Fight Club (1999)

USA/Germany
directed by: David Fincher
written by: Jim Uhls + Chuck Palahniuk (book)
starring: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter
comment: 18th December, 2015

-"I felt like destroying something beautiful."

I've had several long years to think about Fight Club and here's my verdict: I don't understand at all what this film is about. I liked the back muscles of Helena Bonham Carter and I liked the dresses she wore. I liked it when Brad Pitt wore the white shirt with orange-red maple leaves together with the khaki camouflage trousers. I really, really don't like Edward Norton and it's still hard for me to comprehend that a person with zero charisma has such a succesful carreer and a wide fan base. And finally, I don't like it when a film makes a voiceover its alpha and omega this way. Voiceover should offer a new, twisted and contrasting layer, and not be film's only layer.

The Towering Inferno (1974)

USA
directed by: John Guillermin, Irwin Allen
written by: Stirling Silliphant
starring: Steve McQueen, Paul Newman, William Holden, Faye Dunaway, Fred Astaire, Richard Chamberlain, Jennifer Jones
seen: 25th August, 2015

I've a seen better films about human pride. But it does give you the feeling of fatal monumentality, it does. The thing is that a film like this with this many characters doesn't have the time to persuade me to emotionally invest into any of them and therefore it's more like watching laboratory mices run around in a maze. I keep thinking to myself: "Faye Dunaway won't die, she's too famous for that, but I don't know this lady, well good luck getting out random doomed lady." And presenting an objectively terrible thing simplified like this does not make me feel so good. The cynicism of this approach is scarier than all the flames and heights combined.

The closing statements of the three main male characters then seem forced and ineffective. The prize for the most impressive, modest and truthful conclusion of a character/story arc goes to Fred Astaire - and it's worth noticing that he gives his "message" without saying a single world and while holding an animal in his arms.

When it comes to suspense, I was knitting a scarf while watching the film and I missed three loops and had to re-do a lot of the work later. So I admit that from this point of view it really was thrilling. But after taking all notions into account, the average feeling I felt was average.

Wuthering Heights (1939)

USA
directed by: William Wyler
written by: Charles MacArthur, Ben Hecht, John Huston + Emily Brontë (book)
starring: Merle Oberon, Laurence Olivier, Flora Robson, Geraldine Fitzgerald
seen: 19th August, 2015

I liked the ever-present wind. In the never-ending fight between differrent adaptations about who is going to be the biggest monster in their version of the story, I see that the film-makers here decided it should be Cathy, who really is as insufferable, shallow, and overbearing as possible.

From my present-day point of view (knowing that actors are almost always more attractive than an "average" person and in the past it was double the truth) it is still unfathomable why would anyone keep telling the aristocratic-and-upright-looking Laurence Olivier that he is a filthy and crooked creature. I thing he represents the thing I would call a total miscast.

I have recently seen a modern adaptation (by Andrea Arnold) where they made the effort to show the life, the house and the surroundings realistically and plausibly, so it makes me smirk a little to see this idealized vision of life on a godforsaken heath - but that's a mistake (?) made by many literary adaptations.

In the space she got to play with I was most impressed by Geraldine Fitzgerald. I mean, Isabella was always my favourite character, but the more important thing is that her performance is the one that is the most time-resistant, I would say.

And I must confess that I would very much like to see a film one day where everything shown here would be just an exposition culminating with a jilted lover forbiding the ghost of his dying loved one to leave in peace, and than the body of the film would describe decades of getting old on the moor with the ghost and always seeing or sensing the never-closed gate to the afterlife in the barren land surrounding the house.

If... (1968)

United Kingdom
directed by: Lindsay Anderson
written by: David Sherwin, John Howlett
starring: Malcolm McDowell, David Wood, Richard Warwick, Christine Noonan, Rupert Webster
seen: 16th August, 2015

-"Aries. That's Mick. No matter how strong the urge, resist any temptation to go into battle this month. Otherwise, you run the risk of not only being on the wrong side but possibly in the wrong war."

