list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Black Book on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Black_Book/269059/default.aspx Title: Black Book
Year: 2007
Director: Paul Verhoeven
Plot: Filmmaker Paul Verhoeven returned to the Netherlands after more than twenty years of success in Hollywood to direct this epic-scale war drama based on a true story. Rachel Steinn (Carice van Houten) is a beautiful Jewish woman living in German-occupied Holland during late 1944. Her family members - who have been falsely promised safe passage to Belgium (their names recorded in the 'black book' of the title) are instead robbed and slaughtered by the Germans on a premeditated basis; Rachel herself manages to escape by diving into the water and swimming away. She narrowly avoids capture, then joins the local resistance movement. With her hair dyed blonde, Rachel can easily pass for Aryan, and when the leader of the Dutch resistance movement learns his son has been captured by Axis forces, Rachel is asked to use her feminine charms to persuade a German commander to arrange for the boy's release. Rachel soon finds herself caught up in a dangerous double life as she becomes a sexual plaything for the Nazis while attempting to bring down their evil empire as a spy. Zwartboek was written by Verhoeven and Gerard Soeteman, who collaborated on the 1977 international success Soldier of Orange. Zwartboek received its world premier at the 2006 Venice Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 9
Number of Lists: 9
Number of blog posts: 9
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:01:13 GMTBlack Book2007Paul VerhoevenFilmmaker Paul Verhoeven returned to the Netherlands after more than twenty years of success in Hollywood to direct this epic-scale war drama based on a true story. Rachel Steinn (Carice van Houten) is a beautiful Jewish woman living in German-occupied Holland during late 1944. Her family members - who have been falsely promised safe passage to Belgium (their names recorded in the 'black book' of the title) are instead robbed and slaughtered by the Germans on a premeditated basis; Rachel herself manages to escape by diving into the water and swimming away. She narrowly avoids capture, then joins the local resistance movement. With her hair dyed blonde, Rachel can easily pass for Aryan, and when the leader of the Dutch resistance movement learns his son has been captured by Axis forces, Rachel is asked to use her feminine charms to persuade a German commander to arrange for the boy's release. Rachel soon finds herself caught up in a dangerous double life as she becomes a sexual plaything for the Nazis while attempting to bring down their evil empire as a spy. Zwartboek was written by Verhoeven and Gerard Soeteman, who collaborated on the 1977 international success <a href=/films/31942/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Soldier of Orange</a>. Zwartboek received its world premier at the 2006 Venice Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide9Taggedy Taggged (6-10)9913http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s269059.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Black_Book/269059/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/9/40898.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/9/2009 10:01:13 AM
Body: There are those who think it’s time for a moratorium on Holocaust movies, and there are those who stand by the belief that there won’t be enough until there’s been 6 million produced and released. As of 2003, we were up to at least 442 titles, according to Annette Insdorf’s book Indelible Shadows. And due to last year’s boom of Holocaust-related features, it seems as though Insdorf could easily add another 100 more to the list in her next edition. But there’s no need to put an end to Holocaust films, anymore than there’s a need to cease making any genre of movie. A good film is a good film, no matter if it’s set in a concentration camp, features Nazis or merely alludes to the Shoah. And a bad movie is a bad movie, an exploitative movie is an exploitative movie and Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Beginning this Tuesday, when The Boy in the Striped Pajamas arrives on DVD, those hungering for more Holocaust movies will get another shot at seeing 2008’s contributions to the genre, but they’ll also start to see why critics were getting tired of these films. It wasn’t the subject matter, though, and it wasn’t necessarily the quantity so much as it was the quality. These days, Holocaust films are more dependent on clichés and are adversely affected by trends than ever before, even when they appear to be intent on breaking with conventions. Here is an excellent bit from a Mr.Cranky review of Defiance: Here’s the thing: the more bad Holocaust films you make, the more Holocaust clichés you employ, the more the Holocaust itself becomes a cliché. The first few Holocaust films had a message and were probably intended to be meaningful. The last hundred were commercial vehicles designed to play on audience sympathies and line the producers’ pockets with money. Ultimately, Hollywood has done what every Jew on the planet pleas desperately to never happen: made the Holocaust meaningless on a pop culture scale. As soon as filmmakers can completely abandon all ten of the following problems with the Holocaust genre, the better off we’ll be in getting to those 6 million titles without further protest. 10. The Academy Awards Cliché “The fact that it was recently nominated for a best picture Oscar offers stunning proof that Hollywood seems to believe that if it’s a ‘Holocaust film,’ it must be worthy of approbation, end of story,” wrote Ron Rosenbaum in a Slate piece earlier this year requesting that the Academy not to honor The Reader. Not every Holocaust film has a shot at winning or even being nominated for an Oscar, though. Notice the lack of Academy love this year for The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good, Valkyrie and, most surprisingly, the documentary Blessed is the Match. But there is nonetheless continued reason to believe that Holocaust=Oscars. The Reader snuck in with some shocking nominations, and Defiance managed a single nod, while Kate Winslet proved her own Extras gag by winning one. And then there was the predicable honoring of live-action short Spielzeugland. Why is this tradition negative? Because it encourages too many safe, conventional, mediocre contributions to the genre produced solely and clearly as Oscar bait. It’s possible The Reader might have been better if Harvey Weinstein hadn’t rushed it for a release date that would be best at acquiring Academy recognition. And the rest of 2008’s titles could have benefited as well. Hollywood needs to go a couple years without handing out a single Oscar to any Holocaust film (even if Spielberg makes Schindler’s List 2 and it’s even better than the first) to break free of the genre’s reputation for Oscar favoritism. 9. Music Cues That Stress Tragedy There are a few Holocaust movie clichés that are fine to stick around. Trains carrying Jews to their doom is an easy symbol for any WWII-set film that doesn’t directly involve concentration camps yet wants to remind the audience that it’s going on. Bleak cinematography and production design and costuming limited to a cold color scheme, particularly blues and grays, just fits the history and the tone of these films too well to eliminate (a bright, colorful Holocaust movie is so wrong that it goes passed the point of breaking conventions to instead demolish recognized truths). However, music cues in Holocaust movie scores (such as Marius Ruhland’s for The Counterfeiters) that are used to stress specific tragedies or emphasize especially harrowing moments are unnecessary and distracting. After all, these are Holocaust movies, and nothing will ever be more tragic or harrowing in the Western consciousness than the extermination of 6 million Jews. So there’s no need to enunciate the melodrama of a single character being shot or a certain event occurring, because the audience should already be feeling emotional and, unless they are robots, will respond appropriately to what’s shown rather than from what’s cued. This is of course an issue to be had with many Hollywood movies, but applies especially to their Holocaust films. 8. The Child’s Perspective While it makes sense for a lot of Holocaust films to be seen through the eyes of a child, because those children grow up to ultimately tell their Survivor story, it’s also a major cliché of any film about intolerance to involve a children’s perspective merely for the sake of having an innocent, naive and possibly precocious view of what’s happening. Certainly no youth has ever abstained from asking, “Why are they being mean to that black man, Mommy?” or “When will the Russians rescue us, Daddy?” However, such characters are more often mere narrative tools useful to filmmakers who prefer to pander to the audience, via other characters’ pandering to these children. Even a film that has the guts to have a prominent child character die in the death camps will counter with a child on the other side of the fence who has to ask the unnecessary question of, “Why are we killing the striped pajama boy, Father?” 7. The Happy-Go-Lucky Concentration Camp Prisoner Fortunately, there hasn’t been much to this trend since Robin Williams tried his shtick in the ghetto in the Jakob the Liar remake, but it’s enough that it existed. And enough that Life is Beautiful was actually quite popular. And should have been enough when Jerry Lewis tried bringing comedy to the concentration camps in The Day the Clown Cried. But Hollywood will probably resurrect the death camp comic relief for some film or other, because there’s just so much desire to lift the tension and actually entertain audiences. Yet Holocaust movies aren’t for entertainment, no matter if there were indeed some prisoners in real life that told a joke or goofed around once in awhile in order to remain positive. So Hollywood, Roberto Benigni and everyone else need to knock it off with this trend and keep the stories sad. It’s not like they put harrowing concentration camp scenes in broad comedies, after all. So why do the opposite? 6. The Good Nazi As with the happy-go-lucky prisoner, good Nazis may have existed in real life. But cinema is not supposed to be a complete representation of real life anyway, and everyone is better off just holding on to the idea that all Nazis were bad guys. The very word “Nazi” is forever equated with evil, and for eternity it will be easy to involve Nazis as villains, even in fantasy films set in modern times, without the audience questioning whether or not this one or that one was really a kindhearted man who was just doing his job or being forced to be a Nazi by his government. Good Nazis have turned up recently in the varied forms of the not-quite-Schindlerific Bernhard Kruger (Devid Striesow, pictured above) in The Counterfeiters, the relatively saintly and sexy Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch) in Black Book and, of course, the half-blind, wannabe Hitler assassin Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) in Valkyrie. 