Reacties

SCORE 4/10. Het is me gelukt om het uit te zitten tot het einde, maar dat kostte moeite. Gewichtigdoenerige poging om wat existentiële gedachten neer te zetten over AI, Virtual Reality en hoe we allemaal ten onder gaan aan verknochtheid met onze smartphone. Rusteloos en chaotisch verhaal, waarbij de drager van de zelfmoordbom meermalen een groepje mensen aanvoert om een missie te volbrengen, maar steeds mislukt. Daarna gaat hij voor de zoveelste keer terug in de tijd om een nieuwe poging te wagen, met steeds een iets ander verloop. Slechts een paar van de onvrijwillig betrokkenen leren we beter kennen, maar de rest blijft onbekend in wat hen beweegt. Eigenlijk meer chaos dan een consistente verhaallijn, maar niets dat uiteindelijk wat oplevert. Ik houd van tijdreis paradoxen, maar dit is een belediging van de toeschouwer. Brengt niets nieuws en zeker geen hints om ons gedrag aan te passen.

SCORE 9/10. Seen at the IMAGINE film festival 2025. Remarkable plot with a perfect series of unexpected developments. It is impossible to condense here in a few sentences, not even some paragraphs will do. Icing on the cake was the excellent final scene, where we see an unexpected survivor rise from a presumed death much earlier in the story. Even those who are familiar with Dupieux, if not semi-experts in outguessing his turns of events, won’t see this coming. It proved a relatively short but meaningful closure, very welcome after the death toll we got before. It may be considered unchristian to say, but the number of dead bodies does not feel problematic, given the seemingly inexhaustible list of unlikable characters we meet and see (of which said survivor was a rare exception). This is Dupieux all over!

SCORE 6/10. Gezien op Netflix. Deze film heeft mij verrast, hoewel minder diepdenkend dan bijvoorbeeld Ex Machina (Alex Garland 2014), Uncanny (Matthew Leutwyler 2015) en Marjorie Prime (Michael Almereyda 2017). Dat drietal heeft mij toentertijd aan het denken gezet over de interactie tussen mens en mens-achtige robot, in welke gevallen die robot iets toevoegt aan ons leven, en waarin mens en robot precies van elkaar verschillen. We zijn nu ruim 10 jaar verder. De tijd heeft wat AI betreft niet stilgestaan, en toch was ik bij deze film (Companion) niet voorbereid op wat er ging komen.

Los van de verrassing, voor mij persoonlijk, graaft het verhaal niet diep en je bent ermee klaar na eenmaal kijken. Goed geschreven, maar geen lessen voor de toekomst en geen moraal om mee naar huis te nemen (alleen het feit dat diefstal verboden is, maar dat zou geen nieuws moeten zijn).
=========================

SCORE 8/10. Gezien via Amazon Prime Video. Ik ben zo vrijpostig om steeds hun aanbevelingen te negeren, maar dat ik in dit geval hun adviezen heb opgevolgd, geef ik zonder berouw toe.
Heel veel standaard ingrediënten, en toch viel het allemaal erg mee en werd het geen clichéverhaal. Een antiek huis met historie, drie bedienden die ongevraagd hun diensten aanbieden, grafzerken rond het huis die met hopen bladeren zijn afgedekt, kinderen die geen licht kunnen verdragen, en een moeder met dwingende ideeën over het geloof dat voor alles een oplossing heeft. De kinderen ondervinden de aanwezigheid van anderen in huis, maar dat los je natuurlijk niet op met bijbelteksten citeren en er geen aandacht aan besteden.
De verdere ontwikkelingen zijn niet voorspelbaar en ik zeg er dus niks over. De weg naar de afloop is continu spannend en goed vormgegeven. Acteurs zijn goed gecast en spelen hun rol voortreffelijk. En zeker de schrijvers hebben originele wegen gevonden om elke vorm van cliché te vermijden.

