thislizard Reviews

Jez Jerzy (2011)

Exceptional animation, poor plot.

[22 November 2011]

Cartoons for adults have never been big in Poland and I doubt they ever will, as long as people understand "adult" as boobs and swear words only.

Jez Jerzy offers cartoon boobs, cartoon violence and toilet jokes. The style of animation corresponds to the original comic books in which the character appeared and it is absolutely unique, you don't see much of similar stuff in animated pictures at all.

The movie makes an attempt at a social satire. The characters come from the margins and from the public life. We learn a little about how media create heroes, villains, stars and politicians. And that skinheads are in fact very insecure boys. And that an old hooker can have a kind heart. But that's about it.

I believe the weakest point of the movie is the plot or the apparent lack of it. At the beginning we learn that a talking hedgehog has an affair with a married woman and he's apparently good at using a skateboard for self-defense. No more than that as long as you haven't read the comic books or interviews with the voice actors. For one reason or another a crazy scientist wants to use the hedgehog's DNA to create a clone. The entire movie is devoted to various characters intending to catch/hurt/kill/eat/have sex with Jez Jerzy and/or his "evil" clone (in fact both are rude and out of control).

It is a funny visual experience, a colorful caricature of the city (Warsaw). However, if you are looking for a sophisticated film experience with an interesting plot and multi-layered meanings, then it's not the right movie for you. On the other hand, if you are looking for cartoon boobs and farts, it is the right movie.

The White Massai (2005)

A great lesson about relationships

[24 April 2011]

Most viewers see this story as an inter-cultural and inter-racial issue and point out what characters could have done instead of what they did. But I saw that this movie tells a lot about relationships in general and you certainly don't have to like the characters to enjoy the story.

Carola is annoying in her expectation that everything is always going to be the way she wants it. Also the title "White Massai" is misleading, since this woman does close to nothing to become a part of the Massai community. Even travel journalists sometimes put clay in their hair or sit down with the village women, but Carola was to busy creating her own world there.

Lemaian is not only a Samburu warrior, first of all he is a huge male ego walking on two legs. With Carola's stubbornness and impractical ambitions the clash of civilizations was largely the clash of opposite sex and the clash of two egos.

As we observe the development of their relationship we are reminded of some important aspects of sex, such as foreplay, female orgasm and cuddling after, to which some men in many cultures may not pay enough attention. Also, thanks to affection in the relationship Lemaian shows that he can be a caring and clever man, it is a beautiful lesson to be learned. Sadly, there are also certain contradictions in this character, he is a respected warrior and goes to town more often than others, yet he seems very naive and weak when confronting men from his family tribe. It is really annoying.

But as I said, you don't have to like nor understand the characters to enjoy the movie. It is really well shot and the landscapes are stunning. Still it doesn't reveal that much about Africa as it does about abusive men and compulsive women. They failed not only because of the cultural gap, but mainly because of their egos.

The Last Legion (2007)

Imperialistic, naive, inaccurate, cute and therefore insanely funny.

[8 March 2011]

Oh, dear. It's a really bad movie, but still worth watching, even for laughs (or for unshaven Colin Firth).

I swear I was told it is an "epic historical drama". By my sense, it is just a little less historically accurate than "Asterix in Britain". Why didn't they go for a full fantasy picture, but only used style of filming typical for fantasy movies and pretended to be using historical setting? Maybe that's how you could film a legend.

Legends, however, most of all show how certain people today want to define their identity. By this interpretation of the Arthurian legend Britain apparently says: "we, the British, have the true spirit of Roman soldiers, and totally so do Black and Hindu people under our rule." I'm not sure if it's plain imperialism or just political correctness gone wrong and whether I should laugh (well, I did almost every time I saw that fat African-American dude among the Roman legionaries) or just get sick (it's a modern movie, do people really think that way?). I think Firth's many roles as an upper-class English gentleman contribute to this picture.

There are many things that didn't make sense neither historically nor within the plot. It's hard to say whether the creators of the movie were ignorant or rather purposefully wanted to show their beliefs and values regardless of the general knowledge. I'm not going to list every detail, but surely the better you know history, the louder you'll laugh.

Putting the confusing overtones and nonsensical settings aside, it is an enjoyable adventure with some funny moments and moving hugs. The movie is also family-friendly, because there is nothing inappropriate except sword fights. And even though Aishwarya Rai looks gorgeous, there's no chemistry between the male and female protagonists, the romance is implied just because they are the male and female protagonists. The implication is so weak, that I (an imaginative adult) honestly though they lied on the bed together because it was cold.

My guess about the target audience was perfect. Within IMDb demographics the movie is rated the highest by Males under 18 (action-adventure plot with a sophistication of the last decade's PC game) and Females over 45 (sincerly, Colin Firth has never looked so manly in any other movie). Doesn't it speak volumes?

