40. Pastorale &...

Lyrics

Mijn hemel blauw met gouden harp      

(My blue heaven with golden harp)              
Mijn wolkentorens, ijskristallen

(My cloudy towers, ice crystals)
Kometen, manen en planeten, aah alles draait om mij

(Comets, moons and planets, everything revolves around me)
En door de witte wolkenpoort tot diep onder de golven

(And from the gates of white clouds to underneath the waves)

Boort mijn vuur, mijn liefde, zich in de aarde

(My fire, my love, pierces into the earth)
En bij het water speelt een kind

(And a child is playing near the water)
En alle schelpen die het vindt gaan blinken als ik lach
(And all the shells it finds will glow when I smile)

 'k Hou van je warmte op mijn gezicht

(I love your warmth on my face)
Ik hou van de koperen kleur van je licht

(I love the color of copper in your light)
Ik geef je water in mijn hand

(I give you water in my hand)
En schelpen uit het zoute zand

(And shells from the salty sand)
Ik heb je lief, zo lief
(I like you, I like you so much)

Ik scheur de rotsen met mijn stralen

(I rip the rocks with my beams)
Verhoog de meren in de dalen en

(Increase the lakes in the valleys and)
Onweersluchten doe ik vluchten, aah als de regen valt

(Make stormy skies flee, when the rain falls)
Verberg je ogen in een hand

(Hide your eyes in a hand)
Voordat m'n glimlach ze verbrandt

(Before my smile burns them)
M'n vuur, m'n liefde, mijn gouden ogen

(My fire, my love, my golden eyes)
't Is beter als je nog wat wacht

(It is better if you wait some more)
Want even later komt de nacht en schijnt de koele maan

(Because a bit later, the night will come and the cold moon will shine)

De nacht is te koud, de maan te grijs

(The night is too cold, the moon too grey)
Toe neem me toch mee naar je hemelpaleis

(Please take me to your heavenly palace)
Daar wil ik zijn alleen met jou

(I want to be there just with you)
En stralen in het hemelblauw

(And shine in the heavenly blue)
Ik heb je lief, zo lief

(I like you, I like you so much)

Als ik de aarde ga verwarmen

(When I'll warm the earth)
Laat ik haar leven in m'n armen

(I'll let her live in my arms)
Van sterren weefde ik het verre, aah het noorderlicht

(Out of stars, I weaved the far northern light)
Maar soms ben ik als kolkend lood

(But sometimes I am like swirling lead)
Ik ben het leven en de dood

(I am life and death)
In vuur, in liefde, in alle tijden

(In fire, in love, at all times)
M'n kind ik troost je, kijk omhoog

(I comfort you my child, look up)
Vandaag span ik mijn regenboog

(Today I draw my rainbow)
Die is alleen voor jou

(That one is just for you)

Nee nooit sta ik een seconde stil

(No, not for a second do I ever stand still)
'k Wil liever branden neem me mee

(I'd prefer to burn, take me with you)
Geen mens kan mij dwingen wanneer ik niet wil

(No person can force me when I don't want to)
Wanneer je vanavond gaat slapen in zee

(When tonight you'll go sleep in the sea)
Geen leven dat ik niet begon

(No life that I didn't start)
En vliegen langs jouw hemelbaan

(And to to fly across your sky line)
Je kunt niet houden van de zon

(You can't love the sun)
Ik wil niet meer bij jou vandaan

(I don't want to leave you anymore)

Ik heb je lief, zo lief
Ik heb je lief, zo lief
Ik heb je lief, zo lief
Ik heb je lief, zo lief
Ik heb je lief, zo lief

(I like you, I like you so much)

Only after seeing this clip did I realize that famous Ducth singer Ramses Shaffy is literally portraying the sun here. And, thus, that Liesbeth List is worshiping the sun. Was that the idea? Or did they use the metaphor very clumsily? And if it was the idea, why did they choose to do this? How did they think that the Dutch audience would be so affected by a song about sun worshiping? Why is the Dutch audience so affected by this song anyway? This song and its high placement in the top 2000 is is leaving me a bit flabbergasted. In any case it wasn't easy to find a movie to accompany it. It turns out there aren't movies about sun worshiping. Who would've thought?! So I searched for movies about Louis XIV, the sun king. I actually was surprised that there aren't really many movies about him, even less romantic ones. Eventually I found a slightly romantic movie about him that was described in its IMDB reviews as a decadent, overblown, kitschy potboiler soap opera. Exactly the kind of words I would use to describe Pastorale. 

