FeuchtBlog

Les Trois Colours (Three Colors) Trilogy (Blue/White/Red) by Kiezlowski ★★★★

These three films receive a uniformly 5-star rating by Amazon reviewers, and there is much to commend for this series, superbly well performed and directed. They are separate tales, but tied together by the French themes of liberty, equality, and fraternity, which is actually demonstrated very weakly in the series. The first film (Bleu) is about the wife of famous composer, whose family, including her composer-husband and young daughter are killed in a tragic automobile accident. She goes on to try to free her life from her past, but eventually discovers more to the life of her late husband than she expected. The second film (Blanc) is about a polish hairdresser involved in a messy divorce, with his wife mercilessly dumping him while living in Paris, he being unable to capably defend himself owing to language problems. The remainder of the film takes him from destitution to ultimate revenge on his ex-wife. The third film (Rouge) depicts a young model who chances across a retired judge who now spends his life eavesdropping on his neighbors. Ultimately, a deeper relationship is developed between the two, as they interact with the past of the judge and future of the young model. Kieslowski nicely incorporates the thematic colors in his films in an interesting sort of way. In Bleu, there are blue rooms and blue chandeliers and many blue objects, in Blanc, emotional episodes show a screen white-out, and in Rouge, there is an equal profusion of red, such as a large red banner announcing a fashion show with the star character imaged. I reduced the rating by one-star because of the overwhelming morose mood throughout the entire series. Only Blanc showed any humor at all. All were moderately dark, deeply-foreboding films, quasi-tragedies of ruined lives desperate for significance and meaning, and the films never offering a way out. Ultimate liberty, equality or fraternity are never achieved, but a cheap imitation. These are not films to soar with, but will put you in the gutter and leave you there. They would be nice films for conversations on philosophy, but not for conversations on a life of higher aspirations.

Camille Claudel, starring Adjani and Depardeau ★★★★★

I’ve always liked the acting talent of Gerard Depardeau, and he is at his best in this film, playing the role of Auguste Rodin. With Adjani capably serving as the title role of Camille Claudel, this film follows the historical fate of Claudel in the late 1800′s to her death in the mid-twentieth century. Camille was an aspiring artist, dropping out of school, and eventually working/studying in the workshop of Rodin. Becoming his lover, and then breaking up, she develops a paranoid delusion of Rodin constantly plotting to ruin her. In return, this paranoia leads to her institutionalization for most of her life. It is a sad but true tale, all too true because it actually happened, but also because it represents life’s drama in so many of us who look for false sources of significance. Acting in this movie was superb, the cinephotography excellent, the French was not too difficult to follow, especially with the help of sous-titles, it was R-rated for some sexual depictions-but never in an obscene way, and the “fill-in” on the known historical facts of Camille C. to make a movie version seemed fairly reasonably as to what one would expect. Thus, a highly recommended film, though not for children.

Alice in Wonderland 1966 BBC production ★★

This movie is NOT a faithful reproduction of the Lewis Carroll narrative, but rather is a fanciful political statement based roughly on the Alice in Wonderland story. It is definitely British, and definitely 1960′ish, even with the background music of Ravi Shankar. The movie is in black and white, and very choppy in its movement from scene to scene. Apparently, it was made by the BBC as a low-budget Christmas film. The Alice actor is rather bland, though most of the other characters are quite humorous in their bizarreness. The film holds a surrealistic vision of upper-class England, yet treats the Queen as quite tawdry. Perhaps the producer caught the spirit of Lewis Carroll in this rendering, yet it is a little too bizarre for modern viewing.

Galaxy Quest, starring Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver ★★★★

This film was watched at brother Dennis’ request. It was a film that Betsy actually enjoyed watching, and laughed most of the way through. It is a tremendous spoof on sci-fi films and movies, especially the  Star Trek series.It starts at a Star Trek groupie-like convention, where the main actors did not get along with each other, nor take serious their roles. That is, until real space aliens, the Thermians, take them away, to help save them from the enemy, General Sarris. The subsequent adventures are hilarious as they save themselves and their alien friends. I won’t give the movie away, as you need to watch it and enjoy it.

Batman ★★, Batman Returns ★★, Batman Forever ★, Batman and Robin ★, (all with Michael Keaton as Batman), Batman Begins ★★★, The Dark Knight ★★★ (both with Christian Bale as Batman).

