The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) - 5.5 / 10
The Tolkien saga is finished. For now. As expected this trilogy didn't come even close to the original The Lord of the Rings trilogy. But, as an almost unconditional fan, I must admit I did enjoy every one of The Hobbit movies. The first one was a bit too slow and the second one made some narrative choices I didn't like, but in the end I just took it like a true fanboy. Unfortunately this wasn't the case for the final episode. Not that it didn't entertain. Not that it didn't have its moments. It just didn't do any justice to what I think is probably one of the best children's stories ever written. Bilbo was no more than an additional character, the special effects were - apart from Smaug - awful (the scene were Legolas walked over those falling bricks? no... just... no...) and almost the whole scenery took place in and between Dale and Erebor. The best scenes of the movie were those in Laketown and Dol Guldur, which is saying a lot. Apart from one scene at Gundabad and one in the Shire, there weren't even any other locations in this third installment. I know this has to do with the book, but that's just the problem: The Hobbit is shorter than every single book of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The latter adaptations missed a lot of characters (most notably Tom Bombadil and Ghân, if I remember correctly), but nonetheless the films were diverse, exciting and not rarely very layered. Peter Jackson is a Tolkien lover and it may be that a dream came true for him, but I think Viggo Mortensen (who wasn't in any of The Hobbit movies) was right: Jackson sacrificed substance for technical and financial glory.
Thor: The Dark World (2013) - 4.0 / 10
The Marvel Universe is without any doubt one of those Hollywood hypes I just can't get my head around. What is it that makes people fall in love with those superheroes who are no more than embodiments of the American value-system? And, even more so, why are the bad guys always in business with (semi-)communists, (Arabian) terrorists or evil (Russian or Asian) scientists? The clichés are too much for me. Maybe it's because I'm European. But that doesn't explain why so many Europeans dig this franchise. So maybe it has nothing to do with all that and it's just plain old Hollywood: looking for the greatest common divisor to capitalize on, in other words the best commercial formula for the highest profit. When realizing this it isn't all too bad to watch those Marvel films, 'cause it's only Hollywood numbness and as a viewer you just need to lower yourself to that level. It then also becomes possible to measure those movies against each other. When doing so the pattern - for me - gets quite clear: the second phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Guardians of the Galaxy) is way better than the first one (which only had The Avengers that distinguished itself). I'm not anticipating any of the future Marvel films (at least 11 are in the running), but when seeking brainless entertainment, I suppose there's a lot worse out there.
Deux jours, une nuit (2014) - 8.5 / 10
This must be the biggest positive surprise of 2014. After years and years of overrated pictures, the Dardennes finally made a movie that is so heartwarming (in a melancholy way) and painful (in a provocative way) that I totally get what the fuss is all about. Especially after Le silence de Lorna and Le gamin au vélo I almost gave up on them. I'm glad I gave their most recent effort a fair chance, but must admit this probably wouldn't have happened if Marion Cotillard wasn't in it. She's one of those actresses I really like and in Deux jours, une nuit, I again realize why this is. Since Jeux d'enfants I've been watching her grow and get better with every movie. Now, her role as the depressed, burned-out Sandra is without any doubt one of the best acting performances this year. Not only that, but the Dardennes made one of the most topical movies of the 2010s. When governments, like the one in Belgium, decide to go for hard and merciless cuts in government spending because of an economic recession that is caused by the same people they protect, a lot of civilians become victims of this emotionless, inhuman practice that puts "hard work" before "life quality". The Dardennes have a history of making movies in this social realist style, but never have they made it this subversive. Actually it is quite sad that this kind of movie feels subversive. Everybody goes through hard times and has moments in her/his life where all things just seem pointless. Why is it still such a taboo to talk about these problems? Or are we all supposed to not think about life itself? Are we supposed to ignore the existential void and be happy in ignorant bliss? Deux jours, une nuit moved me on a very personal level. I hope it brings some warmth to those who need it even more, 'cause finally the movie ends with an optimistic note: regardless of how many people may pretend to be better or stronger than you, there will always be those who actually care. Even in the most bleak and dark periods.
