frankde-jong
Joined Aug 2012
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings1.4K
frankde-jong's rating
Reviews1.4K
frankde-jong's rating
I am not a real horror fan, but I don't despise a good horror movie either. Good horror movies tend to appear in pairs. 2018 saw the release of both "A quiet place" (John Krasinski) and "Hereditary" (Ari Aster). In 2025 both "Bring her back" and "Weapons" (Zach Cregger) are released in quick succession.
I first saw "Bring her back". Like all good horror movies the film starts quiet, but pregnant with doom. Nothing happens but you (and some of the main characters) sense that there is something wrong. Unfortunately in most cases, and "Bring her back" is no exception, the director succumbs to the temptation for (too much) shock effects later in the movie.
In my hometown horror movies are apperently a no go area for the local arthouse cinema's, so it is one of the rare occasions I visit a commercial cinema, giving me a very different viewing experience (not only a different film but also a different audience).
"Bring her back" is about both a mysterious ritual and about a grieving process.
Little information is given about the mysterious ritual. In fact all we know about this ritual comes from an obscure video tape at the beginning of the movie, jus as in "Ringu" (1998, Hideo Nakata). Giving the audience so little information undoubtedly was an explicit choice in making this movie, but in my opinion the character of Oliver (Jonah Wren Phillips) doesn't quite work out this way.
The emphasis in the film is much more on the grieving proces and on the effect it has on the mourning individual. In this respect the casting of Sally Hawkins as Laura is surprising and effective. Knowing the cheery and optimistic character she plays in "Happy go lucky" (2008, Mike Leigh) you are not prepared for the monster she has become in this movie.
The theme of a parent turning into a monster due to what has happened to his / her child made me think of "Les yeux sans visage" (1960, Georges Franju). In this case the emotion responsible for the transformation was not mourning but feelings of guilt. We can see the combination of mourning and horror in "Don't look now" (1973, Nicolas Roeg). In this film however nobody is turned into a monster.
I first saw "Bring her back". Like all good horror movies the film starts quiet, but pregnant with doom. Nothing happens but you (and some of the main characters) sense that there is something wrong. Unfortunately in most cases, and "Bring her back" is no exception, the director succumbs to the temptation for (too much) shock effects later in the movie.
In my hometown horror movies are apperently a no go area for the local arthouse cinema's, so it is one of the rare occasions I visit a commercial cinema, giving me a very different viewing experience (not only a different film but also a different audience).
"Bring her back" is about both a mysterious ritual and about a grieving process.
Little information is given about the mysterious ritual. In fact all we know about this ritual comes from an obscure video tape at the beginning of the movie, jus as in "Ringu" (1998, Hideo Nakata). Giving the audience so little information undoubtedly was an explicit choice in making this movie, but in my opinion the character of Oliver (Jonah Wren Phillips) doesn't quite work out this way.
The emphasis in the film is much more on the grieving proces and on the effect it has on the mourning individual. In this respect the casting of Sally Hawkins as Laura is surprising and effective. Knowing the cheery and optimistic character she plays in "Happy go lucky" (2008, Mike Leigh) you are not prepared for the monster she has become in this movie.
The theme of a parent turning into a monster due to what has happened to his / her child made me think of "Les yeux sans visage" (1960, Georges Franju). In this case the emotion responsible for the transformation was not mourning but feelings of guilt. We can see the combination of mourning and horror in "Don't look now" (1973, Nicolas Roeg). In this film however nobody is turned into a monster.
In "The awful truth" a couple (Jerry played by Cary Grant and Lucy played by Irene Dunne) divorces rather hastily after a quarrel. Each of them starts dating again but this is primarily to make the other jealous, and not so much because they really love their dates. They also try to sabotage each others dates. Little by little they begin to realise that they still love each other, but who is the one to confess first?
The story of "The awful truth reminded me very much of "His girls friday" (1940, Howard Hawks, also with Cary Grant in the male lead). Both films are screwball comedy's. Apart from Howard Hawks also Frank Capra ("It happened one night", 1934) and Ernst Lubitsch ("The shop around the corner", 1940) are famous screwbal directors.
