daveb75 Reviews

Seducing Doctor Lewis (2003)

Seductive feeling of deja vu

[22 July 2004]

"La grande seduction" is not a bad film. In fact, it's a modestly good film. I laughed a lot during the screening, even though anyone could see where this plot is going, right from the start. And that storyline annoyed me a bit considering that I was constantly reminded of a Michael J. Fox comedy which has a very similar plot: "Doc Hollywood". I have never seen "...Hollywood" in it's totality by a lack of interest, but nonetheless, no viewer can ignore the resemblance. Still, the unique backdrop and setting, the colorful characters, and the non- pretentious nature of "La grande seduction", make this movie enjoyable. But it is not the masterpiece some pretend it is. It is well written, simply but skillfully directed, offers good performances by a great cast and can still make for good entertainment. But that is as far as it will go. And young director Pouliot never pretended he was making "8 1/2". He was aiming for a light comedy, and that is what you get. No more, no less.

Octobre (1994)

Essential viewing

[9/10 · 22 June 2004]

Again, Falardeau has put his camera where it hurts, where a camera should be ! A lot where fearing a radical, simplistic view of the events of October 1970, but were surprised to witness that the director's take on the FLQ's actions were concentrated mostly on the human aspect. These men were not brainwashed activists or militarily trained supermen, they were Quebec workers, french speaking working class citizens who got fed up with oppression and decided to wake up a nation. But by doing so, one soon realizes that he has to be willing to give up everything for the cause. These guys were not super heroes, they were not mindless protesters; they doubted, they feared, they hoped, they laughed, they cried, they hurt each other, they despaired...they were and are human beings. Real human beings. And that's what interested Falardeau. Ordinary people taking extraordinary measures to shake a system that doesn't want to listen to them. But they found themselves in a dead end once the government decide to send in the army instead of negotiating. If they would have let the hostage go, they're whole operation would have seemed as a farce and the demands of Quebec would once again not be taken seriously. But as they say in the film, they were not murderers. They were faced with a dilemma: go all the way or be forever sheep in a country that does not even recognize the existence of their nation. You can feel all the pressure of that dilemma in "Octobre". And to me, that is the main reason for the film's being. It is not simplistic. It does not evacuate the moral issues of the actions taken by the protagonist. It shows the other side of a revolution, the human difficulties that go with it. And that is no minor task. For once, in Quebec, we were told a story from a non-institutional point of view. And only this, to start with, makes "Octobre" essential viewing.

Savage Nights (1992)

Uncompromising vision of life

[9/10 · 27 May 2004]

The first serious movie to deal with HIV, "Les nuits fauves" felt like a Joe Frazier hook when it came out in 1992. Gone are all the pitiful sentimental demonstrations of future films like "Philadelphia" . In fact, AIDS is merely the backdrop of the film. Cyril Collard never asks for pity. The movie is both a confession and an hymn to life. It doesn't try to moralize the audience, although some spectators were concerned about the "message" such a film might send. You have to remember that the events described in LNF take place in 1986, when the concept of HIV and AIDS were still abstract and to be defined. Collard himself said in a 1992 interview that the irresponsability of his character, Jean, having unprotected sex although aware he is infected, would be rightly considered criminal by now. The virus serves as a driving force for a main character that is learning to love, opening himself to others, to the world. But to reach the light, you must first go through the darkness and the task is not an easy one to witness. LNF demands a lot on the viewer, asking him to let go of his preconceive ideas and ideals. Very much influenced by his mentor Maurice Pialat, Collard makes a daring film, one which you could never imagine coming from the all too clean world of Hollywood film making. Here, energy comes first, technical aspects of movie making later. Therefore life, real life, shines through. "Les nuits fauves" is a force to be reckon with. An unsettling experience I will never forget.

Heaven's Gate (1980)

One of the most underrated films of cinema history

[10/10 · 22 May 2004]

The first time I watched "Heaven's gate", I saw a old print of the short version, in pan & scan, with commercial, dubbed in french on late night TV. How's that for a bad setting ? Especially for a film with such an infamous reputation. How surprised I was to find myself loving this film. I watched it many times, studying it, trying to find what was supposed to be so bad but couldn't get it. I then found a Wide Screen VHS of the original long version. Maybe that would explain the bad reputation. Well, it was even better. A good film made great. Actually, the short version didn't seem to make sense after seeing the director's cut. But their are many factors imaginable to justify the incomprehension of the film. First, the characters are not defined by what they say but by what they do. Cimino volontarily leaves a lot of ambiguity in them. Something audiences are not very used to. Second, there's the unusual techniques used. For example, when a character walks along the train, talking, we loose some of the dialogue as it would be in real life. Then there's the historical aspects of this "western" that put a lot of viewers off. No more myths, everything is believable. From clothes, to music, to accents, to the immigrants origins. Which brings me to the historical point of view. "Heaven's gate" gives us an uncompromising look at the Far West and the building of the U.S.A. Like most countries, it was often built by the rich eliminating the poor, by corruption in the highest spheres of power, by the use of violence by the alleged noble men of the time, and by making sure that nobody kept track of these invents, replacing them with mythology. And many people didn't want to know about these aspects of american history. Plus their were of course all the gossip around Cimino's dictatorship on set, his wild demands, going over budget and length, but the real reason nobody wants to see this film for what it is, is that few will accept the fact that violence is in the very fabric of America. And violence, betrayal, disillusion (the main theme of the film !) are NOT pretty things to look at. Take another look at Cimino's best movie. It's a demanding, intelligent, unique and uncompromising vision of a country still looking for it's identity.

