In 1997 Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke made a movie called Funny Games.
The movie had a big anti-violance moral. People are, according to Haneke, way to postive about violence.
In movies, this is regulary shown as funny and/or cool. If it is neither cool nor funny, it usually is portraited as righteous, or there are at least understandable reasons behind it, like a bad youth or something like that.
None of that in this movie, because Haneke showed most scenes in 'real time', which makes it a hard movie to watch. The movie is about two young man torturing a family in a house. Every torture scene is shot in 'real time'. No glorification of violence, nothing funny about any of it, and very painful to watch. The movie was loved by some people, hated by others, and pretty much nothing in between.
The only problem with it, was that it was in German. So 10 years later, in 2007, Haneke decided to do a remake of his own movie, simply called 'Funny Games U.S', in English of course. Some critics call it a waste of time, lack of creativity, and nothing new.
I disagree. While I must admit that I hadn't heard of Funny Games before I saw Funny Games U.S. and hated the movie while watching it, until probably the last 15 minutes, it is very good the movie was remade in English.
The movie is a scene-by-scene remake, with every line exactly the same, but translated. Then why do a remake in the first place?
Well, because the people for who the message is important, would not watch it otherwise.
The audience that saw the original Funny Games was 99% European, and consisted mostly of arthouse lovers.
Now that the movie is in English, it is also watched by Americans, and non-arthouse fans. Even though half of the people stop watching the movie halfway, the reached audience is still a lot larger than it was in 1997.
As I stated already, I personally only liked the movie during the last 15 minutes, mostly because I didn't understand the concept at first. In the end there comes a kind of twist, that, to me, was really surprising and makes you understand the whole point of the movie.
As for the actors, my guess is that Tim Roth and Naomi Watts are chosen, of course because they are good actors, but also because they attract a relatively big audience. Their play is good, but in my opinion, they could have been replaced by any other good actor.
Micheal Pitt and Brady Corbet, who play the two young men who take the family hostage and torture them in their own cabin, play their parts really good as psyhotic and scary.
And then the child, who is played by Devon Gearhart. He plays it very convincing. I hope Gearhart didn't see the movie, and will not until he is at least 18, because it will probably leave him scarred for life.
The music plays a big part in the movie too. The contrast between the composition of Handel on one hand and the metal song Bonehead by Naked City, really powers the film, and fits the theme of the movie.
Even though Haneke himself has stated (about the original version) 'if the film was a success, it would be because audiences had misunderstood the meaning behind it.' The movie has become a succes, and I believe it is because people did actually understand the meaning behind the movie.
The movie has, since the 2007 version, become more than a movie against the glorification of violence, it is almost a study about violence. It also sets people to think about themself. 'Why am I even watching this, or any other movie for that matter?' is a good question during the movie. And you will have, I assure you, a similair question after watching it.
***
3/5 stars
maandag 20 juni 2011
dinsdag 14 juni 2011
Gandhi Movie Review
Title: Gandhi
Director: Richard Attenborough
With: Ben Kingsley, John Gielgud, Candice bergen
Genre: biographic picture
183 minutes
Winner of 8 oscars
Gandhi. A man who gained legendary status. It was no wonder there was going to be a movie about his life.
The plot of the movie isn't surprising, of course. If you are going to watch the film, you probably already know the highlights of Gandhi's life, and that his life ended because he was shot. If you didn't know this, or forgot it, Attenborough will remind you of this in the first scene. The movie starts at the end, where Gandhi gets shot by Nathuram Godse.
Then, the screen turns black and the next scene we see is a young Gandhi, sitting in the train. He is on his way in South Africa, because he just finished his law school in England and wants to be a lawyer in South Africa. He is thrown out of the train, because he is a 'coloured person' who travels first class, which is illegal there.
From there on, we see how the man became the legend. He first starts a revolution in South Africa, goes to India and, trough non-violant protests, he manages to reform India. And thus, Mohandas Gandhi becomes Mahatma Gandhi, Bapu (Great soul Gandhi, Father).
The acting skills are incredible prodigious. Ben Kingsley IS Gandhi. Kingsley got a very much deserved Oscar for playing Gandhi.The other actors in the movie also play very convincing.
The story, written by John Briley, is also very strong. It is of course impossible, as the film itself mentions at the beginning, to put every important event in a man's lifetime into one movie. Even so, while watching the movie, it almost seems as if the impossible is achieved. Without being confusing, boring, or losing any feeling, the movie seems to touch every highlight of Gandhi's life, and gets it beautifully on screen.
Attenborough's choices for the film came out perfect: He has chosen to do the movie in English, which makes it much more accessible for a world wide audience. A less 'safe' choice, was the 183 minutes of playtime. But the choice was the right one, for every scene is important. If the movie was shortened, either we would have missed some important events, or the scenes would have been rushed.
The movie came out in 1982. That means the movie is almost 30 years old. But the movie does not feel old-fashioned at all. The story of Gandhi is one of all times.
*****
5/5 starts
'Be the Change you want to be in the world- Gandhi'
Director: Richard Attenborough
With: Ben Kingsley, John Gielgud, Candice bergen
Genre: biographic picture
183 minutes
Winner of 8 oscars
Gandhi. A man who gained legendary status. It was no wonder there was going to be a movie about his life.
