Change Your Image
HenrieSchnee
Reviews
Staplerfahrer Klaus - Der erste Arbeitstag (2000)
Drivers-ed teachers should stockpile this film!
Well, on one hand it's kind of sad that this has to be the closest thing to a cult movie us Germans have produced during the last decades, but then again, it *is* funny as hell and raises more attention about the dangers of fork-lifts then all the Jaws-movie combined ever did about the dangers of shark-bites.
Which is a good thing, I guess, since fork lifters are gruesome killing-machines disguised as everyday tools - especially the titular fork lifter shown in this film. Who would have thought?
Another interesting trivia about this movie is the narrator, Egon Hoegen: For decades, this guy narrated the educational TV-show "Der siebte Sinn" ("The seventh sense") about the safety and regulations of everyday public driving. So, most Germans are familiar with his distinct voice, which makes his dry remarks after each brutal accident even more hilarious. This is not the first time, Hoegen used his distinct voice for the sake of comedy; he also narrated the propaganda-pieces in the German dub of "Starship Troopers", giving them an even crazier, authoritative feel.
Given it's short length (about 10 minutes, including end credits), I really don't see a reason why you shouldn't give this film a chance. Maybe it will even receive a fan-dub one day, so English-speaking audiences will also benefit from the insightful informations provided here.
I guess you can watch it online somewhere, but there once also was a really, really nice DVD of this movie, which compensated the relative short length of the main feature by a sheer abundance of bonus-features, easter eggs and background-information. And it was cheap as hell! Try to get that one!
Rendition (2007)
Well written, well acted, well directed
There really isn't much to criticize about this film: The Egyptian-American cast works together like clockwork. The film starts in medias res; we witness a bomb suicide-bomb explode somewhere in Egypt, more or less accidentally killing a not so innocent CIA-operative who happened to be stuck in a nearby traffic jam. Having lost "one of their own", the CIA decides to retaliate, using it's illegal contacts to torture one of our protagonists, who might or might not have background information on the matter.
It's the kind of movie that works better the less you know about it when you pop it in; and I guarantee you that at the end of the third act you will pause the movie and try rearrange all the puzzle-pieces in your head. The movie is one step ahead of you all the time, and it has a couple of surprising and cleverly written plots all intertwined in a way that gives you a very "global" perspective of the subjects ramifications (in the tradition of "Traffic" or "Syriana"), but unlike those other meandering movie abominations, it still delivers to bring the story to a dramaturgical climax that pays off.
I give it 8 out of 10 stars, which is my way of saying that it is a very, very good movie, but not the best that was ever done about the subject - it still feels like there's still a lot to say about the crimes committed by the US in wake of the 9/11-hysteria. Yet there are three lines of dialogue early on that sum it up pretty good: Discussing whether the suspect is a terrorist or just a poor guy that got mixed up in something way bigger, a CIA-executive reports to his commanding officer "Well, he has passed the lie detector" - she answers "Well, that doesn't really mean dizzle now, does it?", to which he replies in silent sarcasm "We always say that when they pass..."
If you have a Sunday afternoon to spend, go watch this movie. Take it serious for the subject matter, be prepared to read subtitles and learn something about the way this world unfortunately works.
Where the Wild Things Are (2009)
So... Ritalin would have prevented this movie?
After watching this agonizing piece of Hollywood-trash from start to finish, I really feel like writing a loooong, elaborate, eloquent rant, warning others not to repeat my mistake, not to give this deceitful flick a chance at the movie store, to not even think about downloading it without paying for it - just to stay away and ignore it for what it is; a shameless meditation of self-pity and unprocessed childhood-traumas.
But what can I say that hasn't been said on the first few pages of this very site?
About halfway during the movie, my girlfriend and I started to argue, whether this really should be rated for children of the age of 6 and above (as it is here in Germany), for all the already mentioned reasons: The movie being depressive, violent, self-absorbed, menacing; and more so the main character being a scary and maladjusted loner acting like he is 5 years old and who implicitly suffers from ADD and a vaguely dysfunctional family life. But I argued that this movie would be best suited for children UNDER the age of 6, those who would never be able to figure out the barely hidden agenda of this movie. Under a certain age, kids don't have a radar for the sad and tragic sides of life like death, the lasting damages of violence... or the self-destructive surreality of a mentally handicapped main characters search for inner peace.
My point being: SERIOUSLY, if you want to make a dark, depressing, moody film *about* children, fine with me. But please don't hide that behind the name of a book *for* children. Don't let an omnipresent PR campaign fool parents into thinking that this might be just the new cute thing for them to see with their kids.