I must have really overrated the movie with 4 stars, but at least I had a good laugh and didn't get bored. Also, there was the moon shown twice in different phases, which is the most rare things in movies (in almost all cases it is only the full moon which is the proper hint that it is night) and that excuses the poorly digitally pasted backgrounds in view scenes and saves a star.

Dear me, I still can't stop laughing. Maybe re-reading some fragments from a history book and re-watching "Mamma Mia!" will help me restore sanity.

And if there is any new movie about Spartans, Vikings and Ninjas coming out, make sure Colin Firth is in it. Unshaven.

The King's Speech (2010)

Empathy, so much empathy

[7 March 2011]

Two things which lured me to the theater were the cast and the genre: the rare case of a biography with the elements of comedy, my top favorite among comedies. Two things that made the movie memorable were the reconstruction of the time period with a rather modern insight and the close bond with the main character, it really felt like being there and then.

This movie is a touching drama with a lovely humor, but can be a really scary catastrophe thriller for anyone who has any kind of speech impediment, stage fright or other problem with public speaking. The emotions you get before an exam or a public presentation will be back on you in the theater. Oh, the horror! Bertie, do you want a hug?

I really appreciate how the main characters were portrayed; it was easy to see their strong and weak points, their fears and ambitions. Helena Bonham Carter was the Dutchess/Queen with class but also with nerve, and the two leading actors created a warm and strong married couple. Geoffrey Rush showed us Lionel Logue as a clever man with the greatest empathy, who was also very much ahead of his era with the approach to the therapy.

It was interesting to see the society in which mass media, public relations and personal life coaches would seem much of a novelty, but apparently it was already coming. I liked the way the movie showed good and bad sides of monarchy, both for the members of the royal family and for the nation (er... Empire).

It was a memorable movie certainly worth watching even if due to the emotional bond with King George it makes you feel like having a cigarette, pronouncing random dirty words and becoming a Colin Firth fan-girl forever more.

Maybe Baby (2000)

Absolutely nothing to laugh at

[24 February 2011]

This movie has definitely left me with mixed feelings. I'm not sure if it is a comedy which failed to be funny or is it a realistic drama which is actually supposed to give us the real feeling of frustration. Let's face it, there's Hugh Laurie and Rowan Atkinson and still no humor, at least for me. It's quite suspicious.

I can't tell how real infertile couples would feel about this movie, yet, sympathetic as I am, I simply don't like the main characters, even though the actors are really sweet. That's also a little surprising. I can't have enough feeling for this leading couple, they don't seem to be a loving family to me. I see them as two rather selfish people who crave each for their own career and conceiving a baby is just one of the goals in their lives and not being able to succeed frustrates them. It's only near the end when it is said how Lucy (Joely Richardson) feels about becoming a mom, but it's not enough for me to get into her shoes.

But maybe that's the whole point, to show the shallowness of relationships in today's world and a complete inability to deal with failure and weakness. I'm not sure whether it's the thing that the characters learned in the end and/or the message that most viewers would get.

An interesting point, however, was that the reason of their infertility was no medical condition. It really does happen to healthy people, maybe stress, lifestyle and paradoxically, too high expectations. The movie indeed tells something true about relationships and society, but maybe not the nicest things we would like to hear.

I give this movie a credit as a comedy for 2 funny moments: Hugh Laurie on the piano singing about sperm tests, and an actor on a rehearsal reciting "why do birds in English have such dirty names like 'cock' or 'tit'", it keeps me laughing since then.

I can't decided if it's a good or bad movie, it's up to you. I can honestly recommend it only to die-hard Hugh Laurie fans for the sake of watching Hugh Laurie riding a motorbike, playing music and taking his pants off. Yup, excuse me.

Hard Rock Zombies (1984)

It's so bad that it's actually... bad.

[5 February 2011]

You can guess it is not a movie to watch with high expectations, but there should be at least something for the actual fans of the genre i.e. extremely low budget zombie movies, rock'n'roll and the 80s as such. Sadly, there isn't. Technically speaking this production it is not even a movie, but a remade 20-minute piece and you can notice the desperation of the filmmakers trying to fill the other 78 minutes with anything at all, which included full songs played by the band on stage, totally random interludes and repeating the same video sequences. The unrelated scenes could disturb the plot and the logical course of events, if there were any, but in fact there wasn't much.

This movie is quite different from other zombie movies, surely it is gory and tasteless at moments, but for the most part it is incredibly boring and the things which make no sense are not even that funny. It can be quite a disappointment for hard rock and heavy metal fans (who are most likely to pick this movie: come on, zombies, Hitler and rock'n'roll) because it doesn't really feature the 80s' music they would listen to. The tracks are not hard rock and not even rock'n'roll. I liked the love ballad "Cassie's Song" though. I think I'll even give the movie an extra star for that (the base rating was 2 for "bad, but I managed to watch it till the end").

I find this movie a little too bad even for people specifically interested in bad movies. Unless things like Nazi zombie midgets really do it for you, then you totally should go for it.

The Devil's Arithmetic (1999 TV Movie)

I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more.

