King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

King of Kong is a testament to really film in general, in that you can make any story fascinating no matter what it is about. The film focuses on two men playing for the high score of Donkey Kong, that's it, and it couldn't be more entertaining. Now again this is in the whole lies of the documentary form, which I'm not going to get into again here. It is once more though this brilliant construction of a story, worthy of a fictional narrative (which in some ways it is), of a classic underdog story. We follow the outside average man Steve Wiebe as he tries to get his high score against the villainous Billy Mitchell, who seems to even dress to play the part of an villain of an 80's sports movie, who holds sway among the top brass of the video high score community known as Twin Galaxies. That all sounds potentially ridiculous, and perhaps it is, but what a compelling story it tells as the film not only crafts so well this rivalry of personalities through game playing, but also in its vibrant exploration of the world that surrounds that rather specific obsession. The film works as it really paints itself mostly with this broader stroke of the "inspirational sports movie" right down to the musical motifs it uses, however it does balance itself well by garnering enough substance within the pointed interviews, or in Billy Mitchell's case villainous monologues. Is this film all true, hardly, it is a crafted narrative just as a film is, however as a crafted narrative it is a wildly entertaining and interesting one.
5/5

Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse

Francis Ford Coppola made four masterpieces in a row in the 70's, three of which are cultural touchstones even beyond the limits of cinema. The greatest of those, in my humble opinion, being his final film in the Vietnam war epic Apocalypse Now. A film less about the war in a political or social sense, but rather the madness within man illustrated through war. This was Coppola greatest undertaken in the decade, and he never made another masterpiece, this documentary perhaps tells you why that is, and perhaps also why so many the firebrand directors that came to prominence had some strange moment of clarity all around the same time near the end of the decade. This is not the simple story of a the making of a film, even if it is that, but rather an examination of what it would taken to even endeavor to create a film as ambitious as Apocalypse Now. We see Coppola who is a mad man, here, a mad genius perhaps, but also an exasperated craftsman driven to that madness by his own ambition and the madness needed to fulfill it. Apocalypse Now is not a typical film, and its production matches this which this film examines in particularly intimate detail, as found through footage shot by Coppola's wife, Eleanor. The documentary is fascinating not only in that detail, but as a juxtaposition to the film being made. Much like Willard, Coppola struggles within the jungle attempting to discover meaning, and perhaps like Kurtz tries to wield the elements themselves towards his mad vision. No single person is so simple even beyond Coppola from poor Martin Sheen who suffered a heart attack that Coppola covered up in shooting, the egomaniac that was Marlon Brando, or even Dennis Hopper who once again is a few scenes wonder but now as a man who is perhaps mad enough to be on the wavelength as the production of the film. It is unlikely a film like Apocalypse Now, and this is in many ways an explanation of why. As it not only captures the extremes of the conditions, the struggle, the personalities in terms of hardship, but also the extremes in terms of the daring to take such a excursion. 
5/5

O.J. Made in America

O.J. Made in America is a brilliant documentary that was released the same year as American Crime Story: The People Vs O.J. I ponder how the series plays after the documentary, but I only can present my perspective of watching the documentary after the series. Even with this view I can clearly say the greater of the two is the documentary which is more insightful, as to be expected, but is also just as effective in terms of capturing the sheer flamboyance of the titular subject as well as the various characters in and around his trial. The series one could almost describe as "How was he found not guilty", as it carefully examines both the man's life and the racial tensions of L.A. parallel to one another though it carefully, and rather notably shows they do not intersect until the trial where it was so carefully used by Simpson's defense. The trial that was made a circus by the defense team, as well as several other figures, but the defense used constantly to its advantage. Its parallel examination successfully reveals, in such powerful detail, how this led to a rather tragic miscarriage of justice as a by product of festering wounds that it illustrates through its brilliant editing of the past footage along with some particularly remarkable interviews with key subjects at every phase of Simpson's life other than Simpson himself of course. Beyond that though the documentary also does document essentially this grotesque abomination of a celebrity that Simpson becomes. The culmination of that technically within the trial, however unlike the fictionalized series the documentary continues past that point. The last episode focusing on Simpson in exile, caused by the guilty verdict in his civil lawsuit, that leads to a darkly comic epilogue, you'd almost had expected them to want to adapt in a dramatic series. The depiction of Simpson's second crime, only using interviews and security footage, you'd think was out of a comedy as it depicts Simpson and his makeshift gang trying to "steal back" his old property. Where this series is so great is that it makes every facet of the life depicted, and of the city that ends up being behind him, endlessly fascinating as every single small detail contains some strange, if not often rather morbid value in giving a full portrait of this man "made in America".
5/5

