Reviews

First of all, I don't understand why the title is so badly translated. "Baise-moi" means "f*ck me" and not much else, and translating it as "rape me" I think makes the movie worse by giving it another direction (since there is a rape scene in the movie after all).

Not that it isn't bad to begin with. I was actually disappointed (yes, I was hoping for a difference). I was hoping that a female pornish movie would have more taste than this, but it's just as bad as though it were filmed by a man. I still do think that this movie fulfills more male than female fantasies. So although there was a lot of sex it wasn't interesting. If you are familiar with French TV, this movie is equivalent to a Canal + movie on a Saturday night (although this has less sex, but it's the same type of sex and sex shots, give or take degrees of intensity). But I have to say, that even in terms of a sex movie this was a let down. Since Nadine and Manu are so into sex as a thing in itself, why didn't they sleep together when they were bored and had nothing to do? It might have given the movie some dimension.

I'm surprised though how everyone is taking time to write about this movie although all the reviews are bad. I'm also surprised that it was released worldwide, it really does not deserve all that attention. And I don't think we can blame it solely on the script; it's bad direction (had Tarantino been given the script he would have made something very different). It was a flat movie, with horrible dialogs (and performances) and a trashy soundtrack.

I see that most reviews describe this movie as amazing, etc. but I was actually pretty disappointed by it. For one, it was too long. My other criticism is that it lacks unity, somewhat like Full Metal Jacket but even more so. It touched on many important and interesting topics (the friendship and quest for Pran, the "year zero" program, the hypocrisy of war, the hardships of journalism, etc. , the list is long) but ended up skimming the surface of each. As a result, this movie is under-developed. It could have been made into more than one movie; Pran's experience in the labor camp, for example, could / should have been made into a movie of its own.

On the other hand, "The Killing Fields" should be given credit for coming before all the great war movies we all refer to now (Platoon, Full Metal Jacket...) and most likely influencing them. It should also be given credit because so few movies actually refer to Cambodia. Everyone is so interested in Vietnam and WWII that Cambodia is very often left behind. The acting was great (although I'm not sure about the Oscar... opposite John Malkovich? No-one should win opposite John Malkovich!) but the music got on my nerves for the most part.

Overall, the fact that the movie was so chopped up and that it went everywhere (and that it was long) didn't really do it for me. I just waited for it to end, but I suppose I'm glad I watched it.

Cradle Will Rock is well-filmed and has a political message. It is, however, boring, predictable, and patronizing. I don't see anything wrong with artists putting politics in their art, in fact I encourage it, but Tim Robbins' characters are like Duracell rabbits who carry their messages without any personality or depth (is 'investment' better?). In Cradle Will Rock, Vanessa Redgrave's character mirrors Susan Sarandon's character in Dead Man Walking. They're filled with a mission and they don't ask questions, but hopefully and cheerfully carry their missions out. Dramatic tension? Nope, they're above it (the scripts, characters, and movies). The parallel between the French monarchy (Louis XVI at the eve of the French Revolution, to be exact) and Gray Mathers and his crowd is plain tacky and void of character development. Robbins' is a very shallow reading of history. He can't figure out if he wants to do high art or reach the masses, and the result is not very good at all.

I'm not sure where to start with this. In short, it was a disappointing movie. Having taught the novella, I was aware that it would be a hard story to turn into a movie. The movie has a couple of interesting lines (mainly between Alfred and Aschenbach) but it doesn't represent the debate on art that basically shapes the novella.

For one, I was expecting an older Aschenbach and a younger Tadzio. In the book, Tadzio is fourteen, but he is described as pure, ideal, innocent, whereas in the movie he reeks of sexuality and is a tease. He is an accomplice to Aschenbach, he always looks back at him, almost provokingly. In the book, it is Aschenbach who steals glances at the boy. As for Aschenbach, I imagined something closer to the professor-turned-clown in The Blue Angel (based on a story by Thomas Mann's brother Heinrich) than this forty-year old with hardly any gray hair. In all fairness, I do think that Dirk Bogarde did a good job, but either someone else should have done that, or he should have made to look older at the beginning.

