27- June.2001 -
20 Aug.2002
Film
reviews often tell you what would be
commercially attractive or to the common
expectations. Therefore these descriptions
of non-cliché latest movies you
might want to see but did not decide about
yet.
The
latest films.
Seen:
20 Aug '02. Directed:
Carl Franklin, with: Ashley Judd, Morgan Freeman,
James Caviezel. Military justice is another thing,
says this movie about a man who is suddenly taken out
of his nice life with his nice wife being accused of
war-crimes. The question for this story is, did he or
didn't he kill the nine people that died in El
Salvador in a military raid. First we are led to
believe that the man is innocent, but later on with
things not adding up in the trial he turns out to be
guilty as hell. That's the story, and what did we come
to know? Freeman plays an alcoholic lawyer hanging
loose to be replaced by the wife of the accused who is
also a lawyer. They fight the power and authority of
military-style justice in a cookbook plot. Everything
seems to be a cover-up for crimes committed by other
military personnel. Witnesses bought need to be framed
with wired visitors and such. One is reminded of
Vietnam drama's of soldiers killing civilians. America
was also wrong in south and middle America and now we
may see the stories to cope with this guilt-complex.
If Hollywood goes on like this we visitors might ask a
fee for hearing their confessions. The strange taste
that one gets on exploiting ones own guilt is typical
in this movie. The story itself is construed with a
pretty forced plot that makes it rather incredible as
a real life thing. As such a prefab thriller the movie
must not be judged. It is relevant for the way
Americans deal with their warcrimes. We think of their
resistance against the international tribunal in Den
Hague and the strange Bush law that permits Americans
to free American soldiers held captive in Holland. How
odd all this squirming about the ways of a superpower
in its defense of political-economic interests that
were not as legally defended as was pretended. How to
overcome our bad past we do not really learn from this
kind of cinema though as it is lacking in philosophy.
Having been bad and not to know how to do it better is
the real problem. That would invite hell and the
chastising in retribution that the main character in
this story has to undergo. Not a positive statement
thus as there is no God to propitiate and be redeemed
by. Appreciated is his movie for the goodwill to
confess, but as a psychologist I'd say, with your
being entangled in the profit motive and the wars
about it, try another session more conscious about
your karma. I don't buy clientele, I buy philosophy.
(website)
Seen:
20 Aug '02. Directed
by: Ellory
Elkayem.
With: David
Arquette, Kari Wuhrer, Scott Terra. Paul Verhoeven in
1997 filmed in Starship
Troopers
spiders as species from another planet. They had
gigantic proportions and were tough opponents in a
real war. This time the danger is from earth but
presented as a comedy it is more fun than science
fiction. The spidy-boys moan and scream humanlike when
things go wrong. They are led by a gigantic tarantula
that as a bulldozer does the heavy work of breaking
through steel barriers and such, just to eat all those
damn humans. It is really good entertainment more to
make one laugh than to be horrified. Not a moment one
is really scared by the spiders. It was more the
amusement of seeing people who always kill spiders
small as they are to be killed being relatively small
themselves by a freak of nature. That's karma folks
and laugh about it [although according the Hindu's
there is a
special hell called
Andhakûpa
for the retribution for people killing insects].
They grew that big because of selective breeding
combined with toxic waste. The computer animations are
credible and the characters make it a real comedy. So
for laughs go, for the animations, go. For horror stay
home, for science fiction stay home too and for the
philosophy be afraid, as this kind of hell just might
be the reality to meet after death, in limbo of being
guilty of pestering insects. (website)
Seen:
20 Aug '02. Directed
by: Phil Alden Robinson With: Ben Affleck,
Morgan Freeman, James Cromwell. We see the Tom Clancy
hero Jack Ryan [see also Patriot
Games
and Clear
and Present
Danger]
this time caught in the hysteria of an almost nuclear
war set up by Tjetsenian terrorists. To drive the
Russians and Americans against one another detonate
the terrorists, defending themselves against
russian-american hegemonism, a small atom-bomb in a
stadium packed with people including the president of
the USA. Tom Ryan is this time the young talent in the
Pentagon, an historian called in to analyze the
character of a new Russian president. Things go wrong
with the change of power in Russia as the rebels take
advantage of the unrest to set up the great powers
against one another. They use an atombomb found in the
desert where an Israeli fighter armed with one was
shot down years before. Researching on the cause of
the atomic explosion, analyzing the origin of its
nuclear material, does Jack retrace the evil genius
behind the attack and just in time saves our hero the
word from a nuclear war delivering proof of the
conspiracy. The sensation this time is the actual
detonation of the bomb. Half a city is wiped out and
the president and Jack himself narrowly escape thanks
to the warnings of our hero. There is hardly fallout
as the wind is blowing seaward. The surprise of being
the victim of terrorists outdoing the reality of the
9-11 disaster seems to be set up to ward off the sum
of all fears of a nuclear attack by them. As long as
we can act it out in the cinema we may hope it never
happens. But exactly that scenario is still open we're
afraid. We maintain that acting out fears with the
cinema as an alternative defense system is not the way
to cope with the arguments of the fundamentalist
Muslim in suicide-terrorism. We think that the only
way to ward of the danger is to assimilate the essence
of the lunar order of the Islam and thus defeat the
psychology of estrangement between the cultures that
has risen throughout the
history of our present time
management.
