Today's Review: Their Finest

Terwijl Christopher Nolan voortploetert aan het werk voor zijn epische oorlogsfilm Dunkirk, brengt het bescheidener Their Finest die veldslag maanden eerder ter herinnering in de bioscoop. Het romantische drama heeft echter noch het budget, noch de pretenties van Nolans monumentale klus. Their Finest is bovenal een eerbetoon aan de vrouwen die achter de schermen het moreel van de belegerde Britten hooghielden, maar daar amper waardering voor kregen. Die krijgen ze nu alsnog in een lichtzinnig drama waarin romantiek en humor geslaagd hand in hand gaan met oneerlijkheid en oorlogsgruwel, zonder het laatste te bagatelliseren. Met dank aan een Britse topcast die alle inhoudelijke twijfel moeiteloos wegneemt.

Als het moreel van de Britse bevolking tijdens de Blitz beneden alle peil zakt, is het aan het medium film om de gemoederen weer op te peppen. Dat is niet makkelijk, want de meeste mannen vechten voor het vaderland terwijl de vrouwen hun positie in de industrie hebben overgenomen. En schrijven voor een overwegend vrouwelijk publiek blijkt niet iets waartoe Britse scenaristen overtuigend in staat zijn. De muizige Catrin Cole wordt ingehuurd om het vrouwelijke perspectief te belichten. Al snel blijkt die klus grootser dan verwacht, als haar idee voor een dramatische propagandafilm goedkeuring krijgt van het ministerie. Terwijl ze zich staande moet zien te houden in een onverbiddelijke mannenwereld, groeit haar project over de heroïsche evacuatie bij Duinkerken al gauw voorbij alle verwachte proporties. Met de film moet ze niet alleen de Britse strijdbaarheid opkrikken, maar ook de Amerikanen tot de geallieerde zaak verleiden. Tussendoor moet ze leren omgaan met ijdele acteurs, jaloerse scenaristen en wispelturige producenten. Om nog maar te zwijgen van een romantische driehoeksverhouding. Want ook Their Finest zelf is vanuit een overwegend vrouwelijk perspectief gemaakt.

Romantiek, humor, oorlogsdrama, propaganda, vrouwenrechten... Their Finest neemt een hoop hooi op haar vork. De Deense cineaste Lone Scherfig weet het echter tot een sympathiek geheel te breien. De film vertelt immers niet over de ellende in het platgebombardeerde Londen of Duinkerken, maar over de mentale strijd via de kracht van het medium film om het nationale defaitisme een halt toe te roepen. Om ons scepticisme omtrent humor tegen een oorlogsachtergrond te sussen, verzamelde Scherfig een indrukwekkende verzameling Britse acteurs. Jong talent als Sam Claflin en Jack Huston wordt aangevuld met veteranen als Bill Nighy en Helen McCrory, waardoor de kwaliteit van het acteerwerk verzekerd is. Spil in het verhaal is Gemma Artertons Catrin, een aanvankelijk naïeve jongedame die zich als ridder van de Britse zaak moet opwerpen en daarbij vooral mannelijke tegenwerking tegemoet ziet. Is het niet het onrecht van haar lagere salaris, dan wel de strijd met haar man om het recht van kostwinner. Arterton is altijd een genot om naar te kijken en haar ontwikkeling van overdonderde copywriter naar vastberaden producente in Their Finest vormt geen uitzondering op die regel.

Arterton krijgt effectief hulp bij haar lovenswaardige prestatie van haar tegenspelers, waarbij vooral Nighy de show steelt als een voormalig steracteur die zich door zijn leeftijd geconfronteerd ziet met een gebrek aan respectabele rollen. Zijn verontwaardiging over het vertolken van een aan lager wal geraakte zeeman zorgt voor hilarische momenten, evenals diens coachen van een talentloze Amerikaan in een essentiële rol. Het rijke acteursensemble neemt de clichés over de zelfingenomen filmwereld met zichtbaar plezier op de hak. Their Finest vormt een liefdevol eerbetoon aan de aloude kunst van het filmmaken. Bijzonder charmant is de scène waarin een grootse troepenmacht op het Franse strand onthuld wordt als schildering, waar een acteur in close-up doorheen banjert en de illusie verstoort. Feitelijk weinig verschillend van Nolans Dunkirk, waarin bordkartonnen troepen de figuranten moesten aanvullen. Zoveel is er sindsdien niet veranderd in de filmindustrie, bewijst Scherfig op aanstekelijke wijze.

Gelukkig geldt hetzelfde niet voor de positie van de vrouw. Their Finest kent vrouwelijke aanwezigheid in alle sleutelrollen. Hoewel de film niet gebaseerd is op een daadwerkelijk propagandaproject, doet dat geen afbreuk aan de voorgangers van de huidige generaties filmvrouwen, die zich omringd zagen door hun jaloerse en vijandige mannelijke tegenhangers. De angst voor het groeiende feminisme dat de industriële aanwezigheid van vrouwen in de hand werkte, wordt helaas slechts en passant aangestipt in Their Finest. De film trekt liever tijd uit voor een geforceerde driehoeksverhouding tussen Catrin, haar echtgenoot en haar naaste collega, waarin haar eigen wensen niet voorop staan. Hoewel dit subplot afleidt van het hoofdverhaal, kent het toch een verrassende wending die illustreert hoeveel vrouwen opgaven voor het landsbelang, ook nadat de strijd was gestreden. Dat vrouwen niet actief waren aan het front wil niet zeggen dat ook zij niet alles opofferden voor de goede zaak. Een vlugge blik op de castlijst van Dunkirk verraadt de vrouwelijke afwezigheid in Nolans film, waarmee het belang van die boodschap van Their Finest treffend onderstreept wordt.

