Tag: world war II

In Darkness


In Darkness (2011)
★★ / ★★★★

In the Nazi-occupied Lwów, Leopold Socha (Robert Wieckiewicz), a sanitation worker, decided to rescue a group of Jewish people who were contained in the ghetto. His partner in the sewers, Szczepek (Krzysztof Skonieczny), was reluctant to help at first because if they got caught, it meant treason and certain death for them. But Socha proved persuasive. He urged his partner that they could always turn in the Jews to the Nazis later, but it would benefit them now to see how much money they could squeeze out of the desperate Jews. A payout of 500 zlotys a day, provided by the affluent Chiger (Herbert Knaup), suddenly wasn’t so bad, especially for a pair of sewer workers. But what would happen when the money ran out? Based on the book by Robert Marshall, while no one can deny that the events in “In Darkness” were horrifying, the filmmakers failed to harness the material’s power in order to really deliver a film that is both about the efforts of Socha as well as the Jewish individuals he hid from the Nazis. The first half was at times confusing because too many characters were introduced at the same time, their surface characteristics permeated and choked the remaining fresh oxygen prior to the extended stay underground. And once they had made one part of the sewers their “home,” it felt like an obligation for the camera to check up on them. While not a bad idea, glimpses in terms of how they coped (or did not cope) offered nothing beyond what we could see: the physical, psychological, and emotional suffering they had to endure. What I liked about the first half, however, was it had a chance to establish Socha’s complex motivations. He eventually learned that the Nazis were willing to pay 500 zlotys per Jew found hiding in the sewers. Given that the daily cost of food pretty much ate up Socha’s extra salary provided by Chiger, it would make sense, if his motivation was only influenced by economy, to hand over the people he protected. But he didn’t. Socha’s personality wasn’t especially likable but it became clear that his motivation was beyond money. The director, Agnieszka Holland, did a wonderful job using money as the protagonist’s excuse to hide his genuine human compassion amidst indescribable cruelty. Furthermore, because Socha was established slowly and in a subtle way, the events in the second half, especially when the location of the hideout was threatened, were suspenseful and moving. Unfortunately, the camera remained focused on jumping back and forth, showing us the terrible conditions in the sewers as if we didn’t already knew that such a place was untenable. To its credit, the scenes that took place underground looked and felt very real. It was appropriately dark and grimy. We could see rats, garbage, and excrement floating on the water. There were even corpses in there, Jewish corpses, and no one from above could be bothered enough to take the bodies out and give them a proper burial. I guess to the Nazis, Jewish corpses were exactly that: rats, garbage, and excrement–out of sight, out of mind. “W ciemności” certainly had emotional peaks, some earned while some weren’t, but the thinly molded supporting characters hindered its pacing and emotional momentum. At one point I wondered if Socha and “his” Jews’ story deserved something better.

