Terrible even for Verhoeven

[deleted]

Best film on the WW2 resistance with Melville's Army of Shadows (L'Armée des Ombres).
I've read and heard resistants talk (very late and very rare in their old days, they didn't like at all to talk about this period) about the mess it was, never really knowing who was who save for the dead (as Merleau-Ponty said: Anyone who survived was a cheater), never really knowing what cause to serve and which to betray, often betraying betrayal itself for fidelity's sake.
That's what I've enjoyed in this film: the acute sense that nothing is never given, the frontier is constantly moving and sometimes you don't know yourself what side you're now on.
Read De Gaulle's War Memories, how he felt when Roosevelt said he preferred to discuss with Pétain because Pétain could be manipulated by the Americans like he had been by the Germans. No one is pure except the dead. That's the lesson of the Resistance. And you can feel it in Black Book.

Well, I won't try and persuade you otherwise as you seem to be set in that opinion, but I want to register my complete disagreement. I think it was a moving, well-structured and distinctively shot film. As for your fixation with the sexual content, I would argue it's hardly the focus, and it could have been a lot more explicit if the director had wanted it to appeal to a 'skinflick' audience.

Odd to criticise a film that is predominantly neither violent nor sexy as not sexy and violent enough. There is, I think, one sex scene - and all it is is her getting nude for him. But it seems you have concentrated on this aspect of the film as if this is what this film was supposed to be about... well - not supposed to be, but somehow a prominent feature. But all it is used for is to show some of the sexual aspects of what a woman in her position perhaps had to endure. The majority of the rest of the ca 3 hour running time is dedicated to the resistance and her plight. The few 'action' sequences are suitably violent and don't jar very much. They don't have the intensity of Bourne nor the brutality of Ryan but they serve their purpose. And the fecal shower along with the other horrors of revenge, like shaving the women and parading them as 'nazi whores', are very poignant examples of elation turning to mindless acts of torture - sure people got up to much worse at the time. Quite accurately symbolises the feelings people may have had - to cover the former oppressors in *beep*

Of course this film is lauded. It's ambitious, well acted, shot and put together. Perhaps one too many 'who-done-it' revelations towards the end but well handled in the sweeping style of classic war films like Where Eagles Dare with the grandios soundtrack and the build up of tension. What holds it together is van Houten though who is very brave in her choices as an actress - strong, feisty, sassy and emotional all at once.

It's not a masterpiece but a fine war epic. For some reason you find it awful. Another one of those 'worst films I've ever seen' comments when that is obviously not the case. But it made you angry and then blame it on Holland and bad sexy bits... odd things to criticise.

obvious troll

Well, it's obvious from the reviews here and elsewhere that most people would strongly disagree with you, and I'm happy to be one of them. But hey, I might think some of the films you consider worthwhile are not much good, too. That's the thing about art: it divides opinion.

As it happens, when I first watched "Black Book" (having recorded it from TV) I'd heard a lot of praise for it, but I didn't know (or had quite forgotten, and didn't notice in the titles) that it was a Paul Verhoeven film. I was very surprised when I discovered after I'd seen the film that he was the director (and one of the writers). In a way I'm glad about that, as it meant I was not prejudiced.

Not that I would have expected it to be bad, but certainly I would have expected something other than what I found: a moving, well-constructed and well-acted drama, that had me reaching for IMDb to give it good rating. I have seen most of Verhoeven's films, and they vary considerably. I own eight of them. Some, like "Basic Instinct", "Turks Fruit" and "Flesh+Blood", have much to recommend them, and I have enjoyed watching them more than once. His SF films like "Total Recall" and "Starship Troopers" are pure cartoon fantasy and escapism, enjoyable trash. But there are a few which, I accept, are pure rubbish, and I found little of value in them — I'm thinking of "Showgirls", in particular (though I admit I have not sat through the whole film, and I have not bought a copy).

Verhoeven is a very able director: he knows just what he wants to do, and manages to do it very well. Production values are invariably excellent. He does like to to stick two fingers up at the establishment (and he can do that very well, too!). He likes to divide opinion, and he appears to have done that in your case. I'm quite sure he doesn't mind what you think of his film, indeed I wouldn't be surprised that he is delighted at the vehemence of your response to it.

You clearly don't like the film, but you seem to be judging it on all the wrong criteria. Unfortunately, real wartime rarely includes any "good gun-fighting scenes": in situations like those in this story, gun battles and shootings are often hasty, haphazard, and involve much fear, panic and/or hatred. And in this film, there were no real sex scenes, and what there were certainly weren't particularly sexy, nor I suspect were they meant to be. Verhoeven knows how to do sex scenes that are not purely gratuitous (eg, "Turks Fruit"), and he could have chosen to be much more "sexy" or explicit within a story like this if he'd wanted: he clearly did not. As for the one scene you singled out (the faecal shower), agreed, it was horrific: but it was realistic, and very well done, and such things really happened, many times over, at that point in history, a fact which you would clearly wish to disbelieve. It certainly does not invalidate the film in any way.

Fortunately, Verhoeven is not the "laughing stock of the Netherlands". They appreciate him, and I believe you're the poorer for not being able to. I shall certainly be buying a copy of "Black Book" on DVD, and I think it will probably turn out to be the "best" of his films, in my personal list of favourites. But as I say, that's just my opinion. You have yours.

I must agree 100% which benettfreeman. Unlike Downfall, which made me feel like a fly in the wall witnessing real events, every minute of Black Book feels like "a Paul Verhoeven movie", which to me is not a good thing. Surprisingly naive effort from such an experienced director. In fact his WW2 occupied Netherlands film "Soldaat van Oranje" from 1976 is much better and more mature despite its flaws.

Amazingly good film. Perhaps those not liking it were disappointed not to find Sylvester Stallone and Goldie Hawn as the main stars.

Anyone AT ALL familiar with the Netherlands and the period 1940-45 will appreciate how this film hits the nail on the head only too well.