[14 January 2011]

Believe or not, after my first visit to Auschwitz museum at the age of 14 I spent some time killing my awful thoughts with a fantasy about how great it would be to travel in time and save at least one person. I was a little more than surprised when I found out that someone actually dared to make a fantasy movie about a death camp with definitely teenage impact and somehow escaped ending up with it being stupid or offensive.

This movie is a good introduction for the young ones into history and more serious movies on the subject. The best thing to do was to give contemporary teenagers (especially the more ignorant ones) a character to identify with - a cute, trendy, careless girl. As Hannah experiences the painful history through an episode from her aunt's life, we understand that it is not so easy to understand what happened unless you have really been there or have enough empathy. Indeed, this movie teaches a lot about empathy, respect and sacrifice. (And that the USA is the Promised Land and the best place to live for all the Jews and other innocent, brave, freedom-loving people. Really, they've seriously overdone that bit).

The incomplete historical background is the major drawback. All that is seen is the life of a happy Jewish rural town and the transport to the death camp executed by an extremely stereotypical almost cartoon-like "bad Nazi". Nothing at all about the reasons and course of war, different nations and the whole variety of people's attitudes, behavior and decisions. I guess it would make the movie too long and complex for short attention span audiences. Wink.

Simplified as it was, this movie had some charming elements. Cute Kirsten Dunst and Brittany Murphy, the references to the Wizard of Oz and even a little humor, which wasn't dark but optimistic (for some reason the dialogue about cheeseburgers totally won my heart).

The whole time-travel plot worked out fine: Hannah had learned her lesson about the painful past of her family and other Jews as well as about the good and strength that was in her, but still aunt Eva didn't believe that her spoiled rebellious niece and the heroic friend from the camp were the same person, which puts our feet back on the ground.

The message is understandable and deep: we cannot change the past, but we can learn from it.

Happy Feet (2006)

Very illogical if not offensive movie which might make me hate penguins.

[28 November 2010]

"Haters will hate!", "Haters are conservative!", "Haters don't see it is a funny movie for kiddos!".

Hello, I'm a hater, nice to meet you! I don't generally hate children's movies and literature. I find most of them great fun for both grown-ups and little ones. But this can be only achieved when the movie offers fun and action with a bit of education to the kids and something to move the adults or make them think. This movie offers nothing but very illogical "teaching" about environment for the children and sex jokes for the adults. Besides, call me whatever names, but I assure you, children to some extent do tell dry-humping from "playing" or "dancing". Even to think such content is all what we expect from a family movie is offensive to the intellect of any age group.

I finally decided to give this picture 2 stars, for I appreciate the way they animated sea and sky and all the work on choreography, but the plot, characters and dialogs deserve minus rating.

If I had this silly habit of talking to myself, I would have whispered "What?", "Why?" and "Excuse me!" quite often.

The major failure is the clash of anthropomorphic animals with actual humans. For me it worked in "Ice Age", scored a weak pass in "Ratatouille" and hit the very bottom here. If there are actual humans in the movie (of one kind), why are there different human ethnicities, cultures and religions mapped on the penguins? It is so illogical that it hurts. And it's also closer to offensive (stereotypes) than liberal (variety). Also, the allusions to religion are very much biased, since the leaders are portrayed as dumb, selfish and forbidding others from having fun and being themselves.

It is unbelievably ironic that this production won an Oscar over "Cars", which had no religious themes (thanks God!), but taught that there is something else in life than our personal goals that it is worth to slow down for and that the old ones have their story to tell and deserve respect and friendship. Ewww, so "conservative"! Now I see clearly the spirit of the filmmakers and critics in general.

As for the "educative" part about saving environment and endangered species on our planet the story was also illogical and didn't lead me to expected conclusions "we should be aware and caring". Instead it filled my head with a bunch of ridiculous thoughts and associations.

If I had just discovered that there exists a colony of penguins with near-human intelligence attempting to communicate with our species I would advocate a long-term research on their abilities and tried to create and artificial language of communication between them and us. That would surely change a lot more in our study of nature than simply giving up fishing.

It's quite sad and unfair to make children believe that politicians or entrepreneurs will change anything because animals can "tell" them something. To push my train of thought yet a bit more off the rail, all animals need the resources we are using (water, food, forest). It is such a serious and heartbreaking issue that it's the high time for us as the human race to commit a mass suicide, so that aliens could carry our souls out of this Earth and we would leave it all to the animals who tap and sing Gospel songs about mating.

Sarcasm over. Review over.

Pan Tadeusz (1999)

Pretty illustration to the book, but can't really function as an independent picture.

[29 July 2010]

I don't blame any non-Polish viewers for being confused or simply bored. Not at all. At the moment I'm even trying to imagine how it feels watching this picture without being able to refer anytime to the knowledge of the book and the cultural background. I guess it makes you feel lost and empty-headed.

