Skip to content

Mein Bruder, Der Vampir * Sven Taddicken * 2001

A German drama that I saw on the German TV without subtitles. I couldn’t exactly follow everything, but still. This film is about a girl and her autistic brother. The brother gets 30 and thinks he is “der Fürst der Finsternis” (the prince of darkness). With his sister he watches their brother and her girlfriend and the two figure out that it is time for their first sexual experience. “Der Vampir” falls for his brothers girlfriend and his sister on a girllike gangster who she tries to impress. Both plans do not run too smoothly and neither of the two gets the experience they want.
Not too great, but alright to see when it is on TV.

The Man Who Wasn’t There * Joel and Ethan Coen * 2001

“Murder, blackmail and dry-cleaning. Enter the mind of a barber”. Of of the better taglines of late, what do you think? A new film by the brothers Coen who came in the spotlights with their films “Fargo” (1996), “The Big Lebowski” (1998) and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” (2000). Not the most typical films with a pleasent sense of humour and strange stories. The three films are not much alike and I can’t compare “The Man…” with any of them either. What IS the same as with especially “Fargo” is that this isn’t a comedy in basis, but still “The Man…” is very funny at times.

Anyway, the story in short is as follows. Ed (Billy Bob Thornton) has lived his entire life on the background. He married his wife Doris (Frances Macdonmand, the policewoman in “Fargo”) only a few weeks after having met her totally drunk at a party (which he doesn’t like). She thought it was “appropriate” and she liked it that he doesn’t talk much. Having a not too firy relationship the two stick together just because it has been like that for years. Doris works for a man with a large warehouse doing administration and her boss and his wife are friends of the house. Ed works at the barbershop of a brother of his wife who got the place from his father. Ed doesn’t like the work much, but heh, he has been there for years. Then in the shop, Ed meets a crook (played by Jol Polito) who was dumped by his potential partner for starting a dry-cleaning company (the story plays in the 1950’ies, nobody heard of dry-cleaning). Ed thinks that this could cheer-up his life a little, so he thinks of a plan. He blackmails his wife’s boss, because he knows these two have an affair. Big Dave (James Gandolfini) asks for advice from Ted he and he thinks that Tolliver (the crook – Jon Polito) is the blackmailer, so Tolliver’s original partner was Doris’ boss and Ed’s ‘friend’! Big Dave uses money from his business which actually is owned by his wife’s father and uses Doris for the administrative trick. Later he finds out about Ed, Ed accidentally kills Big Dave and Doris is suspected and caught. Anyway, the story keeps twisting and twisting and keeps interesting for the full two hours.

A funny thing is that the film is in colour when you rent it and black and white when you buy it. It is placed in the 50’ies with ever-smoking men and over-typical women and Ed is main character and voice-over.

Another wonderfull film by the Coen brothers.

Magnolia * Paul Thomas Andersson * 1999

It has been a while since I first saw this film, but it was already on video when I did. I thought I didn’t have to see a film with Tom Cruise who wasn’t exactly my favourite actor. When I did see it, I was pretty impressed. Not only Tom Cruise is really great in this film (and not as much present as I expected), but overall this is a wonderfull film.

“Magnolia” has different stories of different people and the stories either or not come together. Not a line that you never read in my reviews, right? Well, Magnolia was -as I remember- on of the first films who worked with this concept and worked it out well. There are stories of different people in the worst periods of their lives. You will see a dying old man, Earl Partridge (Jason Robards) being watched over by the nurse Phil Parma (Philip Hoffman). Then there is Earl’s totally stressed out and way too young second wife Linda Partridge (Juliane Moore) who got totally depressed when her husband dies and when she realises how she treated him. Tom Cruise plays a great part as Frank Mackey who gives workshop to men to learn them to rule over women. Frank is Earls son and the two haven’t met in many years. Then there is a good Christian cop called Jim Kurring (John Reilly), who meets the drug-addicted Claudia Gator (Melora Walter) who on her turn is the daughter of quiz-master Jimmy Gater (Philip Hall), but they have a very bad contact since Claudia thinks that her father abused her in her childhood, while Jimmy (who is dying of cancer) doesn’t remember that. There are stories of quiz-kids and a former quiz-kid who was ruined by his parents.
Sounds pretty complex, not? Well, the film lasts for three hours but they are gone before you know it. All in all it isn’t a too complex film I think. It is quite depressive though, since it really shows peoples shortnesses and fears and most of the people are -as mentioned- in a very bad period of their lives.

