snucker Reviews

Bi the Way (2008)

An overly cheerful documentary about bisexuality that is more celebratory than informative.

[6/10 · 11 May 2011]

An overly cheerful documentary about bisexuality that is more celebratory than informative. The documentary has you believe that there's a revolution going on, people are changing their minds about bisexuals and people are happy and comfortable with the fluidity of their sexuality. I don't know if that's the case, but if you ask many people, bisexuality is either an anomaly or non-existent. This doc doesn't touch on this issue except to say that times are changing and look at all the happy bisexuals out there! The overly manic joy of this doc signals something of an attempt from the participants and the documentary filmmakers to convince themselves and everyone else that bisexuality is great and accepted by a lot of people.

That's not to say there's aren't many happy bisexuals out there, and god knows there needs to be more positive attitudes of bisexuality beyond "the exotic slut who can't choose a side." But the glossing over of the negative aspects of bisexuality (the stereotypes, the suspicion, lack of support, invisibility etc) somehow decreases the film's credibility as an informed source of information on bisexuality. But I suppose every Queer segment of the population needs its cheerleaders in film, and if it makes bisexuals feel welcome and OK about their own sexuality, then it serves a purpose I can't fault it for. Just be aware that this doc isn't exactly the most thorough investigation of the subject matter.

Manufacturing Dissent (2007)

An interesting film that rises above the shrill political silliness around Michael Moore's politics and messages.

[8/10 · 2 November 2007]

Though I'm aware of the various liberties Michael Moore takes with his films, I never really gave it much careful thought. Mainly because I like Michael Moore and I agree with many of the arguments he makes. The film portrays Moore as a manipulative performance filmmaker who is quite egoistical and doesn't allow for much dissent against his own views when ever he organizes an event or make a speech. The film portrays him as a man who doesn't practice what he preaches, particularly when Moore's various security guards and media handlers refuse to allow the filmmakers film Michael Moore events and speeches. It demostrates that by careful editing, Michael Moore can manipulate events to fit his version of what happens and is a master of pulling stunts on camera to prove his point.

The film isn't a shrill diatribe about how Moore's ideas will lead to America's ruin. Instead it's a thoughtful film that asks people to be more media savy by setting Moore as an example. The fact that it's a Canadian production probably removes the filmmaker from the distracting American liberal and republican "issues" concerning Moore. Instead, we focus on the veracity of what Moore presents to us and the ethics of the way he manipulates the documentary genre. How Moore's appeal is not based on what he says but the entertainment value of how he presents his point of view.

After watching this film, I'm more cautious about Michael Moore, to always be mindful about what he presents and not always accept it as is. But even at that, I still like Michael Moore. He's a talented man who seems to have his heart in the right place when he makes his films and I don't think he's as egoistical as the film suggests he is.

Fay Grim (2006)

Hit and miss

[7/10 · 4 October 2006]

Perhaps I would have liked this film more if I wasn't so attached to the characters in Henry Fool. To those who've never seen Henry Fool, I wouldn't worry. As Hartley jokingly said in his introduction to the film at TIFF, the film has lots of exposition and explanations.

This film is very heavy in plot, which keeps the film moving. There are many humorous moments and the film certainly has Hartley's trademark humour and rhythm of dialogue. Over all, a technically well made film and sure to satisfy new fans of Hartley who are just beginning explore his work. As for the older fans who loved his earlier works like Trust and Amateur, this film could go either way. I have mixed feelings about the film and Hartley's later films in general. What Hartley does best is setting his stories in small situations, focusing on the intimate and idiosyncratic ways in which his characters interact with each other. Since his late 90s and onward, his films have widened in scope in terms of subject matter. Mass media in No Such Thing, Religion in the Book of Life and now Terrorism in Fay Grim. I don't know if Hartley's talents are suited to such big subject matter or if he's able to do it justice.

