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.
Gezien:
13 Okt.2002. Geregisseerd door Pieter Kramer met Daan
Schuurmans, Cas Jansen, Ellen ten Damme en Georgina
Verbaan. Hans Nijboer en zijn broer Ties komen uit
Twente en zijn op vakantie met de zeilboot van hun
rijke vader, een aannemer. Hans is er met zijn
vriendinnetje en nog zeven anderen van school om
vakantie te vieren en lol te hebben. Maar wat te doen
na het examen? Er is een zekere Treesje die van de
psychiater op stap met een dosis pillen veel te zwart
en punkerig tegen de wereld aankijkt. Er is een nerd
die een computerspelletje voor anderhalve Euro (per
verkocht spel zo blijkt later) heeft verkocht aan
Playstation. Er is een zangeres die het wel met Ties
ziet zitten maar te vrij van moraal is. Afijn ze
stevenen af op een volle maan-party waar Sacha moet
zingen en Ties zijn podiumvrees moet zien te
overwinnen met zijn eigen liedje. Sacha helpt hem over
de streep. De nerd krijgt de gekke zelfdestructieve
Treesje te pakken, maar met Hans gaat het niet zo
goed. Iedereen blijkt geslaagd voor het eindexamen,
behalve Hans. Hij saboteerde zijn examen ondanks zijn
goede vooruitzichten en cijfers. Hij gaat door voor de
goeie kerel voor wie het gespreide bedje er opeens
beangstigend uitziet. Hij heeft er niet echt voor
gekozen en de existentiële angst giert hem nu
door de keel als hij moet denken aan een leven als dat
van zijn vader zonder een echt succes van zichzelf.
Maar wat dan? Hij ziet het allemaal niet meer zo
zitten eigenlijk en poeiert zijn vriendin af die
verwachtte met hem te trouwen. Ondertussen stapt een
andere meid van de vrienden over naar een rijke Belg
die ook een zeiljacht heeft, maar minder netjes met
haar omspringt dan de zooi van Twente die met hun
halve dialekt haar weinig inspireren. De Belg wil haar
verkrachten maar d'r vriend weet haar net op tijd te
ontzetten. Ondertussen vergrijpt met volle maan als
iedereen naar het feest is en zijn broer succes krijgt
met Sacha Hans zich aan de pillen van Treesje. Net op
tijd weten ze met de ervaring van Treesje zijn maag
leeg te spoelen. Met een ontnuchterde kop heeft
iedereen zo met volle maan zijn vervolg in het leven
gevonden waarbij Hans met zijn trutje die verwachtte
te trouwen met een gedegen aannemer met toekomst een
nieuw begin maakt als verhuurder en kapitein op de
boot van zijn Vader. Een clean end ook voor Treesje
met de Nerd, dat nieuwe begin voor Hans, een
muziekliefde voor Ties en alles bij elkaar veel
gewonnen liefde met de volle maan. Het script is de
reëele weergave van het verhaal van Hans Nijboer
zijn zelfmoordkrisis en in die zin geconcentreerd
heeft het verhaal zin, betekenis en waarde. Behalve
dat het dan scherp is toegesneden op het succes van
Costa
en die sfeer wil doorzetten zit er nu toch een wat
reëler levensbewust thema in dat je verder geen
vieze bijsmaak geeft over alcoholmisbruik van
verdwaalde jongeren aan de Costa. Een beter verhaal
dus dan Costa, zo blijkt na de pauze van de film, maar
voor de nieuwe generatie is deze prent even zo
interessant als zijn voorganger. (website)
Gezien:
13 Okt.2002. Geregisseerd door Pieter Kramer met Loes
Luca, Paul de Leeuw en Paul Kooij. Het is je hart
ophalen met deze schitterende musical-komedie. Voor
mij moeilijk objectief te bekijken omdat de rolprent
perfect de sfeer van de oude t.v.-afleveringen
voortzet die ik nog gezien heb. De liedjes maken
dingen los van zo'n 35 jaar geleden en de lol zit hem
daar voor een belangrijk deel dan ook in wat mij
betreft. Een gast in de bioscoop die er nog nooit van
had gehoord echter vond het ook vermakelijk al die
kinderlijke pret om de boze buurman, de inbreker
Gerrit, Klivia's accent en de prachtige liedjes.