Once we have overcome our own repression of our own
former roman lunar order, will Islam be pacified as a
reaction to christian ignorance in time-management,
Not by movies like these it will be accomplished,
however nicely acted out and filmed. But for
discussions like these, can fantasy and commercial
exploit of fears be a hindrance in actually arriving
at a successful coping strategy (study
the
demands of
terrorism
and the
articles on the needed time-conscious
politics).
(website)
Seen:
13 Aug '02. Directed by: Ronny Yu, with: Samuel L.
Jackson, Robert Carlyle, Emily Mortimer, Sean Pertwee,
Rhys Ifans. We may know that England is the 51 st .
state of the USA and that the drugscene rules the
world. The hero against it is a flunked sixties
far-out chemist who tries to sell a new party-drug to
the drug-lords. The drug is called POS 51, praised in
superlatives. Nobody thinks that a very good name for
such a highly wanted thing but o.k. interesting enough
to have the whole world fighting about it, including
some freaky skinheads against the backdrop of
Liverpool. To get the formula, the city turns into an
american hellish warzone of racing cars and guns
fired, but that doesn't matter. It is meant as a
comedy to ridicule the whole stupid business. In the
end the acronym of the drug turns out to mean power of
suggestion. It was a placebo and all the ravers
freaking out on it had to be fooled to believe in
their own natural high. The confrontation of the
american with the english crime-style is amusing,
including elements like the stupid bodyguard, an
english one of course, killing by accident and
shooting at his own people. There is even a little
love-story sideplot for the english side of crime. The
american hero runs off with the greater share of the
money of course - what else would the american talent
be - just to prove what he was wearing his kilt and
golf clubs for the entire movie: to become a real
scottish lordship with a golf-course and a castle.
Luckily enough his final statement is to show the nude
of his beautiful black behind to make his final point.
To be in the royal house is, whatever cheating of the
crime led that way, to return
to the natural
state.
That is the final state after the 51 mocked by this
fast running, tempting and spirited comedy. Thus we
speak of the United State of America (England plus)
from now on.. (website)
Seen:
13 aug '02. Directed by: Marcus Adams, Joe Absolom,
Lara Belmont, Melanie Gutteridge, Lukas Haas. A group
of youngsters looking for a thrill have a ouija bord
session. Things go dramatically wrong as they turn out
to be visited by a very bad evil spirit: a fire demon
called a djinn. One after the other gets killed when
in fear they try to run away without reaching proper
closure to the session. The killing against the
backdrop of a raving music-scene continues to the
extreme of delusional psychotic, partly drug-induced
fears, until at last the guy that the demon took
possession of is killed by the last participant
remaining so it seems. But as usual with this genre
evil nor spirits can be physically killed so that in
the last scene we see it unexpectedly continuing.
Apart from this simple classical horror-plot we see
this time not a christian exorcist wrestling with the
devil, but bored youths trying some spiritism. The
paranormal sceance is indeed a dangerous ritual
starting as a person ignorant in spirituality. Calling
for spirits and talking to them may seem nice for
starters but also in reality it is not free from
danger. People get possessed. Think of Adolf Hitler
e.g. to name a famous case of misinterpreting
spiritual truths, or Madame Blavatski who was caught
red-handed in cheating this way. As such the film
warns rightly. Of course is it a pity that the Rama
and Durga pictures at the wall of one of the places
pictured remained pictures only. Saying a few
mantra's
for them would have done the spiritual job of
reversing the process much more easily. But that's the
lesson here for the ignorant: just a picture at the
wall or in the cinema is not enough to ward of the
evil that lurks from the beyond also. We actually have
to sing
the song for it.
