Category Archives: Films

Pain, sorrow and suffering

Pain is a tricky thing. You can’t measure pain. It’s pretty much that simple.
If there’s a context, you can more or less imagine that a situation that presents itself, could be more hurtful to person A than it would be to person B, because person A was on a bike while person B drove over person A with a car. Therefor, person B being traumatised hitting person A with the car could be overshadowed by the fact that person B now has to eat through a straw with both legs up.

That’s pretty simple.

When it comes to verbal pain, or harassment, bullying and so on, it becomes a bit more complicated. There’s people with a thick skin, there’s people with barely any. So a remark, a silly word, phrase or even a certain tone, can cause quite a wave. A bigger one than expected by either parties, receiving or the one telling.

That’s the thing these days with the #meToo thing going on, but also with comedians and journalists hitting boundaries.
People now have become extremely sensitive for certain issues, where others are still telling them;
“Stop whining, you’ve had your moment, now move on”. In the case of the #meToo, this will, from now on, always be seen as a ‘oh, so you’re agreeing with the enemy now?!’ while it can be good to be told: move on.
Not because your situation has not been serious enough, but because it is simply best to move on. And it’s not good to dwell on the past for too long. It sours your personality. Is it easy? No, far from it. But you’ll notice you get out stronger. Able to look at the situation from a distance, instead of in the middle of it.

Again, it’s easier said than done.
I remember the moment where my father in law compared his new girlfriend to his just diseased wife.
‘She (girlfriend) is so much sweeter for me than she (the diseased one) ever was!’ this was witin six weeks time. I was still in mourning over my mother in law, so I wanted to kick him in the nuts, the shins or wherever would hurt greatly. Of course I didn’t. I was too shocked to do so. He would go on and make comparisons like that, to my own parents aswell, again on very very sensitive moments.
Confronted with those quotes, he will say now:
‘That’s so long ago, you should forget about it now’, while he still gets to complain about things that I apparently did wrong the same amount of time ago and that -in my opinion- must have hurt him in about the same amount.
But he is an old man who has, according to my husband, had problems with his mental and physical health all of his life. Which makes my father in law a patient for life. He married the girlfriend that was ‘so much sweeter’. Of course. Not very surprising. The problem is, this woman allows him to be a victim forever.
His late wife didn’t. She would tell him, at some point: ‘oh alright now, get a grip and move on’. But that was because physically she outwon him. Unfortunately not in a nice way. They got married because he was supposed to die first, of heart failure. After a year it turned out she was gonna die first. Of cancer. So whatever issues he could come up with (‘I’m sweaty!’, ‘I feel nauseous’, ‘I think my left eyebrow is shifting’) was overshadowed by: ‘dear, I think all of my guts came out at once in the toilet, can you please help me clean ‘m up?’
In a way, I think he must have thought that was unfair.

Yes, that’s a bit dark. But you get my drift.

I am not saying victims of crimes should never feel like a victim. But there’s different ways of handling things, and some work better than others.
The thing is: this is highly personal.
So a Rose McGowen telling Meryl Streep that Meryl’s way of handling things is wrong, seems weird to me. Rose McGowen told (wo)men to protest by not tweeting, not using any social media, to basically use silence to show how angry they were, against people such as Weinstein. Now Meryl Streep and others wanted to do just that to empathise with this group of victims, suddenly Rose McGowen is saying that they should be as loud as possible. It could be me, but that sounds a bit hypocritical to me? Especially the part where she says Meryl Streep a hypocrit. It’s a bit kettle & pot, but that could be just me. And how is it that Rose McGowen is the authority on instructing people how they should handle situations like this in name of everyone anyway? And yes, I now mention Rose McGowen, but it could be anyone, of course. Anyone who has fallen a victim and doesn’t feel heard and wants to tell people on how to act on their behalf. Be aware that your way isn’t necessarily the way of others. It’s just how it is. But I do think that if you want to change things forgood, you should stick together instead.