First of all, the screen play was created in a very unusual way. The dialogs were not written, but extracted from the poem, some of them being full rhyming lines and some only parts. Of course most of the meaningful and informative pieces were in the narrative section of the poem and somehow didn't make it to the screen. I'm all for "show not tell", but "don't show, don't tell, everybody knows it all from school" is not the top shelf of movie-making to me.

All that is shown is pretty people, pretty costumes, pretty interiors, pretty nature. Definitely pleasant to see for anyone who likes pictures with historical settings and would like to get to know something about the life in a particular time and place.

The movie really works only for people who have read the poem and have been taught about its historical background. After such preparation they can enjoy this multimedia reconstruction of the characters and places from the book, because that's rather what it is to me. Indeed, all the actors are good, music memorable and all the details nicely done, but this production really lacks the cinematic backbone and something that would allow it to be a movie on its own.

Sunshine Barry and the Disco Worms (2008)

Predictable yet enjoyable musical family movie

[21 July 2010]

When I saw the first trailer I was rather skeptical about another animated movie made to promote celebrities through giving them voice roles and singing old hits all over again. I was surprised to see that it was actually very well done. The version which I watched was dubbed by Polish soap-opera actors, pop-rock singers and talent-show jurors so every worm got a celebrity matching their character and the arrangements of songs were very well done. My wild guess is that other language versions worked in a similar way.

The animation is fairly nice, with many background details and fantastically designed body language of the worms whose tail-gestures make up for the lack of arms.

The plot is very predictable, so I won't even try to spoil it. The movie reminds us that we should never give up on dreams, follow our heart, be proud of our children whatever they are good at, believe in ourselves and our friends, be able to express ourselves and not be posers. Rather typical stuff, but good to be reminded of from time to time.

A very good point of the movie is that it is suitable for people of all ages. Children will follow the simple plot, teenagers will laugh at the characters and adults will pick up the satire on relations between generations and the dull life of working people.

I recommend it to families with children and suggest some dancing during the final scene and credits.

Beowulf (2007)

Works well for me... as a parody.

[2 July 2010]

The 3D glasses and a group of Anglo-Saxon literature and culture enthusiast really made me enjoy the movie. The arrows were flinging, the coins were showering, the branches poked my face and while other people laughed only at the weak sex-related jokes we laughed at every change of the original story and every cheesy bit of dialog, so in fact all the time.

To make it clear to all of you who are not that much into history of literature: Beowulf was most probably written by an Anglo-Saxon poet-monk in England about the pagan heroes from somewhere about today's Denmark/Sweden. I imagine he just loved the simple legend about a fight of good vs. evil so he adapted it and skilfully imputed that it was the good God who help the good-willing pagans to fight the evil monsters even though they didn't know Him. It was written in a beautiful style and was appreciated by numerous generations.

Contemporary world, however, seems not to be a place for heroes anymore. People go through moral and psychological struggles, the monsters that we fear are not outside, they are in us. However, making the characters the monsters' fathers in the most literal sense is a bit of overdoing in showing this.

For the creators of the movie the ideas of good and evil were not attractive at all. It looks as if they tried really hard to make a point against Christianity even though it didn't fit the historical settings at all.

Putting an actual date at the beginning made a funny pseudo-historical introduction. The Dark Ages are dark, but then you have late medieval strongholds and renaissance music. Pretty indeed, but pure nonsense, just like Angelina's Old English. She pronounced it perfectly, so did Gollum, er, Grendel, but it's most illogical! Everyone speaks modern English and the monsters apparently Old English. I would guess that the characters spoke Norse and West Germanic dialects and monsters didn't speak at all, because they were monsters, not golden Lara Croft with stiletto shoes and her bastard son. Only our poet-monk spoke Old English, but if the whole movie was in Old English with subs it would have been awesome.

The movie rather looked and sounded pleasant and the 3D was entertaining. The humans were a bit doll-like and there were a lot of idiotic ways to "cover" their private parts. The panoramas were beautiful, though mountains and stone walls don't do justice to the original swamps and woodwork of the times and place given.

Apart from lack of consistency in recreating the settings and atmosphere of the Dark Ages it is mainly the change of the whole story and turning the back on the very idea of a hero that makes me so critical about this movie. We really need to hear a legend about a good hero who kills an evil monster from time to time to have the strength to deal with our inner struggles. The creators of the movie wanted to outsmart it and made something hysterically funny instead.

I give as much as 4/10 since 2 is for a movie that I managed to watch at all, +1 for pretty visuals and 3D effects, +1 for hilarious anachronisms and Angelina :)

Tristan + Isolde (2006)

Why no magic, fantasy and passion at all?

[2 July 2010]

It is a very bad manner of film making in these decade to film legends as historical movies. Legends normally don't tell you much about the actual historical settings, they use symbols and are allowed a bit of fantasy.

The love story of Tristan & Isolde should be a fairy tale for adults, not a pseudo-historical movie for children. Why so serious? We know that love potions don't exist and most people fall in love because they are both young, attractive and have good time together. But can't we just pretend that there is some special, magical kind of love brought to us by fate at least for the sake of the movie if not for our own little reflection on relationships?