(website)
Seen:
6 aug '02. Directed by: Jez Butterworth, with Nicole
Kidman, Ben Chaplin, Vincent Cassel en Mathieu
Kassovitz. John, a bank clerk in a small english town
meets with Nadia, a russian internet-bride who to his
disappointment doesn't seem to speak English at all.
Although being cheated to begin with he tries to make
the best of it with giving her a dictionary and trying
to live with her. They stumble with trouble into a
sexual bond that doesn't really follow the normal
course. It is driven by the fear of him rejecting her.
She figures out that he has some kinky interest in
bondage and gives into that. But things run out also
different another way. Someday she says to have her
24th birthday. That's allright, but unexpected two
russian friends, nephews or something, turn up at the
doorstep that day. From then on things go wrong, The
guys settle there for longer and John decides that
they have to leave. The response is aggression: the
guys freak out taking Nadia for a hostage forcing John
to rob his bank for them. Strangely enough he believes
in Nadia's innocence and doesn't go to the police. In
stead he throws his whole life away giving in to the
crooks who immediately after the crime turn out to be
accomplices with Nadia in a scam that they pulled off
many times before. He is just one of the many victims
who they robbed that way. But Nadia is pregnant of one
of the guys and wants to get out. As trouble, and
cutting in the share, she is left behind bound in
ropes just as John. Together they are now against
their will bound by fate. From their sex they have
some sympathy left, John thought to have found his
woman but is now flipped; she too is not so sure
either of her feelings and what to do next. They are
sought by the police and have to leave their car
behind. They decide to go for the airport to escape
the country, but there they discover the other two who
left them behind. She falls into their hands again
unwillingly, but John manages to free her from them
taking the money also. Together they leave the country
with the love and with the money. The problem with
movies like this is that love and attachment wins from
malice as well as from righteousness. Nor the
righteous society is good, it is square and a drag,
nor the malice against it of course that is
treacherous. To escape from the hell of attachment
into another attachment elsewhere with a take the
money and run solution, has of course little
credibility or moral value, nor makes it much of a
literary contribution. Nevertheless is the movie
entertaining with, humor, originality, fine acting and
a nice cast. I'd say, nicely up standard, a seven on a
scale of ten for this genre. (website)
Seen:
August 6 2002. Director: Barry Sonnenfeld. With: Kevin
Cotteleer; Tommy Lee Jones; Will Smith; Lara Flynn
Boyle. Originally Men in Black was supposed to answer
to the fears about an alien conspiracy on earth or the
cover-up operations of the government on UFO-phenomena
like Roswell. Now we have the strange effect of
forgetting this original fear by means of exposure to
a comedy about it. In the movie people who witnessed
something alien are neuralized with a flashlight to
wipe their memories. Now the whole audience is
neuralized by being flashed with a movie so
manipulated that one must believe it is all illusion.
Bet they are subsidized by the american government for
it... Anyway, the movie begins with a clumsy sixties
version of a t.v.-show introducing the subject of the
Light of Zartha. Incredible as the show looks makes
the power of digital control the credible of the rest
of the movie. Now it is for real and all our S.F. is
true, that is, not of course. Nice try, but stay alert
seeing how this time Jones is re-neuralized to resume
his duties to catch another nasty alien who took the
form of a lingerie photo-model. In fact it is a
gruesome monster with lots of tentacles taking over
the complete MIB-offices to find the light of Zartha
that once was hidden on earth. What the light exactly
is we may not know, but it has something to do with a
shining bracelet around the wrist of an accidental
witness so it seems. But that witness turns out to be
the central character that takes the light away from
the earth thus saving the planet. But that storyline
seems pretty irrelevant. What it is all about is the
attitude of heroic indifference and humor with which
the aliens are fought. It is the recipe of the first
MIB-movie and it is just as entertaining, although not
as surprising anymore. We as said are supposed to
forget our fears for the alien reality of
ufo-phenomena
and cropcircles
this way. Entertaining as it may be one may doubt
whether this will solve the real problem of being
exposed collectively. At least the novelty of this
antidote is wearing off and the fear for the real
thing was only hidden just like the light of Zartha.