22 Jump Street (2014) - 5.0 / 10
Phil Lord and Christopher Miller have been called transgressive directors, who bring movies in Hollywood format and at the same time spread an anti-capitalist message in a subliminal way. That might be said of The Lego Movie for example, but even in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs it is possible - with some imagination - to find this "hidden message". I, on the contrary, tend to agree with John Podhoretz, a conservative and republican journalist for The Weekly Standard who dismissed all the liberal (in the American way) and anti-capitalist interpretations of The Lego Movie and said they all fell into a marketing trap. 'Cause in the end it is the Lego Group who profit and the anti-capitalist who pays and spreads the word of the so-called subversive message, which makes other anti-capitalists pay. So that's why I, as an anarchist and anti-capitalist, won't pay to see movies of the Lord-Miller duo. I download them and rate them poorly. So suck it. In any case, while The Lego Movie was an enjoyable film, it's harder to enjoy the cynical tone and often easy humor of the Jump Street reboots. Although I must admit I did enjoy 22 Jump Street a bit more than the first one. There were some truely humorous moments which appeal to the liberal (again, in the American way) in me. But as with a lot of movies that aim at teenagers and twenty-somethings, it just fell short in so many ways that finally the short-lived moment of entertainment ended as soon as the credits rolled over the screen.
Defendor (2009) - 7.0 / 10
A superhero movie is best when it subverts the genre itself, like in Chronicle or Birdman. Defendor does just that. What happens when someone with a vulnerable mental state claims to be a superhero, fighting Captain Industry? They are looked down upon. They are seen as harmless and pitiful. Until they start to take action. Then they need to be contained and get psychological help. This movie tries to shine a light - through the psychologist - on that vulnerability and shows us there's something noble, even something pure in people who (try to) fight injustice. Woody Harrelson is in top form playing the protagonist Arthur aka. Defendor. His quest to defeat Captain Industry is a sobering and fruitless one, but the public begins to care for him. Maybe just because of Athur's general naivety. A graffiti artist paints a wall with his portrait, calling out to "fight back". That's what this movie was about for me. Fight back. Fight the self-righteous world who divide 'normal' people from those whore aren't according to some arbitrary measurement. Defendor is a warm eulogy for those defying normality and a subtle criticism on what is perceived as sane.
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) - 1.5 / 10
I should've known. Nostalgy is an ill advisor. But the TMNT were always one of those cartoons that I looked forward to as a child. I liked the atmosphere of superheroes that weren't actually superheroes but turtles with names of Renaissance artists (something I didn't knew then, of course). It was exotic and appealed to my imagination. The inner child in me convinced me to watch this real-live action film and remake. You never know, right? This was even worse than I expected. Maybe it's because Nickelodeon Movies and Platinum Dunes were the main producers, but it's not only that. The writing was awful, the action choreography way too conventional and the special effects not that impressive. I wonder if I would've enjoyed this as a child in the way that I enjoyed 3 Ninjas, 3 Ninjas Kick Back and 3 Ninjas Knuckle Up. That question will remain unanswered and it isn't even that relevant. Fact is this movie was utter crap with nothing whatsoever for adults or nostalgists to enjoy...
Zombeavers (2014) - 6.0 / 10
I'm not ashamed to admit: I love b-movies. Without the restrictions of living up to commercial success or financial gain, directors tend to have a lot more creative freedom. This is definetely the case for Zombeavers. Forget special effects, these beavers are just handmade puppets who look godawful (which is a good thing). Any idea how many beaver-puns (concerning female genitalia) that can be made when talking about zombeavers? Right, they're endless. And I laughed with almost every single one of them. I wouldn't recommend this kinda movie to a lot of people. The standard of what is perceived to be good has no room for bad taste. I say bad taste is good in and of itself, because it differs from good taste and at the same time makes good taste applicable to bad movies. I'm not talking about "so bad they're good" films, 'cause more often than not that claim is used to describe movies who were intended to be good in the first place: they failed at being good and because they failed they are good. I'm talking about movies that are deliberately bad (compared to what's perceived as good taste) because they want to subvert the way we enjoy movies. Those filmmakers know there is an audiance that likes this stuff, like myself. Even entertainment can be subverted, as Zombeavers shows us. Next up: Zombees!
Super (2010) - 7.5 / 10
Another transgressive superhero movie! After watching Guardians of the Galaxy and noticing that James Gunn made a name for himself with Super, I needed to watch this. The result is wonderful! With Ellen Page, Kevin Bacon, Liv Taylor en Rainn Wilson among others, it is clear this isn't a movie that came into existence in a very alternative circuit (Gunn's screenwriting history suggests this as well). Nevertheless this whole thing screams out "b-movie!". A superhero flick with splatter and gore? Where the hero of the story just wants to kill, not punish? Come on, what's not to love about that?! Super felt a bit like God Bless America only a bit less well-aimed. A minor criticism for an otherwise enjoyable and highly crude movie. It's a bit sad that Gunn didn't bring some of this self-conscious amateurish feel and look into Guardians of the Galaxy. It could've spiced the Marvel Universe up a little.