5. The Morally Ambiguous Nazi Supporter Even more prevalent lately than the good Nazi is the morally ambiguous or ambivalent character who is either a Nazi or working for the Nazis in order to survive and/or because he or she will later claim ignorance to the evils being committed. Examples include Kate Winslet’s character in The Reader, to an extent, as well as Ronnie (Halina Reijn, pictured above) in Black Book and the protagonist of The Counterfeiters, Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics). Again, it might have been a common reality for such persons to exist, but they shouldn’t be so populous in every Holocaust film made nowadays, because then it seems more excusable to believe that a good percentage of opportunist Nazi supporters weren’t all that bad. 4. The Really, Really Bad Nazi It seems that this stereotype has become a modern Holocaust movie cliché due to the increased employment of both good Nazis and morally ambiguous Nazi supporters. In Black Book, for instance, the sadistic Gunther Franken (Waldemar Kobus) is the yang to Muntze’s yin, and similarly in The Counterfeiters, Hauptscharführer Holst (Martin Bramback, highlighted in the picture above) contrasts against Kruger. As a counter-trend, though, it’s even worse than the initial clichés. Sure, it makes sense on some narrative level for there to be a really, really bad Nazi, one who’d go so far as to literally piss on the head of a protagonist (a la Holst), to make up for the fact that there’s a likable Nazi character. But why not just do away with the good Nazi trend and either return to having all Nazi characters assumed evil or merely act like three-dimensional human beings — that is, if they must be humanized? Once again, it’s best just to keep to the Nazis=evil convention, because it’s tried and true and doesn’t complicate things or cause controversies. 3. The Holocaust As Weight in Non-Holocaust Movies The fact that X-Men’s Magneto is a Holocaust survivor enriches his character, but that’s a back-story that existed and has been developed in comics long before making an appearance in the movie adaptations. But non-adapted films, particularly horror flicks, attempting to be taken more seriously due to a Holocaust subplot or back-story just seems exploitative. Take the recent movie The Unborn, for example. In her review for Tiger Online, Melissa Kim makes a good point regarding the misguided intent to give a movie more weight by involving the Holocaust, noting that the tragedy is much too important to be cast in a bit part. “The Unborn is so ridiculous,” she writes, “it actually diminishes the prestige of the Holocaust, reducing it to little more than the weak punch line in a wholly un-funny joke.” 2. The Desire to Kill Hitler This isn’t so much of a movie trend, since aside from Valkyrie the only other Hitler assassination plot movies are others based on the same 20 July plot, but it’s still something of a cliché. Really it has to do with the typical response and discussion people have regarding the possibilities and ethics of time travel. Everyone’s first realistic idea is to go back and kill Hitler before he can come to power and exterminate the Jews, right? Well, it’s quite a futile hypothetical, because there is no time travel. But, filmmakers have the power to at least visualize the hypothetical a little more by, time and time again, adapting the 20 July story for the screen. Of course, it does no good, either, because the plot was unsuccessful and no film version, even with a changed ending, will change that. And anything else would simply be wishful thinking. However, there is at least Downfall, which was surprisingly not as popular despite this idea. Viewers can take pleasure in the literal downfall and demise of Hitler in the film. It doesn’t erase what happened with the Holocaust, but there is some satisfaction to be had. 1. Claiming a Holocaust Film Isn’t a Holocaust Film Harvey Weinstein attempted to have his cake and eat it too this past awards season. He marketed The Reader to certain groups under the assumption that it is a Holocaust movie, but he also attempted to sell it off as not a Holocaust movie by including this Elie Wiesel quote in the well-distributed Reader-defense statement: “it is not about the Holocaust; it is about what Germany did to itself and its future generations.” And many critics and journalists were in agreement, that the movie doesn’t belong grouped in with the others. In a way, the film actually is and isn’t a Holocaust movie, but attempting to deny that it’s one in order to escape the genre’s inaccessibility is still misleading and somewhat dishonest marketing. Anyone going in expecting not to see a concentration camp or survivors or Nazis will be greatly disappointed. A few of 2008’s Holocaust films were also more marketable as other kinds of films than Holocaust films, probably to detach from the stigma attached to them. And at least one, Valkyrie, is for the most part not a Holocaust film at all. But it seemed to work for Weinstein, both with Academy favor and box office success. So this could be a continued trend, even with films that are clearly Holocaust Oscar-bait or films attempting to gain weight through slight Holocaust connections. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:01:13 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/9/2009 10:01:13 AMThere are those who think it’s time for a moratorium on Holocaust movies, and there are those who stand by the belief that there won’t be enough until there’s been 6 million produced and released. As of 2003, we were up to at least 442 titles, according to Annette Insdorf’s book Indelible Shadows. And due to last year’s boom of Holocaust-related features, it seems as though Insdorf could easily add another 100 more to the list in her next edition. But there’s no need to put an end to Holocaust films, anymore than there’s a need to cease making any genre of movie. A good film is a good film, no matter if it’s set in a concentration camp, features Nazis or merely alludes to the Shoah. And a bad movie is a bad movie, an exploitative movie is an exploitative movie and Oscar bait is Oscar bait. Beginning this Tuesday, when The Boy in the Striped Pajamas arrives on DVD, those hungering for more Holocaust movies will get another shot at seeing 2008’s contributions to the genre, but they’ll also start to see why critics were getting tired of these films. It wasn’t the subject matter, though, and it wasn’t necessarily the quantity so much as it was the quality. These days, Holocaust films are more dependent on clichés and are adversely affected by trends than ever before, even when they appear to be intent on breaking with conventions. Here is an excellent bit from a Mr.Cranky review of Defiance: Here’s the thing: the more bad Holocaust films you make, the more Holocaust clichés you employ, the more the Holocaust itself becomes a cliché. The first few Holocaust films had a message and were probably intended to be meaningful. The last hundred were commercial vehicles designed to play on audience sympathies and line the producers’ pockets with money. Ultimately, Hollywood has done what every Jew on the planet pleas desperately to never happen: made the Holocaust meaningless on a pop culture scale. As soon as filmmakers can completely abandon all ten of the following problems with the Holocaust genre, the better off we’ll be in getting to those 6 million titles without further protest. 10. The Academy Awards Cliché “The fact that it was recently nominated for a best picture Oscar offers stunning proof that Hollywood seems to believe that if it’s a ‘Holocaust film,’ it must be worthy of approbation, end of story,” wrote Ron Rosenbaum in a Slate piece earlier this year requesting that the Academy not to honor The Reader. Not every Holocaust film has a shot at winning or even being nominated for an Oscar, though. Notice the lack of Academy love this year for The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, Adam Resurrected, Good, Valkyrie and, most surprisingly, the documentary Blessed is the Match. But there is nonetheless continued reason to believe that Holocaust=Oscars. The Reader snuck in with some shocking nominations, and Defiance managed a single nod, while Kate Winslet proved her own Extras gag by winning one. And then there was the predicable honoring of live-action short Spielzeugland. Why is this tradition negative? Because it encourages too many safe, conventional, mediocre contributions to the genre produced solely and clearly as Oscar bait. It’s possible The Reader might have been better if Harvey Weinstein hadn’t rushed it for a release date that would be best at acquiring Academy recognition. And the rest of 2008’s titles could have benefited as well. Hollywood needs to go a couple years without handing out a single Oscar to any Holocaust film (even if Spielberg makes Schindler’s List 2 and it’s even better than the first) to break free of the genre’s reputation for Oscar favoritism. 9. Music Cues That Stress Tragedy There are a few Holocaust movie clichés that are fine to stick around. Trains carrying Jews to their doom is an easy symbol for any WWII-set film that doesn’t directly involve concentration camps yet wants to remind the audience that it’s going on. Bleak cinematography and production design and costuming limited to a cold color scheme, particularly blues and grays, just fits the history and the tone of these films too well to eliminate (a bright, colorful Holocaust movie is so wrong that it goes passed the point of breaking conventions to instead demolish recognized truths). However, music cues in Holocaust movie scores (such as Marius Ruhland’s for The Counterfeiters) that are used to stress specific tragedies or emphasize especially harrowing moments are unnecessary and distracting. After all, these are Holocaust movies, and nothing will ever be more tragic or harrowing in the Western consciousness than the extermination of 6 million Jews. So there’s no need to enunciate the melodrama of a single character being shot or a certain event occurring, because the audience should already be feeling emotional and, unless they are robots, will respond appropriately to what’s shown rather than from what’s cued. This is of course an issue to be had with many Hollywood movies, but applies especially to their Holocaust films. 