Reviews

I saw this when it came out. All I can say, is I still remember the basic plot, and the cinematography. Walter Faber is paradigmatic as the post WWII individual, still blindly devoted to the goddess of Reason in his personal attitude to life, but beset by the unconscious flood of irrational experience: a real example of Carl Jung's warning that what is not made conscious will be lived out as destiny. It is overall a wonderful, understated film, beautifully directed and shot, representing in a gentle way what European directors (and all directors) should concentrate more on - literature, myth, relationship, culture. It's only fault, if I recall correctly, was that it was not longer and deeper, because it really could have been a great film. Go ahead and watch it!

This film had potential: a beautiful title, lovely cinematography, slow and unrushed performances from good actors. What I think was missing, was the 'oomph' factor which characterises truly great works of dramatic art. It is as though it was trying to be profound - about the complex nature of human relationships, about the grey areas of personality - but somehow it failed to deliver what it promised. If Ingmar Bergman had made this film, it would have been harrowing and haunting, just like our relationships to our real parents continue to be throughout our lives; but as it is, it simply verges on the pretentious and boring.

Despite my best intentions, I fell asleep towards the end, and I don't normally do this. The good thing is that Hollywood is still trying - albeit very infrequently - to create high quality films without car chases or gratuitous sex scenes; the bad news is, I would have had more fun at "The Return of the Mummy".

This film is really something of a curate's egg, good in parts. In contrast to other reviewers, I found that the main fault with it is its inability to draw in the viewer's interest in the characters and the plot. I sat through it because I'm interested in rock'n'roll and the dynamics of bands, but if I were to evaluate it purely on the basis of its merit as a movie, I would have to give it the thumbs down, with a few caveats: Jason Behr is good in the part of John Livien, and quite convincing as a rock singer; the narrative regarding his childhood trauma is unclear, although we are given hints in Livien's well-acted relationship to his parents, but his behaviour is ultimately bizarre to the viewer (which it shouldn't be). Nevertheless the idea of using a stage persona to solve inner conflicts is interesting, albeit not novel nor fully explored as a theme in this film. The allusions to John Lennon were irritating, but I confess I'm not a Beatles fan. At any rate, Livien and his band reminded me more of Oasis than the Beatles, in the sense that there was something derivative about them. Another frustrating thing about the movie was the way it opened up with some interesting - albeit middlebrow and high-school level - philosophical musings of the lead character, but left the threads of his thinking there, only to pick them up again in the middle of the film very briefly, when Livien says, "before God, there was music" (ever seen that ad for Tia Maria in the 1990s, "Before time, there was Tia Maria"? That's what sprung to mind anyway); it seems an idiotic conclusion, and the viewer has no idea how he reached it, but he's entitled to it. Fortunately his bassist and friend, played ably by Dominic Monaghan, seems to acknowledge the fallacy of this thinking when he responds "You don't know that".

In all, the limited strengths of the direction and the plot could go either way on future projects, into pointless banality or into an interesting and more mature perspective.

This film has the raw quality of a first feature-length movie by a new director. There are some interesting and revealing moments, but an aura of sensation and artistic pretense spoils the realistic timbre of the intriguing relationships between the characters, also contributing to a loss of their three-dimensionality. Whatever its faults, this film will provoke strong reactions in its viewers; this doesn't necessarily make for a good film, but it shows promise in the director's skill. I should mention that I personally found none of the characters sympathetic, and from this point of view the film strikes me as a study in human duplicity. The ending, however, suggests hope in what is otherwise a very brutal and dark portrayal of human relationships.

I'd like to begin by saying that while this film undoubtedly shows the talents of its actual director, for the sake of this commentary I will assume it is a movie by Krysztof Kieslowski. I suppose this movie needs to be viewed together with Tom Tykwer's "Heaven" (2002) in order to be understood from a broader perspective (I don't think anyone has directed "Purgatory" yet, the third part of the trilogy suggested by Kieslowski). Another important source for understanding the film is perhaps Dante's "La Divina Commedia", since this is what inspired Kieslowski in the first place.