My Sweet Pepper Land (2013) - 9.0 / 10
Best movie of the week! This marvelously shot film will probably end up in my "best of 2014" list. Hiner Saleem brings us a beautiful blend of spaghetti western and political drama, not without some witty humor and satire. Genre-bending cinema always scores high with me, especially if it has such a wonderful aesthetic. The landscapes of Eastern Turkey and Northern Iraq are magical in their desolation and fierceness. On top of the majestic cinematography and the brilliant playing on genres, the acting of Korkmaz Arslan and Golshifteh Farahani is superb and the soundtrack (including the music played on the Hang) is one that I would listen to for hours on end. The film reminded me of Tepenin ardi, a Turkish western tragedy directed by Emin Alper, which also had this wonderful aesthetic. Since I saw Tepenin ardi I realized there's more to Turkish cinema then the commercial Yeşilçam industry and the arthouse master Nuri Bilge Ceylan. Hiner Saleem might do this for Iraqi cinema. Or must I say Kurdish cinema? 'Cause let's be fair: this movie breaths Kurdish sentiment and passion through all its veins; Saleem might have more in common with the Turkish Kurd Yılmaz Güney (Yol) and the Iranian Kurd Bahman Ghobadi (Turtles Can Fly and No One Knows About Persian Cats). In any case, My Sweet Pepper Land is a masterful film that didn't get the attention and distribution it so obviously deserves.
Ink (2009) - 6.5 / 10
The weirder a movie gets, the more I'll like it. Not unconditionally, but close. My expectations for Ink were extremely high so it's pretty astonishing that it took my several years before watching it. Now that Jamin Winans released his third movie recently, Ink got my attention again. After watching it my feelings were mixed. Although it is a very strange story indeed, a lot of the movie felt very conventional. The acting was pretty mediocre (as if the movie was made for television in the 1990s), the storyline was drenched in too much pathos (with a soundtrack that magnified this feeling a lot) and the visual style felt all a bit too much "post-production editing". I get why Ink is labeled a cult movie, as I think its following is indeed very small yet passionate, but it didn't do all that much for me. Too bad, 'cause I really wanted to like this film a lot...
The Frame (2014) - 5.0 / 10
To prevent me from making the same mistake I made with Ink, I watched The Frame without any procrastination. Just like with its predecessor I didn't feel anything for this movie. Again, the concept is without a doubt very intriguing, but the same criticism I had for Winans' previous film applies for The Frame in twofold. Maybe the acting was somewhat better and the visual style a bit moderated, yet it all felt too epic for my taste. I think Winans' following is deserved although I will not become one of those followers. Nevertheless I'd recommend both Ink as The Frame to those who like bizarre and exceptional cinema.
Predestination (2014) - 8.0 / 10
Movies that depend on plottwists are always valued better after a second viewing. Is it only the twist that numbs your judgement or has it more to offer than only an interesting narrative? In the case of Predestination I'd definetely answer with the latter. Even more so, after a second viewing it got better! Once you know what is about to happen you don't have to worry anymore about so-called predictability and the tiresome competition to guess how the movie is going to end before the actual end. This ennoying trend never appealed to me and I like to be flabbergasted without dozens of suggestions about what might happen. I don't measure these kind of movies on my own capacity of how super awesome I am when guessing the end before everbody else does, proclaiming afterwards that it was just all too predictable. When valuing Predestination I like to take into account the provocative way it incorporates a brilliant gender-bending experience (thanks to the amazing Sarah Snook) and how the metaphysical inclinations of the story open the way to more philosophical questions about determinism and free choice. The movie never is the end of the thought process of the viewer. It doesn't stand or fall with its possibly (un)predictable plot. Predestination might appeal to fans of Looper, Minority Report, The Adjustment Bureau and the Wachowski's. Those who deem themselves of superior intellect, refrain yourselves from watching this. The world doesn't need more conceited losers.
Feuchtgebiete (2013) - 7.5 / 10
This is probably the most raunchy picture I've seen all year. Maybe ever. It disgusted me more than, say, The Human Centipede II. No kidding. It might be 'cause I'm gay and have no affinity whatsoever with the female body, its smells, its peculiarities and its specific organic functions. If you think you've seen it all, then I suggest you watch this movie. An atmosphere that'll amuse the punk in every one of us, but nauseate our affinity with common decency. We not only get to hear a lot about intuitively nasty stuff (shit, cum, piss, sweat, vaginal discharge, snot, anal blood,...), we also see a lot of it. Yes. See. This movie is very visceral. Some might say too visceral. I'm inclined to say the same. On the other hand, I'm just too fascinated with the (sick) way David Wnendt dares to confront us with what we all know and have. Stuff that we usually accept as extremely private and even embarrassing is brought to the center of the stage. While doing this, the movie tells the story of a girl in puberty and her desperate need for attention since her parents don't give her any. This movie transcends its mere shock value to an authentic subversive work that will claim a cult status rather sooner than later. Add some sleazy garage music from Thee Headcoatees, Joan Jett and Peaches and you've got yourself a movie like nothing you've ever seen before!