Downfall


Downfall (2004)
★★★★ / ★★★★

Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara) was hired to be Adolf Hitler’s (Bruno Ganz) secretary in 1942. The real Traudl Junge, in the opening shot of the film, confessed that she wasn’t really aware of what Nazism was about when she ignored her family’s warnings against joining the growing political movement. Cut to 1945, she still worked for Hitler as the Russians inched closer to Berlin. The majority of the picture focused on the growing sense of dread Hitler and those close to him as they foolishly decided to stay in the secret bunker instead of fleeing for their lives. I saw this film a month before I started the university and about five years later, its impact on me remained the same. While Ganz’ performance was absolutely tremendous, especially when he expressed explosive rage, I spent more time observing his quieter moments as he questioned where his leadership had gone awry. While I did not feel sorry for the monster in him, the actor and the filmmakers successfully revealed a more human side to Hitler by highlighting our fears. Specifically, our fear of death, abandonment, and our accomplishments ultimately amounting to nothing. I thought it was a brave and risky move because no one can deny the evil that cost over fifty million lives. The supporting characters were just as fascinating. There SS Hermann Fegelein (Thomas Kretschmann) who attempted to talk his comrades into leaving the bunker but they were too deeply embedded in their illusions of last-minute victory. There was a boy with a talent for destroying tanks. He loved the recognition and was willing to put his young life in the line for praise. However, he wasn’t even sure what he was fighting for. Dr. Ernst-Günter Schenck (Christian Berkel) found horror when he stumbled upon areas where the elderly were left to die and unsanitary surgeries were performed. And then there was Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch), wife of Joseph Goebbels (Ulrich Matthes), Hitler’s right-hand man, who foolishly and selfishly brought her six innocent children to the bunker just to be with her Führer. She claimed that she couldn’t imagine a life for her kids without National Socialism. The movie was able grab ahold of the various story strands and weaved them into a coherent and meaningful product despite the chaos and confusion. Lastly, while the film managed to put Hitler under a more humanistic angle, I’m glad it never lost track of the crimes he committed–crimes that no amount of jail time or community service can off-set. While he led the murder of over two million Jews, he killed his countrymen as well. Those who he considered weak, like the elderly and people with disability, were left to perish. Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel, “Downfall,” taken out of its historical context, was ultimately a story of responsibility. Our leaders are responsible for us, but we mustn’t forget that we have a responsibility toward ourselves. Questioning or usurping our ineffective leaders is not tantamount to betraying our country.

Strayed


Strayed (2003)
★★ / ★★★★

“Les égarés” was set in World War II as Germans began to occupy France in 1940. Odile (Emmanuelle Béart) and her children (Grégoire Leprince-Ringuet and Clémence Meyer) were caravanning across the provinces when they were targeted by German planes. Pressing forward would most likely lead to death so, along with a seventeen-year-old Yvan (Gaspard Ulliel), the four darted into the forest and found refuge in an abandoned home. “Strayed” was a simple film driven by questions. Should we trust Yvan despite the fact that he was a compulsive liar? Since he was so good at lying, how much did he really care about the family of three? Was it possible that Odile suspected that there was something not quite right about him to the point where she found the need to grab the first opportunity to hide the stranger’s gun and grenades? Was she scared of him losing control more than the Germans finding them? There were a plethora of questions and most of them were answered by the end. But the main problem with the film was if the viewers failed to look beyond the obvious and ask questions, they would feel as though the movie was pointless. The majority of the running time followed the characters catching animals for food, having lunch or dinner, discussing what they should do the next day, and reflecting about the lives they left behind. There was sexual friction between Odile and Yvan. The latter wasn’t afraid to acknowledge it. After all why would he when he was a teenager filled with raging hormones? There was no doubt that Odile, highly attractive for her age, was interested in Yvan but she felt like being with him was wrong because he was essentially still a child. Even Yvan admitted that he was more about taking action than taking the time to think things through. His transitory age was a template for his childish and child-like tendencies to collide, reflective of the Freudian id–“If it feels good, do it.” Another interesting part was Odile’s children. There was a strange scene when Cathy, still around seven or eight years old, decided to climb onto Yvan’s bed, who was naked under the covers, and claimed that she wanted to get pregnant. How did she know of such a concept? Less obvious implications consisted of Philippe constantly wanting to gain Yvan’s acceptance. Did Philippe see him as a brother, a father, or something else? Perhaps Odile’s overprotective parenting was successful at keeping the children alive, but the more important question was will they be able to function after the war was over? Again, it was up to us to ask the questions and, in some ways, answer them as well. Based on a novel by Gilles Perrault and directed by André Téchiné, “Les égarés” had a rather simple premise but it was challenging in the most unexpected ways. That challenge could appeal to some while others could be repelled.