Strangely enough, the film can still be reduced to intimate relationships, a simple love story about a woman who goes to seek out the husband she loves. The only problem is, I've seen Henry Fool and everyone seems incredibly out of character in this film. You can tell this film was written long after Henry Fool was finished without any intention of a sequel. Somehow, the terrorist plot feels conveniently tacked on through the use of Henry's books of confessions as a macguffin (in the hitchcockian sense). Fay's motivations for finding Henry seemed motivated purely by the needs of the plot rather than what being faithful to who fay was as person in Henry Fool.

I guess I'm slightly disappointed in the film because it's not true to the characters in the Henry Fool and it doesn't exactly work as a straight ahead thriller. There's too much irony and wryness in Hartley's approach to such as big topic as terrorism. It somehow works and doesn't work at the same time. All I could say, you would either love or hate the film depending on your take on Hartley's work and how well you know Hartley's work. Fans of Henry Fool, be severely warned for a disappointment. For the rest, welcome to the world of Hal Hartley and enjoy the ride.

Love Exists (1961)

poetic documentary about working class France

[5 November 2004]

this film is a poetic essay-documentary about post-war France in the leate 1950s. it's poetic imagery and voice-over narration is similar to alain resnais' documentaries. the narrator expresses a deep sadneswere s about the state of post-war France, the growing gap between the poor and the rich, the new suburbs and increasing unhappiness. some of the memorable moments of the film was shots of the new apartments being built in France. these buildings have to be seen. they look modern and arty, but oppressive and depressing at the same time. the windows are narrow and horizontal, so that no one gets a good view outside their window. then there are shots of these urban communities that are made up of cardboard shacks that often go up in flames because the people who built them often use oil-based heating devices to cook their food, it's was the 1950s version of today's tent city. and shots of the ruins the bombing of World war II where there is a field of glass and run down buildings. this film shows both all facets of french society and is a beautifully filmed historical document of post war France we don't often see and we often forget.

Picnic (1955)

a very good film about jealousy

[28 August 2004]

i really enjoyed this film. it's beautifully shot and the performances are good. the film's first half hour is is pretty slow where the film sets the mood of the town. on the surface of the town, it's a very quiet, wonder bread type of America, wholesome looking neighbors who are pleasant and conservative. there's also a part of the town where it seems like everyone feels second best to someone else. for the women, it's about youth and beauty. the main character, madge, is in the prime of her beauty and youth. she's not yet married, not tied down by anything, and seemingly has everything. her mother is dead serious about her daughter using her looks to get ahead in the world through marriage. there's the school teacher, rosemary, who is pitiful and desperate to find evidence that she is still worthy and desirable, despite her age. what madge's mother and rosemary have in common is view that all women have an expiration date, after a certain point, if one is not married or well off, there is no turning back. meanwhile, a drifter named hal comes to town and has romantic feelings for madge, who is engaged to be married to hal's wealthy, but romantically insecure, college friend.

things come to a head when during the labour day picnic when hal and madge start dancing together, and everyone's insecurity and jealousy comes out and people reveal their true unhappiness. the people in the film seem to feel stuck in a rut, their lives are set and they are regretful. but unlike other films about jealous and unhappy people, these characters are not villains or wholly unlikeable. they're likable and pleasant, and they don't let their regrets and jealousy over take them, instead, their regrets become a footnote to their lives and they go on living it like they always do.

Being There (1979)

i don't know what to make of this film...

