688. FITZCARRALDO (1982)

Running Time: 158 minutes
Directed By: Werner Herzog
Written By: Werner Herzog
Main Cast: Klaus Kinski, Claudia Cardinale, Jose Lewgoy, Miguel Angel Fuentes, Paul Hittscher
Click here to view the trailer

HERZOG WEEK: THE FINAL CHAPTER

Thank you to the few people who took the time to comment on the FINAL 50 post. Glad to see there's some interest in my finishing this project. There's definitely some interesting stuff still left to get through and I actually have high hopes for a lot of them. Let's start ticking them off, shall we?

This would be the big finale in Herzog Week - a week that started out rough for me with Aguirre: The Wrath of God and ended up being not bad with the fantastic Stroszek and the pretty good Nosferatu. In Fitzcarraldo, Klaus Kinski returns to work for Werner Herzog as Brian Sweeney Fitzgerald a.k.a. Fitzcarraldo. Fitz' lives in a small Peruvian town called Iquitos and has big dreams of building an opera house there and inviting famous opera singer Enrico Caruso to sing on opening night. However, this dream requires money and lots of it. Fitz' tries his hand at the railroad industry but fails. His second attempt is in the ice industry, which also fails. Finally, Fitzcarraldo becomes interested in the rubber business and has a conversation with local rubber baron, Don Aquilino (Lewgoy) he discovers that there is an unclaimed piece of land along the Ucayali River that is home to thousands of rubber trees. The only problem is that Fitz' lives on the Amazon river and to navigate down the Ucayali from the Amazon is impossible, due to raging rapids. However, Fitzcarraldo notices a third river, which also pours out of the Amazon, called the Pachitea River and that, at one point, the Pachitea and the Ucayali almost touch. Therefore, Fitz' gets an idea (which we don't entirely find out right away), buys a boat, with help from his prostitute girlfriend, Molly (Cardinale) and sets sail down the Pachitea. However, he is warned beforehand that Indians live along the Pachitea and are quite hostile to outsiders.

SPOILER ALERT!

Man, Werner Herzog must have LOVED watching Klaus Kinski perform to hire him back after all the trouble he had with him. I won't go into retelling all the stories, but do a search on Aguirre: The Wrath of God or even Fitzcarraldo, and you're sure to see highlights of the knock down, drag outs the two had on set. Not only did he hire Kinski for the three collaborations that I've reviewed, but also two more movies, which I feel compelled to watch now, just so I can see how they turned out. I'd be hard pressed not to call Kinski one of my favorite actors throughout THE BOOK. I mean, he was really outstanding here, completely transformed himself in Nosferatu and was good enough, I guess, as Aguirre. Perhaps the reason he got into so many fights is because he clearly took his work seriously and was a passionate man, on and off screen. Again, the fact that Herzog hired him five times, after all the trouble they had on the set of Aguirre shows how great he really was (Herzog actually had to pull a gun on Kinski on the Aguirre set!).

RANDOM THOUGHT: How come when I type the word HERZOG, my fingers very badly want to type the word HERZONG?

What a movie! This is one of those films that brings to mind the word grandeur and when I watched it, I couldn't help but think, "this is what movies are supposed to be" - adventurous, exciting, heartbreaking, inspiring, beautiful and creative. The phrase "epitome of a great movie" kept flashing in my head, as I sat awe struck, watching character Fitzcarraldo pull that boat over a mountain. But it was more than just the whole boat scene. It was the big dreams of a small man, the dangerous trek down the Pachitea, the wild Indians, the raging river rapids - it was really the quintessential adventure picture and I was surprised at how much I liked it, since I'm usually a more minimalist sort of film lover. In fact, this week I was forced to change my whole taste profile, as I watched My Dinner with Andre and didn't like it and then the next day watched something that I'd normally dislike (Fitzcarraldo) and loved it. It just goes to show that no film lover should confine themselves to one genre - be a versatile viewer, watch everything you can get your hands on and be open minded when it comes to movies from genres you wouldn't normally go for, as well as time periods and countries you wouldn't normally go for. If there's one thing I can thank the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book for, it's for keeping me open when it comes to what I love and what I detest. I think by now I can consider myself a world traveled film watcher - having watched movies from 1902 - 2015, from all around the world, from all sorts of different directors and from all sorts of different genres. I've liked a little bit of everything and I'm proud of that fact.