The Jinx

The Jinx is in many ways a rather weird result of the rather underwhelming fictionalized depiction of the story of Robert Durst All Good Things. A film that found no real insight into the story, and offered a seemingly pointless summation of essentially his Wikipedia page. That film though, which Durst himself apparently enjoyed which says a whole lot, prompted Durst to contact that film's director Andrew Jarecki to offer himself up for the very rare interview. This in turn created a documentary and essentially the second chance for the same director to tell the same story, but now with the words of the subject himself at the forefront. Well what's the difference? Everything. Where the fictional film seemingly had nothing to say The Jinx is an endlessly fascinating examination of a man, and deconstruction of the crimes scenes that followed wherever he went. The series has become known for its unbelievable capture of seeming accidental confession, which is undoubtedly an unforgettable conclusion, however the entire series is the compelling and chilling exploration of it central figure. The idea though is less to show the man's guilt as a possibility, but rather explore that he clearly is guilty, since he clearly is guilty. It never explicitly states this, except the man himself stating the fact, and examines the torrid web of insanity the man's life touches. That includes the missing women, the bizarre and painful childhood of the man, his detachment yet connect to the affluent society of New York, the trial where jurors can accept him as someone who dismembers but somehow is not a murderer, the strange clue of a miss spelling, every facet is indeed worthy of the old stranger than fiction description. What is so remarkable of it all is the detail found through each episode as it unravels this mystery that only becomes all the more of oddity the more you learn from it, with the greatest oddity being at the center as essentially this serial killer who regales you his story in such affable yet unnerving way.
5/5

Grizzly Man

Well I'll take this as a chance really just to throw my thoughts on the documentary form itself, which I do believe can't quite be examined as just any old film. A documentary alleges a strict honesty from its name, and its suggest that all that you are seeing is truth. The truth of that is however false. In fact documentaries, due to that very idea, are quite often the least honest of all forms of film. A fictional film, even a based on a true story film, have aspects that already inform the viewer that at the very least this is "not real", whereas a documentary it is said to be all true. It is of course not as most documentaries, at least most of the truly effective ones in terms of being a film, craft their own narratives in the documentary form that will often require more tweaking of the truth than your typical biopic. Again though the key difference here is this claims all to be true. Although this approach, which I actually think one could legitimately could argue is in some ways immoral, usually results in what are seen as the best documentaries, because they are the best films. A film after all is not an information dump it is meant to be an experience. An notable filmmaker in this genre than is Werner Herzog who notably directs both documentaries, and fictional features. His documentaries are notable though as he uses himself as a character in a way, sometimes quite literally on screen, but always as the narrator. This changes his films, and grants his documentaries their own compelling idiosyncrasy. There is perhaps no greater example of this than in Grizzly Man where Herzog follows the story of a nature enthusiast Timothy Treadwell who spent his time in the wilderness literally talking to bears where he was eventually eaten by one. This examination is a requiem by Herzog who strongly contrasts Treadwell as a man with a troubled and pessimistic view of nature. This offers a strange but truly striking insight as Herzog traces the man's life, and his steps, inter spliced with footage shot of the real man among nature. It is a striking juxtaposition with sentiment and values of the documentarian and his subject. As always for Herzog he looks at a man living in an extreme, he neither wholly condemns nor condones. He allows one to see the foolish endeavor, and perhaps the fool who did it, but not without a certain sympathy for the mere idea of a human curiosity, or intention not matter how it is spent.
5/5