Oh my, it's so beautiful. (I have recently stared to use the word "beautiful" instead of "perfect", and in this case it also means ironic and absurd. I might even dare say bizarre, but the joke gets lost once I translate it from my native language into English.) All the details in those individual scenes. And the ways they court each other! (I like tigers. And trapeze seductions.) I also have a soft spot in my heart for films split into named chapters and the way they do it here, all distant-and-practical-like, is very inspiring.

It is a flawless film when it comes to making a statement, but it's also a film that I can enjoy using my brain only, it does not work well with my heart. Jean Vigo would be proud, I think. (A bonus compliment: When the school principal urges the boys to listen to reason, a girl is the one to take out the revolver.) And I also want to say that I don't like it when they force this film into context with the (american) school shootings of the 21. century, because the origins and implications of both phenomenons are not the same thing at all.

Sleeper (1973)

USA
written and directed by: Woody Allen
starring: Woody Allen, Diane Keaton, John Beck
comment: 14th August, 2015

-"You must understand that everyone you knew in the past has been dead nearly two hundred years." -"But they all ate organic rice!"

It is a rather frenzied tornado of uncoordinated ideas, or at least that's my impression. Allusions of silent slapstick comedy, and especially Chaplin's "Modern Times", are strong and omnipresent. I've always wanted to use the word "allusion" in a sentence, so I hope I've done it properly. But it's hard for me to take this film "seriously" because Woody's been squeezing out his works so rapidly they sort of all blend into one vague shape and although some ideas may be interesting, eventually it all just seems as a make-believe play between some friends in a park on a Saturday afternoon. You can sense a creative mind behind it, but it's like only a required minimal amount of thoroughness was put into shaping the result. It does not feel like the makers put their heart into it, and that's hard for me to process, especially since it's a film about fighting for freedom. Maybe that's the point and Woody doesn't believe in fighting or freedom, but that would still be a no from me. But I do have to add that the thing I appreciated about "Sleeper" the most was the immitation of Marlon and Vivien.

Zero For Conduct (1933)

Zéro de conduite: Jeunes diables au collège
France
written and directed by: Jean Vigo
starring: Jean Dasté, Robert le Flon, Du Verron
seen: 14th August, 2015

I am of that opinion that children are the only way to change the world (for better I might add) because it is in their little heads where all the ideologies that can do that are stored. This film pushes this point through, as well as pointing out the fact that the teachers, the beings that put these ideologies in those heads, are as equally important. I'm not sure if it was Jean Vigo's intention but "Zero For Conduct" today mainly works as an initiation experience making you want to rebel and create and not necessarily as a fully-fledged work of film.

The Lady Vanishes (1938)

United Kingdom
directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
written by: Sidney Gilliat, Frank Launder + Ethel Lina White (book)
starring: Margaret Lockwood, Michael Redgrave, Naunton Wayne, Basil Radford
seen: 12th August, 2015

Why on Earth is Hitchcock dubbed the master of suspence and not the master of humour? I've been under the attack by some very cheeky ideas about how this film would turn out if some members of "Monty Python" could help out a bit. I can't imagine anything else than pure gold. After all, it does have, even now, a scene of rabbits from the hat stoicly watching a magician fight a wanna-be detective! And then there's a scene of a man trying to save himself with the use of a white cloth that is just as impressive, but straight away from a different genre, indeed. Maybe Hitch was the master of it all.

I've seen Michael Redgrave for the first time last year (in "Secret Beyond The Door") and for some time I only thought of him as of a handsome mannequin, so I am as surprised as anybody that I've developed a taste for his talents after all. I also need to label those two sport-obsessed gentlemen as divine (I saw them first in "Dead of Night", but here they are "the originals"), divine in their own stiff and reserved way, oh, I want to meet them for afternoon tea every Thursday.

