Taxi Driver (1976)

Taxi Driver is hailed by many as the best '70s movie, best Martin Scorsese, best Robert De Niro. I am unable to do sweeping remarks like these but I would agree that Taxi Driver is a movie worth seeing. I am reluctant about Scorsese in general but I liked what he did this time. I have no idea where exactly a director's job stops and other people (cinematographer, screenplay writer, editor, even composer) have their say. However, I would assume that I can count on an overall decision that the director would make, the combination of elements as well as some sort of essence in the form and content of the work that he is supposed to agree to. I do believe that Scorsese's intuitions were right this time. I loved the cinematography that reflected the sleepless nights of the main character, the pace that slowly built the tension. Travis is the criminal next door, disturbed and unstable, lacking social skills – he invites a first date girl to a porn cinema. He ends up being praised as a hero when he kills a bunch of people and 'saves' Jodie Foster when he actually gestured towards killing a senator before and got away without being caught. The fiction 'inspired' a Jodie Foster's later fan who attempted to kill President Reagan to impress her. She must have been overwhelmed. In Taxi Driver, Iris is a twelve years old prostitute who 'sells her little pussy for nothing' as Travis lectures and believes strongly in the horoscope. Jodie Foster, fourteen at the time, is charming in the part. She snickers and giggles at the stern Travis while explaining she does not really want to be saved and she gave that impression only because she was stoned.

The Godfather: Part II (1974)

This celebrated film stars in fact Al Pacino and it is a great bla bla bla music - Nino Rota, image, bla, acting, bla bla. I'll try to stay focused on DeNiro. The 1972 'first' Godfather stared in the role of the older Don Vito the well-known forty-eight years old Marlon Brando who won the Oscar for Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar. The part was heavily worked and Brando's deep involvement is known. At 31 Robert DeNiro creates Vito Corleone in 'The Godfather:Part II' and wins the Best Actor in a Supporting Role Oscar (Coppola accepted the award at the ceremony as DeNiro was not attending). DeNiro filled graciously Brando's shoes even in the fragmentary flash back the narrative allows. There is a quality in the silent Vito that I cannot find a word for. He is not exceptionally smart nor exceptional in other ways. If possible I would call him very mediocre: he displays a certain combination of ambition, focus and values that bring him in the forefront. He is not a man that shows much, that one can easily read. Yet one can feel a vibe that renders him special when you meet him. He would not shine if the camera would not pay attention. DeNiro plays the part with great restraint and conveys a subtle power that generates relations and events like ripples around his character. Even if praised to death The Godfather is one of the must see movies for many internal reasons, and, if nothing else, for the deep influence it had.

Mean Streats(1973)

Thanks to consta 'Mean streets' is the first in a longer list of movies staring Robert DeNiro. The lead part in this movie belongs to Harvey Keitel who plays Charlie Cappa, a special type of a mafia guy. Charlie is a sensitive guy caught in the cognitive dissonance of his church-going and mafia-business caretaker ambitions. The movie opens before the credits with Charlie's voice over announcing the theme and the development of the movie: ' You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it in the streets, you do it at home. The rest is bullshit and you know it.' John 'Johnny Boy' Civello (De Niro) is crazy. The character is impenetrable to us and to his world. He talks funny, he acts funny, he brakes the rules in a random way, he's totally imp revisable. I would say there might be something in common with Godfather but not too much. Mean Streets seems to me much less focused on the story order, events seem to happen without reason in a way that renders atmosphere. The de-centered narrative gives an impression of 'that corner' in the 70s and it is loosely brought together by the main character. And 'that corner' of the 70s happens mostly out of the daylight: night, bars, cinema, restaurants. The music enhances the random 'like-life' effects. Martin Scorsese directed, wrote the story and the screen play and appears (according to imdb) to have a personal interest to explore this type of theme. It is a movie worth watching again.

Blood Diamond (2006)

