Change Your Image
ElMaruecan82
There was a time when "The Simpsons" were influencing Pop Culture. Now, it's Pop Culture influencing "The Simpsons"
I love movies that challenge my intelligence, please my eyes, and talk to my heart
Personal Top Lists:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur4234119/lists
IMDb Daily Poll Selection History :
Most classic one-word movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-02-27
Most classic "written" quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-04-02
Movie quote said in front of your mirror : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-04-15
Favorite cinematic 'Frank' : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-04-28
Most classic 'three-word' movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-05-25
Movie title best defining your life right now : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-06-09
"Morning" movie quote best defining your mood when you wake up : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-07-07
Most elaborated revenge scheme featured in a movie : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-08-09
Most iconic three-word movie quote (with a contraction): http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-09-17
Favorite pairing from the list of Best Actor nominated duos : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-10-11
Favorite female villain from the American Film Institute's list : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-10-16
Favorite Actress from the top 10 of AFI's "America's Greatest Legends": http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-11-09
Favorite Actor from the top 10 of AFI's "America's Greatest Legends": http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-11-10
Most classic 'two-word' movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-11-27
Movie genre matching your own resolution for 2010 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2009-12-31
Favorite cinematic hero from a Best Picture Winner : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-01-05
Favorite gangster film from AFI's Top 10 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-01-28
Favorite one-word TV catchphrase : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-03-06
Most memorable "walking" movie scene : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-03-14
Favorite TV Duo with names beginning with same initials : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-03-24
Favorite highest ranked movie by genre from AFI's Top 100 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-03-25
Favorite iconic female movie quote from AFI's Top 100: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-04-05
Favorite of Top 10 Voyeuristic movies: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-04-16
TV show title best defining your life right now: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-05-01
Favorite Harrison Ford movie nominated for Best Picture oscar: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-05-04
Film icon most likely to win a staring contest: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-05-15
Favorite gangster from one of AFI's Top 10 films: http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-06-01
Favorite movie set in a hotel (or motel): http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-06-03
Movie with the most claustrophobic feeling : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-01
Favorite "Flying" movie moment : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-05
Favorite cinematic pig : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-12
Favorite cinematic photographer : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-13
Favorite one-word Mystery film : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-07-19
Favorite TV-themed movie : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-04
Favorite actress with oscars nods in at least 4 decades : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-12
Favorite actor with oscar nods in at least 4 different decades : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-13
Favorite TV/movie cliffhanger quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-14
Most iconic TV item of clothing : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-25
Movie quote best defining Al Pacino : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-08-31
Favorite TV/Movie Butler : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-09-25
Favorite narrator from IMDb's Top 50 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-09-27
Favorite TV large group of siblings : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-11-06
Most iconic four-word movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-11-15
Director most likely to direct a Best Picture winner first : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-11-26
Most enjoyed TV's opening credits sequence : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-01
Most memorable cinematic question : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-10
Most tiring ciliché movie profession : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-19
Most memorable child's movie quote : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-26
Favorite TV's male and female team : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2010-12-29
Favorite TV show that regularly broke the 4th Wall : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-01-05
Favorite TV's "acronym"-named character : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-01-08
Most memorable mystery from a TV series : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-02-02
Favorite 1960's tough-guy film : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-02-13
Best written film from Top 10 Favorite Screenplays : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-02-25
Favorite medical doctor from a non TV medical show : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-03-09
Favorite horror-themed TV series : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-03-11
Favorite classic sci-fi film released in 1982 : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-04-07
Favorite cinematic moving object : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-04-17
Most original cinematic deadly object : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-05
Favorite TV series with a titular setting : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-11
Most iconic TV gameshow cathcphrase : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-18
Favorite TV bespectacled character : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-25
Most deserving film-maker of a theme park : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-05-31
Favorite Western-themed TV series : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-08
Most iconic movie cop : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-17
Favorite Best Picture moment from Ebert's 100 greatest : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-21
Disney film that should be remade by David Lynch : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-28
Favorite oscar-winning Columbo "murderer" : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-06-29
Favorite 1999 existential film : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-01
Favorite TV show featuring puppetry : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-02
Favorite first performer to win Oscar twice in the same category : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-18
Favorite TV show aired during 11 seasons : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-20
TV kid best defining your childhood personality : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-23
Movies with the most nightmarish feel : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-07-25
Favorite character "good" or "bad" : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-08-14
Favorite TV character using a wheelchair : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-08-17
Favorite top ranked 70's one-word title film : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-08-30
Director that "owned" the 60's : http://www.imdb.com/poll/results/2011-09-01
Ratings
Recently Rated
Lists
They surely know how to write entertaining and unforgettable dialogues, one being a master of Black comedy and the other of self-derision (guess which is which?).
And as far as directing is concerned, although they were famous for emulating some of their favorite directors' styles, there's no doubt that in the process, they created their own signature and personal trademarks!
So, which of Quentin Tarantino or Woody Allen evokes the best possible combination of writing and directing talents?
PS: the last 2 options below the 'creepy' one are from "Fight Club" and "A Beautiful Mind", don't read if you haven't seen any of these two films, and do your best to forget about the poll's title ...
Which of Meryl Streep or Daniel Day-Lewis do you think is the most likely to equal the record of the most Oscar wins by a single person, held by Katharine Hepburn?
If you think Jack Nicholson will all surprise us with a spectacular Oscar-winning come-back, then which of Meryl or Daniel do you think is the most likely to win the second 4th Oscar?
But it was also the year when many legendary stars
This is the French Man of 1000 Voices, who dubbed some of the most iconic or memorable TV and movie characters of all the time. The list itself will give you an insight of the man's talent.
And the question is simple: which of these TV/movie characters dubbed by Roger Carel in the French versions is your favorite?
[link=]Discuss here[/link]
Latest Message Board Posts
Reviews
Vargtimmen (1968)
Max Von Sydow as the 'Exorcised' ...
"The Hour of the Wolf" refers to that particular moment between night and day where sleep is at its deepest, where most dreams -consequently nightmares- gets the realest feeling, where most people die and are born, where we're at the most fragile and vulnerable state. In other words, it is a fascinating accumulation of superlatives with such creepy undertones, it would've been impossible for an explorer of the human condition like Ingmar Bergman not to tackle it.
And to illustrate the eeriness of the titular notion, Bergman translates into a mysterious pathology that took possession of a tortured artist's soul; a painter named Johan Borg and played by Max Von Sydow. The film is based on the fictional notes taken before his death (or disappearance?) and revealed in front of the camera by his widow (?), Alma, played by Liv Ullman. The two actors star again in a Bergmanian film in the same year than "Shame", Bergman's anti-war pamphlet but this is one more obscure and puzzling film, even by Bergman's standards.