Anyway, many aspects of this serious and realistic love story get overshadowed by the badly reconstructed historical events. It's a pity that so much energy was spent on creating pretty costumes and decoration, naming all the geographical places and providing variety of accents, since so many things are inconsistent or simply don't match the period. The more history and literature you know, the funnier the movie gets. Quoting John Donne who lived a thousand years later and whose words still sound more archaic that the main dialog was hilarious enough.

That's all of the entertainment. The PG-13 cut assures us the fights won't be too bloody nor love too physical. It definitely provides a bigger income when you allow schoolchildren in theaters, but I'm sure it would work better as a more grown-up movie, with less history, but with more fantasy and mystery.

Sexmission (1984)

Hilarious gender comedy brings along a brilliant satire on totalitarian society.

[25 April 2010]

"Sexmission" has everything that a good movie needs - a plot, memorable characters, well written dialog and a bigger concept underlying the story. In fact there are two concept that meet at several points: the gender stereotypes seen from different perspectives and the totalitarian dystopia.

If I had to advertise the movie to non-Polish viewers (especially the English-speaking ones) perhaps I would give it a tag line "Orwell meets Benny Hill".

The beginning of the plot is well known - two hibernated men, Max and Albert, wake up after a great war in the hands of all-female totalitarian state. The women are brainwashed (a strong mockery of radical feminism) so they perceive males as a threat to the society. Our heroes realize that the ways they have dealt with women before - cheap compliments (Max) and appearing vulnerable (Albert) - will just not work here. The two men have to rely on their better features: wit, courage, honest male friendship and strong faith in humanity in their pursuit for freedom and restoring the laws of nature.

The political satire is very well constructed, since the women's society as presented in the movie has all the features of the totalitarian regime. The loyalty to the League (equivalent of the Party) is superior to all interpersonal relationships and what is the most significant, the League's propaganda purposely misrepresents reality as well as history.

The gender stereotypes are explored with rather positive attitude, showing that there's no use of denying our own nature and that the differences between the genders, even with their weaknesses, is what we are attracted to.

The outcome of these ideas is that you definitely become a better man and a better woman when you are allowed the freedom of thought.

I believe you don't have to "know Poland" to understand the movie, but in fact any experience with political (science) fiction is enough. Enjoy!

Date Movie (2006)

During which scene will you turn it off?

[17 April 2010]

This is probably the most reviewed title among those I really felt like writing about, but still I think it can go with yet another mini-essay on how bad it was.

Being in a mood for something light and hearing "there's something about a funny fat girl on TV" i sat down to watch. For a reason unknown I thought about an original story about a fat girl who finds happiness or something like that. However, the fat girl was replaced with a thin girl, paired with a boy and a collection of unrelated idiotic scenes followed.

The supposed meaning behind these unrelated scenes was a parody of scenes from all well known American date movies. The problem is that date movies are often referred to as "romantic comedies" and you really can't make a comedy being a parody of a comedy. Funny turned into "funnier" results in RETARDED and romantic/erotic element made into "funny" becomes GROSS.

The cross-references to popular date movies are possible to grasp only if you remember a particular scene from this or that comedy. There is no parody of the style or genre, but only situations and gestures are copied from scenes from other movies and put in a different context or more precisely, into non-context. Every scene seems more pointless and less funny than another. Even if you are not a demanding viewer, in a mood for something silly, enjoying toilet humor and soft porn from time to time you may not be able to watch the whole of it. In my opinion to switch it off during a cat's attempt at sexual activity with a dried human corpse is already a few scenes too far. The question remains: when would YOU switch it off?

Jutro idziemy do kina (2007 TV Movie)

Imagine, the teenagers in 1939 were just like you...

[15 April 2010]

I think there were practical reasons behind making this movie. Mainly shoot us a picture which the Polish public TV would have always at hand to play around the Second World War outbreak anniversary. And put some cutesy teens in it, so the young ones would have someone to identify with.

The cast is fairly decent. Most of the faces are recognizable for a Polish TV viewer and many of them are good actors. The message of the movie is also important - before the war the young people lived normal and often nice life, had their ambitions and their little crushes. Just like you would. The relations between them are also neatly portrayed.

However, all of that put together gives a result far from fascinating. It's neither very humorous nor very dramatic. It just show some people and some relations between them and a bit of what matters to them just a few days before the outbreak.

Of course the young people couldn't have a clue about what was coming, but yet, the mysterious imperative "You shall lose your virginity before 1st September" seemed to be present throughout a movie. And no, it didn't add that much attractiveness to it all.

The Pianist (2002)

Unexplained cruelty, a non-character and very many fascinating wooden cupboards.

[13 April 2010]

What do you normally expect from a biographical movie about a musician during the World War II and the persecution of Jews? Probably a character who is either likable or non-stereotypical hence interesting, lots of good music, some historical hints for dummies and varied social background. Apparently "The Pianist" doesn't give you too much of any of these.

