Tag Archives: reviews

Oct 18 2026

1968 – Planet of the Apes

1968 – Planet of the Apes

It’s an American science-fiction film directed by Franklin J. Schaffner, loosely based on the 1963 French novel by Pierre Boule (La Planète des singes). Its main protagonist is George Taylor, played by Charlton Heston, an astronaut who lands on a planet where a simian society rules over the planet’s human-like race. I rented in on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

We are still in the transition of Hollywood in 1968, and this year we’re going into space. We are in the middle of the space race in that year; the American Apollo program is in full gear. For a while, I had set out “2001: A Space Odyssey” as my film for that year, but I had been warned that is a quiet and meditative movie and yesterday I just felt restless. So I went with this movie. It can’t be that bad if countless sequels and reboots (of which I sadly have seen none) have been made out of it, can it? Add to that the fact that I heard Charlton Heston is a jerk in the movie, even if he is the main protagonist “hero” figure. Heh, that should be interesting! I liked the self-righteous “Ben-Hur” quite a lot, but seeing him thrown off his pedestal a bit seemed intriguing.

We are still fully entrenched in the rebellious side of Hollywood. Much like the protests against the Vietnam war in real life, the themes in Hollywood kept on questioning authority and the way society has always functioned. And again, just like last year’s example of “Bonnie and Clyde“, you are along for the ride and not just critiquing from the sidelines. ome of it is funny – in one scene Taylor shaves off his beard, which had been growing for two years while in cryosleep. The older apes are disgusted, while Taylor explains that in his world it’s actually the young humans who are the ones growing beards. It’s the young nephew ape that then chimes in that he finds the smooth skin intriguing – of course, he had to go against the elders!

There are many other societal themes that get addressed in the movie: authority, religion, righteousness, society, rules, compassion, etc. Some of them resonate, some of them are exposed a bit clumsily.

So, the execution is clumsy, the acting is wooden, and the costuming is ridiculous. Add to that the seeming contradiction in the depiction of women (which added to the prick personality of Taylor): for example, there is the female astronaut commander, respected by at least one of the crew members, but whom Taylor reduces to an Eve who is supposed to carry on the human species. On the planet itself, we have Dr. Zira, a renowned psychologist and veterinarian specializing in the study of humans – she then gets constantly denigrated by Dr. Zaius, the minister of science and chief defender of the faith, underlining the strict patriarchal society (they may be advanced, but they are still sexist apes). And don’t get me started on Linda Harrison’s Nova character, a mute human who is supposed to be the mating partner for Taylor. I can only shake my head at the “noble savage” story they’re going for there.

But then… the movie is thoroughly entertaining. Its message is overt, but subtle enough not to be preachy. I had a great time watching the movie, and it is not for nothing that it became a juggernaut of a franchise. Its sequel came out only 2 years later and it led the way in changing the way Hollywood operated. In the past, sequels were considered B-movies, so of lower quality and interest, with no expectation of critical acclaim (think of the Tarzan, Frankenstein, etc. franchises). This movie changed that dynamic and paved the way for other science fiction blockbuster franchises, such as Star Wars.

Add to that the ending of the movie, which by now has been overly spoiled in general culture (think of the vacuum lady in Spaceballs, for example), but then supposedly packed such a punch, that it left the audiences flabbergasted. Before, it was a slight adventurous sci-fi movie with power inversion themes, the ending felt devastating, an apt critique about the human greed, evil and destructive tendencies.

Oct 4 2026

1967 – Bonnie and Clyde

1967 – Bonnie and Clyde

It’s an American biographical and gangster film directed by Arthur Penn and produced by Warren Beatty. It stars Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty in the titular Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow roles. They are outlaws who roam the Depression-era South robbing banks and convenience stores together with others. It ushered in the era of New Hollywood, a more gritty, but honest form of cinema with self-auteur (away from the studio system and the Hays Code), morally ambiguous main characters and bleak or unresolved endings. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

It’s time for another gangster movie and for yet another tonal shift in movie types. I had already commented on the earnestness of 50s type movies appealing to the better angels of our nature to the cynicism of the early 60s that made fun of the system often in biting satire. Well, now it’s time for showing the dirty parts of life, still cynical, but now you are taking part, riding shotgun instead of having a God’s-eye view over the bad parts of the system. Bonnie and Clyde represents that part of seeking freedom and fame during the Great Depression.