8. The Child’s Perspective While it makes sense for a lot of Holocaust films to be seen through the eyes of a child, because those children grow up to ultimately tell their Survivor story, it’s also a major cliché of any film about intolerance to involve a children’s perspective merely for the sake of having an innocent, naive and possibly precocious view of what’s happening. Certainly no youth has ever abstained from asking, “Why are they being mean to that black man, Mommy?” or “When will the Russians rescue us, Daddy?” However, such characters are more often mere narrative tools useful to filmmakers who prefer to pander to the audience, via other characters’ pandering to these children. Even a film that has the guts to have a prominent child character die in the death camps will counter with a child on the other side of the fence who has to ask the unnecessary question of, “Why are we killing the striped pajama boy, Father?” 7. The Happy-Go-Lucky Concentration Camp Prisoner Fortunately, there hasn’t been much to this trend since Robin Williams tried his shtick in the ghetto in the Jakob the Liar remake, but it’s enough that it existed. And enough that Life is Beautiful was actually quite popular. And should have been enough when Jerry Lewis tried bringing comedy to the concentration camps in The Day the Clown Cried. But Hollywood will probably resurrect the death camp comic relief for some film or other, because there’s just so much desire to lift the tension and actually entertain audiences. Yet Holocaust movies aren’t for entertainment, no matter if there were indeed some prisoners in real life that told a joke or goofed around once in awhile in order to remain positive. So Hollywood, Roberto Benigni and everyone else need to knock it off with this trend and keep the stories sad. It’s not like they put harrowing concentration camp scenes in broad comedies, after all. So why do the opposite? 6. The Good Nazi As with the happy-go-lucky prisoner, good Nazis may have existed in real life. But cinema is not supposed to be a complete representation of real life anyway, and everyone is better off just holding on to the idea that all Nazis were bad guys. The very word “Nazi” is forever equated with evil, and for eternity it will be easy to involve Nazis as villains, even in fantasy films set in modern times, without the audience questioning whether or not this one or that one was really a kindhearted man who was just doing his job or being forced to be a Nazi by his government. Good Nazis have turned up recently in the varied forms of the not-quite-Schindlerific Bernhard Kruger (Devid Striesow, pictured above) in The Counterfeiters, the relatively saintly and sexy Ludwig Muntze (Sebastian Koch) in Black Book and, of course, the half-blind, wannabe Hitler assassin Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) in Valkyrie. 5. The Morally Ambiguous Nazi Supporter Even more prevalent lately than the good Nazi is the morally ambiguous or ambivalent character who is either a Nazi or working for the Nazis in order to survive and/or because he or she will later claim ignorance to the evils being committed. Examples include Kate Winslet’s character in The Reader, to an extent, as well as Ronnie (Halina Reijn, pictured above) in Black Book and the protagonist of The Counterfeiters, Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics). Again, it might have been a common reality for such persons to exist, but they shouldn’t be so populous in every Holocaust film made nowadays, because then it seems more excusable to believe that a good percentage of opportunist Nazi supporters weren’t all that bad. 4. The Really, Really Bad Nazi It seems that this stereotype has become a modern Holocaust movie cliché due to the increased employment of both good Nazis and morally ambiguous Nazi supporters. In Black Book, for instance, the sadistic Gunther Franken (Waldemar Kobus) is the yang to Muntze’s yin, and similarly in The Counterfeiters, Hauptscharführer Holst (Martin Bramback, highlighted in the picture above) contrasts against Kruger. As a counter-trend, though, it’s even worse than the initial clichés. Sure, it makes sense on some narrative level for there to be a really, really bad Nazi, one who’d go so far as to literally piss on the head of a protagonist (a la Holst), to make up for the fact that there’s a likable Nazi character. But why not just do away with the good Nazi trend and either return to having all Nazi characters assumed evil or merely act like three-dimensional human beings — that is, if they must be humanized? Once again, it’s best just to keep to the Nazis=evil convention, because it’s tried and true and doesn’t complicate things or cause controversies. 3. The Holocaust As Weight in Non-Holocaust Movies The fact that X-Men’s Magneto is a Holocaust survivor enriches his character, but that’s a back-story that existed and has been developed in comics long before making an appearance in the movie adaptations. But non-adapted films, particularly horror flicks, attempting to be taken more seriously due to a Holocaust subplot or back-story just seems exploitative. Take the recent movie The Unborn, for example. In her review for Tiger Online, Melissa Kim makes a good point regarding the misguided intent to give a movie more weight by involving the Holocaust, noting that the tragedy is much too important to be cast in a bit part. “The Unborn is so ridiculous,” she writes, “it actually diminishes the prestige of the Holocaust, reducing it to little more than the weak punch line in a wholly un-funny joke.” 2. The Desire to Kill Hitler This isn’t so much of a movie trend, since aside from Valkyrie the only other Hitler assassination plot movies are others based on the same 20 July plot, but it’s still something of a cliché. Really it has to do with the typical response and discussion people have regarding the possibilities and ethics of time travel. Everyone’s first realistic idea is to go back and kill Hitler before he can come to power and exterminate the Jews, right? Well, it’s quite a futile hypothetical, because there is no time travel. But, filmmakers have the power to at least visualize the hypothetical a little more by, time and time again, adapting the 20 July story for the screen. Of course, it does no good, either, because the plot was unsuccessful and no film version, even with a changed ending, will change that. And anything else would simply be wishful thinking. However, there is at least Downfall, which was surprisingly not as popular despite this idea. Viewers can take pleasure in the literal downfall and demise of Hitler in the film. It doesn’t erase what happened with the Holocaust, but there is some satisfaction to be had. 1. Claiming a Holocaust Film Isn’t a Holocaust Film Harvey Weinstein attempted to have his cake and eat it too this past awards season. He marketed The Reader to certain groups under the assumption that it is a Holocaust movie, but he also attempted to sell it off as not a Holocaust movie by including this Elie Wiesel quote in the well-distributed Reader-defense statement: “it is not about the Holocaust; it is about what Germany did to itself and its future generations.” And many critics and journalists were in agreement, that the movie doesn’t belong grouped in with the others. In a way, the film actually is and isn’t a Holocaust movie, but attempting to deny that it’s one in order to escape the genre’s inaccessibility is still misleading and somewhat dishonest marketing. Anyone going in expecting not to see a concentration camp or survivors or Nazis will be greatly disappointed. A few of 2008’s Holocaust films were also more marketable as other kinds of films than Holocaust films, probably to detach from the stigma attached to them. And at least one, Valkyrie, is for the most part not a Holocaust film at all. But it seemed to work for Weinstein, both with Academy favor and box office success. So this could be a continued trend, even with films that are clearly Holocaust Oscar-bait or films attempting to gain weight through slight Holocaust connections. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/warmovieblog/archive/2009/2/23/40598.aspx Post By: WarMovieBlog
Post To: WarMovieBlog Blog
Post Date: 2/23/2009 12:01:23 PM
Body: Black Book, aka Zwartboek (2006) IMDB Black Book is a gritty tale of intrigue set in Holland during World War II.  Director Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Robocop) pulls no punches here, and the result is a really, really good picture.A young Jewish girl, Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten) finds herself without a hiding place after an Allied bomber ditches its load on her barn.  She ends up on the run with the help of an old family friend, but things take a turn for the worse as the entire group of Jews she is with gets gunned down by the Nazis. She joins the Dutch resistance, and infiltrates the local Nazi headquarters as a secretary to one of the chief officers, Muntze (Sebastian Koch.)  Also stationed here is the man who killed her family, Franken (Waldemar Kobus.)Under her new identity, Ellis de Vries, she falls for Muntze, who really isn't such a bad guy it turns out.  During a botched prisoner rescue attempt, she's framed for being a double agent, and goes on the run with Muntze.Well, of course she's found again, and the real conspirators are revealed and revenge enacted.  I've left a lot out of the plot, because to tell you any more would completely spoil it, and for a film this good I just can't bring myself to do it.  You'll just have to see it for yourself!Verhoeven doesn't hold back anything here.  There's a lot of frank nudity and sex here, along with a lot of to-the-point violence.  You'll also be spending a lot of time with subtitles, unless your German and Dutch is up to snuff, but that's beside the point.Black Book is the kind of movie that is at the same time attention-keeping and suspenseful, but also difficult to watch.  It's really a moving picture at times, and takes some wicked twists and turns that you really don't expect.  A few of them are quite obvious, though, and that only makes the final reveal even more of a shocker.van Houten puts on quite the performance, as does the resistance leader Hans (Thom Hoffman) and Koch as Muntze.  Kobus is just amazing as the slimy dirtball Franken.  Every time you see him your skin will (and should) crawl just a bit.Production-wise the movie is quite good as well.  Never was there a moment I wasn't buying into the entire situation, either with the sets or the characters.The ending also makes quite the anti-war statement, as we leave Rachel/Ellis many years later in Israel as the rockets and bombs start falling around the town/compound she is teaching in.I couldn't find any decent clips from Black Book, but this trailer should give you an idea. I watched Black Book via Netflix's Instant Watch on my new Roku Netflix player, and was quite pleased with the presentation, but as such didn't get any extras that might have been on the disc. Black Book, aka Zwartboek (2006) on Spout.com Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News