In fact, the film made me realize that despite the heavy psychological material carried by most Bergman movies, they're pretty much straight-forward about their subject and at the end, it's always a part of our human condition that is revealed to us, mirrored by our relationship with time, with God, with the other. It's like each Bergman's movie plays like a piece of puzzle that would constitute a magnificent and intelligent study of the human soul. But "The Hour of the Wolf" is one of these pieces of the puzzle you don't know where to put.
This is not to separate the from Bergman's other works, it's his first and I guess- only take on supernatural and surrealistic material, and the result is aesthetically nightmarish and conveys the horror inhabiting the Johan's soul, but Bergman, as inaccessible as he is, always found a way to guide us to his characters, even at the price of a second viewing. I wanted to understand what was going into Johan's mind, was that sickness? Hallucinations? In a way, Alma mirrors these very feelings and like her, we want to know more about him.
Some shadows of answers come when she sneaks into his diary, the reading episodes provide the first hints: one creepy dream involving a kid trying to kill him and an idyll with a girl named Vogler and played by Ingrid Thullin. Shot in high contrast and with a pretty furious editing, the kid's killing and drowning is one of the most disturbing sequences I've ever seen, my guess is that it supposed to evoke the repression of some childhood episodes, and maybe the child Johan kills is himself, the clue comes from his revelation of a childhood trauma later to Alma.
The Vogler episode is echoed during a dinner where the couple meets a group of rich and eccentric slobs to the limits of perversity bourgeois (lead by Erland Josephson). They all seem to know about Max' affair. They're obnoxious, uneducated, aggressive, one of the lady literally jumps at Johans, Josephson's wife implies that they try to take him from his wife, they're the closest players to the antagonists, and leave us a sentiment of total discomfort, like these creepy nightmares where we don't know where we are but can't wait to get the hell out of it.
I guess "The Hour of the Wolf" encapsulates this trapped feeling and impossibility to escape from a situation without getting through it, it's probably these repressed feelings that come back to the surface to better torture us, maybe it's a surrealistic definition of guilt, guilt from one man's weakness. Which might explain that Johan decided to isolate himself from the world in the remote house leaving a peaceful and dull life with Alma, while he's lived quite a torturous and much more cinematically appealing life?
And maybe the third act is the price he finally paid by not being totally sincere with his wife. It's made of a whole long sequence where they search Max in the forest, while he's in the castle and must play some twisted and pervert games, nudity, make-up, crows, all the most unsettling archetypes of nightmares are used and at the end, nothing but absence, absence of Max, of explanations "The Hour of the Wolf" leaves many interrogations, and so does the film. Right now, I'm still having this 'what the hell did I see' expression I had when it ended.
I certainly wouldn't be a fan of Bergman if I had seen this first, but because I'm a fan, I try to see the film with more magnanimous eyes. I can accept the absence of definite answers and the way Bergman drowns his work into his own creativity, my take is that Bergman invites us to embrace these moments where we're directly haunted by our own demons, where we must face the true facet of our personality, indeed when the nightmare gets its realest feeling, perhaps the closest moment in life when it looks like a nightmare.
"The Hour of the Wolf" is certainly the closest Bergman's film to a nightmare and I wonder if the deliberate noises he made at the beginning of the film was made to reassure us that we were only watching a film, as to insists that no matter how creepy this stuff is, it's still the product of one's imagination. I guess I prefer Bergman when he approaches our reality, but even the way we handle our reality is conditioned by our subconscious, and all the feelings we try to repress. Maybe this is "The Hour of the Wolf", this moment where for some reason; we have good reasons to act irrational.
But I certainly wouldn't recommend it as a first Bergman's film.
Basic Instinct (1992)
Basic Trash transcended by the film-making Instict ...
Basically, "Basic Instinct" didn't have a plot, but it had a purpose and it sure knew how to sell it.
The way I see it, on the surface, "Basic Instinct" is like an elegant and sophisticated lady, you know with high heels, a large hat and a cigarette-holder à la Audrey Hepburn, but at the end, you realize that she's nothing but a whore, it's not even about sex, it's about money. Yet for some reason, you can't resist her charm and you're ready to pay the big price. We're part of the same hypocrisy but when our senses are aroused, it's hard to say 'no'.
This is why I believe that the greatest trick "Basic Instinct" ever pulled was to rise above its content, which can objectively be described as basic trash, and make people believe it had a plot, something easily disguised under the soft and silky drapes of a half-glamorous half-Hitchcockian directing, that's the film-making instinct, its one-salvation merit.
Paul Verhooven is not a director renowned for his subtlety, he knows why most people will buy the ticket, and why no less will inevitably buy or rent the VHS, but after all, if you're going to make trash, why not do it with some style? Speaking from my own experience, back in the 90's, I remember "Basic Instinct" was the cinematic incarnation of the forbidden fruit. I was about 15 or 16 when I lamentably avoided eye contact with the VHS vendor, but obviously she knew I hadn't the profile-type of the movie geek. I saw the film waiting for the infamous leg-crossing interrogatory, then for the first sex scene between Michael Douglas and the fittingly named Jeanne Tripplehorn and then my virginal senses culminated with the climactic sex scene needless to say that I couldn't care less about the plot; I cared for the purpose and its visually educational value, so to speak.
And I guess my own experience works as a perfect defense against the allegiances of manipulative writing- manipulative here doesn't refer to the kind of plots that leads us to believe something before getting us with a 'aha' revelation, but rather the plot that doesn't ruin or elevate the film, no matter what happens - At the end, it's not about Catherine Tramell being the ice-pick killer or not it's just about a cop, finally succumbing to his most basic impulses, and selling his soul to the devil. It's his presumption of a definite killer's innocence that seals his status as a passive character, but his weakness was the only possible driver for the sex scene. If plot there is, it only serves the purpose.
The plot serves the purpose, not the opposite, indeed, but are you really surprised? What would you expect from a cop who accidentally killed innocent people, who lives alone, who's not bad-looking and who realizes he's the subject of one of the most beautiful women's fascination? -well, because besides being sexy, Sharon Stone is extraordinarily stunning and Verhooven's camera knows how to value it - the investigation, the horrific crime, the whole suspense, it all leads up to one thing : sex, sex and sex, and from the film's perspective: money, money and money. And for us: pleasure, pleasure and pleasure. That's the symbiotic triptych that makes the film works.