Blancanieves (2012)

Spain
written and directed by: Pablo Berger
starring: Macarena García, Inma Cuesta, Maribel Verdú, Daniel Giménez Cacho, Sergio Dorado
seen: 8th August, 2015

My heart is moved. ♥♥♥ This is both so uplifting and depressing that it right away deserves a spot on a list of my most favourite fairy tales, nevermind if modern or classic. Berger is doing a marvelous job utilizing mythical themes and aplying them onto his chosen time period, as well as getting the most out of the specific nature of silent film form.

I've only seen Maribel Verdú in three films so far and she manages to play such a different character in each one and be so good at it that I'm having trouble realising it really is her. On a similar note, it's very refreshing to see a film equipped with all kinds of unique female characters, complete with observant and lifelike details about them. This film's representation of a relationship between a father and his daughter also deserves an honorable mentioning.

So although I was a bit sceptical/unaware at the very beginning, the first few minutes made me speechless and I spent rest of the film in a state of unconditional admiration all the way to the end. (See the first sentence of this comment.)

The Age Of Gold (1930)

L'Âge d'or
France
directed by: Luis Buñuel
written by: Salvador Dalí, Luis Buñuel + Marquis de Sade (book)
starring: Gaston Modot, Luis Buñuel, Max Ernst, Paul Éluard
comment: 2nd August, 2015

If a magical golden fish ever gave me three wishes, one of them would be for Luis Buñuel to rise from his grave, familiarize himself with the current state of cinema (and the world) and make one more film. I have completely forgotten how sharp this is.

An American In Paris (1951)

USA
directed by: Vincente Minnelli
written by: Alan Jay Lerner
starring: Gene Kelly, Leslie Caron, Georges Guétary, Nina Foch, Oscar Levant
comment: 1st August, 2015

It seems so unnatural for this many people to be so optimistic. But a passionate mental orchestra of a frowning pianist, that's more like it. Lise seems like and interesting human being, and so does Milo. All the female population was quite delightful. And I don't know if it's my current mood or what, but despite this being not my favourite genre at all, I'm finding the result quite impressive. It strongly radiates all the effort that was put into making it.

What I fully don't understand is the way this film rejects reality. I unconsciously kept imagining him fighting the war, killing people, living through hell, and then he comes to Paris and paints street still life? But maybe that's the thing that justifies the whole charade? All those artificial smiles. Oh my, I did not expect this kind of existential deliberation because of a film like this.

 -"And I'm not trying to rob you of your precious male initiative."

Heaven And Earth Magic (1962)

USA
written and directed by: Harry Smith
comment: 31st July, 2015

I would like to see this film with a live musical score sometime, somewhere. As far as I remember from the history of animated avantgarde cinema, I enjoyed European directors more (and mainly Raoul Servais, and I recommed his "Harpya" the most), but Smith is kind of a different story. When it comes to the runtime, I will gladly give an hour of my time to watch somebody else's out-of-body experience, especially when I compare it to the amounts of time modern convetional film-makers demand the viewer gives them. And also probably because I will never take even so much as an approximate volume of drugs as Harry Smith to see these things firsthand. He is offering a lesson in friskiness against the prevalent sensation that everything about art must be serious and important, as well as extending a middle finger at anybody willing to be offended by such a trifle of a film.

Shadows (1959)

USA
written and directed by: John Cassavetes
starring: Ben Carruthers, Lelia Goldoni, Hugh Hurd
comment: 30th July, 2015

I am left speechless after a long time again. Most of all I got stuck with a feeling of how beautiful Cassavetes makes these beings look, and feel free to imagine anything you want under this description. And/but it is unfinished.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Australia/USA
directed by: George Miller
written by: George Miller, Nick Lathouris, Brendan McCarthy
starring: Charlize Theron, Tom Hardy, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Zoë Kravitz, Riley Keough, Nicholas Hoult, Hugh Keays-Byrne
seen: 28th July, 2015, comment reworked: 28th August, 2017

At the very beginning thoughts like this crept into my mind: "What the hell is that? Who the hell is that? What the hell is happening?" My brain needed a while to start to grasp what was George Miller's ultimate goal. The first thing that got it was my heart: It was drawn in by passion (intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction; ardent affection; a strong liking or desire for or devotion to some activity, object, or concept not dependant on rationalization) and it made me feel like I could follow Furiosa if necessary. (Charlize Theron makes me so much more happy in a role like this than in those basic "women power" films like North Country). Nobody, not even once during the whole film, uses the fact that Furiosa is female as a way to insult her. And that is so beautiful. I even managed to stay on my exercise bike for 82 minutes while watching Fury Road which is a record-breaking time for me. It is that much captivating.