I don't really know what else to say about Fitzcarraldo. The phrase "what's not to like" comes to mind. It was an epic that I was able to tolerate for every last second and actually could have even taken another hour, had Herzog had the material. Normally, I'm against long movies, I've noticed. But this was an exception to the rule and one that I could've watched for hours and hours. How heartbreaking was that ending though? I mean, after all that struggle to get the boat over the mountain and then BY GOD, he actually does it!! - only to have the Indians untie the boat in the middle of the night, sending it drifting into the rapids. Hell, I was still sad even at the very end, when Fitzcarraldo hires an orchestra and opera troupe to come onto his steam ship and play a mini concert, while the boat sails down the river. Despite Kinski's big cheese eating grin (priceless), I still felt sorry for the character. He here is having to force a smile onto his face, even though you know deep down he's got to be gut wrenched at the thought of having to give up his dream. Not only will he lose the steam ship and the millions he thought he'd earn as a rubber baron, but more importantly, the dream of building an opera house is gone. However, maybe we can interpret that grin a different way? Perhaps that grin is so big, because as he's rolling down the river, aboard his steam ship, listening to his music, he's also scheming up his next, big, money making venture? Perhaps this time he's surely got it - a can't miss opportunity. I just can't see this character giving up. Despite his foolhardy ideas, you can't doubt the character's determination and passion. Yeah, I'm sure that's why he's smiling.

RATING: 8.5/10  I feel like my mind is telling me not to give out another '10' or even a '9' since I just went big on Scarface. With time and repeated viewings, Fitzcarraldo is favorite material.

MOVIES WATCHED: 952
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 49

August 18, 2015  11:12am

658. Nosferatu: Phantom der Nacht/Nosferatu: Phantom of the Night (1979)

Running Time: 107 minutes
Directed By: Werner Herzog
Written By: Werner Herzog, from the novel Dracula by Bram Stoker
Main Cast: Klaus Kinski, Isabelle Adjani, Bruno Ganz, Roland Topor, Walter Ladengast
Click here to view the trailer

HERZOG WEEK: CHAPTER III

Okay, now it's just about 1:00am, I'm ever more tired, but why not put all the babies to bed at once. I've literally JUST finished my review of Seven Samurai and having watched two BOOK movies in a row, without writing, it's time for another review already. Read on...

I could probably just put up links to my original Nosferatu review or even the other adaptations of Dracula that I've reviewed, if you wanted a plot synopsis, but I'll play by the rules and write a fresh one. We kick it off with Jonathan Harker (Ganz), who is employed by Renfield (Topor). Renfield, an eerie little man with a serious case of the giggles, asks Jonathan to go to Transylvania and deliver the deed and contract to a home in their town, near the Harker residence, in fact. Jonathan jumps at the task, forever doomed to be a "yes" man. However, Jonathan's wife Lucy (Adjani) doesn't want him to go, as she feels the whole trip spells nothing but doom, though she can't put her finger on why. Jonathan goes anyway and as he approaches Transylvania, he is warned by many to stay out, as nothing but evil lurks on the road to Count Dracula's castle. Jonathan presses on, however, eager to please his boss. Once arriving at the castle of Dracula (Kinski), Jonathan dines and then wakes in the night, after having a nightmare. Two days later, Jonahtan awakes, ready to go back to Lucy, only to find that Dracula is gone and all the doors are locked. He manages to escape and ride horseback all the way back to his hometown. Meanwhile, Dracula is arriving at the same destination via boat, bringing an army of rats and the plague with him. It all comes down to the pure heart of a woman (Lucy) who must figure out how to keep Dracula preoccupied until sunrise, this making him perish...perhaps her neck will do the trick?