I mean I don’t know about you, but not only do I love to watch films, I also like to check actors and actresses. I do so on imdb. It’s a great website, tells you all and more about the idol you have (pets, marriages, children, quotes, whatever they have available, really), and there has been one thing that struck me.
Many women who became famous, didn’t do so with a background in acting. They did while dancing. I was quite surprised when I saw that coming up more than once (Shirley McLaine, Goldie Hawn, etc). It made it clear to me that to be able to move your body around supple, dazzling directors no doubt, apparently was a way to make it into Hollywood. I am wondering how many of these women are yet to speak out about what happened to them, or would they have developed such a thick skin that they are simply thinking ‘it got me where I am today, or at least it was part of my road. It was a bumpy one, but I’m glad I’m here’? It’s possible. And I don’t think that’s wrong either. It is a way of dealing with what happened to you.

So no, I’m not saying any of these victims should stop complaining. Because it is true: people should have a safe work environment, no matter where they work. They should not need to be afraid of what might happen, due to the fact that there are a lot of other people wanting the same position. A bit of healthy competition can be a good thing, but this should strictly entail actual work related skills. And unless you’re working the porn industry, such types of skills are never part of that competition.

But it is true that there are people who easier ‘move on’ than others.

And then there’s people trying to support the ‘fallen’ ones, as good as there’s people to support the victims of these fallen ones.
There’s a tricky factor there too: backing up on someone who claims it didn’t happen, even if there’s proof that it did (look at Donald Trump) results in not being taken seriously ever again. To be fair I think that’s right, but Donald Trump is quite a different story here anyways.

Back to other business. I think it was right when Harvey Weinstein got kicked out badly. In the email that was released, he tried to safe his own ass by saying ‘give me a second chance’, which was laughable considering this wasn’t a second chance, it would have been the 2000st chance more like.
But there are stars who back up other harassers, like Matt Damon who tried to stick up for Louis C.K., who are being punished unusually hard for this. I don’t think Matt Damon is that wrong in his general opinion: during the start of the #meToo movement -and hopefully after! – men and women are being punished for abusing their position. The abuse of power should always be punished. But it seems that some people are being punished harder and louder than others. I’m sure Dylan Farrow still wonders why Woody Allen is still everyone’s favorite, while she has a nasty aftertaste about her childhood. While others wonder how Mia Farrow got away with teaching her daughter to hate her adoptive father so much that she’s been willing to do some incontrollable damage (in my opinion, the latter is still also an option, as I have seen from closeby how nasty mothers can become towards their own brood when a seperation is happening, and I don’t know either Mia Farrow nor Woody Allen well enough to make such a judgement).


Basically what we’re dealing with is the grey area that starts to exist when people don’t know if they were ever comfortable with someone touching them in whatever way possible, actual touching, or talking. And the ‘is he bastard enough to do this again, or can we just slap him really hard (physically or verbally) and move on and he will know he can’t do that again?’ Because yes, there’s people who will try once, then stop when they’re confronted with their weird business, and there’s people like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey, who need to be outed and kicked in the shins as loud as possible to make sure that they never do it again.
For me, people like Ben Affleck, Johnny Depp (different category, I know, but same thing: will he ever do it again?) and so on, aren’t innocent, but I do think they’ve learned their lesson by now.
It’s time to move on.

1 Comment

Posted by on December 19, 2017 in Daily life, Films, Opinion


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Cloverfield Lane

When Michelle, a young woman, decides to leave her boyfriend (or husband, or fiancé, this wasn’t exactly clear to me)she had no idea how drastically her life would suddenly change.
She decides to get the car and drive away, but meets with disaster on her way to wherever. Once she awakes, it’s mostly to confusion.
She has a drip in her arm, but is also tied to the wall with her knee, which is also bounded due to an injury that happened in the car accident.

This film is actually quite the mindfuck. Not in a constant thrilling way, but it defenitely has nontheless.
John Goodman is Howard, the guy who has saved Michelle, and John Gallagher Jr is Emmett, her co-survivor of what Howard tells them has been an attack. Emmett has seen it, Michelle is very sceptical about all of it.

Though they never truly become fully friends, they do find a way to live together in the bunker that Howard build. Michelle, whenever she finds a way to not believe something that Howard has come up with, Howard finds a way to prove her wrong and his own point. Still, you’re more on Michelle’s side, as Howard’s ideas are so eccentric or farfetched, if you will. You do feel trapped along with Michelle, but thankfully it’s quite easy to still relate to Howard, who has a strong personality, but is mostly just friendly in a fatherly way. Strict, but still loving, that is. It’s his main aim to keep everyone safe. So even if the children don’t behave, he gets upset, but he’s easy to calm down.