Of course, this is not to diminish the cinematic merit of the film. It's easy to see in "Basic Instinct" some elements borrowed from the film-noir genre with Tramell as a modernization of the femme-fatale archetype. On that level, we're literally hooked to Stone's sex-appeal and during the interrogation scene, we can tell that the policemen in the room looks at her like we do, a piece of unreachable woman, a living fantasy; she's rich, she's beautiful, sexy, she has no boundaries when it comes to sex, she loves having new experiences, so many qualities that make her being a potential killer : a chance many of us would take, let alone, a flawed and loose cannon like Douglas' character.
So, as we follow the mystery, the evolution, wondering if she or her lesbian lover or any woman who idolized us in the past committed the crime, we realize that these considerations hardly matter, because at the end, the 'hero' slept with her before the investigation was over. The plot reminds of "Sea of Love" but there are reasons why "Basic Instinct" stood out for posterity (besides the leg-crossing), its Sharon Stone and the way this cloud of false ambiguity never ceases to surround her. But as if it was victim on its own take, it's so ambiguous it never wants to take the chances to reveal us, who done it. Is it a flaw or strength? Again, does the pay-off make the film any less enjoyable?
After 22 years, the film isn't as crude as today's productions. If I was a teen now, I wouldn't probably need to rent the DVD, with the Internet and the globalization of pornography, the standards of fantasies have been raised to infinitesimal summits and for some reason, it deprives the material from the 'trashy' core that repulsed the critics. We look at it like a movie about a cop being alienated by his own lust, and making the line between crimes, sex and moral thinner and thinner. It's all about these 'basic' instincts, and that look in Sharon Stone's eyes on the iconic poster.
Well, on a basic level, the film works, the directing is smooth and confident, and maintain an atmosphere of eeriness and mystery thanks to Jerry Goldsmith's score, one of the most defining of the 90's, and it launched Stone's career, making her the top-off-the-head star when it comes to define sexiness. So, just like a film of the same year, "The Bodyguard", it's not a great film, but if it managed to enter Pop-Culture providing new defining images of Cinema, well, it certainly achieved something.
Skammen (1968)
All is fair in love and war ...
War is the ultimate defeat of human civilization, no matter which side you belong to. Sure, some ideologies are harder to embrace than others, some sides harder to root for yet the merit of a good war movie on the field of intelligence is to challenge the obvious thoughts and ask disturbing questions: is the 'good side' morally superior when it comes on the battlefield's level? Is 'wrong' one less worthy of our sympathy?
A war movie is all about challenging some conveniently preconceived notions and on that level, Ingmar Bergman's "Shame", released in 1968 at the pinnacle of the Vietnam War, takes war them to the unusual frame of banal marital routine in order to show the psychological collateral damages of war, on ordinary people. Jan and Eva live in a farmhouse, but as the story goes, we learn they are former musicians, which means they're literate enough to afford sensitivity and respect towards civilization. They probably exiled themselves to an island, driven by the 'Voltarian' will to 'cultivate their garden'; to do what any civilized person would do during a war, getting the hell out of it.
But even though you don't want to come at war, war might come at you. And fates strike the couple when airplanes invade the island, providing a surprising amount of action and violence for a Bergman's film. But this change of pace is crucial to highlight the coming of a time where there's none left for introspection and thinking, when even the most intellectual people have to deal with the principle of reality, with its ugly blindness and heart-breaking neutrality. Well, as a Bergman movie, "Shame" is still a powerful character study, focusing on the evolution of a man and a woman.
Jan, the husband, is detached, he doesn't care about shaving or repairing the telephone since there's not much news to hear, which explain how clueless they are about the war. He's more of a follower and it's extraordinary how a man with the stature of Max Von Sydow is capable to shrink his extraordinary physical stature to play a rather weak character. Liv is more lively, so to speak, she's the no-nonsense woman who waits for the war to be over, before having children. She's the more practical and strong-willed of the couple while Jan is more prone to headaches and states close to a nervous breakdown, he's got to be the one who'll push the couple in its downfall.
We then expect the breaking point, when will it occur during this series of ill-fated events? Jan and Eva are threatened by the liberators, before being arrested by the patriots, and it doesn't matter if I mixed them up. They're accused of treason, put to jail, of course the war is as fictional as one in a secular democracy like Sweden can be but the point is to put the two sides on the same level, and show that maybe the best way not to be a victim of one is not to take side with the other. But neutrality isn't an option although Jan and Eva, out of fear and desperation, undergo the events rather than participate in.
The film features many archetypal moments of war films, mass exodus, fire squads, arrest, torture, propaganda, and instruments of pressure, but I had the feeling these were used by Bergman to set the film while the focus was Jan and Eva's characters arcs. The catalysis came from the third character; a Colonel named Jacobi and played by a restrained and unrecognizable Gunnar Björnstrand. For saving them for deportation, Eva offers her body, and get money in exchange. When she's back, she finds her husband sobbing, and doesn't have one ounce of sympathy. This is perhaps Jan's lowest point, before the ultimate change.
Later, Jacobi is arrested by the enemy and can only buy his freedom but Jan pretends he doesn't have the money (he found on Eva's bed earlier), signing Jacobi's death warrant; in fact, it's Jan himself who executes his rival, reaching his breaking point and definitely leaning the balance of power in his direction. Love disappeared but like only a master of emotions like Bergman could have demonstrated, one of war's defining characteristics is irony. In peace, the couple didn't live happily and despite the genuine love, something in the way Eva addressed Jan showed a bit of contempt, after Jan's 180 degree turn, they fight, they admit their hatred but they stick together as if love became a negligible entity.
The film offers a fascinating character study on the devastating effects war have on civilians' minds, a mix of maturity and degeneration, something that was echoed in the famous shot from "Persona" where Alma, Liv Ullman, an actress who resigned to silence, kept staring to the famous image of the burning monk, how could she live in a world that allowed such barbarity to happen. "Shame" offers a continuation to that questioning by reminding us that we're animals before human and our survival instinct will command our realest reactions. It's only when threatened by boiling water that Ullman spoke in "Persona", it's only when threatened by war, that Jan and Eva acted according to the core of their nature.
So, whether you're a fan of Bergman or war movies, this is a film that will disconcert you first, then grab your heart and hook it to the condition of Jan and Eva, who can be anyone of us. And in the light of today's events, where wars became common practice, we ought to wonder how we'd react when confronted to such ugly realities, when sometimes; there isn't time to think about life, because one of the basic aspects of life is to maintain it and for that, you've got to make the best out of things. How will our shaken principles stand
probably somewhere that'll lead to the film's title.
Le prénom (2012)
He said the first name, they didn't say their last word ...