SPOILER ALERT!

Caffeine free Pepsi was not a good choice. Don't expect Shakespeare here, folks - that's all I'm sayin'.

All I can say is that I continue to be underwhelmed by the story of Dracula/Nosferatu, whatever you wanna call it/him. I realize it's a classic, but as THE BOOK has taught us many times, the classics stink sometimes. I mean, what have we got here? A vampire who likes blood - I mean, who can really blame the guy, right? It's his nature, dammit! Harker goes to sell him a house, it spells trouble from the get go, he takes a liking to Harker's wife (and played Isabelle Adjani, once again I can't blame him - she's drop dead gorgeous!), he infects Harker and then gets caught with his pants down when the sun comes up, end of story. That's it. Nothing else. I just feel like there should be a little more, maybe a little subplot, maybe a little substance. I feel like it's dry, is all.

However, what I did like about Herzog's interpretation is that he not only paid tribute to the silent classic (I don't care for it, but most do), he also paid tribute to the history of his own country's films, intertwining a little old Germany with a little bit of new German flare. Add to that the cinematography, which is some of the best I've seen in recent memory (right up there with Dr. Zhivago) and you have a perfectly acceptable film, no matter how dry the plot is. You could almost call this a shot for shot remake of the original Nosferatu, save for a handful of changes. The filmmaker's even went so far as to "pale up" their actors, making them look like they belong in black & white. Herzog also asks his audience, to forget their ears and focus with their eyes, as dialogue isn't really elaborated on here (there's plenty of dialogue, but it's not the center of attention or anything), using things like score, actor's expressions and yes, that gorgeous cinematography, to tell the story rather than words. I've always enjoyed Bruno Ganz (I really need to see Wings of Desire again), Klaus Kinski brings the chops and as I said, Adjani is stunning as Harker's wife, so no complaints cast wise. For me it's better than the original and I say it would work great as part of a Halloween style fright fest.

RATING: 6.5/10  I feel like this is one that I'm going to look back on in a month and ask myself why I didn't rate it higher. But for now, we'll go with the gut...

MOVIES WATCHED: 946
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 55

August 8, 2015  1:19am

622. STROSZEK (1977)

Running Time: 108 minutes
Directed By: Werner Herzog
Written By: Werner Herzog
Main Cast: Bruno S., Eva Mattes, Clemens Scheitz
Click here to view the trailer

HERZOG WEEK: CHAPTER II

Holy cow - two reviews in one day? That's unheard of these days. I just don't get enough energy and/or free time lately to make this happen, but I'm telling you, I'm really determined to get this whole thing wrapped up by the end of October - so let's continue the MARCH TO HALLOWEEN with a VAST improvement from Werner Herzog and "Stroszek".

Again, knowing very little of Herzog and his work, I knew literally NOTHING about Stroszek going in, so anything good that followed had to be considered a pleasant surprise. The film begins with the release from prison of Bruno Stroszek (Bruno S.), a foolish, kind and naive man, whom we never learn the reason of his incarceration. We only know that booze was to blame. Upon his release, Bruno returns to his apartment, which his neighbor Scheitz has held for him, which houses many musical instruments and a pet bird named Beo. Stroszek is a street performer, who works in the courtyards of apartment buildings, earning a meager living. Later, Bruno meets Eva (Mattes), a prostitute who is abused by her pimps. Bruno offers to let her come live with him and she accepts. However, the pimps find out where she's staying and come after her, terrorizing both her and Bruno, wrecking his place and physically abusing both of them. Together, Bruno, Scheitz and Eva decide to go to America, to escape the brutal conditions that exist for them in Berlin. Eva earns enough money prostituting and the three later arrive in New York City via boat. They then drive to Wisconsin, where Scheitz has a nephew, Clayton, who has offered to get them jobs and a place to live. Bruno begins working at Clayton's shop as an auto mechanic and Eva takes a job waitressing at a truck stop. By now, it is simply assumed, mostly by Bruno, that he and Eva are a couple, so when she goes back to turning tricks, he is none too pleased.

