gekkepoppetje

This is my third attempt at writing a review. The first two were not posted, probably because I use the word 'n - azi' and that word is apparently a forbidden word. A mockery of course, because in this film everyone talks about n - azi's all the time!

Because my comment is very relevant and is precisely about this hypocritical part of the media, I am writing the piece again, but now I call n -azis: 'nuts'. Let's see if it gets posted. Otherwise, this will be my last review on this site.

The joke with American movies in general and this film in particular is that they always tell stories about the battle between good and evil. The so-called 'good' must then use even more violence to overcome so-called 'evil'. Happiness is a warm gun. To overcome 'evil', 'good' must always use 'ungentlemanly warfare'. The hero is more covered in blood than the villain.

We all know the nuts from the Second World War: the nuts degraded people to animals and murdered them in large numbers. What in the world could be worse than a nut? They are the perfect villains to justify violence (ask Tarantino).

Nuts are a useful tool for films that want to make violence legitimate, so that the viewer can indulge in cruelty without having to feel guilty. In The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare, anything is allowed to fight the nuts. Strangling, shooting, cutting throats, you name it. Nuts have been degraded to animals and they are being killed in large numbers. The makers prove that they are also nuts themselves! You can state 'Yes, but then they are nuts for a good cause.' But hey! That's what the nuts from the Second World War thought too, right?

To make matters worse, the film is also boring. Because the bad murderers are only weak and the good murderers are only strong. Moreover, all the players are caricatures, which means there is no real drama. What remains is a group of nuts that degrades and kills another group of nuts into animals. Technically speaking, this is a film by and for nuts.

In many reviews that people write here about the film Monkey Man, they make a comparison with the John Wick films.

But John Wick is exactly the shade of gray that Hollywood continuously presents according to the maxim: 'If you like chocolate, we will drown you in it.'

In John Wick, after clean headshot number 43, you reach for your popcorn in anticipation of the 2183 boring headshots that are yet to come. John Wick is so cringe-inducing boring that the film can't even stand in the shadow of Monkey Man's big toenail.

Originality - imagination - entertainment - realism - tension - suggestion - fantasy - speed - humor - intelligence - good sound score - visual beauty - blunt violence - real people: this film has everything that John Wick lacks.

This film really looks stunning. In terms of art direction and realism, French films are superior to the plastic junk from Hollywood. However, if Vaincre ou Mourir had listened to one well-known American maxim: 'Show, don't tell', the film would have succeeded. Unfortunately, viewers are not allowed to experience history, we must listen to it and understand it.

The fact that at the beginning of the film a number of specialists start to indicate what is yet to come, does not bode well. We are then presented with a number of colorful characters. Unfortunately we are not allowed to get to know them, but they are explained and that is a killer for any drama.

Many films that tell an unexposed part of history have an enormous need for framing and interpretation. The result is a story that limps on two legs, in which facts are more important than drama. And let it be precisely drama that ensures that facts stick. There were probably too many correct or educational captains on the ship of this production. A good screenplay and a good director would have sufficed.