The Last Emperor


The Last Emperor (1987)
★★★ / ★★★★

“The Last Emperor” told the true story of the last ruler of China from 1908 to 1967. Emperor Aisin-Gioro Pu Yi (John Lone as the adult Pu Yi) was crowned when he was three years old. He was a ruler who was both powerful and powerless; powerful inside the Forbidden City but just another person outside its walls which had turned into a republic. Inside the city, the child was treated like royalty but wasn’t really taught how to rule properly especially when the adults inside the city knew that times were rapidly changing. I found the film a bit sad because even though the emperor had so much power, I felt like he was used as a tool so that others could hold onto their past. I’ve seen a number of Bernardo Bertolucci’s films but “The Last Emperor” was arguably the most visually stunning. I admired the way he used color to compare and contrast the past and the present. The past was colorful which was full of innocence where the emperor was relatively happy because his future was bright. The present looked dull, the color gray was everywhere because the former emperor was now considered as a war criminal. His future looked grim because he even though he desperately wanted to rule, he couldn’t because ancient practices did not seem to fit into modern times. The story was tragic because what Pu Yi believed to be his purpose did not necessarily reflect what was expected of him outside of the Forbidden City. Bertolucci then had a chance to explore China’s westernization and its role in World War II. As the picture went on, the ideas became bigger and the execution turned more elegant. I especially liked Pu Yi’s varying relationship between his two wives (Joan Chen, Vivian Wu) and one of the wives’ relationship with another woman who hated China and admired everything Japanese. An interesting observation involved Chinese people betraying each other was more painful than Japanese’s treatment of the Chinese. The issue of blood and loyalty also had a place in the story. However, “The Last Emperor” had one important weakness: Its ambition was a double-edged sword. While the story became grander the further we explored the rapidly changing times, the attention to important characters diminished. Perhaps it was on purpose because Bertolucci wanted to imply that, over time, Pu Yi was slowly being forgotten by his people. I understood that such a technique might have been on purpose but at the same time I found it unsettling because the film was supposed to be about Pu Yi’s personal journey. Nevertheless, “The Last Emperor” is worth watching. It had a critical eye and respect toward the Chinese culture without sacrificing historical accuracy. This was also one of the very few films actually shot inside the Forbidden City.

Europa Europa


Europa Europa (1990)
★★★ / ★★★★

Based on true events experienced by Solomon Perel (Marco Hofschneider) in World War II, “Hitlerjunge Salomon,” directed by Agnieszka Holland, was about the teenager’s plight in taking many identities in hopes of surviving and being reunited with his family. Solomon was Jewish but he had Aryan features. He also knew multiple languages which proved to be an advantage when he was separated from his brother (René Hofschneider) while trying to escape from both the Russians and the Germans. Initially, he ended up in a communist orphanage, then the battlefield, up until he joined the Hitler Youth where he was trained to hate his kind and those that didn’t belong in the “elite race.” Watching this picture was quite an experience because it was probably the first movie I’ve seen where I was taken in a Hitler Youth classroom and had a chance to observe how the brainwashing worked. It was maddening but at the same time fascinating because of the way the Nazis shaped a small fear and applied that fear to every aspect that they believed wasn’t worthy. I also got to see how that fear turned into anger and anger into hatred. I hated how the teachers used so-called science to justify who, essentially, deserved to die. For instance, one of the scenes that stood out to me was when Solomon (now named Josef Peters) was called in front of the classroom and his head was measured from various angles and how far apart his features were from one another. When the film focused on the details, it was at its best because I couldn’t stop thinking about small elements afterwards. Furthermore, I’m glad that the film didn’t paint all Germans as monsters. In each location he ended up in, our protagonist met at least one person who made a difference in his life. One was a closeted gay soldier (André Wilms) who had a crush on Solomon and eventually found out that Solomon was Jewish but didn’t turn him in. Another was a mother (Halina Labonarska) of girl Solomon really liked who was stuck with a daughter (Julie Delpy) so consumed with hatred and trying to impress her leader. In a way, those two also had to hide who they really were and how they felt about the Nazi occupation. However, the film’s first half verged on heavy-handedness. It needed to trim some scenes because we all know that the Holocaust was one of the darkest times in history. What the movie should have done was immediately focus on Solomon’s personal journey and less generalizations. Nevertheless, “Hitlerjunge Salomon,” also known as “Hitler Youth Salomon” and “Europa Europa,” had a strong sense of momentum once it found its footing. The scene that summed up the film best was when Solomon sat in a comfortable Nazi vehicle, peered through a heavily stained window and saw the horrible things that happened to his people. He saw the dead and wondered whether his family was there. Solomon had to stop himself from breaking down because he might be caught as a sympathizer, or worse, a Jew.