]]>Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:01:23 GMTWarMovieBlogWarMovieBlog Blog2/23/2009 12:01:23 PMBlack Book, aka Zwartboek (2006) IMDB Black Book is a gritty tale of intrigue set in Holland during World War II.  Director Paul Verhoeven (Basic Instinct, Robocop) pulls no punches here, and the result is a really, really good picture.A young Jewish girl, Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten) finds herself without a hiding place after an Allied bomber ditches its load on her barn.  She ends up on the run with the help of an old family friend, but things take a turn for the worse as the entire group of Jews she is with gets gunned down by the Nazis. She joins the Dutch resistance, and infiltrates the local Nazi headquarters as a secretary to one of the chief officers, Muntze (Sebastian Koch.)  Also stationed here is the man who killed her family, Franken (Waldemar Kobus.)Under her new identity, Ellis de Vries, she falls for Muntze, who really isn't such a bad guy it turns out.  During a botched prisoner rescue attempt, she's framed for being a double agent, and goes on the run with Muntze.Well, of course she's found again, and the real conspirators are revealed and revenge enacted.  I've left a lot out of the plot, because to tell you any more would completely spoil it, and for a film this good I just can't bring myself to do it.  You'll just have to see it for yourself!Verhoeven doesn't hold back anything here.  There's a lot of frank nudity and sex here, along with a lot of to-the-point violence.  You'll also be spending a lot of time with subtitles, unless your German and Dutch is up to snuff, but that's beside the point.Black Book is the kind of movie that is at the same time attention-keeping and suspenseful, but also difficult to watch.  It's really a moving picture at times, and takes some wicked twists and turns that you really don't expect.  A few of them are quite obvious, though, and that only makes the final reveal even more of a shocker.van Houten puts on quite the performance, as does the resistance leader Hans (Thom Hoffman) and Koch as Muntze.  Kobus is just amazing as the slimy dirtball Franken.  Every time you see him your skin will (and should) crawl just a bit.Production-wise the movie is quite good as well.  Never was there a moment I wasn't buying into the entire situation, either with the sets or the characters.The ending also makes quite the anti-war statement, as we leave Rachel/Ellis many years later in Israel as the rockets and bombs start falling around the town/compound she is teaching in.I couldn't find any decent clips from Black Book, but this trailer should give you an idea. I watched Black Book via Netflix's Instant Watch on my new Roku Netflix player, and was quite pleased with the presentation, but as such didn't get any extras that might have been on the disc. Black Book, aka Zwartboek (2006) on Spout.com Originally posted on:War Movie Reviews and News http://www.spout.com/groups/Community_Recommendations/Re_Collaboration_Best_Films_of_2007/643/37963/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mciocco
Post To: Community Recommendations
Post Date: 12/4/2008 5:04:55 PM
Body: I had a little trouble compiling this list last year, but overall I'm pretty happy with it. The only one that I thought about changing in retrospect was Zodiac, which I'd take off the list in favor of Black Book, which has grown on my in hindsight. But for now, I'll leave it the way it is. My top 10 films of 2007...in roughly reverse order (i.e. with the best at the bottom of this list) : Zodiac: This one barely makes it on this list. It's one of the few early year releases that has made it on the list, and as such, it's something I actually want to revisit. But of all the early year films I saw, I remember this being the most interesting and best made. If you know about the Zodiac killer, you know the ending won't provide any real explanations (nor should it) as the killer was never caught in real life. As such, this does diminish some of the tension from the film. Still, director David Fincher has made an impeccable film. It's not as showy or spectacular as his previous efforts. Stylistically, it's rather straightforward, and yet, it's a gorgeous film to look at, and Fincher does manage to imbue some tension throughout the film, which focuses more on the obsession of those trying to find the Zodiac than the Zodiac himself. Gone Baby Gone: It basically starts out as a straightforward crime thriller and mystery and those elements are very well done. But the ending introduces a moral dilemma that has no good answers. You can't help but put yourself into the movie and think about what you would do in such a case, and to be honest, I don't know what I'd do. I suppose I should mention that this is Ben Affleck's directing debut, and he proves shockingly adept at doing so. The Bourne Ultimatum: A fantastic action film, and one of the few sequels worth it's salt in a year of particularly bad sequels. Paul Greengrass' infamous shaky camera is actually put to good use here, and the film also features good performances and great stuntwork. Some may be put off by the camera work, but when you look at a film like this, and then you look at a film like Transformers, you can see a huge difference in style and talent. Superbad: Hands down, the funniest movie of the year. I'm a sucker for raunchy humor with a heart, and this movie has that in spades. Great performances by Jonah Hill and the deadpan Michael Cera, as well as just about everyone else. Of all the movies on this list, this one probably has the most replay value, and is also probably the most quotable. Stardust: This might the most thoroughly enjoyable movie of the year. A great adventure film that evokes The Princess Bride (perhaps unfairly leading to comparisons) while asserting an identity of its own. In a year filled with dark, heavy-hitting dramas, it was nice to sit down to a well done fantasy film. Well directed with good performances (including an unusual turn by Robert DeNiro as a flamboyant pirate) and nice visuals, the real strength of this film is the story, which retains the fun feeling of a fantasy while skirting darker, edgier material. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters: Documentary films don't generally find much of an audience in theaters, but The King of Kong should be in every video game enthusiast's Netflix queue. It delves into the rough and tumble world of competitive video gaming for classic games, particularly Donkey Kong, but it does so kinda like an inspirational sports film. You've got your lovable underdog who has never won anything in his life, and of course the villainous champion who looks down on the underdog and seeks to steal his thunder. There's some controversy over the film, which perhaps takes some liberties with the facts, but it's still a great movie and highly recommended for video game fans. The Orphanage: Certainly the creepiest movie of the year. Though perhaps not exactly a horror film, it establishes a high level of tension all throughout the film, and the story, while a little odd, works pretty well too. A spanish language film that gets unfairly compaired to Pan's Labyrinth, it is nonetheless worth watching for any fan of ghost stories. The Lives of Others: This film actually won the Oscar for best foreign-language film last year (beating out Pan's Labyrinth - a surprise to me), so I might be cheating a bit, but it didn't really have a theatrical release in the U.S. until 2007, so I'm putting it on this list. Set in East Germany during the Cold War, this film follows a Stasi agent who begins to feel for the subjects he's surveiling. It doesn't sound like much, and it's not exactly action-packed, but it is quite compelling and one of the most powerful films of the year. All of the technical aspects of the film are brilliant, especially the script and the nuanced acting by Ulrich Mühe. This film would be amongst the top of any year's list Grindhouse: I'm referring, of course, to the theatrical release of this film. I say this because a lot of critics like to separate the two features and heap praise on Tarantino's Death Proof (which I'll grant, is probably the better of the two, if I were forced to chose), but to me, nothing beats the full experience of the theatrical version. It starts out with a hilarious "fake" trailer, then moves into Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror, an over=the-top zombie action film done in true grindhouse style (missing reels and all). Following that we get three more absolutely brilliant fake trailers and Tarantino's wonderful Death Proof. The films are dark, they're edgy, and they're probably not for everyone. In attempting to emulate 70s grindhouse cinema, the filmmakers have lovingly reproduced the tropes, some of which may bother audiences (particularly the awkward pacing of both features, which is actuall brilliance in disguise). It's a crime that the theatrical version is not available on DVD. The double-billing was poorly advertised, so it looks like the studio opted to split the films up and give longer cuts of each their own DVD. Supposedly, a 6 disc boxed set containing everything is in the works. No Country for Old Men: The Coen brothers have outdone themselves. This is perhaps a boring pick, as this film is at or near the top of most top 10 lists, but that happened for a reason. It's a great damn film. Gorgeous photography, tension-filled action, and that rare brand of dark humor that the Coens are so good at. It also features the most memorable and terrifying villain in years. The ending is uncompromising and ambiguous (which may turn some viewers off), but I found it quite appropriate. Of all the films this year, this one is best made and most entertaining (if a little dark), a combo that's certainly difficult to pull off. Blatant link whoring: I have a whole slew of honorable mentions, and every year I do a set of awards at my blog, if you're interested...