First of all, there is no plot strictly speaking, but a sequence of events in which the main character is involved. The war starts, people get killed, the uprisings break out, the Russians come, the war ends and all the time Szpilman is barely an observer, apart from the threat of being shot or sent to a death camp the history doesn't shape our "hero", nor does he change anything in it. He doesn't fight nor support the fighting civilians, he doesn't save anyone, he barely helps his fellows. His proceedings through the war times are likely to be less interesting than those of any randomly picked war survivor.

I cannot judge the real Szpilman and his life, but I could imagine him being less dull and passive than the character in the movie. Szpilman created by Brody doesn't seem to be a musical genius, but rather a self-centered average person. He is awkward and naive in a non-charming way. There is no depth to the character and he doesn't form any relationships with others apart from expecting help. With this help he moves from one apartment to another and stares blankly at the cupboards. I realize that food shortage was a big issue during the war, but how many cupboard examinations can you put in one movie?

It's not like I dislike cupboards. In fact I find the decorations and choice of items to be the strongest point of the movie, some very realistic and nicely designed reconstructions. Although interiors and costumes often look too clean and too smart, it is nevertheless a good job done.

The reconstruction of the society doesn't work that well. All the Poles plus one Nazi soldier are nice and helpful, all the Nazis plus one Polish neighbor are mean, Soviets are the victorious heroes who bring peace to Poles and Jews. It's a very simple division more typical of a movie from the '60s than a modern one. Besides, even though the main focus is on the Jews, the movie doesn't seem to have any really Jewish elements. Where is the Jewish religion and spirituality, Jewish music and Jewish wit? Of course living in a ghetto makes people lose heart but it doesn't mean there is no need for some characteristics to be shown in the movie.

There's absolutely nothing said about the reasons of the war actions. The war is like an unstoppable natural disaster from which you can only hide, but not an international conflict in which the orders come from and are executed by real people. The Nazis simply came to kill both Poles and Jews though the latter with more monstrous pleasure. The scenes are explicit, not suitable for children and sensitive adults. Death doesn't seem to have any meaning in this movie. If so, then without any disrespect to the real Szpilman, why would we want him in particular to survive, while so many others were starved to death, shot in the head or thrown out of a window?

I can only recommend this movie to people who cannot tell apart the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising from the Warsaw Uprising - there are dates on the screen to help you remember; and anyone who likes cupboards.

I don't recommend this movie to people who like action, multi-linear plot, well developed characters, dislike shallow good vs. evil division and showing more blood than necessary.

Glen or Glenda (1953)

Stunningly abstract half-amateur film-making gives unbelievably modern and humane insight into gender issues.

[11 April 2010]

As probably many other viewers I decided to see "Glen or Glenda" to verify if it's really what was hinted in the brilliant biographical "Ed Wood". And indeed, I stared with my mouth open at Bela Lugosi's recitations and the random buffalo scene. It was all there. Some honestly unintended avant-garde.

Yet the movie is not half as bad as the legend holds it. The important fact is that it isn't an actual story, it's more of a semi-documentary, party educational picture. Behind the really weird editing the movie tells a lot about transvestitism, transsexualism, relationships, sexual identity and social roles. It's hard to believe that it was made in early 1950s! Not only it was produced significantly before the so called "sexual revolution" of the '60s, but also certain gender issues that were carefully covered in the movie seem to be still beyond the understanding of certain narrow-minded and prejudiced people today.

I recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get to know Edward Wood and his work and also to people interested in the history of approach to gender studies and the society.

Katyn (2007)

Hopefully better than an obligatory history lesson put to screen.

[9 April 2010]

To pick a right rating for "Katyn" we need to somehow overcome the joy that the story has been finally put to screen on the one hand, on the other the bitterness of movie connoisseurs who yearn for a better script and more multidimensional characters.

To help you with your interpretations I'll give you a piece of important background information i.e. huge part of Polish film industry is the educational cinema. It consists of screenings of novels (often in historical setting) and biographies. A movie of a greater interest (and greater ticket/DVD sales) is the one that NEEDS to be seen (a great help for literature and history classes if you are in school) rather than one that is so attractive and impressive that you WANT to see it.

In that context "Katyn" is a fairly good piece from the list of "movies that need to be seen". Before that, since the Katyn massacre stopped being a forbidden topic, it was on the list of "movies that need to be done".

The director had a big job to do with balancing certain concepts and styles of film making. Firstly, a documentary vs. real action and drama. He did a satisfactory job here, considering the variety of audiences: from people who lost their family members in the massacre to foreigners perfectly ignorant about the World War II and people from various countries who just want to see a good war movie. Probably it could have been slightly improved in all the aspects, with more historical information, but together with more action and more character work.

