Reviews

Jonathan Glazer's "The Zone of Interest" boasts an intriguing premise. It's a film about the Holocaust, without ever showing any of its horror.

Instead, we see it through the lens of Nazi commandant Rudolf Hoess's seemingly normal family life - right 'next wall' to the Auschwitz concentration camp. We can only divine what's going on behind that wall from the film's soundscape. A permanent, ominous sound from the cremation hums in the background; at times you hear shots and yelling, and some exhaust smoke. That the film is essentially an audio document is made clear in the opening scene - a black screen over two entire minutes, with only an eerie 'music' that seems to consist of muffled screams.

The entire film consists of this juxtaposition between following a seemingly dull life of Hoess and his wife and the horror we must imagine carries on behind the walls. While this approach makes for an interesting gimmick, there is little to follow up on that idea. We fail to learn anything new or insightful about the Holocaust - unless you've spent more than a fleeting thought on it. Yes, Glazer portrays the 'banality of evil', as put forward by Anna Seghers. But this is hardly original, nor does it reveal any intellectual depth. In fact, the phrase has been invoked so often as to become a cliché (apart from the fact that it has not proven to be an accurate concept in understanding the mechanisms of Nazi terror.) Other than this gimmick, the film fails to deliver a compelling narrative. Much of the story feels like that of a TV movie. The characters are thinly drawn, mere caricatures - something underscored by the fact that we never see any close-ups or achieve more than a superficial acquaintance with any of them. Sandra Hüller's undeniable talent is wasted on a one-dimensional portrayal of Hoess's wife.

The film might have worked better as a short film or a provocative museum installation, where its experimental and minimalist approach could have been more effective and impactful. As a full-length feature, however, it is disappointing and pretentious.

Based on the 700-page tome "American Prometheus", Christopher Nolan's three-hour biographical thriller about the 'father of the atomic bomb', J. Robert Oppenheimer, is no less of an epic.

That is not to say that the movie is slow or takes its time: On the contrary, "Oppenheimer" suffers from a restless and rushed pace. Especially during the exposition, it feels as though Nolan was trying to cram all of Oppenheimer's life before the Manhattan project into a breathless sequence of inadvertently comical video clips - in the style of "This happened in the previous episode".

It goes without saying that we do not deeply get to know 'Oppie' this way: Little do we learn about his formative years, his love of poetry, his deep-rooted anxieties and contradictions, his life-changing relationship with Jean Tatlock and his concomitant exposure to communism and politics at large. The movie fails to explore Oppenheimer's inner conflicts, motivations, and feelings... which makes him a rather distant and enigmatic protagonist.

This rush might be forgivable if it somehow served to set up an intriguing narrative. After all, part of what makes Nolan such a mesmerizing director are his deeply original ideas that leave us stunned and contemplating the fabric of our existence: what defines our memories, our dreams or reality, or simply time? "Oppenheimer" does leave you slightly confused, but its tornado-like whirl of different timelines and perspectives revolves around a rather hollow narrative. Once the atomic dust settles, there is little left - nothing insightful we have learned about the quantum world and the nuclear bomb, about science and its societal responsibilities, about peace and war. Just a rather petty political intrigue.

That is not to say that the movie is wholly unengaging. After all, one of Nolan's strengths is his visual style, and "Oppenheimer" showcases the director's mastery of the large screen and its effects. I didn't watch it at an Imax theater, but even in a cozier setting, one can marvel at the overwhelming cinematography. The movie also features some breathtaking scenes, such as the famous Trinity test, recreated with minimal CGI and a real explosion. Ironically, this is also just about the only moment where the audience are granted a moment of peace and quiet in the otherwise annoyingly ubiquitous and monotonous soundtrack.

Christopher Nolan's impressive body of work has earned him seemingly complete artistic freedom from budgetary or other constraints. In recent years, he has used this to make increasingly bombastic and grandiose movies. However, I can't help wondering if this license is an unconditional blessing - or whether Nolan's true talents get somewhat drowned out by the temptation to create ever more expensive special effects and cast yet more stars. In retrospect, films like "Memento" or even "Inception" feel almost modest and focused.

"Rebecca" (1940) is a classic film by the master of suspense, Alfred Hitchcock. However, while the film is certainly entertaining, it falls far short of the masterful pieces of Hitchcock's later career and is, in fact, overrated.

One of the primary issues with "Rebecca" is the implausibility of its story setup. It is hard to believe that a stunningly attractive girl like Rebecca would marry someone for their wealth without any emotional interest whatsoever, especially when she could marry anyone who had both wealth and whom she might love. Furthermore, it seems improbable that Maxim de Winter would not have the faintest clue that Rebecca was a cruel, evil monster before marrying her. Additionally, it is difficult to believe that de Winter would leave the management of his entire estate to someone as stereotypically cruel and obviously insane as Mrs. Danvers.