]]>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:04:55 GMTmcioccoCommunity Recommendations12/4/2008 5:04:55 PMI had a little trouble compiling this list last year, but overall I'm pretty happy with it. The only one that I thought about changing in retrospect was Zodiac, which I'd take off the list in favor of Black Book, which has grown on my in hindsight. But for now, I'll leave it the way it is. My top 10 films of 2007...in roughly reverse order (i.e. with the best at the bottom of this list) : Zodiac: This one barely makes it on this list. It's one of the few early year releases that has made it on the list, and as such, it's something I actually want to revisit. But of all the early year films I saw, I remember this being the most interesting and best made. If you know about the Zodiac killer, you know the ending won't provide any real explanations (nor should it) as the killer was never caught in real life. As such, this does diminish some of the tension from the film. Still, director David Fincher has made an impeccable film. It's not as showy or spectacular as his previous efforts. Stylistically, it's rather straightforward, and yet, it's a gorgeous film to look at, and Fincher does manage to imbue some tension throughout the film, which focuses more on the obsession of those trying to find the Zodiac than the Zodiac himself. Gone Baby Gone: It basically starts out as a straightforward crime thriller and mystery and those elements are very well done. But the ending introduces a moral dilemma that has no good answers. You can't help but put yourself into the movie and think about what you would do in such a case, and to be honest, I don't know what I'd do. I suppose I should mention that this is Ben Affleck's directing debut, and he proves shockingly adept at doing so. The Bourne Ultimatum: A fantastic action film, and one of the few sequels worth it's salt in a year of particularly bad sequels. Paul Greengrass' infamous shaky camera is actually put to good use here, and the film also features good performances and great stuntwork. Some may be put off by the camera work, but when you look at a film like this, and then you look at a film like Transformers, you can see a huge difference in style and talent. Superbad: Hands down, the funniest movie of the year. I'm a sucker for raunchy humor with a heart, and this movie has that in spades. Great performances by Jonah Hill and the deadpan Michael Cera, as well as just about everyone else. Of all the movies on this list, this one probably has the most replay value, and is also probably the most quotable. Stardust: This might the most thoroughly enjoyable movie of the year. A great adventure film that evokes The Princess Bride (perhaps unfairly leading to comparisons) while asserting an identity of its own. In a year filled with dark, heavy-hitting dramas, it was nice to sit down to a well done fantasy film. Well directed with good performances (including an unusual turn by Robert DeNiro as a flamboyant pirate) and nice visuals, the real strength of this film is the story, which retains the fun feeling of a fantasy while skirting darker, edgier material. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters: Documentary films don't generally find much of an audience in theaters, but The King of Kong should be in every video game enthusiast's Netflix queue. It delves into the rough and tumble world of competitive video gaming for classic games, particularly Donkey Kong, but it does so kinda like an inspirational sports film. You've got your lovable underdog who has never won anything in his life, and of course the villainous champion who looks down on the underdog and seeks to steal his thunder. There's some controversy over the film, which perhaps takes some liberties with the facts, but it's still a great movie and highly recommended for video game fans. The Orphanage: Certainly the creepiest movie of the year. Though perhaps not exactly a horror film, it establishes a high level of tension all throughout the film, and the story, while a little odd, works pretty well too. A spanish language film that gets unfairly compaired to Pan's Labyrinth, it is nonetheless worth watching for any fan of ghost stories. The Lives of Others: This film actually won the Oscar for best foreign-language film last year (beating out Pan's Labyrinth - a surprise to me), so I might be cheating a bit, but it didn't really have a theatrical release in the U.S. until 2007, so I'm putting it on this list. Set in East Germany during the Cold War, this film follows a Stasi agent who begins to feel for the subjects he's surveiling. It doesn't sound like much, and it's not exactly action-packed, but it is quite compelling and one of the most powerful films of the year. All of the technical aspects of the film are brilliant, especially the script and the nuanced acting by Ulrich M&uuml;he. This film would be amongst the top of any year's list Grindhouse: I'm referring, of course, to the theatrical release of this film. I say this because a lot of critics like to separate the two features and heap praise on Tarantino's Death Proof (which I'll grant, is probably the better of the two, if I were forced to chose), but to me, nothing beats the full experience of the theatrical version. It starts out with a hilarious "fake" trailer, then moves into Robert Rodriguez's Planet Terror, an over=the-top zombie action film done in true grindhouse style (missing reels and all). Following that we get three more absolutely brilliant fake trailers and Tarantino's wonderful Death Proof. The films are dark, they're edgy, and they're probably not for everyone. In attempting to emulate 70s grindhouse cinema, the filmmakers have lovingly reproduced the tropes, some of which may bother audiences (particularly the awkward pacing of both features, which is actuall brilliance in disguise). It's a crime that the theatrical version is not available on DVD. The double-billing was poorly advertised, so it looks like the studio opted to split the films up and give longer cuts of each their own DVD. Supposedly, a 6 disc boxed set containing everything is in the works. No Country for Old Men: The Coen brothers have outdone themselves. This is perhaps a boring pick, as this film is at or near the top of most top 10 lists, but that happened for a reason. It's a great damn film. Gorgeous photography, tension-filled action, and that rare brand of dark humor that the Coens are so good at. It also features the most memorable and terrifying villain in years. The ending is uncompromising and ambiguous (which may turn some viewers off), but I found it quite appropriate. Of all the films this year, this one is best made and most entertaining (if a little dark), a combo that's certainly difficult to pull off. Blatant link whoring: I have a whole slew of honorable mentions, and every year I do a set of awards at my blog, if you're interested... http://www.spout.com/blogs/atacta/archive/2008/11/28/37720.aspx Post By: atacta
Post To: atacta Blog
Post Date: 11/28/2008 4:10:27 PM
Body: Paul Verhoeven - 2006On the heels of Starship Troopers I ventured through this and it took me three nights to do so because of various distractions. My feelings are that this is certainly his premier film, his 6th feature after RoboCop (filmed in my home town of Dallas). It is interesting to see (and perhaps poll?) directors' finest efforts six to seven films in. Watch the "making of." Verhoeven has an irresistable love of the medium and the energy of a first time director.The female leads in the film are outstanding. Carice van Houten and Halina Reign brilliantly capture the desperate attempt to stay alive using sexuality and male manipulation. In this sense, Verhoeven gives Camille Paglia a run for her money and solidifies himself as a Dutch feminist.The production value of the second act is weak and is the only hint at the relatively small budget that Verhoeven had on the picture – it does play like a weak Sunday night television thriller.This stands among the best of Holocaust films. It is on par with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077025/ and better than Schindler’s List. Its a thiller that stands above all Verhoeven’s previous work. I think it’s the film that he was meant to make. Again, watch the "making of." His lead stars agree with me.**** / ***** Starship Troopers (1997) Robocop (1987)
]]>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:10:27 GMTatactaatacta Blog11/28/2008 4:10:27 PMPaul Verhoeven - 2006On the heels of Starship Troopers I ventured through this and it took me three nights to do so because of various distractions. My feelings are that this is certainly his premier film, his 6th feature after RoboCop (filmed in my home town of Dallas). It is interesting to see (and perhaps poll?) directors' finest efforts six to seven films in. Watch the "making of." Verhoeven has an irresistable love of the medium and the energy of a first time director.The female leads in the film are outstanding. Carice van Houten and Halina Reign brilliantly capture the desperate attempt to stay alive using sexuality and male manipulation. In this sense, Verhoeven gives Camille Paglia a run for her money and solidifies himself as a Dutch feminist.The production value of the second act is weak and is the only hint at the relatively small budget that Verhoeven had on the picture &ndash; it does play like a weak Sunday night television thriller.This stands among the best of Holocaust films. It is on par with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077025/ and better than Schindler&rsquo;s List. Its a thiller that stands above all Verhoeven&rsquo;s previous work. I think it&rsquo;s the film that he was meant to make. Again, watch the "making of." His lead stars agree with me.**** / ***** Starship Troopers (1997) Robocop (1987) http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2008/8/5/33581.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 8/5/2008 5:10:36 PM