Today's Review: Francofonia

The second review by my hand posted on FilmTotaal this year (but more is well underway!):

Francofonia - recensie

This is an intriguing compendium piece to Sokurov's breakthrough film Russian Ark, though it lacks the stylistic punch of that particular film. Of course, doing another 100-minute one-take shot would have felt repetitive, as if the director attempted to capitalize on his own past glory. So there's none of that in Francofonia, but that's not to stop Sokurov from pulling a few more cinematographic tricks out of his hat. That, and the overall message, matters more to him than following conventional narrative expectations. Which is made clear a bit painfully, as Francofonia is literally all over the Louvre, rather than sticking to the single time frame that one would have expected to be the primary focus. Even though the museum's survival of the war years during WW II appears to be the subject at hand, Sokurov has a lot more to tell about the place's long history, not to mention sharing his personal thoughts on both the Louvre's background, its place in art history and the treatment of art in general. That's a lot to tackle for a 90-minute movie...

And of course, as a result, not every episode of the Louvre's story proves as interesting. In fact, all of the film suffers from Sokurovs tendency to change subjects, drone on about the abuse and capitalization of art works and sudden jumps to different time periods. Nevertheless, the message remains clear: museums should not be reduced to pawns of commerce, politics or dictators. They are time capsules that tell all of human history and should be carefully preserved, kept well away from the power hungry. The German occupation is just an example of and an hommage to a period in history where the joining of forces between two like minded men, who by all accounts ought to be diametrically opposed, preserved countless artifacts for posterity. Sokurov thanks both men for their assistance to cultural history. But he also isn't afraid to remind us that the origin of the Louvre itself is steeped in conquest and theft. After all, the emperor Napoleon captured many pieces of art on his campaigns abroad and had them shipped to the capital of his empire. Hitler simply attempted to do the same and failed in the Louvre's case, while succeeding in a lot of other cases. Art and politics certainly aren't mutually exclusive.

It's a point Sokurovs makes with the help of various stylistic choices, some proven in prior works, others applied for the first time in his case. Though there are no excessively long takes used as there were in Russian Ark, his introduction of historical characters sharing their insights and motivations with us is taken straight from that film. In this case restricted to only two characters (Marianne, the French Spirit of Freedom and Napoleon), rather than many. This is not a coincidence of course, as Francofonia's main tale also deals with two characters, the museum director (representing the side of French freedom) and the Nazi officer (the conquering party, the Napoleonic figure). Their story is intercut with historical footage, while it is itself disguised as historical footage by its old fashioned framing and the many print scratches applied. It would have worked even better if it was in black and white, but apparently Sokurov disagreed. He disagrees with a lot of things in Francofonia. Like art being shipped over seas as any other piece of cargo in containers on large freighters, its very existence threatened by a violent storm. Why does art suffer so much indignity and indifference today, he laments. No matter how fragmented his thoughts as shown in Francofonia, it's hard to disagree with him, when ancient buildings and statues are demolished left and right by zealous barbarians, who are also eager to simply sell such cultural heritage to the highest bidder to fund their cause. World War II may have ended seventy years ago, but art remains ever in danger at the hands of subversive ideologies. Francofonia serves as an cautionary reminder of what could be scrapped from the history pages forever if we are not careful and respectful of art's place in our cultural mind.

Today's Review: Im Labyrinth des Schweigens

Finally another review up!

Im Labyrinth des Schweigens - Recensie

It's that time of the year again, where we all need to take a break from things and remember those who died in war. In the Netherlands, if not the majority of the European continent, it means mostly not forgetting the many tragedies of World War II, since few other wars have plagued those nations since (thankfully!). Of course, distributors are quick to jump on the public consciousness by releasing films adressing the thematics of war, and every year sees the release of one or two films referring to the horrors of the Second World war. This year is no different, with Im Labyrinth des Schweigens the default war remembrance picture released in Holland. It's made all the more topical because it addresses the issue of forgetting what happened in WW II, at least in the West-German scenario. The country was rising from its own ashes swifter than people would have thought possible, so who would want to open old wounds by investigating the past and risking dividing the nation? It sounds inconceivable to the contemporary generations, but the term 'Auschwitz' hadn't penetrated the collective consciousness: in fact, most wouldn't have a clue as to what it entailed. It would take an unprecedented trail, wherein a country would convict its own war criminals for the first time, to change these paradigms of 'ignorance is bliss' and force Germany to gain knowledge about its own atrocities. Could make for a smashing movie.

Unfortunately, Im Labyrinth des Schweigens doesn't prove the film the subject deserves. Though the notions remain intriguing, it chooses predictable drama and basic entertainment over the historical facts. It will be a frustrating watch for those with just a tad more knowledge of history than most, as the movie wastes much of its time sending its protagonist on a wild goose chase that they know will prove fruitless. While the intercutting of shocking testimonies from Holocaust survivors remains as powerful a scene as in many movies containing similar material, putting emphasis on the sensational stories of Nazi war crimes, thus for instance depicting Josef Mengele as a crazy monster rather than the disturbingly human character he undeniably was, hurts the film's efforts to remember the times when memory was overruled by the collective desire of forgetfulness. Though the principal cast deliver adequate performances, the script does make for an overly naive and irrationally obsessed protagonist. The historically grounded sides of his character as an investigator of the truth are undermined by his stereotypical reactions on the adversity he encounters, including turning to alcohol and losing the love of his life to his freakish persistence. It has to be admitted though that casting a charming blond haired, blue eyed German man as the one to investigate the crimes of the Aryan driven regime is a fine statement of the younger generation delving into the unholy matters of the old. But when you have that character running around the streets at night in a drunken fit, yelling 'you're all Nazis!' to random passersby, you're making it hard to come across as serious.

