ikalafatis

Le dernier métro (1980)

At times I feel like I really don't exist

Le Dernier Metro is the portrait of a woman. An ageing, beautiful, authoritative, successful and famous actress caught in her own personal quagmire, and that of a strange historical era.

It's 1942 and Paris screams under the German occupation. A quiet scream, at least as portrayed by Truffaut, where Parisiens go on living their everyday lives as close to normal as they can. The German element is of course ubiquitous, always lurking in the shadow of normality like an undiagnosed disease. The black market, the Jewish persecution, the curfew, the collaboration and the resistance, all are accepted as just another fact of life.

The real threat though is the unknown. What will the war bring? How longer will it last? And yet, decency and normality go on being the bourgeois lifestyle of choice, simply because most don't know how to really survive without the city, without its theaters and fashion circles. Without this superficial normality.

In the middle of this strangeness stands a woman disillusioned by her life. Deep inside, this poignantly beautiful, famous, smart and strong woman is empty. Torn between her professional and artistic duties that have increased dramatically since her Jew husband and theater chef fled to save his life, and her ageing femininity and her devoid of passion life, she revolves around the sole remaining centrepiece of her life, acting. Only acting proves to be just another lifeless remain of her previous life.

Should she stay faithful to a husband that she stopped loving a long time ago? Do they both cling on to their failing relationship just for the sake of normality, to survive this strangeness of an era? Will tomorrow ever come, and if it comes will she be too old to enjoy it? Deneuve is perfection. The script has most probably been written with her in mind and it shows. Nowhere in the film is she caught relaxing, even in the most ambiguous moments her eyes are crisp clear on her intentions.

Depardieu is solid but lacks the internal flame his character should possess, probably due to him being influenced by Deneuve's coldness.

Poiret and Bennent are sublime in secondary but very important roles. Richard underplays his character's potential as a threat. The rest of the cast are adequate and in control of their roles.

Truffaut delivers a quiet film with claustrophobic cinematography, low-budget sets, fabulous costumes and minimal music. Just like a real theatre show. The director's brilliance drives through the sharpness of the second World War with a fine comb and picks only what's relevant to the story, and nothing more. A film to admire, but not to be inspired from. And there lies probably the only fault of the film. The nouvelle vague has matured and settled down with a sigh.

Watch this film just to experience the ferociously magnetic beauty and strength of Catherine Deneuve. Or if you really love theatre. Or both.

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)

The old world is gone already, get over with it and get moving

• NO SPOILERS CONTAINED -

"Ghost Dog" is a psychotic character. He lives life according to Bushido, the ancient Japanese code of conduct of the Samurai. "Start your day by accepting that you are dead already", says the book and this is pretty much what Ghost Dog does. Since when his life was saved by a mobster, he took his oath to live every day like an ancient warrior.

The old mobsters live in a similar dream world of their own. Their code is the code of the gun and the family, presumably not successful any more since they cannot even afford their rent, close its eyes to the reality of their fat, middle-aged self.

When those two dream worlds get drawn close by a contract gone sour, the only option for both factions is to collide according to their individual rules, leaving ample room for reality to eventually resume control of this load of pigeon-sh*t.

Jim Jarmusch creates a superbly paced film where violence is as comical as Forest Whitaker's samurai looks. Stereotypical carricatures and situations pop up in various places into the plot to enforce the absurdity of the situation at hand and to further devalue the possibility that we're watching a true hood film.

Forest Whitaker delivers a top-notch performance, as good as any I've seen. His hypnotising stare will be still stuck into my memory for a long time to come. All other characters are supporting ones really, but deliver good, solid performances as well.

The cinematography serves the purpose adequately, using double-exposures and long tracking shots to immerse. The music is hypnotic and fits perfectly with the mood. And the whole construct holds surprisingly well, considering the far-fetched plot elements.

Approach this film with a bitter sweet mood. Laugh at the eccentricities of the plot (the samurai meditation scene is a roar) and cry your heart out for the lost souls that Ghost Dog and the Mob are. You will not be disappointed.

