thanatonaute Reviews

Bloody Sunday (2002)

important film

[17 November 2002]

Bloody Sunday 8/10

"Bloody Sunday" retells the events occurring on January 30, 1972 in the Northern Ireland town of Durry. 13 people were killed and 14 more wounded. It is generally considered that it is since that day that the

The film is not a documentary, yet it is extremely realistic and quite exact in its reconstruction (merely some dialogue is fictional, all the rest of the film is based on documentary material) except for some conclusions made at the end (apparently; since I am not too much familiar with the events themselves, I can't really judge for myself).

The film is very well done, it successes in showing the confusion, anger and pain experienced on that day. It blames the British as well as the IRA for the killings. It is hard to watch, but that of course is only because reality is not beautiful and nice and all. However Paul Greengrass' film misses to give the audience the maybe necessary background about the situation in Northern Ireland at the time. If the spectator doesn't know what exactly is opposing Protestants and Catholics, he won't be able to really understand some turns of the events. Of course as the film focuses on the day itself the massacre happened this would have been extremely difficult.

"Bloody Sunday" won several festival prices, among them the Golden Berlin Bear from the 2002 Berlinale (though tied with Miyazaki's "Spirited Away ").

It is an important film, so: Go see it.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

great film

[16 November 2002]

What a film. Even though having read and heard quite a bit about this film, it was nevertheless a mind blowing experience. Ok I'm exaggerating a bit, yet this film is a masterpiece and should have been made quite some time ago.

Moore is ruthless, bitter and dead funny in his film and thus successes brilliantly in showing how absurd and perverted the American gun craziness is. He shows a lot archive footage from TV networks, goes so far as to return the merchandise (bullets still in the bodies of two surviving victims of the Littleton High School massacre) to a supermarket chain, analyzes several theories why the death by gunshot rate in America is so high and interviews a lot of people (including Marilyn Manson, Charlton Heston and Timothy McVeigh's best pal). It is a film that makes you laugh, cry and angry at a time.

This film is a serious kick in the ass for the Americans and George W. Bush should watch it closely. Instead of bombing around like a madman he should start by looking for causes for the terror act in his own country.

It is a great film and leaves you thinking long after you've left the cinema. This documentary, the first documentary presented at Cannes in years, is an important film, a real must see. Go see it.

Spider (2002)

not your typical cronenberg

[16 November 2002]

The plot is the story of a man with a disturbed mind returning after many years of being locked away in a loony bin to his home town and catching up with his past. This sounds somehow familiar, and the risk of such a storyline is of course to use too much clichés about mentally ill people.

This being a David Cronenberg film however, one could be more or less sure that the film would be a highly innovative and surprising film with many plot twists. If you go to the theatre with such expectations, as I did, your first reaction will be disappointment. The film is very slow, with a more or less linear narrative (ok it's the wrong term as there the film is using flashbacks to tell its story, yet both in the present time and in the flashbacks you'll find linear narrative), no real surprises and no fancy special effects.

Yet if then you think about it a bit more you come to the conclusion that "Spider" is a very well done film and even a rarity among today's films. In fact as Oliver Stone once said it is not possible anymore to do a slow and simple film like "2001: A Space Odyssey" today. Even though "Spider" is far from being as minimalist as Kubrick's film it nevertheless one of those films that are not likely to be green-lit by a studio. The cast, especially Gabriel Byrne, are giving quite astonishing performances. Cronenberg is, of course, doing a fine job, keeping the pace slow, using interesting angles, beautiful cinematography and making the film real moody. The main character however is quite too close to the stereotype psychopaths cinema going audiences are used to. He is keeping a freaky diary, can't articulate well and displays quite all characteristics of autistic behaviour. However there is one major distinction between Spider and the typical psycho John Doe: he is non violent. In the whole film Spider is never using graphic violence (yes he kills his mum, but he uses a very peaceful way for it). It is not now like in "One Hour Photo" where the main character is a pacifist; Spider would use violence if he would judge it appropriate, he even comes very close to bashing Mrs. Wilkinson's brains in, yet Cronenberg masterfully avoids the expected bloodbath and thus improves the film.