Citizen Kane (1941)

Great work of poetic art

[10/10 · 5 May 2004]

"Citizen Kane" is a very mature film. And you have to participate, as a viewer, to get into this one. For example, the use of short lenses with everything in focus (background, foreground, etc) forces you to choose for yourself what you think is more relevent in the frame. Welles and Tolland never impose their vision on you. It also gives way to overlapping dialogues, which was unheard of back then, and still is rarely seen in standard Hollywood movies. Same thing with the editing. Welles seldom cuts in talking scenes, instead he just keeps long takes rolling, therefore, once again as a viewer, you have to participate and focus on what you think is more important in the scene, rather than have the habitual overuse of separate talking heads forcing you to see one actor and not all of them. In "Kane", you can witness all the characters' reaction to the events. Sometime Welles will cut only at the very end of a dialogue for dramatic emphasize. Then, there is the structure of the film. Everyone seems to think they knew the real Charles Foster Kane. But nobody really ever knows everything about another person. That's both the beauty and the tragedy of any human life. But by giving us first of all the death of the main subject with his final and famous dying word, Welles is using a gimmick to allow us to witness different recollections by the people who think they knew him best. But the bottom line is, all they can do is give us a rendering of different events and can never get at the heart of the man. And that's why no one really knows about Rosebud. "Kane" never had a huge budget but it made a wise use of special effects that don't call attention to them like "The matrix" does, for example. That gave a grand look to the picture. But you never realize it as you're watching the film. There would be a lot more to say about this wonderful work of art, but it would take years to match all that has been written about "Citizen Kane" and a lot of people explain the film a lot better that I can. I'm just asking the potential viewers of Orson Welles film to use a little intelligence while viewing it. It's a piece of poetry. Even Jack Kerouac was flabergasted by the poetic aspects of it. It gave new meaning and exploded boudaries for cinema. So to call this film dated, to me is like saying that Beethoven's fifth symphony isn't worth listening to because it's been made so long ago. Time doesn't have an effect on true works of art except to keep them alive and aging well, like a good bottle of wine.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Icons

[1 March 2004]

"The Passion of Christ" is not intended to hold you with it's plot, nor does it want to mesmerize your viewing experience with subtle psychological studies; this film is a suite of icons, religious icons that is. Set pieces that all Christians recognize from their upbringing. The flagellation, the long walk in Jerusalem, the crucifixion, etc...Like ancient paintings, Gibson took these well know events from the bible and forged his own interpretation of them. It is no coincidence that his production company is named "Icon". And in religious icons, every detail is exaggerated in order to inscribe them in the heart of believers. That is why in the film, every movement is emphasized, the photography is too beautiful, the music too present, the acting overwhelming and Christ crystal clean before his arrest and so bloody and dirty once the torture starts. I believe that was the point! Anyway, look at Gibson's "Braveheart" again, especially the ending and ask yourself: isn't this character (Wallace) the Jesus that the zealots always wanted? He is brought to sacrifice on a half cross, he's then tortured, has visions of his dead bride, but dies proudly for freedom. He is a warlike Christ in Gibson's eye, another icon. It is therefore no surprise that the director tried handling his vision of the final hours Jesus of Nazareth. It is no accurate historical rendering of events (that is impossible to do anyway!), neither is it a fateful retelling of the bible, it is a personal work of art. And like many personal creations, you can love it or hate it. But to contrast the clean, none suffering images of Christ Hollywood has offered us since the invention of cinema, this film had to be made, one day or the other. It is a visceral experience that has put back religious debate in the public place and forced us to reflect on the horrors mankind are capable of. Jews, Romans, Germans, doesn't matter, the human animal needs to be reminded often of his inner nature: one that can be creative or destructive to his fellow man. A lot more would need to be said on this film, as with all movies dealing with religious belief; be your own judge...

Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003)

Cartoon bad guy

[9 January 2004]

I have to admit that I'm commenting this production after seeing the first half only.But it's pretty clear to see where this is going. Now, the directing is not bad, the acting pretty good, but the script could be the work of a six year old kid (no offense to kids everywhere) who has read too many comic books. Adolf Hitler was not someone I would have wanted to get close to, espescially in the 30's and 40's, but by all means he was not the one-sided character we get to see in this film.Nobody is! "Hitler" is so badly written that the Fürher passes as a comic book bad guy. It's typical to make him an all-the-time raging nut (which he was!) but it doesn't get beneath the surface. The childhood of Hitler is so condensed (without mentioning the historical mistakes made!) that we lose sense of what really motivated the nazy leader. Duguay has to fight the material constantly in order to make everything hold together. And where we would expect a character study, even of a very very bad person (see "Raging bull", this one works!), we get something along the birth of the penguin in Batman. Now what is right for comic books isn't correct with historical figures, and certainly not with Adolf Hitler who changed the course of history in such an infamous way. More depth and less fancy camera work would have been needed to make this believable. Not sure I will watch part 2...