I know that the discovery of homosexuality is important to the story, but the movie minimizes the talk about art and the duality between the Apollonian and Dyonisian inspirations and focuses instead on Aschenbach's obsession of Tadzio and does not justify it. I liked the fact that Mahler's music was used, because ultimately he did inspire Mann to write his story. I'm not sure turning Aschenbach into a musician was a particularly good move. Or the creation of Alfred who I don't remember in the book.

And one thing that really got to me was the sound and how it did not match the actors' lips. I was wondering if it was dubbed because I expected it to be in Italian. But then I remembered that each Italian movie I have watched has this problem. It just bothers me because these directors (Fellini is the other person I'm thinking of) are supposed to epitomize perfection in Italian cinema, and here are their characters laughing without sound, then you hear a noise that doesn't correspond to their faces (I'm thinking of the scenes when Aschenbach almost collapses and starts laughing. This scene could/should have been the strongest, but it was annoying instead).

I find this movie, and movies like Jesus of Montreal, to be the best Jesus movies for different reasons. They've got humor, they accept the fact that times change (although they remain faithful to the overall message of Jesus, more so than 'serious' movies like Gibson's), they don't present themselves as authoritative, and they're a lot of fun to watch.

Granted though, the acting sucks (if we can call that 'acting'). Jesus is a cross-eyed eunuch who can't keep a straight note. The disciples are one big mumbo-jumbo and it's hard to tell who is who. I found it interesting that Judas was Black, and that his actions were justified (I admit that there are huge inconsistencies in his actions though). Still, Judas is Judas, and there's a stigma attached to that, and he is black here (and so is Simon who's basically a freak). I don't know if these choices were the director's or part of the original script for the show.

The music was really good, and the setting made it surreal yet still very tangible. I don't think a remake would be successful, but I wish the director had taken better notice of some things. Overall excellent, despite all its shortcomings.

Bergman is a name one hears so often, and it is so associated with slowness and close-ups that he's intimidating even before one gets to watch him. I picked this movie off the shelf just as I could have picked any other of his movies, and since I haven't seen others, I wouldn't know how to compare this to the rest of his work.

But I liked it, I really liked it. I didn't find it as 'slow' as much as 'focused,' where even the twitch of an eyebrow or a glance to the left is an action. This minuteness was truly amazing. In a lot of ways it reminded me of Bresson's Journal of a Country Priest. Because of this minuteness, I also found it very cruel and raw. I am particularly thinking of the scenes with the animals (not only the sheep, but the dog as well, and especially the bird).

And I have to say something about the colors. They were amazing, so warm and so different from the narration, which was in itself detached and indifferent (maybe 'disinterested' is a better word). The light was amazing (like what seemed like an eternal sunset when Eva and Andreas have dinner). If this were a painting I suppose it would be realist or naturalist work, but the way the interviews cut in make it hyper-realist. Other reviewers have criticized this but I found it as adding depth to the characters, because it gave them a new, real, life.

The English title is misleading though, because it forces the viewer to focus on Anna, whereas the original title doesn't do that. I found myself waiting for things to happen to Anna until I found out that there was no reason for that to happen.

I am very happy to have seen this, and will definitely not shy away from watching more Bergman movies.

I saw Invincible last night, in the presence of Werner Herzog who

had a chat with Roger Ebert after the screening. Herzog told us

that the real Ziche died in 1926 (although it was actually 1925)

whereas in the movie he dies "two days before Hitler comes to

power" and that he had taken certain liberties writing the script. In

an article on the net I also read that Ziche and Hanussen most

likely never met. Bringing these two facts together makes me

reject this movie as anything close to good because what it does

really is distort history. And unfortunately what people will

remember is the movie--nobody is going to look Ziche and

Hanussen up when they can find them together in a movie that

claims to be based on a true story. I feel cheated by Herzog because of this deliberate reconstruction

of events, especially when he included in his opening credits that

this is based on a real story. Whose story are we talking about?