"Spider" is not the provocative "Naked Lunch"-"Scanners"-"Videodrome"-"Crash"-Cronenberg film. It is a very charming, yes even sad, film about a man who's lost his mind and his past and rediscovers the last of the two. Go see it.

Atanarjuat: The Fast Runner (2001)

very interesting

[9 June 2002]

atanarjuat is an historic film, it is the first film ever shot in the inuit language and besides 'nanook from the north' (1922) it is one of the very few films that focus on the inuits' lives. however, unlike the film from robert flaherty, atanarjuat is not a documentary, it is a story-telling film; the film's plot is an old inuit tale.

It is this that makes the film interesting. but the director, zacharias kunuk has done a fine job too. he likes to explore new camera angles, but never forgets that his directing is serving the plot and not the other way around. the cinematography, the arctic light and the unprofessional actors are quite amazing as well.

however the story is very simple and stretched over 160 minutes it makes the film become really boring at places.

nevertheless atanarjuat is a very beautiful and important> film.

Irreversible (2002)

more than merely provoking

[10/10 · 8 June 2002]

everybody talks about this film; how shocking it is, the rape scene etc. (by the way the rape is only the second most disturbing scene in the film)

but there is so much more in this film.

in the beginning you think, 'jesus, what the hell is this, haven't they heard what a bloody steady-cam is?', but after the rape scene you understand that the camera movements give back the state of mind of the characters; particularly of marcus and pierre.

then all the separate scenes have been shot in one take, and they all last from 8 up to 15 minutes or so. quite some work you can imagine...

the story-telling is then not really new, you will find yourself thinking 'ok, I have seen memento too...', but nevertheless, as in memento this has a reason (even though it is not the same). here the title explains why telling the story backwards: 'irréversible' means which can't be undone (literally which can't be turned back), and that's why we begin with the end, so we know, that whatever the characters do, the end will be the same.

quite an experience this film is; but you need to have strong nerves and a strong stomach...

Dead Creatures (2001 Video)

a quiet and beautiful, yet disturbing film

[10/10 · 6 April 2002]

Dead Creatures is of course no film for weak stomachs, but it is not the typical, plain gross and bloody, horror film you might think it is.

Dead Creatures is a very calm film. No big shock effects or action scenes, yet the film is not boring at all. Mr. Andrew Parkinson films his so-called zombies as human beings. His dead creatures are not dead they are only almost dead; in fact they are dying. They are all victims of some strange disease forcing them to feed on human flesh and making their skin degenerate. Parkinson shows his zombies as victims of their fate and not as those evil, generally really stupid creatures.

So this is an intelligent gore film; it is the first gore film I've seen so far (with the exception of Romero's Night Of The Living Dead) which doesn't exist because it wants to show you ugly bloody stuff, but because the plot requires the gore. Parkinson doesn't show you all the bloody details; he often uses ellipses, which proves his courage (most gore film-makers profit every time they can show you some blood) and shows that he had a special approach to his film and that he focuses on the characters. The gore in his film is almost what Mr. Hitchcock would call a McGuffin (something you need for your plot, but which is not really important).

Parkinson's camera is almost never moving, it usually stands still and lets the characters develop themselves. There Mr. Parkinson was really lucky to have gathered a great cast. Horror film actors often act really bad, but here there are some really fine and talented actors. The editing of the film is quite interesting as well. The cinematography is quite standard, but picturesque shots wouldn't have fitted in this film.

Mr. Andrew Parkinson is probably one of the most gifted gore film-makers around. I can just recommend you to watch this film, (though it isn't easy, because this film is mainly shown at film festivals.)

The Man Who Cried (2000)

Good, but...

