major-3

What a great idea. Two left lovers combine to take revenge on their ex-spouses. This could have been a deep-thinking, introspective, really important movie. Or a high-flying, no-holds-barred comedy. What it turned out to be is neither. The film is not a thought-provoking essay on the problems of separation, but on the other hand it also isn't an inventive or simply funny comedy about the errors of social behaviour. In fact, it doesn't work as a serious and dramatic film (as it probably wasn't intended to) nor as a comedy (with about three real laughs in 95 minutes one can hardly call it that).

To think of what the French or especially the Britains would have done with this subject is alluring, but at the same time entirely wrong. After all, Hollywood has given us more than many comedies that not only worked out fine but became classics. In this case it's mainly the director, Griffin Dunne, who really is to blame. He stretches out the emotional (or rather, as he films it, the pathetic) moments far too long and doesn't seem to know how to make the funny moments work, especially as he doesn't seem to know where to cut a frame short or where not to. And the fact that able actors like Meg Ryan and Matthew Broderick strive hard but never seem to know what exactly to do adds to the overall picture. In the end, what could have been a comedy classic turns out to be a real loss.

Do you remember the line "I depend on the kindness of strangers"? Well, of course it is from Tennessee Williams‚ "A Streetcar Named Desire‘, and sums up the meaning of the whole play. As it does sum up the meaning of this film. It's about the fight of imagination and reality – and again reality wins. Or so it seems.

If this film has any flaw it's the crime story woven around its center. The gay-hating killer seems an overused cliché nowadays but at the time of the film's production it was probably more than a symbol.

Nevertheless, the film moves – at least me – even a decade after it was made. If not a masterpiece, at least a very, very good film.

Well, I met Joe Black - and I wished the encounter hadn't been

so long. That is not to say the film is bad, on the contrary, it

is (for most of its time) very entertaining. Because the

emotions come across as very true and the lines bring up the

glorious past of screwball comedies. Which, in great part, is

due to the perfect casting. Anthony Hopkins, impeccable as

always, manages to make believable the turmoil and despair of a

man who has just learned that he is going to die - while still

not giving away the jokes. Any lesser actor would have either

opted for broad comedy or heart-feeling tragedy. That Sir

Anthony walks the fine line between these two choices is one

more proof for his genius (and I sincerely hope he won't call it

quits). Much chided Brad Pitt turns in a wonderfully subtle

performance. One really believes that his Death is becoming more

human through the experience of love, but Pitt always keeps that

glint in his eye that reminds us of who (or what) he really is.

Besides that he shows a profound talent as straight comedian.

The only drawback is Claire Forlani who tends to ham up her part

as the lover a bit. But why, in death's and taxes' name, did director Brest have to

stretch the delicate story out over three hours? Endlessly drawn

out scenes of people walking senselessly about, looking at each

other for eternity and repeating things that had been said

before make one wonder why nobody told him to "speed things up a

bit" (probably James Cameron was forcing them away at gunpoint). In the end we've got what Johnny Carson would have called: "Two

hours of splendid entertainment stretched over three hours.

Do you believe in Action Movies? Yeah! Do you believe they have a meaning besides Action? Yeah! Do you believe in Kris Kristofferson? Yeah! Do you believe he's an actor? Yeah! Well, then do anything - but don't watch Blade. By the way, whoever thought, Wesley Snipes or Stephen Dorff are

actors worth watching should turn to other movies as well. Blade is definitely not a movie for actors. Nor for audiences.

Except if you want a completely incoherent and foreseeable plot (a

paradoxon? - wait till you see it) and special effects that make

you laugh until you cry while going to sleep (a paradoxon again?

No, a kind of Yoga to keep you alive). Anyway, those who like

though father-figures who smoke while handling gasoline, and

those who like son-like-characters who are surprised that

father-figures meet a violent and tragic end while they

encounter their true but resistant love, will really enjoy

Blade. Not to forget those who enjoy cardboard-characters,

cliché plots and martial-art-fights. Oh, and I almost forgot

those who believe that fast cuts, dark lighting and "original"

angles make a great director.