What the film does, I think, is to offer the viewer a set of disturbing stories, from the very first opening sequence of the bird hatching and pushing the other eggs out of the nest; All these stories, right to the end of the film, never reach any satisfactory resolution. Character's lives are simply damaged or destroyed by events based on misunderstanding or ignorance, as well as human fallibility. Perhaps this is what makes for the film's theme of "Hell". If this is so, and here I can only guess at what Kieslowski's original intentions might have been, then "L'Enfer" is a very modern film in it's representation of hell as the presence of unresolved, arbitrary trauma in human life - hence perhaps the professor's speech about destiny and coincidence is of central significance in understanding the movie. This may in fact be the question the movie is supposed to put to its audience: is life a matter of destiny, or is it just coincidence? This film therefore shares with all other works directed or inspired by Kieslowski that director's strengths, as well as his weaknesses. Kieslowski had a genius for translating transcendent concepts into immanent imagery, and showing the viewer the place where eternity and time coincide; "La Double Vie de Veronique" may be the best example of this. However, that same Polish genius tended to skim lightly over the harsher, more troubling aspects of human tragedy - I would have liked to have seen him attempt a movie about the holocaust, or the life of Job, because I think shadow, while not entirely missing, is nevertheless a little too stylised in his films. Evil is unfortunately real, and while there may be light at the end of every tunnel, the way there gets very dark indeed. A great filmmaker has a responsibility to show this, especially when dealing with universal themes. Hell is not a place that has the good looks of Emanuelle Beart (funnily enough, this actress also starred in a 1994 movie with the same title)! Overall, a movie worth watching.

The problem with this film is that it tries to do too much. It is basically an attempt to describe the intergenerational dysfunctionality of the family of the main character, played ably at times by Kyra Sedgwick. Nevertheless, there are other moments when this female character, who is otherwise clearly possessed by numerous demons, just comes across as plain silly. Silliness isn't necessarily out of tune with what is really happening in this complex, but poorly-told tale; Kyra Sedwick's "parents" in the film are also silly, goofing around until the poignant moment when they realise their 10-year-old daughter singing David Bowie's "Life on Mars" acapella at her school's end-of-year show, is a reference to their freakishness. But the real, deep, important questions the movie raises are left frustratingly unaddressed and unanswered: how can two people who are so crazy about one another ignore the fruit of their love? When does a mother's love turn from genuine care into stifling, morbid possessiveness? At one point, the mother is trying to defend her refusal to let her son attend school by quoting Emerson and Alessandra Montessori; but it is never really clear just what it is she actually dreams for her son, other than always having him by her side. She confesses to the viewer, "I admit, I encouraged arrogance" in her son, but the boy is the only reasonable one of the pair, showing behaviour of a maturity beyond his years. All this confuses the film's audience even further. Perhaps the fact itself that the movie asks these questions is to it's credit; but it ultimately fails to deliver on it's promise.

I haven't read the book this movie is based on (yet), but as a movie it contains all that is likable (and reprehensible) about Buk. Matt Dillon does an excellent job, really good feeling into his character, although the one flaw is that despite the dishevelled look he still appears too young and handsome for the part. I can't think of someone who could have done it better though. Cynicism, loss, alienation, booze, sex and art - it's all there, the pain and the adventure. You don't have to agree with Henry Chinaski's philosophy to be able to empathise with where his broken soul is coming from. Worth watching repeatedly, like a good book. Buk is in a class of his own, and not really a "beat" writer as he tends to be (mis)classified.

"Brokeback Mountain" is not just the title, but also a character in the movie. The beautiful and lavish shots of nature, trees, animals, water, sky, snow - all these are skilfully employed in the attempt to convey to viewers a sense, that what takes place between the male characters is "natural". The tag-line ("Love is a Force of Nature") underscores the director's intention to persuade us that, not only is gay sex "natural", it is also beautiful and loving. In doing this, Ang Lee is almost successful, and will no doubt preach his message mostly with the results he desires, convincing both the already converted and many among the undecided. The dark shadow of gay sexuality barely shows through this film, in a single, rather ritualistic encounter between Jack Twist and a male prostitute in Mexico, and also in the amusing scene where Jack and his wife Lureen meet another Midwestern couple, and the "husband" arranges a sexual meeting with Jack on the pretext of going fishing (again - how many women are going to wonder about their husband's fishing expeditions after watching this film?!). Joking aside, the film does do a good job of portraying the deceit which accompanies such empty and unhappy marriages; what it fails to do, however, is to explore the motivations and psychology of the characters in real depth. Jack and Ennis come across as two rather flat and ill-defined personalities who are little more than the director's mouthpieces. They are both sympathetic in many ways, but something's missing. What have they really found in each other? Why is their bond so strong? Ang Lee has directed a film which reinforces current stereotype notions of depathologised homosexuality. If this was a movie about a man and a woman with the same plot and setting, would it get so many awards?