As a whole, Im Labyrinth des Schweigens explores interesting philosophical questions, but due to its desire to come across as exciting first and foremost, it fails to make the most out of its intriguing historical subject. A better movie might still be distilled from the topic, allowing us to remain silent about this one afterwards.

Today's News: loads of it

The haul of news from the last week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157156/nieuwe_trailer_oorlogsfilm_fury_met_brad_pitt

Last trailer focused on the action, this one's more about the drama. Can't say it looks any better when given more substance. Rookie soldiers faced with the moral burdens of battle has been done since time immemorial. Same goes for small bands of soldiers stuck behind enemy lines on suicide missions (Saving Private Ryan is just the tip of the iceberg there, you know). Heck, even Brad Pitt has dabbled in that before with Inglourious Basterds. Big change here is that particular persona of his didn't seem to mind his hard times as much as this one, even though in terms of character there don't seem to be that many differences between Wardaddy and Lt. Aldo Raine. I really hope there's more to the movie that what the trailers are showing us. Though if we're comparing notes, that certainly was the case with Inglourious Basterds, which turned out to incorporate a whole lot more to the plot than just the bloody retributions exacted on Nazis we were promised (though that element surely was also retained, to a lesser extent). On the other thand, there's the example to the opposite, in which the trailer promised more than the actual film delivered, like on the recent forgetabble The Monuments Men. Let's just say this tank can still roll either way.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157184/23_jump_street_aangekondigd

As the end credits for 22 Jump Street revealed, there's at least twenty more scenarios for the franchise's protagonists to get involved in. Of course the studio feels like trying out at least one more considering the success of that sequel. Will it be one of the outrageous possibilities offered by those end titles? Probably not, most of them seem a little too farfetched for any "serious" comedy flick. Doesn't mean there aren't enough possibilities for infiltrations taking zany turns left. Not that I need to see them. I have learned long ago that the number of sequels to successful comedies worth our while is pretty low indeed. Blatant regurgitation is their usual motto, a point the first film, 21 Jump Street (see the numerical pattern here?), already made both hilariously and painfully clear when the angry black police captain gave his poignant and speech about law enforcement officials just recycling old ideas ad nauseam, which was the movie at its most self-aware note. And here we have the prove studio execs do the same. Like we needed any proof...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157183/eerste_fotos_batmobile_uit_batman_v_superman

I approve of this Batmobile. Not too realistic, not too unrealistic. Not too tacky, not too slick. Fits right into Zack Snyder's new DC-verse, while containing many a nod to past works, most notable Nolan's Tumbler design from the Dark Knight movies. The bat motif is not too obvious or overt, but definitely there. This basically is exactly the badass type of vehicle an angry billionaire would patrol the streets at night with to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, rather than doing drugs, banging scores of prostitutes and not giving a damn about the rest of the world because he is loaded, like real world billionaires prefer to do instead. Of course, we have yet to see it in action and discover its various funky gadgets - does it, too, feature a built-in escape vehicle and a self-destruct option, for example? - but in terms of looks and style this is right up Gotham's alleys. Good thing Hans Zimmer is still doing the music for the epic DC movies. Just add his stormy, percussive Dark Knight theme and this car is good to go.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157209/eerste_trailer_serena

Why change a winning team, the casting director of Serena must have thought? Cooper & Lawrence together have been the stuff of Oscars so far, and this movie clearly shows Academy Award aspirations, if the trailer is any indication. However, this movie is not directed by David O'Russell. Guess we'll find out whether it was the director that got the best out of his actors on Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle both, or whether it may have been the material after all. Susanne Bier certainly isn't a stranger in terms of character, since her movies often border on character studies, which equally seems to be the case on Serena. The language barrier doesn't seem to be present, as this is hardly her first English spoken film. This trailer definitely reaffirms the third time remains the charm.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157208/robert_downey_jr_mogelijk_in_assassins_creed

I'm starting to get a sort of 'Johnny Depp vibe' whenever Robert Downey Jr.'s latest project is mentioned. As Depp revels in playing quirky oddball types, Downey Jr. now seems to stick predominantly to playing witty, scienctifically considerate charmers (e.g. Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark/Iron Man) when it comes to big budget Hollywood movies. He does that well, so the part of Leonardo da Vinci seems perfectly suited to him. However, as has been the case with Depp for quite a while, it's getting a routine, which may lead to typecasting (though I bet Downey Jr.'s hefty pay grade will halt such thoughts on studio execs' minds). Of course, there's many other types of characters Downey Jr. plays in smaller films in-between blockbusters (the Oscar buzzing The Judge would be a current example), but those are not the ones most audiences will get to see so they'll learn to appreciate the diversity inherent in his talent. Considering he's now the highest paid actor in Hollywood, it is interesting to see him accepting a sidekick part for a change. Unless Da Vinci is actually the assassin, which I have a hard time believing, though there is some logic to that notion. But then, I never played the games so what do I know? Don't have time for games, too busy watching and loving movies. Like those starring Downey Jr., for example.

