Cool News
Franka Potente's latest film.... ANATOMIE
Hey folks, Harry here... with a pair of trailers plus some info on Franka "RUN LOLA RUN" Potente's latest film... ANATOMIE, a film that looks very very cool and freaky. The first trailer is Here and the second one is HERE!! Plus here's a bit of a report!
Hi Harry!
Nr 1 here with a quickie on Anatomie, the new movie starring Franka Potente.
In Anatomie, Franka portrays an ambitious student who gets accepted for a
special anatomy course at the medical school of Heidelberg University.
After a while, she discovers a secret society of doctors who perform illegal
experiments on humans.
The movie is quite funny and hip at times. But during some scenes it is also
very freaky and gory (i guess medical students would qualify it as pretty
normal), with people being operated on, while they are conscious.
here's a link to the web page (which is in german)
Anatomie-der-film.de
you can find trailers and interviews here:
-
+ Expand All
-
What's this story about now...?
-
What's with your anti-Harry Hard-on? While the list wasn't completly correct, he still got most of it dead-on. Give the guy a break, he just got back from vacation AND became an uncle! Asshole.
-
Anatomie is pretty far away from beeing "very very cool and freaky". Lovely Franka is actually the only good part of the movie. Every thing else was there before a hundret times with more stile.
-
First, I usually don't talk back because most of the idiotic personal attacks you guys make on Harry and on people in the industry are absolutely stupid. But with all this shit going on with Harry and the oscar list I couldn't stay quiet any longer.
Its funny how quickly the tide turns. I remember early this year when Harry was coming through with all the scoops for us. Anyone remeber the X-men pictures... the script reviews of Hannibal, Spider man and Pearl Harbor? Harry posts one story that isn't totally legit and everyone wants to piss on him. If this oscar buisness has turned you off to this site, then its real simple... don't come here. Don't post messages blasting on Harry and his fuck up. How many times have one of you fucked up? I trust Harry and I will continue too. This site is by far the best movie website out there and I will continue to come here even if he has a fuck up every day. And as for the guy on Roughcut.com... get a life... Harry is ruining the industry you love? Give me a break... If you dislike him so much just ignore him. But you can't can you... because Harry usually comes through with scoops that no one else does. That's why we can't ignore him. Give Harry a week. He'll come up with something that will all have us talking. -
What happened to client 00's posts? Did you take them down, Harry? Aw, darn. His ignorance was funny.
-
I have seen Run Lola Run and I must say, that while these people sure seem to engage in drug abuse, that isn't exactly what makes an interesting film. All of the camera angles were skewed, and the opening 'theme' steadicam shot was unnecessary and contrived. Franke's acting was shallow and Run Lola Run may possibly have benifitted from a better director,since it is essentially a short film, there was also no need to have three segments. The story was trite and implausible. I don't believe that any of the characters were intelligent or even worthy of care. The scenery looked too dirty and I didn't think that the cartoon worked in the context of a live action film. These things do not make sense to me or why they were allowed to be included in this production. Obviously the backers for this film were using illegal drug money. A similiar film done a great deal better was Runaway Bride. The characters were all understandable and I just felt like I knew them. Oh well, I just wanted to possibly shed some light on aspects of this film you may have over looked. Thank you for your time, digital friends. If you would like to post a response please do so, or e-mail me at the above hyper link of my name.
-
Okay...normally, when people use irony and sarcasm I can figure it out fairly easily, at least on this site...but I can't for the life of me figure out if you're being serious or not in your critique of Run Lola Run, or if you're just trolling. On the off chance that you're serious, here's my rebuttal. Okay...let's see, the opening shot of the movie where the camera is going through the blurred crowd and looking at individuals while speaking on fate and the questions of the universe is one of the best opening shots I've seen in a long time, speaking about the remarkable similarities and differences in human existence...the theme of that being that an examination of nearly anybody's life can give insight into the "deep" questions of existence. I don't know if I entirely believe that...but whether you believe it or not, the movie makes more sense if you accept that as a given. The story was implausible because it was a story about the relation of coincidence in our lives (a theme Magnolia treats as well, in drastically different forms); one of the most ingenious ways it does this is through the brief snapshots of people who coincidentally run into Lola (sometimes literally), and how, during different stories, their life turns out differently. Your charge that the characters were unintelligent is rather unfounded...I personally found the characters to be fairly normal people, neither brilliant or stupid, just in an awkward situation. "The scenery looked dirty"...well, most likely you found it dirty because the film had the tendency to go back and forth between 35mm and 16mm. In every scene with Lola and Manni the scenery was shot with 35mm film, while the scenes without them in it were in 16mm (the same type of film that "Blair Witch Project" was filmed in, though in "Run Lola Run" it is in color. The result is that the scenes with Manni and Lola have much more brightness and vitality than the scenes without. 16mm film looks grainy and has a quality that we immediately associate with a cheaply made film (because 16mm is cheaper, of course). If it's the actual scenery that you're objecting to, and not the quality of the film, then my only defense is that the film was shot in Berlin...which, in certain areas, is definitely dingy and dirty (though significantly better than Chicago, overall, near where I happen to live). The cartoon...well, I can't really defend that...I found an extremely cool element of the film, done as a style element that definitely stood out for me. It worked for me, and if it didn't for you, that's okay...I can't think of any really concrete explanation for it, other than it made a fairly cool and unique transition from Lola's mother to her running down the stairs. I'm not even going to get into the three segments...because if you didn't understand why they did that, then I think you basically missed the point of the film. It's not a realistic film...it's a film about both the influence of coincidence and the power of love, and tremendous influence that both of these things can have on our lives. But, please tell me, what does illegal drug money have to do with the financing of the film (I realize it's a significant plot element, but what does it have to do with the backers)? And what does this have to do with "Runaway Bride", a movie in which the only similarity is the inclusion of "run" in the title. -Loki
-
Enough said.