German Humour in the 50s and 60s? Oh, yeah, let's have a laugh about it! Sadly, it's true, during the 50s and 60s one could only seek and

not find humour and art in German films. At least those who were

striving for it didn't really stand a chance, as the so-called

"Heimatfilm" was Box-Offing everyone else. Still there were exceptions. Like director Helmut Käutner who, from "Große Freiheit Nr.7"

which was banned by the Nazis despite starring the times biggest

star Hans Albers, to "Die letzte Brücke", which turned Maria

Schell into an international celebrity, had shown his individualism and never gave in to the comfy no-style of the

Adenauer-aera. "Das Glas Wasser" turns out, in retrospect, to be one of his

best, if most neglected, pictures. It was not a success at the

time of its release precisely of its qualities. At that time

everybody in Germany wanted to be told how great it is to live

in this country, after all, those who had survived had managed

the "Wirtschaftswunder", and that corruption may have played a

part in it was something nobody wanted to hear and that a

"royal" (like Adenauer) could fail was out of the question. But "Das Glas Wasser" is neither comforting nor wholesome, in

fact it it is cynic, or if one prefers, realistic, depicting

Queen Anne as a naive and indecisive non-entity while the

Countess of Marlborough and the Viscount of Bolingbroke fight it

out among themselves. Definitely not a message the Germans

wanted at that time. Nevertheless a film only proves its quality by the test of

time, and "Das Glas Wasser" holds up very well indeed. The

credit goes, not in the least, to the actors. Gustaf Gründgens and Hilde Krahl, the german/austrian equivalents of Laurence Olivier and Katharine Hepburn turn each

line into a battlefield of wit, and to watch them is not only a

joy but also a lesson in comic timing that Jim Carrey should

cherish. And Liselotte Pulver, a German Mega-Star at that time

(until then not known for subtle characterizations) turns in a

surprisingly subtle, witty and emotional performance as hapless

Queen Anne. Finally –surprise, surprise – even Horst Janson

(Masham) and Saabine Sinjen (Abigail), as the lovers, stick to

memory – not a bad feat in this kind of film, that grants the

best lines to the leading actors. Still it's Helmut Käutner's direction which provides the perfect

surroundings. He obviously knew from the beginning that

realistic art design would destroy the lofty architecture of

Eugène Scribe's play. So he decided on a completely artificial

look (no exteriors, flashbacks in black/white). The Queen's

chambers are always shown in blinding white, as is the Queen,

while the Countess of Marlborough is usually dressed in the

opposing colours black and dark red, and the innocent Abigail is

dressed in green, the colour of hope (and innocence). Bolingbroke‘s (as the communicator) clothes always fit into the

picture and therefore he never seems to stand out. Mashams red

uniform obviously turns on all the ladies and makes proceedings

so difficult. Besides the artistry so obviously inherent in the picture,

people turned their backs to the movie. Seeing it today one

cannot help but thinking that, whether knowingly or unwittingly,

Käutner had dissected his country at the time (thereby

fulfilling Scribe's intentions of exposing human corruption and

hypocrisy through satire) and thus alienated it. But whatever the intention, he managed to produce the only

really funny German mov

Of course, living in Austria, I haven't seen the film yet. And,

of course, I wondered why anyone would want to remake a film as

nearly perfect as Psycho. If someone like f.e. Tony Scott

(aarghh) had been set to direct it, I wouldn't give it a second

thought. But since Gus van Sant has only turned out extremely

interesting films so far, I'm now actually looking forward to

it. I personally can't imagine how one could give Psycho a new

twist (especially since both Perkins and Leigh have become

icons, as well as the over-exposed shower scene), but I trust van

Sant's ingenuity to really surprise me. After all, he managed to

turn the rather pathetic "Good Will Hunting"-script into an

exciting and memorable movie. So "all we are saying, is give van

San a chance.

Fisher's Dracula still is the best adaptation of Stoker's novel.

At first look it seems that he and Sangster changed the plot at

random (i.e. killing Harker off, leaving out many characters,

changing the names of Lucy and Mina, etc.), but if you look

closer you'll find they changed it mainly for dramatic purposes

(and quite well so) but what is much more important, they didn't

change the heart of the book. On the contrary, Fisher was, until

now, the only one to bring out the duality inherent in the

novel. The duality of the suppressed, cold surface of the

Victorian society and the emotional volcano glowing beneath it.

Just look at the face of Lucy expecting Dracula. But the real

ingenuity shows in making Van Helsing the sole "hero". The way

Cushing (perfectly) plays him, he's the epitome of the Victorian

age (another effective but not false change to Stoker's rather

fussy character), supressing his feelings, but once let loose,

extremely bloodthirsty (watch his determination and expression

when he impales Lucy). And that's also the reason why one

doesn't have the feeling of a happy ending when van Helsing

finally reduces Dracula to ashes. The way Fisher shows it, we

witness a man who has killed his worst enemy (within or without,

we ask) but at the same time has finally lost all purpose in

life. Because his only goal in life had been to chase and kill

the Prince of Darkness. Having accomplished this, all there's

left is emptiness. Which corresponds to the feeling one has

after having finished Stokers novel. With the elimination of

Dracula all blood (= sexuality, emotion) has been gone. Thanks to Fisher and Sangster all that made the novel endure was

capured in barely 80 minutes of film. There would be much more

to say about this film, but let's leave it with that.