Only later I began to realize that I'm watching a master class in showing, not telling. The subtle storybuilding nuances, where every opening situation is mirrored in a corresponding closing scene, where the original meaning is shifted and declares an evident character development. Characters, situations and ideologies are shown in medias res, the context can be deduced or imagined. This furious fantasy world works on a similar basis as Tarantino's Kill Bill - After I accept that gangsters and hitmen use katanas and follow honor codes, I don't have to question the logic of the story and everything makes perfect sense. The world of Mad Max work the same: It's crutial to accept that the civilisation reforming in the wasteland comes up with a few rules of its own. Dictator brings a special truck for drummers and a guitarist from hell on his war conquests. The man with unearthly strenght has wits of a small child and wears a necklace made from heads of baby dolls. The face of the most prized wife was scared by her own hand as an act of personal defiance.

Woman in the Dunes (1964)

Suna no onna
Japan
directed by: Hiroshi Teshigahara
written by: Kôbô Abe (screenplay + book)
starring: Eiji Okada, Kyôko Kishida
seen: 26th July, 2015

This is what happens when you're thrown into life. Or maybe after you run a pin through an antlion. (?)

What kept my mind busy a long time after the film was over was an overthought about one sentence the protagonist said (according to the english subtitles): "Men aren't dogs, you can't put them on a leash." In my head I translated that into my native language as "men" = "male humans", but what if he ment "humans", aha?! I did a brief research using an online dictionary and I found that Japanese does not distinguish the words "man" and "human" as both can be called by a single word (otoko), but "men" (hitobito) and "humans" (hito) are differend. But for the love of god I cannot seem to catch which word is the poor fellow using when he says that line.

And moving on: I don't understand him in different ways as well. He has an idea about making a ladder, but why does he never make one? But that's of course me polemizing the human nature, not me holding something against the film itself. Maybe I'm not human? Surely I'm not a man.

Targets (1968)

USA
written and directed by: Peter Bogdanovich
starring: Tim O'Kelly, Boris Karloff, Nancy Hsueh, Peter Bogdanovich
comment: 13th July, 2015

The opening sequence where we're watching an "archive" footage of Boris Karloff in pseudohistoric/horror stage set and the title "TARGETS" in giant letters pops right over it gives me an instant feeling of watching a modern (=innovative + reflective) film. The absence of background music makes a powerful impression and together with the ruthless editing underlines the absolute uncompromisingness of the whole creation.

I am fascinated by the total detachment combined with different levels and dosages of emotion in separate scenes and in the complete film. And maybe exactly the film not bothering itself with commenting or explaining anything is the reason why it remains misunderstood/underappreciated.

If I skip the great finale (which on its own is so eloquent and fairy-tale-like that to this day I don't really grasp how exactly did they make it to work so well and it's been three years since I first saw it) then the film still contains a lot of beautiful sequences of brilliantly assembled details, as for example in the scene when the shooter comes home and wonders alone about the house, looking at the relics of his own "life", as his family members' voices can be heard from outside the camera's range.

There are also some brief moments of naivety or clumsiness present, rising from the lack of experience on the director's part, or how else should I call it, but it doesn't bother me at all in the end because the immense respect for history (both of the world and of the craft) shown by Bogdanovich is more than enough for his adequate redemption.

-"I was astonished to see him here in Baghdad, for I have an appointment with him tonight... in Samarra."