The Movie: The King is Dancing (Le roi danse) (Gerard Corbiau, 2000)

I always hate it when historical movies are criticised for not giving a historically accurate portrayal of the time they are set in or the subject they are about, This criticism implies that there are historic movies that do present a historically accurate portrayal of whatever it is they are presenting. By mere logic alone we must realize that you can't cram the complete history of (for example) hundred years into a movie of about two hours. Movies, by their very nature, must often skip or change certain events to make them more dramtically interesting. All of this doesn't mean that historical movies shouldn't be made. They can offer a lot of other valuable insights and create compelling drama. I am a fan of many of them. Historical movies therefore shouldn't be criticized if they misrepresent a historical subject or period, but if they present their historical portrayal as a right one.That's why movies that are solely interested in presenting a historical subject or time are not very interesting and simply wrong. In fact, three of the most intelligent historical movies to come out recently are Inglourious Basterds, Anonymous and Midnight in Paris. All of these movies are completely uninterested in providing an accurate portrayal of the historical period and subjects they are depicting. Yet they have more intelligent things to say about history in general and the respective periods they are set in than many other historical movies which may stick to the facts more.

I doubt that The King is Dancing gives a very accurate portayal of Louis XIV, or of Jean-Baptiste Lully, the royal composer. Or of the time it depicts. Yet it is a quite intelligent movie (though not nearly as good as Anonymous, let alone Midnight in Paris or Inglourious Basterds. The King is Dancing uses the story of Louis XIV and Lully to explore the relationship between (popular) arts/culture and nation-building.

It won't surprise you that according to this movie Louis XIV loved to dance. He especially loved to dance in plays written and composed by Jean-Baptiste Lully. He loved Lully's music so much that even his fever dissapeared when Lully played on his violin. The plays were also important for Louis, because through them he could represent his greatness. And, considering that he was seen as the embodiment of France, the plays therefore represented the greatness of France. The movie gets the importance of cultural objects in creating a national character. It was only in the 19th century that nations as we mostly know them today were created. Their creation probably would not have been possible without nationalistic poets and writers, who wrote books and poems about the greatness of their nationality. And how there were certain values that bonded all French (or Germans or Italians, etc). But it wasn't enough that they glorified their nation. They also explained in their writings that the other nationalities were different and lesser than them and had other values.

All of this can be seen in The King is Dancing. It is important for Louis that the plays reflect good values, because he and France might look bad if they don't. And not only the plays. Lully, the playwright himself should watch his behavior. But not everybody agrees what good values are. A conservative section of Louis' court sees God and the Christian religion as inseparable from the French nation. This is why when Lully and Moliere write a play that satirizes God and the Christians they are very unhappy. This could mean that France and its people will denounce religion. God will be mad. And if you though that things aren't hard enough for Lully, he is a born Italian. That alone makes people in Louis' court suspicious of him. But Lully wants to stay so much in France that he acts as a Frenchman even more than the original French. He is horrified when he learns that Moliere wants to write a French opera. Even if the opera is nationalistic and represents French values, it is not just about the content. The artform itself can be seen a defining national characteristic. And opera is seen as an inherently Italian artform for weak men such as the Italians. For real men such as the French dance is the national artform. Opera's shouldn't be performed by French and certainly not be made by him. He might be seen as an Italian! Though when Louis convinces his court that a French opera could very well reflect the French values and be seen as a new national artform, Lully is more then willing to double cross Moliere and claim Moliere's plays as his own. He is quite an opportunist.

