Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › 2004 Foreign, Alternative and Independent Films
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2004 Foreign, Alternative and Independent Films  

post #1 of 298
Thread Starter 
Welcome to another year of obscure films!

This thread will keep track of the independent and foreign films released throughout the year, which often go unnoticed and dwarfed by the more mainstream and big budgeted films. This list will be updated monthly around the early part of each month.

If there are any films, which you have seen and would like to include on the list, please let me know. In addition, feel free to discuss any of these films in this thread.

Films Scheduled For October - December:






















~Edwin
post #2 of 298
Index Of Films Reviewed

Micro-Review: A single sentence (approximately)
Mini-Review: A single paragraph (approximately)
Review: Anything longer

- positive review; - negative review; - mixed review; - Sanskrit review

Last updated 25 October 2004, up to #187
  • Assassination Of Richard Nixon, The
  • Dave Hackman
    269
  • Michael Reuben
    270
  • Bad Education
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Michael Reuben
    226
  • Patrick Sun
    268
  • Being Julia
  • Michael Reuben 196
  • Dave Hackman
    216
  • Breaking News
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Café Lumiere
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Cutie Honey
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Door In The Floor, The
  • Adam S
    248
  • Enduring Love
  • Michael Reuben 201
  • Dave Hackman
    246
  • FarenHYPE 9/11
  • Edwin Pereyra
    221
  • Finding Neverland
  • Michael Reuben
    214
  • Gettin’ Square
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Goddess Of Mercy
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Guerilla: The Taking Of Patty Hearst
  • Michael Reuben
    220
  • Head In The Clouds
  • Dave Hackman
    212
  • Heaven’s Bookstore
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Holy Girl, The
  • Pascal A
    204
  • House Of Flying Daggers
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Edwin Pereyra
    252
  • In The Realms Of The Unreal
  • Jason Seaver
    262
  • Michael Reuben
    267
  • Keane
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Kings And Queen
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Kinsey
  • Michael Reuben
    213
  • Lightning In A Bottle
  • Lew Crippen
    209
  • Lost Embrace
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Low Life
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Machinist, The
  • Michael Reuben 200
  • Jason Seaver
    215
  • Dave Hackman
    247
  • Merchant Of Venice, The
  • Michael Reuben
    277
  • Moolaade
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Motorcycle Diaries, The
  • Dave Hackman
    238
  • David Lawson 194
  • Lew Crippen
    240
  • Edwin Pereyra
    279
  • Natural City
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Outfoxed: Rupert Mudoch’s War On Journalism
  • Edwin Pereyra
    257
  • Overnight
  • Jason Seaver
    215
  • Reconstruction
  • Jason Seaver
    241
  • Red Lights
  • Michael Reuben
    211
  • Dave Hackman
    258
  • Rewind
  • Elizabeth S
    205
  • Rolling Family
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Saraband
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Sea Inside, The
  • Dave Hackman
    265
  • Edwin Pereyra
    290
  • Screaming Men
  • Jason Seaver
    227
  • Separate Lives
  • Dave Hackman
    240
  • Sideways
  • Adam S 198
  • Dave Hackman
    217
  • Edwin Pereyra
    218
  • Sound Of Colors
  • Elizabeth S 205
  • Stage Beauty
  • Michael Reuben 196
  • Tenth District Court, The: Moments of Trial
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Undertow
  • Michael Reuben
    210
  • Vera Drake
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Very Long Engagement, A
  • Michael Reuben
    234
  • Dave Hackman
    249
  • Woodsman, The
  • Michael Reuben
    251
  • World, The
  • Pascal A
    204
  • Zelary
  • Dave Hackman
    225

Index updated on March 25, 2005 by Edwin Pereyra (technical assistance by Michael Reuben)
post #3 of 298
Quote:
Welcome to another year of obscure films!
Okay, you want obscure films... The latest "indie" entry in my movie blog:

Morgiana - ½
Who Wants To Kill Jessie? (Kdo chce zabít Jessii) - ¼


Seen 7 January 2004 at the Brattle Theater (Czech Horror & Fantasy On Film)

Morgiana reminded me of a Hammer film in style, though with less in the way of the supernatural. It features a slow-acting poison that is impossibly perfect for the film's needs, though that is likely a holdover from the source material. It's a bizarre film, featuring a cat's-eye-view camera for no particular reason, a sort of arty credit sequence, and probably the least subtle soundtrack this side of Signs. Costume design and make-up are interesting, as they run the gamut between incredibly elaborate and almost slipshod. This might be intended, however - the elaborate costumes belong to women of means, whereas the servents and soldiers in this period piece are dressed in what look almost like hand-me-downs.

The story itself is a contrived Victorian-era melodrama. Sisters Viktorie and Klara (both played by Iva Janzurová) each inherit a house and staff when their father passes on. Viktorie, the older sister, is jealous of Klara's popularity (and house in town as opposed to country), and to make it worse, Klara is nothing but kind, even trying to have some of her suitors pay attention to her sister. Soon, Vikkie has obtained a supposedly untraceable poison that will work over time, giving her the opportunity to appear the concerned sister and divert suspicion. But, as the poison is working, her supplier blackmails her...

Quite frankly, the story is absurd. Vikkie is such a thoroughgoing villainess I'm surprised that she doesn't grow her fingernails a foot long and cackle more than she does. The sisters are pretty clearly labeled, with Vikkie always dressing entirely in black and her black hair in a severe bun, and her makeup in harsh shapes. Klara, on the other hand, is dressed in white with flowing red hair in lovely ringlets. This is not to say the movie is valueless; there's fun in melodrama, and director Juraj Herz uses his leading lady well - despite being a 1972 film from an Eastern Bloc nation, it's never terribly obvious that the same actress is playing two roles. Herz chooses a narrow aspect ratio - 1.37:1 or 1.66:1 - and uses close-ups to make sure only one sister is on-screen most of the time, and makes good use of doubles and the very occasional split-screen shot. He may have been trying to use some of the artsier, showier techniques to camoflage the double role. If that was his intent, good job.