It’s really too bad that the last part of the film only takes that short. I feel the film deserved more than only those few minutes. It makes the slower middle part of the film quite pointless, actually.
Then again, it’s just a film.
It’s not bad, it’s just not the best you’ll ever see.

Leave a comment

Posted by on November 16, 2017 in Films, Opinion


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Lovely Bones

This incredibly long film stuns mostly by not being boring even one moment. And it even stuns more by not being boring without actual ‘quick’ parts. It even has quite some bits that are a bit more slow, and still: it works.

The story is quite dreadful and you need to be in the mood for drama. On her way from school to home, Susan Salmon (very well played by Saoirse Ronan) is tricked and as such killed by her neighbour, played by Stanley Tucci. The film is mostly about how both parties -the living and the dead- deal with the situation.

Susan Salmon is the voiceover and tells everything in an at times warning voice, but mostly nearly excited. Her voice does its work really quite well, and all the things that keep happening after her disappearance and the things that happened before, make this film a sort of perfect mix of loss and not loss altogether.

I’ve read on InternetMovieDataBase that Stanley Tucci was actually quite uncomfortable with the kind of personality he was supposed to be playing, so he did everything he could to make the role physically as far away from himself as possible (wearing a fat suit, dye every hair he got in a different tone, wear colored contact lenses, even dying his skin in a different shade), but still you immediately recognise him. At least I did.

There’s also the early years of Rose McIver to enjoy (who we now know as the iZombie leading part) and as a whole, the parents and grandmother of Susie.

All in all I’d say it’s a film well worth watching, expect quite some mixed emotions here and there, as it’s the killed one versus the killer who doesn’t want to be discovered. Logically.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 9, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,

The Drowning

With Julia Stiles, Avan Jogia and Josh Charles amongst the actors.

A psychiatrist is confronted with his past influence in court, when he saves a drowning young man who turns out to have been his patient, years ago.

This film is actually quite boring and it feels, at times, a lot is left out, without being explained. That doesn’t make it better. In itself Josh Charles’ play is good, but it seems out of character for any loving husband to not tell his wife so much. Julia Stiles is a properly annoyed wife, not understanding what’s bothering her husband about certain contacts she has.
Avan Jogia is brilliant as annoying bastard. Too pretty, too young, too luring. In that sense it’s a bit too obvious that he is the dangerous factor in here. His actions seem weird and aren’t too well explained either, not until the end.

The people in court aren’t of much help either. The colleague of the psychiatrist asks him for favors, but in return doesn’t give any information either.

It’s not a bad film, and the tension is properly build up at times, but the only moment where you think ‘ah, finally something is explained’, it’s only one thing and you agree with the character there: ‘why didn’t you tell me before?’

If you’re a Julia Stiles fan like myself, you will probably enjoy yourself. Josh Charles is doing a far better job in The Good Wife.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 4, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , ,

Our Souls At Night

With Jane Fonda, Robert Redford and Iain Armitage.
A curiously dull film, to be fair. One night, Addie Moore (played by Jane Fonda) knocks on Louis Waters’ (Robert Redford) door. She has a proposal of sorts.
She would like to sleep together on a regular base.

‘Not for sex, I’ve long lost interest for that’, she explains, making the proposal a little less awkward and in a way funny, but still: Louis Waters doesn’t know what to say to that??

The storyline itself is very unsignificant. It’s basically what happens when two elderly people who are alone get together to spend the night -just to talk and not be alone. They are the talk of the town amongst their peers, but it’s not really that shocking. It still is two people who have the age and the maturity to choose for themselves. Louis Waters does get angry with his peers for a bit, but that’s about it.

For people looking for an exciting film: this isn’t it. It’s a very demure, peaceful story about two elderly people who spend time together, with minor incidents like a grandchild coming over, some friends who become curious and so on. The biggest event is one of their children protesting against the parent being happy.