Gerontophilia (2013) - 7.0 / 10
More transgressive cinema, this time by enfant terrible Bruce LaBruce. Although Gerontophilia is without any doubt LaBruce's most conventional movie, it shocks through its content. A young man is attracted to an 82-year-old man and starts a (sexual) relationship with him. How's that for ya? Without much explicity LaBruce aims, shoots and hits - the debate about gerontophilia can be addressed. Mission succeeded. Well, for the very limited audience that ever gets to see this movie of course. By the way, a film where the SCUM Manifesto gets mentioned? That is just absolutely awesome!
Tusk (2014) - 6.0 / 10
"This could've been way better." That was the first thing that went through my mind after seeing this. It's something I've experienced several times with Kevin Smith (except for his debut Clerks, which was just perfect). Tusk, the first part of a conceptual trilogy, is funny and inventive, but misses an original approach in writing. The unexpected take on body horror by Smith was something I loved very much, as well as Johnny Depp's quirky character Guy Lapointe. However, in general the movie was a bit too much hit and miss, especially in dialogue. Definetely one of those films that will generate its own following (like with everything Smith directs) and be called "underrated" several times. Not by myself though. Nevertheless I'm looking forward to the next two episodes: Yoga Hosers and Moose Jaws.
The African Queen (1951) - 5.0 / 10
John Huston has made some brilliant films (The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Maltese Falcon), some moderate films (The Asphalt Jungle and The Man Who Would Be King) and some terrible films (The Misfits and Annie). The African Queen is definetely one of those moderate films. A bit better than The Man Who Would Be King, a bit lesser than The Asphalt Jungle. In any case nothing to write home about. Nonetheless I was a bit disappointed. Not because it's Huston directing (he's too precarious to rely on), but beacuse it's Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn acting. I love both of them. Like, really, adore. Especially Hepburn. It might be because of misguided romantic ideas of a lost Hollywood era. Or it might be just because I like the sight and style of them both. Anyway, both Bogart (who won his first and only Oscar for this movie and called it the best acting he had ever done) as Hepburn were not on their best. By far. Did Bogart get the Oscar because it was the first time he was seen in colour? He certainly makes a different impression when seen in colour... I liked him better in The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca, The Big Sleep and especially in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Same with Hepburn, who just seems sick all the time (which she partly was during the recordings). Compared to Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelphia Story, Adam's Rib and even The Lion in Winter her acting was often annoying and laughable. I get why this movie is seen as a classic, but a classic doesn't necessarily mean a good movie. This was just okay. No more, no less.
WolfCop (2014) - 8.5 / 10
Another b-movie! Yet again I found myself watching one of those movies where almost everyone looks aghast, asking themselves: "Why?" And then there's me. 'Cause it's about a cop. That's a wolf. That kills bad guys. Who are shapeshifters. And have a kind of satanic cult. With a soundtrack composed by RidingEasy Records (the heavy psych / fuzz label that signed awesome bands like Black Prism, Salem's Pot, Electric Citizen, Albino Python and The Picturebooks and (re-)released tapes of Saint Vitus, Graveyard, Witchcraft and Orchid). Oh, and it has tons of blood, gore and splatter. And to top it all off, it has an awesome looking werewolf reminiscent of those in Werewolves on Wheels, not that over-stylized Twilight shit. I can keep on going. The only question to ask yourself is: "Why not?" This is the sort of movie that's the ultimate kind of entertainment for me. Compared to Hollywood this Canadian movie is low budget, but don't be fooled, the total cost still is around €700.000. However, when you see the trailer of that other, insanely stupid looking, Canadian werewolf movie Wolves (which actually will get a theatrical release in Belgium) and know that one cost almost 15 million euro's, one can wonder why WolfCop doesn't suffice. To throw in some other numbers: the Danish werewolf (art)movie When Animals Dream had a budget of around 2.5 million euro's and the latest American blockbuster about werewolves (The Wolfman, 2010) cost 123 million euro's. I only want to point out the ridiculous waste of money when it comes to some movies. If an entertaining movie (WolfCop) costs €700.000 and a more highbrow movie (When Animals Dream) costs €2.5 million, isn't that enough? Why must entertainment be funded by such capital when it can be made with much less? Such capital prevents true creative freedom, 'cause money is restrictive, not liberating. Above all, it's not that this kind of capital is needed for technical progress, 'cause we're not looking at themes like in Avatar, Gravity or Interstellar. This is horror. Pictures like Wolves and The Wolfman are redundant and therefor waste. We need a wolfcop to prevent this crap from happening in the future!