And now a
real plan
to really cope with it. (website)
Seen:
July 29 2002. Director: Michael Lehmann. With: Josh
Hartnett and Shannyn Sossamon. Matt works at a .com
company with lots of male and female friends around
him. He is addicted to sex being a wanted bachelor,
and he gets tired of it fearing the 'emptiness after'
that he recognizes as a 'crack in the ceiling'. That
existential fear of materialist sex leads him to his
brother who is a priest. It is the time of lent and he
vows from that to seize control over his life and not
to have sex anyway he knows: no kissing, fucking,
petting or whatever touching of a woman for the full
40 days and nights. Then the game begins. He becomes
an object of speculation betrayed by his friends over
the internet. They close bets on the date he would
fall. The woman encroach hotter and more fanatic on
him than ever telling him that he is a threat 'to
their power' and that they are willing to do anything
with him to get back the control over the horny
penis-guys they were used to. But he has met a
charming girl that has sufficient patience with him
and enough love for the game of discovering what is
all possible with a flower only, to pull him through
the 40 days. A jealous ex though manages to conspire
against his celibate exercise and mounts him just the
last night. His girl insulted and sad runs away from
his defeat and leaves him in misery. Ten days later
though he is still crazy enough about her to win her
back. End good all good, movie over. The story is a
nice mix between the serious problem of sexual
uncontrol and the fun about it. It challenges just
enough to think a little about it, but is that
explicit in its scenes of weakness and fun that one
never feels the brother's sermon too much (he too
falls for a sweet little beauty of a nun). Of course
one should go and enjoy all the jokes in and about the
40 days. Bottomline the movie might be saying: the
more you try to forget about it the harder it becomes.
Yes, we believe indeed, is the way to freedom, but you
better know when and how to say it right then.
(website)
Seen:
July 29 2002. Director: Tom Shadyac. with Kevin
Kostner. The movie contributes to clearing the vision
on a possible afterlife. When we die we lose the
material capacity of a personal body and continue
merely existing in the memory of oneself making a good
or bad dream of hell or heaven before one comes down
again for resuming ones material activities in the
material world. Sometimes though there is unfinished
business with people left behind. In those cases there
can be paranormal phenomena as apparitions and
telekinetic effects. This true to life story finely
told and acted demonstrates such a case. We witness
how a female pregnant physician doing charitable work
crashes with a bus somewhere in south America. She
deceases but her body is not found. Her husband,
another physician is left behind alone without even
having seen her body. At first he tries to forget
working hard , but then realizes something is going on
about her. Children with terminal cancer she formerly
treated report, being brought back from death, that
she was there at the other side with a message. At
first the message is just a peculiar symbol that he
doesn't recognize. Later on he learns that he has to
go to her where 'the rainbow' is. He doesn't
understand and tries to forget the oddness of the
paranormal experience believing with his friends that
it is trauma of grief that drives him nuts. But trying
to get out on a wildwater raft-expedition, he
discovers his house really haunted by his former wife.
Strange things happen to things of her: clothes
mysteriously return to their closet, the cherished
parrot goes crazy and a dragonfly paperweight returns
in its old place. He then finds out among the tourist
maps a map of the region where she died. On that map
there is the strange symbol indicating waterfalls.
Waterfalls often have a rainbow. So he decides to
check out and finds there in the jungle the place
where his wife drowned and was buried by native
indians. But unclear which grave she is buried in he
doesn't believe and runs against the instruction of
his guide into the village of those natives forbidden
for tourists, where he suspects the indians to know
more. Indeed they recognize her from the picture and
explain that they could 'save her soul'. They lead him
towards a baby that he recognizes as his own: it has,
just like the mother and his wife the typical family
birthmark of a dragonfly. End of the movie is a happy
man with a daughter that looks exactly like his former
wife. Morals: believe in your intuition and find your
way with the inner drive in loyalty to your love.
There is more between heaven and earth we directly
materially can know of and indeed there is sufficient
proof of paranormal phenomena relating to this
credible scenario of people wrestling before and after
death with the clutches of fate. Go see and never
follow the materialistic filmcritics that say that
this is a weak follow-up to the Sixth
Sense,
The
Others
or The
Mothman
Prophecies.
No it is an important most realistic contribution with
indeed little concession to sensation-seeking
disbelievers. This is real life stuff, accept it.
(website)
Seen:
July 21 2002. Director: Richard Eyre. With: Kate
Winslet ,
Judy Dench,
Jim Broadbent. The movie describes the life of Irish
Murdoch, an excentric english novelist of the
philosophy of free living. Her husband wrote the
biography that was filmed. The actors got oscars for
their accomplishments, all in good friendship and
culture we presume, but for the cimema the movie is of
little content and importance. The main portion is
taken by the description of the demise of Iris and not
by her glory and adventure, which is a regrettable
thing. Miss Murdoch was a philosopher/writer who
pleaded the free life and duty of selfrealization.