People say 'Blood diamond' is a good movie and DiCaprio is a great actor. That may be true for them but I beg to disagree: I do not know who to blame for the movie so I will pick on just a few things like lDiCaprio. The movie is supposed to be close to others like Hotel Rwanda, Munich etc. capturing supposedly a tragic story of Sierra Leone. I usually get all emotional in front of such things even when badly made but this time all the questions I had in the first place about this type of theme gave me an unpleasant visceral reaction. Why are we making entertainment out of such things? It is almost as if the movie presents an extended version of the five o'clock violent news bulleting. It achieves exactly the same: we say 'poor people' and think 'why is this news?'. After all there is no news that people die and that we can be incredible cruel to each other. I have no idea what I am talking about but I see what we do without being in a war, even to people we call friends. I would like to see totally insane scenarios where diamonds do not matter to anyone and where people live in pace and harmony. That would be some news and I would run up to the first person on the street and I would slap them hard in the face just to see how they turn the other cheek and hug me in tears. I will then go off to make trouble to the establishment by hiding the salt at the table, the paper from the toilets and inject silicon in random faces to confuse the hell out of interpersonal communication. Until these fun times I will be doubtful of movies eliciting cheap emotional flow. DiCaprio. I do not know what I miss in this guy. Wait. I know. I do not 'believe' his manliness. It might be his voice but I really do not really believe he smokes. He is just ridiculous when he does the rough killer as kindergarten children planing a terrorist attack on some cherry tree in the neighborhood. His death manages to light a generous smirk if not a honest grin. He boldly claims without any relevant context 'I like to get kissed before I get fucked'. Does it ring any (better sounding) bell? I mean... Sonny (Al Pacino 1975) and Danny Archer (DiCaprio 2006) have exactly this line in common and there is nothing but a glaring confirmation of the two movies and actors' quality. I will add (to be fair) that DiCaprio did a good job in Catch Me If You Can (2002) and very good as Rimbaud in Total Eclipse (1995). Another ludicrous part: Amsterdam Vallon in Gangs of New York (2002). Is there a pattern? Take a look at the picture – is he to be taken seriously? I would not watch Blood Diamond again even if Djimon Hounsou makes a nice Solomon Vandy and even if I like Jennifer Connelly. As a girl. Which makes me think there is more potential in her that I could see so far.

Zwartboek (2006)

'Black Book' is the work of Paul Verhoeven and Gerard Soeteman. The word goes they worked for more then twenty years to what became a description of the essence of the Second World war in Holland. For example the main performer, Carice van Houten, builds a mixture of Anne Frank, Dora Paulsen, Kitty van der Have and Ans van Dijk. (for a review covering the historical aspect check here) The film reminds me of a discussion about realism: Dostoyevsky believed he was a ' higher realist' because he would try to get to the essence of the real and not necessarily describe everyday events. Here too the story is stylized and as if abstract but pressures successfully the reality it points to. The movie shows quality all over and the big budget could be part of the explanation. On the other hand, a big budget was never enough for a good movie and this one is good. Carice van Houten, Sebastian Koch, Thom Hoffman, Halina Reijn, Derek de Lint, Waldemar Kobus all do a clean job, the image is sparkling, the sound is crystal. The characters (like Ronnie) sometimes appear to be one sided and superficial but it looks as if they are pushed by the events to be depthless and they struggle in their own trimmed features. The movie is plot driven and that gives it a Hollywood scent but its structure reminds me more of David Lynch because of the heavy clarity; things appear to be going on at several levels all the time and the action springs from various depths creating a multi layered web that is both easy to follow and difficult to analyze. Nice.

We feed the world (2005)

This is a good movie, I recommend to watch it. It portrays several ways and places where the food we eat is produced: the fishermen in Bretagne (according to EU regulations all fishing will be industrialized in a few years), the huge greenhouse plantations in southern spain (from which every European citizen consumes an average 10kg every year), the stubbed rainforest in Brasil (where soy beans grow that are fed to European cattle while European wheat and corn isn't worth more than road chippings and is burned for heat)... I could go on. And the life of chickens of course! The movie is done very well, it doesn't seek to overpower you with facts. The shooting is very slow and relies mostly on the images themselves, following the Bretagne fishers through a whole usual fishing day for instance, the early rising in the morning, the monotonous movements, the pride about a big fish... (it made me think about the comforting way lives can go and pass in this routine, and with a lot of water around them too). Also, the movie doesn't hint the apocalypse of globalisation at all, it's not accusing. Wagenhofer (pic) works towards a Zivilcourage or consumer courage rather where it's not necessary to emphasize that the Nestlé chef is a bad bad guy. As Jean Ziegler (the UNO Sonderbeauftragter - special emissary, I looked it up - for the right to nutrition) puts it: the Nestlé chef is a likeable tanned guy who makes a lot of sense to himself in his surroundings (which made me think how it seems the biggest responsibility one has nowadays might be to choose one's surroundings well. God, take me out of this linguistics class! :) In any case, I'm more aware of this again... and better informed, which is also not irrelevant. I'm going shopping now!

Agnes und seine Bruder (2004)

The christian-romantic ideal of a relationship always starts with (and in) purity and compatibility and it romantically follows with 'And they lived happily ever after.' 'Agnes and her brothers' supports an different view: the relationship is more of a process that indeed purifies the individuals. The partners clearly do not 'live happily ever after' but work hard for every second of being happy and pure. They are more on the way to happiness (auf dem Weg ins Glück). Agnes (interpreted with great sensitivity by Martin Weiß) is in a post-relationship phase on several levels, Herbert Knaup in the rough middle of one and Moritz Bleibtreu at the door of another. All of them go through difficult times and I have to say I could not choose who has the hardest moments. Now, if I put the three brothers together I'll find a very dark image of relationship and life. The film is great and it makes me want to talk to someone about it so if you want to see it or manage to watch this Oskar Roehler' work, let me know.