What "Le Prénom" ("The First Name") accomplished was a miracle: it restored my faith on French comedy.
Indeed, just when I thought that they were forever condemned to rely their success on simplistic and childish plots compensated with star-studded cast, or some more or less abuse of that parodist humor mostly inspired from TV. Alexandre de La Patellière's film reminds us that even in our cynical Internet days, it was possible to make people laugh with delightful dialogues and realistic human generation, with the perfect cocktail of gentleness and cynicism, something I didn't think was possible since "Le Diner de Cons".
And it's true that "Le Prénom" is really the descendant of Francis Veber's masterpiece and not just on its excellent sophistication that never patronizes the spectator. On the form too, there are similarities worth to be noticed: both movies are based on popular plays, "The Birdcage" was another example of successful adaptation from stage to the big screen. The movie perfectly combines a respect of the unity of time, place and plot, with a delightful premise: a friendly dinner in upper-class Parisian house that turns sour when one of the guest revealed the name he decided to give to his future son, shattering instantly the harmony and friendship between a memorable gallery of characters.
Vincent (Patrick Bruel in a very interesting and nuanced performance) is Vincent, the brother of Babou (Elizabeth) played by the late Valerie Benguigi, a modest teacher married to a literature professor, Pierre, played by Charles Berling. Joining them is a meek, effeminate and non-confrontational musician, Claude, played by Guillaume de Tonquédec and Anna (Judith El Zein) as Vincent's pregnant wife, carrying in her womb the roots of the discord. Five characters, that's enough to set-up one of the funniest comedies of the last years. Both Guillaume de Tonquédec and Valérie Ben Guigui won the César for Best Supporting role, and the only bit of sadness conveyed by the film is Benguigui's untimely passing, at the age of 47.
(Indeed, It's impossible not to think of that sad loss for French Cinéma while watching "Le Prénom" and I'm glad she won the César, as a tribute to an immense talent that will be sadly missed. She left Cinema with a poignant and funny performance that will be remembered in the years to come) Now how about that first-name that will ignite the fire of discord and misunderstanding? Although it's very tempting but I won't give it away, out of respect for the screenplay and because one of the first delights is to play that game with Vincent, when he challenges to guess the name he picked for his son. It's not an unknown name, which makes the exercise even more suspenseful and once you know it, you understand why it was so polemical. I wondered for months what was that was mysterious name and how could it provoke a clash, I'm glad I didn't have a clue till the day I saw the film. And yes, they couldn't have come up with a worse name.
But don't worry, the film isn't centered only on the names' subject, it's just a starter to what will turn into something as chaotic as "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" where all the guests will have to say what they truly think and get rid of the whole social hypocrisy. And this is one of the aspects that make "Le Prénom" such a great comedy, it's a clever social commentary on the behavior of French elite, and the way their interactions, their speech mannerism or body language betray their political beliefs and their true feelings about so-called friends.
It's a reminder of the way sometimes, conflicts can have a sane effect by luring us to reveal the most sincere part of ourselves, and what more eloquent than the way we name people we love to speak about us. I, myself, am tired with people in my country, who gave their children name that sound foreign because they know that today, having an Arabic name can be a handicap, for me these people are either accomplice of the system, acknowledging the very hate their people inspire, and be part of it, driven by a form of unconscious cowardice. I could relate to a story like that, and I'm sure I can get excitable when it comes to such subjects.
So, behind the funny surface, "Le Prénom" is an extremely intelligent movie and deep in the way it tackles social interactions, much more when they touch family and friendship. There'll always be someone who'll be taken for what he is not and a simple sentence, one too much, can work like a wake-up call. And just when you think, you pointed your finger on someone's flaw, you realize you're not beyond criticism either, and this is the main lesson of "Le Prénom", it's about understanding each other, and respecting both people's choices and opinions, without being too wrapped up in one's egos.
And at the end, the battle of egos turn into a recognition of each one's plea, and what starts like a comedy end like a great lesson about humility. Yet the film doesn't conclude on a serious note, and the ending is the perfect punch line to it. When it ended, I found every bit of the film most satisfying, tasting like a good wine that thankfully never went too sour. And as I said, as an aspiring screenwriter, I wish I could come up with a film half that good. Of course, I could throw some one-liners here and there, but taken out of their context, they wouldn't have the same effect, much more; they might give clues about that infamous name that started all.
So, please, just watch it, if only to discover what is that mysterious name
but be a good movie fans, good sports, and don't cheat.
City Hall (1996)
A thrilling political 'whodunit' ruined by a pointless ending and an unnecessary close-to-romantic subplot ...
Ever since Frank Capra and "The Godfather" movies, Cinema had shattered faith on American politicians and I guess, reality finished the job. And given the requirements of the political thriller genre, dissociating the word 'politician' from the epithet 'crooked' became unconceivable and Harold Becker's "City Hall" is no exception: the script co-written by three giants: Bo Goldman, Nicholas Pileggi and Paul Schradder, depicts politicians as puppets with money as the strings held by criminals.
The games had its rules and one of them was to never harm, let alone, kill, innocent people. In "Scarface", Tony Montana owed his demise to this principle and Eliott Ness couldn't overlook the explosion that killed a poor little girl in "The Untouchables". "City Hall" opens with an off-duty cop and an in-probation criminal linked to the mob meeting on a rainy day and shooting at each other. Nothing we're not familiar with, but then there's a stray bullet that takes the film to an unexpected direction, killing a 6-year little boy going to school with his father.
When a bullet kills a child, the community can't close their eyes. We know the bullet hasn't finished its trajectory and many other heads will follow. The film is basically about the aftermath of the triple-murder, a thrilling investigation and its political domino-effect. What makes it even more riveting relies on the character who desperately tries to reassemble the pieces of the puzzle: Kevin Calhoun, John Cusack in his 'boyish look' days, as the deputy of an ambitious and charismatic lawyer named John Pappas, played by a Pacino at the top of his game (sometimes over it). Calhoun asks a friend about the killer's probation and what follows is a great piece of dialog. David Paymer's character looks confused. "Isn't the document kosher enough? No, it's too kosher." We get the message.
In other words, the Judge let a gangster free while he deserved to be sentenced for jail for more than 10 years. And the 'signal' alert starts ringing when Calhoun discovers that the judge happens to be a friend of John Pappas. Calhoun tries to protect his mentor, little he knows that Pappas will also revealed to be the mastermind of the whole operation. Mastermind is a too much; in fact, this is a benign case of political corruption. Mobster Zappati wants to spare his nephew a 15-year sentence, he orders his friend, a Brooklyn mayor, named Anselmo, played by a great Danny Aiello to 'persuafe the judge' and the judge is good friend with John Pappas, which loops the loop. Meanwhile, Anselmo orders to hide 40 000 dollars in the cop's home to imply that he wasn't that clean. Really small potatoes, we've seen worse.