Who Wants To Kill Jessie? is something entirely different, a thoroughly deadpan comedy-fantasy. I'd happily buy it on video if it were available, but, alas, special screenings in series like this seem to be the only way to see it. The story is a simple high-concept: Ruzenka Beránková (Dana Medrická) has created a formula that can remove elements from dreams (you can tell they've been removed, because there's a nifty television screen capable of showing a subject's dreams). What she doesn't realize is that these elements manifest themselves in the real world. Bad enough when it's the gadflys of a cow's nightmare, but when she uses it on her husband (Jirí Sovák), whose dreams include the characters from the comic strip "Who Wants To Kill Jessie?"... Well, it's bad enough that Jessie is a beautiful, blond, voluptuous girl (who is also a scientific genius), but the two men chasing her, a musclebound superhero and a gun-toting cowboy, cause serious damage to the apartment building and later city of Prague. And when the courts decide the husband should be liable - they are, after all, his dreams - more chaos ensues.

Jessie is quite short - IMDB lists it at 80 minutes - but doesn't waste any of its running time. Nearly every minute has something funny happening, whether it be a cow's dreams or the comic strip characters' penchant for speaking with word balloons. The film is shot in anamorphic black-and-white, and I'm not sure color would have helped it; it could have easily come out looking like the Batman live-action TV series or Austin Powers. The look of this 1966 movie suggests bright colors, but keeps it from looking garish or dated. It's also played perfectly straight - that Mrs. Beránková has a dream monitor in her bedroom isn't remarked upon, and the reactions to these comic-book characters running around Prague is stoic as can be.

A good many movies are filmed in Prague nowadays, and there are many reasons for it - labor is cheap in Eastern Europe, the Czech Republic is one of the more stable countries to emerge from the fall of communism, and there are many scenic locations that require little redressing for period shooting. But these two films, at least, suggest a strong film tradition, not just in terms of creative people at the top (every country likely has had one or two geniuses emerge), but of an actual film industry capable of lending strong production values to even films as lightweight as these going back thirty or forty years.
post #4 of 298
Thread Starter 
Quote:
So, I take it Michael wants to do the index this year by grabbing the second post? Or is Edwin actually going to do some work on "his" thread?

I had actually thought about doing the index if Jason wasn't going to do it again. But since you do such a great job at it and is willing to do it again, Jason, you might as well continue with it.

~Edwin
post #5 of 298
Quote:
So, I take it Michael wants to do the index this year by grabbing the second post?

Why, what ever do you mean?

I've left the 2003 thread open so that you can index the last few entries. Let me know when you're done, and I'll close and archive it.

M.
post #6 of 298
Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer

If nothing else, Nick Broomfield's documentary confirms the detail and precision with which Charlize Theron transfromed herself into Aileen Wuornos for Monster (my review is here). Indeed, Broomfield's documentary makes Theron's achievement all the more impressive, because the Wuornos portrayed in Monster has a recognizably human soul. The woman we see in Life and Death has been on death row for so many years, and has been the victim of so many new forms of exploitation (including Broomfield's), that she's effectively departed any realm that most of us would recognize. She now inhabits a private, paranoid world in which the cops let her continue killing so that they'd have a better story to sell to Hollywood, and the prison authorities are beaming pressure waves into her cell for nefarious purposes not specified.

Life and Death opens with Broomfield being subpoenaed to testify in the last attempt by Wuornos' attorney to overturn her death sentence. The subpoena results from his earlier documentary Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1992). Broomfield includes excerpts of his own testimony, along with clips from the previous film, and then proceeds to conduct new interviews with various people connected to Wuornos, including her birth mother, who abandoned Aileen at age 6 months. The centerpiece of the film is a series of interviews with Wuornos before her execution, including a final one that Wuornos terminates in disgust because Broomfield won't stick to her agenda for discussion (which is never entirely clear).

Broomfield's essential thesis is that the State of Florida executed a person who was clearly insane, and that this was merely the final outrage in a lifetime of abuse. (The excerpts of testimony from grown men who, as teenagers, used the young Aileen as a sexual receptacle, only to shun her in public, are particularly appalling.) But intentionally or not, the overall impression is that of the biggest freakshow on earth, with Broomfield just another barker selling tickets. Maybe there's no other way to present a series of people and events so outlandish. The film is fascinating to watch but leaves you with a slightly sickened feeling. And maybe that's as it should be.

M.
post #7 of 298
The Cooler

I'd post this in the 2003 thread, but it's been archived.

I had a hard time buying the whole premise, even in "The Golden Shangri-La" casino, which is the last hold-out of the more modern, glitzy casinos that rule the Las Vegas strip, where the fiscal health of the casino is almost solely dependent on the title character, Bernie, who's just bad luck on legs. Sure, as a tall tale, I could buy it in short quantities, but for as long as Bernie has been employed as "The Cooler", it just takes too many liberties to create conflict and drama out of thin air.

The romance between Bernie and a cocktail waitress isn't as convincing as it could have been. The caricature that Alec Baldwin conjures up as Shelly, the #1 guy at the casino, is good for laughs and for pushing the conflict forward, but it's a fun performance by Baldwin.

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
post #8 of 298
Quote:
I'd post this in the 2003 thread, but it's been archived.

Oh come on, you know you could put it there if you wanted to.

M.
post #9 of 298
That looked pretty, babies—you know how I hate pretty.


The Company, Robert Altman’s 2003 film about the big time world of dance will not be to everyone’s taste, but for those who appreciate Altman’s way of looking at an insular world and who like ballet, this is a simply stunning film.