Geheel gezet in frisse kleuren en verfilmd in de stijl
van de beste Hollywood/Broadway musical mag wel
gesteld worden dat het niet veel beter kan. Er was
zelfs nog een anachronistisch grapje waarbij de
"Twips, met je handen op je heupen, met je handen op
je bips' in break-dance stijl werd voortgezet waarbij
de boze buurman in een dolle bui op zijn kop rondtolt
over straat. Wonderwel komen veel van de klassieke
liedjes bij elkaar in een samenvattend verhaal van en
eerbetoon aan Rusthuis Klivia. Zuster Klivia wordt
hierin telkens weer door de boze buurman voor de
'edelachtbaarste' vrouwelijke rechter gesleept omdat
hij meer geld wil verdienen en hij haar het huis uit
wil hebben. Liever wil hij een leuk rusthuis voor
goedbetalende bejaarden dan zo'n stelletje gekken als
van Klivia die alleen maar herrie maken. Zelfs voor de
kat die een goedheidspilletje van de kelder-knallende
chemisch ingenieur kreeg en erdoor geen muizen meer
vangt sleept hij haar voor de rechter. Dat alles
vruchteloos natuurlijk totdat Klivia wordt betrapt met
het terugbrengen van een klok gestolen door de opa van
Gerrit, een inbreker die ze asiel verleende. Het
rusthuis dreigt te worden gesloten met de arrestatie
van Klivia, maar de boze buurman krijgt wroeging en
laat zijn eigen huis bij het rusthuis trekken voor de
dubbele vreugde van het delen. Prachtig, want boze
buurman blijkt een verzuurde homo te zijn wiens
ex-vriendje een kapsalon tegenover hem begint. Met een
pil van de ingenieur is er daar een leuk feestje, maar
wordt het eerst toch niks met de Nobelprijs voor de
ingenieur omdat het pilletje zo weer uitgewerkt is.
Afijn allemaal leuke scènes waaraan de liedjes
het juiste emotionele perspectief geven. Alles erg
vermakelijk en voor de ouderen van de zestiger jaren
zeker een must. Ontken je kinderziel niet en ga eens
lekker volwassen zitten gieren op deze oude Annie M.G.
Schmidt-lolbroeken toestand. (website
/ M.G.Schmidt-site)
Seen:
5 Oct.2002. Directed by: Daisy von Scherler Mayer.
With Heather Graham, Jimi Mistry, Marisa Tomei. A
light comedy about a certain dance teacher from India
called Ramu Guptra who tries his chances in America.
His parents apprehensive about his future warn him
that he will end up worse in America, but he takes no
heed of their advise. First he serves in a restaurant,
but too proud he runs into the porn industry with him
trying a career as an actor. Very naively he cannot
get his Johnson straight before the camera's, but then
he sees a better chance in becoming a guru. By
accident he is introduced as a guru taking the place
of another impostor on a society party on an eastern
trip. There he is welcomed and recognized as a guru of
sex and the lessons from his porn-colleague he applies
in his teachings for the ignorant and frustrated of
sex. Meanwhile he falls in love with the porn actress
who teaches him the trade and who also like him leads
a double life. End good all good they marry, with him
snatching her away before the altar from a husband who
was more in love with a firefighter. With everybody
happy in the end and with a lot of fun about all the
naive of the disciple-business and sex-business is
this comedy a nice mix of eastern and western cultures
showed both as being of the same humanity. We even see
the westerners dancing in the indian style and the
indian style singing a western song. All very nice and
entertaining: East laughs with West, that is how it
should be. (website)
Seen:
28 sept.2002. Directed by: Tom Tykwer. With Cate
Blanchett, Giovanni Ribisi. To a script by Kieslowski.
The story seems to be about terrorism, but it is a
lovestory leading to heaven. How odd one may say, but
the european cinema has always been morally ambiguous
and obscure. Is murder really murder? Is there really
condemnation for the good who err or who are the
underdog? Sure there is a kind of salvation for our
heroin, a certain Philippa, an English teacher who in
Turin in Italy is arrested for putting a bomb in an
office-building where a drugsdealer who ruined her
husband and many schoolkids has his headquarters. The
assault fails and two innocent children, a man and a
woman are killed. But the movie does not disprove that
kind of action although Philippa breaks in tears about
it. The woman is justified: she tried to warn the
police about the man but nobody responded. Corruption
is suggested, but not proven. An assistant translating
with her interrogation falls in love with her and
cunningly he manages to deliver her from the
accusations of terrorism and the imprisonment. The
story is quite original and interesting in the scenes
of the two getting intimate and escaping to the
countryside. We may sympathize with the
hit-on-love-and-run-away theme. Discovered later on a
farm they escape in the police-helicopter going higher
and higher as mystical Jesusses to a heavenly abode.