Grave of the Firelies


Grave of the Firelies (1988)
★★★★ / ★★★★

The opening scene depicted the death of Seita (voiced by Tsutomu Tatsumi) when Japan finally surrendered at the end of World War II. His story of struggle with his little sister (Ayano Shiraishi) was elegantly told in flashback. They tried to survive by themselves because their father was in the Navy, their mother (Yoshiko Shinohara) passed away because a fire-bombing raid, and their aunt (Akemi Yamaguchi) outwardly expressed that the two of them were a burden since they did not do their share in providing for the household. “Hotaru no haka” is a sublime example of anime transcending animated stories told in a fantastic scope and science fiction. It was able to tell a human story that was very real, tragic and heartbreaking as Seita did his best to keep his sister away from truths that were difficult to digest. Of course, he ended up unsuccessful in the end but the heart of the film was his attempt to construct distractions so that his sister would not think about their parents and the prospect that they, too, could die. Although we saw planes bombing Japanese towns, I liked that the siblings’ main source of struggle was their relationship with other Japanese people. Since everything was rationed, mostly everyone was out for themselves and their own families. Food and shelter were rare and money became irrelevant. Bartering drove the economy which was a problem because the two kids had barely anything to barter with in the first place. There was a complexity in their society’s situation. I did not necessarily see them as “bad people” because I probably would have done the same thing if I was in their shoes. I also admired the fact that Isao Takahata, the director, did not shy away from showing dead, mangled, and rotten bodies. When I saw this film in high school, I remember being shocked at the images because at the time I had not seen an animated movie that mirrored reality so closely. One of the most resonant scenes for me was when Seita glanced over at his mother’s badly burned body. His facial and body expression suggested that he did not at all recognized his mother but deep inside he felt that it was her and she was soon going to die. Just as quickly, he realized he had no choice but to be strong for his sister until their father came for them. “Grave of the Firelies,” based on a semi-autobiographical novel by Akiyuki Nosaka, had power that made me feel so sad even after a few days since I’ve seen it. I was haunted with what Seita and his sister had been through but at the same time I was thankful that I did not live through those times. Even more impressive, the movie was a war film that did not place blame on any one nation but instead highlighted individual responsiblity in times of war.

Au revoir les enfants


Au revoir les enfants (1987)
★★★★ / ★★★★

A Catholic boarding school hid three Jewish students, one of which was Jean (Raphael Fejtö), from the terrorizing Nazis in the middle of World War II. We viewed the events from Julien’s (Gaspard Manesse) perspective, a home sick boy who, like most kids, did not really understand what was really happening yet he had no problem throwing words around like “Jew” or “yid” and the bigotry that came with those words. Julien and Jean started off as enemies but the two eventually became friends. However, their friendship was challenged my the Nazis who came to their school to hunt down the three students and send them to their deaths. What I admired most about Louis Malle’s film was the fact that he was able to take the events that happened in his own life and ponder over the decisions he made. Right from the beginning, it felt very personal. The opening scene was a mother and her son saying goodbye at a train station. It was a simple scene but we immediately got to know the protagonist: he was sensitive when he needed to, he felt neglected by his parents, and he hid his real emotions through transference. The other scenes that stood out to me were also simple scenes. One of them was when Julien got lost in the woods in the attempt to find a hidden treasure. On top of the giant rocks, he looked around. What did he think about? Did he know which direction to go? Was he afraid to go down the rocky terrain? Was he worried about the sun setting? In one specific glance around his surroundings, I had so many questions and felt so many emotions. I felt like that scene was a test for him and for us. Even though he was somewhat of a bully, I found that I cared about what would happen to him. Another highlight was when the kids and the teachers watched a Chaplin picture. I don’t know why, maybe it’s because I love the movies, but I felt so much joy while watching them laughing collectively at the screen. In one scene, even though the kids made fun of each other and didn’t always get along, they found a common ground. The Chaplin film brought them together and I couldn’t help but feel moved. Malle’s strength was definitely taking simple portraits from his youth and letting us feel why those were important to him. Even though his experiences happened more than fifty years ago, the feelings cut through time and we find ourselves able to relate and sympathize. The closing scene was simply masterful. Slowly, the camera inched toward Julien’s eyes as he realized that sometimes his actions can be powerful. There was no going back. It was a loss of innocence at its finest. He became a man because he finally learned to take responsibility. “Au revoir les enfants” is an astute picture, a rewarding experience, and utterly unforgettable.