Los amantes del Círculo Polar (1998)

When the red bus "fate" crosses, you stop!

• NO SPOILERS -

A delightful film about fate, about our choices in life, about the power of our emotions.

The story of the lives of two lovers that are brought together by fate, or not? It is not clear, perhaps it's two options of the same coin, being able to dictate or accept one's faith. Passivity and activity are both required to create life, and neither has a bigger contribution to the future that awaits us.

Through a series of relentless flash backs we are driven around in a palindrome fashion between past and present, only to verify that the future is unknown. Cyclical, true, but unknown in regards to its break from the circle.

A film shot with directorial integrity and coercing exquisite performances from the cast, impeccably clean as fresh snow. A beautiful soundtrack combined with haunting cinematography.

Relax, and enjoy the romantic story that isn't.

Frenzy (1972)

Tongue-in-cheek murder comedy from a retiring master

• No spoilers contained -

It was great to see Hitchcock return back to England to film, this movie could not but reflect his love for his work and his country.

The first and foremost actor in the movie is London. Covent Garden, far from being the tourist magnet that is today, is jostling with 70s exuberance and people going on about their business, buying and selling. If not for anything else, then for the exceptional London shots this film is very pleasurable viewing.

Hitchcock designed Frenzy to be a swing between black comedy and suspense story, not unlike previous films. The end result can appear from chilling to lukewarm, depending on the viewer's disposition at the time. The masterful opening shot with the actor tying his necktie introduces the basic theme and the starring pair. Dick and Bob, in true doppelgänger fashion represent the duality inherent in every man, they are sides of the same coin. Who is real and who is not? Who is the killer and who the innocent? Even at the end we're not sure, it might have just been just a matter of circumstances.

See this movie, watch the exquisite cinematography right from the credit sequence and up to the last frame. And trust that what really matters is not the plot in itself, but what surrounds it, characters and places, situations and colours.

A masterpiece.

Red Dragon (2002)

Too much weight on Brett Ratner's shoulders did not allow the film to elevate beyond mediocrity

--- MILD SPOILERS ---

Red Dragon proved to be too ambitious a project for Brett Ratner. Beyond a certain level of expectation, only the director's vision and mental vigour can lead a film to become a true classic. Here instead, the director chose to serve the book in a professional transactional way and absolutely nothing more.

This is by no means a bad film or a waste of time. One could very easily predict that even a toothpaste advertisement featuring Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter would be worthwhile watching. The problem is that Red Dragon the film fades from memory as soon as one leaves the theatre and the plot and actors take over in its place. That's usually bad news for the director.

The camera is not used to its full potential, the shock value of the murder scenes is greatly underplayed and worse of all, its investigative action on behalf of the "gifted" detective is non existent. Wise use of camera angles and editing to help the audience discover the clues to the murderer along the detective would have greatly improved the film's immersion factor.

Of particular annoyance is the way the young Asian detective is introduced to advance the plot with his work. A fully undeveloped, high energy persona that distracts from the film's (thin) atmosphere. Surely that's a beginner's mistake.

There is only one scene in the whole movie that is truly inspired, the scene where Francis and Reba sit together on the couch. As Reba moves closer to Francis, the stage is set for the redemption of the killer and the transition from darkness to light. Well crafted, although one feels compelled to wonder if this might be a fortunate moment rather than a deliberate setup.

Ed Norton chooses to remain too far outside of his character. Technique doesn't solve everything I'm afraid.

Ralph Fiennes performs well but should probably not have been casted for the role of the monster because of his clean cut looks.

Anthony Hopkins reaches a satisfying level of performance for his standards but is let down by the uncomfortable lighting and angles to which he is been subjected.

Harvey Keitel and Philip Hoffman are solid in their supporting roles, while Emily Watson as the blind negative of the serial killer shines. Watch her shake after her escape from the house for a demonstration of her acting abilities. Such a scene could have easily turned into slapstick comedy action.

