purple-pen-reviews - Tumblr blog

purple-pen-reviews · 7 years

Text

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

Rating: 8.9/10

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a 2014 sci-fi action film directed by Matt Reeves. It stars Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Toby Kebbel, Keri Russel and Kodi Smit-McPhee, along with Kirk Acevedo, Nick Thurston, Terry Notary, Karin Konoval, Judy Greer, Jon Eyez, Enrique Murciano, and Doc Shaw. The film is a continuation of the Planet of the Apes reboot franchise, and begins 10 years after Rise of the Planet of the Apes ends. After the fall of humanity due to the Simian Flu, the augmented apes have formed a new society in the woods outside San Francisco under Caesar’s leadership. The apes come into conflict with a group of humans from a compound nearby, searching for alternate power sources, and tensions begin to rise between the two species, as well as within the apes’ own ranks.

The sequel to Rise of the Planet of the Apes outshines its predecessor in its visuals. Improvement is immediately noticeable. Andy Serkis once again provides a stellar motion capture performance, yet at this point it is almost expected. Another motion capture ape actor whose shines in this film is Toby Kebbel as Koba. Once again, the eyes say it all in this film. Both of these actors, as well as Nick Thurston and the other ape actors, give excellent nuanced performances. Speaking of nuanced performances, Gary Oldman as Dreyfus, the leader of the San Francisco survivors, transforms what could have become a usual one-note post apocalypse villain into a remarkable anti-hero.

One of the places the movie tends to falter is in its characterization. This film is very hit-or-miss when it comes to fleshing out its characters. Some, like Caesar, Koba, and Dreyfus are well-rounded and fully-realized, yet others, like Rocket, Carver, and others seem like wasted potential for good characters. However, the movie makes up for this by doubling-down on my favorite part of the first movie - all-out ape-action. Once again, the action scenes are by far the best part about this film, in particular the big battle scene in the second act.

Aesthetically, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is much darker than its precursor. I hate to be cliche and compare this sequel to The Empire Strikes Back, but that’s the best way to describe it. It’s darker, has a more developed story, and ends on an ominous note - which is a welcome shift in tone, to be honest. The apes’ war paint as well as the “scarecrows” Malcolm encounters in the woods and other frightening imagery and scenes hammers home to the viewer the reality of the situation - that hyper-intelligent apes would be terrifying to behold.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is definitely as good if not better than Rise of the Planet of the Apes, bringing updated visuals with enhanced action and drama, though there are some persistent problems with focus of characterization. In spite of this, fans of the first movie should be encouraged to see its sequel, as it continues to provide everything the first Planet of the Apes reboot had good going for it, with improvement in many different areas. It recaptures many of the beats present in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Those who didn’t enjoy the first film as much, or those who have never seen it, should also watch Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, as it also improves upon some of the negative aspects of the first film, providing multiple compelling characters and gripping action sequences that would make any moviegoer happy.

The apes’ acting in this movie alone makes it worth the watch, even more than the previous one, not only Andy Serkis as Caesar but also Nick Thurston as Caesar’s son, Blue Eyes, as well as Toby Kebbel’s performance as Koba, the scarred bonobo from the previous movie. Toby Kebbel shines the most during Koba’s outbursts at Caesar’s decisions (The ”Human work. Human. Work.. Human work!” scene gave me the same feeling as the “No!” scene did in the first movie). It was a bit one-note at times, but Koba had no reason to be anything other than angry at humans, so it fit nonetheless. The character of Koba is very well-written as a foil to Caesar. Both are wildly intelligent, but due to their life experiences, they use their intellect in different ways. Whereas Caesar, who was raised in a loving environment, strategizes to save the most possible lives in all situations - both human and ape - Koba uses his enhanced intillect to usurp power from Caesar and exact revenge on the humans, from whom Koba “only learned hate.” Koba is just as compelling of a villain as Caesar is as a hero, and a compelling villain is what was really missing from the previous movie.