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

It is not a bad movie. At least because Will Smith does a great Chris Gardner and the directors also has a lot to say with the images. Having the chance to watch some European movies lately I would say this film lacks depth in spite of Muccino's Italian origin. The acting creates the tension but the plot just solves everything in ridiculous ways such that at some point I had a feeling that nothing bad really happens. For example I learned after the movie that most of the homeless people were real, taken..well..of the streets. They actually made some money of this gig. I was more impressed by this fact than by the situations they were in the movie. I think here it is mostly the plot to blame because it is so focused on the central characters that the context is a distanced background. In this respect European movies seem to use more of a sfumato. PS: Will Smith's son is really his son, Jaden Smith

The Birds

WOO-HAA, I just watched the birds. Raphael came over some time, apparently i was breathing hard and calling my God on to help. Some very scary scenes I find, the everywhereness of the birds is quite potent. Though at the same time it's funny to notice the technical difference 1963 movies make, wooo, and the moon breaking through the clouds to light all the birds on the courtyard and branch the right way. Not to speak of the beautiful look 'Miss Daniels' gives her saviour when she awakens from the coma. Wish I could put eyeliner that well. Tippi Hedren I liked a lot, she reminded me of the Danish Sofie, by the way of allowing words out of her mouth only cautiously, also I liked her voice very much. And the way she and 'Mitch' speak so confidently from the start. It's very witty and explicit by being so fast, yet... implicit. PS. I also wish I would keep my legs that way when I'm really scared.

Casino Royale (2006)

I had low expectations before the movie so guess what...I liked it. I think it is one of the best Bond movies I've seen. It uses modern techniques and it is very dynamic. The story moves fast, there is plenty of tension right from the beginning, Eva Green (of The Dreamers)is simply bellissima; her falling in love scene almost made me reciprocate. Daniel Craig does a good job at being the new Bond, James Bond. It is interesting to see how (yet again) a 'really' strong man has a marshmallow core. But not too much; the character receives some humane features to be sure - see the shower scene...he might be J. Bond but he got the basic knowledge that in order to warm someone under the shower it just might be useful/helpfull to turn on the hot watter. Most of all I noticed the way the narrative focuses on the main character which directs our attention to what is important in the scene. There is something new about the types of cuts and the mixture of images Martin Campbell organized in Casino Royal. It may be that the lines were not that great, that some things could have been left for us to understand and this makes the whole movie based only on the dynamic; it does not matter what happens (I actually don't remember a lot of the story) but the way things move is well done and at least entertaining. I also have to mention the performances of Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre and Judi Dench as M. In this context the bad guy was quite good moving from one extreme state to the other within a very restricted area, and M was the perfect mom/accomplished business woman/wise person/stern but kind and understanding. Yeap...it's a movie to share with friends.

300 (2006)

Too long, too explicit, far too easy. The story teller's voice is booming comenting what I can see or I should be able to see. These devices make less of a possible interesting plot. It is as if everything about people happens in public, in the open. There is no depth to it except maybe Xerses's generated and godly voice. Also 300 looks clearly like a post-Matrix movie: the battle scenes are all peppered with the fast-slow technique used in Matrix. It doesn't look that bad but it's been done to death and it doesn't show even an attempt to make it appriate for the context. It is copy-pasting like the structure of the plot. Overall...I did not like it.

Sibirskiy tsiryulnik (1998)

I hear Mihalkov's Сибирский цирюльник (The Barber of Siberia) met a raging critic audience on the account that he gave in to Hollywoodean taste. The Barber of Siberia may not be Oci ciornie [Dark eyes] (1987) or Neokonchennaya pyesa dlya mekhanicheskogo pianino [An Unfinished Piece for a Mechanical Piano] (1977). But it has more in common with what Mihalkov did before than with any Hollywood movie I can think of. There are some tensions, some way of using time and space that one can never find in Hollywood. I liked every minute of the 180 of Mihalkov 1998 film even if it has not a Stalker's deep and dense fabric of signs; it just a nice serious, a bit fairy-like account of Russian life in contact with some western feeling -which really says nothing about what the movie is. I liked it.

Freedom Writers (2007)

'Freedom Writers' is centered around Anne Frank's Diary. The movie re-presents life events that took place just years ago (the book was actually published in 1999). It is not a very good movie and it made me think how odd it is to depict reality in film. On the other hand I have to admit I fought back some tears. By the 'tears' standard the movie gets closer to Hotel Rwanda but it is sloppier and I found the acting less convincing. But...the defects and the problems make the film more convincing at the level where I know real life constitutes bad acting. I am not sure I want to watch it again. I may focus too much on the aesthetic problems and the tension between the technique and plot may just increase. In any case it was a good experience to watch it. PS: If you are willing to see it online let me know. PPS: the photo is the cover of the published book and not taken from the movie.