A screwbal comedy is a romantic comedy with a few added characteritsics. The battle of the sexes is fought out with sharp dialogues and often the women turn out to have the sharper tongue. In the heydays of the screwball comedies the Hayes code forbid any nude and so sexual attraction had to be suggested in other ways, often in the form of multi-interpretable sentences.
In my opinion "The awful truth" is not at par with the other mentioned screwbal comedies although it surely has some amusing scenes. Right at the start a lawyer tries to discourage the hasty divorce of the couple. While glorifying marriage on telephone ("Marriage is a beautiful thing") he is quarreling with his own wife at the same time. In a later scene Jerry is dating a night club singer. When her act turns out to be rather vulgar (a wind machine blows her skirt up) Jerry is embarressed in front of Lucy. This last scene is however only remarkable with hinsight, nearly predicting a similar scene with Marilyn Monroe in "The seven years itch" (1955, Billy Wilder).
Director Leo McCarey won the Oscar for best director with "The awful truth". In his accepting speech he said that they gave him the Oscar for the wrong film. He meant that in his opinion an Oscar for his film "Make way for tommorow" from the same year would have been more in place. I think he was right.
In the presen time there are lots of romantic comedies, but the screwball is more or less extinct. On Wikipedia I found "Hit man" (2023, Richard Linklater) as a recent example. In this film the female lead character has elements of a "femme fatale" and that is more closely related to the film noir than to the screwball. In my opinion "When Harry met Sally" (1989, Rob Reiner) is a "recent" film that illustrates the "can't live with or without you" theme of "The awful truth". This film however is not regarded a screwball. Maybe the extinction of the screwball has something to do with the simple fact that there is no Hay code anymore and so there is also no need for directors to work around it.
The story of "The awful truth reminded me very much of "His girls friday" (1940, Howard Hawks, also with Cary Grant in the male lead). Both films are screwball comedy's. Apart from Howard Hawks also Frank Capra ("It happened one night", 1934) and Ernst Lubitsch ("The shop around the corner", 1940) are famous screwbal directors.
A screwbal comedy is a romantic comedy with a few added characteritsics. The battle of the sexes is fought out with sharp dialogues and often the women turn out to have the sharper tongue. In the heydays of the screwball comedies the Hayes code forbid any nude and so sexual attraction had to be suggested in other ways, often in the form of multi-interpretable sentences.
In my opinion "The awful truth" is not at par with the other mentioned screwbal comedies although it surely has some amusing scenes. Right at the start a lawyer tries to discourage the hasty divorce of the couple. While glorifying marriage on telephone ("Marriage is a beautiful thing") he is quarreling with his own wife at the same time. In a later scene Jerry is dating a night club singer. When her act turns out to be rather vulgar (a wind machine blows her skirt up) Jerry is embarressed in front of Lucy. This last scene is however only remarkable with hinsight, nearly predicting a similar scene with Marilyn Monroe in "The seven years itch" (1955, Billy Wilder).
Director Leo McCarey won the Oscar for best director with "The awful truth". In his accepting speech he said that they gave him the Oscar for the wrong film. He meant that in his opinion an Oscar for his film "Make way for tommorow" from the same year would have been more in place. I think he was right.
In the presen time there are lots of romantic comedies, but the screwball is more or less extinct. On Wikipedia I found "Hit man" (2023, Richard Linklater) as a recent example. In this film the female lead character has elements of a "femme fatale" and that is more closely related to the film noir than to the screwball. In my opinion "When Harry met Sally" (1989, Rob Reiner) is a "recent" film that illustrates the "can't live with or without you" theme of "The awful truth". This film however is not regarded a screwball. Maybe the extinction of the screwball has something to do with the simple fact that there is no Hay code anymore and so there is also no need for directors to work around it.
At the end of the seventies John Savage played in two Vietnam movies, but they could not have been more different. In 1978 he played in "The deer hunter" (Michael Cimino) and in 1979 he played in "Hair" (Milos Forman).
"Hair" is a musical adaptation. When translating a musical to the silverscreen it is crucial to keep the balance between story and music right. In my opinion in the first half of the film the music dominates too much, the second half of the film is more rightly balanced. Due to the fact that the music is real good this is however only a minor deficit.