In addition to its compelling villain, Dawn also improves upon the action scenes. In particular, the opening hunting sequence as well as the battle at the San Francisco compound are both great large-scale action sequences, but the climactic duel between Koba and Caesar is also so much fun to watch. Ape fisticuffs is something I never thought I’d enjoy watching, but the way its set up is pretty compelling - in that Caesar has to fight Koba because the apes will only follow the strong. When I first watched Dawn a few years ago, I didn’t pick up on the specific reason why Caesar had to fight Koba, but I did when I re-watched it for this review, and it made much more sense that way. There’s also a shot during the battle sequence seen from the point-of-view of a spinning tank’s cannon that is absolutely ingenious. However I still think my favorite scene in this one, as far as action goes, is the first scene, where the apes go hunting and Caesar faces down a bear. Its good, primal, cro-magnon-esque action, and I just love it. Maybe others won’t, but I certainly do.

As previously stated, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is very hit-or-miss when it comes to characterization. Some are very well-realized, such as the previously mentioned main characters Caesar and Koba, yet others feel like wasted potential. Dreyfus made for a good human villian/anti-hero in this movie. Whereas some of the other human characters, like Malcolm (played by Jason Clarke) and Ellie (Keri Russel), fell flat, the subtlety that Oldman brought to his character made him feel like a real person and less like a generic portrait. The way Dreyfus’ backstory is revealed is much better too. Whereas we are just told the others’, Dreyfus’ tragic past is revealed to us through the scene with the iPad. It also sheds light on his motivations for future actions - why he chose to sacrifice himself to “get the job done.” He’s a soldier, what else would he have done?

While we’re talking about human villains, lets discuss Carver (played by Kirk Acevedo). Carver’s character was used to push the movie’s themes on racism, which were handled very well just like the messages were in the first movie. In the end, however, Carver is murdered by Koba, seemingly proving his point that the damn dirty apes are dangerous. Though some justice was done in this regard when Rocket (the father of Ash, who Carver shoots in the first act) saves him from the collapse in the dam, I still feel as if his character could have been given more of a chance to be proven wrong, and wrap up the racial allegories with more points on how he “never realized how similar they are to us,” or something along those lines. Some of Caesar’s lines in the third act mimic this, but coming from him (a character whose whole concept is the blurred line between human and ape, in regards to settling their differences) it doesn’t have the same effect as it would have if they had come from Carver.

The characterization of the apes is done in a much similar way. The film spent lots of time fleshing out Maurice, which I enjoyed, but it still felt as if there was so much wasted potential in the character of Rocket. Don’t get me wrong, I loved seeing Maurice as the mild-mannered orangutan who teaches the children in the village how to read as well as the hulking brute who can choke a chimp when he needs to, but I felt as if the filmmakers could’ve done more with Rocket, especially with the death of his son at the hands of Koba. Rocket could’ve foiled Maurice in that he transforms from a simple-minded bully in the first movie into a dramatic character through scenes showing him mourning the loss of his son, yet all we see about Ash’s death from anyone is a single line of dialogue from Blue Eyes. Ultimately, it was this missed opportunity for Rocket and Carver that held Dawn of the Planet of the Apes back from getting a straight 9.0/10.

Even with its mild flaws in characterization, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is definitely one of my favorite movies so far. It adds to - as well as improves upon - its predecessors in many ways, and is once again worthy of its place as one of the best Planet of the Apes movies (if not the best) so far.

0 notes

purple-pen-reviews · 7 years

Text

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Rating: 8.3/10

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a 2011 sci-fi action movie directed by Rupert Wyatt. It stars James Franco, Freida Pinto, John Lithgow, Brian Cox, Tom Felton, and Andy Serkis, along with David Oyelowo, Karin Konoval, Terry Notary, Tyler Labine, and Richard Ridings. The film is a second reboot of the Planet of the Apes franchise, based on the premise presented in the French novel La Planète des Singes (Planet of the Apes or Monkey Planet in English), and is similar in premise to the fourth movie in the original Planet of the Apes series, Conquest of the Planet of the Apes. The film is about a doctor (Franco’s character) researching a cure for Alzheimer’s using apes as test subject, whose cure accidentally makes one of the test chimpanzee’s children, Caesar, much smarter than average apes, to the point where he begins to question his own existence, among other things.

Much like the series it rebooted, Rise of the Planet of the Apes shines as well as innovates as a visual production. Though at times the CGI does not pass very well, there are certain scenes that work, particularly action scenes and scenes that emphasize Caesar’s facial expressions. Speaking of, Serkis’ performance as Caesar is absolutely stellar. Just as the original Planet of the Apes made waves in Hollywood for its makeup and visual effects, Rise of the Planet of the Apes proved to the movie-making community that motion-capture actors deserve as much commendation for their work as their non-computer-generated counterparts. Though other performances, such as Lithgow’s and Felton’s, were noteworthy, it is Andy Serkis as Caesar who truly stands above the rest in this movie.