The Pianist


The Pianist (2002)
★★★★ / ★★★★

You can say a lot of things about Roman Polanski since his personal life is often torn apart among the tabloids but you cannot deny that the man knows how to make movies. Not just typical movies that happen to be commercially successful, but movies that are personal, have artistic merit and have distinct emotional resonance. In “The Pianist,” Polanski focused on the survival story of a Polish Jewish survivor named Wladyslaw Szpilman (Adrien Brody) in Warsaw in the middle of World War II. I thought it was interesting how the picture started off with him and his family (Maureen Lipman and Frank Finlay as his parents, Jessica Kate Meyer and Julia Rayner as his sisters, and Ed Stoppard as his brother) and then shift the focus on how he was able to survive on his own with the help of kind strangers and adoring fans (Emilia Fox). Even though this was set in WWII, I thought it felt a little different because we spent the majority of the time observing him from indoors–how he saw the war from his window somewhat from an outsider’s perspective yet still caught up in the middle of it. We also observed how he moved from one place to another and the dangers (and repercussions) of certain decisions he had to make in order to subsist. Back when I saw this this film for the first time in 2002, I did not understand what was so special about a man trying to hide in an apartment instead of joining his comrades to fight against the Nazis. But seeing this movie seven years later, I thought that Szpilman’s experiences were really painful because he had to live with the guilt of surviving as his friends and family were murdered. Yet at the same time, it took a lot of courage for him to want to keep living despite the fact that there were times when he caught serious diseases, hasn’t eaten for days on end, and how the lack of company almost drove him into madness. I was really touched whenever he would play the piano after hiding for so long; it was kind of like watching a man coming back from the dead. I thought it expertly embodied the idea of music being an elixir of life. My favorite scene was toward the end when he played the piano for the Nazi that chose to help him (Thomas Kretschmann). I would never forget that scene because I felt like a lot of things were communicated between them even though they weren’t engaged in a conversation. With such great acting from everyone involved in this film, “The Pianist” was an emotional experience I can only try to describe. I believe everyone should see it at least once because the many layers are worth exploring. It was melancholy, suspenseful, dark yet it was sensitive and truly remarkable.

I Have Never Forgotten You: The Life & Legacy of Simon Wiesenthal


I Have Never Forgotten You: The Life & Legacy of Simon Wiesenthal (2007)
★★★ / ★★★★