[15 August 2004]

i was expecting a lot of ironic laughs when i watched this film, but i didn't really laugh. instead, it left me thoughtful about questions of media and society. at first, i was trying to understand chance as a character, how this sheltered man saw the world. then i realized there was no point to doing that, because chance is merely a metaphor. a metaphor for what? i'm not sure, but there's something oddly symbolic about him. he is a hollow shell and he is whatever people want him to be. the comedy and satire came from how people reacted to him, how they misconstrue what he says to suit thier own purposes. he's a simple man of habit who is only interested in tv and gardening, and through a series of mishaps, people and the nation mistaken him for a genius. when the truth is found out about him, he becomes the perfect political tool because people will want him to be whatever they want him to be. he looks the part of a wealthy wise man with his suit, hat and umbrella, he's likeable and polite enough, and simple minded enough to be manipulated. though he doesn't need to be manipulated, the people around him are stupid and brainwashed by the sound-bit culture of thier society. yet he is a man of the late twentieth century since he knows his life only through tv, he can't read or write or have thoughts of his own, but he can watch tv.

society in this film is absurd, cynical and stupid, and it's a miracle that this man is held in such high regard. i remember one critic said that this film was about the bankruptcy of the political arena, where it's soundbites and publicists that matter more than public policy. and at its heart, i think this film is a critique and satire of media and politics. there's a famous scene where he walks on water, which signifies something oddly magical about him. i think the people around him make him magical, they make him saint-like, at first out of ignorance and then as a moldable, political phemonon.

Before the Revolution (1964)

not a bad art film (some spoilers)

[5 August 2004]

competently made, good acting and interesting editing and camera movement. the film is the standard boy meets girl and loses girl and both are forever unhappy because of their stubbornness. though it's told in that art cinema way where the audience isn't quite sure what has happened in the relationship except that the nature of the relationship has changed. they become cold to each other and are conflicted about whether to stay or leave the relationship. the film feels episodic where scenes don't really fit in, but in each scene, the relationship changes a little.

then there's the political part of the film, where the male protagonist questions whether it's possible for a wealthy young man to be part of a communist party. he runs into some people he knows and talk about the revolution and intellectual ideas. it's in these scenes, the film feels decidedly fench. i dunno, i'd probably watch too many french new wave films (more so than Italian ones) where people sit around and talk about revolutions, cinema and communism that i've come to associate these scenes as being french. i wasn't amazed by this film, but i enjoyed it enough and it did not drag on like some art films do. it's worth a look if you're interested in European art cinema of the 60s.

The Stranger (1967)

is existentialism this bleak? (spoilers!)

[28 July 2004]

with my shaky understanding of existentialism, some of this film went over my head. the first half of the film moves along like your typical art film, episodic and ambiguous encounters of the everyday kind. we have Meursault swimming, talking with his bosses, talking to a street person about his missing scarred dog. but something isn't quite right about him. he's just very aloof and he's non-committal about everything. he tells his girlfriend that he doesn't care if he marries her or not, doesn't even care to ask himself if he loved her. she's loyal, pretty and typical and played by the lovely anna karina. he tells his boss that he rather not take a promotion that's been offered to him because he likes where he lives and hardly saw a promotion as step up from his current life. in fact, it seems that nothing is a step up for this guy, in his odd way of thinking, there's a brutal equality to everything. losing a job and getting a promotion would practically be the same thing to him, since life has no meaning for him, so such lofty goals are not his priority. nothing is his priority. he acts normal enough just to get by, he inquires about the homeless man and his lost dog and why he won't go to a pound to find him, but in reality, Meursault probably doesn't give a care about the dog. just asks to look normal and inquisitive, and he does a good enough of a job doing it. if there is one phrase to describe Meursault, it would be that the man is an island onto himself. complete outsider in every sense of the word. it's like apples and oranges with you compare him to the rest of society.