Blue Is The Warmest Color (2013)

La Vie d'Adèle - Chapitres 1 et 2
France/Tunisia/Belgium/Spain
directed by: Abdellatif Kechiche
written by: Abdellatif Kechiche, Ghalia Lacroix + Julie Maroh (comic book)
starring: Adèle Exarchopoulos, Léa Seydoux, Salim Kechiouche, Jeremie Laheurte
seen: 24th June, 2015

This film made me feel like there was somebody standing behind me the whole time, grabbing my neck and pushing my head closer to the screen. The pressure was so (sur)real I felt like I couldn't breathe properly at times. I don't like it when authors choose to show character's emotions through making them do nothing but smoke - smoking does not have any meaning, it just creates an illusion that the viewer should feel like there is something happening.

And I've been saying that a lot lately, but I was once not connecting with the story at all. The characters speak about love, but when I put their words together with what I see them do during their film existence, I have no idea what they mean by love. When somebody says "night life" I'd rather imagine graveyards, coffins and werewolves than clubs where no one can hear me speak. And when it comes to visualizing a relationship, I would like to see more fundamental details than who has what shaved.

I also didn't like the paintings supposedly done by Emma. The photorealistic bodies surrounded by colorful butterflies were so tiresome as the whole film. I have to agree with what one of my friend said: To show sex when everything is good and skip it when troubles arise instead of showing the sex reflecting the troubles is cowardly.

Yeah, and one last thing that surprised me when I was reading articles about this film: It certainly doesn't look like a work of a director who lets actors repeat one scene a hundred times to get what he really wanted. All the action is cut up into million shaky partial shots and nothing flows in longer takes - that does not look like a clear vision to me.

The Theory of Everything (2014)

United Kingdom
directed by: James Marsh
written by: Anthony McCarten + Jane Hawking (book)
starring: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Emily Watson
seen: 2nd May, 2015

Oh my. Why must Eddie be famous because of this film and not something else, let's say Savage Grace. The world of film is so unjust. And it still stands that I don't know how to assess these so called "Oscar films". They don't even have to get some golden statues in the end, but the point is that they are all hopelessly identical (and uninteresting). A bunch of hired professionals makes it, it follows all the american rules that dictate what happens on exactly which page of the script, and it's about some ornate topic or life, BUT it still manages to be as impersonal and overly sentimental as possible. In short, as soon as you can hear a piano playing gently even before the production company logos stop showing, you know you are watching one of "those" films.

Too bad "this" film doesn't include more of the silent sensory perception like when Hawking watches a willow tree in the wind behind the window after his tracheotomy. The film-makers instead concentrate on a relationship drama that seems too private to be shown as a main attraction, in my opinion. I find Felicity Jones extremely irritating in this role and I don't think she has the charisma necessary to pull of the gravitas of her part.

(Post scriptum: When this film ended, I wiped the single tear and went to make myself some food. After "Hawking" with Cumberbatch, I went to buy myself "A Brief history of time".)

High Noon (1952)

USA
directed by: Fred Zinnemann
written by: Carl Foreman
starring: Gary Cooper, Lloyd Bridges, Katy Jurado, Grace Kelly, Lee Van Cleef
commented on 10th March, 2015

So, the first thing I absolutely must comment on is Katy Jurado. I kept wondering where I know that defiant and fascinating face from - and she is that vigorous gunslinger from "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" that weeps to the tune of "Knockin' On Heaven's Door" that her husband's been shot. And the husband cries with her. I had a problem with that scene when I first watched the film, but it grew on me in time. And in connection with her performance in High Noon (when she says to Grace Kelly that if she had that kind of man, she would get a gun and go fight by his side!) she is now officially one of my favourite actresses/heroines.

But about the film itself. I can't do anything but admire that uncompromising straightforwardness on its way to the poignant finale. It tells the tale of cowardice deeply rooted inside comfort, but I also like the message that the path matters as much as the end goal, given how long the preparations for the confrontation last and how quick the fight itself is. 