Today's News: it's Marvel versus DC on the small screen too

Here's some fairly new news from MovieScene I wrote in recent times:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155681/logo_marvelserie_agent_carter_uitgebracht

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155696/eerste_trailer_en_clip_nbcs_constantine

It seems DC is not letting Marvel outdo its rival on television as easily as it does on the big screen. Marvel is still a relative newcomer to the scene, currently hosting only a single show, though with great plans for the future of the medium both on telly and online. DC accordingly was all too eager to grab a corner of that reinvigorated market too (remember, DC has a much more encompassing history with television than Marvel: consider shows like Smallville and Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, but those are arguably past successes), and has been attempting to do likewise ever since Arrow debuted last year. Its slate of comic book adaptations for television isn't as ambitious and lacks the Marvel touch of coherency (shared universe and all, y'know), but it does reveal more diversity. Arrow is basically superhero light. The upcoming Gotham is more film noir/cop drama than anything else, despite its eventual penchant for masked villains and vigilantes. And as this trailer for Constantine shows, it's more of a fantasy/horror show. The original Hellblazer comics, published under DC's Vertigo imprint, never shared much ties with the regular DC-verse anyway and as all of these shows will debut on different networks, don't expect to see any Marvel type crossovers.

At the same time, 'crossover' remains the key word for Marvel. Agent Carter fits right in that strategy, building on events and characters from both Captain America movies and the running series Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., yet offering a different kind of adventure. Similar to that first Marvel TV series, the main component is spy stories, but set in a period setting, allowing for historical events and characters to be intertwined. Also, the emphasis is on a single (female) character instead of a team of personalities, so the make-up of the show is different from the get-go. It's gonna be a Cold War show, not a series where superhuman characters loom around every corner. But as the logo and the released plot synopsis indicate, connection to what regular audiences know and love about the Marvel Universe will be commonplace. The eagle logo clearly establishes the link between Carter and S.H.I.E.L.D., and it's likely we'll see the foundation of that organization sometime or other in the show: the term 'origin story' will likely be appropriate somewhere down the line. The character of Howard Stark (Iron Man's dad) will also play an important part, thus directly re-establising the connection with the superhuman element and the technological wonders that form another hallmark of the Marvel brand. Nevertheless, I have a tough time picturing this as an ungoing show, it feels more like miniseries material. Blame it on the period setting, blame it on the single protagonist, but the premise feels limited. It sounds like there's only so much you can do with it before it starts getting repetitive. There's a reason the supporting character of Agent Carter never got her own continuing line of comics. I hate to be the Negative Nancy here, but even though it does sound intriguing, I doubt this show will make it for more than two seasons.

As for Constantine, the trailer doesn't make me revel in jubilation either. Even though there's good names attached to the project, judging from the trailer the result has a definite B-movie vibe to it. Of course a trailer is not an accurate reflection of the final product, but it does cause people to get either enthusiastic or pessimistic about the show-to-be. I don't think many people will be convinced of the show's qualities - and with Neil 'Blackwater' Marshall directing the pilot, there just have to be some - after this trailer, or the accompanying clip. Maybe it's the cheap looking effects, maybe it's the choppy editing meant to evoke a sense of dread, but so far the pilot doesn't appear nearly as attractive as the movie, which also wasn't a brilliant piece of gothic audiovisual entertainment. I'm willing to reserve judgment until I see the finished thing (as people should anyway), but so far I'm more stoked for Gotham. That's probably the DC comfort zone speaking, sticking to what we like most about DC, which is undeniably Batman. And Hellblazer is a far cry from the tales of the Caped Crusader. At least Constantine has something to show for it by now. But for the present, Marvel's shows take my preference.

As for Neil Marshall, we still have an 'Episode 9' by his hand in store for us on Game of Thrones. His involvement worked out quite well the last time. Hopefully it will make a difference for Constantine after all.

Today's Mini-Review: Defiance

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Starring: Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, Jamie Bell

Directed by Edward Zwick

USA: Paramount Vantage, 2008

As far as WW II/Holocaust movies go, Edward Zwick's Defiance is basically the Spartacus version of the bunch, as opposed to the likes of Schindler's List (which, if you want to further draw comparisons with Roman epics of old, has more overtones of Quo Vadis or The Robe, in which a man “in league with the enemy” opens his eyes to the shameful horrors inflicted on the minority and turns to their aid). The specific act of defiance this movie revolves around is mere survival in a world where the Jewish minority has been sentenced to death under the ruthless rule of the German Third Reich during the occupation of Poland. As their parents are murdered by the Nazis and their Polish lapdogs, the Bielski brothers retreat into the primordial woods hellbent on revenge. As they are confronted with growing numbers of Jewish refugees also seeking shelter in the forest, the brothers find themselves divided on which course of action to take as those in need of help name them their leaders in the struggle for basic survival. What will it be: vengeance at all costs, or the needs of the many over a personal vendetta?