End of the movie. Originally planned as part 1 of a
series of three dealing with heaven, hell and
purgatory we are left with this first panel only. It
does not quite satisfy to see the two lovers escape
the bad earth going to heaven in a helicopter. But
o.k. the police, the system, the drugs, the offices,
the bourgeois is all bad materialism and fighting it
honestly, even with errors one may go to heaven.
Typically european we just like the Americans can give
nice expositions of the problem of being caught in a
false system full of corruption, abuse and violence
and the heroism of escaping from it, fighting it. But
nor in the american cinema nor in the european variety
on the society-is-a-nightmare theme do we find much
light for a way out of the trouble but by an heroic
personal death or arrest symbolizing a new life. The
Europeans are tired maybe of condemning simple crime
against the system and its people and also America
knows the sympathy with the devil motive. But where is
the progress? Didn't we achieve anything within
society the last half century? Why deny postmodern
progress? Because we are not beyond it yet? Is it
really that dark and hopeless right now? Not to my
opinion. The true stories of this we have to, and do
in fact, live ourselves and these ones one must really
forget. To heaven with it or not. Heaven must be on
earth escaping from the system, a better world begins
with oneself, isn't it? (website)
Seen:
28 sept.2002. Directed by: Stephen Spielberg. with Tom
Cruise and Max von Sydow. Washington D.C. 2054 is
where this crimestory, this thriller is situated. You
drive a Lexus automated MAGLEV vehicle to transport
you to your work and home. All high-tech it is not for
everyone though. There are also poor ones just living
like it was the 20th century. Also the sofa looks
ordinary and lots of the houses are as they were. The
computers of course are wireless, transparent and
holographic. Transport and weaponry thus highly
advanced do support crime-detection. With the use of
precogs, a team of three clairvoyant youngsters are
crimes detected before they are committed. Thus one
can be arrested before committing the crime if
technology can stay ahead of the future that is. The
supposed perpetrators are arrested with a 'halo'
brainstunner and put away in a state of suspension to
suffer an eternal nightmare about their crime. The
main character of this story of Philip K. Dick is Jon
Anderton. He has lost his son and is determined to
prevent crimes, especially murder. The precrime
program is experimental though. Maybe it is not so
perfect because there are problems with ones free
will. Can one control and decide against reality
foretold by media? Sometimes there is a minority
report (repressed politically) in which one of the
teammembers is not in agreement with the rest. So
there is room for error, thus finds out our hero who
in the beginning of the story himself is accused of a
future murder. Everybody runs, so does Jon. In
spectacular scenes he jumps from buildings and cars
with jetpacked policemen to arrest him behind him. He
escapes and gets new eyeballs not to be identified by
the iris-scanners everywhere around. He is
nevertheless hunted down by a team but not recognized
by the spider-scanners finding him. He infiltrates in
his old office now off limits for him to abduct one of
the precogs who has the info about his innocence in a
minority report. But there is no such report. His
future crime is at hand and before that he has to find
out and decide not to. He does the killing but
realizes it is a set up. He discovers the evil genius
and manages to trick him with the help of his former
wife into proving himself guilty. He succeeds, but in
the process are the precogs overruled by the strength
of personal volition. End of the story: precrime is
abolished. Stunningly pictured looks our near future
perfect, be it for the rich only, and did the team of
futurologists that helped Spielberg set the scenes a
good job. For their technical work all praise. The
story itself though is just a normal thriller a bit
difficult plotted and sometimes of seeming
contradiction, that keeps the attention focussed on
the modern obsession with safety and crimefighting
like we know so very well from the social injustice of
materialistic America. To the plot for example, why
would detection and prevention by a team justify the
precogs and denial by personal volition abolish them?
We, or the Americans, have according this view learned
nothing in the future and even precrime won't work. As
such not a positive message because of which the movie
is to be criticized. It is more the (american) dream
or nightmare of what would happen if all materialism
would continue for ever without wars. What's the use
of all that technology if we're still of social
inequality, a hopeless psychology and obsessed with
crime? Even if all enmity against it could be banished
and declared ignorant. True progress is not found in
this sad story of technological extravaganza run out
of hand with the human motive. We still await the type
of S.F. that can predict a better society and a better
humanity that would really deserve such a
technological perfection. That would be more logical.
But apparently it is to us to make such a world and
not to Hollywood to have a claim on a preview. That
precrime management profit paradise fails thus. So we
have this warning against the naïve and injustice
of singular material progress. So be it.
(website)
Seen:
20 sept.2002. Directed by: Neil LaBute. With Gwyneth
Paltrow, Aaron Eckhart, Jeremy Northam. To a novel of
A.S. Byatt. The film portrays the story of a couple of
researchers falling in love as they research on the
papers of a famous victorian poet, Randolph Henry Ash,
who himself was involved in a love drama. Reputed to
be a loyal husband Ash turns out to have had a
relationship with another less known poet Christabel
LaMotte. Uncovering this they find out that LaMotte
was a bisexual woman who betrayed her female lover
Blanche Glover for Ash. As Christabel leaves for
France to deliver a baby that she keeps secret to Ash
and the decent community, commits Blanche suicide
neglected as she is by the love-affair. Ash only in
the end of the movie finds out that his illicit
daughter is not aborted, as Christabel first tells
him, but is raised with foster parents in France. The
lovers never unite again and Ash keeps his image of
decency. In the movie we see how illicit sex and art
nicely combine and inspire, but that defying the
normal course always results in personal drama's that
give the arts their notorious shadow of despair. To be
boring and proper is no art. The deviance inspires to
the sermon of poetry in this case. So also does the
modern relationship of the researchers not really cut
wood. They are in for an academic success and not so
much for something lasting between themselves. Drama
and arts, they belong to each other. Happiness and a
story only combine in the legendary and mythical
struggle of a hero and heroin drawn between good and
evil. In the literary sphere though defending love
before all we're never sure what other happiness to
find but public acclaim for the moral lesson learnt by
the drama. Paltrow plays the cool lady to help out the
american freefloater of selfcontrol. In the end they
fall in love, but science wins. The movietheme is
interesting in comparing the two affairs, although the
historical importance of Nash' civil drama does not
compare to the present day individualistic and
scientific research story that is really not so much
about love and liberation at all but about
class-affirmation. The latter portion of love and
literary science is kept in the dark and slips from
the memory not really forthcoming in this film that
nevertheless is stimulating and entertaining. Stuck in
the ego of being critical about the arts and being
critical about civil propriety is the middle of modern
time spirituality not found with this story alas, and
that is a missed chance. In fact it is cultural
narcism that misses the analysis as well as the
conclusion to shed light in this classy
semi-enlightened darkness. (website)
Seen:
20 sept.2002. Directed by: Kathryn Bigelow. With
Harrison Ford, Liam Neeson, Peter Sarsgaard. The true
story of this drama plays in the cold-war sixties when
the Russians want to impress the Americans with their
atomic submarine the K-17. At the onset of building
the submarine though one is plagued by accidents: ten
dead even before the thing is out of the dock. It is
nicknamed the widowmaker therefore. At sea the staunch
commander tests the submarine diving to the edge of
its capacity scaring the whole crew to death. Then
they surface violently breaking through the ice to
launch a testmissile successfully playing ball
afterwards around the ship. Continuing for a mission
for the eastcoast of the U.S.A. things go wrong. The
cooling-system of the reactor breaks down and the
young inexperienced engineer to it is scared to death.
He knows about radiation-sickness and upon finding out
that people have to be sacrificed to repair the leak
he breaks down and fails to serve at first. There are
only chemical suits, radiation suits were not
provided. That costs ultimately seven man their lives
including our hero the young engineer who conquers
himself and repairs the leak finally. Just in time
because a meltdown would be the result of setting of a
1.4 megaton explosion greater than that of Hiroshima.