Creed

Creed is perhaps the proof needed to cement Rocky as an illogical franchise in some ways, but also one of, if not the, greatest. The idea of making a seventh film, to continue the story through the son of Apollo Creed could have been, and probably would have been a disaster in the making in most hands. Writer/director Ryan Coogler though manages to not only breath life, perhaps his greatest life, into the character of Rocky played at his very best by Sylvester Stallone here, but also infuse the franchise with a brand new energy through Michael B. Jordan's Adonis "Creed" Johnson. As is so often is the case it is all in the execution. Although it is true that Creed hits some familiar beats it manages to do them in a new way. This isn't merely in terms of fight chorography, cinematography and the direction in general, although that certainly is part of it, but also through the unique, and wholly new examination of Adonis's story of trying to both live up to, and live past his famous name. This combined with also interacting with the aging Rocky delivers a particularly powerful return the idea of Rocky that breaks new ground, but also uses what is already there to craft a rather special return to the underdog. It is the best Rocky film since the original, and I'd almost go further, however unlike the original Rocky that brought us Apollo, the opponent, and some of the other supporting characters are not nearly as rich as they were Rocky. It still stands as quite the achievement as is, and suggests that perhaps with enough talent there are few truly bad ideas for films.
4.5/5

Kingdom of Heaven

Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven, the director's cut anyways, is the director's return once again to attempting to re-create the epics of old, something he did not achieve in his Christopher Columbus biopic, but did so with Gladiator. In many ways Kingdom of Heaven is more ambitious than that film though they are certainly both technical marvels. Kingdom perhaps is even more so in that department even. The story though is where the real ambition is in attempting to create a real complexity within the world of crusades. Although there are battles to be sure, the film pays careful mind to create a sense of the various political figures within the realm, and grants perspectives in to not only both sides of the conflict but also the various figures therein. The supporting character and rich, and make up the world well, creating this fuller tapestry, which is also aided by the strong performances behind the characters...for the most part. Now one element though that cannot be salvaged within any cut of the film is in the central figure Balian who is there to give us insight into the journey of a crusader. This is sadly lost through Orlando Bloom's lead performance. Bloom honestly is better here than many of his performances, however the role requires more than just a serviceable leading turn. Balian should drive the film far more than he does because he is made so emotionally flat by Bloom. The idea of the original fuel for the man, his wife's suicide, the murder of his half-brother, the attempt to find his estranged father, the chance for redemption all seem somewhat indifferent elements within Bloom's work, yet could have been captivating in a more capable actor's hand. There is not emotional thrust within his performance, despite Balian having that potential as written, leaving a key factor missing from the film through our hero's journey. The film's other elements though are thankfully strong enough to make up for that lacking element. It does prevent the film from becoming a masterpiece though it remains a considerable achievement.
4.5/5

Rocky Balboa

Rocky Balboa was apparently made by Stallone to essentially fix the mistake that was Rocky V, which did not leave the series on a high note. That is a most understandable endeavor and continues the Stallone/Rocky narrative as both Rocky and Stallone attempt to make a later in life comeback through this film. Now this film is the far more successful return to the style of the original Rocky than was Rocky V. It has a lot more honesty, a lot more heart, and a lot more proper affection for the original than was found in that film. This film though on the whole very much feels like just a tender epilogue to the other films. Everything about it is very quiet, subdued and to the point. Fitting to age I suppose as even the traditional montage and training sequence is pretty low key. It is all more than effective though in this rather calm approach right down to the emotional beats, which again are pretty subdued yet entirely work for an aged man who has come to terms with his life. This approach I will say limits the film from ever becoming anything too notable, but it also keeps it on solid ground throughout. This to the point that even the pro boxer who plays the opponent is just fine, since Stallone purposefully doesn't stress his acting abilities much. Nothing about the film is up to the best of Rocky, but it works as just a fond trip down memory lane.
3.5/5

