thomas4cinema

I must assume that I am not a big fan of the Simpsons, and I judge this from not remembering when I watched them last. Must have been in their first or second season, whenever that was shown back home. Watching the movie now was a bit eerie, because despite this long time of contact moratorium, all the main characters felt immediately famlliar. I guess that what makes a truly trend-setting and style-defining show with massive global impact on popular culture.

I did not get any of the references to the decades of the Simpsons’ TV career, but never mind: despite my initial scepticism and readiness to turn off the film whenever it started boring me, I stuck to it (with mild surprise) and enjoyed myself the way I enjoyed myself during some of the tv episodes. And it is nothing more than that, just a bit longer than the regular episode, call it a Christmas special edition. Nothing to write home about, but when the icestorm is blowing outside the window and you have a mug of coffee on your table, watching this is one choice that should not be regretted. I am just trying to remember what happened to that pig…

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0462538/
Nicely done official website:
http://www.simpsonsmovie.com/main.html

“Paradise Now” has caught some attention around the … Berlin festival? Or was it Cannes? In any case: as it is one of those typical festival films, you really have to take a note to keep hunting it down, in your local train-station-turned-into-arthouse cinema or – more likely, unfortunately – through the DVD mail order service. Here it is, I am glad I have not forgotten about it, because it is a pretty well-done film.
You have to be seriously one-eyed to be offended by the fact that the suicide murderers of the film start out as regular guys, quite nice guys, actually, and that their evolution into terrorists is shown as a process that comes quite natural if you have suffered enough oppressions. This is done exactly done the same way in Ken Loach’s “Barley” film, and in a bit more elaborate (and maybe less souvereign) form by Salman Rushdie in Shalimar the Clown.
So the film follows the two friends down that road, observes them do some kind of reversal of roles.
I would not say that this is a masterpiece of a film, but it is definitely a solidly performed and directed narraryion that allows those of us for whom the regional conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is a very abstract tv event to get closer and get a stronger believe in its reality.
Plenty of Reviews: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0445620/externalreviews

The “Huber Buam” (Huber Boys) are two German mountain climbers who (out of boredom or better marketability – that is not quite clear from the picture) set out to break speed climbin records. They try to achieve this at the supposedly famous “Nose” somewhere in California, but between efforts and after accidents, the documentary needed to deviatre from that story a bit and also follows them to Patagonia, which makes more interesting pictures, but leaves it increasingly unlcear what the film actually is about. At the end of the day, maybe it is about the relationship between brothers working in the same line of business – needing to cooperate in order to reap the best benefits, but never being able to escape jealousy and this long history together.
I think Danquart’s Tour de France film “Hoellentour” (Hell on Wheels) is vastly superior to this one both in cinematic terms and the personnel under scrutiny, but I dare not judge whether this is because I feel much more attached to the cyclists and can come up with only some form of zoological interest for speed climbing.

Ken Loach is a fascinating fellow: looking into the history of his films, there is such an amazing number of amazingly well-done and thoughtfully conceived films, that it is hard to explain why shivers go through my spine whenever I start seeing a new one. The reason for this is Land and Freedom (Terra e libertà) , a surely very important and heartfelt assessment of the personal drama and the political turmoil during the Civil War in Spain. Very good film, up to the point where a group of mostly non-professional actors stages a debate about whether or not the villages land property should be communitized or not. Horror! I did attend my share of townhall meetings in the early days, and they are hateful. This was even more hateful, I could not stand the chattering and shouting, the posing and tactying. It was one of very few occasions in my life when I left a theatre early. Since then, I think I have not seen another Ken Loach film until now.
“The Wind That Shakes the Barley” is in many ways very similar to “Land and Freedom”, because – well apprently it is also about land and Freedom, this time in Ireland. It is more strictly and more cinematically directed, however, and hence much more watchable. My initial fears were quickly overcome (even though there is a slight relapse during discussions on whether or not the violent resistance against the British should continue or not – but that, at least, was an important topic…).
The film moves follows the development of some characters who get initiated with violence and hatred, who decide to take on the fight, and it moves irresistibly towards the unavoidable finale, where the group that started off together take different courses which also lead them towards opposing each other. There is a lot of realism involved, plenty of desperation, and at the end we are being confronted with the mother of all conflicts – to be resolved without compromise. Well done, again.
IMDB Link
New York Times
Variety

It is interesting to see that David Cronenberg develops some form of mainstream talent that seems quite inconceivable when looking at his early works. It appears he found a fascinating way to stick to his old topics of obsession, yet present it in a form that is more accessible to those who do not so much appreciate the sight of exploding heads or non-living things being inserted in living bodies, if you get what I mean…
After “History of Violence”, now “Eastern Promises” as some form of beginning of a “Viggo Mortensen Trilogy”? Would not be the worst trilogy, indeed, as Mortensen appears to move towards an honourable seat in the actors’ olymp. He is intense, he is very uncompromising in what he plays, he is maybe one of very few actors who can play a deadly fight wearing nothing but his skin, and still come across credible and impressive.
This story about the Russian mafia in London may suffer a bit from an Armin Müller-Stahlwho is not too believable as Russian mob and restaurant owner. But the charme of the London location, the sheer force of Mortensen’s play, and the quality of Vincent Cassel make up for that. And I guess we have lined up the Oscar race now between Mortensen, Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem? That will be interesting, indeed.
IMDB-Link
Mark-Kermode’s enthusiasm