While some other aspects of the story are explained in the film, such as why de Winter did not simply get divorced to save himself from suffering, these explanations still feel barely believable. The acting does not help matters, as never for a moment does one feel that de Winter is genuinely in love with his second wife - who in turn comes across as extremely naive and silly, even if her daunted timidity is well portrayed. Meanwhile, Mrs. Danvers is portrayed more as a fairytale witch than a real person. The list goes on.

Moreover, the police investigation and the ad-hoc incrimination by Mr. Favell have nothing to do with any sort of reality. You might argue this is consistent with the overall mystic-nightmarish ambience of the movie. But as a psychothriller, it is psychologically way out of line. Perhaps it might have worked better as a gothic tale or horror film.

Finally, the film is permanently drenched in a cheesy sauce of music, which becomes annoying after a while.

While "Rebecca" is undoubtedly worth watching as a classic of the genre, it is not a must-see film in Hitchcock's oeuvre.

"Wann wird es endlich wieder so, wie es nie war" - literally, 'When Will It Ever Be The Way It Never Used To Be' - is based on Joachim Meyerhoff's autobiographical novel of the same name. Growing up around the psychiatric hospital run by his father, the film follows Joachim as he experiences love, loss, friendship and his adorably quirky family in a setting that is both absurd and touching.

Despite touching on some sad and even tragic events, the film has a light-hearted and unsentimental tone - somewhat mirroring the book's uniquely laconic writing style. The director Sonja Heiss manages to balance humor and emotion with a keen eye for detail and authenticity.

However, the film also suffers from some flaws that prevent it from being a masterpiece. The film is episodic and lacks depth, glossing over Joachim's young life without ever fully settling on one of the characters or themes. As has been pointed out, for instance, the film fails to explore the complex relationship between Joachim and his father, who is both loving and strangely distant. The film could have benefited from more focus and coherence to create a stronger emotional impact. That said, it is definitely worth watching as it is well acted and undoubtedly entertaining.

"Der Rebell" is a biopic of Boris Becker, to date the youngest man to win Wimbledon, at the age of 17.

Rather than telling the eventful and capricious life story of Becker, from childhood to stardom to jail, the movie wisely focuses on Becker's transformative teenage period. A passionate yet troubled young player, Boris is discovered by former Davis Cup captain Günther Bosch. The sensitive and down-to-earth coach discovers the boy's talent and potential, hidden beneath a layer of volcanic eruptions and clumsy footwork. Against all odds and despite less than enthusiastic tennis-association officials - and along with eccentric but savvy manager, Ion Tiriac - Bosch forms Becker into a Wimbledon champion. There, the trouble starts.

All actors are well played, partly even to an uncanny degree of resemblance (Tiriac, Bosch, and Becker's father). Overall, the film has a strong feel-good vibe, with the inevitable mix of high-energy 80s hit songs, clothes and hairstyles. Many famous quotes and scenes give the film a biographic, documentary aura. Make no mistake, though: This is mostly an entertaining work of fiction, albeit strongly inspired by Becker's vita. Becker at times comes across as almost oddly eccentric and rebellious, at other times as a happy-go-lucky and eloquent womanizer. The film doesn't fully give full justice to his troubled, driven personality. Also, Tiriac is cast as somewhat cold-blooded and weirdly distant, although Becker himself claimed he was closer to his heart than Bosch himself.

Overall, a solidly entertaining feel-good film, with enough tennis bites in it for fans - but enough of all-too-human drama to make it worth watching even for people who are only vaguely aware of Boris Becker's fame.

Swedish director Ruben Östlund's first English-language film, "Triangle of Sadness" (2022), is decidedly less subtle and deep than its more sardonic predecessors, "Force majeure" and "The Square".

Vomit, infantile jealousy, grotesque clichés of the fashion industry, Russian capitalists and decadent wanna-be Marxists abound - as do other coarse allegories. Nonetheless, once you embrace its farcical style, it can be a thoroughly entertaining movie. In fact, even though it clocks in at 2.5 hours, I never once looked at my watch in a moment of boredom, and even felt the genuinely Östlundian ending came prematurely.

Although "Triangle of Sadness" is in some ways more radical and gross in its portrayal, it is arguably much more accessible and lighthearted than most of his previous, Swedish-language works.

Just as his previous films, Hiro Koreeda's "Broker" deals with existential themes like the meaning of family (or the lack of it). You may argue that the Japanese star director even doubles down on this, adding crime (selling babies) and even homicide to the mix. The fact that his recent film is set in Korea might even add a somber, heavy note - as most Korean films of the 2000s have confronted the impact of deep societal rifts with head-on cynicism (Parasite; Burning) or even brutality (Squid Game).