Nicole Kidman narrated this documentary about a very influential man–a humanitarian of all sorts–named Simon Wiesenthal, a survivor from the concentration camps who made it his life mission to hunt down Nazi criminals so that they would be forced to take responsibilities for the horrible things they’ve done and give justice to those who were murdered and the families that were affected. I decided to watch this film because I distinctly remember reading a review from a critic saying that Wiesenthal partly did what he did because he wanted to get revenge for the killings of about ninety families and relatives. After watching the movie, I must say that I cannot disagree more. I thought Wiesenthal’s decision to keep going despite the threats on his life and those of his family’s, the strain when it comes to his relationships with others, and the constant reminders of the terrible things that happened to him was nothing short of heroic. It’s not like Wiesenthal hunted the Nazis down and placed his own definition of justice upon them. No, he actually turned the criminals over to the government and it was up for them to decide what should be done to the Nazis. I hardly consider his actions as revenge because his main motivation is to simply express a collective grief so that people would ultimately be able to move on. How the movie painted the journey of a man on the verge of death due to starvation to a force that impacted the justice system all over the world was truly inspiring. I also loved how the documentary highlighted some of the most important war criminals that Wiesenthal caught, such as Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele. The fact that those scenes came hand-in-hand with some of rare footages of extremely emaciated Jewish people made me really angry and sad at the same time. Like I did in high school when we studied World War II, I questioned myself how people could have so much hate and actually act upon such negative emotions to the point of genocide. I still don’t have answers to the many questions I have about the psychology of the Nazis and maybe I never will. I thought this film was a great tribute to Simon Wiesenthal’s life. I think people should see this documentary because it would be nice to remember his many amazing achievements, which undoubtedly impacted our (and many other countries’) justice system.

I.O.U.S.A.


I.O.U.S.A. (2008)
★★★★ / ★★★★

This is an eye-opening documentary about the United States’ journey to a financial disaster and I believe it should be seen by everyone. Prior to this film, I had no idea that (when this film was made), we were about $8.7 trillion in federal debt (the film also estimated it to increase to $10 trillion by 2009). I also had no idea how to answer some of the basic economic questions that the film asked the audiences (via asking random people in the streets). I mean, I knew that the economy was “bad” because that’s all I hear whenever I turn on the news, but “bad” doesn’t even begin to cover how much trouble we are in. Economics might not be my forte when it comes to academics but I strongly believe that, despite one’s focus of education, it’s everyone’s responsibility to understand how the system works. And this movie convinced me that I need to be more proactive in really ascertaining why taxes are increasing, where the taxpayers’ money are going, excessive proposed programs that might get us into deeper debt and more. The movie, directed by Patrick Creadon, presented the deficits into four parts (budget, savings, leadership, trade), focused on why they are a problem, and towards the end suggested of ways how we could help prevent further increases in our debts. I also enjoyed the fact that this documentary considered what happened in the past (Rome, The Great Depression, World Wars I and II, the Clinton and Bush administrations) and how some of the very same problems are repeating in the present. But that’s not all–most importantly, it considered the future and made educated guesses on how the economy would be like by the time college students such as myself are retired (and who might be the financial world leaders). It’s a scary reality (the current) and even a scarier eventuality; but the point of this movie was not to scare people into inaction. Its sole purpose was to bring people into awareness and educate people like me who are not as in touch with our country’s pecuniary situations. To do that, “I.O.U.S.A.” presented a series of animations, interviews with high-level officials, metaphors, and cold hard facts so that we could digest a plethora of information and eventually form our own opinions in the matter. I only wished the documentary had run longer and given more time to explain why its proposed solutions would work. Other than that, watching this film was a very informative and worthwhile experience.

Inglourious Basterds


Inglourious Basterds (2009)
★★★★ / ★★★★

Those who believe that Quentin Tarantino (“Resevoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction,” “Kill Bill,” “Death Proof”) is slowly losing his touch when it comes to filmmaking and storytelling should watch this film. “Inglourious Basterds” essentially covers three groups of characters: Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and his men’s (Eli Roth, Michael Fassbender, B.J. Novak, Omar Doom) quest to hunt, scalp, and kill Nazis; the intimidating Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa, a Nazi hunter who prefers to be categorized as a detective more than anything else and who happens to speak English, French, Italian, and German which proves to be quite useful; and Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus, who survived Waltz’ massacre three years ago and had plans of her own, along with her trusted friend Marcel (Jacky Ido), to avenge her family. Divided into five sublime chapters, at first the characters had nothing to do with each other. But as the picture went on they all collided, had very entertaining conversations and bloody violence, just as one could expect from a Tarantino motion picture.