(spoilers here)

after he kills someone on a beach and is tried for murder, all his character witnesses basically don't know what to make of him. they interact with him, but they too sense something not quite right with him. they don't hate him, but they can't seem to defend his character because he perplexes them, only his girlfriend comes to his defense.

the first part of the film is about Meursault interacting in real life, observing how Meursault fits in society. after the murder, society confronts Meursault and his existentialist philosophy about life in a murder trial. only, it feels like a show trial for the religious gossip-seekers. the trial is about establishing character and religious beliefs as indicator of guilt, not evidence. this man is not given a fair trial. you can think of it this way, an existentialist outsider vs. the religious god-fearing public and judicial system that use his character and his fear of god as an indicator of his guilt.

he hardly bothers to defend himself, and when convicted and faced with death, his fear and uncertainty about death reveals our existentialist hero to be a psychopath has he carefully reasons how death works in his godless philosophy with a chaplain. through out the film, he has no sense of morality, but no real sense of evil either. what is left is a general fear, angst and hopelessness that morphs itself into a frightening declaration of abandonment and nihilism when faced with death. his last words are chilling: "let as many people see me die. let them have hate for me in their eyes."

Two English Girls (1971)

good movie, could have been a masterpiece

[6 May 2004]

there are two things that held this film back from being a truffaut masterpiece: the voice over and jean pierre leaud.

the voice over is overused in this film and is hardly effective in many cases. the voice over always sound rushed, hasty and monotonous, it hardly treats the story sensitively and it sounds like truffaut (the one doing the voice over) is trying to say it as fast as he can so he can move on to something else in the story. the problem is he uses the voice over to explain complex emotions of the characters and he could have used someone else to do the voice over with more expression and pace. this brings me to my second problem with the film. the voice over is often explaining the complex emotions of leaud's character, claude, while leaud wears the same expression of confusion and dismay throughout the film. he says his lines in that same quiet, shy voice for most of the film and looks uncomfortable and timid in the role. my suspicion is that truffaut used voice over to compensate for leaud's lack of acting ability. leaud is thoroughly miscast as claude, a complex character who is at the center of the love triangle.

but somehow, the film does pull together and is a very moving story about what happens when three people distrust their instincts and refuse to make decisions about their feelings for one another. anne and claude hide their intention of committing to each other behind this french idea of "free love" that neither really buys into. muriel is a very religious woman who treads very carefully with claude because of his ideas on love and sex and has some very strong guilty feelings about her sexual desire. claude...well according to the voice over, he prefers to love them from afar than to choose between them. he wants both women, but knows he can't so he subconsciously refuse to choose between them and just go back and forth between the two when the relationship with one becomes difficult.

anne and muriel are similar to other truffaut heroines. anne is more forgiving and nurturing and patient, very much like Julie from day for night. muriel is the unstable passionate one who could sacrifice her sanity for a man, very much like catherine from jules and jim or adele H. they're both well acted by kika markham and stacey tendeter, and they're the ones who carry this film. the photography wasn't as lush as i expected it to be, but it has enough eye candy for those who love costume dramas with nice houses and gardens. the voice over and the dialogue are very well written and is poetic without sounding trite most of the time.

the film could have been a masterpiece of truffaut if he'd got someone else to do the voice over and got a more competent actor for claude. the film compensates for these weaknesses with superb writing and good performances from the rest of the cast.

The Son (2002)

slow but engaging. *slight spoilers*

[9 April 2004]

i read reviews of this film expecting an angsty, tense film with a surprise ending of some sort. but instead, i got another one of those films that are slow and that lull you into a particular rhythm. the handheld camera work annoyed me as usual, but i eventually got used to it. the funny thing about the camera work is that we're always following the carpenter behind his back, and it makes us, as an audience, feel like we're following this man and everything he does. we've come to adopt his point of view and become an observer.

the majority of the film is just mundane everyday routines of this man's life. we watch him teach his apprentices with a gentle detachment, how he cares for each of the boys that work with him since they're all from broken families. he's a gruff sort of man who's chubby-roughness and affectionate detachement hides the deep compassion he has for the people he works with. as for the new apprentice who murdered the carpenter's son, he's very much like the other apprentices the carpenter trains. he's dutiful, quiet, still rough around the edges from five years of prison and speaks with the normal amount of inarticulation that teenagers usually speak in.

the film's tension is found in the everyday lives of the carpenter and the boy, when they interact. because we know that the carpenter knows that this teenager murdered his son, and the teenager isn't aware of who he is working with. the carpenter carefully ahd dutifully trains the teen but keeps a cold distance to the teen despite his attempts to be friendly with his trainer.

this is not a story of a revengeful father and a criminal teen with an attitude. it is a story of forgiveness and the willingness to let go of the past and move on. in observing the mundane routines of these two people, we get to know them and see how the carpenter's relationship developes with the teen. we see that the teen is making an honest effort to clean up his life and isn't inhereintly evil despite the fact he killed a boy at the age of 11. he made a mistake in his life and killed the boy in a moment of fear and aggression.

we don't really understand at first why the carpenter decides to take on this teenager. at first, it's out of curiousity about who this kid is, what he looked like etc and then we see it's to find out how much remorse this teen feels about the murder.

*spoiler* by the last shot of the film and after the father confesses to the teen, we realize that the carpenter's relationship to the boy has changed over the film. at first, the teenager is a curiousity and then we find the carpenter has developed a primitive kind of friendship. he has taken a liking to the teen and has intergrated him into his life that he is no longer a mythic presence of pain because he realises that everyone is a victim of an unfair world. and because of that, he is able to forgive this teenager and may even regard him as a son.

Love and Anger (1969)

interesting and spotty set of films...for art cinema fans only.

[27 March 2004]

spotty collection of shorts by 5 directors. some are intriguing, others are just plain tedious. let's go through them in order.

the first short is a merging of two stories about women being violated. they're two different narratives that are combined to tell the story of a woman in danger and then being saved. the first one starts off with a man chasing a woman through the city with lots of shots of indifferent people in their appartments doing their everyday thing. there are several shots of appartment buildings that gives a sense that this women is utterly helpless, she is lost in a world of concrete buildings that don't give any heed to her cries for help. cut to a different story about a guy trying to rescue a woman from a car accident, which seems like it was from another american tv show.

the second one is one by bertolocchi (spelling?) and is the most tedious of them all. weird artsy dancing, montage poses and strange noises emitting from these dancers. at first you think this place is a weird therapy session cuz the dancers look like they were pulled off hte street and they sit in a circle chanting something. then they do these weird moves with lots of moaning and groaning and incoherent mutterings. i think the segment of this session is called agony, so i guess these people are doing artsy interpretations of agony. then an old man comes a long, who's dying and all these people start dancing around him. this one runs on for about 20 minutes...20 minutes i'll never get back.

the third one is one about a man running through the streets. various shots of streets with various political images superimposed on top. i don't know what a lot of these images are, but i deduct they're about the vietnam war and other various political wars around the world. then occasionally, this man has a huge flower in his hands and he starts to dance in the streets to this happy dated italien pop music. it's these scenes that put a smile on my face cuz it's just so rediculous and fun to watch.

the 4th short film is by Jean luc godard. i've seen many godard films and this is a very typical godard film. you've got a couple...the girl is jewish and the guy is arabic. he kisses her, carass her naked body and talks in a way only godard characters do...a mixture of musings on love and politics. intercut with another couple who talk about the film that they're in. saying things like...."what's that over there?" "why, i think it's the opening of a film..." "i think they're gonna break up..." "if they break up, the film will be over..." etc. i have a general understanding of what godard's references and what he is talking about, so it doesn't feel as tedious to me as it would to others. but still......those who don't have a bit of academic background in film...you'd most likely like to keep away from this.

the last film is one about a debate going on in a university as a group of marxist students interupt a class to debate about marxist ideology and general anarchy against the university system. these students want a marxist revolution and a overthrow of the general university system. the dean, proffessor and the students in the class call for reform from inside the system. and there goes on a debate between change within the system vs. overthrowing the system. this discussion actually captivated me, despite the fact that this is pretty dated politics. this film being released in 1969, this is obviously a depiction of the kinds of political debates between students and institutions around 1968. where university students basically rioted and demostrated for a fairer university system and rejected old institutions while embracing marxism. for those who have an interest in the political demostrations of 1968 in europe, this film documents this point in time pretty well. it's clear that the film maker is on the side of the marxist students with the final shot of the film.