It never happened but the drama that actually took
place is worth the filming. Ford and Neeson are nicely
portrayed as the leading officers in trouble with the
crew about the proper strategy: should they surrender
to the U.S. navy for help nearby and betray the
secrets of the submarine? They don't give in save the
ship thus and the world from an explosion and are just
in time rescued by their own marine salvaging the sub.
End good all good a stomach-twisting drama in fact
about the dangers of atomic energy and what
tribulation the false pride of political opposition
prepares for people. Historically a fact is the movie
an important contribution to the history of the cold
war. Until the fall of Russia the incident has been
kept a secret. Now we may know how dangerous nuclear
energy can be. Really sick it makes one. It kills.
(website)
Seen:
13 sept.2002. Director: John Woe. with: Nicholas
Cage,Christian Slater, Adam Beach, Roger Willie. In
the 'Naked and the Dead' (ned.: 'Helden
zonder Glorie')
told Norman
Mailer
the story of american troops fighting the Japs on the
island of Anopei in the pacific. This story of the
same category and outline, is about the taking in of
Saipan in 1944 preparing for the defeat of Japan. At
the time it was essential to communicate in code over
the radio to arrange for bombing enemy positions.
This was
done by navajo code talkers; 'windtalkers'. The navajo
code was never broken and contributed by their hero's
to the victory over the fascist empire. The story
shows to begin with how the leading character Sgt.
Enders is honored with a silver star for leading his
men into death simply following orders. He throws the
medal in the ocean. He suffered severe hearing trauma
but manages with trickery to reenlist. He is helped by
a sweet woman, a nurse, interested in him, but he is
too flipped to pick the taste of life life really up
again. He doesn't answer his letters and the lovestory
doesn't unfold. He is hooked to an assignment wherein
he has to protect the code with a codebreaker. The
code before the codebreaker is the assignment, thus is
the relationship with the indian a bad one to begin
with. Half way the movie he even kills another
codebreaker friend of his mate, which makes the
understanding worse and turns the goodness of the
code-man into a rage of indian revenge against the
Japs; only the scalping lacks. At some point though
does Enders decides to take the bullet, seeing his
code-man even more heroic, passionate and
murder-effective than himself, and decides he that 'no
one will die further'. A strange decision in the
middle of the battlefield, but he manages to rescue
the codebreaker (and the code) out of the hands of the
enemy. Although dead himself in the end did he die
with real honor and not with a medal for simply
killing people doing his soulless duty. Now he not
only 'saved a lot of marines today' but he also saved
his soul. Story over. Rather die with honor than live
without honor and/or marry without real love in one' s
heart, is the thesis for this story about Americans at
war. America has to believe in its military bravery
and the second world war is a nice backdrop for
illustrating that a flipped soldier can die a hero
once converted to goodness. The movie begins and ends
in the desert with the navajo Yahzee. The real soul of
America is indian in this story. The disappointed one
hardly saving his goodness is the American. We feel
with this very explicit and naturalistic war-movie
packed with action and violence, that America is tired
of the war-game and is hardly willing to give more of
its honor to the bad asses in the world. America must
go back to the model of being native formed by the
rituals of the indians in respect with the forefathers
and nature. That is the example to follow here and the
merit of this movie. The violence, however graphically
pictured, may be forgotten. Save the soul, save
America and may God be so with them (and with the rest
of us that are not of world-dominance any longer).
(website)
Seen:
13 sept.2002. Director: Paul W.S. Anderson. with:
Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriguez, Eric Mabius, James
Purefoy. There is a vast conspiration of the military
industrial complex that makes huge profits on military
equipment, medical care and medicines.
