Bent
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.97 You Save: $8.01 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $5.49 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Buy this DVD movie at online store in your country
Canada
Canada
Movie Reviews of Bent
Movie Review: Bent/Cult
Summary: 4 Stars
Interesting story for the discerning viewer, Early Clive Owen and special appearance of Mick Jagger in drag no less. Rather intense ending of cruelty to homosexuals by the Nazis.Movie Review: INTERESTING & SAD
Summary: 4 Stars
It's a compelling story of 2 men in a consentration camp that are not able to share a love; but find a spiritual way of doing so.Movie Review: Powerful story
Summary: 3 Stars
"Bent" has a powerful story at its core, and two amazing performances. But the director obviously hasn't learned that less is more, and doesn't trust his audience to understand the story without banging it into their heads for them.
The movie is somewhat schizophrenic, since it feels like two different movies strung together. The first movie, which I guess is mainly to put the story in context, is set in Berlin in the 30's, and consists of a lot of scenes in gay night clubs with lots of gorgeous men & women wearing not much and engaging in a great deal of anonymous sex. It is dominated by an absolutely dreadful performance by Mick Jagger, as a transvestite who looks a lot like my Aunt Gertie. It introduces Max and his lover, Rudy. This part of the movie goes on way too long. I am sure that the purpose is to provide a historical premise for the movie, as well as contrast for the stark and terrifying life in Dachau which follows. However, the movie is only 104 minutes long, and a disproportionate amount of time (35 minutes)is spent getting everyone into place for the main plot. In addition, it felt like a lot of these choreographed scenes of orgies crossed the line from setting the stage for the plot to taking on a life of their own, detracting from the story that follows.
This is really a shame, since the second movie, after Max and Rudy are arrested and put on a train for Dachau, is very compelling. But once, again, it feels like devices are stuck in with no good reason except, possibly to point out that you are watching a movie and not a play. For example, the train ride to Dachau is utterly harrowing. And yet the director intersperses these scenes with sepia prints of a train moving through countryside. I have no idea why he did this, however it seemed to me that the effect was (at least for this viewer) to distance the audience from the horrifying reality of the events in the train, as well as give it a melodramatic flair that was out of place.
Once the action moves to Dachau, it does feel a bit like a stage play. But the drama that enfolds, a love story where neither lover can touch or often even look at one another, is very moving. There is a scene where Max and Horst (another prisoner in Dachau because of his homosexuality) make love without touching or looking at eachother. It feels like a risky scene for the actors, but that may contribute to its power, because it ends up being a convincing expression of love and even triumph over circumstances. In addition, in spite of the essential tragedy of the story, there are actually some very humorous moments.
Without spoiling the movie, I am not sure how I feel about the last moments of the movie, and Max's actions. The events in the last scene feel inevitable, but nevertheless devastating. I am just not sure if Max's final acts are true to the character, as opposed to being a dramatic device to end the film. Unfortunately, the violin solo whining in the background did nothing to add to the emotional impact of the final scene.
Clive Owen and Lothaire Bluteau give really tremendous, understated performances, and it is these performances, and some moments of great dialogue that makes this a film worth seeing.
Movie Review: No, don't stop!...Aw, shucks...
Summary: 3 Stars
Bent is a mysterious production. I don't understand how it ended up going to where it goes. The movie opens with vivacious scenes with many extras, but then, loses people as it moves along. Is there some peculiar reason for this? If you're thinking this is going to take you into scenes like in "Schindler's List" or "Sophie's Choice," to get a sense of a Nazi death camp, well, don't expect that. The camp in this film is practically deserted. What happened? Did they run out of money to hire extras? No mud, no smoking crematoriums, no guard towers, no huddling masses. Mostly, just the two main characters and a couple of Nazis in some dusty rock quarry. There are some wide shots of the locale, but no one else is around. Where is everyone?
