madam_Q
Joined Mar 2004
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews13
madam_Q's rating
I can't help but wonder, after reading so many negative reviews, if people really got this movie. Yes, it is a commentary on a depraved culture. But, as the narration points out, the important things are not what makes us different from people like cannibal Oliver Hartwin, but what makes us the same.
As Hartwin, Thomas Kretschmann does a great job in a role that can be described in a mastery of understatement as "difficult." He plays a man who fantasizes about eating human flesh. He finds the yin to his yang in Simon Groembeck (Thomas Huber, equally superb), a man who's veritable truckload of I.S.S.U.E.S. see him abandoning his GQ model boyfriend to be eaten by a guy with a Herman Munster haircut and a predilection for beige. Go figure. They hook up over that great haven for all the demented and depraved - the Internet. Go team!
Kerri Russell narrates the film in a somewhat unnecessary framing device. Quite frankly, what I found most irritating about the film were the most over obvious attempts to sell it internationally - Russell is the known "face" but the majority of the cast is comprised of German actors. Why not film it in German? Why not drop Russell altogether and instead focus on the relationship between the two men? A relationship which is, in its own way, oddly affecting. For as the title implies...this is a love story.
Well, come on. How many movies does Hollywood churn out annually based on the central premise of a woman (once upon a time Meg Ryan, lately her mini-me Reese Witherspoon) and a man (preferably Hugh Jackman but Mark Ruffalo or one of the Wilson brothers in a pinch) who are made for each other? When you really examine it, this film is based around the same premise. These are two men who are, in Russell's own words as she drably narrates, a perfect match. Far too much screen time is given to Russell poking around Hartwin's farm house and looking generally freaked out, at the expense of the developing of the relationship between two true oddballs. This is not monster and victim - these are two lonely men who have found each other, and not nearly enough time is devoted to the why of it all.
In it's look, the film very much honors it's subject matter, to great effect. It is shot mostly in muted tones, yet avoids the trap similar films have fallen into - namely looking too dark and leaving the audience wondering if they need to turn the contrast on their TV up. Very much a 1970s horror movie feel. Clever tricks abound - we see a grisly horror film being enjoyed by Hartwin reflected on his eyeball in an extreme close up, while in an earlier flashback the camera travels under the sheets to watch him reading under his bedclothes as a child. The running time is concise, a mere hour and a half, with the majority of the film's most difficult to watch scenes occurring in the final twenty minutes. There is the odd unexpected moment of black humor - yes, you feel guilty for chuckling - while the bare bones script is stripped of exposition and all the better for it. On the whole it is a well made movie, not what you'd call entertaining, but a worthy watch none the less.
As Hartwin, Thomas Kretschmann does a great job in a role that can be described in a mastery of understatement as "difficult." He plays a man who fantasizes about eating human flesh. He finds the yin to his yang in Simon Groembeck (Thomas Huber, equally superb), a man who's veritable truckload of I.S.S.U.E.S. see him abandoning his GQ model boyfriend to be eaten by a guy with a Herman Munster haircut and a predilection for beige. Go figure. They hook up over that great haven for all the demented and depraved - the Internet. Go team!
Kerri Russell narrates the film in a somewhat unnecessary framing device. Quite frankly, what I found most irritating about the film were the most over obvious attempts to sell it internationally - Russell is the known "face" but the majority of the cast is comprised of German actors. Why not film it in German? Why not drop Russell altogether and instead focus on the relationship between the two men? A relationship which is, in its own way, oddly affecting. For as the title implies...this is a love story.
Well, come on. How many movies does Hollywood churn out annually based on the central premise of a woman (once upon a time Meg Ryan, lately her mini-me Reese Witherspoon) and a man (preferably Hugh Jackman but Mark Ruffalo or one of the Wilson brothers in a pinch) who are made for each other? When you really examine it, this film is based around the same premise. These are two men who are, in Russell's own words as she drably narrates, a perfect match. Far too much screen time is given to Russell poking around Hartwin's farm house and looking generally freaked out, at the expense of the developing of the relationship between two true oddballs. This is not monster and victim - these are two lonely men who have found each other, and not nearly enough time is devoted to the why of it all.
In it's look, the film very much honors it's subject matter, to great effect. It is shot mostly in muted tones, yet avoids the trap similar films have fallen into - namely looking too dark and leaving the audience wondering if they need to turn the contrast on their TV up. Very much a 1970s horror movie feel. Clever tricks abound - we see a grisly horror film being enjoyed by Hartwin reflected on his eyeball in an extreme close up, while in an earlier flashback the camera travels under the sheets to watch him reading under his bedclothes as a child. The running time is concise, a mere hour and a half, with the majority of the film's most difficult to watch scenes occurring in the final twenty minutes. There is the odd unexpected moment of black humor - yes, you feel guilty for chuckling - while the bare bones script is stripped of exposition and all the better for it. On the whole it is a well made movie, not what you'd call entertaining, but a worthy watch none the less.