Rocky V

Rocky V represents the sad nadir of the Rocky franchise, fittingly the film also coming in a low point in Stallone's own career with both Rocky and Stallone being far from their spotlight. Strangely the film features the return of John G. Alvidsen to the director's chair but that only plays into the abomination that is this film. This film is a bizarre chimera as it attempts to return Rocky to his working class Philadelphia roots in a grounded film yet somehow never lost the ridiculousness of 3 and 4. It's a horrendous mix of the two sides of the franchise. The thing is the film is not bereft of interesting ideas Rocky dealing with post-fame theoretically could have potential, Rocky training a new fighter could be intriguing, Rocky trying to help his son dealing with his father's fame could be something. I mean these sort of would be something in the later two sequels, but not here in this film. It takes all these concepts and runs them through the film's odd tone that dilutes it to a whole lot of nonsense. Whether this is Stallone taking the idea of Rocky's brain damage a little to heart in his performance, the character of the new fighter Tommy Gunn being terribly performed and written, even something as simple as its horrible remix of the main theme featured in the final fight. The film is just a mess with no cohesion as it is too silly to be a serious re-examination of the character, but it takes itself far too seriously to just be some fun. It is tone deaf throughout with the only bits of anything worthwhile being Richard Grant as Don Kingalike George Washington Duke just because he's so over the top, or the flashbacks involving Burgess Meredith who stayed consistent as Mickey even post-death of the character. Although even those elements are problematic in some way as Mickey's speeches hardly reflect the nature of the character we knew in the previous films. Although even if you allow those elements to be considered "good" they make up very little of the film, leaving just the awkward mess that is the rest of the film.
1.5/5

Rocky IV

Rocky IV is a fascinating film to examine given the way an altered perspective through time can mean so much. In contemporary reviews the film was mostly derided and received several Razzie nominations for its name. Today though it has far more than a cult following as it fortified itself well into pulp culture, and not as a bad film. It instead has become this embodiment of the 80's specifically the idea of an American exceptionalism where a single man can not only single handedly defeat the will of the Soviet Union not through war rather fighting a single foe, and delivering a speech that defies explanation. Now in a contemporary view of the time this may have seen ridiculous however looking at the film as an artifact of the Reagan era 80's it is a different kind of ridiculous. The film takes Rocky even further into the absurd from the 3rd film. The thing is this is never problematic despite how different is from the first film because of how wholly it embraces this idea. This puts forth the idea from the outset with the film basically opening with Rocky having bought his brother-in-law Paulie a robot for his birthday. The film simply is not hiding this there, or in any facet as Stallone directs the film with all the gusto of this over the top exercise in the realization of Rocky as this titan facing down the foreign dragon, here aptly named DRAGO, rather than the Philadelphia brawler we met in the first film. The key is the sheer embracement of this excess idea in every regard as the film is more montage than man now, with well most of the film being made up of montages to lead Rocky to avenge his friend Apollo and perhaps save the world entire. The film does not hide in its ridiculousness it relishes it and in turn is a wildly entertaining realization of the film that could have only been made in 1985. There is a reason it has cemented a place in pop culture almost as strongly as the original film and that's because what it does it does well. Now that may seem silly or illogical, but boy is it so much fun in all its silliness and all of its lack of any normal sense.
4/5

Rocky III

Rocky III once again is a strong representation of Stallone himself as his fame rose so did the ridiculousness of some of his prospects. Rocky III is the first step in a most curious transition for the series, a transition that somehow the series successfully performs, as the series moves away from the harsher realities of the first film to become more of well a bit of cartoon. Now Rocky III's leap is a bit lighter in this step than its sequel, but hey you have to lead to that. As now instead of a charismatic three dimensional opponent of Apollo Creed we get Mr. T's absurd, yet enjoyable so, monster man Clubber Lang who solely seems to exist in order to destroy Rocky and call him a "sucka". Rocky in his spare time wrestles with Thunder Lips and gets giant statues of himself. There is still some reality to this series here, anchors for the film in the final scenes of Burgess Meredith's Mickey and still in the character of Apollo Creed. Rocky's emotional journey still exists but now it is far more operatic in tone in his major declarations, and his sunset runs along the beach with Apollo in order to perfect himself to fight his physically realized demon. I would be lying if I didn't say it kind of works. In fact it is a whole lot of fun, if not even occasionally rather emotional. Not only that it introduced all to the "Eye of the Tiger" a song that successfully primes one for action almost as well as "Gonna Fly Now". It is a major change, but you know you have to change with sequels. This film successfully does so. Is it a bit silly yes, but the entertainment value more than makes up for that.
3.5/5