But all of these actions are aggravated by the dramatic turn it took, when a lamb was sacrificed at the altar of political corruption. But more dramatic, even tragic, is the unforgivable turn the film takes as it deliberately screws up the mechanism it confidently built up. It all starts with Bridget Fonda's character as the lawyer representing the cop's widow and struggling to clear her husband's name, so she can have a full pension well, if it wasn't meant to be a sort of 'romantic' subplot, why a beautiful blonde for that? And this is where the film starts to lose its beat, because there's nothing she brought up that Calhoun couldn't have discovered alone. The whole ride to 'buffalo' was just the set-up to a cringe-worthy ending that didn't even made sense in the first place.
Basically, Fonda is the film's first mistake, and the poster could have done without her. There was so many great moments, a reunion between Anselmo and his business partners, his last conversation with Zapatti which had the same powerful undertones as the unforgettable meeting between Tom Hagen and Frankie Pentangeli in "The Godfather Part II". The film even has the intelligence to spare us some random action scenes, it's all in the mystery surrounding the opening crime, it's one hell of a political whodunit, meaning, who committed the first mistake? And the only character for the film is Calhoun, whose arc will change from idealism to an awareness of the limitation of the political world. If one thing, the film had to conclude on a sad and melancholic note.
Instead, we have that upbeat tone at the end, where he campaigns for some candidature I didn't even care about and an exchange of a few wisecracks with Bridget Fonda. That 'bullet killing a child' was the plot device that belonged to "City Hall" and no other film could have used it instead. Imagine the conversation, you know "City Hall"? "City what"? The film where a kid gets killed during a shoot-out and Pacino makes a speech during his funeral. Yeah, I remember that movie, so how about it? Well, it could have been much better." Unfortunately, the film is so thought-provoking and subversive that some other parts don't live up to the rest of the film, the ending, Bridget Fonda, and the fact that we're left confused about the future of John Pappas.
It's incredible that a screenplay written by the authors of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'", "Scent of a Woman", "Goodfellas", "Casino", "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull" couldn't come up with a more explosive script. A disappointing collective work, for a film with a very promising concept, a stellar cast, but an worth of an ordinary TV movie. That 'bullet killing a child' deserved more. When you have such an original opening, you can't afford such a cheap and ordinary ending, especially that doesn't even ring true, in other words, this was a man's film.
Indeed, it could have been to political thrillers what "Heat" was to the gangster genre, it could have been even longer, what a waste of performances, especially Aiello who was astonishing.
The Story of Film: An Odyssey (2011)
To the stars of the reel who (re)invented the wheel ...
Finally, after six weeks, my endurance finally triumphed over the 900 minutes of Mark Cousin's "Story of Film: an Odyssey", a series of 15 one-hour documentaries starting with the same close-ups that set the documentary's tone of unpredictability to those who expected Scorsese or Tarantino to lead the show: Stanley Donen, Lars Von Trier, Amitab Bachchan, Kyōko Kagawa, Jane Campion and Sharmila Tagore. Not familiar with them? Wait, you've seen nothing yet.
First and immediate impression: it was an extraordinary trip, yet the ending was a bit of a letdown. I didn't expect the sight of people walking in circle, hand-in-hand, in some African town, to close such an epic tour, a tour-de-force as far as documentary is concerned but again, with this constant and sometimes infuriating tendency to surprise you. In fact, the last shot of Cousin's documentary is revealing of both his work's strength and flaw: it guides your eyes toward new horizons, where film-making was expressed to its fullest by artists who took the absence of means as a mean by itself and contributed to mark their country in International Cinema's map; on the other hand, it's a slap in the face of all the movie-buffs giving the most obscure movies the publicity that posterity didn't grant them.
For instance, there had to be a reason why "The Great Train Robbery" was the first film remembered for having used editing as a significant part of the narrative, yet Cousins pays tribute to an unknown movie about firemen. Watching his doc made me feel like the most confused movie fan ever why some indisputable classics got the same treatment than some obscure Russian, Brazilian or Scandinavian movies. Hitchcock borrowed his use of suspenseful sequences and some low angle shots from Danish and German cinema while "Citizen Kane"'s use of backgrounds was inspired by Ozu. No star of the reel invented the wheel, cinema was only the result of a series of innovations, and Cousins' speaks like the advocate of all the pioneers whose creations were shadowed by the cinematic light of glory they generated a posteriori.
But then, as if he was exhilarated by his own subversion, Cousins goes as far as suggesting that "Casablanca" isn't a classic film, but a romantic of some sort... his statement is so bold it flirts with indecent blasphemy, the one that'd convince many viewers to stop watching (that, and from what I've read, an annoying voice-over but I saw it dubbed in French, so it wasn't an issue for me) Sure, the man is entitled to his own bias against mainstream or Hollywood cinema but I tend to agree with the angry crowd that some of his statements were particularly upsetting. Then, I looked at the documentary with more magnanimous eyes, and if in the worst case, it made me raise my eyebrows, in the best, I discovered some little gems I felt the urge to watch as soon as the documentary ended. That 'best case' is the odyssey's reason to be.
And the highlight of this incredible journey was undoubtedly the part about European radical directors in the late 70's and early 80's. It was an insightful introspection into the use of the camera as a social weapon. Generally speaking, the middle section of the film, from the 50's to the early 80's is the best part before the film loses its beat. Although I agree that the digital revolution canceled all the magic and the miracle of Cinema, I expected more flamboyance, something honoring the dream-like escapism it provided. And this comes from someone who's not too much into spectacular blockbuster, but I was probably one of the few to be upset because the film was on the same wavelength than I.
The 90's were the ultimate gasp of realistic cinema, with an interesting focus on Iranian Cinema, and a new Danish school of more austere and naturalistic film-making, borrowed from the heritage of Carl Theodore Dryer. As an aspiring film-maker, it comforted me (perversely, I confess) that I can make movies with basic tools and 'pretend' its Art. And in the 2000's the loop was looped, Cinema went back to its roots, understanding that its purpose is to show a form of reality that distorts the real without taking too much distance from it. It's also an extraordinary medium to extrapolate human's deepest fears and emotions, in fact, Cinema is a universe where human is in the center.