SPOILER ALERT!

When I was sixteen, I began working at a local video store called Video 99. I think it was named "Video 99", because at one time the price to rent a video was 99 cents. However, when I worked there, rentals were two bucks (plus tax). Anyway, Video 99 wasn't too far from the county courthouse. Now, I don't know how it is in other towns, but in the town I grew up in, if you were caught sitting or leaning on the courthouse wall, it pretty much meant you were a bum. If you drove past the courthouse, on any given day, you'd have a 99.9% chance of catching a few strays, popping a squat on the infamous wall - the scuttlebutt was they were either homeless, very poor or slow. I don't mean any of those three things in a negative way, just stating the facts. Anyway, a lot of these guys (they were always men) used to come in the video store. Some actually would rent a video from time to time and others, would simply breeze in to cool off in the summer and warm up in the winter, turn over some videotape cases in their hands and maybe have a chat. I sometimes got the feeling that a few of them were just lonely, willing to spin their daily tales to anyone with a spare ear. I was always friendly to them and in fact, sometimes I even welcomed their company. There were days, especially in the summer, when working at this dingy little video store got boring...

Anyway....

The Stroszek character reminded me so much of these men, one in particular who shall remain nameless. I knew almost nothing of this nameless man, save for his first name, that he carried a bag of tobacco with him everywhere he went and that he was very slow (perhaps even fully, mentally retarded). Anyway, Stroszek reminded me of this man to a tee - similar styles of dress, the way they both kept unkempt hair, they way they both wandered the streets, the way they were both potential (or in Stroszek's case, definitely) delinquents and the way they were so unsure of the world around them and how it operated. I hadn't thought about this nameless man in years, nearly fifteen probably, but it wasn't twenty minutes into Stroszek before I nailed down who he was reminding me of. I'd like to think that Herzog didn't just get lucky in reminded me so much of one, lone man, but instead I'd like to believe that Herzog pounded out a real slice of life picture here, which showcased completely believable, relateable, real life characters.

As for the technical aspects, I have almost nothing bad to say and in fact, I won't say anything bad, because Stroszek crossed a line into a territory where nothing but praise will be required. Am I way off base comparing Stroszek to a Jim Jarmusch film? I don't think so. A subtle story, reserved real life characters, a film that relies less on grandeur and more on a quieter story, almost undefined. In fact, I think calling Stroszek a Jim Jarmusch movie with even more personality would be hitting the nail on the head. I loved Bruno S. and I NEED (like literally, right now) to see The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, which also sounds like it'd be something I'd take to. Not only was he perfect here, but Eva Mattes was brilliant and I was elated to find out that she was one of the few actual actors in the movie - having roles in multiple R.W. Fassbinder films (even The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant, which I didn't remember her from - still don't really).

The back of that chair says a whole lot. I could write paragraphs on "Is this really me?", but we'll leave that thought alone for tonight, because it's late and I'm due up at 5am!

I could go on and on, but I feel like I've gone on long enough. I think I do need to mention the main theme of the whole picture, which to me lies in Stroszek's conception of America. THE BOOK suggests that this is a common, European misconception - that America is this land of milk & honey where all your dreams come true. Stroszek finds out right away that it's not that, when he is forced to leave behind not only his "friends" the instruments, but his beloved pet bird. It literally all goes downhill from there, as he loses Eva, his home and even his color TV. In the end, a lonely Stroszek presumably kills himself. I think one of the saddest realizations that I came to, was that Stroszek died in a strange land, without friends, even the cops snickering at his situation. This is one of those films where I think too much and I actually think about the character, for a second, as if he were real. I wonder what the final thoughts Stroszek had as he rode the chair lift, his now unfrozen turkey cradled under one arm, a shotgun grasped with the other. If I try to think about those final thoughts, of this man who doesn't really exist, I get the kind of goosebumps one might get at a funeral, the kind of goosebumps reserved for the saddest of occasions. Has there ever been sadder thoughts inside a fictitious characters head - as Bruno sits upon a chair lift, contemplating his own death, his own loneliness, the loss of everything he once held so dear - perhaps thinking deeper than this kind fool has ever thought? I'll stop before I get those goosebumps again...