Middle installments of trilogies often tend to suffer, especially when the original was not necessarily made with a sequel in mind. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. Put "The Empire Strikes Back" on the opposite side of the sequel coin to "Matrix Reloaded" - there most decidedly IS a precedent for second films emerging from the shadows of their predecessors.
Thus my hopes when I went in to see "Dead Man's Chest" were reasonably high. The fact that all of the original cast had returned, along with quality additions like Stellan Skarsgard and Bill Nighy, only buoyed my optimism. And surely Johnny Depp wouldn't have let himself be pulled into any old crap, contractual obligation or no.
Like "The Empire Strikes Back" this is a considerably darker affair than the all out fun of the original. The themes dealt with here are more somber - betrayals and double crossings are commonplace even among the good guys, and issues of mortality dealt with by Davey Jones and his crew make them far more frightening than the villains of the original - indeed, Barbossa and his men look almost cartoonish by comparison. There are some real scares here, and this is definitely not a film that I'd recommend to parents with young children, bladder busting running time aside.
Not to say its all gloom and doom. Definitely not. The visual effects are virtually flawless, and the action set pieces - particularly a three way sword fight between Jack, Will and Norrington while Elizabeth throws a temper tantrum (not to mention rocks) on the sidelines is fantastic. The script is great, not only containing a good measure of great one liners (of which Captain Jack predictably gets the lion's share) but also real deepening of relationships between the characters. Jack and Elizabeth in particular. Ragetti and Pintel are great fun, trading on their great rapport like they did in the original, and Norrington finally gets to be something other than a "prat in a wig" (as the lovably self deprecating Jack Davenport described himself in a magazine interview).
Inevitably, it lacks the freshness and the "wow" factor of the original. But there's nothing the filmmakers could have done to avoid that. Because, lets face it, nobody expected the original to be as successful as it was. A Disney flick based on a theme park ride starring Edward Scissorhands, Legolas and the skinny chick from "Bend it Like Beckham"? Who knew? Pleasingly, though, there's no sense of anybody resting on their laurels - in particular I had dreaded Jack's antics skirting into caricature territory but Depp is, of course, far too "savvy" an actor to fall into that trap.
The ending, like that of "Back to the Future Part II", is predictably a cliffhanger ensuring that everybody and their dog (or monkey) will drag themselves back to see part three, but oddly the feeling of being manipulated is somehow all part of the fun. And if part three is even anywhere near the quality of part two....we're in for an awesome ride...
Thus my hopes when I went in to see "Dead Man's Chest" were reasonably high. The fact that all of the original cast had returned, along with quality additions like Stellan Skarsgard and Bill Nighy, only buoyed my optimism. And surely Johnny Depp wouldn't have let himself be pulled into any old crap, contractual obligation or no.
Like "The Empire Strikes Back" this is a considerably darker affair than the all out fun of the original. The themes dealt with here are more somber - betrayals and double crossings are commonplace even among the good guys, and issues of mortality dealt with by Davey Jones and his crew make them far more frightening than the villains of the original - indeed, Barbossa and his men look almost cartoonish by comparison. There are some real scares here, and this is definitely not a film that I'd recommend to parents with young children, bladder busting running time aside.
Not to say its all gloom and doom. Definitely not. The visual effects are virtually flawless, and the action set pieces - particularly a three way sword fight between Jack, Will and Norrington while Elizabeth throws a temper tantrum (not to mention rocks) on the sidelines is fantastic. The script is great, not only containing a good measure of great one liners (of which Captain Jack predictably gets the lion's share) but also real deepening of relationships between the characters. Jack and Elizabeth in particular. Ragetti and Pintel are great fun, trading on their great rapport like they did in the original, and Norrington finally gets to be something other than a "prat in a wig" (as the lovably self deprecating Jack Davenport described himself in a magazine interview).
Inevitably, it lacks the freshness and the "wow" factor of the original. But there's nothing the filmmakers could have done to avoid that. Because, lets face it, nobody expected the original to be as successful as it was. A Disney flick based on a theme park ride starring Edward Scissorhands, Legolas and the skinny chick from "Bend it Like Beckham"? Who knew? Pleasingly, though, there's no sense of anybody resting on their laurels - in particular I had dreaded Jack's antics skirting into caricature territory but Depp is, of course, far too "savvy" an actor to fall into that trap.
The ending, like that of "Back to the Future Part II", is predictably a cliffhanger ensuring that everybody and their dog (or monkey) will drag themselves back to see part three, but oddly the feeling of being manipulated is somehow all part of the fun. And if part three is even anywhere near the quality of part two....we're in for an awesome ride...