The only thing holding this movie back from getting a higher score is that its plot at times can become a little far-fetched. This is not a major problem - only at certain times did the events of the movie make me lose my suspension of disbelief. However, I’ve seen worse plots for better premises, and the story isn’t completely appalling. Though the plot isn’t super great, the focus is taken off of it by its action scenes. In particular, the scene on the Golden Gate Bridge stands out to me as one of the best in the movie. There are also a few dramatic scenes that kept me looking past the plot holes. So, in the end, even though the story could use work, the other aspects of the movie outshine it well enough to ignore it.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a worthy reboot to the sci-fi classic. Its action and dramatic scenes are great, being extremely noteworthy in that they were mostly created through computer-generated imagery. Though certain events in the story are hard to believe, the plot is not completely outlandish for a sci-fi film. Andy Serkis’ performance is outstanding, eclipsing any of the other actors in this film by a wide margin, an especially commendable statement considering his entire performance was done in motion-capture. I would personally recommend seeing this movie for its excellent imagery, if not necessarily for its story.

I cannot heap enough praise upon Andy Serkis for his role in this film. Though the effects have not aged terribly well - even for a movie that came out less than a decade ago - it did something more than put on a visually stunning show. It proved to Hollywood that a motion-capture performance is just as viable as a normal performance. Honestly, I thought this would’ve been proven already by Serkis’ portrayal of Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but I suppose Hollywood needed a little more. Serkis wasn’t the only good performance in the movie though - John Lithgow’s portrayal of a man in the increasingly destructive late stages of Alzheimer’s was emotionally reminiscent of my own grandfather, who suffers from Alzheimer’s as well. I can’t say the same about Franco’s performance however. It wasn’t terrible, I’ll grant him that, and I commend him for showing his range, however he didn’t necessarily give a stand-out performance, and is in many ways outshined by Serkis. One of the scenes that stands out in my mind is when he attacks one of his neighbors to defend Lithgow’s character, who he perceived was in danger, but soon realizes his mistake, the way Caesar’s eyes and face move is actually moving. You can see the visible regret on his face - a chimpanzee’s face. In this moment, the CGI does not enhance Serkis’ performance, but rather Serkis enhances the CGI with his performance. It’s honestly amazing.

Another scene I liked was the skirmish on the Golden Gate Bridge - it was just really cool. The way Caesar used the different species of apes’ different abilities to strategize how best to defeat the humans was really fun to watch. That’s the best I can say about this movie’s third act - it’s definitely fun to watch. Though the story leading up to it has some holes, its worth suspending your disbelief to get to the final product - all-out ape action.

My favorite scene in the movie comes at the turning point of the film, when Tom Felton’s character begins tormenting Caesar, and Caesar grabs his hand and yells “NO!” It gave me goosebumps. The silence following it, along with the shocked expressions on the faces of both apes and men alike make it an almost perfect scene - almost. Only one thing keeps this scene from being absolutely perfect, and that is the way Felton delivers the line, “get your paws off me, you damn dirty ape!” It’s a reference to the first Planet of the Apes movie, but within the context of the scene, quoting it verbatim doesn't really work. It sounds awkward, and forced. This is not Felton’s fault, however, it has more to do with the way the dialogue was originally written. When the original Planet of the Apes movie came out, Hollywood tended to favor the grandiose over the realistic. The way Charlton Heston was supposed to deliver the dialogue is different than what would have made sense for Felton to deliver it as. It just doesn’t work in this context - which is a hard-to-ignore blemish on an otherwise incredible scene.

I also commend the film for its messages about animal rights. It presents its morals in a way that doesn’t beat the viewer over the head, yet at the same time makes sure it gets its message across.

Overall, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a great movie. Not a perfect movie, but a great movie. It has its ups, as well as its downs, but it’s definitely worth the price of whatever you usually pay to watch movies, if not more.

#Rise of the Planet of the Apes #Planet of the Apes #2011 Movies #movies #sci-fi films #action films #Rupert Wyatt #James Franco #Freida Pinto #John Lithgow #Brian Cox #Tom Felton #Andy Serkis #David Oyelowo #Karin Konoval #Terry Notary #Tyler Labine #Richard Ridings #entertainment

0 notes

purple-pen-reviews · 7 years

Text

All Quiet on the Western Front (1979)

Rating: 6.0/10

All Quiet on the Western Front is a 1979 war drama directed by Delbert Mann. It stars Richard Thomas as Paul Bäumer, Ernest Borgnine as Stanislaus “Kat” Katczinsky, Donald Pleasance as Kantorek, Ian Holm as Corporal Himmelstoss, and Patricia Neal as Paul’s Mother, alongside Mark Elliott, Dai Bradley, Mathew Evans, George Winter, Dominic Jephcott, Mark Drewry, Colin Mayes, & Ewan Steward as Paul’s comrades, Behm, Kropp, Müller, Kemmerich, Leer, Tjaden, Westhus, and Detering, respectively. The film is an adaptation of Erich Maria Remarque’s eponymous war novel about a group of young men who enlist in the German army during the Great War, only to discover what really is the true face of war.

Having read the novel beforehand, I can say that this is a mediocre adaptation. One of the places where the movie seems to struggle with is deciding whether or not to stay faithful to or depart from the novel. For example, I take particular offense at the representations of both the characters of Josef Behm and Kantorek. Behm’s and Kantorek’s character arcs, without any spoilers, are heavily changed from the novel, and it takes away from the message Remarque was trying to convey by including the events surrounding their characters (more on this to follow below the bar).

However, as a movie in and of itself, I think this one shines in certain places, yet hits the floor with a dull thud in others; in some scenes, particularly the scenes of trench warfare, the movie manages to do both at the same time. There is very commendable stuntwork for the times in many of the scenes, particularly certain shots where entire buildings or trenches are destroyed by shellfire. Each of the action scenes show the horrors experienced by the young men fighting in first World War. In spite of all this, each of these kinds of scenes are juxtaposed by some of the worst acting I’ve seen in the deaths of many of the background extras. You can’t help but laugh at their ridiculously cheesy deaths, and it really detracts from the tenseness of the battle scenes.

What I would say to anyone who has already read the book is this; if you liked the book enough to want to sit through the seriously hammed-up dying soldiers, go ahead and see it. However, if you didn’t like the book all that much, or not enough to sit through an okay movie, save your money and watch something else; but if you haven’t read Remarque’s wonderful novel - which you should - and enjoy war movies, give this one a watch. At the very least, it’s a passable war drama with excellent performances by Ian Holm and Ernest Borgnine, if not a very good adaptation of Remarque’s original ideas.

First of all, I would like to preface this by saying I probably would not have reviewed this movie if I had not received it as part of an assignment in my World Lit. II class (If you’re reading this, hello Mrs. Eline). I would have gone a little more in-depth into spoiler territory for my paper, but I decided not to, because I figured that a review for The Philidelphia Arts Magazine shouldn’t contain any spoilers, regardless if it was directed at those who have already read the book or not. That’s just common etiquette.

I liked this movie well enough, but Christ Almighty the dying extras were just too much for me. I couldn’t stop laughing. Which is really awful, considering how horrible the actual first World War was; and that’s part of the reason this movie isn’t so great, as far as war movies go. It’s supposed to be tense, exciting, and nerve-wracking every time the French attack - and at times it is - but there is always an unfailingly cheesy death scene that follows every tense moment of battle. It’s impossible to stay invested in this movie because of it. I understand that this was a made-for-television adaptation, but that does not excuse it. One scene in particular displays the dichotomy of well-directed and realistic action that these boys would have went through, and that is the gas attack scene. Most of the time, it is a well-shot and properly uneasy scene, where the men are stuck between going up top and risking being shot by the French and staying in the shell-hole and risking the toxic gases settling around them, culminating when one of the greener (for those unfamiliar with the term, it means someone that is less experienced) soldiers drops his gas mask into the settled vapors, and without thinking, jumps in afterwards, and is afflicted by the gas. This scene features both one of the most ridiculous death scenes as well as one of the best. At the end, the boy who dove in after his mask violently chokes to death as he is being carried off on a stretcher, as Katczinsky comments that he was, “just a baby,” but at the beginning, two soldiers run around in the background shouting, “Gas! Gas!” but are hit by shellfire, and after about a second or so AFTER the shell blows up, the two literally HURL their rifles into the air like batons and scream, “WWOOOOAAAARRRGH” in a most unbelievable fashion. It almost ruined the scene for me; almost, in that it at least occurred in the beginning, so that I could purge myself of any giggles to invest myself into the rest of the scene.

This is not to say that the action scenes are bad, however. In fact, they’re really good, when you aren’t too busy laughing at them. If you look past the ridiculousness of it all, you can really invest yourself into the action scenes, which impressively recreate the horrendous events that soldiers in World War I would likely have gone through on an almost daily basis.

There were some departures from the source material in this movie, which is to be expected from any page-to-screen adaptation; and while some were appreciated (one that comes to mind is the ending), most severely degraded the original message that Remarque was trying to present in All Quiet. Both the character arcs of Josef Behm and Kantorek were severely weakened, and unnecessarily so. In Remarque’s original novel, Behm was characterized as the one young boy who did not buy into Kantorek’s spiels about “the Iron Youth,” and was very afraid to go to the front. Kantorek continued to push and bully him into enlisting with the rest of the class, which he eventually did. This resulted in him being the first of the class to die, and in an extremely painful way. Later, when Kantorek becomes a territorial under Mittelstaedt’s (a classmate of Paul’s) command, Mittelstaedt tells him off, stating that he would have lived just a little bit longer before being drafted, had Kantorek not bullied him into enlisting. The storyline was included in the novel because Remarque wanted to present the idea about the people that war does not affect often have the loudest opinions about it. It was an important part of the novel, and the movie completely glosses over it. Instead, the conflict is merged with Paul meeting Kantorek while on leave, and it weakens the message. The movie does this in other areas, where character arcs are cut short, making it meaningless to even include them. For example, Tjaden’s conflict with Himmelstoss is instead given to Paul, but when they meet Himmelstoss at the front, Tjaden is still the one who threatens Himmelstoss, like he did in the novel, even though Himmelstoss’ abuses to Tjaden are never shown in the film. Another instance of this happening is Müller’s death; in the book, he dies in Paul’s arms, and gives Paul the nice boots that Kemmerich gave to him when he died. The point of this was to show the necessity of survival being more prevalent in a soldier’s mind than sentimentality. Instead, the movie has Müller’s death pointlessly recounted to Paul by Tjaden. There is also a point in the movie where Paul has an extremely emotional reaction to the death of one of his comrades, Leer; however, Leer had not been characterized at all since the very first scene. The character arc of Himmelstoss is also cut down, and he gets no redemption at the end of the movie like he does in the novel. In the novel, he realizes the error of his ways, and that all men are more or less equal at the front, and tries to make amends with Tjaden. In the movie, the only interaction he and Tjaden have after their initial confrontation is that they both die on the same day.

All of these things combined have led me to the consensus that this movie had a very difficult time deciding when to stay true to the novel, and when to stray from the source material. I am in no way saying that movie adaptations of books should stay 100% faithful to the source material; that’s just silly. However, I think that you need to decide long before you start filming whether or not you want to keep certain things. The way this movie kept trying to stray away from Remarque’s original ideas, only to snap back before a conclusion could be reached, made me think that at some point after they started filming, someone decided that they were straying too far from the book, or not far enough, and forced somebody to change things around. That can be my only explanation for some of these things. Indecisive adaptations are, in my opinion, bad adaptations, and this adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front is most certainly suffering from indecisiveness.

My favorite parts about this movie were Ernest Borgnine and Ian Holm, without a doubt. Most of the acting in this movie was acceptable - I would go so far as to say that the actors who played Kemmerich and Detering did the best job out of this group - but Ian Holm and Ernest Borgnine as Himmelstoss and Katczinsky save this movie. These two performances are the only reasons I would even recommend anyone see this movie. On one hand, Holm’s portrayal was exactly what I had imagined Himmelstoss as when I first read All Quiet. The future Bilbo Baggins’ furious yet powerless performance invites you to despise Himmelstoss, and is one of the only really passionate performances given in this movie filled with one-dimensional cookie-cutter character archetypes. On the other hand, Ernest Borgnine was not at all how I pictured Kat when I first read the novel. I pictured him as more of a Mads Mikkelsen-looking type of person; grizzled, but not grey-haired and chubby, the way Borgnine is, but the way he played the character was so good that I think I will be unable to think of anyone else in that role. In the movie, he definitely has a more fatherly role than in the books, but I think that ended up being a good thing. Every line he says is 100% believable, almost to the point that you forget you’re watching a movie and instead think you’re having a conversation with an older coworker or friend. Borgnine’s wise and fatherly vibe, as well as his honesty and believability as Katczinsky make this a standout performance for the future voice of Mermaid Man.

All things considered, it’s not a bad movie. The action is good, the stunts are good, and the acting (at least the main characters’ acting) is good. That being said, it’s not a particularly good movie either. I would recommend this movie simply based on the performances of Ian Holm and Ernest Borgnine, especially if you loved the characters in Remarque’s book, but if you’re just a fan of war dramas, I would suggest that you just watch Full Metal Jacket again.

#All Quiet on the Western Front #1979 movies #made for tv movies #Erich Maria Remarque #Delbert Mann #war films #war drama films #drama films #Richard Thomas #Ernest Borgnine #Donald Pleasance #Ian Holm #Patricia Neal #world war 1 #world war i #entertainment

1 note · View note

purple-pen-reviews · 7 years

Text

Look Who’s Back [German: Er Ist Wieder Da] (2015)

Rating: 9.4/10

Look Who’s Back is a 2015 German comedy film directed by David Wnendt, starring Oliver Masucci, Fabian Busch, Katja Riemann, Christoph Maria Herbst, and Franziska Wulf. It is based on a novel of the same name, written by Timur Vermes, and features certain parts containing Oliver Masucci engaging with actual German citizens as the Hitler character mixed with scripted segments. The film’s plot revolves around amateur reporter Fabian Sawatzki (played by Fabian Busch) discovering a man who appears to be Hitler (Oliver Masucci), and trying to make him famous on the internet. The two traverse the German countryside, shooting comedy skits as well as various political vignettes. Eventually, Hitler and Sawatzki score a TV show deal, where Hitler begins to gain serious political traction.

The film presents an several interesting morals, one of the most important being about how history is subject to repeating itself, and that we are usually too busy telling ourselves that “it could never happen to us” to see it actually happening to us. The movie goes about doing this masterfully, and in a way that is paralleled by the character of Hitler itself. It starts off as a hilarious, mockumentary-style comedy film, but slowly transitions into a serious drama that presents hard-hitting moral questions. Both the comedy and the drama of this movie hit the nail on the head, and it is both gut-bustingly funny as well as ethically intriguing. There are two excellent performances in this movie, one being Oliver Masucci as Adolf Hitler. Masucci’s interpretation of Hitler is spot on - there were times during the movie that I got so invested in his acting that, for just a split second, I believed that I could actually be watching the real Hitler walking around Germany. This suspension of disbelief is further aided by the film’s second excellent performance - the citizens of Germany. Much like the American film Borat (dir. Larry Charles, 2006), Look Who’s Back features many unscripted moments of the main character interacting with regular people. I hate to say that some of the best acting done in this film isn’t acting at all - many of the lines from this movie are the actual opinions of actual people. Which is eye-opening, because you would think that people wouldn’t be so quick to agree with a man dressed up as Hitler, yet scenes involving just that make up a good 15 minute section of the film.

Regardless, Look Who’s Back is both an excellent comedy and drama film, and I would recommend anyone who enjoys dark comedy or historical/political satire see this movie (currently available for streaming on Netflix) immediately.

One of the best parts about this movie is it’s excellent comedic timing. Oliver Masucci’s Hitler narrating the ridiculous events happening around him create some of the most quotable moments in movie history. The level of quotability of this movie is on par with that of a Mel Brooks or Monty Python classic.

The movie begins as such, with Hitler narrating himself as he wakes up in modern-day Germany, and from there, the comedic roller-coaster begins. Hitler stumbles around, being mistaken for a street performer, is almost run over by a mob of segways, and then maced by a woman who thinks he is insane. Blindly, he shambles over to a newstand, discovers the year is 2014, and passes out into the arms of a newspaper salesman. During this time, the jokes come full throttle like charging bayonets, and only stops when the story switches over to several expository scenes about Fabian Sawatzki, Mr. Sensenbrink (Christoph Maria Hurbst), and Ms. Krömeier (Franziska Wulf). The movie slows down, and in my opinion, gets pretty boring, and the writing is pretty cheesy as well. The jokes don’t flow as well as the others during scenes without Hitler. Attempts at comedy during these parts seem forced, and aren’t all that funny. The whole time during these scenes, I was thinking to myself, “when will we get back to Hitler?” - which is disturbing, when taken out of context...

The history nerd in me was laughing out loud at some of the things Hitler says in this movie, like “Turks in Berlin? How remarkable! The Ottoman Empire managed to turn the war!” and, “Yesterday I was moving the 12th army... Today, it’s a newspaper rack!” However, the jokes in this movie aren’t just for history buffs - in fact, most of what Hitler says is pure comedy gold, due to Oliver Masucci’s excellent deadpan performance as the most reviled man in history (who seems completely aloof to the fact that he is regarded as such). The line between Masucci’s comedic performance and his dramatic performance is almost indistinguishable, meaning you never see a joke coming until it’s hit you straight in the face. One second, he’s grilling Sawatzki on how to defeat Poland in a land war, and the next, he’s unintentionally making a joke about the dry-cleaners “blitz cleaning.” Most of the comedy from these scenes comes from the belief that, if the real Hitler actually had to go through these absurd situations, he’d probably react in exactly the same way.

The scenes where Masucci, while impersonating Hitler, discusses politics with real German citizens made me laugh when I watched this movie the first time, but upon rewatching it, they became less funny. At first, I kept thinking, “How crazy would you have to be to openly agree with a man dressed as Hitler?!?” but as I watched the movie for a second, third, and even a fourth time, I realized these people weren’t all that crazy. Sure, their beliefs about politics and society were ignorant, but were the people themselves evil or crazy? Not at all. Every single one of the people Hitler met with were sane. They were just normal citizens with different points of view. Whether or not their opinions were correct is a subjective matter, but were the people themselves wrong or evil for thinking that? No; and that’s another one of the subtle messages that this movie conveys. You don’t have to be crazy or evil to have these kinds of opinions. We’ll come back to that subject later.

(Side Note: there was a scene in which Hitler discusses how the effects of race-mixing are detrimental to people with a German woman in the movie, and I just so happened to be watching it with two women who are of mixed-race descent themselves. It wasn’t supposed to be funny, but given the circumstances, we laughed the hardest at this scene.)

I cannot stress this next sentence enough; everyone needs to watch the scene with Hitler and the dead dog. It’s absolutely hilarious. Going into this movie the first time, my friends and I thought that Look Who’s Back was going to be some stupid, badly acted, horrendous foreign film that we could ironically laugh at. This scene was the moment we realized that this movie was a cut above the rest. This movie vastly exceeded my expectations, and this scene is exactly why. The only gripe I have with it is that the dog, when Hitler shoots it, is very obviously fake, but can I even complain about the fact that I obviously didn’t just watch somebody shoot a dog? Is that really even a complaint?

There are many more funny moments, including when Hitler goes to the Central Square in Bayreuth to raise money by drawing caricatures of people, the montage of Hitler & Sawatzki’s exploits around the German countryside, as well as Hitler and Sawatzki’s banter on the road, but I wouldn’t want to spoilt everything. Just go see the movie. You won’t regret it.

Two of the subsequent scenes seemed weird; one being the YouTube community’s reaction to Hitler’s new popularity as well as Hitler’s weird narration of his feelings about Katja Bellini (Katja Riemann) seem out of place, and honestly, a little unsettling. I feel like the movie would have been fine without them.

I also find problems with Sawatzki’s decision-making skills. Why would he bring this killer new idea to Sensenbrink, who obviously hates him? There has to be other options for him. Later, he does the right thing by giving Hitler’s new manuscript to Katja, but that only exasperates my point. Why did he even bother going to Sensenbrink in the first place?

The scene in which Hitler discovers the Internet is decidedly reminiscent of Monty Python’s Flying Circus. When asked to type into the Google Search Bar what he is interested in by Ms. Krömeier, he types, “weltherrschaft,” which is the German word for “world supremacy.” Makes me giggle every time. His infatuation with Wikipedia, his struggle to find a username, and his complete bewilderment with modern technology only adds to the suspension of disbelief I previously mentioned.

Look Who’s Back also makes excellent use of foreshadowing. Firstly (and in a more minor way), while Sawatzki and Krömeier are making out on Krömeier’s couch, a menorah hits Sawatzki in the head, foreshadowing that the Krömeier family is Jewish, which becomes a conflict of interest later in the movie. Secondly, there is a line in which Hitler describes Sensenbrink as a man who, “hopes he is a success, but he’s only an accessory to success. Because he suspects this, he fears the moment it is revealed that the success is neither his, nor was he an accessory to it.” Sensenbrink’s moment of realization comes when he sees how much success Sawatzki is receiving from Hitler, and how little he himself is receiving, as highlighted by the insulting minor role he plays in the movie’s script. Interestingly, he says the line, “You could’ve gotten Benno Furmann or Bruno Ganz,” when commenting on the no-name status of the actor portraying him. Fun fact: Bruno Ganz was the name of the actor who portrayed Hitler in Downfall (dir. Oliver Hirschbiegel, 2004). My theory: someone didn’t like the fact that Oliver Masucci was cast to play Hitler during pre-production, and this line was added to the script out of pettiness.

It is around this point that the movie takes a turn for the dramatic, and there are some shocking parallels to current-day American politics taking place all throughout this movie, but none more so than when Hitler begins going around the talk-show circuit. He even says his plan for the future is, “to make Germany great again.” Sound familiar to anyone? Also, quotes like, “You know how many people are cheering him on? Not because they think he’s funny, or ironic. They think what he says is cool! They think he’s right!” and, “People can’t stay mad at Hitler for very long. Even the people who hate him go buy his new book, just to see what his next crazy move is,” as well as, “Back then, people were laughing at first too,” from later points in the movie are very telling. I won’t go so far as to say that anyone should take my words as correlation between Hitler, the most reviled man in history, and any current politicians, but I would say that this movie does have a message to tell us; that we cannot let ourselves become blind to the repetition of history.

There is also a line that Hitler says that I feel perfectly encapsulates the movie itself. He says, while on a talk show talking about how some people see him as a comedian, “I want to reach people, and you can’t reach someone who isn’t listening.” This movie begins as a comedy, but over the course of the movie, important questions begin to pop up, until you’re hit over the head with the movie’s ultimate message at the end. That’s what makes for a good movie; when the experience of watching is it improved a second time around. Rewatchability makes good movies great.

The scenes where Hitler interacts with various political groups were hard to follow, as I am rather ignorant on German politics. However, from these scenes comes one of the greatest insults of all time, delivered by Hitler about a group of vegan Neo-Nazi cooking show hosts; “They want to be the heirs to national socialism? They are nothing! Build the Fourth Reich? They can’t even build an Ikea shelf!” However, these are the last truly comedy-oriented scenes. The last truly funny moment in the movie before it makes a turn for the dramatic is a parody by Sensenbrink and the MyTV staff of the breakdown scene from Downfall.

The scene where Grandma Krömeier recognizes Hitler is phenomenal, as well as the following scenes where Sawatzki begins to realize who he’s truly dealing with. Even if you don’t particularly enjoy the dark comedy of the first and second acts of the movie, you need to watch this movie for the drama of the third act. The final scene in which Sawatzki confronts Hitler has some of the best dialogue of the entire movie, and drives the point of the movie home hard. The music accompanying this scene is perfect too. Enis Rotthoff really did an excellent job scoring this whole movie; every scene’s music perfectly accompanies it’s content, and nowhere more so than the final confrontation between Sawatzki and Hitler. He isn’t John Williams, to be sure, but he’s at least got all of his bases covered as far as matching musical tone to cinematic tone. The movie ends perfectly, too, with images of actual right-wing demonstrations over a song.

By the end of this film, my jaw had completely dropped to the floor. I was amazed at how slowly and steadily this film had transitioned from one of the funniest mockumentary comedies I’ve ever seen to some of the most impressive storytelling I’ve seen in the last few years. This movie was so amazingly believable; not I thought it would ever be possible for Hitler to return from the grave, but certainly that if Hitler were to ever come back, it would 100% happen like this.

I loved this movie, and it greatly exceeded my expectations from what I thought it was going to be like. Go watch it now on Netflix; I don’t think you’ll regret it.

#Look Who's Back #Er Ist Wieder Da #2015 Movies #movies #foreign films #german films #David Wnendt #Oliver Masucci #Fabian Busch #Katja Riemann #Christoph Maria Herbst #comedy films #donald trump #trump #adolf hitler #hitler #nazis #mockumentary #entertainment

9 notes · View notes