Body: Black Book (2006) is in Dutch, German, English, Hebrew, and probably something else, so turn on the subtitles to follow this excellent WWII Dutch Resistance drama. Black Book is director Paul Verhoeven’s first major film since leaving Hollywood and his string of big budget entertainments. He seems to have put everything into this project. There is a palpable sense of being there more than 60 years ago, so I imagine the period detail is spot-on. Surprise follows surprise, a gripping experience that makes the 2-plus hours go fast. The surprises are not just plot twists, although there are plenty of those. The main character is not some heroic macho man and leader of the Dutch underground, but, surprise, a Jewish night-club singer, Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten), whose original desire was simply to escape. When she takes on the dangerous job of cozying up to an SS commander (Sebastian Koch), surprise, the chemistry between them is palpable and they fall for each other. Thank goodness the war will end soon, but, surprise, when Germany capitulates, things become worse for the lovers. And who in, or connected to, the Resistance has been, and maybe is, betraying his or her confederates? Some trustworthy film critics have given Black Book 3.5 out of 4 stars, which raises the question, “How could the movie have been better?” I’d like to mention three possibilities. First, the movie is framed by scenes from the present day. This removes some of the suspense because we know that Rachel survives and winds up on a kibbutz in Israel. On the other hand, the framing device has some advantages: It plants in our minds the amazing idea that the ordinary elementary school teacher (Rachel) we initially meet has a harrowing and extraordinary past, and it allows the movie a substantial concluding comment when we see the armed defences of the kibbutz half a century after WWII. Second, would a senior SS officer and a Jewish resistance worker actually fall in love? This is difficult to believe, but the film does a commendable job of making it plausible. The SS officer believes the war is lost and he mainly wants to stop the killing. He also longs to replace his wife and children killed in a bombing raid. For her part, Rachel had no interest in the Resistance until her family was killed and now, somewhat rudderless, she is open to trying nearly anything. The chemistry between the actors Koch and van Houten is intense, and it helps us believe in the implausible. Finally, when the traitor is disclosed, we’re surprised but wonder what his motivation was. Why go to all that trouble to betray people he knew and worked with? Why cozy up with the Nazis? This lack of motivation leaves one feeling like the screenwriter closed his eyes, spun around, pointed to someone, and cried, Guilty!. On the other hand, the film could not have developed the character’s motives extensively or else we would have figured out who dun it. But here are two possible solutions to this problem. For one, the film could have given just a hint or two about the character’s less than heroic nature. For example, the lawyer, who is a prime suspect as a traitor, early on tells Rachel that she should not be so trusting in such dangerous times. Throughout the movie you wonder if this was a slip that revealed his guilt. As another solution, the film could have developed the traitor’s character and motivation extensively, giving viewers a good chance to finger him as the culprit. When Rachael is dealing with him near the end of the movie, we would be shouting Watch out!
]]>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 21:10:36 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog8/5/2008 5:10:36 PMBlack Book (2006) is in Dutch, German, English, Hebrew, and probably something else, so turn on the subtitles to follow this excellent WWII Dutch Resistance drama. Black Book is director Paul Verhoeven&rsquo;s first major film since leaving Hollywood and his string of big budget entertainments. He seems to have put everything into this project. There is a palpable sense of being there more than 60 years ago, so I imagine the period detail is spot-on. Surprise follows surprise, a gripping experience that makes the 2-plus hours go fast. The surprises are not just plot twists, although there are plenty of those. The main character is not some heroic macho man and leader of the Dutch underground, but, surprise, a Jewish night-club singer, Rachel Stein (Carice van Houten), whose original desire was simply to escape. When she takes on the dangerous job of cozying up to an SS commander (Sebastian Koch), surprise, the chemistry between them is palpable and they fall for each other. Thank goodness the war will end soon, but, surprise, when Germany capitulates, things become worse for the lovers. And who in, or connected to, the Resistance has been, and maybe is, betraying his or her confederates? Some trustworthy film critics have given Black Book 3.5 out of 4 stars, which raises the question, &ldquo;How could the movie have been better?&rdquo; I&rsquo;d like to mention three possibilities. First, the movie is framed by scenes from the present day. This removes some of the suspense because we know that Rachel survives and winds up on a kibbutz in Israel. On the other hand, the framing device has some advantages: It plants in our minds the amazing idea that the ordinary elementary school teacher (Rachel) we initially meet has a harrowing and extraordinary past, and it allows the movie a substantial concluding comment when we see the armed defences of the kibbutz half a century after WWII. Second, would a senior SS officer and a Jewish resistance worker actually fall in love? This is difficult to believe, but the film does a commendable job of making it plausible. The SS officer believes the war is lost and he mainly wants to stop the killing. He also longs to replace his wife and children killed in a bombing raid. For her part, Rachel had no interest in the Resistance until her family was killed and now, somewhat rudderless, she is open to trying nearly anything. The chemistry between the actors Koch and van Houten is intense, and it helps us believe in the implausible. Finally, when the traitor is disclosed, we&rsquo;re surprised but wonder what his motivation was. Why go to all that trouble to betray people he knew and worked with? Why cozy up with the Nazis? This lack of motivation leaves one feeling like the screenwriter closed his eyes, spun around, pointed to someone, and cried, Guilty!. On the other hand, the film could not have developed the character&rsquo;s motives extensively or else we would have figured out who dun it. But here are two possible solutions to this problem. For one, the film could have given just a hint or two about the character&rsquo;s less than heroic nature. For example, the lawyer, who is a prime suspect as a traitor, early on tells Rachel that she should not be so trusting in such dangerous times. Throughout the movie you wonder if this was a slip that revealed his guilt. As another solution, the film could have developed the traitor&rsquo;s character and motivation extensively, giving viewers a good chance to finger him as the culprit. When Rachael is dealing with him near the end of the movie, we would be shouting Watch out! http://www.spout.com/blogs/erico_77375/archive/2007/11/30/22389.aspx Post By: erico_77375
Post To: erico_77375 Blog
Post Date: 11/30/2007 1:02:41 AM
Body: What can I say; Paul Verhooven has proven me wrong. How, you may ask? Because he’s probably the only director with enough guts to make this kind of film. And in doing so has shown that he commands cinema like a fierce conductor; without fear or limit. I had to remind myself that this is the man behind Basic Instinct, Hollow Man, and Showgirls. He has also done RoboCop, Total Recall, and The 4th Victim, which were not bad. But nothing prepared me for Black Book, an absolutely brilliant film that dares us to hold on for dear life and gives us a story that challenges as well as entertains.The film starts off in the 50s in a small town in Israel. A bus full of Dutch tourists stop for a quick spell. A woman from that group recognizes a woman who lives there. It turns out they knew each other from The War. The rest of the film is in flashback to the war, but this scene is important for several reasons, the biggest is to assure the audience that no matter what happens in the film, these two women will survive. That is something that we’ll need to know later on. Then we are taken back to 1945, it’s near the end of the war and Holland’s Jews are holding their breaths waiting for word about the Allies. Amongst those is Rachel played by Carice van Houten. She’s the daughter of a rich Jew who has taken up residence in a house full of Christians. To eat, she has to memorize a verse from the bible. She tries to keep her neck down and not cause attention to be drawn on her. But when a stray bomb kills the family she is staying with, she is forced into making a run for it. Her family’s lawyer sets her and her family up to be taken to neutral territory, but are discovered enroute. The boat’s cargo are all killed, except for her. She slips off the boat and watches as the Nazis plunder the dead Jews. Infuriated, she decides to join a radical resistance movement whose intent is to infiltrate the Nazi headquarters. During a standard mission, Rachel finds herself cornered with the Nazi commander himself. Not knowing she’s a Jew, he starts hitting on her. When the resistance sees an opportunity in this, they order her to be his mistress in order to but the headquarters. She does so, but in the process, she finds herself starting to become attracted to him. But when circumstances has some of her comrades arrested for gun smuggling, events lead her to being considered a double-crosser on both sides, and her lover to be a Jew sympathizer (which it turns out that he really is in a way). And that’s when the war ends and the real trouble begin.Black Book is a Hitchcock thriller that Hitchcock would have been afraid to tell. It’s willing to look at Nazis objectively without the automatic stamp of evil. The film that came closest to attempting this was Wolfgang Peterson’s brilliant Das Boot. Not to say that Nazis are good, but we are given a Nazi that is disillusioned by the rhetoric, who knows that Germany cannot win and only wants to do his part to end things with the least amount of bloodshed. Is it possible that a high-ranking Nazi would be like this? Yes, but highly unlikely. But the film isn’t trying for historical accuracy as it is about these two people put in the worst-case scenario imaginable. This isn’t a film out to stir controversy, but entertain with its superior storytelling and incredible performances.The film lives or dies on Ms. Van Houten’s performance, which she gives in spades. The character is juicy enough to begin with considering that she’s caught between two very delicate forces that could crush her if she’s not careful. Watch as she plays the parts asked of her from both sides, and yet she never turns into the people she’s portraying, but still being affected by the consequences. Take the scene where she gets involved in a botched murder plotBut the real star is Paul Verhooven, who shows mastery in this film that I didn’t think he had in him. His shots are beautiful, well composed and extremely well blocked. This filmmaker has been better known by his exploitations than his skill, and while there is a urination scene that some might see as going too far, I don’t because it is meant to get you behind a character instead of punishing them. Later this year, Ang Lee’s Lust, Caution took a swipe at the same idea and came off hollow.All in all, this is a great thriller worthy of your attention. And it just goes to show that some directors have hidden resources that just need the right conditions to bloom (Eli Roth, I’m looking at you). But the problem is that Verhooven is now playing at a different level now and cannot creep down to his usual gutter any more. And for a quick moment, I find that to be sad. But then I pinch myself and rejoice for one of the best thrillers ever filmed.