It depresses me that no other director can claim the status and authority of Ingmar Bergman. He seems, even in old age, to continue to have the monopoly on truly artistic, mature, urgent film-making. A pleasure to watch, Saraband, if it is his last film, is a beautiful and powerful swan-song. The study of character and relationships is subtle, detailed and - here is what makes Bergman really great in my opinion - true. Bergman the son of a Lutheran minister, has always addressed spiritual and of course existential themes in his movies, and Saraband is no exception. All his characters seem more or less consciously persecuted by a fear of divine retribution for the extent to which their lives have been false. At one point Henrik, a truly tragic son, exclaims that "sometimes I think a great punishment awaits me". Henrik's relationship to his rejecting father is masterfully portrayed, and is deeply harrowing to anyone who can sense the many layers of meaning that surround our ordinary, daily exchanges. What perhaps makes Saraband different from other Bergman films, is a gesture towards a deeper acceptance of the Divine Mystery behind all our lives, despite the neurotic failure to relate, and the deep, unresolved conflict and trauma so characteristic of Bergman characters. I'm genuinely grateful that Bergman is still around, making films like this - but why can't there be more directors concerned with these themes?

This is a very graphic and realistic depiction of child abuse and its consequences. Almost too graphic. I felt very uncomfortable about several scenes in this film, and wondered about the ethics of getting young child actors to star in a film with this sort of content. Even if the scenes they acted in did not - of course - involve actual sexual interaction with adults, would these children not have been at least asked to imagine it during the process of direction? What does enacting such roles do to a young child's mind? What does viewing such material do to an adult's mind, for that matter? In a sense, the director did obliquely touch on this issue in showing the fascination the main characters acquired for gory horror movies, but it could have been further discussed and elaborated. For this reason alone, I can't be entirely certain about the quality of this film. In other respects, it is an honest depiction of man's inhumanity to man. It is perhaps a telling sign that these days, two kinds of film seem to be reaching our screen: lewd and/or slushy romantic comedies, or films about the dark side of human nature. This is of course one of the latter category, with perhaps only a hint at reparation for the untold damage done to the characters in their final embrace, an embrace as free of sexuality as it could be after being exposed to content of this sort for two hours. I am having trouble getting this film out of my system. It is a cinematographic all-you-can-eat. I wish people didn't behave in such awful ways to one another, but unfortunately they sometimes do. This film depicts those times accurately. As a clinical text, it may be of some use to experts; as art, I'm still not sure.

I'm not entirely sure about this film. On the one hand, it is undoubtedly a very well-directed and acted work of art, with an interesting and important story to tell; on the other, I felt an ambivalence - whether in the director, the actors, the story itself, I can't yet say - regarding the figures that were being portrayed. While the fallibility of Hitler, Eva Braun and the terrifying Goebbels family is immediately apparent (incidentally, I don't think I've ever seen a better and more frightening description of the dark side of motherhood than in Mrs Goebbels in this film), nevertheless I was left with a question mark: were these people really the savage misanthropes history has shown them to be, or idealists martyred to a cause they believed in, however misled? I think there is a danger in the film here, that it could be misused if it fell into the wrong hands. I was also somehow upset by some of the symbolism: the German 12-year-old who is able to destroy two enemy tanks, the drunk and disorderly Russian invaders. Are there fascist associations to this film? If so, are they consciously or unconsciously present? To what extent can a German director make a film of this sort responsibly? Eichinger certainly does a good job, but can he transcend his national origins?It may be useful, while watching it, to bear this question in mind. Nevertheless, a film worth watching.