With Chicago and Chicago’s Joffery Ballet as a background, we spend a year mostly in rehearsal and backstage with the company as the story focuses on Neve Campbell who is first shown as so insignificant that the company’s artistic director does not even know her name. In true theatre tradition, she takes over a featured role for the evening (due to an injury to another dancer) and is triumphant.

The rest of the plot centers around the development of a new ballet and the onstage, backstage and personal lives of intertwining members of the company. As typical in an Altman film, not much is shown directly, with things that happen on the periphery later assuming prominence.

But what we are shown in rehearsal and in performance is brilliant and compelling as we watch the new ballet take form and finally performed. And all the while the dancers rise and fall and loves come and go.

Altman captures very well the physical effort that the superbly conditioned athletes exert in order to create the grace and beauty onstage. And as this film is truly an homage to the theatre, it really has no beginning—we just come in on a rehearsal in progress and no end—we don’t really know, for example I injured dancers will return or retire.

If for nothing else watch this film for the delightful portrayal of the artistic director by Malcolm McDowell, for whom that dance is all, the dancers usually secondary and although seemingly entirely self-absorbed, can turn on the charm in an instant and knows just when and how to compliment the dancers.

If you like ballet, you should love this film—and if you don’t much care for dance, this film might help you see things another way.
post #10 of 298
A couple documentaries shown as part of the Brattle Eye-Opener series that won't be released for a couple months or so:

Tom Dowd & The Language Of Music - ½

I wonder if my brother Dan, or his musician friends, would get more out of this documentary than I did. Clearly, Dowd's resumé is impressive - he was the primary recording engineer/producer at Atlantic Records for something like thirty years, and his career spans the great leaps forward in recording technology, from the early days when a band would be huddled around one microphone to record directly to vinyl all the way to today's digital techniques. There is clear admiration and respect in the way interview subjects like Eric Clapton and members of the Allman Brothers Band talk about him, and unvarnished affection when he surprises Ray Charles with a visit. Maybe Dan and his friends would see more nuances in what the film has to say about music production than I would, and perhaps they would find a sequence toward the end where Dowd plays with the original multitrack recordings of "Layla" fascinating rather than tedious. There may be hidden nuances that I can't recognize.

One of the main issues, I think, is that Dowd (who died in 2002) is so involved. He's a pleasant, likable guy, and his tours of the parts of New York City where he grew up and learned his craft are interesting, but the way the film is constructed is so deliberatelly a flattering portrait that it was impossible to miss things being left out - there's nothing about his personal life, or what went on at Atlantic Records outside his recording studio, or anything negative about him at all. Time is spent on how, as a teenager and young man, he was recruited and was part of the Manhattan Project, but it is presented jarringly out of chronological order, and the film not only seems to dance around why he chose to work in music production rather than finishing his degree at Colombia, but never quite seems to make the connection about how he was uniquely qualified to innovate, with his combined musical and technical backgrounds.

Indeed, the film all too often seems content to leave the Dowd's thought process mysterious, just showing him as a likable old raconteur, despite the evidence that he's a very smart guy. There's a lot of focus on how great what Dowd did was, but little on how he did it, or what his thought processes were. He discusses how Atlantic was ahead of the game because they'd been recording in stereo well in advance of stereo sound being a consumer product, or how Atlantic bought the second eight-track recording machine produced, but not how those decisions to use expensive new technology without immediate application were made.

The movie's not entirely frustrating - the Tom Dowd in this movie is charismatic, and there are interesting facts learned and stories told about the music business from the forties to the seventies (albeit with gaps). It's a talking-head documentary, but director Mark Moorman shoots it well enough for it to feel dynamic, and it will be right at home on PBS or Discovery or wherever it eventually lands. I just can't help but notice how superficial it seemed at times.


The Agronomist -

ThinkFilm will be releasing Johnathan Demme's profile of Haitian journalist/activist Jean Dominique sometime in April. Demme and Dominique were friends, and this documentary reflects that - any faults the man may have had are glossed over. Though he's presented as a man of the people, one can easily deduce that he was still a man of some means, as bespoken by his education, endeavors, et al. Even in Haiti, buying a radio station costs money.

Still, it's tough not to like Dominique. As we get to know the man, via news footage, interviews with his family and friends, and videotaped conversations he had with Demme during one of his exiles in New York, we're struck by a number of things - first, that he's very intelligent. He studied agronomy in Paris, he speaks English, French, and Creole fluently, and has expertise in fields as diverse as agronomy, radio journalism, and film. He's very passionate about the fight for human rights in his country, and is not afraid to speak his mind, even when it means criticizing Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the democratically elected leader who winds up falling short of his ideals.

What struck me most, though, is that he smiles much more than one tends to think of an activist smiling. Most political documentaries, or news coverage, is full of dour people making dour pronouncements. Dominique, though, seems to take great joy in his work, in art, and in the people he attempted to help. He's also unusually content to be a journalist - though he reports and campaigns vigorously, he never (at least, in this film) takes or is apparently offered a place in the government upon his returns from exile and the overthrow of various dictatorships.

I came away liking Dominique quite a bit. It's a good, if flattering, portrait, and also does a good job in illuminating the situation in Haiti over the course of Dominique's life.
post #11 of 298
Here is my review of Dogville.

In short it was a 9.5 with an option for 10 on review. Great film, outstanding way to begin my 2004 US release film list which normally starts with some horrible JAN/FEB dump film.


I also reviewed the Cooler in its thread but I don't have the power to put it in the 2003 thread. I liked it a bit more than Patrick did I guess.
post #12 of 298
The Company - ½

The Company is something of an odd film. It has a star in Neve Campbell, and an outline for a plot, but abjectly refuses to be a conventional narrative. In a more conventional movie, the scene early on where the Joffrey Ballet's lead dancer confesses she may not be able to handle her workload any more would lead to a competition among dancer to fill the slot, and Loretta Ryan (Campbell) might find herself having to choose between the company and her romance with a local sous-chef (James Franco). The melodrama might be heightened by another lover in the person of one of the company's male dancers, or family pressure, or trying to balance her commitment to the company with a job to pay the rent. There would be rivalries and mentors and a triumphant final scene in which "Ry" proves herself worthy of the position.

And while most of that happens, director Robert Altman refuses to make The Company a melodrama. What goes on behind the scenes in this environment is interesting enough, he apparently feels, without changing it to fit the story arc an audience expects to see. Performance footage is also intercut, and only about half the time is it really part of the story. The rest of the time, it is either used to demonstrate what these characters are working toward, or just to break up a group of similar scenes. It's also worth seeing in its own right; as beautiful as ballet is, it's not something that is really part of mainstream culture in the United States. While some of the early interludes may come off as sort of artsy-fartsy and weird, others are more traditional, and seeing the dancers during practice and their off-hours as relatively normal young people gives new appreciation to just how physically demanding this art form is.

Indeed, one of the most memorable scenes is one where a dancer lands just wrong, and a sickening snapping sound comes from her ankle. The only thing I can compare it to is watching someone being seriously injured during a baseball game, where there's just enough background noise (in this case, music) for the sound to be clearly audible, and for the rest of the environment to go silent afterward.

The performances are, in general, good, though that's sort of beside the point. Of the three billed performers, Malcolm McDowell is the only one really called upon to emote as the company's artistic director, and though he creates a larger-than-life character, he never goes overboard. James Franco is pleasant and likable as The Boyfriend, and Neve Campbell is eminently believable as Ry, even doing all her own dancing. Much of the rest of the cast is the actual members of Chicago's Joffrey Ballet Company, and none of them are stiff on camera. Indeed, Campbell seems to fit right in, adding to the film's authenticity.

Though The Company is a fictional, narrative film, it bears a closer resemblence to a performance piece or a documentary. If you feel character and story must be paramount in a narrative movie, this will be disappointing. However, the sheer beauty of the performance segments is worthwhile, and I found the fly-on-the-wall aspect of the rest quite fascinating. It's a chance to learn something new, just by watching people go about their work, without the feeling that someone is trying to teach you something specific that often goes with a documentary.




Trilogy: An Amazing Couple (Un couple épatant) - ¼

Though was is the first part of Lucas Belvaux's "Trilogy" to be released in France, it is being released second in the US. Not that that matters much; apparently all three take place (and were filmed) simultaneously, with the lead characters in one being supporting characters in the other two (On The Run and After The Life), and all three belonging to different genres. It's an interesting experiment, though if An Amazing Couple is representative, not necessarily a successful one.

An Amazing Couple is meant to be a romantic comedy, but it is seldom romantic and only fitfully funny. Much of that comedy is very French, as likely to make American's scratch their heads as laugh ("okay, there'd normally be a joke there, and that guy was doing something odd, but I just don't get it"). The more serious subplots from the other movies pop up unresolved here, making the movie feel both incomplete and overstuffed without the rest of the context. And then there are other subplots which are likely unique to this movie, like the main characters' daughter breaking up with her boyfriend, that don't seem to go anywhere.

The big problem, though, is the pacing. A good screwball comedy often starts out with a simple misunderstanding that gets compounded, escalating to things getting thoroughly out of hand. Here, though, things seem to get thoroughly out of hand in the first half hour, but keep escalating, which means that by the time the movie reaches its third act, everything is so outlandish that the main characters come off as stupid (the husband) and shrill/bitchy (the wife), and I just didn't care any more. Also, the character used to push things forward (a police detective played by Gilbert Melki who seems to be the closest thing the Trilogy has to a central character) is practically malevolent, adding a little too much darkness to the proceedings.

Which is too bad, because the title couple, though not actually amazing, has potential. It's nice and a little unconventional to see a romantic comedy about a married couple in middle age. François Morel and Ornella Muti are a likeable scruffy guy/glamorous woman pair, and the scene after they finally tell each other what is going on felt good, like they're a pair that's worth keeping together. There is some good comedy to be found, and maybe this movie could have been made to work better if it were on its own, just a romantic comedy and not part of some grand experiment.
post #13 of 298
Quote:
If for nothing else watch this film for the delightful portrayal of the artistic director by Malcolm McDowell, for whom that dance is all, the dancers usually secondary and although seemingly entirely self-absorbed, can turn on the charm in an instant and knows just when and how to compliment the dancers.


i was a bit disappointed with the film as a whole but LOVED the ballet - although not a big ballet fan in general the dancing was simply beautiful.
post #14 of 298
Touching the Void

IFC Films'fascinating documentary showcasing a man’s indestructible will to live following a harrowing mountain climbing accident. The docudrama tells the story of how in 1985 Simon Yates and Joe Simpson decide to tackle Siula Grande in Peru and just to add more fun to the adventure the duo elect to use the “one push” method. So, rather than setting up mini-camps along the way they travel lightly and climb the mountain in a single trip. Climbing up the mountain, the plan worked like a charm, the descent was an entirely different story.

A snowstorm sweeps in and following an accident Yates suffers a horribly broken leg, the two quickly realize the folly of their one push plan. There is no one nearby to offer help, making this a virtual death sentence. Simpson surprises Yates by coming up with a plan on how they can attempt the impossible. Unfortunately the climbing gods were not finished with these adventurers.