Next big dilemma is between showing who was the victim and who was the aggressor, at the same time explaining that nothing was so black and white during the War. It definitely didn't work. The movie was done entirely from the perspective of the victims who didn't even really fight back. Then there is the issue of presenting of the individual characters and the whole of society. I think here it's the society that is portrayed better. The war aftermath in Poland is really well shown with people who believe in two different ways of rebuilding their country. The scene in which a Soviet soldier tears the Polish flag in a half letting the red banner wave and he uses the white part to bandage his feet is very symbolic. Either accept the supremacy or get crushed.

Making a historical movie puts certain limitations on the director. But if an average viewer gets to know a bit about the powers shaping the Europe during the war and some time after - I call it a success. And if an average viewer grows a little bond with the characters, just enough to get the feeling of anger and injustice when they get shot - I say the movie worked.

Madagascar (2005)

Very unentertaining excuse for a family movie

[6 April 2010]

I really like animated adventures and comedies. I sometimes even go out them in a company of equally adult people and if not I just wait for the movies to be aired on TV. Since the adult people told me to see "Madagascar" because "thre are lemurs who like to move it, move it", I watched it.

The first thing that hit me was the general unfriendliness of the movie. It is obviously the fault of Disney that I've got used to really pretty and cuddly animal characters and subtle intelligent dialog and couldn't appreciate the sharp-edged caricatures of animals and forced unfunny slang. Of course I judge the language only by the Polish dubbed version, but I'm sure that if the original dialog were decent, the Polish producers wouldn't provide a translation that sounds neither smart nor polite. I may be speaking a bit too much like a teacher now, but I believe that even the funniest entertainment for children should have some intellectually stimulating element instead of pumping utterly dumb and not even funny "humor" into children's heads.

The second major disadvantage is the lack of the plot. The animals escape from the ZOO and arrive at Madagascar. End of the story. There are some obstacles on the way, the famous penguin sub-plot, dancing lemurs and the lion's moral conflict, but all of that together don't really form a story.

Let me analyze now the moral conflict of the lion and explain why I find this movie really disgusting.

Every child, unless brought up by vegans, experiences this moment when he/she fully understands that meat comes from animals and accepts it by the law of nature. Again, Disney brings back the memory of the Lion King's Circle of Life with its deep and almost philosophical message. There must be something meaningful in the movies and stories about talking animals. They can either present the laws of nature (animals act like animals) or serve as an allegory of human society (animals act like people) and a child's mind is perfectly able to work in these two worlds. But the conflict presented in "Madagascar" works in neither.

It shows the lion's natural instinct of eating animal flesh as something immoral and sick that can be overcome by friendship, forgiveness and some sort of therapy. Unless that instinct is an allegory of alcoholism or domestic violence, it is all totally wrong. Lions and other carnivores cannot stop eating meat using their good will and it is something children shouldn't be tricked into believing. Of course there are cartoons in which cats and aardvarks go to school and eat apple pie, but then they don't want to eat their neighbors and friends, just like it is common in the human society, excluding concentration camps and planes crashed on the iceberg.

If I were little when I watched "Madagascar" the image of a zebra and lemurs turning into steaks would have given me a reason not to sleep at night. And the scene with the lion biting the zebra's butt is not funny at all. I don't know how it was supposed to be humorous in any way, if what he wanted was to feed on his flesh, injure him and probably kill. Maybe some people find it funny just because it was the butt and nothing bad happened after all.

The solution to the lion's moral conflict is eating fish. "Fish instead of meat" is an unrealistic change of eating habits in animal world and doesn't represent any consistent ethics in the human society (apart of some religious fasting or some sort of unsaturated fat diet). It may be a sigh of relief for kids who cared about the characters in the movie, but it doesn't help them develop any useful attitude towards real life animals with this false belief that laws of nature can be changed. I can also hear with my mind's ear some vegans arguing that "a fish has the same right to live as a zebra!".

But that's all about meat and upbringing. But what people - adults and young ones - liked the most were the penguins and the song. The problem is that when the minor characters steal the show it means the movie wasn't very well constructed. And the song wasn't an original one, it's in fact a well known piece, which by being associated with "Madagascar" brought the movie extra popularity.

The swinging lemur, who likes to move it, move it, however, is something very special. Silly and powerful, vain and insane - I'm taking King Julien out of this movie with his bigger crown with a gecko on it to adore him in peace.

Apart from the penguins and King Julien there's absolutely nothing enjoyable in this movie and with its perverted ethics and poor dialog I rate is as unsuitable for the audiences of any age.

1/10 +1 for King Julien.

Schwere Jungs (2006)

This one made biographical comedy my favorite genre!

[3 April 2010]

Winter Olimpics of 1952 was the first international event in which Germany participated after the World War II. It was a great opportunity to symbolically restore the friendly relations between Germany and other nations. However, the emissaries of this consent were the bobsleigh teams formed of men who hated one another from early childhood, had very bad manners and certain family problems that they happened to bring along.

Though the first half of the movie is slightly boring, from the point when our heroes arrive at Oslo the real comedy starts with a variety of misunderstandings and embarrassing situations.