In the beginning, it seems glamorous. That shot of Faye Dunaway posing with a cigar and a gun in front of a car is one for the ages. It looks so stylish, she is dressed so fine, you want that too. Warren Beatty is so easy on the eyes, with his amazing suits accentuating his body. But then the movie very quickly transports you to the reality of what it means to live on the lam: sleeping in dirty cars or run-down accommodations, crawling out of iffy situations through muddy fields or lakes, killing people… Just like other gangster movies, the glamour is unceremoniously unveiled as grueling and unforgiving. And yet, you feel for them when Bonnie’s mother says goodbye to her, she suddenly seems so young. She starts talking of starting over, true regret in her eyes, she suddenly regrets being famous, even though she writes herself a poem.

Well, but did I feel it? The style of the movie is great. Those chase scenes really paved the way towards other movies, like the chase scene in Thelma and Louise. But much like other New Hollywood movies, which this one and The Graduate kicked off the movement, it is very boomerish in its depiction of yearning for freedom. I am sorry to say it, but Boomers do have the reputation of being self-involved. Their self-actualization comes before issues of the greater good. In the movie, they are partially magnanimous towards poor people, but their satisfaction comes first. My boomer teachers had us reading “The Catcher in the Rye” for school, I found Holden to be a whiny, privileged hypocrite, who complained about the phoniness of others while lying to others constantly. Our teachers also had us watching “Easy Rider” which I found so boring, their ideas of freedom being so selfish. It’s what I love about our current GenZ so much, they often do think in communal terms about the greater good.

Now part of it is circumstantial, Boomers didn’t have the greatest role models and were born into a rigid society, so a certain rebelliousness is understandable. But Penn tries to tie these themes to the Great Depression, so the juxtaposition of that boomer style with 30s downtrodden America is a bit jarring. The constant cuts and fast editing make you feel like you are yanked back and forth constantly into joy and despair, which is on purpose, but not very nice. Add to that its famous ending, which sort of leaves you aghast and unsatisfied – what was it all for? And that is what the movie left me, sad. Not feeling sorry for those criminals, they did kill so many cops, after all, just sad at the circumstances.

Aug 30 2026

1965 – Alphaville

1965 – Alphaville

Also titled “Une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution (A Strange Adventure of Lemmy Caution)”, it’s a French New Wave film written and directed by Jean-Luc Godard. It stars Eddie Constantine as Lemmy Caution and Anna Karina as Natacha von Braun. It deals with a reporter visiting a supposed city of the future in another galaxy (although, funnily enough, it simply depicts 1960s modernist Parisian architecture), but it turns out to be a dystopian nightmare. It combines elements of science fiction, film noir, satire and of course those typical Nouvelle Vague elements. I rented it on Amazon Prime Video for €2.99 (SD).

Warnings about the dangers of AI are everywhere these days. There are massive protests against data centers – nobody wants them in their state. n particular, the backlash is strong in the US, with legislature being introduced by AOC to halt data-center construction. Of course, this is nothing new in movies or literature. Blind trust in technology and dystopian futures have always been present. Even George Méliès’ famous 1902 short film “Le Voyage dans la lune” (you know with the rocket in the eye) warns about scientific hubris.

While the moon-trip movie and its critique were heavily influenced by Jules Verne and colonialism, in the 1960s there could be two types of backlash against technology. was directed at the kind of techno-optimism that existed at the time. Big firms were just beginning to acquire large computers that promised to solve the “big problems”. Walt Disney kept promoting his utopia, the “Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow” (EPCOT) which promised that technology would take care of your problems. Side note: I visited EPCOT Center in 1994 before they discontinued that ridiculous 1960s ride one year later – it had such an uncanny-valley look to it. Walt Disney passed away in 1966 without his community ever becoming a reality (thank God), but his faith in technology never wavered, so he is frozen in case we develop something that could revive him. The other backlash was related to the race between the two ideologies: capitalism vs. communism. Were we going to be ruled by money or by central planing? I am not going to rehash those arguments, let’s just say that the ground was very fertile for criticizing both ideologies.