Yates’s strategy calls for the two to be connected tied to each other on a 300 ft rope, S lowers himself about 150 ft while Yates entrenches himself in the snow to support the weight. Unfortunately Simpson slides off a cliff and is left dangling in mid-air, it is a terrifying moment – make that a terrifying hour. Due to the on-going blizzard Yates cannot hear Simpson’s cries for help and has no idea why the rope is not slacking up as usual. Yates struggles to maintain his grip because the weight of Simpson is slowing causing him to slide toward the edge. Yates finally decides to break the cardinal rule of climbing – he cuts the rope, leaving Simpson presumably for dead. What follows is the incredible story of how Simpson survives.

Oscar winning director Kevin MacDonald (One Day in September) interweaves interviews with Simpson, Yates and dramatization footage filmed at the actual site and the Alps. The fact you know Simpson is alive and well does not diminish the drama and edge of the seat suspense one bit.

In many ways the film is very British, no sweeping music and emotional melodrama. Simpson is often very practical and has a rather matter of fact manner in his comments. He wrote the best selling book the film is based on to try and help smooth the waters within the climbing community who have directed a good deal of venom toward Yates for cutting the rope and leaving his partner to die. While Simpson is fairly calm and generally unemotional, Yates appears to have more emotional scars.

The only way this movie could be in any better is if it was an IMAX movie.
post #15 of 298
I've seen two out of the three parts of Belvaux's Trilogy so far --An Amazing Couple and On The Run and loved both, especially On The Run. And I have to say, the films really do work together so it's not fair to judge them after seeing just one. Yes, as Jason points out they don't compromise their European character for American tastes. I regard that as a virtue. The English subtitled 4 DVD set from R2 (Belguim or France?) is excellent.

Seen and LOVED: Ripley's Game & Secret Things -- more on those two later. Ripley's Game has a DVD release scheduled soon, and Secret Things opens on Friday (in NYC, anyway).

Ted
post #16 of 298
I came out of Film Comment Selects: 2004 with one "loved", one "strongly liked", three "liked", and one "absolutely hated".

My favorite was Jacques Rivette's The Story of Marie and Julien which is one of the most elegant, romantic, and haunting films I've seen in over a year (Tian Zhuangzhuang's Springtime in a Small Town was probably the last before this). It explores somewhat similar themes of coincidence and connection as Krzysztof Kieslowski and stars the ever watchable Emmanuelle Béart and Andrzej Wajda's frequent actor Jerzy Radziwilowicz (who, I think uncoincidentally, was the 'man of marble' in Wajda's film). As I told a friend offline, I'm still swooning. :b

My next favorite was Thom Andersen's Los Angeles Plays Itself which is an organic exploration/meditation on the representation of the city of Los Angeles in films, which invariably never captures its true identity. It's alternately funny, fascinating, learned, and very passionate - all of the things I admire in a film.

On the "demanding, but mostly liked" side was Peter Mettler's epic three hour, globally spanning, rambling discourse on the nature of escapism and transcendence, Gambling, Gods and LSD. It has several gorgeous ethnographic vignettes in it, so I'd say it's a good recommendation for the Koyaanisqatsi and Baraka crowd.

The other in this category was Arnaud Desplechin's Playing "In the Company of Men" which I found uneven, but also very compelling. There's a bit of discussion on its merits at Film Written's film forum by Desplechin's more spirited defenders.

Another "liked" was the light, droll comedy The Magic Gloves by Martín Rejtman, a kind of Argentinian Aki Kaurismäki film (in later, more accessible films Drifting Clouds and The Man Without a Past) on a group of friends brought together by a gypsy cab driver.

The one film I absolutely hated was Alain Guiraudie's No Rest for the Brave, and intentionally nonsensical film that flows like a really bad ripoff of a Raoul Ruiz film.
post #17 of 298
Robot Stories -

Both times I've seen Robot Stories, it's been at a science-fiction film festival (BFFF 1 in October and SF/29 this past week). It does have appeal beyond that, however. The stories tackle bigger science-fictional ideas as they go on, but are always rooted in human relationships.

The first, "My Robot Baby", features Tamlyn Tomita as a young executive who, with her husband, is about to adopt a baby. First, though, they must care for a robot simulation, which rapidly becomes more than she was expecting. It's a simple enough story, recycled ad nauseum on sitcoms as teenagers must keep an egg from being hurt as part of a health class project, but the character's uncertainty about her readiness for parenthood makes it work, and the baby robot, though clearly done on a budget, manages to display a surprising amount of character by the end.

"The Robot Fixer" is also well-done, though its sci-fi content is non-existent. Wai Ching Ho plays Bernice, the mother of a man in a coma from which he will probably never awaken. She never really understood him, and still doesn't, but when her daughter finds his collection of toy robots while they clean his apartment, she decides to complete the collection, in hope that something he considered important will bring them closer together and, maybe, entice him to wake up. Bernice is an interesting character, and Wai Ching Ho plays her well (with a fine but easily overlooked supporting performance by Cindy Cheung as the daughter), but while this segment may be the strongest as a conventional drama, it feels somewhat weak in comparison to me. It just doesn't have the nifty idea that the others do.

Pak himself stars in "Machine Love", a lighter piece that examines an interesting situation - as we make machines more sophisticated, we will likely give them more ability to learn and interact, both to make them more useful machines and to show that we can create an artificial intelligence. That's not always wanted, though (remember "Microsoft Bob"?), and it's likely that even as machines become more human, we will continue to treat them like machines. Here, Pak plays an android programmed to be social whose operators look at him as nothing more than a tool; the irony being that only another machine will understand his all-too-human needs.

"Clay" takes it a step further, positing a future where human beings' minds are "scanned" and uploaded into servers as they near death. Sab Shimono plays John, a sculptor whose wife Helen has already passed on but who regularly visits him. He now finds that he's dying, but refuses to be scanned, fearing he'll lose the ability to create as a mind stored in a machine. The movie is fair enough to present John's obstinacy as perhaps a little old-fashioned and hurtful to his loved ones, but Eisa Davis's portrayal of Helen subtly asks whether John may have a point - she's warm, friendly, and not mechanical at all, but also rather distant. Her appearance is young even though John is an old man. As much as she still cares about her husband and son, she's become something different.