“Magnolia” is a film that you have to be in the mood for, but I can asure you it is great!

El Maquinista * Brad Andersson

the machinist

“If you were any thinner, you wouldn’t excist”. I suppose you all heard about Christian Bale (“American Psycho”) who starved himself to weighing almost nothing for this film and six weeks later being in his normal proportions for the shooting of “Batman Begins”, so I won’t say too much about that. Bale is playing a man who hasn’t slept for a year and thus ended up in living in some sort of dream world. When he accidentally causes a co-worker to loose an arm in the factory where they work, Trevor Reznik is eaten by guilt and his mind starts to play tricks with him.
Good acting, a weird story and a nice atmosphere makes this film a nice viewing experience.

Luther * Eric Till * 2003

Another historical film, of course about Martin Luther (1483-1546), the reformer of the Christian faith. Joseph Fiennes (“Shakespeare In Love”, “Elizabeth”) is Luther, a man who ends up in a monastry where he stays for many years. Then he is sent to Rome and after that to a university to study theology. He quickly becomes professor. Especially during his visit to Rome, his view of what Christianity should be is smashed to pieces by the reallity that he sees. Payments make sure that you spend fewer time in purgatory, monks go to prostitutes and priests don’t care about the common people. Luther starts to write books in the language of the common man (German in his case) making points of his findings. The people finally find someone to agree with, so Luther becomes popular and a threat to the Roman church. This church tries to make him a heretic and to get rid off him. While secretly being kept in prison (to prevent him from being killed by the authorities), Luther translates the New Testament into German and the Roman church sees a growing menace in him. In the same time people revolt basing themself on ‘Luther’s ideas’ which aren’t his ideas at all, so he comes forth from his hiding place trying to get things back in order.
“Luther” is a nice drama giving a nice overview of the happenings around the person who split the Christian Church. Educating and amusing, so if you are interested in this part of history, this film is a nice watch. Now we need films about Calvin, Swingly, etc., because this is only one side of the reformation of course.

Lulu * Maartje Seyferth & Victor Nieuwenhuijs * 2006

What is it with Dutch films that they are almost never good? The backcover of this brandnew film was interesting enough to rent it, but my expectations were not made true. A rich man living in a mansion in the middle of the forest (and looking way too much like the late director Theo van Gogh) runs into a beautifull young gypsy girl named Lulu. He takes her in and the two get a passionate relationship. The film plays around a diner in which Leon (the rich man) invites his friends and relatives and the diner becomes a metaphore of Leon’s idea of the ‘friendship’ of everyone. Every time another guest is confronted with the fact that (s)he had something with Lulu too, so the film becomes one big flashback. The general story is quite like “Festen” (1998). The flashbacks do not make the film very interesting and the diner and events and rather dull. Of course (being a Dutch film this is almost a cliché) there is much nudity in the film, but nothing can raise the film above the level of dullness. I am sorry that I have to say that “Lulu” not only has an unoriginal title, an unoriginal setting, but also a far from interesting story. ‘Fortunately’ “Lulu” is only 75 minutes long. -1/5/06-

Lost In Translation * Sofia Coppola * 2003

Bill Murray plays the film actor Bob Harris who is in Tokyo to shoot some commercials. Scarlett Johansson is Charlotte who is also in Tokyo because her husband is working as band-photographer. From the first minute Coppola lays much stress on the differences between American and Japanese culture and continues to do this in the film. Both Bob and Charlotte are lost in Tokyo, having problems sleeping, have no clue how to behave in the Japanese city and keep running into eachother in the hotel lobby in the middle of the night. A strange friendship between the old man and the young woman develops in which Bob becomes a bit of a teacher for Charlotte. A nice film with nice shooting. <27/9/04><3>

