Reviews written by registered user
|13 reviews in total|
This is not a movie or a documentary but a book on DVD. If you've read Zizek's books, you already know everything that is delivered in this filmed lecture. You can guess ahead of time which examples Zizek will provide to illustrate certain points, and you know where every argument is going. But at the same time, you can't really say that this DVD replaces Zizek's books. Zizek has written over 20 books, and this DVD is approx. 70 minutes (if I remember correctly); ideas are simplified, important details are neglected and in the end, you really only touch the surface. As usual, Zizek is highly entertaining. But this has everything to do with Zizek himself, and nothing to do with the filmmaker or the film itself. Poor exercise in 'filmmaking'.
In regards to previous comments, a few things need to be said. First, this
movie is not a documentary and it doesn't have the pretension to be one. So
I think you need to keep this in mind, and not expect to hear experts come
to the camera and give «neutral» and «objective» clarification.
Second, the movie is based on a book written by one of the felquiste. So it would be incorrect to jump to the other extreme and say that the story is «fictionalized». The book, as well as the movie, is written in plain honesty, many years after the events that took place in 1970.
Keeping in mind that the movie depicts the events as seen through the eyes of one of the perpertrators, the movie is extremely effective in showing how Ideals can grasp people, how revolutions (often failed) occur, what it means to believe in something with all your heart. It also shows, and you must be blind not to see this, how events like these might as well take a proportion that was not intended, and that playing with the lives of individuals is not as easy as it might seem in the first place.
Octobre shows the real meaning of politics, of a political event, of a revolution. It shows that political events are never totally black or white.
You might say that because Falardeau is a separatist he doesn't give a neutral or objective point of view, and thus, the movie is biased. I'll be ready to accept this critique when somebody shows me a way to depict such an event in a neutral and objective way. A lot of people won't be able to appreciate Octobre for two possible reasons : a) they lack the necessary background to understand the story, or b) they view the movie as another absurd propaganda from separatists.
Other than that, Falardeau renders very well the tension that builds inside the small house where five people are stuck, waiting for the government to negotiate. It is a very emotional movie ; I saw the movie in Montréal when it came out. There weren't many people in the movie theatre. When the movie ended, I stood up to leave and noticed two older people, a man and a woman. Both we're still looking at the blank screen, silent. I thought that they were probably involved in the FLQ, that they were probably arrested also. Watching this movie must have been very difficult for them, at least this is what their eyes told me.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I didn't like this movie; it was way too long, the editing was terrible (how
many times can we see Nicholson fishing), and the overly present music badly
chosen. I found Nicholson good though. Without going through the whole
movie, many question were left unanswered (***SPOILERS***:
1) The dramatic début of the movie, with the 5 minute-long discussion that
ends up with Nicholson's Pledge, seem to indicate that the movie will be
about a cop trying to find a child-killer. The next part of the movie, a
ten-minute-long interview (way too long, by the way) with a first suspect
seem to follow in that direction also.
2) The scene with the child-therapist seem to add a twist when a
chain-smoking, sweating Nicholson looks like the above-mentionned killer.
Key to this scene is when the therapist asks him if he is still sexually
active. Why this question ? Probably because she suspects his obsession
with young little girls being raped is unusual. Since she is a therapist,
we should pay attention to this scene. (Unless the movie doesn't really have
a storyline, which is probable).
3) Nicholson falling in love with a woman which is not particularly pretty,
but has a cute little blonde girl of almost 8 years old. During the movie,
I felt as if Nicholson fell in love with the mother because of her daughter.
A scene in particular, at the beginning of their relationship, highly
insinuates that Nicholson is flirting with the little girl. (But maybe this
scene is only to cause confusion).
4) Nicholson is seen drinking at the beginning of the movie, and the
officer says he is a drunk. Is he ? We did not see him drinking during the
whole movie (except for the beginning and the end).
5) We see Nicholson looking suspiciously at just about anybody. We get the
idea that the officer suffers from an obsessive paranoia of some
6) The whole story about a giant, a large man offering candy to attract
little girls is probably a story that nourishes Nicholson's own fantasy
world. Nicholson attaches so much importance on that whole narrative, that
we understand that he is obsessed by big man seducing little girls with
7) He litteraly sets up a fantasy scene where his little blonde girl is
attacked by the real killer. No parent in the world would ever do such a
crazy thing, unless, of course, he finally wants to see it happen.
All these put together, the movie seems to suggest that officer Black (Nicholson) is a pedophile who gets a libidinal kick out of pursuing cases involving little blonde girls being raped. He can then indulge in his fantasy without actually doing it (highly suspicious is here the scene where he steals from another police officer a picture of a 8 year old victim). Black then falls in love with the killer's next victim (which he probably chose because she fits the victims profile, but that part of the movie is still really far fetched, talk about luck), gets a kick at watching all day long this cute little potential victim, trying to imagine all the big men that could sexually molest her, and then goes crazy when the fantasy scene doesn't occur. If this conclusion is true, they probably diluted it to make it acceptable by adding a non-sensical beginning (abd all these fishing shots). If I'm all wrong, then the movie doesn't really make sense.
The One line Summary says it all. Don't expect too much action, this is a rather slow movie where you have to do your work and think to fully enjoy it. The main actress is incredible; she plays two different roles and you truly believe she is two different people.
If you liked «Lain», you will LOVE «Boogiepop phantom» which is, in my view, much more interesting. Every episode has its own story, and can be watch by itself. As the story progresses though, it all fits together to form a larger plot. One last thing; the music is excellent and very well used to create intensity.
My favorite movie this year. Completely captivating, excellent acting, extraordinary scenes, beautifully written. If you liked The Killing Fields, you will definitely love The Quiet American.
Although I didn't get much of the dialogues, the visual made up for it. Incredible camera, marvellous acting, mostly good music, and what seemed to be a good story plot. I gave a 9, could have been a 10 if I had understood the humour.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
This movie has no story, but I guess that it was the whole idea ; to show raw violence to shock the audience. The problem (or rather, one of the problems), it really is not shocking. SPOILER ; of course you're a little surprise when you realize that the kid is dead (American producers would never allow that), but then the whole movie is so freaking unbelievable that the loving wife might as well find the remote control and wake up Georgie jr. Movies similar to this have been done so many times (more successfuly) that you really expect more from an old theme. I usually like movies with slow developments, like movies from Tarkovsky, but some of the scenes where so unnecessarily long that after a while you start to wonder if the VCR didn't get on Pause by itself. I give it a 5 for the effort, but I really don't recommend it to anyone.
This movie is definitely a must see for every film-lover. Maggie gives her best performance ever in a movie that feels so close to reality you often get the impression you're watching a documentary. Enormously inspired by French cinema style, technique (camera) and references, it manages to observe from a distance French cinema while being a typical French movie. Without any doubt one of the best French movie ever made. 10/10.
I think Waking Life is nothing more than a talking (in a monologue style to make things worse) introduction to contemporary philosophy (for dummy I might add). Anybody with a Masters or even a B.A in philosophy would have left the theater after 25 minutes, as I did. The Director managed to go through every single major philosophy, from existentialism to taoism, without even taking a stand or actually try to SAY something. That movie doesn't make you think ; it forbids thinking by implying that every perspective is o.k, that everything is relative. It manages to present equally Sartre's existentialism and some New Age theory about universal telepathy, as if the two could ever be equally possible.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |