Oof - just a slight point here because I don't want to belabor it, but that position kind of makes me sad. I appreciate so much the work that goes in to making these sort of movies succeed (as opposed to being just total schlock), versus say a period drama in Victorian England (to give an example of a type of movie that tends to be more well regarded by critics on average than horror).
Making a fun horror movie is probably kind of easy. Making a *great* film that is a horror movie? I can't think of many I would consider to fall into this realm, so I'd say it's probably pretty difficult. There's Alien, The Thing, and... IDK The Fly? Get Out? I'd hate to dock them in comparison to others just because you're predisposed to liking the genre, especially when this movie so clearly elevates the genre as a whole.
Yeah, that is fair, and I actually agree with you for my double standard. I put all the movies on the same grade scale, so inevitably, comparisons will be made, even if they are from different genres, and personal bias will seep through. I also watched a bunch of movies on many critics' best list lately, which coincidentally included Alien, so my grades will be skewed.
That is why I also wrote to take my opinion with a grain of salt, because despite my high praises for it, I cannot justify a higher score than that. A recent 8 to 8.5/10 movie I watched was The Power of the Dog, and even though both left an impression, and I probably would only re-watch The Thing, I would still give a higher grade to The Power of the Dog, just because I connected more emotionally with the later more than the former. It might not be fair to compare two different genres, but if I break down my list any further, it just makes everything too convoluted.
Yeah, that is fair, and I actually agree with you for my double standard. I put all the movies on the same grade scale, so inevitably, comparisons will be made, even if they are from different genres, and personal bias will seep through. I also watched a bunch of movies on many critics' best list lately, which coincidentally included Alien, so my grades will be skewed.
That is why I also wrote to take my opinion with a grain of salt, because despite my high praises for it, I cannot justify a higher score than that. A recent 8 to 8.5/10 movie I watched was The Power of the Dog, and even though both left an impression, and I probably would only re-watch The Thing, I would still give a higher grade to The Power of the Dog, just because I connected more emotionally with the later more than the former. It might not be fair to compare two different genres, but if I break down my list any further, it just makes everything too convoluted.
I mean look - this shit is a matter of taste so I don't want to make it a bigger deal than it is. I just feel the urge to take up for genre fiction at times (literary or film) because I think it has an uphill climb to be respected as legit art.
Yeah, that is fair, and I actually agree with you for my double standard. I put all the movies on the same grade scale, so inevitably, comparisons will be made, even if they are from different genres, and personal bias will seep through. I also watched a bunch of movies on many critics' best list lately, which coincidentally included Alien, so my grades will be skewed.
That is why I also wrote to take my opinion with a grain of salt, because despite my high praises for it, I cannot justify a higher score than that. A recent 8 to 8.5/10 movie I watched was The Power of the Dog, and even though both left an impression, and I probably would only re-watch The Thing, I would still give a higher grade to The Power of the Dog, just because I connected more emotionally with the later more than the former. It might not be fair to compare two different genres, but if I break down my list any further, it just makes everything too convoluted.
I hear you. I haven't re-watched Schindler's List in 20 years, but I've watched Three Amigos half a dozen times since. Steven Spielberg could learn a thing or two from John Landis.
I hear you. I haven't re-watched Schindler's List in 20 years, but I've watched Three Amigos half a dozen times since. Steven Spielberg could learn a thing or two from John Landis.
I also watched that a couple of days ago too for the first time. Spielberg really is one of the best directors in the world in the 1990s. I am very impressed that he tackled Jurassic Park and Schindler's List around the same time. Both could not be more different, but it could be argued that both could be considered to be in the top 100 films of all-time.
I have it at 8.5 to 9/10. It is his most sincere effort, and in his quest to be as true as possible, Schindler coincidentally becomes the most realistic and multi-dimensional character that has ever graced his films. There is no more Christ-like archetype that comes to define his protagonists, and that really helps to resonate with me. The only thing I am mixed on is the last scene, when the real life characters he used and the actors who portrayed them all paid their respects to Schindler's grave. Even though it makes for a powerful and touching cinematic moment, it is also very manipulative, which simultaneously takes away the emotional power. That is just classic Spielberg though, as he never learned to be subtle with emotions and likes to shine a spotlight on it in every single one of his movies, but at least in this case, this is the only obvious instance, and I can somewhat excuse it.
I mean look - this shit is a matter of taste so I don't want to make it a bigger deal than it is. I just feel the urge to take up for genre fiction at times (literary or film) because I think it has an uphill climb to be respected as legit art.
Just to be clear, I am actually glad you pointed it out. It actually helps to clarify my stance, which I appreciate.
The Thing really is great. I am very happy to have finally watched it, and I might even watch it again relatively soon. I just wish I could have just avoided the prequel, which I watched right after the original. Now that thing is a mess, and I doubt there will be any defenders of it. I could never understand with the advancement in technology and a bigger budget, the special effects can be somehow worst than before.
A History of Violence (2005) - Somehow can't shake associating this film with the first two seasons of Twin Peaks. Not that they're particularly similar but they're two pieces where they have the cool effect of making me wonder whether the Americana aesthetic/camp and stock characters are out of intent or sheer ignorance. At any rate, intended or not, the confusion is cool. I'm not sure I get the aught classic reputation it has and I think a lot of poor dialogue gets saved by the actors but it's got enough going for it narratively (every badass getting killed quicker than expected, digging into the big twist instead of finishing with it, etc.) that it always stays interesting for the runtime. But at the risk of sounding pompous, it always felt like a movie whose tricks and structure would only feel fresh to folks who don't read and/or are used to the most mainstream of films and resolutions. Making every bad guy feel like the main antagonist each time was well-done and stayed with me though.
I liked it better than this review lets on. It's really good - just wish it had a bit more visual style and less B lines, especially considering it's Cronenberg.
I mean look - this shit is a matter of taste so I don't want to make it a bigger deal than it is. I just feel the urge to take up for genre fiction at times (literary or film) because I think it has an uphill climb to be respected as legit art.
We're in 2022. Every genre/artform has a genuine masterpiece and anyone who thinks that low and high art can be defined by either genre or artform is a useless observer.
The Thing really is great. I am very happy to have finally watched it, and I might even watch it again relatively soon. I just wish I could have just avoided the prequel, which I watched right after the original. Now that thing is a mess, and I doubt there will be any defenders of it. I could never understand with the advancement in technology and a bigger budget, the special effects can be somehow worst than before.
<nervously raises hand> Granted, I've seen it only once and it was a long time ago, and it wasn't nearly as good as the 1982 film or even necessary, but I didn't think that it was bad. I thought that it was interesting to show what happened at the Norwegian station and it seemed like it was at least trying to honor the original... and it had Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Ok, fine, what I liked most about it was Winstead. Is that so wrong? Sheesh.
<nervously raises hand> Granted, I've seen it only once and it was a long time ago, and it wasn't nearly as good as the 1982 film or even necessary, but I didn't think that it was bad. I thought that it was interesting to show what happened at the Norwegian station and it seemed like it was at least trying to honor the original... and it had Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Ok, fine, I sort of liked it mostly for Winstead. Is that so wrong? Sheesh.
She really is the best thing in the movie. At least you are honest.
The prequel is just so lost. It wants to both pay homage but still be its own thing, but it rehashed so many scenes from the original, which pretty much render it pointless. Also, part of the reason why the original is so effective is because the appearance of The Thing is rather limited, but in this one, The Thing does not even attempt to hide and just shows itself at will, which also leaves it incredibly vulnerable. Perhaps it can be argued that The Thing learned from its previous mistake, but I tend to lean towards the fact that Hollywood directors do not realize that horror is more effective when it is in the audience's minds. A lot of times, what is not shown is actually scarier than when it appears. Finally, the CGI is just the worst I have ever seen. Somehow, the original looks better, and they did it with puppets. Who can forget that pixel tower? I honestly thought my disc was broken when it first appeared.
The only thing the filmmakers did well is the continuity, as they match up perfectly with the original, but that is not enough to save the movie.
We're in 2022. Every genre/artform has a genuine masterpiece and anyone who thinks that low and high art can be defined by either genre or artform is a useless observer.
I don't disagree with you (obviously), but I still think genre fiction *has* to be masterpiece to get that respect, while other genres (for lack of better term) get a lot more leeway. I mean shit - let's just talk about how genre film tackles racism versus standard fare. Stuff like The Green Book, Crash, and even The Black Kkklansman (which I liked) tackle the subject versus Get Out. Get Out provides the same overall message, but adds a level of tension and forces the audience to empathize and engage with the subject matter (whether it is successful in that is up to the viewer, but I think it does so remarkably well), while the other films - similarly acclaimed and award winning - relegate the viewer to just observing.
I'm meandering. New kid and lack of sleep. Horror isn't even my favorite genre, but just generally I want to take films as they are.
Also my hot take the best musician biopic is Walk Hard.
Action packed, sentimental, no CGI. No hollywood bullcrap, 9.5/10. Insane action scenes and just a nail biter. Only other movie other then Interstellar to make me sweat. Would see it more then once in theatres.
She really is the best thing in the movie. At least you are honest.
The prequel is just so lost. It wants to both pay homage but still be its own thing, but it rehashed so many scenes from the original, which pretty much render it pointless. Also, part of the reason why the original is so effective is because the appearance of The Thing is rather limited, but in this one, The Thing does not even attempt to hide and just shows itself at will, which also leaves it incredibly vulnerable. Perhaps it can be argued that The Thing learned from its previous mistake, but I tend to lean towards the fact that Hollywood directors do not realize that horror is more effective when it is in the audience's minds. A lot of times, what is not shown is actually scarier than when it appears. Finally, the CGI is just the worst I have ever seen. Somehow, the original looks better, and they did it with puppets. Who can forget that pixel tower? I honestly thought my disc was broken when it first appeared.
The only thing the filmmakers did well is the continuity, as they match up perfectly with the original, but that is not enough to save the movie.
Unfortunately, from what I've read, The Thing (2011) was filmed using practical effects. But the producers didn't like what they saw at an early screening and "enhanced them" with CGI. Hence the awfulness we got.
“In 17th-century France, Father Grandier is a dissolute, proud, and popular priest that seeks to protect the city of Loudun, for which he is in control of, from the corrupt establishment of Cardinal Richelieu. Cardinal Richeliue and his henchmen forcefully manipulate a sexually repressed nun to accuse him of witchcraft and bring him to judgment while ending his reign.”
A great biographical horror drama that shows the true evils that powerful fundamentalist/organized religion has committed and can cause on a small and large scale. Corruption, coercion, repression, war, segregation, extravagance/greed, and political influence. The personal impact though is just as scary as the big picture stuff. The psychological manipulation, for control and/or exploitation, of the weight of one’s eternal existence and afterlife in the balance is as extremely authoritative and persuasive as one can possibly get. You can destroy someone’s life and sanity when you attack it with endless fear, self-destructive guilt, and forced devotion. The examples of these atrocities, as seen here, can go to sickening extremes. The moral is that all religious groups are led by fallible humans that should be seen as such and kept in check, just as every other powerful political entity or influential group in the world should. And the same goes for the priests, cardinals, popes, and religious figureheads operating under them. Apparently one of the more controversial films of all time, which I understand from its shocking visuals and honest but severe attack on the Catholic church (including some purposely disrespectful sacrilege material). To play devil’s advocate, does this tell us more about religion, or maybe even power or humanity itself. Does the power or backing of an omnipotent God bring out the true face of humanity with no limits or constraints?
The Wailing (subtitles)
3.20 out of 4stars
“Soon after a stranger arrives in a little Korean village, a mysterious sickness starts spreading involving madness and murder. A policeman, drawn into the incident, is forced to solve the mystery in order to save his daughter.”
A great supernatural horror philosophical mystery about good and evil, faith and uncertainty, and tragic/inexplicable human suffering. The film is full of “rationally depicted subdued forms of” zombies, satanism, witchcraft, shamen, ghosts, rituals, curses, possessions, demons, spirits, and a non-contagious plague. The film is also chock full of christian symbolism. Altogether a very metaphorical film that builds a deeper unsettling existential dread more so than one on the surface, albeit the surface dread is still solidly done. That said, I don’t think I can explain what I got from the film without spoiling things….
I personally take it as a jab at christianity (possibly other religions also) and how it explains/deals with major problematic things. Prayers go evidently unanswered. Faith shown here can be ineffective, and at the end of that day is just an acceptance of the directly unknown and acceptance of the seemingly random pains/hardships brought on humanity, not a solution to or explanation for them. Payment for sins of the father is a nonsensical reasoning to punish people for. The Devil is powerless without human vessels accepting “his ways” and is something at the end of the day that God can overpower easily if he wills it. God is the omnipotent one. Ironically also, the Devil here is a Jesus Christ metaphor to an extent, saying he is whatever humanity makes of him and only spreads his influence depending on “how many fish bite/he catches”. God is ultimately the cause of all good and evil, or allower of all good and evil in the world. God tests humanity and/or experiments with them for reasons not comprehendible, with here as an example of testing (blind) faith and patience with the life or death of a whole family on the line. Because God does and/or allows such physical and emotional stresses to man, is he the truly evil one in our existences? Is he the “real” devil for letting such ills happen to man and demanding submissiveness in exchange for hopeful outcomes and peace? Man can never truly experience or find peace in such a world.
Black Christmas (1974)
2.95 out of 4stars
“At the start of winter break, a group of sorority sisters being to receive anonymous sexually offensive and threatening phone calls. Soon after, 1 of the girls of the house goes missing and a local adolescent girl is also lost, leading the girls and police to be on high alert.”
A great slasher horror drama with dark comedy that displays a detailed character-centric story and a realistic feel. A slasher film that is more about the human drama happening around the “missing” person(s) than it is about the psychopath and murders themselves. Don’t get me wrong, the concept of a stalker/murderer hiding in a part of a house that no one regularly visits or uses is terrifying, and the insanity portrayed by the murderer is earnedly disturbing. That said, the murders themselves are actually a bit restrained and unusual here for the genre. Half the murders are offscreen and the other half are effective and well set up yet rather lean and mostly clean. Again adding to the realistic style. The undertone here seems to be about the unfair treatment of women. This can be seen on an important and casual scale throughout the film as “some” of the males (including the caller) talk sexually aggressively, threaten them, condemn their sexuality, ignore their feelings/don’t take them seriously, act demandingly towards, hint as helpless, leave them alone after a traumatic experience, and even arguably target them just because they are young attractive women. The film is touted as the influential “mother to the modern slasher” as it created some tropes and brought others previously used to a wider audience. Odd fun fact, this director is the same man that brought the world the family holiday classic A Christmas Story.
The Ghost Breakers (1940)
2.85 out of 4stars
“An intrepid working girl becomes the new owner of a reputedly haunted mansion located on Black Island near the Cuban coast. Undaunted, Mary sets sail for Cuba with a stowaway in her trunk -- wise-cracking Larry Lawrence (Bob Hope), a radio announcer who helps Mary get to the bottom of the voodoo magic, zombies and ghosts that supposedly curse the spooky estate.”
A great comedy throughout with good horror touches mostly over the last ⅓ of the movie. Hope throughout brings fast talking one and two liners with infectious energy. Willie Best as Hope’s comedic counterpart is hilarious also, albeit used slightly racisty a few times. Goddard is good in her role and the rest of the cast seems to have fun. Well paced with a couple surprises and a well materialized “haunted house”.
Elvis (2022)
2.75 out of 4stars
“From his childhood in Tupelo, Mississippi to his rise to stardom starting in Memphis, Tennessee and his conquering of Las Vegas, Nevada, Elvis Presley becomes the first rock ‘n roll star and changes the world with his music.”
A great biographical music drama about Elvis Presley’s rise and dive career and life, his relationship with Colonel Tom Parker, and his reaction to and influence on culture. Flashy, highly stylized, and highly entertaining, making its 2hours and 40minutes run time go by fairly breezy. Imperfect, but there’s a lot to like. Butler looks the part and brings an arguably award nomination worthy turn, the musical performances are attention demanding, the drama is real and felt, it touches on historical/cultural significances nicely enough, and it’s obviously a story well worth telling. I am not sure of the historical accuracy of it all though, so I can’t comment on that.
One of the better opening half hours or so in any recent film. It's also very visually impressive and there's good physical comedy there. I do think it devolves in the final third, becomes repetitive, and ends up being clumsy with how it tries to time everything together. It's a problem for ambitious films like this, I think Kaufman's Adaptation did it very well but most struggle quite badly and you end up overly relying on music and heartfelt character speeches. The plot becomes driven by facial expressions and dialogue rather than the more natural plot progression of the first half of the film.
Among the best horror movies of recent vintage, The Innocents is sort of like Tomboy meets The Midwich Cuckoos. Each living among a nest of highrise apartments, four young children discover that they have unexpected telekinetic powers. They form a loose bond and develop their powers in the nearby forest and on the sunny playground. However, one of the children is more troubled than the others, seemingly a sociopath in the making (he crushes the head of a cat with his foot--we don't see him actually do this, but we do hear the sickening crunch). Pretty soon the other three children, all girls, are defending themselves against him.
While the children have special powers, this is no baby superhero movie. The milieu and the vibe is similar to the world we see in Let the Right One In, that is, a more realistic, down-to-earth setting, making the horror even more effective. Putting children at risk is a guaranteed way to heighten the tension, sometimes uncomforatbly so, in any movie. Given that all of these children engage in acts of cruelty, albeit some more serious than others, the film gets at the complexity of kids' feeling in a way that effects how we view them as characters. The fact that their moral compasses are not fully operational yet adds to the ominous tension that builds steadily through the movie. All this results in a gripping film that never over-reaches for its effects but develops its premise in often fhoughtful and insightful ways.
Has anyone caught a movie from somewhere in the middle, liked it, but then going back at some point and watching that movie from the beginning, you absolutely can't get into it?
The Northman (2022) - 6.5/10 - I just didn't enjoy this movie as much as I wanted to enjoy this movie. Having a hard time putting a finger on exactly why. The story was compelling; if maybe a little too straight forward, the acting was for the most part strong, the cinematography was excellent, the violence was well executed, the mysticism added to the overall product, the costumes and set design I thought were done well, the dialogue although somewhat sparse always served a purpose, and the pacing was generally good. I'm genuinely not sure what was missing to elevate the piece.
I guess without spoiling too much I would say having the major plot driving incident occur and the motivation for every major character revealed in the first 5 minutes of the film just kind of failed to draw me into the story. Seemed like the rest of the movie just unfolded predictably with very little else to it. Maybe that's what I should have expected for a glorified gory fairy tale. The climax and the build up to it was good though. Might have to come back to this one eventually.
I watched this last night and have similar thoughts. I should've liked it. It's a historical film with great cinematography, acting, brutality and accuracy in a time when we don't get many films like that. It didn't grab me, though, and my mind kept wandering. It felt like I'd seen it before. The beginning reminded me of Conan the Barbarian, the rest of the plot reminded me of several films, like Gladiator, and the mysticism reminded me of the Vikings series. I don't necessarily mind a familiar, simple or predictable plot, but there just wasn't enough that felt new and it was over 2 hours, as well. Also, I didn't feel much for the main character, who barely speaks and has little personality, which especially undermines a revenge tale. The romance subplot (if you can call it that) didn't matter much to me, either. I appreciate the realism of most of the film, but it felt like it lacked human interest. It's mostly 2 hours of period-accurate brutality and bleakness, which I don't mind, but I would've liked a little more than just that.
Close-up / کلوزآپ ، نمای نزدیک (Abbas Kiarostami, 1990)
Stories of con-men and liars always make for fascinating subject matter, and when they’re about con-men conning their way into the film industry, well, that’s just the cherry on top. Close-up follows Hossain Sabzian (playing himself in this hybrid documentary) who is a poor semi-employed salesman and film fanatic who has conned a family into thinking that he is the film director Mohsen Makhmalbaf. Sabzian isn’t getting much from this con job, mostly cab fare around the city and the thrill of pretending he's a big shot film director. Blending reality and reenactments of Sabzian’s trial for fraud, the mix of documentary and drama is so well done that at times it is hard to discern which is which and the relationship of the truth in the story – aside from one scene where Sabzian and Makhmalbaf meet after the trial and technical difficulties in the shot are the tell that it is really is their first time meeting. Although maybe it is constructed for us to think that, after all it would be a very Kiarostami thing to do. Who knows, and I don’t want to spoil the mystery by googling it.
Watched in beautiful 35mm which is always a treat too.
Jackass Forever. 10 out of 10. Movie was pure fun and thats the purpose of a movie to entertain. Maybe a 9 because of too much male genitalia, some is funny but they overdid it.
These guys still crack me up and there was a sentimental value to it as it is probably there last go. I hope Knoxville quits with the stunts before he ends up in coffin.
The new cast grew on me after a repeat viewing, especially Zach & Poopies. And of course, Dark Shark, Its tough having a female cast member since no one wants to see her shot w paintballs etc. but she did a good job w the stunts she was presented with and has an awesome sense of humor.
Danger Ehren pretty much stole the movie. As much as they pick on him, the guy is fearless. You couldnt pay me enough to do some of the stuff he endured. But w Knoxville and Steve-O suffering serious injuries he was the only regular cast member available for the heavy duty stuff as Wee-Man & Preston can only do so much.
Too bad Bam couldnt get his act together, he seems to be regressing mentally and I hate to say it but I dont think he will be with us much longer, His problems go far beyond just substance abuse.
Two American independents by Eagle Pennell. Texas' Pennell is not a filmmaker I was familiar with though those he influenced with his slice-of-life black-and-white human comedies is obvious ... some Jim Jarmusch, a lot of Richard Linklater. Given that those two are among my favorites I wasn't surprised to enjoy the duo of movies I watched from this low-budget precursor. Last Night at the Alamo focuses on an eclectic group of regulars staked out at the last night of a local watering hole destined for the wrecking ball. The characters and arguments and truths and bullshit all were so familiar as to be scary. The Whole Shootin' Match aims at a pair of small town dreamer-schemers with big dreams, but not much ability. Drags on a bit versus the leaner, more efficient Alamo, but both gently amusing snapshots of a certain America and certain Americans. Pennell has a real ear for dialogue.