In this
science fiction tale of horror we see the personnel of
the hive as it is called, an underground in a cave
suspended laboratory, trapped and killed by a computer
that is programmed to defend the world against the
outbreak of a genetically manipulated virus that
regenerates body-cells after people have died so that
they next roam about as zombies only interested in
eating other people. There are also experiments done
on living tissue directly injected that turned into
horrid creatures mutating with lightening speed. The
hell is set loose by a couple of thieves trying to
steal the virus and antidote by which they think to
survive and thrive. The movie begins with the scenes
of the computer without warning killing all the
personnel. Then we are, mystified, transported to a
house outside the hive where the conspirators, who are
actually guards, wake up from a defense-attack by the
computer that gassed them so that only slowly they
recapture their memories. So by and by they regain
their criminal memories. They, we mystified again,
knowing nothing, are first arrested by a team sent in
to find out what's happening. The main portion of the
film is about the horrors in the classical 'alien'
style, that this team has to face in the high-tech
environment. It all looks very much like one of those
computergames, with all the kinds of scenes to expect
in such a setup. Of course the evil ones die etc. In
de end the only two survivors getting out are arrested
on their turn by another team that is this time
anti-viral, sent in to check out the situation. But
the survivors don't get the chance to tell them what
happens if they meet with the outgrowth of the virus
and the danger of releasing it to the world. Instead,
they are contained and controlled in quarantine for
being infected. In the last scenes one of them wakes
up to find the world completely devastated by the
virus. Like a Duke
Nuke'm
alone against all aliens, loads the survivor the
pump-gun for the next round of victory (or defeat). We
learn that the more advanced in technology we get, the
more horrible our humanity and chances for survival
become. Technological advancement as a fight against
nature is the outline of this nightmare based on the
really existing scientific underground scheming for
profits. It is a real danger, so take this horror-game
serious! We have to learn not to oppose and manipulate
nature, genes, time, people and the economy with it.
It brings disaster. That's it. (Website)
Seen:
5 sept.2002. Director: M. Night Shyamalan, with Mel
Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Rory Culkin, Abigail Breslin.
Are cropcircles a sign of God? In this story we
witness how a priest fallen from his belief, because
of losing his wife in a car-accident, refinds his
creed defeating and surviving an alien invasion. The
cropcircles are interpreted as navigation marks for
flying saucers. The aliens are green, as tall as men,
and very stupid. They try to harvest humanity as a
crop gassing them with some protuberance from their
arm, just grunting loudly as a threat. A baseball bat
and holding our breath before the stinkers is enough
to defeat them, however smart their saucers and
time-command... Everything tells us that Mr. Syamalan
didn't do his homework properly with this one. There
is nothing about their reported psychic abilities or
technological superiority nor on the higher meaning or
apparent knowledge represented by the symbols. After
all, even earthly signs have been reported as the
Sri
Yantra in Oregon
e.g.; so they know us very well! And still... we
didn't put them out there. Mr. Syamalan should have
read our
article at this site about
it.
The movie, however professionally made with good wit,
good acting and a Stephen Spielberg-like appeal for
children, represents the fear of the ignorant not
understanding why we have these signs in the fields
these days. The answer of being navigation marks for
an alien invasion is simply ridiculous and constitutes
a form of intellectual corruption that in reality will
only bring disaster to humanity. The story could have
been much better than simply stating that the signs
are of the devil and that defeating the devil brings
God back to the simple American or worldcitizen. The
first half of the movie is filled with expectancy:
what's happening, should we be glad or afraid? Are we
of type one, the believer, or of type two, the
skeptic? We are led to believe that we are of type
one, the believer thinking that the aliens have no bad
intentions. But too many abductions have been reported
and thus are the aliens condemned and demonized
however different of nature they are reported to be.
They are to be defeated, they are evil, all of them
and they are only one kind. Thus is the whole logic of
the movie in its second half perverted of fear for the
unknown and is it as a consequence being full of
inconsistencies a complete intellectual failure and
even a conscious lie finally falling into a fifties
horror cliché. Still it might be so that the
signs are a form of communication with us in cyclic
terms we do not understand properly,
estranged
as we are from the cyclic of nature's tempo in our
bitchy modern
time.
Especially after seeing this movie I have a feeling of
deep shame about humanity being that escapist about
facing the signs of other civilizations trying to
communicate to us. Notably with the pretense of
SETI
to communicate with them!
In
reality
we are not invaded thus, but being told something
about the cyclic order of life and challenged to form
an answer. To my opinion is the cinema not there to
maintain our escapism and repression, but to lead the
way in intelligence, resourcefulness and insight. Why
would it all be so difficult? Why this insincerity? We
are really not such a dumb potter-monkey trying to run
from the human reality, unworthy of the human form. It
is so difficult because these signs are for real, for
real, for real! Let that be proven by this failure!