I liked the film because of all this. But I am very interested in such things. During my study I have mostly focused on writing about how nations and the idea of the nation is presented in media/cultural objects. If you aren't interested in such things there is not really a reason to see the movie. The movie is not very interesting or compelling and even these ideas about nations aren't really presented in a very compelling way. Louis XIV is a very bland, not very interesting character  Part of the reason for this is that the young actor portraying him isn't very convincing. Forunately Lully is an interesting character though, a selfish cowardly opportunist. The movie also tries to be so much different things. A romantic potboilerish soap opera, a movie on nation-building, a movie about Lully and a movie about Louis. It fails to make a coherent whole out if at all. The scenes in which it is about one thing too often seem to come from a completely different movie than the scenes in which it is about an other thing. So many of the scenes seem to be completely randomly thrown in. There is for example a scene in which we see a play ridiculing the Bulgarian ambassador (and thus Bulgaria), because he inaulted Louis. I again found this scene interesting, because it shows quite well how foreign nations are portrayed as a mysterious, evil, dangerous 'Other'. But the scene comes from nowhere. Not only haven't we seen Louis dealing with Bulgaria or it's ambassador before that scene, we haven't seen him deal with any ambassador. And we don't see him doing it afterwards. Another example of this is the beginning and end of the movie. It begins and ends with a completely redundant flash forward of Lully which doesn't have much to do with his character as it is portrayed. And it is even less important for the rest of the movie.

39. Testament &...

Lyrics

Na 22 jaren in dit leven
(After 22 years in this life)
Maak ik het testament op van mijn jeugd
(I write the testament of my youth)
Niet dat ik geld of goed heb weg te geven
(Not that I have got any money of stuff to give)
Voor slimme jongen heb ik nooit gedeugd
(I've never been a decent, smart boy)
Maar ik heb nog wel wat mooie idealen
(But I still have some beautiful ideals)
Goed van snit hoewel ze uit de mode zijn
(They still work well, though they are out of fashion)
Wie ze hebben wil die mag ze komen halen
(Whomever wants them can come and get them)
Vooral jonge mensen vinden ze nog fijn
(Especially young people still like them)

Aan mijn broertje dat zo graag wil gaan studeren
(To my brother, who wants to go to college so much)
Laat ik met plezier 't adres na van mijn kroeg
(I am happy to give the adress of my bar)
Waar 'k teveel dronk om een vrouw te imponeren
(Where I drank too much to impress a woman)
En daarna de klappen kreeg waarom ik vroeg
(And afterwards got hit, just what I asked for)
En dan heb ik nog een stuk of wat vriendinnen
(And I also have a bunch of girlfriends)
Die wel-opgevoed en zeer verstandig zijn
(Who are well-raised and very smart)
En waarmee je dus geen donder kunt beginnen
(So you can't do a damn with them)
Maar misschien krijgt iemand anders ze wel klein
(But maybe someone else will tame them)

Voor mijn neefje zijn mijn onvervulde wensen
(For my cousin are my unfulfilled wishes)
Wel wat kinderlijk maar ach ze zijn zo diep
(A bit childish, but they are so very deep)
Ik behoorde immer tot die groep van mensen
(I always belonged to the group of people)
Voor wie 't geluk toch altijd harder liep
(For whom happiness was always a bit too fast)
Aan mijn vrienden laat ik gaarne het vermogen
(To my friends I leave the ability)
Om verliefd te worden op een meisjeslach
(To fall in love with a female smile)
Zelf ben ik helaas een keer teveel bedrogen
(Unfortunately, I've been cheated once too often)
Maar wie het eens proberen wil die mag
(But you're welcome if you want to try)

M'n vriendinnetje ik laat jou alle nachten
(My girlfriend, I leave you all the nights)
Dat ik tranen om jouw ontrouw heb gestort
(That I shed tears over your infidelity)
Maar onthoudt dit wel ik zal geduldig wachten
(But remember that I will wait patiently)
Tot ik lach omdat jij ook belazerd wordt
(Until I smile, because someone is fooling you)
En de leraar die mij altijd placht te dreigen
(And the teacher who always wanted to threaten me)
Jongen jij komt nog op het verkeerde pad
(Boy, you will go astray someday)
Kan tevreden zijn en hoeft niets meer te krijgen
(Can be satisfied and doesn't need to get anything anymore)
Dat wil zeggen hij heeft toch gelijk gehad
(What I mean is, he turned out to be correct)

Voor mijn ouders is het album met de plaatjes
(For my parents is the album with the pictures)
Die zo vals getuigen van een blijde jeugd
(False witnesses of a happy youth)
Maar ze tonen niet de zouteloze praatjes
(But they don't show the toothless talks)
Die een kind opvoeden in eer en deugd
(That raise a child to live with honor and virtue)
En verder krijgen z'alle dwaze dingen
(And furthermore they get all the foolish things back)
Terug die ze mij teveel geleerd hebben die tijd
(That they've taught me too much) 
Ze kunnen mij tenslotte ook niet dwingen
(After all, they can't force me)
Groot te worden zonder diep berouw en spijt
(To grow up without deep sorrow and regret)

En dan heb ik ook nog enkele goede vrienden
(Then, I have some good friends)
Maar die hebben al genoeg van mij gehad
(But I have gotten them enough)
Dus ik gun ze nu het loon dat ze verdienden
(So I gladly give them what they deserve)
Alle drank die ze van mij hebben gejat
(All the drinks they stole from me) 
Verder niets er zijn alleen nog een paar dingen
(Lastly there are still a couple of things)
Die ik houd omdat geen mens er iets aan heeft
(I keep, because they are no use to anybody)
Dat zijn mijn goede jeugdherinneringen
(That are my good childhood memories)
Die neem je mee zolang je verder leeft
(You keep them with you as long as you live)


Well, this song just rubs me the wrong way. Too much drama that seems to exist only for the sake of drama. I feel that Boudewijn de Groot very disingenuously presents himself as some kind of great, deeply tormented man, full of deep, troubling thoughts. I think this is a pretty whiny song, by a man who doesn't seem to have had much reason for whining. Which would be a lesser problem if he could convincingly sell it. To me he doesn't. My slight distaste for the song explains the movie I chose. It is a movie about a youngster rejecting society. I thought I'd hate it. I was completely wrong.

The Movie: Into the Wild (Sean Penn, 2007)

In high school I've had some classes about the Romantic writers and poets, who emerged in the 18th century. We learned the usual stuff about them. In their writings they rejected the civil/industrial society. They also reject reason and the values of rationalism, instead caring deeply about feelings and emotions. And they wrote about the (destructive) power and greatness of nature. While I thought that a lot of these writers had a great style, I did dislike them. I believe(d) that 'our' human society is essentially good. Despite the fact that we've done many horrible things, I believe that we've achieved a lot more great things. And that human interaction is something, not only important, but great. To reject our society and the people in it in favor of nature is therefore wrong and antisocial. These Romantics may have had great love for nature, but to me that was meaningless if they don't have great love for humans and civil society.

So despite the fact that I was aware that Into the Wild had a reputation as a very good film, I kind of consciously avoided it since it came out. The movie is about Chris McCandles who after college decides to reject civil society and go into the wild. His dream is to live alone in the Alaskan woods. I thought it would present this as an unambiguously good thing. It didn't help that the movie is directed by Sean Penn, who often comes of as a pretty arrogant misanthrope, who hates all of society/humanity. That's also why I don't always like him as an actor. Too often in his roles his contempt shines through. That's unfortunate, because when he does show kindness as in The Interpreter or in Milk (his Oscar for that was very much deserved) he can be really great. He does show that kindness in the movies that he directs. At least in the two I've seen. The Pledge is a 2001 movie with Jack Nicholson. It got that Nicholson, in the roles that made him great in the 60's and 70's, played wise guys who were pretty tragic. They were wise guys, but they had to struggle a lot to make it and sometimes failed. They weren't wise guys who were the king of their world, as Nicholson often was in his later roles.

Into the Wild is a great movie. Sean Penn clearly has a lot of sympathy and compassion for Chris. And not only for him, but also for what he wants to do. But that doesn't mean that he fully supports Chris' decisions. Besides he has that sympathy and compassion for every character in the movie, including the ones who disagree with him. In fact perhaps the most sympathetic character in the movie is Chris' sister Carine (Jena Malone). Malone is only on screen for a couple of minutes and is narrating some parts of the movie. Yet through this narration and her short scenes she really manages to convey her love for her brother and how she is both extremely sad and elated that her brother has gone into the wild to follow his dream.

The movie also asks the question whether a human can be truly independent from human civilization, even if he goes on to live alone in the wilderness. Chris may be far away from civil society, he is still dependent on the inventions of civil society to survive. He uses rifles to kill animals, sleeps in an abandoned bus and uses cooking material to prepare his food.

Watching the movie it sometimes feels as if in preparation for it Sean Penn has studied the Romantic poets O wrote about earlier. Admittedly I don't know much about them beyond what I've learned at school, but the movie sometimes feels as if it could have been made by such a poet if he wanted to objectively examine his beliefs (and had access to film equipment, which was pretty hard to come by in the 18th century). This may sound like a pretty pretentious statement and it may well be. But the movie is pretty poetic. It doesn't really have a narrative. It mostly consists of chronologically and narratively disjointed scenes in which Chris meats various people on his journey to Alaska, his life on Alaska, and various memories of Chris and Carine's unhappy childhood. Most scenes aren't really concerned with moving the plot forward or saying something interesting, but in conveying emotions. And it does this incredibly successfully. You may disagree with whatever Chris does, but the movie conveys his joy in doing it so greatly that it makes you unbelievably happy. It also makes us understand why someone might want to go into the wild. This movie is, among other things, also a love letter to the vastness of America.

This is essentially a movie about good people having and pursuing the freedom to live the life they want to live. And despite the fact that Chris says that the joy of life doesn't come principally from the joy of human relationships, the movie posits that the joy of human relationships is what matters most to most people. The movie looks with great sadness at Chris, who leaves each and every person who he meets on his journey in order to live alone at Alaska. And it is quite sad. All these people he meets on his journey are intelligent, interesting, free spirits. He has a wonderful time with them and they with him. And as I said earlier the movie conveys the joy and happiness of these people so well, that you just don't want to leave the scene. If he would stay with these people he would be able to live doing, what are for him, fulfilling things with people that love him and that he loves. The movie gets that Chris misunderstands that this is what he is really pursuing. Unfortunately when Chris gets this himself, it is too late. The actors by the way are all really great. The movie manages to make Vince Vaughn sympathetic. I thought that was impossible. The movie is also the final proof that the people claiming Kristen Stewart is talentless are completely wrong. I haven't seen the Twilight movies, and probably won't. But if I do it will be because of her. She is one of the best and one of the most beautiful young actresses now working. To me, she proved this already in the great Adventureland, which I think is the best teen romantic comedy ever made. But she has her finest moment in this movie, when in the best (too short) scene in the movie she performs the song Angel from Montgomery. Hal Holbrook got nominated for an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, but his character is the dullest one in the movie. And also the only one that feels more like a walking movie cliche instead of a real human being.
 





 

38. Symapthy for the Devil &...

Lyrics

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith

I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands a’ sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, ah yeah

I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the god they made

I shouted out,
"Who killed the Kennedy's?"
When after all
It was you and me

Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, ahhh yeah, get down, baby

(2:54) woo
(3:03) woooah

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game mmm yeah
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
'Cause I'm in need of some restraint

So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, have some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, mmm yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, mmm mean it, get down

(4:43) Woo, who
ah yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
(4:52) bum bum ba ba ba do a, bum bum ba ba ba do a
(5:06) yea Ahh yeah!

Tell me baby, what's my name
Tell me honey, a can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame

Oh, who
woo, woo
Woo, who alright
(5:35) oo, oo oo
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Oh, yeah
Woo, who, who
Woo, who, who
Oh, yeah

well What's my name
Tell me, baby, a what's my name
Tell me, sweetie, a what's my name

oo, who, who
oo, who, who
oo, who, who
oo, who, who

oo, who, who
oo, who, who
oo, who, who
Ahhhhh, yeah

Woo woo

I've been thinking a bit recently about how important good singing is for my enjoyment of a song. Or how important it is that the singer of the song has a good voice. I find Adele for example pretty boring, while I think that Lana Del Rey is the most interesting female singer to come out in this century. Yet it is undeniable that Adele has a better, stronger voice than Del Rey. She is a 'better' singer. Sympathy for the Devil is a good example of this. Especially in the second half of the song it is pretty clear that Mick Jagger is not a good singer. He is much worse than Adele (and probably also worse than Lana del Rey). Yet Adele has never made a song as good as this one. Nor do I believe that this would be a better song if you would swap her with Jagger. Anyway, on to the movie. It is not a very inspired choice, but it was a very easy one. 