so what can you say over all about this collection of short films? overall, it's mostly a political film, especially with the last three stories and the credits rolling with the sound of dull thuds of foam bats beating people symbolizing police brutality. i think this film has a very specific film audience...either young students in the late 1960s (this audience obviously no longer exists), people who have an interest in any of the directors here or people who are interested in the history of 1968 and want to see an artistic representation of it. to everyone else, you've been warned. it's a collection of artsy political films you'd probably wouldn't want to watch.

Letter to Jane: An Investigation About a Still (1972)

i didn't even finish watching this...

[3/10 · 12 March 2004]

i was 39 minutes into the movie (when it's this boring, you keep time ya know) and fastfowarded it to the end with a picture of nixon and more talking and talking (i hardly see this as a spoiler as this film has absolutely no plot!) maybe i would get something out of it if i watched it right after tu va bein. after all, it is verbal extension of tu va bein. when i watched it, i thought, this film must have been thought to be a good idea at the time to godard. all caught up in politics, semiotics and idealogy. very exciting for him. he must of felt he was doing something great. i'm not being sarcastic here. i realize that there was a time in france where being political and subversive was really exciting and such. but watching it 20 odd years after its made, it probably ain't much value to those who weren't there at the time..or if you weren't one of the film-makers. it's a verbal essay at its most boring level set to images for 50 minutes. that's all you need to know. a curiousity at best for those who either want a godard endurance test or for those who want to see every film godard has made...if that's poissible at all.

The Last Metro (1980)

i really liked this one

[9/10 · 10 January 2004]

this film is excellent. it's a quiet film where the plot moves slowly, but it doesn't matter. it takes place during the occupation of france of world war II. i don't know how truffaut can do this, he makes films that on paper sound melodramatic and silly, but are feel truly real and sincere without being overly depressing. and this is one of them. i don't know a lot about the german occupation of france during WWII, but its presence is certainly in the film you marion buying an expensive ham under the black market, the blackouts, the talks of hiding in subways and the oppressive and communual presence of the germans. but it's not the focal point of the film. it's about people trying to live normally under stressful situations. their lives are not centered around the war, but around surviving with what they value (their theatre) intact.

it's thoughtful enough to not type-cast its characters based on how they feel about the war and their political positions. a lot of the characters are pragmatic about their situation, such as the director of the play (jean-loup is his name i think) who opposes the germans, but is willing to consider selling the theatre to Daxiat (a powerful pro-german journalist)to save it. all of the crew dislike Daxiat, but treat him with relative respect so that they can keep their theatre running. Daxiat isn't painted as a completely horrible enemy, but was a man who really looked out for the best interests of the theatre company despite the fact that his political views were opposite of those he admired in the theatre company. the people in this film felt real, cuz ideally, we'd all like to think that when faced with oppression from an outside force, we'd be kicking and screaming all the way until we're free of oppression. but in reality, most of us would probably make compromises and do things against our principles to keep what is most important to us (in this case, it's the theatre and its company for the characters here)

in a way, the film reminded me of wong kar wai's in the mood for love in terms of what it does with its characters. it progresses steadily without a lot of major plot points, and it lets you get to know the characters and let them be real, so you never feel bored at how slow things progress. the characters are well written and well acted so that you care deeply about them.

*comments on the ending up ahead*

there is very little that feels staged and over dramatic, and the outcome seems to progress beautifully and quietly. and i don't know what it is about the ending, but i felt strangely uplifted when the credits rolled.