However courageous of Syamalan to start this
discussion in the movies, we should not forget to
really try to make sense with these, their and our,
complications of cyclic management and defend the
honor of our intelligence! Come on humanity, find your
manhood in this! We
are much better and big boys and girls in science
these days! (website)
Gezien:
5 sept.2002. regie: Pollo de Pimentel met Egbert Jan
Weeber, Katja Schuurman en Hans Dagelet; naar een
roman van Kees van Beijnum. Het verhaal gaat over de
val van Berry, een 18-jarige gymnasiast uit Amsterdam
die met zijn vrienden graag een spelletje met de
gerechtigheid speelt. Hij wordt verliefd op Thera een
vrijgevochten meid met epilepsie die een losbandig
leven leidt. Ze heeft een vaste vriend, een succesvol
fotograaf, maar ze heeft ook graag wat avontuur en
afwisseling in haar leven. De verliefde Berry is een
welkome afwisseling voor haar in haar zorgen over haar
twijfelachtige toekomst als naaktdanseres en
patiënt. Ze zegt het hem van 't begin af aan
oesters etend [lekker, niet lekker?] bij Nam
Kee, maar Berry weet niet beter dan dat hij de droom
van zijn dromen heeft gevonden. Maar het is een dure
meid. Vrij zijn kost geld, dus, om de jeu te behouden,
moet er wat gebeuren. Niet trouwen of misschien ook
wel, maar zeker een avontuur: een wereldreis naar de
meest exotische plaatsen beginnend bij een verblijf in
de John en Yoko-suite in Amsterdam. Het geld zamelen
ze in door een sleutelgeldzwendel op te zetten met het
appartement van Thera. Ze halen tienduizenden guldens
binnen en steken zich in te dure kleren. Maar dingen
pakken verkeerd uit. De sexspelletjes overschaduwen de
verliefdheid en Thera krijgt bij teveel stress een
aanval. Nog voordat de reis begint belandt ze in het
ziekenhuis en Berry bekijkt het maar, dat wordt niks
op die manier. Hij probeert het nog met haar maar 'hij
snapt het niet' en wordt door Thera gedumpt. Ze gaat
weer terug naar haar fotograaf en probeert de hele
zooi te vergeten, herstellend van de verdwazing met
Berry. De politie is nergens te bekennen, niemand deed
aangifte blijkbaar, maar er is wel een opbouwwerker
die de groep vrienden structuur probeerde te geven.
Hij organiseerde een groot multicultureel festijn,
waar Berry dan ten leste, als de minst geslaagde
bijdrage in eigen persoon, helemaal sufgeneukt en
woedend teleurgesteld rondloopt met een pistool dat
hij van zijn vrienden kreeg om zijn eer te verdedigen
tegen Thera's bedrog. Hij schoot er bijna de fotograaf
mee neer, maar daarvan terug weet hij zich geen raad
meer. Hij wil het pistool nog teruggeven aan een van
de vrienden die op het festival de ordedienst
verzorgd, maar kan het ding zo niet kwijt. In een
vlaag van verstandsverbijstering schiet hij het
pistool leeg op de menigte en gaat er vandoor naar een
vakantiehuisje van zijn familie in Frankrijk. Daar
moet zijn broer hem van de politie die hem belegert
redden, met hun lijfspreuk 'We mogen de mensen in het
land niet teleurstellen'. De film begint en eindigt
met deze laatste scenes door elkaar gesneden, slim in
het ongewisse latend of hij nu Thera vermoord heeft
met zijn schietpartij of niet. Het thema is in feite
het konflikt tussen gebondenheid en vrijheid. Deugd of
ondeugd, trouw of ontrouw, is de vrijheidsdrang nu de
liefde of het verraad eraan? Geen maatschappijkritiek
hier, maar de persoonlijke schuld: ieder is zelf
verantwoordelijk voor zijn eigen deugd en consequentie
van zich bevrijden zoals het hoort. De film kan ook
gezien worden als een goedkoop moralistisch verhaaltje
over wat er allemaal misgaat als je breekt met de
regels in je verliefdheid of je vriendschap. Omdat dit
wat onduidelijk blijft, is er voldoende ruimte tot
filosofie in deze redelijk geslaagde rolprent met onze
mooie Katja, die de rol van het wulpse escapisme wel
is toevertrouwd, en een opvallend goed acterende
Egbert Jan Weeber, die de immorele verdoolde goedheid
zeer aannemelijk neerzet met zijn verliefde harsens.
(website)
other
movielinks and searchengines
|
add
a link
|
backgroundgraphic: Argotique