-
Loki Trickster. I find it admirable that you would give such a detailed defense of this movie. And your knowledge of such trivial facts as the particular film size used is, I'm sure, impressive. However, I must stand my ground. I am fully aware of this movie being filmed in Berlin. And that is precisely why I didn't like the look of it. Simply unappealing.Why was 16mm film used? Was the budget waning at the time of shooting those scenes? Is is not only due to the obvious obsession with drugs and drug money that I mention this. I suggest illegal funds because the sort of people to have those sort of funds would be potentially more apt to finance such a ramshackle film as they do not have as great a personal investment in their capital, therefore eliminating for the most part a risk in the loss most probable with such material as Lola Rennt. Perhaps the backers used this film as a tax write off. Maybe illegal money was laundered in the financing. This would explain the dearth of attention to details and design. As for the opening shot, I was actually referring to the scene with the steadicam circling Lola's mother's chair. Each and Every time. It was ultimately juvenile, and entirely extrinsic. Monotonous in fact. Indeed, the movie's beginning was potentially interesting, though pretentious and general. I find that navel gazing no longer relevant to cinema. As concerning the intelligence of the characters:why would Lola do such a thing for a man who was ultimately selfish and slovenly? That is not love.The movie was unintelligent due to the failure of the filmmakers to make a realistic film and to use realistic structure. It was not one linear stories, but three. And three too many I say. As for Runaway Bride, which is a film I feel is a thoughtful character study of matrimonial apprehension, and human capriciousness. The title is only one of the ways in which this film connects with Lola Rennt. For I felt Lola Rennt attempted some of the emotional depth but nevertheless, fell short. Thank you, digital friend.
-
I think the most beautiful shot in the film is that of the bum's face as he rides his brand new bike. The music that acompanies this image is perfect. This film should have been nominated for best score. But the Academy couldnt even recognize it for best foriegn film. They suck. The revolution is coming, friends. Be patient.
-
What the hell is wrong with you ?
I have something to say here:
This a damn german movie. Like every other film coming out of this country it -
Feb 16, 2000 2:39:43 PM CST
Hey, Arch Duck (or whatever the hell you think you are)...
by sith lord byron
...you need to stop taking Seconal before you watch your movies. Lola Rennt (that's German, you unintelligent sponge) was by far the most kinetic and exciting movie I saw all year (save Fight Club). What was wrong, did you see it dubbed or something? Your continued cracks at the drug influence of the movie only served to reveal that you either do not do enough drugs, or are simply doing the wrong ones. SEDATIVES ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS!!! As for it being ugly, and as for that being because it was filmed in Berlin, THAT IS A GOOD THING!! Why does everything have to be so fucking pretty all the time? If you want pretty, go watch Disney cartoons until you forget why you're supposed to be breathing and stop. As for the story being trite and simple, I agree. Again I say, THAT IS A GOOD THING!! The movie is all about the visuals. The story is a framing device, a backdrop, a canvas upon which to throw paint, and throw paint this movie does with passion and vigor. You are a strange breed, Duck, to be choosing to waste your life with mindless puffery such as SLEEPAWAY BRIDE over what in ten years will be remembered as one of the first films of the 21st century. You're an idiot. And l'Auteur? I pray that you are right.