Rocky II

Rocky II is perhaps the least talked about Rocky sequel, as it is the one that is technically another one right down to Rocky fighting the same exact opponent. The film really shouldn't have much to offer yet it works as a follow up the original even if it does not reinvent the wheel. It instead takes a mostly natural exploration into what it would be for Rocky to continue his life after that 15 minutes of fame, with the only conceit being that he's given a second chance even though he was all washed up in the original film. It's easy enough to forget that conceit as Stallone's first effort as a director as the character is an interesting one as it naturally evolves the characters rather than sending them back to square one as too many sequels do. We get more of Rocky and Adrian's relationship in a believable way, Rocky and Mickey continue their contentious friendship as one should expect, Rocky bungles his fame as he probably would. Interestingly enough it also once again realizes a stage in Stallone's career, seemingly accidentally this time, as Rocky's dumb commercials are pretty good representation of Stallone's less prestigious offerings post-Rocky. It works in these further explorations to the point that most of it doesn't feel at all repetitive. Now what's remarkable though is the two major repeats of the film, the fight and the montage, actually do work as Stallone successfully ups the ante in both. Now a whole crowd runs with Rocky up the steps in victory, perhaps a bit much, but hey it somehow works. The fight itself though is a major upgrade over the original fight as it gets in far greater detail of the match, and is captivating in is realization of every round. This doesn't reinvent the wheel of Rocky, boy if it isn't an enjoyable spin.
4/5

Rocky

The first Rocky is the film that started it all, but in reality it was just a very small film that managed to be a cinematic representation of the story of Chuck Wepner, who almost went the distance with Muhammad Ali, and Sylvester Stallone himself who so believed in himself he essentially became a movie star/leading man through his own sheer will. Well his own sheer will and the fantastic screenplay he wrote that was so highly sought afterwards he was able to negotiate for himself to star in the project, which would sound nonsensical in most circumstances. Stallone though so believed in himself though that he managed to star in the film and lead to everlasting fame. The film was a true underdog story for Stallone, right down to his Oscar nominations yet not wins much like how Rocky did not win the belt, yet his dream was certainly achieved. The film of course works so well beyond just that extra undercurrent that does seem to grant all the more substance to the film. It's a great story written brilliantly by Stallone. The fight itself is great of course, but what's so marvelous is everything in and around it. There is the sweet love story between Rocky and Adrian which one could call one of the all time greats in that regard. There's the portrait of the working class part of Philadelphia that is realized with both the right amount of grit and character, I have particularly affection for good natured loan shark played by Joe Spinell. It's notable how much it gives to even the most minor character, and roles that in most sports movie would be unremarkable. Apollo Creed is the all time great opponent in any sports film as he's not a villain, but a fully realized man that as written, along with Carl Weathers's brilliant performance, could've frankly had his own film. The heart of the film though is Rocky which offers a balance between inspiration and darkness actually as it doesn't hold back in depicting his anger in the world, particularly in his contentions relationship with his eventual manager Mickey played by Burgess Meredith, yet this makes the power of his final personal victory all the more powerful. Although some film snobs of today turn their noses at its Oscar win, due to the films it beat, the film stands as a profound cinematic effort that has stood the test of time, and also has perhaps the most invigorating film score ever written.
5/5