Two foundational Quentin Tarantino 70s flicks. The Street Fighter is a fun, nasty-violent bit of kung-fu action staring Sonny Chiba. Grindhouse goodness with spurting blood and ripped, um, appendages. The violence is the thing and it does that thing well. (I believe this is the movie Clarence and Alabama see watch in True Romance, though it could be the sequel). Rolling Thunder, 70s post-Vietnam revenge flick that gave his 90s VHS distribution shingle its name. A solid slow boil about a man so damaged by war, he only comes alive when violence is at hand. It's a bit of a nonsense set-up and though the payoff is predictable, it's satisfying. William Devane is sturdy as the lead but a young (at least for him) Tommy Lee Jones steals the show as his equally numb buddy who's also ready to fight.
RRR. I don't have a ton of familiarity with this sort of Indian film that melds action and drama and music and dance. (I did hear somewhere this is not Bollywood but rather from a different region of the country and has a different term ...). I'd just sum it up like this: This was a blast. This specific recipe of absurdity and sincerity is a dish that just can't be made in America, certainly not like this. And though part of me feels like it shouldn't work I sure as hell can't deny the result, which most certainly does.
A Chorus Line. An odd musical adaptation in the sense that I actually don't care much for the songs (save "What I Did for Love") but found myself enjoying the film nonetheless. The structure, which essentially is a series of vignettes (some in song), of characters all vying for a small handful of jobs on an aforementioned chorus line, is smart and efficient. Everyone gets a moment, a short story and most work (though I prefer the talking ones to the singing ones). Performances are uniformly good. Michael Douglas feels a little miscast as the choreographer and the only real star. He's ultimately too caring and benevolent — a suit that never fits him quite right. Perhaps most important though is director Richard Attenborough gives us a lot of dance. I may be lukewarm on the songs, but watching the dancers work is at times thrilling. Attenborough stays wide and lets us see all the work, few close ups. The camera often glides nicely in and out and back and for with the action. Wouldn't say I loved it, but it was a pleasant surprise. Hockey fans may note the presence of a young Janet Jones a few years prior to becoming Mrs. Wayne Gretzky).
The Black Phone 7/10
It was done about as well as it could have been with kind of a dumb premise. Not nearly as dark and creepy as sinister. Still an enjoyable film that has a nice 70s vibe to it and has some scenes that keep you on the edge of your seat.
Mr. Bachmann and His Class (2022) Directed by Maria Speth (documentary) 8A
I doubt many people will be tempted by a 3 hour and 35 documentary about a middle school teacher in a small town in Germany. But this is a documentary that actually gives hope that the future may not be as bleak as it seems like it might be. Dieter Bachmann is the least charismatic charismatic teacher that one could imagine. He's not a showman, a comedian, a positive-thinking guru. Rather he is late middle-aged, grizzled and rumpled. He faces a challenge that any teacher would find daunting., His grade six class is a mix of German kids and immigrants from primarily Turkey, Hungary, Russia, and Bulgaria. At the start of the year they seem an ill-suited lot, many handicapped by their lack of knowledge of spoken German. We meet about a dozen of these boys and girls and watch as they develop over the course of a year. The movie seldom leaves the classroom but my attention rarely wandered.
Bachmann secret is his patience and his decency. He obiviously likes and respects his young charges. His pedagogy is based on knowing when to draw lines while also being accutely aware of the importance of empathy and the differences among his students. Everything he does just seems like the most natural thing to do, and the kids respond accrodingly under his seemingly casual but actually very dedicated guidance. While his methods are not always conventional, he is inevitably truthful, inclusive, thoughtful, and willing to broach sensitive subjects. His main gift is the respect and generosity of spirit that he provides his class. The environment he creates for learning is subtle but amazing. The kids aren't transformed as much as made more confident in who they already are. There are struggles and fights, but collectively they eventually get worked out. Herr Kaufmann makes it look easy; in fact, he makes it look like this kind of down-to-earth but nurturing environment could be created everywhere.
subtitles
MUBI
Best of '22
Everything Everywhere All at Once, Kwan and Scheinert, US Mr Kaufmann and His Class, Speth, Germany (documentary) Everything Went Fine, Ozun, France Turning Red, Shi, US
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