The cinematography and soundtrack are reasonable. I don't envy the editor, as it quite possible that he could have done a much better job of making this into a true thriller had he been given the freedom (or nudge) to do so.

Overall not a bad film, but could have been much better. Ridley Scott, you are sorely missed...

Twelve Monkeys (1995)

Would YOU believe Cole has come from the future if you were Kathryn?

---MILD SPOILERS---

An interesting plot, dressed in an eccentric manner and mood.

As in all movies that boast more than a Ford model-T newly off an assembly line (any colour as long as it's black) for a plot, the first need for critique concerns the storyline itself. The plot is certainly interesting, but not necessarily confusing if one pays adequate attention. Even after the first miraculous houdini act by Cole, (JC's first miracle?), the viewer is in no doubt that Cole is not insane. At that point, Cathryn swings towards the middle, while Cole is convinced he is not. It's ironic that by the end of the movie Cathryn has swung to full non-insanity to join the viewers' opinion, while Cole is almost certain he's a looney. Kudos to Gilliam for not swinging the cheap pendulum of insanity-or-not for the viewer in favour of brownie points.

The cinematography is solid and indicative of a post-apocalyptic underground world with hints (empty streets, posters, rubbish) flowing even into the present. This world has had it even before the virus-bearing chap went on holidays, which is also verified by the incidental manner in which Gilliam and the authors treat him. No character development, just bare-bones motive and background. The world has had it alright.

Bruce Willis delivers a good performance, such that one might think that the role was created for him. Madeleine Stow tries hard but flings between overacting and boredom. Brad Pitt copes (and copies) adequately.

The demented, pythonesque presentation of the future scientists obviously seen through Coles' demented disposition does not fit well. Keep the viewer stationary Mr Gilliam, this one's a no-no. We at least deserve a decent glimpse into the future, which we could perhaps forgive the lack of, if you cared to excuse yourself because of your low (how low is £29m?) budget.

Worthwhile of repeated viewings, and a very good sci-fi flick.

Blazing Saddles (1974)

The farting joke

I am scratching my head to remember the last time I saw a movie of such low self-esteem. It is dated, full of predictable or otherwise uninteresting gags, and in general boasts more turbine power than hoover's most expensive model.

This movie is not funny. You want funny? Watch Pythons' "Life of Brian", watch "Spinal Tap", watch "Doctor Strangelove", watch Brook's own "Frankenstein Junior". This movie is not funny.

I am amazed at the high votes that this movie got in IMDB. Perhaps it's time to have a European-only voting system?

Oh, loved the farting joke, by the way.

Le fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain (2001)

A script is not a collection of incidents

After watching Amelie, I was left wondering what was at the crux of this film?

• the cinematography (every possible angle on the planet)?

• the movie colorisation (heavily influenced by Almodovar)?

• the bag of gags (stop doing the eye thing Amelie, no more minute photos)?

• the characters (exaggerated and woefully over-acted)?

• the music (well conceived indeed)

I am not sure at all, but one thing is for certain. The movie did not serve the script, because there was so little of it.

Fast-pacing through the DVD director's commentary, Jeunet admitted that the first 20 minutes were devoid of plot. I couldn't agree more, but I think he understated time by a factor of 5 or so.

Love and romance certainly comes into the picture as a main motif candidate, but in my opinion too late to make a difference. By the time we are sure that this is a love story, gags and style have taken over and the spectator is happily in green absinth trance. Which is good I guess.

This is fast food cinema alright. Not the McDonald's type, the "nouvelle cuisine" one. 4 out of ten for originality and cinematography.

Le cinquième élément (1997)

Wish the four other elements did something about this one...

The Fifth Element is a parody of a sci-fi movie, and as such it should be judged.

It is not a serious sci-fi movie, as saving the world is not supposed (to all unlucky souls that watched either of "Independence day" or "Armageddon") to be fun at all. This movie is an action flick, set in the future. Sort of like "Die hard 2020".