It's worth noting that Robot Stories is not just four short films pasted together; a couple characters from other segments appear in "Machine Love", there's a progression from birth to death in the stories, and the animation and music to the opening credits are nifty, as well. It's a solid collection, worth checking out (its web site has a list of playdates).




Millennium Mambo (Qianxi manbo) -

This is the kind of film (like What Time Is It There?) that's occasionally described as "lyrical", perhaps more about capturing a feeling than telling a story. Not that it doesn't have a story - it does, and a fairly well-defined one: A young woman (Qi Shu, probably best known in the US for The Transporter) in a bad relationship moving on to the next stage of her life. The problem is that the girl in question, Vicky, is fairly passive. She seems to initiate very little, and often comes across as fickle and somewhat cold toward the people who like her. Not that some don't deserve it; the boyfriend she lives with is more than a little bit of a creep. He searches through her purse while she's in the shower, and has a weird habit of smelling her that clearly makes her uncomfortable; it's implied that the only thing keeping them together is that once you move in and start intermingling your things, it becomes hard to disentagle yourself.

Much of the action that moves the story ahead takes place off-screen, and director Hsiao-hsien Hou uses some of the more peculiar narration I can recall - though the film takes place in 2001 (the year of its release in Taiwan), it's narrated by (presumably) Vicky looking back at it from ten years later. I say presumably because all the narration is in the third person. Some people I talked to found that reassuring, saying it likely means that by 2011 Vicky has grown up some more, to the point where she considers this younger self a different person. At the time, though, it just seemed odd to me, and somewhat annoying, since the narration often covered events that were shown directly afterward in the picture.

What you do see on screen generally looks very nice; cinematographer Pin Bing Lee has a great eye for color and composition. There's an incredible purity to the scenes that take place in snowy Yubari in northern Japan, which are also the only ones where characters aren't smoking like chimneys. Perhaps this is an indicator that this is where Vicky will reclaim her innocence and happiness.

That, I suppose, is what make Millennium Mambo so simultaneously beautiful and frustrating. There are layers to it, which bear fruit if you put in the time examining them (or are one of the lucky people who see such things naturally). But, if you just sit down to watch it hoping to be told a story, it's easy to feel like nothing happens, and in a slow, artsy manner. Wven if you tend to take that view, it's still pretty easy to enjoy the visuals.
post #18 of 298
Does anyone have any idea of when The Crimson Rivers 2: Angels of the Apocaylpse will be released in the US?

One of the movie theaters in my area does show art films (foreign films/indies) on the weekend), but I haven't went to see one of them in a long while. I usually catch the movies on DVD and TV

Be Seeing You,
David Blackwell
post #19 of 298
My posting has dropped off significantly--been delegating more of my comments to my blog--but I saw a film last night that you should definitely track down.

Lars von Trier and Jorgen Leth's The Five Obstructions is nothing short of brilliant. Von Trier has his old mentor Leth remake his short film The Perfect Human according to rules he sets for him (no shot can last longer than 12 frames, must shoot in a miserable place, etc.). It's a fascinating study of the creative and collaborative process--the short films, shown in part, look terrific--as well as an examination of to what degree we can truly know one another.

I don't think The Five Obstructions has a domestic distributor--the print I saw had a BBFC certificate in front of it--so I have no idea how easy it will be to find. If you live anywhere near Columbus, this von Trier retrospective is a must. The regional premiere of Dogville next week is sold out, but still on tap are double features of The Idiots (I assume an uncensored cut) and Zentropa, Medea and Dancer in the Dark, and Epidemic and The Element of Crime. Breaking the Waves is showing by itself.
post #20 of 298
There must be a traveling Von Trier thing going on, since the Harvard Film Archive is also showing Von Trier's films (apparently all of them).
post #21 of 298
Funny Ha Ha -

I tried really hard to like Funny Ha Ha. And not just becaue, for all I know, the cute non-professional actress playing the main character, Marnie (Kate Dollenmayer), might live in this very building and I'd hate to bump into her into the laundry room and blurt out "hey, I saw that movie you were in...it sucked" (which, as anyone who knows me will attest, is not an unlikely thing to happen). Sure, I could honestly cover by saying how much I liked her, that I liked how she never came off as phony and how her character's aimlessness seemed real and not some Hollywood stereotype.

But in the end, I have to admit, I was unimpressed with the movie as a whole. It's one of that movies where I have to admire its realism but which also makes me question the worth of realism as a goal. There aren't many inauthentic moments in the movie, right down to the dialogue being filled with "like"s, "um"s, pauses, banalities and the like, but it's hard to shake the feeling that I'm paying for something that is no more interesting, no more imaginitive, and no more meaningful, than what I could get eavesdropping on the guys sitting at the next table in the pizza shop. There's almost no story, or plot; these characters haven't been created for any greater purpose, and don't seem unique or unusual enough for a character study.

The movie presents us with Marnie, a basically nice but somewhat directionless woman of 23. Soon after the movie opens, we find out that Alex (Christian Rudder), a friend she's liked since college, and his long-time girlfriend have broken up, leading to an hour plus of awkward moments. While temping, she also meets another guy, played by writer-director-editor Andrew Bujalski, who is immediately smitten. It's not really a courtship picture, though; none of the relationships exactly blossom into something really rewarding.

The structure of the movie isn't completely arbitrary; even though you can't really dissect the final scene (or most scenes) and say "this means this", there is a sense that it ends when Marnie has finally got her relationship with Alex figured out. It's kind of a nice, understated ending. Well, understated compared to other movies; it's almost momentous compared to the rest of this one.