I guess what happened was it became more and more like the play where a simple stage is presented while much of the scenario is only alluded to in the dialogue. But this isn't a play, it's a movie. The different medium, you would hope, should demand a different type of production, but this movie, while it starts out like a movie, ends like a play, and very disappointingly so. Maybe if there had been a more surreal approach to this film, the desolate landscape might have worked. I'm thinking, maybe something like the approach Julie Taymor used when she presented Shakespeare's play "Titus Andronicus" in her surreal film "Titus," where symbolism and deviation from expected reality are consistent beginning to end. Bent is not consistent that way. It takes us from a somewhat real world of Berlin to a minimalist surreal world of Dachau.
What's really disappointing is, just at the moment the movie becomes most interesting, it ends. I want to see how this character continues after his transformation. Instead, the story just leaps--dare I say?--to a cheap melodramatic ending. Wow, the setup was so great at that moment, and then it's like an axe just comes flying down and ends it. This was the moment where the real story begins. This is the new story where the scriptwriter would have been most challenged. How will this character survive now? Instead, the scriptwriter just writes in an ending, signs his x, and leaves. Now's not the time to drop the ball, I was thinking. This ending is not the signature of a great writer. Creative writing 101: follow the interesting, not the obvious, especially if it leads to a fearful place. Go to the dangerous situation. That's where your audience wants you to take them. Don't take an easy way out instead.
The acting is good, not great. Bluteau's performance is the best. Clive Owen is convincing. Ian McKellen's part is very small. Sorry, Mick, you're one of the best white rock'n'rollers of all time, but what makes you great as a rock-n-roller is what undermines you as an actor. Mick's acting is mostly stilted. His part is small too.
What's great about this film is it really gives you a sense, almost on the abstract level, of the dangers of the far right. On the other hand, the whole Nazi situation is, at the same time, simply a backdrop for a character's journey of personal reflection and transformation. I just wish that character had been explored more. This story really blew me away...because of what it didn't do.
Movie Review: Good, but...
Summary: 3 Stars
I enjoyed certain performances in this film, particularly Mick Jagger's turn as the opportunistic drag queen, and Ian McKellen's in-the-closet Uncle Freddie. There's even a good cameo by Rupert Graves as a sadistic SS officer. But I wish Clive Owen had waited a few more years before playing Max, the lead character. His film acting abilities have grown since the time the film was made, and I think he would have added more depth to the character if the movie had been filmed in, say, 2004 rather than 1997.
I couldn't really feel emotionally invested in Max's love for his fellow prisoner, Horst. But I think this was the fault of the filmmakers; it is very obvious at times, that this is the film of a play. The dialogue in most instances was "speechy"; like a play. They had a great starting point, one that's not been covered in an English film before (the homosexual experience under the Nazi regime). But the screenwriter and the director didn't open up the play; research and expand on it, give it depth. There are individual scenes of great emotion. But, just for instance - Clive Owen is basically given a speech to recite after his friend is shot and he's holding him. This soliliquy would be necessary for the stage production, but for a film, the more realistic approach would have been to let the devastated expression on Max's face in the close-up, and the action he takes directly afterward, say it all.
I was a little taken aback by the cheap look of the concentration camp. Frankly, it looked like the filmmakers had taken an abandoned English factory site and surrounded it with barbed wire to represent Dachau. There seemed to be about five SS officers/guards for the whole camp. And, it seemed to me, that there was far too much opportunity for Max and Horst to be talking during their march to the camp, and during their labor - didn't Nazi guards shoot people who talked on a march, and during roll call, etc.? Again, this talking would have necessary in the stage play - but for the film, surely some 'subtext', alternative way of developing the relationship between the two men, could have been incorporated?
But as I said there are some individually powerful scenes, and good performances, to make this film worth seeing. I just wish BENT had been taken further; that the film had been more like, possibly, Fosse's "Cabaret" in its depth and its look. I think the filmmakers lost a great opportunity to create a lasting, brilliant, emotional work of art, by only making 'Bent, the play as a film'.