Reviews written by registered user
|3 reviews in total|
If anything, Electroma should be taken just like any other
experimental, art-house cinema film. This is borderline impossible when
it's not just Electroma, but "Daft Punk's" Electroma, the tag line is
"It's a Daft Punk vision" and you've got the Daft Punk logo emblazoned
on the back of the two protagonists' jackets. For this, I feel like the
film falters from a bit of ego, but just think how much worse it
would've been if they'd used their own music.
That being said, as a so-called art-house picture, Electroma is okay. There isn't much plot to follow and the "HUMAN" license plate is about as trite as calling this an interpretation of the difficulties of fitting into society, but in terms of something to look at, it's really really gorgeous. Considering Bangalter had little to no experience in cinematography prior to this, he's done a fantastic job. Each shot is quite beautiful in its own way, aesthetically speaking, particularly the final one.
What I'm trying to say is, don't go into Electroma expecting brilliance, because it isn't. Take it for what it is: a mildly pretentious if not borderline dull, yet visually stunning piece of celluloid. It's ripe for interpretation (or none at all) which will grant it some sort of cult following. Hopefully a midnight-film of sorts.
P.S. The soundtrack they did choose complements the film perfectly. And if "the" notorious desert close-up scene doesn't get this passed around film circles for years to come, I don't know what will.
I would only recommend this film to die-hard fans of the massively
influential British band, the Clash. I'm fairly sure that the only way
to view this is on the Essential Clash DVD, which accompanies the
excellent 2-CD set of the band at their best.
Anyway, this is a bizarre silent, black and white short film directed by the late Joe Strummer, the band's own frontman. The basic plot surrounds a man named Earl (Clash bassist Paul Simonon) and a drug-lord/porn director/crime lord named Socrates (their guitarist/singer Mick Jones). Earl's girlfriend gets involved with Socrates and his business, and soon enough Earl becomes the man's number one enemy. Socrates tries to get his goons on Earl's case, especially after he hocks a batch of Socrates' "special" porn, but Earl manages to wrangle up a group of his friends to rebel against them. He's clearly not going to go down without a fight.
It's really difficult for me to make a decent summary of this because: a) it's only about 49 minutes long b) it's just so bizarre. It's filmed just like the old silent films of the 1920s were, poor quality and all, but at the same time there's something about it that entertained me. Perhaps it was Simonon living up to his then title of the "most handsome man in London", or Jones decked out in 1930s pimp clothes, OR Strummer ironically enough as a cop, with fake moustache and all.
Perhaps it's just because the Clash are one of my all time favorite bands.
Either way, I'd only recommend it to true fans of the band. The movie's got nothing to do with them, but if you love them enough, you'll be able to sit through it and at least partially enjoy it.
If that fails, at least enjoy the fact that the movie's entire score is a 49 minute run of back to back Clash songs.
After reading Golding's classic novel, my class watched this adaption of "Lord Of The Flies" in our literature class. I found it to be quite good, and a hell of a lot better than the 1990 version, which alters all too many important moments and characteristics of the book. Reading over these comments, I was very confused. 1. The story and moral of "Lord Of The Flies" is so haunting and powerful that it does not need an overly dramatic score. The tune that Jack and his choir sing around the island is just the right touch. 2. Of course the acting wasn't as amazing as it could have been! Everyone seems to be forgetting just how young and inexperienced these boys were. Besides, the character's in Golding's story are just as young, and act their age (however violent and disturbing it may be). I found the camera work to be quite lovely. The film uses beautiful shots, which only enhance it even more. The final scene is one of my favorites. My only bone to pick is how quickly the film goes through the events in the book. I really do wish it would have slowed down a bit, and concentrated more on such characters as Simon, as well as the boys transformation into savages. Overall I found this adaption of "Lord Of The Flies" to be fantastic. My advice to future viewers of this film is to read the book first, definitely watch this 1963 version afterwards,and completely avoid the 1990 version all together.