With that in mind, you forgive some liberties and analytical shortcuts. Some of my favorite directors were missing, Cassavetes (a quick glimpse on "Shadows" while the father of Indie cinema deserved more), Melville the one who didn't want to part of the New Wave and modernized the film-noir genre, John Huston, and Akira Kurosawa. I understand he's a fan of Ozu, but how can you neglect "Rashomon", the first film without a linear narrative and to use the unreliable narrator device. Did that annoying Christmas baulb metaphor make him lose precious minutes? But I guess out of 900 minutes, with a ratio of 1 learning from each, there are chances some ideas won't be 100% pleasing or even accurate, but remember what they say about education, it's what remains after you forgot everything.
Well, I'm not sure I'll remember everything from that 15-hour exhaustive documentary but there are many new movies I'm familiar with, new insights about the art of filmmaking, as the greatest art-form when it comes to express some emotions, on the use of the human body, a well-made close-up being worth a thousand images, it's about names that has sunk into oblivions but in their way took part the process that lead to the classics we adore now. It's a collective work where every piece of humanity, at any time, had a share of it..
And if only for that, I've got to hand it to Mark Cousins for having enriched my knowledge of Cinema.
Catwoman (2004)
I expected nothing, yet I'm still disappointed ...
I just finished reviewing three Ingmar Bergman's movies and now I have to write about "Catwoman". Gee, I feel like stepping on an ant-hill after climbing Kilimandjaro. Now, where do I start, since the question is not whether the movie is good or bad, but how bad it is?
Well, there is this quote from the TV show "Malcolm in the Middle" that had me laughing to tears and I've got to hand it to the writers for coming with such a fine and brilliance piece of cleverness. After they finished celebrating his birthday, a cone-wearing Dewey is asked if he liked the party, his comment is implacable : "I expected nothing, yet I'm still ket down" Now this is how I feel about "Catwoman".
I won't throw more rotten tomatoes at "Catwoman" because I didn't expect much, to begin with. I registered on IMDb the same year as the film's release, I had all the time to know about its reputation, its flop at the box-office and unanimously disastrous reception, so there was nothing to heighten my expectations, except the slightest hope that the film would belong to the 'so bad, it's good' category, but still, there would have to be a good reason for me to watch it instead of a film that just happens to be 'genuinely good'. It took 10 years, but between two remote controls' clicks, I caught the movie right in the beginning, and I decided to give it a chance.
By chance, I meant the benefit of the doubt but it didn't last, Halle Berry portrayed a woman who for some no other reasons than plot requirements, became a cat and the opening scenes shows her in every possible cat's situation (almost), in case we forgot about the main plot premise. Why all the rush? You've got an A-actress like Halle Berry (well, that's what she used to be anyway), she had just won an Oscar, she could have put some three-dimensionality within her character then how about sitting on a lonely place and trying to give her more substance and not just turn the woman into a cat-like creature right in our faces.
I have a confession to make, I have never seen Christopher Nolan's 'Batman' movies, yeah, yeah, shame on me, "booo!", I know. But I'm going to something positive, from what I understood, his movies did well, because the scripts didn't rely on special effects, but on characters' development. This is not character study or some kind of intellectual stuff, but just a way to inject some humanity some material meant to enhance our empathetic process. Instead of that, the French director Pitoff, who lacks both talent and a first name focuses on an unpredictably bad and basic antagonism between Patience Philips (Catwoman's real identity) and big cosmetics corporation selling an eternal beauty-cream, whose only secondary effect is to burn the skin when they stop to use it.
And I thought the whole fiscal subplot in "Star Wats Episode I" was pointless, how about that? What kind of vileness is supposed to come out of such a plot? Or is it supposed to fit the casting of Sharon Stone as Catwoman's nemesis and Lambert Wilson who does nothing else than embarrassing himself. All these actors proved to be capable when they're given a good script, I don't know who wrote "Catwoman" but I'm an aspiring screenwriter, I'm not 100% sure about my talents, but that a script like that had a chance to make it sure gives me hopes.
And I'm also a drawer, and a sort of feet-fetishist, and as much as I love the toes sticking out Berry's boots, damn, even I knew it was aesthetically wrong, unless it proved the movie's real intention which was to appeal on the lowest levels. After all, Catwoman is too sexy a character not to have her sensual savagery been exploited, but then how about injecting some sensuality and make the film a bit more adult, instead of just some paws's traces in her friend's back. I don't remember the name of the actor, but I'm sure I'm doing him a favor by not trying to.
Catwoman's outfits were probably designed to inspire the lustiest appetites, but if it failed as a superhero film, it did as well as a soft porn spin-off, while in both ways, it could have been interesting. And all the attempts to make Halle more feline, meeooo... ouch! I wish I could find one thing to appreciate, but it's as if Pitoff deliberately sabotages his own film, by inserting some stupid random basketball scenes or some cringe-worthy CGI effects, and don't get me started on the whole Egyptian mythology, Alex Borstein and did I mention the basket-ball scene?
Is making a good film that complicated? Sometimes, all you have to do is write one great scene with two characters sitting in front of each other, and it can provide something interesting. Nope, Pitoff wanted his "Catwoman" so badly it ended among the movies considered the worst of all time. As an aspiring filmmaker, a film like "Catwoman" is the kind of nightmare that makes me wonder if I shouldn't also shorten my name just in case.
A wasted use of talents because of a lack of direction, too much CGI, a lack of script, too much hackneyed situation, a career-ruiner move, definitely. Do actors read the script, I don't know. Proof is that script is the movie's spine. As I started this review with, I just watched three Ingmar Bergman movies recently and I have no doubts that even someone like Pitoff can recreate the same shots, so technically speaking, he's got it. Just learn to use some close-up, some good script, and even the crappiest thing can redeem itself.
Why am I talking about Bergman anyway? Well, sometimes it's the plain that give its emphasis to the mountain.
Kvinnodröm (1955)
Women's expositions from paper to society, for lust or judgment, reveal men's inner weaknesses in both ways ...
In the beginning, there was only one Bergman and her name was Ingrid. The year 1957 finally brought to international fame the Swedish filmmaker of the same name.
Undeniably, with "The Seventh Seal" and "Wild Strawberries", Ingmar Bergman established himself as the most promising and influential film-maker of his generation, His importance as both a director and explorer of the human condition immediately went without saying, and no film he made ever contradicted his reputation. Bergman is perhaps the director who comes the closest to every of his peers agreeing that he's the greatest. But greatness doesn't pop out of nowhere; you just don't become a gifted film-maker without learning about film-making first.