-
I agree with L'Auteur, I loved this movie, and it had some of the images that stick in my head the most from this past year of movies. I also thought the score was incredible...actually, it was similar in my mind to the "Fight Club" score; they both fit the movie they were in perfectly. But I didn't expect either of them to be nominated. The Academy is still stuck in some neo-classical stage focusing on Horner and Williams and stuff...which I like as well...but neo-classical doesn't fit EVERY single movie. Okay, onto the next: darthvegas (what the fuck is up with all the Darth... names...can't anyone think of at least something original?!), you went a little overboard. Come on man, Arch has been polite and rather rational (even if his rationality is founded on false premises)...there's no reason to scream at him. Min...I'm sorry for you...I've NEVER walked out of a movie in my life...even Wild Wild West I stayed until the end. If you haven't seen the movie (and that means all of it), you really shouldn't comment on it, because you just don't know what you're talking about. Darth Bond: thanks for the catch on the 16mm...I got them screwed up in my mind. From the jacket sleeve for "Run Lola Run" (Lola Rennt, auf deutsch): "The others, where Lola and Manni are not involved, were shot on video--in a kind of synthetic, artificial world. That places Lola and Manni at the center of their world, in which miracles can happen just like in the movies." So their use of video is not just because they ran out of their "drug money" (an accusation that makes no sense to me, especially when you try to explain it), but a definite conscious choice by a talented director...you can not like this choice (as some don't like his choice of using the cartoon), but at least it has a definite reason for being done. Archi: You say at one point in your second post: "The movie was unintelligent due to the failure of the filmmakers to make a realistic film and to use realistic structure"...I guess that makes Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, Indiana Jones movies, Reservoir Dogs, etc, bad movies, or The Sound and The Fury, Catch-22, Ulysses, etc bad books. Movies and books don't NEED to be realistic...they don't need to follow any sense of time or space to be good. Some of the best works muck around with our sense of time and perspective to give different insights into "the meaning of the universe"...verisimilitude is NOT a requirement of art. Just ask Picasso. Okay...I'm done for now. -Loki
-
...wow, I agree with you on almost all counts. I do get a little too mean sometimes, so I'm sorry Duck. But I think you should listen to Loki's point (as should all people) that realism is not a necessary element in all movies. It's not necessary in any movie to one degree or another, because real life is rarely cinematic at all and NEVER cinematic for two straight hours. As soon as something is edited or touched in any way, it loses some degree of realism. Why not then, in the case of movies which are primarily supposed to be imaginative flights of fancy, abandon all realism if it will enhance the potency of the film? Points to you Loki, it's too bad there's not that many people on this talkback to hear you.
-
Run Lola Run was the best film of the past twelve months, hands down. Franka is on her way to stardom here in America. The look, the attitude, the vehicle, they are all there. She'll be the star in a lesbian prison film years from now. Soon, it will be impossible to disagree with with what she does. Onward - Potente...
-
darthvegas. As on other boards, I must agree that your moniker is disturbingly mundane and embarrassing. As for Seconal, I believe it went out of manufacture in the late 80's. I could be wrong. And no, I do not do drugs in any form, including caffiene. Therefore, Loki Trickster, in the previous post I suggest the use of illegal funds in the making of this film, due to the fact that not much creativity went into set design, and most of the film relied on location shots. As unattractive and banal as they were. The cinema realism debate is a frustrating one, I for one, despised the Star Wars movies, as well as the other's you mentioned, and I have seen them all. If you would like a detailed essay on why I feel this way I will surely provide one, and it will be lengthy. I came close to enjoying julien donkeyboy, but felt dissapointed that a certain amount of sensationalism was involved. Now, Franke Potente is an attractive young woman, but if we were to reward performance based solely on appearance, time wouldn't be enough to do so during the day. Thanks again, for holding your opinions, digital friends.
-
I find your taste to be incredibly stuffy and misguided, but how it got that way interests me. As for my moniker, I agree that it is somewhat trite, but I don't know how to change it and I don't want to waste another e-mail account to get it. If you have this information, please email me.
-
Someone mentioned that they used videotape to film parts of RUN LOLA RUN. Is this true? Does anyone have more info on the production of this movie? I absolutely loved this film, and always assumed it was a low budget effort. If it was really really low budget, then I am doubly impressed. Thanks for any info anyone might offer ... By the way, I can understand why some people might not like it. It is without a doubt thin on conventional character & story development. Of course, the whole of the film, I suspect, was to avoid convention, and that's why I personally liked it so much. I also never want to see it again, primarily because it's such a unique experience.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- THE DARK KNIGHT RISES TV Spot Has New Footage And Dialogue! UPDATED To Add Second Spot! -- 301 total posts 301 posts
- UPDATE!! What The Hell Happened With G.I. JOE: RETALIATION?! -- 185 total posts 185 posts
- THE EXORCIST Is Being Remade... -- 161 total posts 160 posts
- Remember when I said I’d kill The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day last? I lied. -- 155 total posts 155 posts
- Gary Oldman Joins The ROBOCOP Remake! -- 145 total posts 145 posts
- Quint has seen the brand new Jaws restoration and demands that Universal do a wide theatrical rerelease this summer! -- 138 total posts 138 posts
- G.I. JOE: RETALIATION Delayed Nine Months...Thanks To A Force More Sinister Than Cobra!! -- 276 total posts 134 posts
- The day we've all been waiting for has arrived...IN THE ARMY NOW II is in the works! -- 69 total posts 69 posts
- A New Clip From PROMETHEUS!! Charlize And Fassbender Talking About...Something (?)... -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Honest Abe Dishes Out The Vampire Violence In The New Red-Band Trailer For ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER!! -- 53 total posts 53 posts