]]>Fri, 30 Nov 2007 06:02:41 GMTerico_77375erico_77375 Blog11/30/2007 1:02:41 AMWhat can I say; Paul Verhooven has proven me wrong. How, you may ask? Because he&rsquo;s probably the only director with enough guts to make this kind of film. And in doing so has shown that he commands cinema like a fierce conductor; without fear or limit. I had to remind myself that this is the man behind Basic Instinct, Hollow Man, and Showgirls. He has also done RoboCop, Total Recall, and The 4th Victim, which were not bad. But nothing prepared me for Black Book, an absolutely brilliant film that dares us to hold on for dear life and gives us a story that challenges as well as entertains.The film starts off in the 50s in a small town in Israel. A bus full of Dutch tourists stop for a quick spell. A woman from that group recognizes a woman who lives there. It turns out they knew each other from The War. The rest of the film is in flashback to the war, but this scene is important for several reasons, the biggest is to assure the audience that no matter what happens in the film, these two women will survive. That is something that we&rsquo;ll need to know later on. Then we are taken back to 1945, it&rsquo;s near the end of the war and Holland&rsquo;s Jews are holding their breaths waiting for word about the Allies. Amongst those is Rachel played by Carice van Houten. She&rsquo;s the daughter of a rich Jew who has taken up residence in a house full of Christians. To eat, she has to memorize a verse from the bible. She tries to keep her neck down and not cause attention to be drawn on her. But when a stray bomb kills the family she is staying with, she is forced into making a run for it. Her family&rsquo;s lawyer sets her and her family up to be taken to neutral territory, but are discovered enroute. The boat&rsquo;s cargo are all killed, except for her. She slips off the boat and watches as the Nazis plunder the dead Jews. Infuriated, she decides to join a radical resistance movement whose intent is to infiltrate the Nazi headquarters. During a standard mission, Rachel finds herself cornered with the Nazi commander himself. Not knowing she&rsquo;s a Jew, he starts hitting on her. When the resistance sees an opportunity in this, they order her to be his mistress in order to but the headquarters. She does so, but in the process, she finds herself starting to become attracted to him. But when circumstances has some of her comrades arrested for gun smuggling, events lead her to being considered a double-crosser on both sides, and her lover to be a Jew sympathizer (which it turns out that he really is in a way). And that&rsquo;s when the war ends and the real trouble begin.Black Book is a Hitchcock thriller that Hitchcock would have been afraid to tell. It&rsquo;s willing to look at Nazis objectively without the automatic stamp of evil. The film that came closest to attempting this was Wolfgang Peterson&rsquo;s brilliant Das Boot. Not to say that Nazis are good, but we are given a Nazi that is disillusioned by the rhetoric, who knows that Germany cannot win and only wants to do his part to end things with the least amount of bloodshed. Is it possible that a high-ranking Nazi would be like this? Yes, but highly unlikely. But the film isn&rsquo;t trying for historical accuracy as it is about these two people put in the worst-case scenario imaginable. This isn&rsquo;t a film out to stir controversy, but entertain with its superior storytelling and incredible performances.The film lives or dies on Ms. Van Houten&rsquo;s performance, which she gives in spades. The character is juicy enough to begin with considering that she&rsquo;s caught between two very delicate forces that could crush her if she&rsquo;s not careful. Watch as she plays the parts asked of her from both sides, and yet she never turns into the people she&rsquo;s portraying, but still being affected by the consequences. Take the scene where she gets involved in a botched murder plotBut the real star is Paul Verhooven, who shows mastery in this film that I didn&rsquo;t think he had in him. His shots are beautiful, well composed and extremely well blocked. This filmmaker has been better known by his exploitations than his skill, and while there is a urination scene that some might see as going too far, I don&rsquo;t because it is meant to get you behind a character instead of punishing them. Later this year, Ang Lee&rsquo;s Lust, Caution took a swipe at the same idea and came off hollow.All in all, this is a great thriller worthy of your attention. And it just goes to show that some directors have hidden resources that just need the right conditions to bloom (Eli Roth, I&rsquo;m looking at you). But the problem is that Verhooven is now playing at a different level now and cannot creep down to his usual gutter any more. And for a quick moment, I find that to be sad. But then I pinch myself and rejoice for one of the best thrillers ever filmed. http://www.spout.com/blogs/windbreaker/archive/2007/11/26/22213.aspx Post By: Windbreaker
Post To: Windbreaker!
Post Date: 11/26/2007 8:02:23 PM
Body: 7/10. To me, 8+ would qualify for "loved it". I like Paul Verhoeven, and I root for him to make quality films. He doesn't always make a great flick, but he often has flashes of greatness. Total Recall & Robocop are required viewing for any sci-fi fan, but obviously not in the same filmmaking universe as Black Book. Basic Instinct was a very good murder mystery that comes closest in feel to BB -- its moral ambiguity and passion (both good and evil) are central themes.Calling BB an epic is a stretch for me, unless you're just referring to the 2 1/2 hour running time. An epic is a movie that successfully captures viewers for the duration of a journey, while richly establishing characters. I thought the characters were rich and the acting superb, but the story let me down just a smidge. I'd definitely recommend it for the non-squeamish, but I'm not buying it. Don't take my squeamish warning lightly! There are a few brutal scenes in here.
]]>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:02:23 GMTWindbreakerWindbreaker!11/26/2007 8:02:23 PM7/10. To me, 8+ would qualify for &quot;loved it&quot;. I like Paul Verhoeven, and I root for him to make quality films. He doesn&#39;t always make a great flick, but he often has flashes of greatness. Total Recall &amp; Robocop are required viewing for any sci-fi fan, but obviously not in the same filmmaking universe as Black Book. Basic Instinct was a very good murder mystery that comes closest in feel to BB -- its moral ambiguity and passion (both good and evil) are central themes.Calling BB an epic is a stretch for me, unless you&#39;re just referring to the 2 1/2 hour running time. An epic is a movie that successfully captures viewers for the duration of a journey, while richly establishing characters. I thought the characters were rich and the acting superb, but the story let me down just a smidge. I&#39;d definitely recommend it for the non-squeamish, but I&#39;m not buying it. Don&#39;t take my squeamish warning lightly! There are a few brutal scenes in here. http://www.spout.com/blogs/wonga/archive/2007/6/11/10786.aspx Post By: wonga
Post To: wonga's filmblog
Post Date: 6/11/2007 5:15:48 PM
Body: this story about a beautiful Dutch/Jewish woman who joins the Resistance during WW II is exciting and very entertaining but i've seen it compared to Schindler's List and that is stretching it a little! it's pretty much a slick soap-operish movie using the war as a backdrop and i thought it had a few too many twists and double-crosses to be credible. i loved the Nazi hunk who she falls for but, although i was willing to go with the flow, that whole storyline really was impossible. maybe if he was just a German officer, but the head of the Gestapo? i don't think so! anyway, Carice VanHouten and Sebastian Koch were wonderful and i'm looking forward to seeing them in the future (i agree she'd be a great Bond girl)!
]]>Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:15:48 GMTwongawonga's filmblog6/11/2007 5:15:48 PMthis story about a beautiful Dutch/Jewish woman who joins the Resistance during WW II is exciting and very entertaining but i&#39;ve seen it compared to Schindler&#39;s List and that is stretching it a little! it&#39;s pretty much a slick soap-operish movie using the war as a backdrop and i thought it had a few too many twists and double-crosses to be credible. i loved the Nazi hunk who she falls for but, although i was willing to go with the flow, that whole storyline really was impossible. maybe if he was just a German officer, but the head of the Gestapo? i don&#39;t think so! anyway, Carice VanHouten and Sebastian Koch were wonderful and i&#39;m looking forward to seeing them in the future (i agree she&#39;d be a great Bond girl)! http://www.spout.com/blogs/abigail/archive/2007/5/22/9196.aspx Post By: abigail
Post To: abigail Blog
Post Date: 5/22/2007 9:43:40 PM
Body: You have to marvel at a movie that has you rooting for the beautiful Jewish girl to run away with the nice SS officer. Black Book is exciting from beginning to end, and Carice van Houten is mesmerizing. Even though it has caused controversy, I appreciated the fact that the movie presented a grey morality for both the Nazis and the Resistance. The ending was a punch that I did not expect.
]]>Wed, 23 May 2007 01:43:40 GMTabigailabigail Blog5/22/2007 9:43:40 PMYou have to marvel at a movie that has you rooting for the beautiful Jewish girl to run away with the nice SS officer. Black Book is exciting from beginning to end, and Carice van Houten is mesmerizing. Even though it has caused controversy, I appreciated the fact that the movie presented a grey morality for both the Nazis and the Resistance. The ending was a punch that I did not expect. http://www.spout.com/blogs/rossmg7/archive/2007/4/29/7817.aspx Post By: rossmg7
Post To: rossmg7 Blog
Post Date: 4/29/2007 3:09:25 AM
Body: This movie is great. It is the story of a Dutch Jewish girl surviving in Holland in 1944. She joins the resistance in an effort to find out who killed her family. The acting is great, it's sexy, and it's absolutely riveting. I would highly recommend seeing it.
]]>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 07:09:25 GMTrossmg7rossmg7 Blog4/29/2007 3:09:25 AMThis movie is great. It is the story of a Dutch Jewish girl surviving in Holland in 1944. She joins the resistance in an effort to find out who killed her family. The acting is great, it&#39;s sexy, and it&#39;s absolutely riveting. I would highly recommend seeing it. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/it/MemberTagFilms.aspxit
Number of films tagged: 101