The storyline is interesting albeit a bit too loosely flushed out. We don't learn much about the priestly order of the protectors, or for that matter what this "pure evil" is all about and why it wants to destroy life (and then what?). Nevertheless, the plot is clear: Good against good-ole Evil, with a pinch of romance and a hefty dose of explosions. Don't expect too many twists either.

Besson directs with professionalism, but without passion. Cinematography does not deserve any special mentioning too. Costumes, props and special effects are top-notch though and contribute greatly to the entertainment.

Bruce Willis wonders in macho-funny land. His punch lines alternating with his punches. Milla Jovovich is physically exquisite and does a reasonably good job acting too. Holm and Oldman are solid, if restricted in their outfits. The various cameos (with the exception of Luke (look at my hair) Perry are well-put.

Don't buy it, don't rent it even. Piggyback on somebody's passion for Bruce or Milla as appropriate and see it. Then go watch Bladerunner and compare.

Stalker (1979)

Runs like water

If you consider yourself an intellectual, move along. You don't need this film to expose you to philosophical questions about art, science and the soul.

If you consider yourself an anti-intellectual, move along too. We don't really care to understand how you feel the film is pretentious and pointless. Philosophical questions are rhetorical and thus pointless, we know.

Otherwise, keep reading, please.

Tarkovsky is either hated or loved, depending on whether you watch a movie to be entertained or challenged. There is no punchline, and the pace is slow. Both facts can be either positive or negative, depending on your attitude to film making. Stalker requires time and good faith from the viewer. There are almost no special effects, and there are more questions than answers provided.

The Zone is a place where your innermost wish becomes true. It's happiness, since your core wish can be satisfied, and it's confrontation, since you will really find out what you are made of. Do you care more about your wife and child? Do you care more about writing or about your attitude? Do you care more about revenge for your wife sleeping with your best friend? You'll soon find out that you're unable to choose. You are afraid of change, you're a conformist. Even though you're hopeless, you might just not enter.

Feel the journey, it's nature, it's water. Be born again in water, swim through life and realise that your soul will stay with you till the end. Dare face it?

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

How to waste the potential of a powerful storyline

The strongest trump card of the Beautiful Mind is its storyline. So much more could have been achieved by so much less, if only the story had been allowed to unfold without the need to mislead or dazzle the audience with special effects and directorial coups. An enjoyable, if schizophrenic film (excuse the pun).

This is the classic nevertheless compelling sociopathic-genius-turned-schizophrenic story. The magnitude of the Nobel prize and thus the deduced importance of the genius's work serves to augment and hold the audience. We all secretly admire and even envy the truly dedicated and gifted people, so our attention is guaranteed from the start.

This attention is wasted firstly by a script that at times focuses on non-story-serving scenes (several Princeton-based ones spring to mind, as well as the GO circular scene, what a pretense..) that dilutes the pace of the film and needlessly prolongs its length, presumably to adhere to the latest "more is better" Hollywood fad.

Mr Howard overstates. There is a distinct desire to dress up the story with effects, to tease or mislead the audience with a view to thrill, to fit in every trick of the trade. Understandably, since having an Academy Award story potential, one goes for the big "8 Oscar" prize.

The net result is, unfortunately, a dilution of the story, and the attention of the audience on things that don't really matter.

Mr Crowe is acceptable but not consistent. He is struggling, perhaps by directorial misinformation, to balance the character between idiocy and sociopathy, brilliance and simplicity. Even considering the evolution of the character, the inconsistency is apparent, especially when frantic head or hand gestures are used to denote stress and reality shocks. Definitely not an Oscar performance.

Mr Harris is poignant and ghostly and in general positive, although a bit too cowboyish at times.

Ms Connelly brings grace and beauty, but her character is not well defined to the point that it almost becomes a support role.

Good if sparse humour, tasteful cinematography and a soundtrack that serves but does not dominate are some of the positive points of the film.

A Beautiful Mind is a thriller, a biography, a venture into the unknown depths of the mind, a sociological study, everything and nothing at all. Perhaps that's what schizophrenia is all about...