These are two series which illustrate that too much of a good thing usually goes bad. Unfortunately, in this case, it was a lot of a mediocre theme. Both series can be criticized for very poor character development, characters being more trivial and immature than super-heroes or super-villians. The first Batman film is excellent only in that the Joker with Jack Nicholson was superb. Nothing else about the film was praise-worthy. The remaining Michael Keaton series attempted to wow the audience with high tech graphics while forgetting about story lines that are meaningful or consistent. Unfortunately, the films often made the worst of good actors, like Arnold Schwarznegger playing Mr. Freeze. It was especially unnerving when the immature and irresponsible characters of Robin, and then Batwoman come on the scene. There were more than a few ipecac moments. The second series lapsed into its own problems, the first film attempting to offer a realistic start for Batman, where he goes off to the East to learn the disciplines of the Buddhist Kung-fu experts, only to discover that they were the ultimate enemies of Gotham City. All in all, the story line was simply stupid and inane, not really worth watching. Again, both films of this second series show an inability to maintain a quasi-realistic story line, or develop real characters. The second series did flow better, especially the Dark Knight, which is why it received three rather than two stars.

The Exorcist, starring Linda Blair ★★★★★

I will occasionally watch and report on somewhat more controversial films, and certainly this is one of them. I realize that there are films that might be considered simply not suitable for viewing at any age. I saw the Exorcist when it first came out with a group of friends from church. It stimulated thought back then, but now brings other thoughts into reflection. This is not a movie for everybody. The first time I saw it, there were certainly nightmares that followed. The production is well done, though at times, one could easily see the errors in make-up of Regan, or other faux-pas. The first half of the film portrays physicians. Interestingly, much of the medical tests which were performed were on radiological instruments or with tests, like cerebral angiograms, which simply are not performed any longer. The movie at least had a somewhat kindly view of physicians, though their bedside interactions were somewhat sterile. Well, this is not a movie about doctors, but devils, though some people may consider them to be one and the same. C.S. Lewis’ quote on devils is quite apropos here, inexactly restated by me, that the problem with our belief in devils is either to not believe they exist, when they actually do, or to believe and think too much about them. Using the devil for entertainment purposes runs a precarious risk of exercising both extremes of C.S. Lewis. It would be easy to dismiss the devil as an invention of Hollywood or the Catholic church, and thus offer him the regard most improper of him. The movie story entails a 12 year old girl, who dabbles in Ouiji boards and a few things, and eventually becomes possessed. Her mom, who is a movie star, seeks first medical, then psychiatric help for her daughter to no prevail, as she becomes progressively worse. Finally, it is recommended that she seek a priest for an exorcism. Two priests come to the aide of the mother, and eventually are able to cast out the demon, but at the cost of their own lives. So, two thoughts on this movie. First is its’ portrayal of demon possession. Possession turns a person into a raving maniac, with bouncing beds, heads that rotate 360 degrees, and projectile bilious vomit, not the thing that actually does happen to a demon possessed person, at least, as is portrayed in Scripture. This extreme portrayal may cause one to loose sight that demon possession may be manifest in many other ways, such as, in the kindness of a person like Barak Hussain O., who is evil to the core, but presents as sweet as pudding. The other thought was how various inanimate objects were treated as possessive of special “charm”, such as the consecrated water, the crucifix and rosary, the words of incantation for exorcism, and the statue of Jesus. Protestants fall into error of “charming” other objects, though for the bad, such as trinkets or amulets, which they hold might be possessive of evil or harm. In reality, nowhere in Scripture are we told of an inanimate object possessing Spiritual qualities, and indeed are instructed that they absolutely do not and cannot have an ability to convey a curse of carry a demon with it. Yet, many Christians continue to believe such a thing. Pity. I would recommend this film, though not as a piece to amuse ones self, but rather, as a jumping off point in contemplating the roles of demons and the devil in this current world.