Pan's Labyrinth

Pan's Labyrinth is Guillermo Del Toro's film about a little girl Ofelia who discovers a mysterious world during the Spanish civil war. Del Toro is a visionary director in terms of the visually fascinating worlds he creates and his attention to detail in creating notable visual effects. What he's not very capable of though is even an ounce of subtlety. He prefer his archetypes in general making something a little problematic in using the Spanish Civil War as a staging for his film, as that war was anything but a good vs evil affair. This approach though is more problematic than simplicity of history though through his realization of the character of Captain Vidal the merciless step father of the little girl. The character has little to no nuance with his opening scene of greeting his new family begins with him admonishing Ofelia for merely trying to shake with the wrong hand. Having this pure evil force could not be a terrible problem for a fantastical film however the real problem for Del Toro is his failure in when he attempts nuance. With the Captain we have the story of his father's watch that stopped when his father died. This is given much importance, and time within the film yet only ever feels like a vague attempt to offer some substance to the broad stroke character. Del Toro is frankly best when he just embraces his broad strokes since he struggles with anything else. In turn his best scenes are of the fantasy world with the dark monstrous creatures Ofelia must face in order to claim her place on an otherworldly throne. These scenes are the best within the film as they are always imaginative in their staging and direction by Del Toro. That is not to say they are completely without some minor frustrations, namely Ofelia tasting a forbidden grape only in order to awaken a girl eating monster and the only reason she seems to this is to make the scene happen. The scenes in "reality" have a certain visceral effectiveness as the Captain hunts down the men on the opposing side in the woods however they are rather repetitive in this. The reason for the repetition though being the failure to find any nuance by Del Toro. This side somewhat works still through his broader style, but there is something lacking in the combination of two as Del Toro presents both in the same simple fashion. This in no way leads to a bad film at any point really, however its ambition seems greater than its achievement in the end.
4/5

The Lives of Others

The Lives Of Others received a little bit of criticism due to the fictional nature of its story, although this of course ignores the fact that the film never claims to be anything other than historical fiction. A historical fiction that strives to find an emotional truth within its tale of a German Stasi agent and the artist he is spying on. The film succeeds in this venture in granting such a life through every facet of the story. This includes the overarching detail it grants to the chilling world of the Stasi where they mark down the name of a student even attempting to state a philosophical objection to the modus operandi of the state. The film's masterstroke though is to take the potentially tragic story of the writer, attempting even a minor form rebellion due to the ignored suicide of his friend, living in the repressive state though through the lens of the Stasi agent secretly listening the man's life in order to discover something in order to arrest the man. The film keeps a closer focus upon the agent and there is the greatness of the film particularly as realized through Ulrich Muhe's outstanding portrayal of the agent. His depiction of the man slowly changing and becoming involved in the man's story on the he only knows through spying on him embodies the greatness of the film. This power of this central idea is never wasted as it orchestrates such a compelling journey of one man. A story that could have been rife with sentimentalism however the film carefully avoids this as it just as bluntly reveals the potential harshness of the world in the story of the writer's actress girlfriend, wholly earning the central deeply moving and in the end rather inspiring tale of the spy who gives into his humanity rather than his state's mandate.
5/5

The Devils

The Devils is a piece of madness by Ken Russell though telling the true story of the persecution of progressive French priest Urbain Grandier by the establishment lead by Cardinal Richelieu, obviously not the only story featuring the Cardinal as a villain. Fitting to Russell's style as a director this is an insane film, though in this case that probably was the approach to the story. What is notable here, and not so much in the other films of his that I have seen, is that he does intelligent maneuver the film's tone despite his rather broad reaching approach. Although overall, particularly in the production design and the performances of the supporting cast, the film is purposefully grotesque in its excesses. Russell seems to thrive in these circumstances. The madness he inflicts is mesmerizing, for the most part, in its own right. As he plays with religious and historical iconography to reveal the full extent of the debauchery of the people. He has enough of a sense here to pull back within the character of Grandier well played by Oliver Reed. He depicts that character with the utmost humanity effectively turning him into a focal point of sanity and decency. This keeps the film's style from becoming too much as keeping the man within it all not only provides the needed anchor, but also provides a real emotional weight within that hysteria. Although the other films of Russell's that I have seen have failed in one way or another, this film succeeds as it uses his excesses towards effectively storytelling while still having that sense to know when to pull back to reveal the true tragedy within this mad story.
5/5