Like Alfred Hitchcock and John Ford, Bergman had to make 'his bones', to make his share of movies whose fate would be to be recognized by a fistful of experts, but that's the price for technical talent: exploiting before plotting, experimenting before exploring, testing before stating and reacting before creating. "Dreams" is one of Bergman's 'pre-1957' movies, and what's more, it is the last one made before "The Seventh Seal". To use a metaphor, "Dreams" is like the last drop of water before some beautiful flower would finally bloom, like the last contemplation of a quiet internal comfort before the big dive into the most fascinating depths of human complexities.
There are some premises of a coming genius in the portrayals of these two woman: Suzanne (Eva Dahlbeck) the owner of a model agency and Doris (Harriet Anderson) her most popular model. Suzanne seems a bit older, something between five or ten years, enough for maturity and leadership. She holds her cigarette with a disillusioned look that reconciles between American film-noir and French new wave. In a way, she's a femme-fatale who'd be her own victim. Doris exudes a totally different beauty, more lively and youthful, as if Harriett Anderson didn't lose the magnificent and sensual appeal of her role as Monika from Bergman's erotic romance.
In the model agency ruled by a sleazy fat boss, and a few effeminate photographers, Doris breaks up with her boyfriend right before leaving town. The friend seems like a good-hearted but dim-witted fellow and between them, it's a love-and-hate relationship that flirts with comic relief. Yet Bergman's point is to highlight a paradoxical attitude in Doris: she wants freedom but dares her friend to leave her, she thinks her beauty allows her some liberty but is reluctant to take chances. This paradox also strikes Suzanne who, during the crucial train scene where Suzanne is at the edge of committing suicide, as If she came at a point of her life with no light after the tunnel.
Before the photography session, the two women split up and surprisingly, the film starts focusing on Doris. She meets an elegant and distinguished man who describes himself as an Aging consul. His name is Otto and he's played by Gunnar Björnstrand, Bergman's long-time partner. Although only 46 at the time of the film, his hair is whiter to make him look 10 years older and accentuate the gap with Doris. He buys her a beautiful dress, a pearl collier, some food, they go to carnival, in some scenes that would have look like reminiscences of "Nights of Cabiria" is the film wasn't made before. Doris, thinking she deserves it, she accepts to have a sugar-daddy, smiling the kind of smile that suggests there's nothing harmful in that relationship..
The idyll goes on until his daughter comes home and treats Doris like a whore, and although reluctant to call her dad a 'dirty old man', she understands he's only exploiting Doris' resemblance with his wife to fulfill some illusions. Doris finally leaves the house but when she tries to be affectionate with Otto, he dismissed her. That moment is particularly heart-breaking in its unfairness, the viewer inevitably empathize with Doris, although not denying that she had it coming. It wasn't her fault, but as a beauty model, she knew the price to pay when you expose herself to the wrong kind of viewers. It's all about how people look at you, and sometimes, the streets isn't the right format.
The same social weight disturbs Suzanne's romantic interlude with Henri. She wants him, madly and deeply, she's ready to share him for a few weeks with his wife even if it was possible, she hardly tries to hide her neediness. The scene is also interrupted by an intruder, supposedly representing the 'good side', she's the wife, and brandishing the flag of her wealth, she forces her husband to surrender and abandon his invitation to Oslo. Suzanne tries to cope with it with dignity but when Henri comes back, she lowers her guard again. 'Society' and 'normal people' is perhaps the closest thing to antagonist, in the way they portray men as weaklings when they choose to judge instead of act.
I like to see in "Dreams", not just an immersion in the hearts of women of 'bad reputation' but a social denunciation of the weight of social morals and the way they hypocritically condemn some actions that remain driven by harmless desires. At the end, Doris accepts to be with Palle, because she's in love with him the way he is, and it will never be as ugly as that wife who 'loves' her husband only because she knows he can't leave her, the same man tries to cancel off the first impression, by inviting Suzanne again, but she tears up the letter. She learned how to say no.
As a man, I can relate to that weakness, where we postpone the right reaction for the most convenient reasons. Things haven't changed a bit, we allow ourselves to judge women who exposes themselves in the paper or in the streets,, except that through our own lust, they expose our own hypocrisy and inner weakness. Simple but genius, and this is isn't even Bergman's best.
Nattvardsgästerna (1963)
The existence of God as part of our civilization, his silence as part of our condition ...
Never has a film-maker gave such emotional depth to the notion of absence, was it of words, answers or communication, as Ingmar Bergman did in his glorious and inimitable body of work. And in "Winter Light", we meet a priest from a rural town, named Tomas, played by the inevitable Gunnar Björnstrand, and stuck in a profound faith crisis, something that would be similar to a mental block for a writer. The similarity is even more striking since the film is the oeuvre of an artist, in a constant quest for inspiration. But whether from the depths of Bergman's mind or from the highest summits of Divine incarnations, the echoes of reason are desperately inaudible and all we're left off is sheer frustration.
"Winter Light" is the second opus of the Faith (or Chamber) trilogy, starting with "Through a Glass Darkly". After reviewing the first film, I realized I had totally forgotten to mention that the character played by the same actor, was a successful writer but, as induced by a play within the film, a failed artist in the way he maliciously exploited the suffering of his daughter without compromising himself, the way his son-in-law did. He stayed in his own egoistical circle, and that circle might be the eye of Ingmar Bergman, the son of a Lutherian pastor, trying to break through his rigorous education and the weight of oppressing certitudes.
And while in "Through a Glass Darkly", we couldn't empathize with Björnstrand's character, because he was wrapped up in his own ego, in "Winter Light", it's doubt that poisons the heart of a sickly priest, removing all traces of sincerity in his own sermons, not Cartesian doubt but something of a more emotional level.In the opening sermon, something in Tomas' eyes clearly betray his lack of confidence, he stares at a crucifix looking for answers that would never come, and ironically, he's the man people came to, for some relieving words. The first is Jonas (Max Von Sydow) who looks as if he was already contemplating his fate to come.
The man is scared of the nuclear threat and wonder if there is any hope to hang his hands on. Then Tomas, as it often happens when we want to take someone part of a confidence, admits that he's lost faith when he started his service during the Civil Spain, and could understand why there would be so much cruelty that God would allow, unless God's absence would be his defining quality, but then what's the point of praying Him. Tomas doesn't realized he signed Jonas' death warrant, later we learn, he committed suicide by a rifle. This is the most extreme form of whatever disease strikes Tomas' mind.
The second protagonist to the film is Märta, played by Ingrid Thullin. It's interesting to note that all these actors, have lost all of their youthful appeal, Gunnar looks cold and detached, Sydow looks older and sickly and Thullin hasn't this breath-taking beauty that was almost distracting in "Wild Strawberries". There is a deliberate intention of Bergman to accentuate the ugliness of these people as to convey their very feeling toward the world. Märta is an atheist but she comes to the church, because she's in love with Tomas. A sequence features her staring at the camera and opening her heart to him. She admits her flaws but she's convinced that she's the one for him. Later during a cruel and upsetting scene, he definitely rejects her, enumerating all her exasperating traits, and the way she indecently tries to pose as a replacement for the only women he ever loved: his late wife.