Although she had little discipline in her own life so
it seems, was she nevertheless an accomplished writer
of profound thinking. The movie is more set up as a
reminder of what free-style living with all its
excitement drama, sexual confusion and sadness can do
to a person at the end of life. In order not to go to
hell with it, it is pretty hard atonement so the story
proves. Iris had to suffer hard for her sins loosing
her brain before she died with Alzheimer. Only a few
flashbacks give a hint to what her thinking was about
and surely that was too little justice done.
Apparently her husband was so impressed by the burden
of caring for her with her disease that he forgot to
stress the full extent of her personal drama, love and
thought. Not objective to the complete of her life, he
seems to be crying out for only really having had the
sad part of her life. She had no children; nothing is
told about what she thought and felt about it. About
her lovers we also may know very little, nor about her
motives of attachment or separating from them. We may
witness only a few lines of her wisdom but many of her
in her confused state. It reeks of revenge as if her
husband would be the Lord of Retribution. With the
mission of remembering the good of the dead I'd say
intellectually an unimportant movie about an important
personality of literature. There was more to make of
it than this medical report of downfall in old
age.
(website)
Seen:
July 14 2002. Directors: Joel and Ethan Coen. With:
Billy Bob Thornton and Frances McDormand. From these
brothers we discussed before Fargo
and O
Brother Where Art
Thou.
They have a keen interest in picturing the absurdity
of crime, the ways of justice or injustice and the
narrow-mindedness of civil attachments. This time we
witness, in ancient black and white, the drama of a
hairdresser in the small town of Santa Rose,
California in 1949. The man called Ed Crane is a
silent type leading a boring life as a hairdresser. He
feels caught but is no rebel. He is nicely married to
a nice but dominant and unfaithful wife that co-owns a
big warehouse. They have no kids. Someday from
Sacramento an obscure salesman comes in to have a
haircut for under his toupet and tells him about the
newest technology of Dry Cleaning. Ed believes to have
found the opportunity to make something of his life
and gives him 10.000 dollars as a downpayment to set
up the business being a silent partner. But the man is
a cheat who meanwhile blackmails his brother in law
who also runs the warehouse. Ed, beforehand hearing of
it gives his so-called business partner the money that
his brother in law laid down to get rid of the same
smalltime crook. From then on everything goes wrong.
The sin of cheating his brother in law makes him the
target of an attack by him. He kills him stabbing him
in his neck with a brief-opener, but gets away with
the act having his wife accused of the murder. His
master barber-colleague freaks out and drops out of
business, He gets the business, but has to hand it
over to the bank for paying his wife's solicitor. The
wife though commits suicide before she was proven
innocent. Money gone, business gone, wife gone,
brother in law gone, business partner gone. Now he is
factually a man not really there anymore. And more
comes. God is Justice and so does he alone now try to
get on top of things helping out a talented
pianoplaying girl from town. He takes her to a
professional, but is turned down for the effort of
presenting such a polite typist of the piano. The girl
tries to make it up giving head to him behind the
steering wheel and so he drives himself to heaven
crashing with his car, to have a chat with his
deceased wife: still the same boring life. But he has
to return to the now very real of life where he upon
awaking from his coma is being told that he is under
arrest for murdering the salesman who was found dead
in some water nearby. Thus in the end wrongly accused
he still dies on the electric chair missing the lawyer
he couldn't afford anymore being broke. God has won,
the story is over. Like in the other movies we learn
to know american justice as an absurd soap-opera-like
system of guesswork and false accusation completely
corrupt and illusioned for the money. The civilian is
of course the guilty one who - blue eyes and all- goes
to hell with clumsy attempts in crime based on a hate
for the narrow-minded boring bourgeois life. Will one
ever find out what exactly their bad time is? The
mission of the Coen brothers is clear: get disgusted
with the narrow-minded attachment and hate for life of
the so-called adapted square people who are by
accident and stupidity in fact clumsy ignorant
criminals. As we also saw with 'Monsters
Ball',
we may know the problem, share in desperation, but if
the cinema is the solution for having
the right time...
or would we need the right time for having the cinema?