[8/10 · 3 February 2002]

The Man Who Cried is a really fine film, better than most what Hollywood produces, but the film has some serious problems; or let's say one big problem: the screenplay.

The Characters, except the man who cried, are all well drawn and the story successfully fits in the historical events. However the film's ambition is much bigger than what it finally is. Nice title for a film, I have to admit, 'the man who cried', but when I reached the point in the film where this wonderful title is 'explained', I said to myself 'Hey, this can't be it! Too lousy!'. Really the man is 'only' crying because his lover has to leave and some of his family members were killed (ok it's worth a weep or two, but not when you have such a great title!). The scene last about seconds and that was it. We see the man never again. The man isn't even the main character of the film. A better title would have been 'the woman who sang' or so, since this singer on the search for her father is the leading character. But this is still only the title and it wouldn't be correct to condemn the whole screenplay for it. As I said the characters (except our man...) and historical facts are really well written and the story gives good surface; but only surface. The film evolves much too fast for its plot. There are just too many characters and things happening to be well described in a 100 minutes. The man who cried is one character that is sacrificed to this tempo, his screen time is not long enough and he barely speaks. He remains mysterious you might say, but he stays that much mysterious in this film that he seems empty.

Nevertheless this film is quite good and is worth watching twice. Even though the writer and the director are the same person, Sally Potter, the directing is really fine. Mrs. Potter's camera is always moving, it almost dances with the characters you might say (Potter is a dancer and made some films about dancing, remember 'The Tango Lesson'). The cinematography Potter is using is eye-popping, inspired by photographs of Paris in the 1930s it has a 'classic' look. But Potter combines this with intense modern colors, Lola's red lips will haunt you after watching the film. The musical score is haunting as well, I guess that is always so with Potter's movies. As an actor director Potter is more ambiguous; Cate Blanchett delivers her best performance I have witnessed, and John Turturro is at the same time hilarious, scaring and sad and totally startling, Johnny Depp is fine as always, but he is the man who cried and so the screenplay ruins his character's possible depth, but Christina Ricci, who generally is a fine actress, somehow seems to be doing but playing back her text lines, maybe this was wanted, but I found it bad. The editing was well done as well.

Now a bit more about the actors, because them (and the cinematography and the music) are the most haunting of the film. Cate Blanchett is absolutely great; her Russian/French accent his stunning, her red lips haunting, and she just became this Lola. Her character is the one the screenplay probably best drew, and she made it even better. When the sad but ambitious Lola, who is dating one rich men after the other (in the film only two of them however), is smiling, it catches your breath, I swear. John Turturro as the rich and unscrupulous Italian Tenor is riveting as well. His character, who had the risk to become stereotypical, is made alive by Turturro. He got the right accent (probably because he is Italian) and his face (this big eyes and crooked mouth) are making him scaring, but his shivers and his voice make him sad and as always Turturro makes his character funny as well, but very subtle always. Mind-blowing. Johnny Depp is doing his best to save the man who cried, but the man is just not long enough in the film. Depp takes his usual risks and assimilates the character the best way he can. As always then he just got the looks for this man. Now Ricci was disappointing in this film. Don't know why, but somehow she seems always to be thinking about something else and her dialogue doesn't seem natural. Generally Depp/Ricci works fine, but here it doesn't, and it isn't Depp's fault. It is I guess only a lapse of Ricci and I guess in her next movies she will be acting fine again as we are used to.

Overall I recommend this film, but it is just sad about the screenplay's lacks, for this movie could have been that much better with a better script. Watch it twice for Blanchett/Torturro, the cinematography and the dancing camera and the score.

Roberto Succo (2001)

great achievement

[9/10 · 27 July 2001]

This film is stunning but really.

Everything is great; cast's performances, cinematography, plot, score and soundtrack, editing, and of course directing. All this makes you gaze at the empty screen after the movie's over for some minutes and think 'wow!'.