At the heart of the movie is the ideological conflict between the three brothers. The oldest, Tuvia (Daniel '007' Craig), unwittingly finds himself given command over this group, which soon numbers in the hundreds, and first and foremost aims to keep them safe as he feels it is his moral responsibility, like it or not, to do so. His younger brother, the hotheaded Zus (Liev Schreiber) instead feels attacking their persecutors and killing as many Germans as possible takes precedence, and as their rivalry deepens he leaves the camp to join local Soviet resistance cells to do just that. Their younger brothers, including Asael (Jamie Bell) opt to stick with Tuvia. As the forest community grows, so does the risk of being discovered, which soon leads to an all-out assault by the German forces which the refugees have to fight off with little means at their disposal, nor the help of Zus' band of partisans, who will not risk their lives to save Jews. Can Tuvia save “his” people from annihilation, or will the Bielski Jews be massacred despite all their efforts? Only a reconciliation of the brothers seems like it might stay their doom.

Defiance proves a chilling war epic (albeit on a smaller budget that most, since this is a more confined movie in terms of characters and locations) making ample use of the assembled talent in front and behind of the camera. Not to mention appropriating the beautiful forest environment to such great effect that it's not hard to conceive of it as a character in itself: lush and warm in summer, but unforgiving and uncompromising in the cold Polish winter, which is as lethal as the human enemy. Against all odds, the community flourishes, but the fear of being rooted out and brutally killed persists. And Zwick doesn't flinch at showing that this new formed society is far from idyllic, as hunger, disease and most of all, basic human behavior, continue to threaten their survival.

A story that focuses on the ordeals of man living with man through a period of intense crisis is incomplete if it wouldn't address the issue of man's darker side getting the better of him. Defiance too tells of the strong in the group exploiting the weak, taking their food, sexual integrity and if they resist, their lives. Tuvia soon rises to the occasion of exorcising such immoral behavior from his people by exacting 'zero tolerance' type punishment upon the perpetrators. The Bielksi Jews are not living in a democracy and freedom is still a rather abstract concept, but fortunately Tuvia accepts a role of the benevolent leader who generally has his people's best interest at heart, despite his continuing desire for vengeance. Meanwhile, even among his new brothers in arms, Zus is still an outsider because of his status as a Jew, despite being a formidable fighter. Defiance isn't afraid to admit that antisemitism wasn't limited to the Germans, as the Jews are shown to also suffer under the hands of their Polish neighbours, offering a less black and white view than simply stating 'Germans are bad and all others are good'. As the Germans exploit the Polish population, Poles exploit Jews and even among the refugees Jews are found exploiting other Jews. Tuvia's main act of defiance is rising above such base humanity for the greater good. It does at times make him feel overly saint like, but when he unhesitatingly shoots troublemakers amongst his own people, you know he's still as human as the rest of them.

With Defiance, Zwick once again proves himself a certified craftsman of effective historical drama, the kind that encompasses a fine mix of solid acting throughout (though not avoiding the use of the occasional off-putting foreign accent), dynamic action and thematic value, but for some reason just doesn't stick with you as much as similar movies from better known directors tend to do. Defiance is unmistakably an excellent film, but not in the same league as similar entries in the Holocaust subgenre like Schindler's List or The Pianist, movies with which it cannot avoid comparison because of the subject matter. On the page it all should work, and when watching the movie it does, but afterwards Zwick's movies for some inexplicable reason just seem to slip from mind somehow. Likewise, even though his films have been awarded their fair share of Academy Award nominations, actual wins are few and far between. Nevertheless, upon viewing Defiance defies all sense of whatever shortcomings might plague Zwick's body of work to stand out despite their undeniable quality.

Today's News: another 'Agent' series for Marvel?

Got a scoop in at MovieScene the other day, and here it is:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/150196/marvel_overweegt_serie_over_agent_carter

I doubt this will happen. Agent Carter currently stars in a Marvel (Cinematic) One-Shot because she is the stuff One-Shots are made off: a character that doesn't really fit into the presently running world of comics but is still intriguing enough to warrant a single solo adventure, just to leat readers know he/she is still around somewhere and might come back to the fold later on. Yes, she is smart, strong and sexy, but historically speaking (comic book history that is) there's not enough to Peggy Carter to base an entire series on. She played off well against Captain America, but that's not gonna happen again, since he got frozen in the Arctic and ended up in a future world (from his perspective), while she lived life on a naturally linear level, battling her way through the last phase of the Second World War and the Cold War.  Unlike other Marvel films and shows now in production or planning, an Agent Carter show would be a period piece, hardly connected to the rest of Marvel's universe at all because of the time difference. Marvel is currently weaving a carefully interconnected cinematic universe where all characters and films share the same time frame so as to allow various sorts of hints and references to one another, both for story purposes and for fun, always keeping the option of a good crossover open. Agent Carter, being active in the Fourties, Fifties and Sixties, would be a definite standalone character that hardly seems to fit in Marvel's present strategy. In fact, Carter got cut out of The Avengers, for which a scene was shot where Cap visited an old Peggy after he was defrosted to let her know he still loves her but time came between their romantic entanglement. Then again, you might argue this excising was done intentionally so as to make her storyline, whatever was planned at that point, feel less conclusive. Who knows, maybe she'll end up in the present herself somehow. Stranger things have happened in the comics of the House of Ideas after all.

I agree, an Agent Carter series could be fun, but I don't see it happening as a fullfledged, regularly running show. Maybe as a miniseries. Which in many ways is basically what a Marvel One-Shot is. Why not simply start there? It seems more logical to watch the results of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. first, and see how well Marvel's Cinematic universe branching off to home cinemas works for the studio and what ramifications it has story wise for the actually 'Cinematic' Universe. I bet that is exactly what Marvel is thinking itself. As Deadline states, this possible Agent Carter show is just one of various TV projects (the others all unnamed at this point) Marvel is playing with for potential future development. Nothing else is known about these, or Carter, at this point. For now, any notion of other Marvel TV shows (no matter how much I'd like to see them) seems nothing but speculation. But I daresay there's more obvious choices for a second Marvel television series than this.