  

The Movie: The Devil's Advocate (Taylor Hackford, 1997)

 

I found The Devil's Advocate to be a pretty entertaining film, but it is a huge, way too long mess. It tries do do too much, but is too often not very successful. This could have been a great 90 minute sleazy, pulpy thriller/horror. Instead it is nearly 2,5 hours long. In this 2,5 hours it tries to be a sleazy, pulpy horror movie, a serious horror movie, a romantic drama, a courthouse drama and even a satire. I think that's it, though I might've forgotten some other genres it wants to be. And everytime it does something good or even great it goes on to do something unbelievably stupid. The best example of this comes near the end. Keanu Reeves plays a Florida advocate who has never lost a case. After winning a particularly hard case he is brought to New York to work for John Milton, a rich corporate. John Milton is played by Al Pacino and is the literal devil. I found it a bit funny that, as he is brought up by his deeply religious mother, Reeves' character Kevin Lomax, seems completely oblivious to the name of his boss. But Kevin is a pretty oblivious fella anyway. Only in his final confrontation with John, after a whole lot of hints, does he realize that his boss is the devil incarnated. 

This final confrontation is a glorious, relatively long scene. A major reason for this is Al Pacino. In this movie he gives a masterclass in convincingly overacting/chewing the scenery. It is rare to see someone having so much fun playing a role, while at the same time being utterly convincing. In that final confrontation he raises his game even more. He is (finally) helped by some juicy dialogue about how he differs from God (it's too bad really that they didn't get someone to play God incarnated), how he is the last humanist on earth, how he is awesome, and how he can make Kevin's life awesome. How can he make Kevin's lfie awesome? Well, if Kevin is willing to fuck Christabella, one of his hot colleagues, who is actually also Kevin's half-sister they will raise Satan's kid and rule the world. And why must Kevin do this? Well because John, that devil, is Kevin's father. One night in 1966 he seduced Kevin's deeply religious mother. That's also why Kevin won all his cases. It was 'divine' intervention. Only not by God, but by the devil. As you can see this scene is completely bonkers. But in a glorious way, with deliciously pulpy dialogue, an Al Pacino having the time of his life, some great cinematography and some really good special effects. I wished that more of the movie was in that vein, but I loved that scene so much that I was willing to forgive every flaw of the movie. And then, the scene ended and we cut to what turned out to be the most stupid plot twist I've ever seen. And one of the worst, most stupid and disappointing endings I've ever seen. It was a hackneyed way to stupidly and lazily add a moral and a happy ending to the movie.  

That last scene was fortunately not the only time the movie embraced it's pulpy potential. There is also for example a great scene in which Al Pacino berates in Spanish a couple of thugs in the subway. As you see basically everything great about this movie involves Al Pacino. He is also given a slightly satiric speech that reminded me a bit of Ned Beatty's famous speech in Network. That too is pretty entertaining. When it did this kind of things, the movie was great fun. Unfortunately too often it did other things. The scenes were the movie tried to be a serious horror movie were admittedly pretty scary, but they scared me, because of how flawed they were. They were completely random. There were basically two or three of them and there was no single reason why they would exist in the movie. So they caught me pretty much by surprise. There was also no logic or consistency within them. The director showed pretty gross things that had no real relation to the plot or 'ideas' of the movie. So during those I was prepared for any randomly horrific thing to happen. As I said I was pretty tense during them, but I am not sure that it was because of good film making.

But whether for good or bad reasons, at least the horror scenes worked. The scenes where the movie tried to be a courthouse drama or a relationships drama didn't work in any way and there were too many of them. The courthouse drama was the most bland, unimaginative and dull courthouse drama I've ever seen. Not only that, the movie often couldn't even convincingly make clear how Reeves won his cases. As for the relationship drama. Well, if there is one cinematic cliche I am tired of, it is that of the couple fighting irrationally, because one half of the couple spends to much time at his/her job. The movie probably sets the world record for such scenes. There are about six/seven of them. And of course each scene follows the same pattern. Kevin comes home late from work, his wife is mad him, they shout idiotically, Kevin promises to be there for her, and after two scenes the whole thing starts anew. By the way Kevin's wife is played by Charlize Theron. The previous Reeves-Theron movie I discussed here was Sweet November. That was probably the worst movie I've yet discussed on this blog, but at least Reeves and Theron had much better chemistry there and at least they tried to be sympathetic. They also actually gave better performances there than here. I've often thought that the claims that Reeves is a bad actor are exaggerated, but his performance here can't be excused. Even by his usual standards he wouldn't be able to hold his own in a scene with Al  Pacino. But here with Pacino at his best and Reevvves at his worst, it is just laughable. He also seems to think he is in a different movie from Pacino. While Pacino knows he is what should be a pulpy entertainment, Reeves thinks he is in an Oscar-worthy imimportant ddrama. He overacts his seriousness. This is by far his worst performance.