Change Your Image
jef-frisone-1
Reviews
Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told (2013)
More than six hours of nothing important
I had to watch all of it to be sure my review would be complete. I did. I can't see anything here that is shocking or new. All the pro Hitler elements have been presented before and the shocking revelations about the Allies' behavior have been known for years. Of course, as many have said, it contains much misinformation: Dietrich did not flee Germany because of Hitler (that would have been in 1933). She left Berlin 1930, three years he came to power, to find work in Hollywood. They were not called the 'Allies' in WWI, but the Entente Powers. Now we say Allies, but at the time they were called the Triple Entente. Stalin's invasion of the Baltic nations was not a provocation for Hitler to start his invasion of the USSR; Stalin's taking of those nations was part of the Moscow agreement: 2/3 of Poland to Hitler, 1/3 of Poland and the Baltics to Stalin. The list goes on. I will never understand why it is a battle between who was evil: Hitler or Stalin. They were both evil, both bent on war and expansion. Neither is a role model of peace and love. This video takes the tiring position that one of them had to be wrong, the either right. This video also leaves much out: very few speeches from Hitler are presented, speeches from before the war where he makes it clear of his intentions: to cleanse Europe of Slavs (thus our word 'slave'), Jews, Gypsies, Blacks, etc. Those speeches of course show Hitler is a very bad light, that his intention was not peace, but war and expansion. The video says that the Holocaust never happened. There may be problems with the official history of how it happened, but there was massive persecution: millions, and not only Jews, were deprived of their homes and possessions, put into camps and worked as slaves. This video pretends that these people willing went to the camps because there they could find work and a hospital. It also doesn't present Hitler's absolute obsession with the occult. Nothing about his use of runes and magic rites. Also nothing about his ultimate goal of destroying Christianity. The film ends with Franco's elegy to Hitler, Hitler the son of the Catholic Church who died defending the Church. Not true. The Jews were a convenient target. Hitler said that if the Jews didn't exist he would have had to invent them. But the ultimate goal was to rid Germany of the Church and replace with a religion for the Germans. This video leaves no doubt the Hitler was that religion, the new Christ. Many on you-tube say that this film is always being taken down by you-tube because it contains such explosive revelations. I don't think so. You can find much worse videos on you-tube. This is taken down because it breaks copyright law every minute and no credit is given, not even at the end of the film. It uses a good 40 minutes of the TV film 'Hitler, the Rise of Evil.' It steals from 'The Fall' and from other films. The soundtrack steals works from H. Zimmer (The Thin Red Line), from Lord of the Rings (I think) and many other sources. The soundtrack itself is annoying, bombastic fantasy film noise. This film is over six hours long, yet too much of it is not really about Hitler but about the German army. I don't care about the glorious, heroic lives of some of the soldiers. The title says 'Adolf Hitler.' Yes, about half of it is about him, but there is too much filler. This film needs to be balanced with the excellent four-part series 'The Occult History of the Third Reich' and the series The Third Reich: the Rise and the Fall (two-part History Channel). This last is not a great documentary, but it does present films and texts written by Germans at the time, both for and against Hitler. My favorite is a quote from a non Jew who, writing about Hitler's 50th birthday, said: 'These people are insane.' Overall, this video is for fans of Hitler only. It is not an objective assessment of him or his career.
The Usual Suspects (1995)
It was obvious that there was no Cake
I don't see the killer joys of this mystery and genre destroying film masterpiece, to quote a few rave reviews here. Verbal was obviously lying and he was obviously the killer early on. I have no problem with camera lies, as one person put it. Because something is filmed is no guarantee that it is the truth. This is fiction, anyway. I love David Lynch and he certainly likes to lie with his camera. No, I don't mind that Verbal was lying. It was obvious that he was the main mover, but there was no motive for his killing of the other 4 and the crew. I suppose they must have done him wrong somehow. But since Verbal is telling his tale to someone obsessed with another character, we couldn't know his reasons without breaking the narrative. The acting was obvious, too. I mean, it seemed acted, not natural, esp Spacey. I saw him in one good TV movie, but since I have been amazed at his Streep-like obvious acting. All the ticks and verbal hiccups learned in conservatory, kinda reminds me of Day Lewis, another actor whose charms elude me. Put that Method away, boys! The others are passable, but just. I can see why this film is popular, why some people love it; what I can't see is why this film is considered the 23rd best film made. I think some people need to see some more films. Well, Inception is fairly high up there too, so the only twisted conclusion I can make it that lots of people need to see lots more films before they start giving out 10 stars here. Maybe we should make it like figure skating: once you give a 10, you can't give it again.