Jules and Jim (1962)

doesn't quite live up to its hype

[6/10 · 30 December 2003]

oh i tried to like jules and jim and it didn't work for me. i'm not sure why people claim this is one of truffaut's best work, because it was just a beautifully shot melodrama to me. maybe it's because i never identified with any of the characters. i think they were foolish and wasted their lives in this horrid love triangle for reasons other than true love.

i really didn't feel that jules and jim were really in love with catherine in that wonderful way that would make them put up with her. the characters seem thinly drawn out to me, i never understand catherine at all. she's a fickle control freak who likes to play with men's minds...what makes her so lovable? according to jules, it's because she's ordinary and flawed and therefore real.(or something to that effect) WTF? she's just selfish and hardly likeable. jules is more of a love-sick sort of guy who is easily manipulated and jim is downright indecisive. looks like catherine played with their weaknesses, not their hearts. seems like the only reason why they love her is because she's simply unattainable.

but what i do like about the film is its energy. especially the first 30 minutes before the war, where there is such an enthusiasm and joy for life. the middle is more somber, reflective and beautiful when we see the three reunited, interacting like old friends but with more maturity than in their youth. the end is a soap opera that i didn't care for.

A Matter of Taste (2000)

doesn't quite add up to a great movie *spoiler warning*

[6/10 · 17 December 2003]

from its storyline and it's narrative structure, i can see that this film is trying to be a thoughtful psychological study of identity, power and maybe even madness.

a wealthy man hires a taster to fend off people trying to poison him...right...as if we're living in the 15th century and he's a king who has to worry about that sort of stuff. anyhoo, he hires a younger man to be his taster...an almost uncanny resemblance of him...except maybe 15 years younger. what basically happens is a twisted "my fair lady" transformation of this younger man into being a double of this wealthy man. the wealthy man goes out of his twisted way to make sure this younger guy is just like him...down to what they like to eat.

the problem i have with this film is that it tries to be a pyschological case study of power and madness, but it does it with thinly drawn characters. the only one that seems 3 deminsional enough to give the film some credibility is the character of the wealthy man. he has a very dark, slightly insane deminsion to him, someone who you would stay away from cuz he's just an unhealthy presence in anyone's life. this aspect of him is covered up with wealth, power and air of authority and feigned reasonability (he's got an uncanny ability to using words to make this poor fool feel guilty, welcomed,special and lucky all at the same time). *slight spoiler* he's not looking for a taster, but merely someone to control for his pleasure.

as for the younger man (rivier is his name i think) and his devoted girlfriend, they seemed thinly drawn and stereotypes. she looks down on the wealthy and he's a self-interested man who at first shares his girlfriend's dislike for the wealthy, but quickly becomes a hypocrite once wealth is at his door. very original. rivier in the beginning of the film seems to be an unlikely candidate for being someone's doormat. he seems like a self-assured, self-made sort of dude who would rebels against this sort of authority. so what's the big change? well, a nice apartment, clothes, car, watches, food...all provided by the rich man to be his taster. hell, if i were a young dude with no money, i'd jump at the chance! so he becomes a hypocrite overnight and becomes a doormat.

*MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD*

rivier and his girlfriend don't come across as real people. rivier is not a fully developed character, instead, he does whatever the plot requires him to do or to be. i mean, after someone gives you food poisoning, a tough guy like rivier would head out the door. but then the film would only be 45 minutes long, so he has to stay and endure more humiliating stuff. at the end the film, he's a crazy man who suffers from depression...something they called depersonalization depression. how convienent! and one never understands why and how he goes from an anti-wealthy rebel to a doormat hypocrite to a mad man who has completely lost his identity and is dependant on the crazed tycoon. as for the final act when rivier kills the crazed tycoon, it's supposed to be a logical and sobering conclusion to the story. i mean, if you're supposedly half crazy and you've been repressed and abandoned, this ending would be very fitting.