The real Ziche apparently toured Europe and the US in the

twenties, but in the movie he is fit to be nothing more than the

village idiot. He is willing to pass as Sigfried until his little brother

cries when he sees him dressed that way and says "you've

changed." So that gives Ziche initiative to tell the crowd that he

was not Sigfried but the new Samson. He wouldn't have thought of

it by himself. This little brother, Benjamin, is moreover one of the

most annoying things I have ever seen on a screen. His voice, his

wisdom, his squeaking, his convictions of who he is and who his

brother is and should be... everything about him was plain

annoying. Another thing that really annoyed me was the fact that Invincible

was in English. I don't know if Herzog has made any other movies

in English, but this one, out of all, should not have been in English.

Especially with all those accents that made it hard to understand

what each character was saying. Invincible would have been so

much richer if it were in German and Yiddish or Polish. Instead

everyone spoke English with weird accents except Tim Roth (but

all the signs and newspapers were in German, Polish, and

Hebrew). Roth was good (not great) but he didn't save the movie

by any means. 6/10

I can't believe this movie's rating on IMDB is so low! I watched it for

the third time yesterday, after a Prince concert, and I definitely think

that this movie's not given enough credit.

When it came out in the eighties everyone was crazy about it

because it was kinky and we all took the music for granted

because it was everywhere, and left it at that. Granted that the plot

isn't very sophisticated, it's still a movie that reaches out and

touches its audience. Watching it after all this time made me

realize how much it actually is a classic. The music is still great

and even the acting is decent. It's got humor, talent, and most of

all, personality.

Purple Rain is definitely representative of a huge chunk of my

generation. Whether Prince likes or dislikes constantly being

brought back to it, he can't deny that it was crucial point in his

career that defined him for years (decades?) to come. If you

haven't seen it, whether you like his music or not, you should

watch it.

I have just come back from watching Mel Gibson's movie, and as a first movie, it is very good. However one has to admit that Mel Gibson, although 'new' as a director, has been around for a while, and has more advantages to begin with when making a movie. This being said, The Passion of the Christ did not shake me more than any other movie about Jesus, perhaps because of the strong focus on Jesus. Jesus of Montreal, on the other hand, touched me a lot more because it universalized Christ's torment and extended it to everyone.

Most of the critics have been vocal about the violence in this movie as though it were the only violent movie out. It isn't, and the violence portrayed wasn't more than it should have been. I can't imagine a movie about Jesus without violence and without blood. This one in specific, with this title, has to be violent.

What really struck me however is that what Jesus's passion really was that it was a public lynching. People in the US need only to think two generations and more back to realize that African-Americans were being flogged and lynched just as ruthlessly. After a lynching it was common to cut up chunks of the dead person to keep as a trophy and postcards of the lynchings were sold way into the 20th century. How can such 'Christian' people do that (and they did it for over 300 years) and cry over this movie is beyond my comprehension.

I don't think this movie was anti-Jewish either, and I find it unfair that this issue comes up so often. So the Jews lynched Jesus, as opposed to...? There were no other established religions around int he region, so I don't see against whom they're being set up in such an argument. Plus the historicity of this whole thing remains to be proven.

I found some things inconsistent in this movie: despite Mel Gibson's search for authenticity by using Aramaic and Latin, Jesus looks like a European top model. He, Mary, and Mary Magdalene are beautiful while everyone else is ugly (except the Romans). Why is that? The costumes were great, so was the teardrop from the sky. During the whipping session, something went wrong with the editing because they count in the twenties over and over again (when Mary walks away the counting is heard in the background).

Overall, this was a pretty good movie, but it seems to rely on the 'religious experience' of the audience more than anything else. So if one doesn't fundamentally feels for the story, I don't think this movie will do much.