So along comes this movie which critiques this technology-driven approach. In that experimental city, everything is ruled by logic – emotions and art are considered inferior to progress so they are discarded. Words like “conscience” and “love” are erased from dictionaries, which the call Bibles; so they must be replenished constantly. Citizens who cry or show too many feelings are either killed or pressured into killing themselves. The whole city is ruled by a supercomputer named Alpha 60 – hence the name Alphaville for the city.

Within all that techno-critique, it is also a satire – what’s the most modern city you can think of? Paris, of course, haha – it is just shown through its most modern buildings. Even within that there is, of course, is a critique towards the development of “La Defense” a soulless Paris district, just outside the city limits. But there are also noir tropes in the film, with the hard-boiled detective (this time it’s a journalist) exposing everything, the femme fatale who could lead him to perdition if he tries to save her.

But then the movie is also really weird. The Alpha 60 computer is everywhere, hears everything and talks to you in a guttural, monotonous voice. The imagery sometimes switches to negative. The protagonists act as if they’re falling out of nowhere. There are a lot—and I do mean a lot—of weird things, some funny, and some definitely not! So, all in all, the movie was ok, but it will not be one of my favorites. For 2026, there were no groundbreaking messages that I needed to hear – illogical things like love and art and feelings are what makes life worth living for (“Florals? For spring? Groundbreaking!“). But still, I liked this shift in mood that I have been seeing in these last few movies: from people in the 1950s fighting for their ideals and rights to the much more cynical way of looking at the world in the 1960s.

Aug 16 2026

1964 – Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

1964 – Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

It’s a political black comedy satire co-written, produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick. It is loosely based on the novel Red Alert by Peter George. It stars mainly Peter Sellers in three roles: Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley and the titular Dr. Strangelove. Its story deals with trying to contain the damage by an US general going rogue and ordering a preemtive nuclear attack on the Soviets without knowing that this will set off a doomsday device killing all life on Earth. I rented it on Apple TV for 3.99 Eur.

During my PhD studies, I completed them mostly in the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. While our little unsecured corner of the lab dealing with astronomy had little to do with atomic bombs, it was nevertheless a daily surreal experience. Together with my bright red foreigner badge, I had to carry around a little Geiger counter to make sure I wasn’t contaminated by nuclear waste. Similarly, we were constantly monitored on our online activity, our cars were randomly searched, we had to carry out bi-annual security trainings and right until I left in 2008, it was forbidden to have a phone with a camera on site. The site was also weirder than our sister Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, since our founding director was mainly the “crazy” and ostracized Edward Teller (the father of the hydrogen bomb) rather than the more nuanced Ernest Lawrence, even though both laboratories are named after the latter.

Everybody in the lab knew that Dr. Strangelove was a mixture of Wernher von Braun, but especially Edward Teller. His extreme stance in support of ever bigger and more powerful nuclear weapons and later of Star Wars was legend around the lab. When I was applying to work at the lab and was being background checked, one of his last speeches basically boiled down to: “Let’s bomb the islamists out of existence after September 11th!”. The town of Livermore embodied this strange discord – cowboys, nerds, military and hippies all living next to each other. By the time I finally began working at the lab (right around Teller’s death, hehe), I justified my joining with the fact that actual nuclear testing was banned (only simulations) and that the National Ignition Facility run by the lab could one day solve the energy crisis. Still, the movie and its message were always present at the lab, its satirical message serving as a reminder that maybe we were the baddies. I had to chuckle when my summer student named her research summary: “Quasar searches or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the Bob!” (Bob was my advisor’s name).

It is then ironic when I tell you that I had not seen the movie before. I knew so many of the jokes (“no fighting in the war room!”), so many of the images and yet I had never seen the whole thing. So now I finally sat down and watched the whole thing, rather quickly since it’s only 95 minutes long. Already the opening credits, which I didn’t know had me laughing, since the fuelling of a plane mid-air was presented so phallically.