Something extinguished with the death of his wife, and is probably responsible of his emotional apathy. Surprisingly, he asks her later to drive him to Jonas' family, to announce the sad news, feeling partly responsible for it, but the wife reacts as if it was all predictable and she's not fooled by Tomas' perfunctory attitude. The journey ends in the church where Algot, the crippled assistant starts the first discussion about religion. Algot points out that the Christ's physical pain was nothing compared to the moral one. He evokes the betrayal of the apostles and his own father, this God that had forsaken him. We never quite know what goes through Tomas' mind, maybe the realization that this absence is part of our mortal condition, and it's our interpretation that makes who we are.
The film ends with four persons in the church, a half-drunk organist who doesn't care, an atheist who is here out of love, a cripple with a cheerful attitude and a man who can't find his path to happiness. To a certain extent, we're all conditioned by how we react toward this absence and some simply doesn't even believe in God not to have to deal with his absence. And Märta believes in her love for Tomas, but he rejects her, her 'Silence' is for Tomas, and she'd live as desperate and disappointed as he is, it echoes the final words of "Through a Glass Darkly" where the idea of God was associated with love, and maybe Tomas' pain comes less from the absence of God, than the person he loves the most, and he only suffers because he feels like betrayed by God who took his most valuable person in life.
It's just as if his faith was 'interested', why not, even Jesus, expected a reaction from God before asking why he forsake him? Maybe we all have to face silences, because we all expect answers, and the best way to avoid him is the absence of any kind of feeling, but we can't. This absence is devastating, and never has an absence of words been so eloquent, so rich in meanings, so powerful.
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
When sequel and excess makes success ...
There's not one ounce of believability in any of the frames from "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom", no situation we can relate to, no credible character. Yet what sounds like a weakness might be the film's greatest asset and what most contributed its success, besides the name of the director, the titular hero and the fact that it was the second opus of the highest-grossing film made three years before.
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" is perhaps the most cinematic movie ever made, and it's not surprising that Steven Spielberg directed it, the fans will love him and the haters will hate him even more after watching "Doom". Of course, chances are that the fans would still prefer "Raiders of the Lost Ark", but why? Was it more realistic or less fantastic? Was the portrayal of all the Germans as cruel and cunning Nazis more acceptable than Hindus as monkey-brains eaters or Satanist-cult followers? No, sir, if "Doom" has at least one merit is to confront the fans to the fact that "Indiana Jones" is a series not to be taken seriously.
And Spielberg follows this pattern with a delightful sense of excess, to the point that the film constantly flirts with parody. Indy is cooler and funnier, the obligatory female element incarnated by the screaming nightclub singer Willie (Kate Capshaw) whose status set the fights of feminism many decades back (thanks 'Watchmojo') and Round-Trip, the Chinese boy, a sidekick who could have been an annoying comic relief if it wasn't for his heart-breaking "I love you, Indy" near the end. Spielberg was dying to make an adventure of "Tintin", but before the dream would come true 27 years after, and because of the passing of Herge in 1983, his reference to Tintin's friend Chang was his wink to the Master.
And I like to see Round-Trip (rememeber, he was the geeky Data in "The Goonies") as Spielberg's allegiance to Tintin, to Herge's paternity, although there was already some Tintinesque stuff in "Raiders of the Lost Ark". But "Doom" borrows more from the earlier Tintin's albums: the mission, set in India, is rather simplistic, taking back a sacred stone stolen from a village of poor peasants, who lost all their children in the process. Indy discovers later that they were enslaved in a mysterious temple ruled by an evil Thuggee priest. Indeed, even by Tintin's standards, the film is rudimentary. But at least, it never lies about its premise. Right from the beginning, in Shanghai's ballroom scene, the film shows some glimpses of comedy and even slapstick totally absent from the first film.
It's pretty obvious that Harrison Ford grew more confidence toward his character, as he did with his no-less iconic Han Solo. Ford portrays Indy as if he knew he was exposing his aura to a group of old friends who missed him after a three-year absence, and this is exactly what Spielberg does. The references to the first film includes also the hat signature shot, I would have loved to see a parody where the hand gets crushed under the door for once. And right near the end, Jones tries to reprise his gun' trick against the evil Army, until he realizes he has no gun, it doesn't work but the gag does. The comedy is really a relief after so many actions scenes, and 'Indiana Jones' is a character that can't do without comedy. It's the alibi of its deliberate campiness.
But this leads me to the key element that make the film worth to watch, an abundance of action scenes, it's like "Aliens" for "Alien", it simply never stops, apart from a few romantic interludes or the infamous dinner scene meant to let the viewers catch their breath or digest their popcorn, (well, I don't think they'd eat anything during that part) the film is pure thrills from beginning to end, from the snow sequence to the cart mine chase, with a longer trip in the disturbing temple, that might discomfort some younger viewers. If not the best, "Doom" definitely deserves the title of "creepiest" movie of the franchise, establishing Spielberg's craftsmanship when it comes to inspire us very specific reactions.
I had the feeling that the film was maybe too intense but after a second thought, I understood the following point, since it's deprived from any intellectual substance, "Doom" couldn't be anything but an action film, and Spielberg knew that. A character like Willie, whose existence is due to Spielberg's marriage with Kate Capshaw, had only one purpose: being saved by Indy (and saving his life once) therefore, danger had to be everywhere, but I wonder if he wasn't tempted to let her drop in that mountain of lava. At least, Round Trip had some skills, and we'll never thank him enough for saving Indy.
Anyway, "Temple of Doom" is the film the word 'spectacular' has been invented for, it's very telling when the most impressive action sequence isn't the climax, although the bridge scene is pretty memorable, it wasn't as thrilling and heart-pounding as the escape on the cart mine with the water playing the role of the infamous boulder. Roger Ebert called it a 'forearm bruiser' referring to the fact that your girlfriend would grab your arm several times, well, I didn't see in the movie theaters, but I understand why the film was the highest grossing. The rest of it, analysis of accuracies and all that stuff is just as superficial and futile as the object of their accusation.
Again, would you take seriously a film whose final gag is an elephant splashing water at a kissing couple? It's obviously cartoons' stuff, but that's what "Doom" is, a great live-action cartoon, and just because it doesn't have the pretension to be anything else, I give it a slight edge over "Raiders of the Lost Ark".