The camera work is rather classic, but still delightful as heck. I love the ominous scene of the two women riding past the sheriff and looking back at him getting smaller and smaller in the distance. I really, really love the way the score is incorporated in the film. That dark variation on the main theme playing just before the train arrives - chef's kiss. And even just the intro constitutes a great piece of cinema, thanks to a great song and thanks to the fact that Lee Van Cleef might be bad, but he certainly is beautiful.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

USA/France
režie: James Cameron
scénář: James Cameron, William Wisher Jr.
hrají: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Edward Furlong, Robert Patrick
komentář ze dne 3. 3. 2015

Oh my, this is such a beautifuly composed film. What happens with Sarah (her physical transformation, both scenes of psychiatrist interviews!, her change into an animal and then back to a human), what happens with friendship and love (how John, who is considered to be a rascal and a rule-breaker, without thinking twice explains that some things are not to be done and some things cannot be explained to the inexperienced terminator, how Dyson's son throws himself in front of his father screaming "Don't hurt him!"), how the roles switch (the viewer is left in the dark for a while not knowing who is good and who is bad, Sarah's captors become the crazy ones), how twins are used, how iron bars are defeated, how the T-1000 is looking at the silver mannequins at the mall, and hell, T-1000 is probably my favourite terminator model. 

I even don't mind the film relentlessly moving forward because it also leaves enough time for the viewer to navigate every situation, to understand all emotions and motives that keep the machine moving. I am most touched by the scene where Sarah wakes up from her nightmare and sees that she carved "NO FATE" into the wooden table in front of her. And I also absolutely adore the scene where Arnold is already badly hurt and beaten, he falls to the ground, has only one arm, and yet he still keeps crawling forward and we see him reaching for a gun below him. It would not be easy to find a scene like this in more recent blockbusters, one that non-verbally relies on actor's performance and context to provoke emotion. Or it is possible that I just like heroes with determination, even if it's just been programmed into them. 

-"The unknown future rolls toward us. I face it, for the first time, with a sense of hope. Because if a machine, a Terminator, can learn the value of human life, maybe we can too."

Jaws (1975)

USA
directed by: Steven Spielberg
written by: Peter Benchley (+ book), Carl Gottlieb
starring: Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, Richard Dreyfuss
commented on 13th February, 2015

-"That's some bad hat, Harry." 

First this quote. Then the squeaking of nails on a chalkboard. Then a giant murder shark. Then the shape of the nose of Roy Scheider. Then USS Indianapolis. Then the irrationaly likable Dreyfuss. Jaws are my new nominee for the most random film ever. 

The Shop on Main Street (1965)

Obchod na korze
Czechoslovakia
directed by: Ján Kadár, Elmar Klos
written by: Ladislav Grosman, Ján Kadár, Elmar Klos + Ladislav Grosman (book)
starring: Ida Kamińska, Jozef Kroner, František Zvarík, Hana Slivková
commented on 7th February, 2015

I watched the film for the first time many, many years ago and it left its mark on me alright - probably every script or story I wrote after that includes a dream sequence and I now I even omit the sleeping part, why should not the character be awake for such stuff to happen. A dream-like storytelling is such a simple way to make every mundane thing a poetry, to present reality in a different way without really changing its merit. The Shop on Main Street changes into poetry, but also into theather, and oh my! Such a strong dramatic story to touch your heart and then tear it into pieces.

-"I... I can't understand it. You are a wise man, Mr. Katz, how did this happen all of a sudden?" -"I am not wise. And it did not happen suddenly."

Goldfinger (1964)

United Kingdom
directed by: Guy Hamilton
written by: Richard Maibaum, Paul Dehn + Ian Fleming (book)
starring: Sean Connery, Gert Fröbe, Harold Sakata
comment: 25th January, 2015

-"Do you expect me to talk?" -"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" 

Yeehaaaw! I am making this sound because I'm not sure what kind of noise the Brits generate when excited. Oh, maybe I do know: Jolly good. The film is sort of slow compared to today's standards, but considering today's standards, maybe a slow piece is a good piece to watch from time to time. On the other hand, it's about a drunkard who rapes girls in piles of hay. Oh bugger.