Macbeth (1971)

I suppose any great Shakespearean adaptation there should be distinct vision by the director. This quite true to Roman Polanki's adaptation of the Scottish play. The film marked the first film by the director since the brutal murder of his wife Sharon Tate by the Mason family. The influence of that event on the director's mind is palatable in the hopeless and particularly violent telling. Macbeth is already a dark tragedy however Polanski takes every step to amplify this particularly in the graphic nature of the blood letting, the MacDuff family massacre in particular takes its time to depicts the horrors of the scene. It goes beyond that even with an undercurrent of a circular process of decay. Macbeth is not the only traitor in this version changing the character Ross to a co-conspirator, turning the younger brother of the murdered king a future Macbeth. The side effects of the plot seem to age Macbeth and his wife into older people beyond their years as they slowly meet their demise. This film is clearly of a singular vision by Polanski though I wouldn't quite call it a great adaptation. The central nihilistic theme is fitting to this tragedy to be sure, however there are unneeded excesses in this vision. The vision in itself though still is compelling realization of an already compelling story.
4/5

Come and See

Come and See is a stark depiction of Nazi occupation founded from the most intimate perspective of a young boy who attempts to join the partisan fighters in Belarus. The plotting itself seems simple enough but is the approach of director Elem Klimov that makes this film a truly harrowing experience. The film features that perspective closely where the horrors are often just in the peripheral view of the frame, which seems to make them even more disturbing than if they where bluntly placed at the center of the screen. The film attempts to inflict the viewer with the same experience through this constrictor that is very effective in this approach. We are not granted a broader viewer, even a broader hope, we only know what our young boy sees which one horrific sight after another. Now this itself could be numbing if not for the film's particular approach that leaves every instance an impression on your memory. As it creates the sense of the confusion of the life in the occupation, those attempts to fight back, but mostly being lost with the only checkpoints being those moments of the very worst of humanity. The film startling in the ease of the events in a way particularly a village massacre that the perpetrators almost treat like a picnic. What is as disturbing though is the depiction of how this weighs on the people and particularly this boy who seems to age into a hardened older man by the film's haunting last sequence where the boy blindly rages at a photograph of Hitler. Where Downfall portrayed the rot on the man around him, Come and See is a startling depiction of the rot and victims of the man's hate filled agenda.
5/5

Downfall

Downfall depicts the final days of Adolf Hitler. This story actually had been previously told, with Hitler: The Last Ten Days, which while had some scenes that are almost exactly the same differed rather greatly in tone. This film is different in its approach to not only tell the story from Hitler's secretary's Traudl Junge point of view it emphasizes this idea. We do not see the broader picture of Hitler's horrors other than within the epilogue featuring the real Junge coming to terms with her past. The film's constrictive approach is an effective one, in fact I'd say it would be a stronger film if it stayed even truer to this idea of the world of the bunker. The reason being the film is incredible in terms of its vivid realization of the strange society of sorts that forms within Hitler's final home, essentially a dark cellar in the ground. It shows the different men and women inhabiting it those who have come to understand their fate, those still fooling themselves into believing into the cause, or those happy to live in the façade knowing their deaths will come soon. The mess of emotions of the individuals is what makes the film most fascinating with everyone with a different delusion or lack of it. The film ends up being a story of decay centered around Hitler who seems to be both mentally and physically spent until he takes upon himself to end it all. I will say that is where the film loses a bit of its steam as it follows his underlings either following suit or trying to find someway to escape. This is quite disturbing however it does lose some of its potency once this becomes the film's path. The ending is not the strongest part of the film however as a whole film works in its examination of a humanized, though not sympathetic, insular examination of a monster.
4.5/5