SCORE 8/10. Interesting to watch how Brian Epstein became the manager of The Beatles, by sheer accident seeing them perform in a simplistic venue somewhere in Liverpool. He “saw” something in this group, could not explain it to others what it is what he “saw”, but anyway history proved him right.
His methods of convincing others to enter a deal or contract were special, surely different from how other managers approached the captains of the music industry. We saw how “I'm Gonna Knock on Your Door” (1961) was flatly rejected by all well-known record labels, after which debacle he finally found Parlophone as a distributor. There were more such actions, for example, booking three concerts in Carnegie Hall (1964), historical for several reasons. The non-standard way he approached relevant people, and succeeded in his mission, was and still is a mystery to me. But a fact is that he did and it worked.
Hiding being gay is logical, given the fact that it was illegal at the time (1960 England), hence risking social stigma and blackmail, and even being chased by the police. Some of it was shown in a few scenes. How this double life influenced his role as manager of a band is not clearly outlined. It would explain his moods we witnessed a few times. I assume that the film makers did not deem it important enough to devote too much time to it, given the already generous running time (nearly two and a half hours) and their expectation that not many people find it interesting nowadays how gayness was suppressed at times long forgotten.
He was very present as a band manager when telling drummer Pete Best that he was to be replaced by Ringo Starr. At first Pete thought it was sort of an April fool’s joke, and it took some time to let the message sink in. That is the sort of thing a band manager has to do. It was not made clear (or I missed it) how it came about to replace the drummer, whose idea it was. Such things happen all in the background, out of plain sight, just like contacting record labels, concert venues and other “invisible” actions necessary to keep the band relevant and in the picture.
A variety of things were shown in the course of the story and its developments we all know from history. No opportunity to spoil how it all ended. We know from other groups at the time how stressful it was to tour around relevant concert halls. We did not see much of the famous group sessions in studios where for example Yellow Submarine was composed in a continuous session by the whole group (at the time we could read all about it). That said, so much was included in the nearly two-and-a-half-hour running time; that dropping lots of material was unavoidable.

In short: Brazilian drama around land ownership. Shooting in 2009, late court case in 2018. Relevant because of power inequality shown. SCORE 6/10 (verdient meer, maar zie slotalinea hieronder).

Seen at the film festival Ghent 2025. Courtroom footage of a 2018-case, better late than never covering a shooting in 2009. These proceedings needed 9 years of protests to get started. This case basically revolves around land ownership. Members of the Indigenous community who worked on the land for many years already, and considered it their legal property, were attempted to be evicted by people armed with guns, thereby killing community leader Javier Chocobar. The fatal event is reconstructed, based on a video made in 2009, now serving as evidence in the court procedure as of 2018.

Although this seems a local matter and not really relevant for us, the underlying issues are not specific Argentinian. We see similar struggles everywhere in the world. All are typical cases of inequality in power, money and legal aid, making it difficult for the local people living and working there for a long time already, to fight dispossession, to offer sufficient resistance and to finally win when their case when brought to a legal court. Often, their complaints strand much earlier by sheer intimidation, political machinations, or simply by lack of resources.

Visually, the power difference is illustrated in several ways. For instance, the appearance of the white well-fed/dressed males displaying education and confidence all over, compared with the local people who did not enjoy many years in school. And there is also an example specifically demonstrated by a cross examination of a witness showing the same difference in eloquent speaking.

Though broadly relevant for us viewers outside Argentina, a considerable part (1/4??) of the running time is devoted to things possibly interesting for people familiar with local history, but we can do without the family relationships and the who-is-who. For international viewing, these parts should be edited out or reduced to a bare minimum. This reduces the score to 6, while could have been 7 or 8/10.

In short: Secluded world with rules different from ours in the secular world. Unusual dilemmas are worked around wisely and carefully. Three excellently performing main protagonists. SCORE 8/10

Saw this at the film festival Ghent 2025. Perfect impression of a different world we don’t know well enough, governed by strict rules we also barely know nor fully understand, yet shaping the lives of all who ever felt a calling and decided to enter a monastery, to stay there for the rest of their life. Several such rules are stretched to the limit in this story, if not to say worked around it to solve a situation. Unexpected issues at stake here are abortion and extra marital pregnancy, things far from compliant with people living full-time confined in a convent.

Casting and acting are excellent, not only mother superior (alias future mother Teresa) and Sister Agnieszka, but still more honorable mention is deserved for Father Friedrich who navigates wisely through all the dilemmas posed by Teresa and Agnieszka.

Seen at the film festival Gent 2025. Not sure what I saw. Lots of name dropping, mentioning people I should know, or at least heard of. Some of the names sounded familiar, but not sufficient to connect the dots, and certainly not enough to make a connection with me. Anyway, it was just 75 minutes. I counted only 1 walkout, after 10 minutes or so, and the rest stayed put until the end. Was I the only one bored?? It seemed so. Anyway, it offered no clarity on his work nor his methods. That he smoked much, was mentioned, but that was very common at the time (only nowadays do we see for real how much everyone smoked all day long).
I cannot offer a score, since I’m certain I’m not the target audience for this movie. Illustrative, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, is that everyone else in the audience seemed interested, leaving me the feeling that I was the exception.

SCORE 9/10. Seen at filmfestival Gent 2025. This movie contains many interesting elements about repression and corruption. Especially the explanation in the train that the state must make an effort to catch a saboteur before he can execute his plan, did put me on the edge of my seat, more specifically when watching the finale as a logical result of their reasoning. Daunting prospect that a government nurtures concepts like that.

SCORE 6/10. Seen at IDFA 2025. Throughout the whole screening I was wondering what it was all about. It shows daily life in Kabul, once a heavily fought focus point in the film from the same director: Kabul, City in the Wind (2018). Now it is all very different: No war anymore, no fighting, just daily life in a city that once was heavily targeted. HOWEVER….

The Q&A with the director proved very useful, highlighting things that I overlooked. The movie starts with someone dressed as a fighter praying to be chosen to become a martyr. Another scene shows soldiers controlling traffic and checking cars for suspicious people, but it is all very calm and even boring for them, being the reason they kill the time with throwing balls or other pastime activities. A big contrast with the situation five years earlier, when heavy fighting was the norm. For these fighters, the current situation is an anticlimax. Only one single moment there is some excitement, when a woman is detected in one of the passing cars, without a mandatory family member next to her. Is she on drugs??

One pertinent question from the audience was that there was not a single woman in sight (except the one mentioned in the previous paragraph, but that was very unusual hence the excitement). Indeed, all women became invisible, as per policies gradually becoming more stringent in the last years.

Another phenomenon we see is that young boys learn long Quran verses by heart. But once asked if they knew what these verses were saying, blank reactions followed. A very rightful remark out of the audience was that it was no different from what we had to learn in the Roman Catholic Church before mid-20-th century, where Latin was the common language used (as an altar boy before 1960, I knew this all too well).

SCORE 8/10. Gezien bij IDFA 2025. Zeer verhelderende documentaire over iets wat door de meeste psychiaters, psychologen en gewone mensen niet serieus wordt genomen. Zoals bij de Q&A werd gezegd: als je bij de GGZ erover begint, stokt het gesprek, wordt je medicatie opgevoerd en wordt je naar huis gestuurd. Daar komt bij dat 20% van de mensen die stemmen horen, er geen last van hebben en dus ook geen oplossing zoeken. Het komt ook voor dat de stemmen bezwaar maken tegen zoeken naar therapie omdat ze vrezen verwijderd te worden.
De getoonde therapie heeft meteen al waarde doordat de patiënt zich gehoord voelt, en niet met een pilletje wordt weggestuurd (eerder jarenlang geleurd met hun klachten). Uniek is hier ook dat de dienstdoende therapeut probeert in contact te komen met de stemmen, soms een of soms wel 20 verschillende, allereerst om ze een naam te geven en vervolgens hun kenmerken te weten te komen (hoe lang al, dominant, hulpvaardig, betweterig enz enz). We zien/horen er ook voorbeelden van.

SCORE 6/10 Gezien op IDFA 2025. Goed gemaakt en aardig om te zien, maar levert weinig nieuwe inzichten.

IN SHORT: Tension for 3/4 hours. Alas, none of the potentially promising scenarios came into being. The finale left us disappointed all over. SCORE 6/10

Beforehand we were being warned about elliptical storytelling, so amply prepared that facts would be withheld throughout the story and its developments. Indeed, our fantasy had to work hard to outguess what was going on, especially why these girls (three, later four) were held in that house, barred from seeing the rest of the world, except for a few excursions in the mall under supervision of a guard. No WiFi and no Internet, for starters, an inhuman restriction nowadays.

Once a fourth sister appeared, allegedly suffering schizophrenia, we thought we got a clue, but after her suicide we learned that she nor her illness were the core issue. Lots of alternative plots sprang to mind while watching, wondering why one would maintain such a secluded place for this household. Alas, the least interesting plot came about while the story progressed.

Eventually, Sarah got involved and was even drawn into real action. It did not help much that the three sisters were not united, and their disagreements threatened to destroy any planned action. Ultimately, we viewers were left empty handed, arriving at a very shallow plot and an even shallower finale.

The first three quarters of an hour were interesting. It succeeded in keeping our attention, assuming it would soon progress into real and relevant developments. Alas, this did not happen and ended in disappointment.

All in all, technically nothing wrong with acting or casting. I only missed some real contents. Not even a message or morale that I could take home. No forced marriage to ease an industrial merger, no divorce war with the natural mother, no pending danger that all three sisters were to become schizophrenic like the fourth, and many other possible scenarios that could have turned this into an interesting story. And we still are at a loss why Sarah was hired in the first place.

SCORE 6/10. Eerste driekwart uur is veelbelovend en houdt ons in spanning waarom Sarah eigenlijk is ingehuurd en wat er precies aan de hand is in dat afgelegen huis waar ze dagelijks heengereden wordt maar verder weinig grip op krijgt. Jammer dat diverse mogelijke scenario’s die in mijn fantasie ontstonden, allemaal afvallen. Het verhaal eindigt met een teleurstellende afloop, niet alleen voor de drie zusters maar vooral voor ons kijkers die voor niets in spanning gezeten hebben.

SCORE 6/10. Possibly lots of interesting topics covered, but I found it mildly relevant and missing all the good elements I saw described in synopsis (before) and reviews (after the screening). It is extremely well acted, that’s for sure, but the proceedings were all too surreal to keep my attention. The latter may be the reason that my focus dropped, having missed some important clues. Could not identify with either one of the protagonists. Also, the abundant bloodshed did not make it any better for me, even worse.
Samengevat: goed geacteerd, vermakelijk, maar niet echt interessant.

SCORE 9/10. Seen at Movies That Matter 2026. Excellent portrait of two different worlds (rural, religious Zeeland versus metropolitan Amsterdam), especially the distance between both locations (“distance” in psychological and cultural sense, while physically only 150 km apart).
We see film maker Koert Davidse collecting all material he can find about his brother Bart, who died 40 years ago from AIDS. Did his parents blame his “circles” in Amsterdam for his coming-out as being gay, and becoming involved in the usual free lifestyle at the time?? It all happened when most people were not aware yet how AIDS came about and what to do against it. From diaries that his father kept, we now know that Bart being gay was no secret for him. And the gesture his mother made to invite Bart’s fellow students to carry the coffin to the grave, was also a small sign that his mother was not hateful.
There are many examples shown out of the collected memories on photo or video, rebuilding the picture for us how Bart lived and died. I think that here lies the real power of the film. The selected material perfectly shows daily life in those days, next to incurable AIDS that no one saw coming and in fact a death sentence once diagnosed.

SCORE 8/10. Seen at Movies That Matter 2016. Depressing images of people fleeing the water and the storms. They can go nowhere other than capital city Dhaka, that cannot really absorb so many refugees.
An overarching story in this movie binds the many visuals, by showing one family whose house barely keeps standing. Mother and daughter (husband stays behind) decide to move to a sister in Dhaka. They arrive there using overly crowded boats and trains, if only to find a small room with everything else shared (kitchen, shower, toilet). All of this is shown from close by, for instance a near-conflict about the shared kitchen. Handling of trash and drainage are on the verge of collapse, due to the steadily growing population.
Apart from the small-scale family story, accompanying comment throughout the whole movie is taken from a radio station. It proves very useful for us outsiders to explain the overall situation.
Don’t expect all this to end in an unmitigated disaster. The family we more-or-less follow gets some work, and they seem to be able to send money to the husband who stayed behind. Near the end we see a protest demonstration that calls upon the rest of the world.
All in all, the impact of climate change is illustrated very effectively in the first part of the documentary, while the second part shows the impact of mass migration to a place where already more than enough people are living in a confined area. No opinion nor conclusion is force-fed to us viewers.

SCORE 8/10. Seen at Movies That Matter 2026. Depressing thought that this really happens, and happened for many years already (ditto City of Joy (Madeleine Gavin 2016), seen at MtM 2018). It is a means of exerting power over people who don’t comply or otherwise don’t fit in with the desired standard of obedience to laws of economics or politics (or religion, for that matter). In a hefty scene in the beginning, we see how such an attack happens, making the whole family victim, thereby certainly dooming the woman who is often thrown out of the family and/or forced to marry the very soldier who raped her. Other family members are also seriously affected, by having to watch or even being forced to cooperate one way or another. I refrain from giving examples (not good for your nightly sleep).
Luckily, the main content of the movie is about what our main protagonists do, both doctors and their staff, to repair the physical damage and offering the affected women a new meaning of life, a future, although it cannot be easy for the women to forget what happened to them. We see matters of life and death discussed on aspects where both doctors differ, e.g. aborting the child these women carry, who they say to hate before being even born. This makes watching this documentary worthwhile, apart from the new operating techniques applied and the respectful ways the women in question are approached. Also, small chance that something will change for the better, by showing political and other influences who want the status quo unchanged. On conclusion (like the 2016-documentary I mentioned before), nothing will change eventually as the powers of economics will prevail.

SCORE XXXX (undecided) Seen at Movies That Matter 2026. Beautiful underwater shots, colorful images of sea creatures, all of it being a hidden aspect of the ocean that we normally don’t see. I can imagine that it distracts from the message that the documentary wants to convey. Anyway, as became clear in the discussion and Q&A after the screening, what really is at stake proves to be even more complex than the film suggests.

SCORE 8/10. Bij IDFA 2024 zag ik The Battle for Laikipia (Daphne Matziaraki/Peter Murimi 2024) over een gelijksoortig onderwerp, maar toch heel anders, want de kolonisten waren daar de tegenpartij van de lokale herders. Die kolonisten woonden daar al eeuwen, en voelden zich net zo een met het land als de herders. Echter, klimaatverandering leidde tot droogte. Er was een oude wet die herders dan toeliet om hun schapen te laten grazen op de weiden van de kolonisten. Had eeuwenlang goed gewerkt, maar toenemende droogte leidde tot weerstanden bij de kolonisten die het ook moeilijk hadden met de droogte.
Die film “The Battle for Laikipia” had als groot voordeel dat je beide kanten zag en hoorde. De film Kikuyu Land mist dat, en wordt zo bijna automatisch een David versus Goliath verhaal.
Muggai had 17 (!!) binders met originele documenten (inmiddels gedigitaliseerd en veiliggesteld), en toch werd zijn zaak afgewezen. Immers, Unilever (de slechteriken in dit verhaal) bespelen (remote control, werd het genoemd) de regering en bijbehorende bureaucratie, en die op hun beurt gebruikt de lagere niveaus (zoals de field managers) om de werkers te laten produceren (ook seks was een van de “producten” voor de field managers), dit alles ondersteund met bewakers en communicatieafdelingen, die allemaal belang hebben bij de status quo. Demonstraties werden bruut onderdrukt; elke politieman kon zijn gang gaan tegen demonstranten (aldus president Ruto, net daarvoor herkozen). Extra pikant was dat hoofdpersoon Wangondu ontdekte dat haar grootvader ook aan de verkeerde kant had gestaan en had gewerkt voor de onderdrukkers (haar familie was ongelukkig met haar onderzoek, want zou familienaam bezoedelen als zij doorging).
VERDER natuurlijk mooie beelden van de natuur. Maar ook wat zijpaden die niet bijdragen aan de centrale boodschap van het landje pikken, maar die wel schrijnend zijn zoals de situatie op de theeplantages. Helaas, de jongeman die mieren verzamelde, viel uit de toon want ook een soort machtsuitoefening, wellicht onbedoeld door de filmmakers. Opmerkelijk waren de plannen van de jongens over wat ze wilden worden (bijv. piloot), fantasie en onhaalbaar natuurlijk, maar het gaf een beeld van hun wereld.

Nederlands of Engels: Ik gebruik het door elkaar, afhankelijk van waar ik het opschrijf en/of waar ik mijn notities nog elders wil gebruiken. Op IMDB moet het namelijk in het Engels, terwijl het hier allebei kan.

SCORE 4/10. Seen at Movies that Matter 2026. Despite good intentions, no doubt, this movie is narratively a failure. We get isolated scenes, in very different locations, without a clear path from A via B to C that I could deduce. Some sidetracking made it worse, for example the horse race in the beginning (a dream, we were told) without any connection with what followed. There are more examples coming out of the blue and going nowhere, like the pushing crowd.
Notwithstanding the synopsis that I read before, with many words devoted to the relationship between father and son, their encounters were only a small part of the runtime. Anyway, I missed explanations of how respective scenes connected, be it a voice-over or whatever tool there is for this purpose. Some of the time, the son filled these gaps, but it was far from sufficient for me.

SCORE 2/10. Gezien tijdens het filmfestival Gent 2025, onderdeel van de officiële competitie. Vond het weinig interessant, en vroeg me de hele looptijd van ruim tweeëneenhalf uur af of dit wel ergens over ging, en zo ja wat we ervan moesten leren. Maar ik ben bevooroordeeld, want opgegroeid op een soortgelijke boerderij met historie, niet alleen verstopt in de gebouwen maar ook via de verhalen van ouders/ooms/tantes/oma’s/opa’s die eeuwen omspanden. Misschien werden er in deze film ook gedenkwaardige dingen verteld, maar de verhaallijnen vond ik verwarrend en kon slecht volgen wat er gebeurde en waarom. Kortom, voor mij een tegenvaller. Vanuit mijn verleden had ik meer ervan verwacht. Veel reviewers leggen de nadruk op de ondergeschoven rol van de vrouwen, maar ik zie dat niet terug in mijn familiehistorie en ik denk dat de film wat dat betreft gekleurd is door moderne (na 1970) inzichten.

SCORE 8/10. Seen at Filmfestival Gent 2025, where it was part of the official competition. Several tense moments, not only due to the outside war zone but also within the volunteer community, arguing about following the rules agreed with the IDF and the many layers in between to get a “green light” zone, versus ignoring those rules to gain time and rescue a child in need.

SCORE 7/10. The film title Sirat is very appropriate, as explained in the beginning of the story, being a very thin thread between heaven and hell, and sharp as a sword too. We see a father and son on a desperate lookout journey for their missing daughter/sister, deeper and deeper in the desert, the latter being an unwelcome environment for strangers who are unfamiliar with its dangers. The desert is infamous for taking no prisoners and mostly yielding a fatal outcome for those who are unprepared. This movie offers a mostly tense story, switching between nearly desperate situations and uplifting scenes demonstrating companionship and other positive human features, and that Da Capo.