Le roman de Renard (1937)
Excellent and fun film and not sure about US law
I love this little gem of a film. It does deserve a place along side Snow White and the New Gulliver. I saw this quite by accident on Youtube and I am glad I did. I don't want to tell you anything about the story. Instead, read the great story it is based on. I read it in French. It is a refreshingly medieval take on morality, refreshing compared to the tales of Perraut or La Fontaine. Some here say the film can't be shown in the US because of some law or other forbidden the exhibiting of Nazi financed films. That could be, though I would find that very hard to believe as I saw both Triumph of the Will (at a theater in San Francisco) and Olympiad (on television-AMC I believe, though maybe not) in the USA. How more Nazi can you get than those two films and yet they are both distributed in the USA. So, to me, there should be no reason that this true, and joyful, classic should not be seen in the US. If not, see if you can see it on Youtube. It comes in six parts with English subtitles. There it is called 'Tale of the Fox.' Hope you can see it and laugh along.
Dogville (2003)
Not good, a little (well not little) bitter film
I agree with those who say this film is a disappointment. Funny, I watched this the same day I watched "Tree of Life." Within 5 minutes of Tree I knew I would love it, and I did. Within 5 minutes I knew I would hate this film, and I did. But not for the story, since I hadn't seen much yet, but for the, as the French say, mise en scène. It was a theater piece, but if I want to see a theater piece, I can go to the theater. But, unfortunately, it got worse. The acting was too theatrical except perhaps from Kidman. The story was numbing in its non development. First the town people help her, then they demand more for some nonsensical reason (it costs double to protect her), then Tom's solution is absurd. Then they turn to sadistic tortures, physical and mental, but it's not really punishment. Unbelievable for a film that takes 3 hours to tell. And of course the cruel finale that shocked many. Some have said that this could be an anti-Jewish film. Could be, but I see it more as a modern version of Sodom and Gomorrah. Grace is Abraham and at first wants to save the town, before the revealing light of the moon convinces her to have it destroyed. Whatever, this film is not worth the trouble thinking over long. It is not, clearly, a brain teaser like Mulholland Dr or Tree of Life. It is pseudo intellectual at its finest, like other films by this director, like the equally mediocre Melancholia. Final note, while watching this I didn't think it was especially anti- American, but once the end credits started rolling, it was a shock to hear Young Americans and to see images of poor Americans. Then, and only then, I thought that this piece is anti-American, and I believe it is. The song itself is anti-Americana at its best. Then I thought that the cheap set might reflect the idea that American life is seen as cheap and artificial, compared to the real, authentic European life. In any case, I can't recommend this film. It is over touted like most, if not all, of von Trier's films.
Wild Palms (1993)
Interesting but somehow not whole
WP has a rating of 7 here and that is what it merits. I saw some of the series back in 93, but have just re-watched it all. The quality of the cinematography is excellent and in that area the series holds up well. However, there are some major downsides to WP. One and the most important, some of the acting is incredibly bad, to start with, that of Belushi. The Trivia section says he had no idea what the story was about, so he simply recited his lines. One has the impression, most of the time, that he did just that. Loggia is Loggia, another Type A, overacted performance. Catrall starts off weak, but gets better. Angie is the real disappointment. She looks great and is perfect for the part, her clothes are fine, her scenes some of the most intense, but her acting is often wooden. I find Delany the best and most consistent, though other reviewers don't like her. The music is overblown and the one good piece, the background music to the most intense scene, the ending of Hungry Ghosts, is obviously influenced by P Glass's music. The series shows its influences clearly: 60's counter-culture, Scientology, and perhaps a little less obviously, Meet John Doe. In fact, for me, the latter is the main thrust of the series. However, the way the story is handled leaves something to be desired. It is too neat and clean, not open ended. However, the series obviously had some major influence itself. Those are easily seen in the Matrix series, in Caprica, and most obviously and essentially in Inception. Nolan would probably deny it, but half of Inception is lifted from WP. So, kudos for an idea that has had some mileage. Also, the series has been compared to Twin Peaks, but there is little to compare really. As said, the acting of WP is not esp thrilling whereas I find not a single character is weak in TP. The music for Badalamenti is far superior to that of Sakamoto. Both series look excellent. One area where WP beats TP is that WP is a closed story, a true miniseries. TP got out of control and thus lost some of its power. However, for me, TP is still a series I could re-watch without problem. So, finally, at the end of this long-winded review, WP is good, but not great. It would a great choice for some sort of re-imagined series à la Battlestar Galactica.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
Lynch's Masterpiece
This is maybe not my favorite Lynch film, but I feel it is his masterpiece. All the threads he has been working on for years finally come together in one story. I prefer Inland Empire because of its truly dreamlike ambiance, but this film never ceases to intrigue me. The acting is excellent, esp Watts. The editing and cinematography are superb, the music sublime. It is shameful that the film only received one Oscar nod for Lynch (though he deserved it). It could easily and should have been nominated for film (as it was here in France), for music, for editing, for cinematography. Instead, we got typical John Williams type of music, a feel-good film, etc, as winners. I think Lynch perfected the language of cinematic-dream language in Inland Empire, but this one comes close. Kept my friends wondering for days what was really going on through the whole film. You can't ask anymore of a film: if it makes you think, you remember it, even if you hate it. So better than so many films that are in one eye and out the other.