*SPOILERS END HERE*

this film certainly has the look of quality...it has a clean look to it, sharp and sunny to reflect the cleanliness and modern elegance of the world the tycoon lives in. the opening sequence is intriguing and the narrative when everything goes in a full circle is interesting. certainly, this director is techically skilled and has a good cinematographer and knows how to tell a story in an interesting way. but it lacks the psychological depth needed to make it a quality film. the film has an interesting premise, but maybe under the hands of a better director, maybe claude chabrol, this would have been an excellently engaging movie.

Left Behind: The Movie (2000)

a couple of hours will never get back!

[3/10 · 10 December 2003]

*review may contain spoilers*

predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it!

The Good Time Girls (1960)

slow, but engaging

[10 December 2003]

i liked this film. it has an ambigious quality about it, almost paradoxical. it has a feel of a documentary and is observational in nature, yet there is a obvious message or view taken by chabrol and the women in this film. they're doomed objects of desire for men. the women have this elusive quality about them, they're beautiful and somewhat misguided about the men in thier lives. they seem unattainable, yet vulnerable to a ominous unspoken danger that awaits them that is denoted by the music. there's this creepy yet mysterious sounding music that runs through the film when the female characters roam through the streets. and for some reason, all the men in this movie are misogynist jerks! they disrespect these women and believe they're entitled to them. yet, these women flirt with them and passively resist them for most of the film. chabrol lovingly shoots these women and has affection for them, but also sadness at their romantic naivety about the men in their lives that will bring them doom.

All's Well (1972)

it has its moments

[6/10 · 7 December 2003]

my first Godard film. i saw it in film class and went into it with an open mind, knowing that i'm not gonna be in for anything entertaining. there are some seriously boring and annoying elements in this film. there is dialogue that doesn't go anywhere, obtuse framing that is used for artsy effects, we're always put on edge and we are never allowed to feel comfortable with this film. it also has this aimless quality about it, it has things to say about the ecconomics of making films, linking the film industry with capitalism and communism, and may 1968 protests. there are some very clever moments in this film. the long scene with the camera panning a supermarket back and forth while a mini revolution is taking place where people storm into the market and wreck havoc. there's also the scene where workers in a meat factory lock up their employer and not letting him to go the wash room (well...at least on time.) those two scenes are worth the price of admission.

Godard is trying to make a film about political issues and imbed it into his film making, and in a way, it works on that level. while watching it, it can be a tedious experience that is interspersed with some amusing moments. it's probably for godard fans only, cuz i doubt non-fans would forgive godard for making them sit through this.

Weekend (1967)

a watchable godard film! (spoiler warning)

[9/10 · 3 December 2003]

oh my god! there's a story in this film. well, a loose story. it's godard at his comedic best. a spoiled couple goes onto a roadtrip to a country home to extort some money from a father-in law's will. on the way, they run into a huge traffic jam on this country road. the country road centers as a weird world where normal middle class people descend into thinking they have control and a place to show off their wealth and entitlement, but quickly learn that the road has a mind of its own. there are abrupt accidents that we never see, but just burning cars and bodies. it soon becomes a place of survival where weird people come out (emily bronte, a french revolutionary, a hippie genie) spouting communist idealogy about class and wealth to these selfish brats. if anything, i think the weekend is godard's own version of how a society transforms from a bourgeois society to a communist society. the road is a road to a communist society where bourgeois, middle class people who don't heed the the lessons of the lecturing eccentrics they meet, end up in a horrible fate (that's where the cannibalism takes place) there are thoughtful and intelligent ideas about class and corruption, especially when Emily Bronte shows up and talks about the forgotten pebble as a metaphor for how industry takes things for granted.

you may not agree with Godard's politics and the ending may upset people, but you have to admit, he actually portrays communism in very funny, unique and interesting way. it is an original piece of absurdist and ironic comedy that will give you chuckle. especially the great scene with Jean-Pierre Leaud in the phone booth singing to himself while the selfish brats try to take his sports car. if i had one thing to say about anyone picking up this film, it is to enjoy the ride and appreciate its weird sense of humour, but beware and open minded about the ending.