It's probably not a very faithful representation of how the real events looked like, but it's really enjoyable to watch the plot with some crazy twists and turns to be built on a real story. There is of course a message in the movie. It's not exactly about friendship, but definitely showing the value of agreeing to do something together against the odds for some greater cause.

And for sure I have never before and never after laughed so hard during an epilogue.

Coraline (2009)

So why are beetroots better than flowers? Great potential and lots of room for improvement.

[29 March 2010]

As a great admirer of doll animation I was fascinated and impressed by the amount of work the creators of the movie has put into it. A close look at the clothes, interiors and the enchanted flowers was like appreciating a piece of art. It applied to everything but the characters, which seemed to be way too sharp-edged, their proportions were too disturbed and often the general impression too grotesque as compared to classic animation.

After reading a brief synopsis, no to mention the book, you already know the whole story. Real life and real people seem so dull and cold and the other world seems so luring, until it becomes a real nightmare.

Having fought the evil witch and destroyed the illusion of the other world Coraline learns to appreciate her real family and neighbors. However, I don't see how the change in the characters did take place. Coraline shows more affection towards her parents simply because she missed them and they at least don't want to kill her or sew buttons on her face. The parents seem more cheerful and less distant than at the beginning of the movie, but not because of the adventure. They don't remember anything that happened in the other world, they simply feel relaxed and optimistic because they have completed their job that had kept them busy. Could that be a permanent change? Was the witch gone forever after the spider-needle-hand was tossed into the well?

The story doesn't justify how the real world transformed from really unfriendly (ice-cold parents, disturbed neighbors) to fairly normal. It is disappointing because I expected a real allegory of repairing family relations and mirroring of the real world in the other world not only by the looks but by the course of events (somewhat like in "The Pan's Labyrinth").

Another big doubt about the movie is the age of a target audience. It is way too creepy for little children, but not challenging enough to grasp teenagers' and adults' attention.

A real beetroot is better for you than an illusion of a flower, yet I'm not sure if it was exactly what this symbol stood for. Maybe it wasn't symbolic at all. The movie is without doubt memorable, but I'd rather have a little more beetroot than flower in it i.e. more story over the picture.

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

A story lacking meaning and absurdity at once.

[27 March 2010]

When I first heard that Tim Burton and a whole squadron of actors I've already loved in other films are working on their version of "Alice" I was thrilled. Especially because I've read Tim Burton's poetry and I thought that if he and Lewis Carrol lived in the same era they would just love to spend time together telling each other unbelievable stories while having tea and oysters. Needless to say I was wrong.

The first question that comes to my mind is in what era the minds of the creators of this movie got stuck. A story about emancipation would have been big in the 1960s, while a story about a young person slaying a dragon would have become cult among teenagers in the 1980s. Yet we are in the year 2010, when the visual effects developed much, but the poor storyline is far less innovative that the books which became famous over a century ago.

The visual effects, however, are no big argument in favor of the movie. It could have been the theater's fault, the angle or just my eyes, but in many places the picture seemed out of focus or with low contrast and there were no breathtaking 3D effects. So the pleasure of seeing it in 3D didn't make up for the weird adaptation as it happened in the case of "Beowulf".

Lewis Carrol's books hasn't become popular because of their plot, but because of playing with logic, illustrating the literal meaning of conventional phrases with nonsensical situations and bringing the characters from proverbs and nursery rhymes to life. These creatures had all the right to act illogically, because they were nothing but meaningless words trying to become real in Alice's dream. Tim Burton's movie did have a plot, which was unfortunately the most banal one - the title character has to accomplish a quest because apparently no one else can. All the minor characters for some reason have got new names, but not a bit of personality.

Certain situations could seem repetitive for a person who had read the books or seen any of the earlier "Alice" movies, yet I imagine it would be difficult to understand the movie without having any previous "Alice" experience. I would recommend knowing the "Jabberwocky" poem by heart just to be able to grasp all the nonexistent words that appear in the movie and to know why they are there at all.

Since we are faced with a simple plot and flat characters we should be able to recognize their motives and goals. In fact we can only draw the conclusions that the Red Queen is evil and she shall not rule the land because she shouts a lot, the White Queen is good and she shall rule the land because she is pretty, and only Alice and no one else but Alice shall slay the dragon because... well, because! Frankly speaking I fail to see any more reason behind Alice's quest. The division into good and evil is being forced upon us without proper argumentation. Since it is no longer an adventure of a child but of a young adult we could have expected that the story and the world would be more complex and intellectually challenging, yet we face the exact opposite - everything has been painfully simplified.

The final questions are: what did the director want to tell us through this picture? What have our heroine achieved and learned during her adventure? Has Alice learned that she doesn't have to obey all the rules of the real world and rather be herself? I'm sorry to say, but such a movie was made in 1999 (the one in which Whoopi Goldberg played the Cat). Has Alice found out that she can be smart and independent? This role was not convincing enough when it comes to these two traits. Or is the message of the movie that we shall be imaginative because we can make good money of it? That's exactly what Alice's father believed and also what I think Alice and the creators of the movie have really understood.