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 117

]]>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 12:42:42 GMT101106117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/betrayal/MemberTagFilms.aspxbetrayal
Number of films tagged: 1035

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 154

]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:28:04 GMT103562154Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/loved/MemberTagFilms.aspxloved
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 36

]]>Mon, 22 Dec 2008 23:02:53 GMT303136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intriguing/MemberTagFilms.aspxintriguing
Number of films tagged: 14

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 22

]]>Thu, 30 Oct 2008 22:29:21 GMT142122Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intelligent/MemberTagFilms.aspxintelligent
Number of films tagged: 99

Number of people who tagged: 19

Number of times used: 25

]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:04:07 GMT991925Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/resistance/MemberTagFilms.aspxresistance
Number of films tagged: 444

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 12

]]>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:42:55 GMT4441012Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/nazism/MemberTagFilms.aspxnazism
Number of films tagged: 894

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 10

]]>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:02:21 GMT894910Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/falseaccusation/MemberTagFilms.aspxfalseaccusation
Number of films tagged: 2361

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 10

]]>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 13:02:37 GMT2361810Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/packed/MemberTagFilms.aspxpacked
Number of films tagged: 6

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 7

]]>Tue, 20 May 2008 17:51:21 GMT667Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fully/MemberTagFilms.aspxfully
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:14:39 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/holland/MemberTagFilms.aspxholland
Number of films tagged: 60

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Wed, 07 May 2008 04:54:53 GMT6011Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/storyline/MemberTagFilms.aspxstoryline
Number of films tagged: 1

Number of people who tagged: 1

Number of times used: 1

]]>Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:14:39 GMT111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/occupation-military/MemberTagFilms.aspxoccupation-military
Number of films tagged: 242

Number of people who tagged: 0

Number of times used: 0

]]>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:01:54 GMT24200Tag