RoboCop, RoboCop II, RoboCop III ★★★

At the end of Robocop III, it was easy to see that the movie was terminated with the possibility of a sequel. Not making the mistake of the Alien series, we were spared that torture, and the movie studios let a good thing end gracefully. This is not really a “tough guy” film, like Rambo or Die Hard. It is more appealing to the Marxist-Socialist types in America, in that it suggests that corporate America generates the evil that oppresses the freedom loving poor of this world, and that this corporate entity either lives in bed or pressures the government to do wrong. Robocop was a cyborg, invented by a corporate firm, contracted to defend the streets of Detroit. Already, the film becomes a no-brainer. Detroit, even in the 1980′s, was not a city worth defending. All the same, the creators of Robocop attempt to use this half-policeman half-robot to their advantage. Robocop II and III show the development of more sophisticated Robocops, yet our hero, Robocop I, continues to find a way to gain ultimate victory. The action is good and the story line is reasonably well written to allow an absence of predictability and hold ones’ interest; thus the three stars. All in all, not the worst film, and moderately entertaining, though the prevailing message is usually confused.

Alien★★★, Alien2★★★, Alien3★★,Alien Resurrection★★ starring Sigourney Weaver

Actually, I’m being a touch kind about my rating, but the graphics were fairly decent, so an extra star is given. It seems like this series should have stopped with the first, as each episode was increasingly poor quality. In particular, the plots were very contrived, if not disjointed or just plain silly. The acting was particularly horrid, and I got rather tired of highly masculinized females running around like paramilitary militia with oversized weapons that were larger than they were. Character development was shoddy, including with Sigourney herself, so that when she “sacrificed” herself at the end of the third episode, there really wasn’t a feeling of regret. When she returns in the fourth installment, it’s almost a let-down. Each episode shows increasingly bad language, unnecessarily so, and increasing sexual innuendoes, which don’t contribute to the plot. From the first episode, people rarely ever spoke to each other, but usually yelled at each other. Most of the men were portrayed as either idiots or evil, while the women were caring or lesbian, as seen in the past episode. I saw parts I and II about 30 years ago when they first came out, and was quite disappointed to imagine that I actually liked those films at that time. I guess a touch of maturity also gives discernment. These films are not worth renting nor watching—don’t waste your time on them.

Mad Max Road Warrior Series, starring Mel Gibson ★★★

The story of a post-apocalyptic venture in Australia, where motorcycle gangs and mad road rage dudes seek to dominate the diminishing supplies of gasoline available. These movies are best seen in a series, and are mostly bizarre episodes of war being engaged from ever more bizarre designs of road, rail, and air vehicles. Mel stars as a cop whose family was murdered by a motorcycle gang, and goes on to ever greater glory in each movie, conquering the bad guys. I’ve seen much better films of a post-apocalyptic nature, and these don’t really do it for me. Thus, three stars.

The Running Man, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger ★★★★

Save for some harsh language and brief nudity, this film is not too bad to watch, if you don’t mind violence. Arnold is at his best in this film with the classic line “I’ll be back”. The movie is a futuristic scene of Arnold, though innocent, being held by the State, and then put on a game show to play to the death. In the end, Arnold wins, though the movie never goes beyond winning a game show to destroying an evil empire. Such sophistication is not to be expected. A good film, that keeps you on the edge of your seat for the film. The only bad aspect is the terrible acting by Maria Alonso, the hispanic girl in the film. She doesn’t contribute to the film at all and should have been differently written into the script.

Rosemary’s Baby, starring Mia Farrow ★★★★

This film does not have suspense or anxiety similar to other “horror” films. The stars come from the superb acting of Mia Farrow. Otherwise, the plot is a little stale. The story was most fitting to the 1980’s when Hal Lindsey’s books like “Late Great Planet Earth” was popular, and everybody was expecting an incarnate form of the antichrist. Perhaps that will yet happen, but certainly not in the manner portrayed in this movie. The amount of witchcraft talk is kept to a minimum, and witches are sold as warm, friendly people. The baby is never shown at the end of the film. This unfortunately breeds a tolerance for Satanic activity as acceptable, save for the occasional murders and ill-effects that happen in the course of the film. Not highly recommended, and directed by Roman Polanski, who should be setting behind bars, if not worse.

Bruce Lee Series, starring Bruce Lee ★★★★

02DEC2009  Enter the Dragon, Game of Death, Game of Death II, The Big Boss, Fist of Fury, Way of the Dragon. These films do not have any particular order, even if they seem to come across as sequels. Enter the Dragon was Bruce Lee’s last film. The acting in these films is absolutely horrible. The scene set-ups were a touch amateur. The plots are repetitive and predictable. The only thing that gives these films 4 stars is Bruce Lee himself. He is totally awesome, and indubitably the greatest Kung-fu master to ever make it into film.