I was surprised with how quickly the movie paced itself, considering that I needed to use the bathroom during the first thirty minutes. (I gulped down a lot of soda during the previews.) I couldn’t help but get so engaged with the dialogue because in some lines, the characters attach some sort of threat into their words or tone to the point where it made me feel like I was in the same room with them. Although this was a World War II picture to begin with, it became so much more than that. In the second half, it became about a project about the love for the cinema and using that as a template to put these very intense characters under one roof. What I noticed about this movie was that with each major character, Tarantino moved the camera to match the person’s idiosyncracies and intentions. Therefore, it became more than just a World War II picture with necessary violence. It became a personal character study where the characters became tangled in the intricacies of politics, bureaucracies, and their own morals (sometimes lack thereof). The way Tarantino played with the movie’s tone greatly impressed me (as I was in his other films). One minute I just feel like hiding behind my hands because either something very violent was about to happen or a character knew something the other character did not know and was about to get caught; the next minute I found myself laughing so hard (due to the comedy or relief, it was often difficult to tell) because a character did or said something hilarious.

I can definitely understand why the American mainstream could be disappointed with this movie. For one, pretty much half of the movie had subtitles. (I love subtitled films. Sometimes, I even watch movies spoken in English with subtitles.) They could find it challenging to read and pay attention to the images at the same time. Second, with its 153-minute running time, the audiences were asked to sit through extended dialogues with (from some blogger reviews I’ve read) “very little payoffs that only happened toward the end of each chapter”). As a person who loves long movies, I cannot disagree more because the payoffs happen as the lines were being said. It was the subtleties in each intonation and movement that really made this film that much better than typical summer movie flicks. It was intelligent, had great sense of build-up, very tense, and brutal. So, for me, those kinds of arguments that people brought up were simply a matter of acquired taste. Hey, I didn’t start off loving foreign films and long movies either. It took some time and when it finally clicked, my moviegoing experience became that much more rewarding.

I strongly believe that “Inglourious Basterds” is one of the best movies of summer 2009 (if not the best). The performances are top-notch, especially from Christoph Waltz who is already getting Oscar buzz (and deservedly so), the pacing was done skillfully, and best of all, it knew how and when to have fun. If it had taken itself too seriously, it probably would not have been as enjoyable, it would have simply been violent and heartless. I’m already looking forward to Tarantino’s next project.

Defiance


Defiance (2008)
★★ / ★★★★

Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber, Jamie Bell and George MacKay star in “Defiance,” directed by Edward Zwick, as four Jewish brothers who escape from the place where they used to live due to the implementation of the Final Solution. The four seek refuge in the forest as they welcome (though at times reluctantly) other Jewish people. Soon, they become a community; and as with all new communities, problems ensue such as rationing of food, who deserves what, what is allowed and what is not, who the leader should be and so on. Although the audiences get a lot of scenes when the Germans attack the Jews and vice-versa, I really could care less about those scenes. I was actually more interested in the dynamics within the small community such as the differing ways of leadership between Craig and Schreiber. While I found it difficult to align myself with one or the other, I thought it was great because I was engaged with what was going on as well as surprised when they would suddenly change their stance regarding a particular issue. I also liked the scenes when everyone would starve and get diseases in the dead of winter. It’s not that I like watching people suffer but it’s more about being concerned and wondering who will make it in the end and who wouldn’t. Although this was inspired by a true story, admittedly, I didn’t know much about the Bielski brothers so I didn’t know how it would end. What prevents me from giving this film a recommendation is that it all too often becomes generic. With such a unique subject matter, I feel like it took the safer route in order to appeal to wider audiences. It also had too many fighting scenes when it really didn’t need to because it already has a poignant story to tell. Still, there’s some scenes worth seeing here such as when Zwick showed that people are people–that is, monstrosity can be committed by both the Germans and the Jews. I wish this had been a much stronger film because it really is important to recognize what the Bielski brothers have done for the Jewish community. But perhaps the gesture is enough.