...but not worth watching unless you're into chick flicks, which I am

not. I have to give Bandits credit for trying to get artistic, but really,

it's a dumb movie with a dumb storyline and pretty bad acting. I

don't usually go around saying things are "dumb," but I really did

think this movie was dumb. First of all, it's about 12 to 15 years

late. 1985-87 were the years to make a chick flick based on a

musical band of runaway convicts, not 1997. Secondly, there is

no balance between art and reality. You've got to have some sort

of realism, or good humor, if you want the audience to sympathize

with the characters. This movie lacked both. The scenes involving

anger were too fake, the characters not well developed, the

storyline too unbelievable (for lack of a better word), and not only

did it drag on for too long, but what a disappointing and spiritless

ending! I liked the music though. I think it was too tame for the

story and not consistent with the girls' characters, especially since

the most violent girls (Luna) is the founder and singer. They

needed more umph. I gave Bandits a 6 because of the effort, but if it weren't for the

photography, colors, etc. I'd have given it a 3.

Although Les triplettes de Belleville is extremely well-made and

enjoyable, I couldn't help finding it too stereotypical and almost

racist. There are a lot of cultural references and winks that are

funny (Mabassine, Dupond et Dupont, etc.) but most of the humor

is pretty much poking fun at other cultures. To begin with the

monkeys jumping on Josephine Baker. But it hits it target the most

when France is reduced to frogs, wine, and the tour de France,

and the US is reduced to obesity and hamburgers (but I somehow

felt it was harsher towards France). This did not prevent me from

enjoying the movie, because it is really well-made, yet I was

uncomfortable about the stereotypes. I find this especially

disappointing because Canada claims itself to be so tolerant, but

it really acts the opposite way.

This adaptation of Gabrielle Roy's short story is not faithful to the

story in many ways. Christine is haunted by her grandmother's

death and death in general; Monsieur Saint-Hilaire looks like he's

going to die anytime within the next three minutes; we have

intimate glimpses of Christine's mother crying over her past...

Although I generally don't have a problem with alternations to fit a

movie, I felt that it ruined the result in this case. It changed

Christine and Monsieur Hilaire's personalities, and gave the

mother more presence than required. The original story is light and fresh, but the adaptation is heavy and

gloomy, so the main ingredient of the story is lost.

Great movie, warm and bittersweet. It somehow reminded me of

My Life as a Dog (1985) because it more or less deals with the

same issues, but we move from the Swedish North to the sunny

Brazilian South. Beautiful colors, great acting--Josue and Dora

make a wonderful pair and they really foil each other out. Almost

starts dragging a little before the end, but it picks up again. I highly

recommend.

Although I know that when one watches a Bond movie one should suspend one's disbelief and enjoy the movie for what it is, but I couldn't help finding "The Spy who Loved me" pretty pathetic. I am obviously not a Bond fan, and I haven't seen many Bond movies, but of the ones I have seen (3, 2 of which i do remember), this was the worst.

Granted, the gadgets are entertaining (Q's lab), but the dialog was ridiculous ("I am out of words" / "Let me expand your vocabulary"-- what kind of crap is that?). I assume no Bond movie is void of clichés, and this one is no exception. I have lived in the Middle East for 22 years, I have yet to walk into a tent with sexy half-naked belly dancers / odalisques sleeping with guests to please their lord (or whatever the guy is supposed to be).

I liked the opening credits and most of the soundtrack. But the rest just didn't do it for me.

I have to say that this was a pretty bad movie. The acting was bad, the editing was bad, the story was bad. I can see, however, how a movie like this can pave the way for something like Delicatessen, La cité des enfants perdus, and even Les amants du Pont-Neuf.

