Change Your Image
kwarkfrietveld
Reviews
Top of the Lake (2013)
Stereotypes makes it impossible to watch
It is a pity, this could be very good, it is very well made, very well acted, very well shot, story line could be interesting too. I started to watch it with high expectations, i love some of the films of Jane Campion, loved the movie An Angel At My Table, Holy Smoke, The Piano (watched it in the cinema), but after seeing 2 episodes, i got an unpleasant feeling about it. Mostly it has to do with the very stereotype role plays, it goes so far that it feels very far away from reality. All the males in the serial are without exception complete idiots, bastards, behave like complete retards. I never have been in New Zealand or Australia, so i cannot tell how those societies look like, how the people are over there. Unfortunately the way the characters are created, it makes it impossible to watch for me. For me it feels like a pamphlet against the male in general, it is so blunt, so without subtle (like i was used from other movies made by Jane Campion), which just shows a very grim idea about humanity. Of course there are many idiots walking around, they probably are a majority, but when you fall in the trap to show only this side , it is just a great shame. Of course this is only an idea i have, on my account, but a good work never will be such a strong pamphlet against something, it would be much more interested when it would be a pamphlet to favor something. When i look at this serial i feel the anger even rage against the male population and that makes it not watchable for me, a great opportunity missed. I hope this great director will find back her subtle, her great way of telling stories and i will happy to view/review them.
Shutter Island (2010)
waste of time
I really love the movies, but i had to leave this movie before it was finished. It's only the 2nd time i did that. How does Mr. Scorsese dare to use images of a concentration camp in his movie like this? In a way for shock effect? It's indecent and immoral. The film hangs to each other by cinematographic cliché's; dripping water, people who are casted because they look so scary, it looked like a cheap horror movie. Also the story it selves feels like one big cliché, full with unbelievable turns. Also the score was irritating me from the beginning, too much present, while there was no occasion for it. I hoped for a well made film, sound, like Scorsese should be able to make, but it was one big disappointment. Yesterday i saw Crazy Love, the contrasts between these 2 movies couldn't be bigger. I hope next time: better time!
My Blueberry Nights (2007)
Car advertisement?
I was really disappointed by this movie. Uninteresting conversations which had the intentions to deal about big things in life, but in fact came over to me very cheap. Also the images looked very cheap. It all looked like some extended commercial for the car Norah Jones and Jude Law. I hardly could see it out. The characters were not worked out, didn't convince me in any way. They even irritated me by the lines they were trying to get out of their mouths. Besides that the movie was very predictable, with the climax: a real "Hollywood ending". Also the music started to irritate me: starting up the same song for three times in a movie! For me there were a few positive points in the movie, some shots looked very nice, also cliché shots, but working: the traffic lights in the night wobbling in the wind on their lines, the shots of the metro, quite nice.
De domeinen Ditvoorst (1992)
documentary about a promising filmmaker going down
The way this documentary nowadays is called is 'docudrama'. It means that it contains fiction and non fiction, interviews and kind of theatrical play and I must say I don't like that part of this film. Thom Hoffmann, the director is at the same time an actor who tried his first steps in the movie making. Most of rolls he played in the beginning of his career are a kind of existentialistic ones. Also the roll he played in the movie from Adriaan Ditvoorst, the director who handles the film about, is one of a troubled man addicted to morphine.
I saw all films of this director and this film is one of the better ones he made later on. The director started with some films what were very appreciated on
international festivals like Locarno (for example Bertoluci appreciated his first film(s) very much. It were the early sixties and the existentialism took a high flight. Unfortunately the 'public' were less enthusiastic and from this movie on the director more and more had difficulties with getting money to make his films. In Holland there was and probably still is not the good environment for making experimental movies. Anyway the documentary continues with interviews with
people who saw close by the down fall of the director. It shows a man who
wanted to make movies, but had to fight critics, producers, film boards and in the end he started to fight against himself what resulted in the suicide of the man. What I like about the 'docudrama' is the dedication Thom shows for the director. He show honestly how he also had many problems with the character of the
director, but also the faith he had in his films. It's a sad story and he does nothing about it to hide that. That's okay, because almost nobody wants to hear sad stories nowadays so Thom stuck his neck out to make this film.
The thing I didn't like so much were the 'played' parts in the film. Not the way it was played, but rather the choices he made what parts of his life were played. The nice result of the film was that the director Ditvoorst again came back in the picture and the movies he made were back in the cinema's and I was able to
see them on the screen. Before it was impossible to find any movie of the
director.
Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
visual, but no story
Of course I was also curious by the new movie of Tarentino. After his movies
Pulp Fiction that was innovating, From Dusk Till Dawn, that was great by visual effects and surprising, Jacky Brown, that was sober but good my tensions were high. Unfortunately I must say I was disappointed. First there was a thin, or rather no story, it was obviously made for the visual effects. No problem, I also like movies with great visuals, but also on this point I think it wasn't very good. In the beginning you think: 'that's great, that's funny', but after seeing the same tricks again and again it started to be silly. Normally a strong point of Tarentino are the conversations, but in this movie they miss the sharpness and strength. Another thing disturbing for me was the music. It started also beautifully with the opening song, but after that it became worse and worse with the climax the pan flute muzak that was not funny. Strange thing was that the RZA had a big hand in it because you could have expected some quality from his hand after for
example Ghost Dog, the way of the samoerai. Funny I have to think about this
movie of Jim Jarmush, because it also handles about fighting art, but this movie that is much more sober, has a story, a point and an atmosphere that is
authentic. That is I think the problem with this new movie of Tarentino, It misses the sharpness and strong authenticity I'm used when I look at his movies. This movie is entertainment, nothing more and maybe less. I'm afraid I will forget this movie soon, but I hope and will be sure that he will make new movies what will contain the sharpness i like
Dni zatmeniya (1988)
piece of art
Rare astonishing movie in beautifully sepia colour, beautifully slow shots. The story is about a young Moscow doctor who went to the south to do some
research and is struggling with loneliness, displacedness, temperature and so on. Also beautiful music, a piece of art