Maybe the film might be a bit too violent for some people. The violence in this motion picture is actually quite interesting. On the one hand there is graphic violence, gore; on the other hand the violence is underneath. It is how easily and spontaneously Succo kills that really shocks, more than the blood. And the fact that Roberto Succo really lived should really frighten.

The director Cédric Kahn in fact tried to show as less blood as possible, but still wanted the audience to be shocked. To do this he stays objective, he never tries to condemn Succo's acts or even to explain them. No, he just shows them. This gets even more ambiguous with Succo's love affair. Through this romance he seems to be quite a nice guy, strange but nice. So, on the one hand he is a really bad killer, and on the other hand he is a usual man in love. And this really killed me, I loved that effect. You don't really hate this guy, Succo, but you don't really love him neither. Kahn pushes this effect even further. The whole movie is structured that way. There are funny parts or love scenes and there are violent parts. So you can't just put this film in some category. The film is ambiguous in itself.

Then the cinematography. That is really great, especially in a scene where Succo climbs up on the prison's roof to kill himself (but the building isn't high enough he complains, actually this is one of the funny scenes). Most of the shots look like paintings. Really great job the director of photography did here.

The cast is great. Stefano Casseti had never acted before! He was discovered in a café by a friend of the casting director. But his performance is stunning! He has such great eyes, really scary, but also sad.... Islid Le Besco is perfect as usually and Patrick Dell'Isola should be mentioned also for his great acting.

So, I could go on and on that way, but just get that movie watched guys, it really is worth to be seen and you sure won't regret.

Bruiser (2000)

interesting idea, but not developed...

[8/10 · 27 July 2001]

Many people consider 'Bruiser' as a very bad film. I sure won't acclaim it as a truly good movie but still I think it isn't as bad as people say.

I think the tag line misses its purpose. 'Revenge has no face' what is that supposed to mean? It is because Henry (J. Flemyng) could just stop existing and nothing would be changed because he has yet no value as an individual that he loses his face. Only then he realizes how bad the people he considers as his friends treat him. Only then he starts the self-justice. I find this idea quite interesting and Romero develops it several times a bit more when we see what Henry imagines and somehow wants to do but doesn't dare to do.

But sadly we don't get more out of this. From then on the film only shows Henry's killings and some useless sex scenes.

Overall I've still found the movie above average and recommend it to those who want to watch a bit more philosophic action movie. But real fans of Romero or movie buffs sure will be disappointed.

Cherry Falls (1999)

very cheap film and a big disappointment

[1/10 · 27 July 2001]

Before watching this movie I didn't really know what I should expect. I mean when I first heard the German title which would be 'Sex or die' I thought 'Well, what's that about? Sounds funny, doesn't it?', then after having read the synopsis I thought 'Oh, just another scream copy.' and finally after having seen the director's name (i.e. Geoffrey Wright) I thought 'What? Geoffrey Wright, writer/director of Romper Stomper? Ok that movie must be great!'

Then I went watching it. Oh, what a bad movie! Really; the plot is predictable, the acting except Jay Mohr and Michael Biehn is wooden, and then there are plenty of mistakes made by no less than Geoffrey Wright.

The movie has difficulties to decide which sort of film it should be. There are parts that are a bit scary, there are parts that are a bit funny (except one dialogue that really is funny; a officer says 'Sorry kids, I must hold my position, I can't split' and then comes the maniac and splits him in the first sense of the word), there are parts that tend to be somehow erotic and finally there are parts that tend to show blood. But the one who watches it because he wants to be frightened, doesn't get what he wants, nor the one who wants to laugh nor the one who wants to see hot scenes nor the one who wants to see gore gets what he wants.

So nobody gets what he wants and everybody will come out of the theaters still 'hungry'.

And then there are many scenes that really look cheap, and it certainly isn't a question of budget.

I hope Geoffrey Wright's next movie proves that 'Cherry Falls' was only a wrong step of his and not that 'Romper Stomper' was a lucky achievement.