Trilogy: On The Run (Cavale) - ¾

On The Run was, if it matters, either the last or the second part of Lucas Belvaux's trilogy of interconnected movies to be released in France (the IMDB is inconclusive, though the poster appears to support "second"), but the first here in the US. As with An Amazing Couple, though, the order is relatively unimportant; the two main characters of On The Run were downright peripheral in An Amazing Couple. The movies are also different genres.

I found On The Run to be a fairly enjoyable thriller/drama, certainly stronger as an example of its genre than An Amazing Couple. It opens with a fairly well-done escape sequence, not done in grand blockbuster style, but thrilling and tense.

The man escaping from prison is Bruno (writer/director Belvaux), who has spent 15 years behind bars for terroristic crimes that aren't spelled out until later in the movie. Upon returning to Grenoble, he looks up members of his old cell, most of whom have in the interim become middle-class citizens with families, businesses, and lives. Jeanne (Catherine Frot), feeling guilty about Bruno having been in jail while she became a schoolteacher, offers the most assistance, though reluctantly.

Having already seen one other portion of the trilogy and having a vague idea of the plot of the third, it's difficult to watch this and enjoy it as a movie without a lot else going on. When Jeanne hides Bruno in a vacation cabin owned by the characters of An Amazing Couple, is this an awkward tie-in or something I wouldn't think twice about if I didn't even know An Amazing Couple existed? I can't be sure. It seems awkward to me, but I've probably found similar scenes suspenseful in the past.

The movie can, I think, be enjoyed on its own, though some bits seem missing - why was Jean-Jean breaking Bruno out of prison now, where did the well-equipped hiding places come from, and exactly who were the sides in the last shoot-out? The ending seemed kind of random, but I liked its understatedness; it emphasized how far Bruno had drifted from everyone else he knew.

Thus far, having seen two out of three of the "Trilogy" movies, I find myself admiring the idea, but not being quite so fond of the individual films, or the execution of the concept.



Heh, the image Edwin has for On The Run up top is actually for After The Life.
post #22 of 298
Quote:
The only way this movie could be in any better is if it was an IMAX movie.

I also had the same reaction while watching Touching The Void, which I heartily recommend. The sweeping shots of Siula Grande and "zoom outs" showcasing the insignificance of man against the mountain almost scream for the larger screen.

The dramatization/recreation sequences are incredibly well done and do an excellent job of enhancing the interviews by taking the viewers along for the ascent and descent(s). I occasionally had to remind myself that I wasn't watching actual footage; it's that involving.

My lone quibble is with the parting shot of the mountain, which seemed too quick, and tacked on.
post #23 of 298
Past Perfect - ½

One thing about movies that intrigues me, especially when seen in the theater, is that you're allowed to have an off-putting first act. If a TV show, or a CD, or a book, or even a stage play, opened like Past Perfect, well, the odds are that I'd change the channel, put it aside, or walk out at intermission. But a movie's different; you're in a dark room, and can't quit without disturbing your neighbors. You're there until the bitter end.

Past Perfect is a small, intimate film. Writer/director/star Daniel MacIvor is primarily known as a playwright, and it shows at many points. He and co-star Rebecca Jenkins spend much of their time in specific spaces, talking. Stories of their youth are recounted verbally as opposed to flashed-back-to. And like two actors on a bare stage, there aren't many distractions; the film zeroes in on them dealing with each other. Unlike a play, though, the film is made up of two seperate threads, about two years apart, each told chronologically but with plenty of cutting back and forth between them. And MacIvor is able to use silence just as much as speech to get us inside the couple's heads.

At first, they are not terribly pleasant people. Cecil, MacIvor's character, is rude and snappish; Charlotte (Jenkins) is bitter and distant. When they first meet, they managed to get on my nerves as much as each other's. It isn't until deep into the film that the audience starts to get a sense of some chemistry, some actual possible affection between them. By that point it's almost, but not quite, too late.

And the end works. It's over an hour of clock-watching pain to get to that last act, but the last twenty minutes or so do manage to build on the tedium of the rest of the movie, managing to make their relationship's start believable and its potential end tragic. The time invested in getting there does pay off.

I don't know if I'd have made it to that payoff if I'd seen the film on DVD, though. Two common topics of discussion here are how (1) people only see the big, blockbuster type movies in the theater because smaller dramas are just as good at home, and (2) how it is good to be in control of one's home presentation. But with a film like Past Perfect, which seems calculated to make the audience earn the payoff just as much as the characters, it would be so easy to hit "eject" about fifteen minutes in and move on to something more immediately rewarding.
post #24 of 298
Okay, back from Rendez-Vous with French Cinema, most of which I enjoyed (none that I really loved though), but one that truly disappointed me (Bruno Dumont's Twentynine Palms). In loosely ranked order:

Les Sentiments (Noémie Lvovsky) - Very well done ensemble piece on the evolving relationship between a middle aged couple and their newlywed neighbors as the characters struggle with boredom, changing careers, aging, and attraction. Its deceptive lyricism reminds me of Agnes Varda's Le Bonheur and the omnipresent Greek chorus reminds me of Woody Allen's Mighty Aphrodite.

Time of the Wolf (Michael Haneke) - Unrelenting and deeply disturbing post-apocalyptic portrait of lawlessness, hopelessness, and the baseness of human behavior. The pace crawls in a few places, but overall, quite successful in sustaining that grim tone of the film.

Not on the Lips (Alain Resnais) - Another revisit into French burlesque theater territory by Resnais, this one an engaging comedy-of-errors musical. Light, but well done escapist fare. Worth a look if you like Resnais' later, theatrical films like Mélo.

Chouchou (Merzak Allouache) - Goofy and campy comedy in the vein of Francis Veber's over-the-top situationally absurdist fare as a drag queen immigrates to France and is "adopted" by two well-intentioned Catholic priests. Has a very quirky tone to it that reminds me of a bit of Swiss comedies (although this one is French).