Today's batch of mini reviews

Picking up where I left off, here's yet another batch of recently seen films that have not been critiqued on this my blog in sufficient detail and thus have to make do with a mini-review. The term 'missed movies' no longer applies here, since I have seen these films after my PC was returned to me and I was back online again. Truth is, now that I am writing for MovieScene and screening films for audiences at Provadja, next to my regular work at Pathé, I just don't have time for old-fashioned extensive reviews anymore. I am watching more movies than I can handle, so to say. Expect to see this type of mini-review more often and 2,000 word reviews less and less around here. It may not be a bad thing per se, considering word has reached my ears regarding modern man and his lack of time and interest for lengthy movie discussions. By keeping it short and simple I might actually attract more readers, even though one could argue my blog is dumbing down. Not to worry, I'm sure there's still many a long review to come (MovieScene reviews aside, though they're of medium length really), at least once I've caught up with mentioning all the films I've seen in the past months. Getting there, slowly but surely.

Lore: ****/*****, or 7/10.

Fascinating microcosmic (post) WW II tale from a German perspective, focusing on the plight of teenage girl Lore, shortly after Germany has capitulated to the allied forces. Lore has had a good life in a happy Nazi family until she finds her world shattered by the Führer's death and the downfall of the Third Reich. Her parents, being devout Nazis, have to run before the Allies catch up with them and are forced to leave their children behind in the process. Lore, a powerful performance by the young Saskia Rosendahl, has to trek her way with her younger brothers and sisters to distant Hamburg across newly occupied territory, dodging Russian forces and her own countrymen who have degenerated into lawlessness. Along the way she meets a young Jewish man, freshly released from Auschwitz, who uneasily teams up with them to their mutual benefit for mere survival. The movie does a great job of portraying the lost German generation that grew up in the Third Reich and didn't know better, but had to cope with their parents' atrocities and lies afterwards. The key issue for Lore is trust: she trusted Hitler and her parents unconditionally, only to be betrayed by their failure. Now she has to trust a man whom she has been raised to hate, despite the genuinely helping hand he offers (which quickly earns him the faith of Lore's siblings, who are just too young to understand the stakes involved). Matters are complicated further when she develops a strange, possibly romantic, attraction to the guy, something he may or may not be exploiting. To Australian director Cate Shortland's credit, the film is completely spoken in German. She also presents a great metaphor for puberty, when a child's world is changed completely as are its feelings for those it has always taken for granted, without getting overly preachy. However, a less lyrical and dream like quality, plus a little faster pacing, might have made her movie more accessible.

De Ontmaagding van Eva van End: ****/*****, or 8/10.

Whaddayaknow, a good Dutch movie! Not surprisingly, considering director Michiel ten Horn used the fabulous work and style of Wes Anderson for inspiration, creating a definite Dutch counterpart of that particular auteur's work. All the typical Anderson ingredients are there (except for Bill Murray), including wacky characters, colourful visuals, dysfunctional family drama and a funky soundtrack. And decent writing of course. The Van End family members have a hard time connecting to one another and lead their own little lives in their own silly little worlds, until daughter Eva takes home a German foreign exchange student. The boy turns out to be the perfect human being, an angelic blond persona with great empathy for the whole world, whose healthy, altruistic life style soon creates havoc at his guest home as the whole family reacts differently to his presence and their natural balance is severely upset, exposing a few dirty family secrets in the process. And yes, Eva gets her cherry popped as the title indicates, though not in the way you would first expect. Solid acting, especially for Dutch actors, though of course young Austrian actor Rafael Gareisen leaves the greatest impression. The movie leaves ample room for both genuinely heartfelt drama and funny jokes and situations, some surprisingly edgy and politically incorrect. Ten Horn does a fine job of translating Anderson to a Dutch setting (unconsciouslyly or not, but it seems utterly unlikely he has never heard of his American inspiration), making the movie look distinctly Dutch but not feeling like any other Dutch film, all for the better. It's a real shame Dutch audiences prefer to watch crap like Verliefd op Ibiza and Het Bombardement over little gems like this, but it's good to know not all hope is lost for Dutch cinema thanks to talented directors like Ten Horn inspired by all the right people.

Zero Dark Thirty: ****/*****, or 8/10.

Kathryn Bigelow continues to critique America's army following her big Oscar breakthrough The Hurt Locker (2009). This time she focuses on the hunt for Osama bin Laden by the driven and resourceful female CIA agent Maya (excellent bit of acting on Jessica Chastain's part), inspired by true events, not all of which have been formally disclosed. Maya gets increasingly obsessive over the Agency's inability of locating Bin Laden and soon makes it her personal job to see the hunt come to an end, especially after dear colleagues of her die in related terrorist bombings. The climactic chopper showdown at Bin Laden's villa where a team of Navy SEALs has to quietly fight its way through the building to claim its prize was one of the most rewardingly suspenseful scenes of 2012. And to Bigelow's credit, the face of the Al-Qaeda leader was never even shown, clearly stating the movie is not so much about the man himself, as about Maya's long road to get to him. The movie's merit as a genuinely good film was overshadowed by the controversy surrounding Bigelow's explicit portrayal of torture of terrorist suspects at the hands of American agents: no doubt such crossing of political and ethical lines took place historically, but Bigelow was said to condone it. However, Bigelow makes no statement of her own, just showcasing events as they supposedly happened. The torture could have proven to be instrumental in tracking the most wanted man alive down in the long run, but she presents it as just another part of the bureaucratic machinery: a frightfully gruesome part though, revealing more than we would want her to reveal on the subject, and as such already indicating torture sure is no fun. Nevertheless, she was denied a well deserved Oscar or two: Zero Dark Thirty's only win was for Sound Editing, an award the movie had to share with Skyfall in a rare 'tie' situation at the Academy.