Given that Jane Fonda currently also stars in the series Grace & Frankie, this film will disappoint. Jane Fonda actually tries to look attractive in that series and is a lot more progressive. Besides, the film Barefoot in the Park, that has both Jane Fonda and Robert Redford in it, has a lot more to offer when it comes to weird and sillyness entering the building.
Robert Redford actually has feelings in that film too. He is far more of an introvert here. He barely talks about himself. He asks her why she picked him. In the end you still don’t really know.

In short: if you love the actors, go for it, but don’t expect much of it. It’s really quite dull.

Leave a comment

Posted by on October 3, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,

Ricki and the Flash

A remarkable filmchoice for Meryl Streep. AGAIN. Though I genuinely enjoyed watching her in Mamma Mia, it didn’t make sense to me at all. Why would a class actress do such a film? But then it hit me: because it was simply just a FUN project. Even actors and actresses need fun projects, the in between snacks, right?

This film is probably a bit like that. Meryl Streep can sing. Not like a songstress (she would’ve become one of those if she were that good), but still: she can sing. I think this is why she ends up in films that contain music and involve her singing. She can do it and she likes it. She won’t pull it off like Kate Winslet did for that Christmas Carol film) but still: she can carry a tune.

This film is about Ricki, part of a very dated and mediocre band, called The Flash, who receives a phonecall from her ex-husband. Their daughter is going through a rough period, he would like her help to pick up the pieces for their daughter Julie (so very fine portrayed by Meryl Streep’s real life daughter Mamie Gummer).

Basically, it’s a trip down memory lane for the family. Because, as it turns out, all of her children will be there, and the new Mrs of her ex is out, as her father is having an episode and therefor needs care and isn’t present.

To be fair I’m not sure if Meryl Streep had a say in how her hair was done, but it’s distracting quite a bit. Especially as anyone could tell you that that’s not especially any type of ‘rock’ hairdo. They either should have gone with an actual rock look (her face worked out far better) or she should’ve just not washed her hairs for weeks or months or something like that. It’s really weird. I can’t think of any rocker, male or female, who would go for such braids/plaits. They’re the type your little sister would make, not a grown woman.

Other than that, the film is fine. It’s not the best acting you’ll ever see, but it’s certainly not the worst. Can you skip it and live your life with a clear conscious? This is also very possible….

Leave a comment

Posted by on September 27, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Very impressive film about a young woman whose been a captive for about seven years, and her child, which she bore from her captivator.
This film begins when the boy becomes five years of age. The narrator is the voice of the child, which gives the situation a unique point of view.

Despite the fact that his mother doesn’t seem to have taught him very creative names for things (he sees objects as both a thing and a friend, and yet they are just called ‘Skylight’, ‘Wardrobe’ and so on). In a way you’d -nearly- expect a parent would try to cozy it up a bit. For the time being at least. But I guess not everybody is creative, so that could be it.

The boy, named Jack, is becoming five years of age. His mother bakes him a cake, and you notice how he’s getting in that stage of asking more questions. He wants to know about the ‘Old Nick’ his mother calls their captivator, who comes in every night, after his mother puts him to bed in Wardrobe, so he won’t have to be a witness. Thanks to the fact that this is where he has his own thoughts, his own logical way of thinking, there’s only the knowledge of what might happen between his mother and their captivator. This gives the film the possibility of being less heavy. It also explains why the boy is still being nursed, and why there aren’t more children involved.

His mother comes up with a plan to escape one day. When she explains it to Jack, you hear why she hasn’t tried it for so long.
Given that the attempt to escape happens quite early, you do wonder what will happen.

The other interesting part: you get to see what it’s like for a child that has grown used to being captivated, what it’s like to suddenly not be anymore. He is confused in every possible way, longs to Room and Wardrobe. You can’t even blame him for that: a regularity of rituals, in captivity or not: it is the only thing the child knows and likes because he knows it. Besides, it was the only place where he had his mother around him all the time. Which child doesn’t like that? He is not interested in regular toys, as he has had eggshells that his mother made into a snake etc.

It’s remarkable to see how so many things that aren’t explained in itself, are subtly explained anyway. That’s perhaps what I even liked the most.

The last scene is also a powerful one, again because of Jack. He is like a pet, in a way, in need of closure.


Leave a comment

Posted by on September 11, 2017 in Films, Opinion, Uncategorized


Tags: , , , , , ,