Death on the Nile, starring Peter Ustinov, David Niven, etc. ★★★

This movie was watched while int he guest house at N’Djemena, waiting for our flight out of Chad, and most of the original review when the movie was fresh on my mind was lost in the iWeb crash. The stars were certainly quite select, though my impression was that of watching a soap opera more than that of seeing a serious movie. It was no fault of the acting, but probably more of that of the director. I was also somewhat taken back by the very contrived plot, especially with the end solution to the murder mystery. It was truly not a believable ending, leaving the entire story in question. I have not read any of Agatha Christie, but if her other stories are similar to this, I will find them all not worth reading. She might have called down little green Martians to be the murders, and the story would have been just as believable as her ending. A movie not worth watching.

Les Miserables, Starring Liam Neeson ★★★★

I’ve never read the book before. The other versions of Les Miserables that I have seen include the version starring Gerard Depardieu, and the take-off of John-Paul Belmondo, as well as the play by the name, which I saw in London. The London play would receive only one star. Gerard Depardieu was a better lead man Jean Valjean, though this production had superb filmography, and acting that truly could not be criticized. The John-Paul Belmondo is a 5-star worthy film, though is a take-off of the story set in WWII Paris. This version has some problems. 1. It reportedly does not follow the Victor Hugo text closely at all. 2. It turns Cosette into a spoiled brat. 3. The boy revolutionary leader is a girly-man– why does Hollywood love girly-men so much nowdays? 4. There is an abnormal sense of a love affair with Cosettes’ mother, which I doubt the book really portrays. 6. The movie never explores the rationale behind the Inspector finally turning Jean Valjean free and committing suicide. The version here is a version worth watching, if you are a Les Miserables fan, with the criticisms noted, it’s still worth 4 stars.

Sweet Land, starring Elizabeth Reaser ★★

This is the story of a German (????Norwegian) bride to be moving to Northern Minnesota to be married in the early 1920’s farmland. The bride Inge encounters grave community vitriol, and marriage is refused until her husband to be saves the day, so to speak, at one spot. The story is based on a Will Weaver novel, and produced by Ali Salim. Unfortunately, having a father that grew up as a German immigrant in that area and time, things were not well depicted as representative of America. In effect, it was just another effort by Hollywood and Muslim producers to make American faith and religion appear unloving and cruel, when in actuality, though harsh, it was everything but was depicted in this film. The thought processes were a late 20th century projection of early twentieth century religious and community farm life. Indeed, one Amazon reviewer has is correct that the book author has only a superficial sense of what it was like to live back at that time. The movie never develops true depth to its characters, and even the attempt at foreign language fails, with gibberish being muttered for either German or Norwegian. The farming was ridiculous-they were harvesting corn but delivering wheat to the market. They used no horses, and two people hand picked 160 acres. Farm communities always tended to be closer than what was portrayed. I watched this film with an Englander in the group, who asked if this truly what America was like back then. Unfortunately, this sort of rubbish in filming only creates images of moral judgmentalism at a time when America held moral values but also strong hospitality and deep community spirit.   Truly Hollywood could have done better than that. Many Amazon reviewers suggested that this was a touching love story demanding Kleenex. I’m not sure about the Kleenex, but there were enough errors in the film to ruin a story that could have made a good film.

The Kingdom of Heaven, starring Orlando Bloom ★★

This film was rated R for violence. I saw the film in Cameroon, and some of the editorial was lost in the iWeb crash. I’ll do my best. There was a moderate amount of violence in the film, most of which did not contribute to the general flow of the theme, and placed mostly for entertainment purposes. It is a very quasi-historical depiction of some crusaders going to Jerusalem to retain the city following the first crusade. The main character was the illegitimate son of one of the princes in the Holy Land. The main character notes the depth of corruption of both the ruling class and clergy in Jerusalem, particularly the desire to continue to militarily rule the area. In the end, the movie makes the invading Arabs out to be the morally more righteous, and the Christians as the cheats, naves, dishonest fools. All renditions of Christian clergy were shown to be steeped in dishonor, greed, and corruption. While this is certainly partially true, it is hard for me to imagine the Muslim invaders as any more righteous in their behavior or deeds. Thus, the movie degenerates into a politically correct statement of love for Islam, but historically lacking.