This is one of those films which remains etched in the memory and can even change a person's life in a subtle way; certainly it can offer an insight into the art of painting unlike any other film I've seen. It is long, in the sense that classics of world literature can be lengthy - in other words, in an epic sense. I simply cannot restrain my enthusiasm for this film, which is ultimately nothing less than a psychological study of the creative process and its effect on human relationships. Every frame of those 4 hours of viewing is in its own way intriguing and inviting, and of course Beart is very beautiful. But the scenery, too, the old estate on which Frenhofer lives, is a character in the film, reflecting the artists own genteel, yet restless seniority perfectly. Shall I say more? Buy a good bottle of French red wine and sip it with relish, while immersing yourself free of preconceptions (about long movies or artistic pretentiousness) in this masterpiece! It is not about showing off, it is about the human condition. Nothing is entirely infallible, of course, so 9 out of 10.

Now here is potential for a great, intellectually stimulating movie. Based on the book by Thornton Wilder, a respected American novelist, and exploring the philosophical problem of evil - namely, why did God permit the demise of five people in the collapse of the Bridge of San Luis Rey? The priest investigating the question, the Archbishop accusing his research findings as heresy, the cast of characters with their human strengths and failings; all of this could have made the movie a really rewarding watch. Instead, I fell asleep about two-thirds of the way through, only to wake up just before the end for the credits! I can hardly believe it myself, because I was definitely intrigued by the central question, but for me it was a frustrating, incomprehensible viewing experience with only the scenery, costumes and famous cast as its redeeming features. My disadvantage as a critic is that I haven't read the book, so I can't say if Wilder had done a better job exploring this crucial human issue. Certainly the film was a disappointment. When you want to know the meaning of life, the last thing you wish to be shown is a group of gallivanting fools and hysterics with whom you are unable to engage. At times it really felt like a baroque farce of some sort. Maybe I just didn't get it, but surely much more can be made of the problem of evil on screen. Two out of ten for the costumes, but I'm thinking of reading the book just to avoid nurturing the impression I was left with: that Thornton Wilder lacked substance.

Maybe this movie doesn't need another comment, since it has already provoked a lot of controversy, on this website alone. There is even a "wikipedia" entry on the pluses and minuses of this film. I hired it out thinking it to be a kind of dramatised documentary, which is what it presents itself as. There was nothing on the DVD jacket to imply that this is a promotion piece for Ramtha or her heretical neo-gnostic bull***t "School of Enlightenment". I had never heard of Ramtha, and while I was watching it I did find the bulky blonde woman with the strange accent odd to say the least; I wondered what she was doing among these reasonable-sounding scientists. Thinking her to be some sort of biologist or chemist perhaps, I listened to her quite carefully; upon hearing some of her theological opinions, I felt confirmed in my own conviction that scientists may be quite brainy in dealing with matter, but they can get really stupid when they start propounding on the more profound spiritual truths, and ought really to stay away from theology, since they don't understand it. By the end of the movie, when "Ramtha's" identity was finally disclosed, I felt frankly cheated, swindled by a modern version of the old-fashioned confidence trickster. Ramtha even sells water-based miracle cures! Yup, this is the Shirley McLane / Linda Evans school of spirituality, bless them. Are people really taken in by such frauds as Ramtha? If you want to understand quantum physics, read some real popular science, Stephen Hawking maybe. And if theology is your interest, stay with the Christian saints - and stay away from sectarian gobbledygook that will deprive you of both your intelligence and your spiritual resources. Oh, and those ridiculous computer graphics with the body cells being pleased or running for cover were really unforgivable, but fascinating in a way because I think this is what the mind of someone like Ramtha is really about - where serious thinkers paint their masterpieces, "thinkers" like Ramtha produce the spiritual equivalent of cartoons. I didn't want this review to be another pot-shot at the movie or its producers, but I guess it's just plain awful. One good thing to say about it: I hope it opens up a new "genre" of movies which are real dramatised documentaries offering real education at the cinema. Just less of Ramtha, please.