug from terrorists on Jihad. My suggestion for Vin Diesel: take some acting lessons, get some hair - and please, change the coat.