Today's Missed Movie: The Master

I still have a short list of missed movies, which increasingly grows unless I soon finish it. Since I don't have the time to tackle all the remaining movies at once (there's like ten of them left at this moment), I might as well attempt to at least post one a day. Kinda like what I intended to do (in alphabetical order) with all the movies I have in my collection last year, something that didn't come to fruition. That idea is still just below the surface though, and I might pick it up again some day soon. For now, let's try and get rid of these dang 'missed movies'!

The Master: ****/*****, or 7/10.

Paul Thomas Anderson's latest exploration of American life and craziness. Using Scientology as a template (but careful enough never to make the link between that cult and the one portrayed in this film too explicit), PTA tells the story of a messed up WW III veteran named Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix, with all the mannerisms of a madman) who cannot get a break in life, continuously getting into trouble (mostly booze related) with the law and basically everybody else around him. One day, while having crashed a boat party, he meets an enigmatic man, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a writer and philosopher who has started his own spiritual movement. Though the two men are fascinated by each other and Quell soon signs up with Dodd's 'Cause', he still has a hard time fitting in, despite Dodd's attempts to make a true disciple out of him. The second half of the film can best be described as an 'acting duel' between the two completely compelling and convincing main actors, both of which got Oscar nominated (but sadly lost) for their formidable acting extravaganza. Their remarkably strong performances carry the movie, which is also the problem since there's not that much else that grips your attention so firmly, the plot being somewhat jarring and convoluted at times, while the movie tends to drag on a bit longer than proves desirable. A masterpiece this is not (PTA already made his and it's called There Will Be Blood (2007)), despite impeccable cinematography and a fine job by Amy Adams as Dodd's militant wife (also nominated for an Academy Award, and again no win). Some people just cannot be saved since they are too far gone, PTA states: a truth that both goes for the totally crazed Quell as much as for Dodd's overly ardent, unquestioning followers that just refuse to see through the charisma and confidence of their leader who dupes them all with utterly ridiculous metaphysical theories and creepy mind games. This movie might very well explain parts of Tom Cruise's confusing behavior.

Today's News: who watches the Wolverine?

Fresh off MovieScene!:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145774/eerste_trailer_the_wolverine

As a Marvel fan, I'm naturally excited by this slick trailer: any prospect of seeing Wolverine hack his way onto the big screen (again) is welcome. Even though I wasn't a big fan of its predecessor X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) and I know full well the Japanese part of the character's history can suck when in the wrong hands (i.e., Fox), this film doesn't look so bad. Overall it seems we're in for a stylish, action packed ride. That said, there's a few things that peeve me, most notably the concept of rendering Wolverine "mortal". In my mind, formed by two decades of vigorously reading through comics, Wolverine was never really immortal: he just ages very slowly due to his healing abilities. But as we have seen before, he ages nonetheless; from a ten year old boy around 1850 to a man in his early fourties in 2010. It's not a fast process, but it's definitely aging. There's a difference, albeit a subtle one. Then again, this is only a trailer and there's various ways we can (mis)interpret this, based on just the trailer. Maybe people around him think Wolvie is among the undying: he's certainly impossible-to-kill enough to assume he is. Heck, he might even think that himself if he's still suffering from memory loss (though it remains to be established just when this flick is taking place, but most likely between the events of  X-Men Origins: Wolverine and X-Men (2000), so a bit of amnesia is to be expected).
I'm also not overly fond of the look of the character of Viper, the seductive and lethal female assassin. She doesn't resemble her comic book counterpart much, and she actually looks kinda slutty. Like I said before, it's too early to tell whether the character is any good based on just a trailer. For now I'll keep an open mind. James Mangold is a very capable director (loved 3:10 to Yuma, one of the best modern westerns) and I have faith in his take on our beloved indestructible mutant. At least it seems the movie strikes a decent balance between action and character development. It can't be much worse than the previous separate Wolverine movie anyway. But what the hell is Jean Grey doing there?

This new poster is also bitchin'!

Today's Review: Salon Kitty

Here's a nice review of a not-so-nice movie for y'all:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/145474/salon_kitty_-_dvd_recensie

A real piece of trash, that much is obvious. Though apparently the director has some fans, as indicated by the reader comments. But then, it's no secret this world knows many silly people.
I just hope this review will keep other people from having to endure this 127 minute extravaganza of bad taste. You have been warned!

