jos-destrooper

This movie is immoral: its climax is a revenge because Sneaky could "take" Senay before Okwe could make love to her. The taking of the kidneys of Sneaky is horrible and morally completely unjustified. The end with Okwe weeping is a weak and sentimental anticlimax. The ways illegal immigrants steal and fraud the passports is unacceptable to be defended as a story in a movie. The way the immigration inspection is depicted is laughable and cannot be taken for serious at all. This movie is seriously suffering from the intention of the director to deliver a message which is not reaching its goal because of the immoral undertone of the entire movie. One should be disgusted by the way some people try to undermine the immigration system. The result is clear: poverty, slums and bad housing and people doing everything to stay in London where they continue their life in depravation and solitude.

The erotic scenes in this movie are splendid. The actress and the director can explore female psychology in a way that men can understand. This is a movie that shows eroticism in all its beauty without vulgarity. Very good script by Catherine Breillat. The dialogues are putting in place the exact atmosphere.

In this movie the actors and the director experiment on their sexual fantasies but it is not pornographic at all! The mermaid is sitting on the director and the auk is the symbol for the woman of the bird who walks as a man but cannot fly and swims like a fish. The woman at the start of the movie collects all sorts of auks! Plastic ones, tall ones and short ones. The title of the movie suggests the special smell of fish which makes that the principal actor Geert Six can make love. He cannot have sex without the smell of fish. So he seduces his big love Gail Verhasselt (a beautiful girl by the way) in the environment of a fish-shop. When she revolts and refuses his advances, he is unhappy and leaves for Morocco. The other woman will appear (Els) at the beach in the form of mermaid: so half fish and half human. So the woman prefers an auk to a man and the man prefers a mermaid to a real woman. The movie is very straight in its sexual language but this comes over natural while it is well done by the actors. Some shopkeepers (a butcher f.i or a barkeeper) give the movie its freshness by their idiotic observations.

The only good thing in this movie is the acting of Sean Connery, he really keeps the story straight. This is for the rest a movie without soul and without a touch with reality. You do not become a writer because you are gifted and when you are gifted you cannot be gifted for something else like basketball. It is just that being gifted with the art of good writing is very rare. I did not like the movie because of its overall sentimentality and its slight touch of racism involved against rich youngsters.

It is unbelievable how the director Tavernier could recapture the mentality of this beginning of the 18th century which would lead to the French revolution. The wars of Louis XIV had ruined the country and the best thing the regent (an excellent Philippe Noiret but all the actors are excellent) could do was to avoid war, so they spend their time with feasts, manipulation, fraud and speculation. The mentality of the Noble of France is well described. There is (among others) an interesting dialogue between the regent and his nephew about the way the comte de Horn should be executed: it had never happened before (in this way: rouer) in France, and he only killed a speculator!. All those pretty details and the funny but accurate dialogues make of -this movie an unique historical document and at the same time it is a pleasure to see the movie again and again.

It is unbelievable how the director Tavernier could recapture the mentality of this beginning of the 18th century which would lead to the French revolution. The wars of Louis XIV had ruined the country and the best thing the regent (an excellent Philippe Noiret but all the actors are excellent) could do was to avoid war, so they spend their time with feasts, manipulation, fraud and speculation. The mentality of the Noble of France is well described. There is (among others) an interesting dialogue between the regent and his nephew about the way the comte de Horn should be executed: it had never happened before (in this way: rouer) in France, and he only killed a speculator!. All those pretty details and the funny but accurate dialogues make of -this movie an unique historical document and at the same time it is a pleasure to see the movie again and again.

This movie has lost all the magic of the two parts before. Why not show the battle of the cavalry of Basamir against the thorgs and their archers? Why not show the battle against the human pirates? Why the travel for the Ring and Frodo is so long? Why are the battles so short? Why is there no confrontation between Nahzul and the white wizard? Why do all the Nahzuls (the flying monsters) suddenly disappear? Why is there no real battle between the army of the dead and the enemy? This movie concentrates too much on the bringing of the Ring to its destiny and not enough on the battles. And what happens to Sauron or Sauriman?

This movie by Terence Young is the typical adventure-movie of the fifties. The action in Albania is well described with the Albanian resistance against communism and the double-spy colonel Stendho. The battles - horses against jeeps - are realistic and the Albanian family-life and the Countess Valona is also realistic with the remembrance of the past (Italians, Geeks). Martine Carol is wonderful and she does everything to save the children and her brother. Captain Carson is the typical American smuggler of the Mediterranean Sea and he falls in love with Tracy Malvoisie (Carol). Good script, good family-movie.

The story about four men in their mid-life crisis is well written and does not loose focus at any moment. Convincing actors. I did not like the scene with the prostitute. All scenes are realistic and seem to come out of really every-day life. The psychology of the friends is well described by strong dialogue.

Wilfried Hermans is a good writer but this script is good and the movie is good also. There is something mysterious about this film-making. The director Fons Rademakers did manage to keep even more suspense than in the original book as if he gave the movie its own soul. The story could really had happen. At the end one cannot accept how the main figure is lost but it was a difficult task to end this movie with two people resembling each other so well. The SD-officer is fanatic as he should be and the resistance looses a lot of their men by the stupidity of our "hero".