I didn't see the musical but I understand that Milos Forman changed a few things in the story.
In the musical Claude (John Savage) is one of the hippies. In the film version he is a farmers son from Oklahoma that meets the hippies in New York while on his way to the army training camp.
In the musical Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo) is a feminist member of the hippies. In the film version she is a young lady from a very rich family that rides by on her horse when Claude meets the hippies. Claude immediatly falls in love with her.
The musical focuses on the peace movement against the Vietnam war. The film focuses on the life style of the hippies more in general.
It is predominantly the last mentioned difference that offended Gerome Ragni and James Rado, the writers of the stage show. They felt that in the film the hippies were reduced to a gang of oddballs.
In my opinion it isn't that bad. On the contrary, by positioning Claude and Sheila outside the group of hippies the film gives a more complete spectrum of the relationship between the American people and the Vietnam war.
Claude stand for people believing in the war and fighting it.
Sheila, although a woman, stands for the rich and powerful Americans that believed in the war but rather not fought in it.
The hippies stand for the peace movement that didn't believe in the war and refused military service.
As it is the film is a very entertaining film grasping the mood of the late sixties. The opening-song is about "The age of Aquarius". I did't know what this term exactly meant but it turned out to be an astrological term. The age of Aquarius stands for humanitarianism, equality, social progress and rebellion. The age preceding the age of Aquarius is the age of Pisces which is characterized by religion, sacrifice and martyrdom. Defined in this way the clash between the hippie movement and the Vietnam war can indeed be symbolized as a clash between the ages of Pisces and Aquarius.
I saw "Hair" as an open air screening, a summer festival of the local arthouse cinema. The volunteers of the arthouse were dressed according to the period in question, wearing a flower in their hair. In this way the whole of America was covered from New York (location of the film "Hair") to San Fransisco (the flower in your hair of the Scot McKenzie song).
"Hair" is a musical adaptation. When translating a musical to the silverscreen it is crucial to keep the balance between story and music right. In my opinion in the first half of the film the music dominates too much, the second half of the film is more rightly balanced. Due to the fact that the music is real good this is however only a minor deficit.
I didn't see the musical but I understand that Milos Forman changed a few things in the story.
In the musical Claude (John Savage) is one of the hippies. In the film version he is a farmers son from Oklahoma that meets the hippies in New York while on his way to the army training camp.
In the musical Sheila (Beverly D'Angelo) is a feminist member of the hippies. In the film version she is a young lady from a very rich family that rides by on her horse when Claude meets the hippies. Claude immediatly falls in love with her.
The musical focuses on the peace movement against the Vietnam war. The film focuses on the life style of the hippies more in general.
It is predominantly the last mentioned difference that offended Gerome Ragni and James Rado, the writers of the stage show. They felt that in the film the hippies were reduced to a gang of oddballs.
In my opinion it isn't that bad. On the contrary, by positioning Claude and Sheila outside the group of hippies the film gives a more complete spectrum of the relationship between the American people and the Vietnam war.
Claude stand for people believing in the war and fighting it.
Sheila, although a woman, stands for the rich and powerful Americans that believed in the war but rather not fought in it.
The hippies stand for the peace movement that didn't believe in the war and refused military service.
As it is the film is a very entertaining film grasping the mood of the late sixties. The opening-song is about "The age of Aquarius". I did't know what this term exactly meant but it turned out to be an astrological term. The age of Aquarius stands for humanitarianism, equality, social progress and rebellion. The age preceding the age of Aquarius is the age of Pisces which is characterized by religion, sacrifice and martyrdom. Defined in this way the clash between the hippie movement and the Vietnam war can indeed be symbolized as a clash between the ages of Pisces and Aquarius.
I saw "Hair" as an open air screening, a summer festival of the local arthouse cinema. The volunteers of the arthouse were dressed according to the period in question, wearing a flower in their hair. In this way the whole of America was covered from New York (location of the film "Hair") to San Fransisco (the flower in your hair of the Scot McKenzie song).