The plot of the movie isn't surprising, of course. If you are going to watch the film, you probably already know the highlights of Gandhi's life, and that his life ended because he was shot. If you didn't know this, or forgot it, Attenborough will remind you of this in the first scene. The movie starts at the end, where Gandhi gets shot by Nathuram Godse.
Then, the screen turns black and the next scene we see is a young Gandhi, sitting in the train. He is on his way in South Africa, because he just finished his law school in England and wants to be a lawyer in South Africa. He is thrown out of the train, because he is a 'coloured person' who travels first class, which is illegal there.
From there on, we see how the man became the legend. He first starts a revolution in South Africa, goes to India and, trough non-violant protests, he manages to reform India. And thus, Mohandas Gandhi becomes Mahatma Gandhi, Bapu (Great soul Gandhi, Father).
The acting skills are incredible prodigious. Ben Kingsley IS Gandhi. Kingsley got a very much deserved Oscar for playing Gandhi.The other actors in the movie also play very convincing.
The story, written by John Briley, is also very strong. It is of course impossible, as the film itself mentions at the beginning, to put every important event in a man's lifetime into one movie. Even so, while watching the movie, it almost seems as if the impossible is achieved. Without being confusing, boring, or losing any feeling, the movie seems to touch every highlight of Gandhi's life, and gets it beautifully on screen.
Attenborough's choices for the film came out perfect: He has chosen to do the movie in English, which makes it much more accessible for a world wide audience. A less 'safe' choice, was the 183 minutes of playtime. But the choice was the right one, for every scene is important. If the movie was shortened, either we would have missed some important events, or the scenes would have been rushed.
The movie came out in 1982. That means the movie is almost 30 years old. But the movie does not feel old-fashioned at all. The story of Gandhi is one of all times.
*****
5/5 starts
'Be the Change you want to be in the world- Gandhi'
maandag 16 mei 2011
Moon movie review
Title: Moon
Director: Duncan Jones
With: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Genre: Psychological Science Fiction
97 minutes
Moon is a beautiful movie, and something different for a change.
The movie is simple, yet brilliant. Duncan Jones, who directed the movie, has chosen for a slow, non flashy style. You would expect something fancy for a story in space, but there is non of that. It's slow, low on special effects and it works.
The movie is about Sam Bell (a brilliant play by Sam Rockwell) , who is is an employee for a company called Lunar Industries. His job is to delve 'Helium-3', a special kind of fuel, used on earth. The only partner he has doing this job, is a computer called GERTY (who is voiced by Kevin Spacey), who takes care of everything for him on the ship.Sam can't communicate directly to earth, due to satelite problems. His personal problems come up, just before he would return home. When working in his moon buggy, he has health problems, loses conscience and has an accident.
Before the accident, the movie breathes a very calm, relaxed atmosphere. After the accident, it loses that atmosphere, it is obvious that there is a change, but, the movie remains subtile and calm, only in a different way.
What is so good about the movie, is that there is a mysterious feeling to the movie (also because of the beautiful soundtrack, by Clind Mansell), which leads, using a surprising inversion, to a fresh plot.
Duncan Jones has chosen for a verry ventured, dared script to make his movie debute. The movie is something different, as opposed to what we are used to, and a certain audience will probably not go to see it, because of the 'dull' trailer and the little amount of explosions and action. This is a shame, because it is actually a mind challenging movie with an actual good story.
Sam Rockwell, who plays the movie pretty much on his own (even more than Tom Hanks in Cast Away), sets an amazing roll as Sam Bell. Not many actors would be able to keep a movie interesting for more than 90 minutes on their own. His performance is even better for certain reasons I can not describe, because my review would then become a spoiler.
****
4/5 stars
Director: Duncan Jones
With: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Genre: Psychological Science Fiction
97 minutes
Moon is a beautiful movie, and something different for a change.
The movie is simple, yet brilliant. Duncan Jones, who directed the movie, has chosen for a slow, non flashy style. You would expect something fancy for a story in space, but there is non of that. It's slow, low on special effects and it works.
The movie is about Sam Bell (a brilliant play by Sam Rockwell) , who is is an employee for a company called Lunar Industries. His job is to delve 'Helium-3', a special kind of fuel, used on earth. The only partner he has doing this job, is a computer called GERTY (who is voiced by Kevin Spacey), who takes care of everything for him on the ship.Sam can't communicate directly to earth, due to satelite problems. His personal problems come up, just before he would return home. When working in his moon buggy, he has health problems, loses conscience and has an accident.
Before the accident, the movie breathes a very calm, relaxed atmosphere. After the accident, it loses that atmosphere, it is obvious that there is a change, but, the movie remains subtile and calm, only in a different way.
What is so good about the movie, is that there is a mysterious feeling to the movie (also because of the beautiful soundtrack, by Clind Mansell), which leads, using a surprising inversion, to a fresh plot.
Duncan Jones has chosen for a verry ventured, dared script to make his movie debute. The movie is something different, as opposed to what we are used to, and a certain audience will probably not go to see it, because of the 'dull' trailer and the little amount of explosions and action. This is a shame, because it is actually a mind challenging movie with an actual good story.
Sam Rockwell, who plays the movie pretty much on his own (even more than Tom Hanks in Cast Away), sets an amazing roll as Sam Bell. Not many actors would be able to keep a movie interesting for more than 90 minutes on their own. His performance is even better for certain reasons I can not describe, because my review would then become a spoiler.
****
4/5 stars
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)