Lost * J.J. Abrams & Damon Lindelof * series 1 2004

I remember when the first series came on Dutch television. Big anouncements, advertisement in tv-guides, raving commentaries. In that time we just had “Operation Robinson”, a “Big Brother” like “real life soap” and I expected “Lost” to be the original or at least an American counterpart. Later I heard that “Lost” was “Twin Peaks on a deserted island” and similar expressions and then people who followed the series were very enthousiastic about it and I understood that it was an actual series and not some time-filling “real life” thing. So in the end I watched the first series.
The two episode pilot is superb. Extremely realistic scenes of a crash-site of an airoplane, flashbacks of the crash which are also very realistic, survivors who stranded on a remote island with ‘something’ on it. A very nice mix between a disaster series and a Stephen King story. As the series continues the episodes do not have much to do with eachother, some are simple soap things with relationships that form or break, pragnancies, etc. In some episodes some strange things happen, but the high tension of the first two episodes never returns. What people like about the series is that in flashbacks you get to know a few of the characters and how they are connected to eachother. Personally I don’t think that this has much to do with the fact of them being on a deserted island. The series become a bit boring, but towards the end, things get better. The last two shows are again to parts of one episode and I feared that the series would suddenly end to announce the second series. Indeed, the last two episodes are again good, but just when things get really interesting again, it is “to be continued”, thank you for watching, goodbye. Very irritating, especially now that I see that there is already a third series. The different series do not stand on their own as in, for example, “24”, so I have my doubts if I want to see the second series only to have to wait to be able to see the next. Besides, “Lost” is not that good, so will I keep following them? You may see.

Los Sin Nombre * Jaume Balagueró * 1999

I wouldn’t have chosen this film for the title, cover or story on the back, but my girlfriend thought it would be a nice film. “The Nameless” proved to be a very dark and particularly grim and gruesome thriller/horror. If you like Japanese films like “Ringu”, this one is for you. This Spanish film is shot in colour, but there hardly is any. The images are dark, the atmosphere pressing. This last is mostly caused by the constant deep rumbling on the background.
The story is about a women whose daughter was probably found dead six years ago. Back then an extremely mutilated body of a child was found. Yet the woman gets a call from her dead child and a haunting search for her begins. Claudia is lured into the web of a group of extremists who think that by means of pain they can concentrate the ultimate evil and gain evil powers. The atmosphere is fantastic, the story (based on a book by Ramsey Campbell) has details you would never come up with, but unfortunately the last 10 minutes and the conclusion are fairly weak. Especially see it if you like extraordinary dark films.

Lord Of The Rings

Lord Of The Rings: The Fellowship Of The Ring * Peter Jackson * 2001
Lord Of The Rings: The Two Tower * Peter Jackson * 2002
Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The Ring * Peter Jackson * 2003

The bigger the hype, the less I want to see a film. There are other reasons why I didn’t watch these films earlier: I don’t read novels, so I never read the book and I particulary don’t like the fantasy genre. Still, now that the hype made room for new hypes and because I was curious about the (possible) Nordic mythology influences in the book / films ànd because the complete trilogy can now be bought on DVD for merely E 15,-, I decided to buy the box and watch the films afterall.
First, I don’t particularly like the story. As you all know, the “ring of power” has been discovered and in order to prevent evil to prevail, nine persons are appointed to destroy the ring, which adventure forms the core of the films. In the first film the ring is discovered and from the different inhabitents of “Middle Earth” (“Hobbits”, “Elves”, “Dwarves”, “Men”, etc.) representatives are chosen for the quest. In the second film, evil starts a campaign to take over Middle Earth and in the last film the last part of the quest is shown. Each film takes about three hours. The films are lauded for the brilliant effects. Indeed, sometimes they look nice, but sometimes they don’t! Also good for the big audience are the (to me) superfluous lengthy battle scenes which are not particularly impressive (maybe on the big screen they were).
So far for the films. The story is somewhat of a true epic myth with typical elements such as pride, endurance, adventure and (here very obvious) the battle between good and evil: a nice setting. As for the mythological influences, there are a few Northern elements, of course the name “Middle Earth” (from “Midgard”, the “middle garden or the realm of mankind) for the earth, only one time you get to see runes (I believe in the book the language of the elves is written in runes), here and there you get to see a glimpse of Northern ethics, such as in the scene where a hobbit has to tell a king his son is dead and offers his service instead. Then you have vague references to Northern gods, such as a description of a man with a long cloak and a big head (Odin), or the castle of Minas Ithil which could be a reference to Odin’s throne. There is also a scene in which the sword that had cut off the finger with the ring of power is reforged, which could remind of the story of Sigurd. “Isengard” reminds of “Niflheim”, the world of ice and a few other names could refer to myths of the North. On the other side, there is probably as much Greek and other mythology to be found, like the Argonauts, the statues of the ancestors in LOTR. Overall, I didn’t find too much Nordic myths in the film (at first sight at least).
Overal. I don’t know if the films where worth the hype. The books are probably better, the films are just a nice (but long) watch. Maybe the mythological style appeals to the minds of the masses, I don’t know, but I rather read them myself instead of reading them vaguely used in fantasy writing. Oh well, the films are an amusing watch, but don’t expect too much of it if you haven’t seen the films yet.