thomas4cinema

Update for German readers: nice review on the German “Superman returns” start can be found here:

http://www.fr-online.de/in_und_ausland/kultur_und_medien/feuilleton/?em_cnt=948572

To make this very clear: nobody forced me to go, I was actually looking forward, because this time I knew for sure that I would not get disappointed, because my expectations were zero. Superman has always been a whimp, has no muscles (and, I supposed until recently, no testicles) and no brain, just lucky with his super powers from Krypton. He is noone to be adored, noone that you ever want to be yourself. He is good for catching burglars and saving the world, but that’s about it. There is no chance you make a really exciting film out of this dull character. Spiderman had his chance, and failed. Batman had his chances, and failed mostly. About Fantastic 4 we better speak no more… But: Superman was probably one of the first movies I ever saw in a cinema, and I still remember having been very impressed by the side-fact that they had to pay 1 Million Dollars to Marlon Brando to make him wear a wig and say some pathectic lines. I must have missed one or two of the sequels, so it is a bit hard to follow the plot… just kidding, but I was indeed surprised to learn that Superman called and flew or teleported home to pay tribute to his no more existing home planet (which is a bit like going to see the place where Titanic sank – not much to see, I reckon). So now that’s why he “returns” and the last and only mystery of the film has been resolved. Apart from who convinced the woman who is Lex Luthor’s side-kick to take that job, because her career will not be fostered by this new piece of her own history. The film has some nice humour at times (related to canine cannibalism, for example), and a sympathetic villain (Lex Luthor has always been the only reason to read the comics). There are two seriously annoying things about the film, however, so you may wait for the director’s cut collector’s box alternative version DVD thing which might do away with them if enough of us write emials to the producers: (1) Louis Lane, (2) the story. There have been about 23040 more interesting ways to take over control over the planet, and there have been 0 more boring superhero love interests. Apart from that: to be recommended if you can get it at high volume while the weather is rainy and you already have had dinner, but there is still no major sports tournament on tv.

I kind of stopped watching Coen films some time ago. I don’t know why and when it happened. I only know that the comedy with Zeta-Jones and Clooney (can’t remember the name of the movie) was so uninteresting in description that I only very late realised that it actually was done by the Coens. What happened to them? The bite is gone? I never had as dangerous a laughing fit as when I watched "Raising Arizona", I am even among the few people who watched "Hudsucker" and I am one of … er… one who likes it. That mixture of slapstick comedy by people who you don’t expect to perform it, the mix of production design and camera that always tended to have a slightly surreal touch. Amazing. But gone… Ladykillers has been an attempt to revive those old days (for me, I mean – but maybe also for them, by using one of the most hilarious comedies of all times as a script), and it was very boring. Very boring, indeed. One wonders why you have to take up this pathetic habit of remakes, in the first place. If you do, you must either have a genius’ touch on twisting the story into new directions, or maybe your aesthetic vision allows you to reinvent the optics of a film. Ladykillers does neither. The lady is black, and she sings the Gospel. That’s basically it about the variations. Tom Hanks is not up to the role-model he is supposed to be following – and looks detached from the part, maybe be became aware of the imminent failure, but that may also be sheer interpretation. So he remains the most over-rated and under-subtled actor of the last two centuries, but let’s leave it up to taste: I just don’t like anything about the film, and I wished they hadn’t made it. As it’s too late for that: would it be inappropriate to suggest not to do another one? You lost the touch, boys…

One of these crazy little films where you wonder where the borderline between a prank and true art is. Or whether it matters. Brilliantly conceived variations upon a 1960s short film by a Swedish director whose name I forgot. And the one who made up the creative twists is none less but Lars von Trier, the still-Wunderkind of European cinema. He is consequent in not losing too many thoughts about the artistic implications of his directives (or at least he is keen on leaving this impression) and throws artistic idiocies such as "no take longer than 12 frames" at the old man, knowing exactly that the well-established genius will find a brilliant way to cope with this.

Not all five "obstructions" (to making a normal film, one should add) are equally innovative and original, sometimes the claimed and pronounced desperation appears real, as the film scenes meander about without too much concept. It does not matter, however. The film perfectly presents ways to chew on stories and aesthetical ideas, efforts to find new approaches to established stories in a medium that requries re-invention by the Denish now and again. Great to watch!