I mean, come on! I as the audience feel cheated into watching a existential angsty meditation that some supposed "hot shot genius director" conjured up while snorting coke from the pages of random storybooks... And I blame the studio system for allowing this to be promoted in a deceiving fashion. It is as after they watched the final cut, they suddenly realized how much money this guy has just wasted on this bloated piece of trash... so they tried to cut their losses. I understand that they even insisted on changing many scenes, resulting in a lot of pick-up shots and a year long delay.
Jesus... I wonder how downright evil that first cut must have been.
So, anyway, if you feel like watching this, for... whatever reasons... at least do yourself a favor and watch it dubbed in a language that somehow sounds funny to you. A language that you don't understand.
There are some good things to say about the movie (hence the 2 points), for one, the namesake Wild Things are really fun to watch, their animation is one of those rare cases where CGI can really work as an art form - instead of just being an insufficient tool to replicate reality. And second, the acting of the main actor is decent. I mean, you hate that little brat immediately, but that's just how good he plays that part. The problem is just that he is way to old, he looks like 10 or 11, yet his character functions on a pre-school level.
You know what... writing all of this down I really begin to wonder if this whole flick wasn't just a big corporate sponsored propaganda piece in favor of expensive child psychiatry... I don't have children, but I think this movie firmly planted to idea into my subconscious that Ritalin truly is the solution to aaaaaaall a kids problems.
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Narrative + Logic + Conflict + Wonderland = Disaster
Before getting into any details as to why I left the cinema with confusion and disappointment, I want to start with what I perceive as the best argument why this movie sucks: I saw it at an Sunday afternoon screening, so the cinema was filled with kids at all ages, accompanied by their parents. And during the whole length of the film, I didn't hear a single child laugh or giggle. I didn't laugh myself either, for that matter, but how bad must a children's movie really be if it completely misses its target audience? I mean, it's not like kids have that high standards.
And I would have never believed that I would hold this against a film, but WHY did they feel the urge to suffocate this wonderful piece of fiction under this concrete-like "story" whose pseudo-Christian undertones were lifted straight from the Chronicles of Narnia? Why must sweet little Alice become a soldier and killer for the suppressed inhabitants of Wonderland? Why must every character get a "real" name, every piece of magic (like the "eat me"-cookies) be explained with alchemy, every place get a name and a location that is reachable by just... walking there. Any coherent narrative demands logic - but this logic contradicts everything that Wonderland used to be about.
I have read the source material numerous times (both translated and in its original form), and again and again I was fascinated by its surreal magic, its emphasis on twisted anti-logic (Lewis Carroll aka Charles Dodgson used to be professor for mathematic and a dean in the local church, so he used the books as both an outlet for his more crazy thoughts and to praise the innocence of a child's mind) and its beautifully incorporated themes - like the idea, that the seconds books story unfolds like a game of chess.
But this is "Wonderland: Revolutions", and Alice, now a young woman, must go to war, learn that "Underland" (?) is indeed a real place, and the only way to get home is not to just wake up, but to kill a towering demon, as... it was prophecied, I guess.
Tim Burton didn't seem to have any idea what he wanted to add to the Alice-myth that hadn't been done before, so he constantly shifts back and forth between a nice children's movie in the tradition of the original Disney-movie and a dark, psychological thriller à la "American McGee's Alice", without ever reaching the quality or comitment of either of them.
The only redeeming factor in this CGI-crap is, of course, the acting. Helena Bonham-Carter plays the Red Queen (or better, the Queen of Hearts, the screenwriters screwed that one up, too), and she seems to have the time of her life. She was the only character in the whole flick that made me smile, once or twice. Both Crispin Clover and Mia Wasikowska play their parts decent and nuanced enough, considering what's going on around them. Especially newcomer Wasikowska plays the confusion and hidden inner strength of her character quiet niece and subtle, and I'm looking forward to seeing her in a really good movie. Anne Hathaways White Queen was also noteworthy for her fragility and confined madness.
But, yeah, this is, after all, a Johnny Depp-flick, and I guess he had it coming to damage his exceptional career by blindly trusting into Disneys Paychecks and Burtons.... whatever it is these two guys have in common. It's unbelievable! Here we have the same guy who played ingeniously Hunter S. Thompson and Jack Sparrow and Willy Wonka; he plays the quintessential MAD figure of western culture... yet he is easily out-acted by a CGI-cat. A few years back, the computer animated tears in The Lord of the Rings urged me to make some cynical remarks about the future of acting - but here we have an actor's whole performance depending on the photo-shopping done to his eyes. And, well, a wardrobe and make-up which even Ziggy Stardust wouldn't have worn in his weirdest times.
So, to sum it up: Its a shame watching this material and those actors going to waste for the sake of a "narrative" that no one would have missed. It fails as "dark" fantasy film, and, what's worse, it fails as a children's story.
The most depressing thought I had after leaving the cinema was: How many parents must have felt relieved that they never read this "crap" to their children?
Now I know how it must have felt to be a Transformers-fan.