Actually, this reminded me of Carax's Mauvais Sang, which was really horrible but paved the way to his masterpiece Les amants du Pont-Neuf. Similarly, this is a precursor to Beineix's masterpiece, 37•2 le matin (version integrale). The focus on tormented relationships and uncertain geographies can be interesting, but really, not in this movie. The music was good, but not always well-adapted to the scenes it accompanied. Then again, by no means does this movie aim to be realistic (which explains the acting). Too bad. Interesting elements but boring results.

I would like to draw people's attention to a comment on La Strada

entitled "Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb," where the author mentions

the diva in Truffaut's "La nuit américaine" saying how she did not

have to remember her lines when working with Fellini. Since I had

watched La Strada in English, I couldn't relate much, but now I do.

And I remember the sound putting me off while watching 8 1/2. It's

a total cacophony! And it really ruins what would have otherwise

probably been a great movie. I didn't mind the grotesque, I didn't mind the lack of linearity (after

all, we only have fragments of the book anyway), I didn't mind the

fantasy, I LOVED the last shot (really, the movie is worth watching

be it just for that), the colors were a little wild (let's blame that on

"technology"), but the sound! Granted most of these were not real

languages (the subtitles appeared randomly, so I missed a lot of

what was said), there was such a blur of sounds in the

background that never corresponded to anything on the screen

that it was really annoying. At one point I picked up Arabic, where I

think it shouldn't have been because that was not consistent with

the other gibberish around in the rest of the movie. What I think I

will do from now on is watch Fellini in translation because, despite

the numerous qualities this movie has, the sound absolutely

ruined it.

I can understand how people might react negatively to this movie

(and judging by other posts, some do), but I found this movie one

of the most interesting and penetrating (hmm, no pun intended)

movies I've seen for a while. It has the right art-mystery-allegory- satire dosage, and they are very well weighed. It was just

fantastic. I am not sure why IMDB categorized it under drama. I

couldn't help laughing the whole way through. I don't think this was

supposed to be taken too seriously, since it was pretty predictable,

after all. It was just really interesting to see the way Pasolini plays

with the Bible, Tolstoy (if only he could watch it!), emotions, and

social satire. Mozart's haunting Requiem crowned it perfectly.

To all those who claim that this is a movie only tits and butts, grow up. There's a lot more than that, but it is of course up to the viewer to choose what to see. Sure, this is not an action movie, but it is deeply emotional and it is the type of movie that stays with you. I personally place this movie in my top 10.

I saw this movie on the plane during a transatlantic flight

yesterday. While I agree that watching movies on a plane

diminishes their value, I don't think this is applicable to The

Pianist. Technically I found it very well made (photography, music,

colors, etc.) but I have to say that the story itself contains every

single stereotype available to survival stories (not only WWII

camps). That was actually pretty disappointing because I had

heard so many good things about it. Brody was good but his was

not an Oscar performance.

I find it sad that the only recognition this movie gets is Bjork's

involvement in it. While I do admit that she's an asset to it (she

looks peculiar and is talented), I also think that the movie has

qualities of its own.

The eerie mood of the film is heightened by a lot of silence and a

slow pace. Put that against a rocky landscape in black and white,

and add a beautiful raw score, and you get a nice result. I wish it

were a little longer. The setting (architecture) and costumes really

take the viewer to another time and place.

I definitely recommend this movie, keeping in mind that it's not an

action movie, nor a horror movie. It's full of earth and soul.

This is by far the weirdest Lynch movie I have ever seen, and I

guess that that also makes it the most interesting. I'm sure Kafka

would have enjoyed this immensely.

Eraserhead is an intriguing movie to say the least. It has a lot of

elements that will later appear in Lynch's movies (the checkered

floor, freaks, that stage-backroom, etc.), so there is that familiarity.

However, whereas later movies have sex and violence, this has

wormy things that tend to be pretty gross. It doesn't ruin the movie

at all, but I wouldn't advise pregnant women to watch it.

The music, as always in Lynch movies, is neurotic and soothing.

The lighting gets too dark at points sometimes and making out the

action can be hard. It is, however, definitely worth watching, and

definitely worth watching more than once.