Valkyrie


Valkyrie (2008)
★★★ / ★★★★

I think a lot of people are unfairly harsh on this movie because of the fact that it stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus von Satuffenberg, one of the men that tries to assassinate Adolf Hitler. For some reason, people find it difficult to find a divide between an actor’s personal life and repertoire (like with Lindsay Lohan). We all know how it’s going to end so being predictable is not a valid reason on why one should not see this movie. (Assuming that the person knows the basics about World War II.) I’m here to say that this is a solid thriller because Bryan Singer, the director of other good films like “The Usual Suspects,” “Apt Pupil” and “X2: X-Men United,” was able to successfully build suspense up until the last twenty minutes. I enjoyed watching what Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, and Tom Cruise have to put on the table. Although the film is fast-paced, it gets really exciting whether these top-tier actors speak to each other as we find out where their loyalties lie. They made me believe that what they were trying to do was important and I eventually found myself hoping that things would turn out differently than it did in reality. I was impressed with the soundtrack because it supported the suspense instead of becoming the driving force. In most less successful thrillers, the latter is the case so it was a nice surprise to not find that here. I was also blown away by the visuals. Everything looks so grand: the architectures, the weaponries, the automobiles, down to the characters’ wardrobes. It was easy to tell that a lot of effort was put into this film. I wish the last twenty minutes could’ve been stronger. I felt like the suspense was sucked out of the film so I found myself not caring. I think those last few scenes were crucial because the filmmakers were supposed to convince the audience that those who tried to kill Hitler were honorable men and women. Instead, the message was lost and we saw one scene of pandemonium on top of one another. It’s a pretty strong movie as a whole; it just needed to deliver all the way through and, unfortunately, the film failed to do that.

Schindler’s List


Schindler’s List
★★★★ / ★★★★

This is one of the most important and best told movies ever made and I do not say that lightly. Every scene is memorable and presented in such a sensitive way, but it’s never judgmental because it lets the images speak for themselves. There’s a scene in this film involving Ralph Fiennes’ character (Amon Goeth) about removing or changing a certain part of history; this movie is a perfect example why that character cannot be any more wrong. Liam Neeson is tremendous as Oskar Schindler because he is able to effectively show Schindler’s evolution as a businessman-turned-humanitarian. Fiennes is also amazing in this even though his character is a monster. Both actors share a certain complexity that is extremely difficult to come by nowadays. As for Ben Kingsley, at first I didn’t recognize him but after trying to figure out what his character was all about, I realized that he really looked familiar and recognized him after about five minutes of contemplation. If that isn’t a mark of a great actor, I don’t know what is. Many consider that this as Steven Spielberg’s masterpiece (among many) and I cannot agree more. Even though it spans for about three hours and fifteen minutes, I didn’t feel like I was watching it for that long. In fact, I felt like I was watching a documentary because of how real everything looked and felt; I felt like was really there. Spielberg’s decision to show this movie in black and white is nothing short of perfection. It allowed me to notice Spielberg’s techniques, such as presenting two completely different factors when something is apart but when those two are put together, they seem to complement or go with each other. Aside from the use of black and white, other examples include Schindler and Geoth’s personalities and ideals; one train heading toward a safe haven while the other heads toward hell; fusion of two, or sometimes even three, different scenes–one showing pain and misery while the other one showing happiness and celebration. The craft alone is enough for me to give this film a four-star review, but it managed to go beyond that. The one scene that really made me want to cry was near the end when Schindler regretted not selling his car or his valuable pin in order to save more lives in front of more than a thousand Jewish people he saved. It really got to me because he lost everything he had yet he was still sorry he couldn’t have done more. I remember watching this film back in high school but I didn’t understand and did not appreciate it as much. In my opinion, this is the kind of movie that should be required to show in schools when the students are learning about World War II. Spielberg has given the world a gift–a reminder of one of the darkest times in history and why we should prevent it from happening again. “Schindler’s List” is one of the reasons why movies are made.