So, what can I say? Brilliant! The phone calls between the American president Muffley and his Russian counterpart, Dimitri are the sweetest and funniest: “I’m sorry too, Dimitri. I’m very sorry. All right, you’re sorrier than I am! But I am sorry as well. I am as sorry as you are Dimitri, don’t say that you’re more sorry than I am because I’m capable of being just as sorry as you are! So we’re both sorry, alright?”. The motivation of the general (Jack Ripper, haha) to start the attack because he’s convinced that the Russians are contaminating the water via fluoridation sounds very similar to arguments you hear today against vaccinations, so the movie is as prescient as ever – we often have some truly crazy people at the top. And yet, I can’t give it full marks, but only because I knew so much of it. It’s as if you listen to a story about the Holocaust; the first time you learn of it, it’s shocking. But by the 7th Holocaust Oscar Bait movie, you might roll your eyes just a tiny bit. So nothing against this satire, I have heard all and even better jokes criticizing the nuclear arms race at the lab already.

Jul 12 2026

1962 – Whatever happened to Baby Jane?

1962 – Whatever happened to Baby Jane

It is an American psychological horror thriller directed and produced by Robert Aldrich. It stars real-life rivals Bette Davis as “Baby” Jane Hudson and Joan Crawford as Blanche Hudson as rival aging sisters that were at one point famous in the entertainment scene. The movie is famous for its kicking off the “hagsploitation” or “hag horror” genre in the 60s and for supposed feuds on the set between the two leads, which they later denied. I rented it on Apple TV for 3,99 Eur.

There are a few movies that completely changed my way of watching movies. The earliest one was when I was only 4 years old: E.T., which held my wonder even if I didn’t understand everything and showed me that movies weren’t all easy cartoons. One was 1927s Metropolis, which I watched with fellow students, because we were visiting the film studios where it was shot in Potsdam – how can such an old movie have such a prescient message!?! And one was 1950s All About Eve: Bette Davis was such a diva, such a grand personality, she stole the movie, it made all the supposed modern stars around me seem like children.

I’ve since watched quite a few Bette Davis movies, but was always afraid of this one, since she supposedly really leans into the “jezebel hag” persona. The big feud(s) between the actresses are also exaggerated for this movie, when the body of work of both is so rich – watch Izzy’s video on the 1963 Oscar race, for more info on that and also the movie itself. The feud between the actresses continues to compel the public, however, how else would you explain an entire series with 2 seasons and quite good reviews dedicated to that (Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon playing those icons? Yes, please).

In any case, the plot of the movie is quite simple. There are two sisters, Jane experienced success early on as a Vaudeville performer, was very bratty, while Blanche stood in the background. During the 30s, Blanche became the more successful actress, while executives made fun of Jane, that she had no talent and destroyed the pictures she was in by drinking too much. A mysterious accident leaves Blanche in a wheelchair; rumors have it that it was Jane that did it. In the present day in the 60s, both have grown old, Jane supposedly taking care of her wheelchair-bound sister. Her resentment explodes during the movie as she tortures her sister, slowly killing her, while she tries to mount a comeback to her old act from 50 years ago. Will her crazy plan succeed?

Does it work? Ironically, Bette Davis immediately saw through the camp that it was and really leaned into the hag persona giving an amazing performance, while Joan Crawford didn’t take the bait, so naturally Davis thoroughly outshines Crawford, even though she is the villain of the movie. It really is a reason, why Davis continued to work for decades after that, while Crawford became a recluse. So, yes, even though the plot is ridiculous, the movie is too long, the whole thing just works due to Davis’ performance. She manages to also rack up the tension in the question whether Blanche survives, as seeing her supposed suffer by spinning around in her wheelchair was quite ridiculous. Davis even gets her Gloria Swanson Sunset Boulevard moment as she crazily dances around on a beach while spectators stare at her in horror.

A little social critique also lingers at what the entertainment industry does with children. The constant performance of Jane of that same ridiculous “Daddy” song, the doll merchandise, the persistent push by the father, it ruined Jane at a young age. And yet, we do not learn: Judy Garland in the 30s, Natalie Wood in the 50s, Brooke Shields in the 70s, plus a whole host of things coming out in the 80s and 90s. I kept thinking about this while watching the movie, Davis making me even empathetic towards her horrifying villain. What a performance!