For all its melancholic atmosphere, though, "Broker" never loses its sense of humor and optimism: In its better parts, it even has a feel-good road-movie charm; in its weaker moments - including the somewhat saccharine ending - it feels more like a fairytale than the quietly realistic style Koreeda is famous for. Nonetheless, a few tears and moments of warmth can be beautiful at times, and the film's story is still worth dwelling more deeply on.

"Navalny" is surprisingly entertaining, even touching and thrilling at times, in spite of its somewhat gloomy topic.

It works a bit like 'embedded journalism': a very personal and intimate close-up, following Navalny and also the Bellingcat reporter investigating his attempted poisoning. Overall, it's quite worth watching and gives you some insight into Navalny's personality. Don't expect anything beyond that; this is by no means an objective or deep analysis on Navalny's political program and his biography.

With very precise acting and without any traces of kitsch, "Everything Went Fine" by renowned French director, Francois Ozon ("Frantz"), is a masterful reflection on assisted suicide. The movie is based on the eponymous autobiography of the main character, Emmanuelle. Accordingly, the film takes a very personal look at her father and his desire to end his life in a self-determined way, but also at the conflicts into which this plunges his immediate environment. In particular, the numerous legal, bureaucratic and not least financial pitfalls are illuminated by the film in an unpretentious manner.

For all the authentic feelings the film portrays, it resists any temptation toward pathos or over-dramatization. The biography of the dying father, his difficult marriage heavily burdened by his bisexuality, the critical relationship with his daughter ("You've always been my favorite son") -- all this is only lightly hinted at. In fact, the movie manages to tackle a deeply existential topic with surprising lightness.

All in all, this is certainly the work of a master director, but not quite a genuine masterpiece. Nevertheless, "Tout s'est bien passé" is well worth seeing and thinking about -- though it doesn't necessarily make you cry. At least not before the final credits roll.

"The French Dispatch" is set in the fictitious French town Ennui-sur-Blasé, and that says much about Wes Anderson's homage to print journalism. In many ways, the film is vintage Wes Anderson, filled with quirky characters and even quirkier, adorable settings - artfully crafted in its beautifully colored details and wildly imaginative. Yet, for the most part, it feels like a caricature of a Wes Anderson movie: charmingly eccentric yet contrived and ... well, blasé. If you're an ardent fan of his work, you may still appreciate the movie for its signature style and forgive its lack of depth and its unengaging storyline. If you are about to newly explore the Wes Anderson canon, the grandiose "Grand Hotel Budapest" or "Moonrise Kingdom" may be better places to start.

"Nomadland" is an intriguing blend of fiction and documentary movie. The film's mood is fairly quiet and seemingly un-dramatic (in its literary sense), with beautiful cinematography. Perhaps at times it might scratch the surface a bit more and try to be less glossy, but it's no doubt insightful to watch -- especially in a theater, where there's nothing to distract one from full immersion.

I found "Minari" to be a beautiful and touching film about a family who try to settle from Korea to the rural US. Despite its tragic theme, the story is surprisingly lighthearted and entertaining -- partly because it is mostly told through the eyes of the young son (who may be thought of as the director's alter ego).

I am not entirely sure what this movie wants. Whatever it is, I feel it fails to achieve it.

The film's sombre air leaves you feeling that it aspired to be a deep, intellectual analysis. It certainly isn't. Despite Phoenix's intense performance, the movie remains utterly shallow and fails to explain anything. How does a regrettably frail and mentally ill (feeble minded, not simply psychopathic) substitute clown transform into a brilliant criminal mastermind with superhero-like powers? And how would that reveal anything deeper about our ailing society?

Todd Phillips throws every stereotype into the bargain: psychology (father/mother issues, childhood abuse, emotional dissociation - "Put on a happy face!", psychosis), society (individualism, "everybody screams and nobody's civil anymore"), economics (the demise of the welfare state and public health)... - But these remain loose and almost comically stereotypical fragments, they don't add up to any analysis. The film tries to dress up its lack of original ideas as homages to classics such as "Taxi Driver", "Modern Times", or "King of Comedy". But those references only serve to reveal the film's own shortcomings.

Now, this lack of depth need not be a problem if all the movie wanted were to entertain. Alas, it doesn't really. For long stretches, 'Joker' feels like a tedious and pointlessly depressing sequence of scenes where the main character is being punched, humiliated, and abandoned again, and again... and yet again. It would be an overstatement to say that those scenes were connected by an overarching plot, even if they're beautifully shot. Rather, most of the film feels like a lengthy exposition. When it finally shows any sort of development, it is nearly finished and tries to hastily scramble together its loose threads and connect it to the Batman universe.