Casablanca

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

One of the greatest classics to come out of the Golden Age of Hollywood, though maybe not as brilliant as some would have you believe, and just a little too melodramatic. However, still stands tall as one of the most fondly remembered American movies of the WW II era. The nigh immortal Humphrey Bogart stars as Rick, the owner of his own cafe in WW II Casablanca, a city of scum and villainy balancing precariously between lawlessness and brutal Nazi oppression, the port from where many European refugees attempt to make the journey to the free United States, if Casablanca doesn't kill them first. Rick means to stay out of politics and make a decent buck out of his impartial liquor business, but when he meets a prominent freedom fighter (Paul Henreid) and his wife (the ever beautiful Ingrid Bergman), who happens to be his old lover, Rick must decide to either help them leave Casablanca, or stay huddled up in his own shady affairs and risk having them arrested by Nazi commandant Strasser (Conrad Veidt, ironically a German refugee himself). Tough call. A great ensemble cast (also including Claude Rains as a wonderfully corrupt local police captain and Peter Lorre as the usual creepy criminal character), great visual direction, a solid plot and a great number of unforgettable one-liners few people won't recognize, will have you play this war thriller again. And you'll have a hard time getting its main theme tune (based on the featured song 'As Time Goes By') out of your head for days: probably the reason Warner Bros. made it part of its present day logo tune.

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Claude Rains

Directed by Michael Curtiz

USA: Warner Bros, 1942

 

Captain America: The First Avenger

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

The last of the single Avengers films, though ironically the 'Living Legend' is the oldest Marvel comic book character of the bunch. Applying a delicious comic-y retro visual style to the Second World War and the introduction of the super soldier, the adventures of the 'First Avenger' resemble their drawn counterparts the most, making for a very fun action film. Eager to sign up with the armed forces during WW II, brave but physically feeble Steve Rogers (Chris Evans, who previously played another Marvel character, the Human Torch, in Fox's Fantastic Four) continues to be rejected for service. However, his strength of will and general boldness eventually make him a good candidate for a secret super soldier project, which turns him into an almost superhuman character, physical and sensory abilities all functioning at peak efficiency. Dubbed Captain America, Steve is initially used only for propaganda performances, but after pulling off a heroic rescue mission deemed near suicide, allied command realizes he's of most use at the front lines, where he soon gets on the radar of the Red Skull (another great villain on Hugo Weaving's resumé), the leader of a covert Nazi organization called Hydra, which dabbles both in the scientific and the supernatural. Meanwhile, Steve also has a hard time finding time for romance with feisty army dame Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell). If you overlook the blatantly patriotic American overtones and you don't mind the fact Captain America's battles look nothing like the actual WW II due to their use of near steam punk levels of science (partially courtesy of the Thor influence, continuing to successfully set up a larger, shared Marvel cinematic universe) and the presence of the somewhat silly, overly politically correct, ethnically diverse Howling Commandos (Wah-Hooo!), you're in for one awesome rollercoaster of a semi-superhero action flick. Plus impressive visual effects, including making a tall, muscular man look short and skinny (yes, those were actually Chris Evans' real muscles, but he never looked like that whimpy little guy).

Starring: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Hayley Atwell

Directed by Joe Johnston

USA: Paramount Pictures, 2011

Bridge on the River Kwai, The

Rating: ****/*****, or 9/10

Phenomenally gripping epic and classic war movie like only old-school master director David Lean could deliver. In a Japanese concentration camp, a group of British POWs under the command of stiff upperlip colonel Nicholson (Alec Guinness) is ordered to construct a bridge over a jungle river. Meanwhile, Allied Command has also learned of the bridge and has dispatched a team of men, led by Major Warden (Jack Hawkins) and Shears (William Holden), an escapee from the prison camp everyone considered dead, to destroy it. After a gruesome trek through the dense Indochinese jungle, the saboteurs arrive, but will Nicholson allow them to blow up the result of all his hard work? Solid plot and superb acting, particularly Guinness in his role as a colonel completely devoid of emotion, who sees the bridge as a symbol for English spirit during adversity, a triumph of British leadership over Japanese barbarity, but at his heart is simply suffering from obsessive compulsion over his command and racist attitude towards his Asian captors. The movie boasts impressive production design and most of it is real: if you ever want to see a train crashing down an exploding bridge for real, go and see this magnificent film, which was good for seven Academy Awards. Lean would later outdo himself with the brilliant Lawrence of Arabia (1962).

Starring: Alec Guinness, William Holden, Jack Hawkins

Directed by David Lean

USA: Columbia Pictures, 1957

Boot, Das

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Chilling, claustrophobic film about a German WW II submarine crew and the difficult duties they had to perform under heavy duress and constant danger of sinking and dying an ignoble, agonizing death, all the while continually contemplating why they fought the way they did for a government many of them viewed with distaste. Lt. Werner (Herbert Grönemeyer) joins an U-Boat crew as a war correspondent, chronicling the life aboard ship under the command of Captain Lehmann-Willenbrock, an explicitly anti-nazi veteran (which makes it all the more easy to identify with him and his crew, though this doesn't prove hard to begin with). Werner records the vessel going through one rough patch after another, the men aboard slowly loosing their mind and morale under the growing pressure (of both the fear for their lives and the water). This is not a film about Nazis, or even German soldiers: it's a film about ordinary men – boys even, considering the young age of many of them – trapped in a tiny space, cramped together for months on end without seeing day light, living through hell as they are bombed on all sides while trying to accomplish nigh impossible missions. It's also a triumph of cinematography, shooting tiny compartments in every possible way to maximum dramatic effect and emotional impact. Available in various versions, being released both as a theatrical film (regular cut running 149 minutes, Director's Cut 209 minutes) and a miniseries for TV (running a whopping 293 minutes). Any version is well worth the watch.

Starring: Jürgen Prochnow, Herbert Grönemeyer, Klaus Wennemann

Directed by Wolfgang Petersen

Germany: Bavaria Film, 1981