RATING: 8.5/10  So Herzong totally redeems himself from the mess that was Aguirre and now he's 1-1 and that's one really bad one and one really good one. The good news is that I have high hopes for both Nosferatu and Fitzcarraldo.

MOVIES WATCHED: 943
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 58

August 2, 2015  10:39pm

543. Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes/Aguirre, The Wrath of God (1972)

Running Time: 94 minutes
Directed By: Werner Herzog
Written By: Werner Herzog
Main Cast: Klaus Kinski, Helena Rojo, Ruy Guerra, Del Negro, Peter Berling
Click here to view the trailer

HERZOG WEEK: CHAPTER I

So this will actually be the breaking of my cherry, as it pertains to Werner Herzog movies, as I've literally never seen one of his movies, not even a bit or a piece of one, as far as I remember. I have to say my initial impression is pretty sour. Read on...

Aguirre, The Wrath of God, is a film that I've heard a lot about and of course, I've seen the stills of Klaus Kinski dressed in conquistador armor for as long as I've been interested in film. It's one of those films that always comes up when you talk about "the greatest" or "the best" and one I almost knew nothing about going in. The film is fairly short and tells of a group of Spanish conquistadors, fresh from conquering the Inca Empire, in search of the city of El Dorado, which is where they believe they'll find riches & gold. However, when the group (which numbers in the hundreds) reaches the end of their supplies and a rough terrain, their leader, a man named Pizarro, orders a group of forty men to go down river via man made rafts, in search of further information and/or supplies. If they do not return in one week's time, they will be considered dead and the group will try to go on without them. The group of forty will be lead by Ursua (Guerra) and second in command will be Aguirre (Kinski). After traveling for a while, one of the rafts gets caught in an eddy (a patch of rough waters that it's unable to navigate out of) and the others can only watch on as their cohorts face certain doom. Meanwhile, Aguirre manages to lead an uprising against Ursua, the latter of which wants to return to the group when the rafts are swept away and the former, Aguirre, wanting to continue searching for El Dorado and certain fortune.

SPOILER ALERT!

Here we go again with a movie that I simply do not get the appeal of and one that I'm "supposed" to like. This is one of those movies that most film snoots usually go for, but I'm sorry, I just don't get the appeal here. Apparently, the film lent a lot of ideas to Coppola's Apocalypse Now and while I didn't love that movie, at least there we see a group of men sailing upstream (or downstream, whatever) and ultimately, we get a payoff from all that. Here, we don't even really get a payoff, as the group never reaches the city of El Dorado and the whole thing ends with a seemingly mad Aguirre, chasing monkey's around a raft that's bound to sink. He's all but dead by film's end and since the character development kinda stunk, I couldn't have possibly cared less about the fate's of the character's in the first place. Not only that, but the film is set in the 1500s and with a few exceptions, I tend to dislike period pieces set that far back. It's another example of me just being very disinterested in ancient history and unless the director takes careful consideration to make it interesting to all comers, I can't be bothered. This was an example of Herzog appealing to a certain audience who would go for this sort of thing and not necessarily a widespread audience. There are certain pieces of history that I can go for (most Holocaust stuff and more recently, the Prohibition era in The Untouchables), but for the most part unless I know a little bit about it going in, I tend not to like and that's what I think happened with Aguirre.

RATING: 3/10  No use drawing it out, right? I didn't like it and that's that. I'll give it a few points for keeping me mildly interested, but by film's end I was only half paying attention and half playing on my phone, so there ya go.

MOVIES WATCHED: 942
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 59

August 2, 2015  4:39pm