(Website)
Seen:
July 6 2002. Director: Sam Raimi. With: Tobey Maguire,
Kirsten Dunst, Willem Dafoe, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary
Harris, James Franco, J.K. Simmons. The old comic-book
hero Spiderman brought to the screen makes for a nice
cinematographic experience. Now three-dimensional the
successor of Superman does it right as a hero should,
winning the love of the girl next door. He can even do
without the gothic of Gotham City. Manhatten suffices,
be it with for the movies digitally wiped out
WTC-buildings (9-11 delayed). Still he has a classical
vicious adversary called the Green Goblin and not so
much a bad system. Badness is still the person and not
his product, so we have a personalized sun and shadow
of morality and power, questioning what we should with
the perfect middle except being bored. Goodness this
time is a modest guy called Peter Parker in his normal
life not very popular, who works for the newspaper as
a free lance photographer. He mutated being bitten by
a genetically altered spider and now he has special
abilities. From building to building he jumps held up
by web-threads he shoots run to run from his wrist.
His adversary is a freaked out scientist called Norman
Osborn, who became victim of his own performance
enhancement drugs. As the father of his friend Harry
is he out for revenge and pure destruction. To dream
of heroism is nice, especially having superpowers, but
the initial objective to fight the scum of the earth
stays two-dimensional. There are so many movies where
the poor en dropped out turn into demons resorting to
crime and where the civilians and the police turn into
Gods and Supermen to defend God, wealth and peace.
Maybe a bit more Robin Hood with a better culture of
respect for professional peacekeeping on the dole
leads to a more mature vision of a secure society than
having frustrated bums and drop outs as the evil that
must be fought with dreams of superpower which only
really work in the cinema. Those idolized 'Supermen'
may weave their spiderwebs better in governement
buildings defending there 'Peacekeeping makes the
wealth, not the greedy person', as it is there where
the responsibility for the original social injustice
and defense of the karmic society lies. So for the
21th century being a pretty naive and outdated story
about heroism, is Spiderman for the retro-feeler and
the old-fashioned american comicbook dreamer a
superfine experience. I had fun, but also a critical
brain. Next time I'd say: fight the system, not so
much the people dropping out of its royal badness; to
prevent is better than to cure. (website)
Seen:
June 27 2002. Director: Adrian Lyne, with: Diane Lane
and Richard Gere. Constance and Edward, a married
couple get into trouble as the bored housewife seeks
adventure and novelty with a bookseller of french
blood. Slowly the woman falls down and equally slowly
does her husband find out with a detective and
photographic proof. As he finds out, the small-minded
square materialist aggression takes over for a moment
and thus he kills in passion the lover of his wife
with an air of natural justice. He dumps the body, the
police finds out, but they cannot figure that he did
it, despite of all modern forensic techniques. How
come? Are they in the bourgeois plot of false justice
in favor of the attached? They never suspect the
couple as only the phonenumber and no fingerprints
were found. Dumb police? Since when Uncle Sam? The
movie ends with them in front of a police station
doubting to escape to Mexico and start a new life,
continuing undetected or turning themselves in. The
movie is a kind of remake of Claude Chabrols La Femme
Infidèle. What is stressed here is the escapist
nature of the adultery and the narrow-minded
attachment that wins over the promiscuous of the
tempting lover. Is that the new morality or the old
problem? Should we be rather attached than be in the
hell of unbound promiscuity? What moral lead is that?
Without further cultural reference is the movie a
peculiar product: what's so interesting to see a
couple falling down in adultery and ending up guilty
having solved the problem with violence? Marriage
before all? Love conquers, or would it be a negative:
attachment is hell, boredom is the devil and violence
wins from love? Why could the lover not be shared in a
tantric exercise? Why murder? Where did we meditate?
Has Gere lost the Buddha missing the Tantra? Why was
the nice marriage in fact betrayed out of disgust for
the rut of material happiness in the first place? We
know tantra guru Rajneesh was expelled from America
later on dying inexplicably in 1990 in his ashram in
India with too much thallium in his body. We know the
materialistic rut is the counter-natural conditioning
of standard time. But why do we still think in America
to come away with murder for attachment and continuing
with the civil hypocrite of the unnatural standard
time of household routines? Should the older couple
not realize that the middle age mission is to meditate
the sexless natural of time and to take more
responsibility for spiritual fulfillment and
representation of wisdom? What has been learned in
America, or are we dealing here with an american guilt
complex so that we only witness the perversion, the
attachment and the murder, but not the analysis, the
legal consequence, the penance and the unselfish of
tantric realization? There is a warning of lusting
about problems and not living solutions. Those stories
end unfortunate, Repression and denial collapses says
the psychiatrist. As such, however professionally
pictured, is this movie an ignorant exposition of
hopeless guilt. (website)
other
movielinks and searchengines
|
add
a link
|
backgroundgraphic: Argotique