Twentynine Palms (Bruno Dumont) - Dumont strips the humanity from his characters and comes up with this sex romp (though never as graphic as the one in The Life of Jesus) Hummer "adventure" through the California desert. Unlike his two previous efforts (both of which I loved), there's absolutely no sign of redemption in this film. Dumont explained in the Q&A that he wanted to do away with the characters entirely and just create an atmosphere of terror and violence. He really should have gone back and fleshed out his characters beyond the primalism of their bodies. Yekaterina Golubeva (who has worked with Claire Denis, Leos Carax, and Sharunas Bartas) is completely wasted in this film.

Duh, forgot (the forgettable) Grand école (Robert Solis), a portrait of privileged young men and women going to the equivalent of an ivy league university in preparation to be future world leaders and CEOs and their learned life lessons: sexual, racial, social, and some apparently involving boxers . It has a very loosely similar subplot of Dangerous Liaisons that underscores their snide sense of privilege but otherwise, unremarkable.
post #25 of 298
(Not to be an elitist snot, but how sad is it that the box-office thread gets more action than this?)

Intermission - ¾

As chatty crime/comedy movies go, Intermission is pleasant enough. Somewhat scattershot, with a dozen or so characters interacting in ways that are both likely and perhaps overly coincidental. John (Cillian Murphy) and Oscar (David Wilmot) are twenty-something slackers working in a supermarket, Dierdre (Kelly MacDonald) is John's ex-girlfriend, Sam (Michael McElhatton) is her new lover, Noeleen (Dierdre O'Kane) is the wife he left, and Karen and Sally (Barbara Bergin and Shirley Henderson) are Dierdre's mother and sister. There's also Lehiff (Colin Farrell), a local punk, and Detective Jerry Lynch (Colm Meaney), a perhaps overzealous police officer with a particular distaste for Lehiff. There's also a bus driver, a TV news reporter tired of doing human-interest puff pieces, and a rather nasty little kid.

One thing I did enjoy about Intermission is that, although its characters and setting are Irish and middle-class at best, it's rather un-whiny. Though a good chunk of the movie takes place in bars, the movie does not portray Eire as a war-torn island mired in poverty and populated mainly by wife-beating alcoholics and saintly women, as to many Eire-set movies seem to do. The characters are flawed, but seldom despairing, and often on the funny side.

Be nice if it were a little funnier, though. The comedy doesn't ever elicit any really big laughs, and most of the stories are small enough to not offer a whole lot of dramatic heft. Perhaps the best scene in the movie, though, is where one character describes how much she cherishes her simple, small life story. It's a brief moment without flippancy that demonstrates the worth of these middle-class stories without trying to show how clever the filmmakers are.

The performances are generally good. The cast is split about evenly between folks Americans might recognize and folks pretty much local to Eire. Oddly (or not so oddly), the guy whose had the most Hollywood success - Colin Farrell - gives perhaps the flattest performance, while one of the least well-known - Wilmot - is probablly the most likable. For the most part, these characters are folks with a quirk or two, though thankfully half the women get to be just as off-kilter as the guys, which isn't always the case.

If you see a lot of indies, you've probably seen a lot like Intermission. It's decent, has an enviable cast, and even if it doesn't break a whole lot of new ground, it does find a couple new things to do in familiar territory.
post #26 of 298
Trilogy: After The Life (Aprés la vie) -

Well, here it is, the end of Lucas Belvaux's Trilogy, an interesting experiment with genre and perception. I think this finale (in that it's the last one released in both the US and France) is the strongest part, but there's a real possibility that I would have found whichever came last strongest. Certainly, seeing this movie clears up a good deal of what annoyed me about An Amazing Couple, but does that strengthen or weaken An Amazing Couple? When a certain connection was made, I must admit that I felt like I should have learned that in that movie, not this one.

After The Life, by itself, is a melodrama of sorts. It focuses on Pascal and Agnès, a policeman and his schoolteacher wife (Agnès teaches at the same school as Céclile from An Amazing Couple and Jeanne from On The Run); their secret is that Pascal has been acquiring morphine for his wife's addiction. Now, though, his supplier has withheld the drug unless Pascal helps him find an escaped convict with a grudge. Meanwhile, Agnès's friend Cécile has asked for his help in finding out why her husband is acting peculiar. Agnès, meanwhile, is not coping with withdrawal well at all, and the strain coming from all three directions is starting to wear on Pascal.

Pascal (Gilbert Melki) is a far more sympathetic character here than he was in After The Life (he barely appeared in On The Run); it's easy to see the strain that is piled onto him from all directions. Agnès doesn't come off quite so well; she's an addict and acts as selfishly as one might expect. Their story is, at times, secondary to Pascal's investigation into the whereabouts of escaped terrorist Bruno le Roux (writer/director Belvaux), and the perhaps over-the-top final scene doesn't quite come out of left field, but certainly implies more despair than Pascal seemed capable of. In addition, if someone sees this movie before On The Run, it will seem like the last act is keyed by a huge deus ex machina.

After The Life is the fulcrum of the series. More so than either of the others, this movie is the other half of the previous films. Pascal is the man Cécile asked to look into her husband's activities in An Amazing Couple, and though he appeared to be an obsessed lunatic in that one, he has his reasons. Those reasons have to do with his investigation, which is the other half of On The Run. If you can hypothetically only see two of the movies, this is the one not to miss, as it fills in the blanks in the other two movies.

Indeed, that may be my problem with the trilogy - each is very focused on one pair of characters, to the extent that it excludes other viewpoints. I don't think there is a scene in this movie that doesn't feature either Pascal or Agnès, much as there weren't any in An Amazing Couple without Cécile or Alain, or any in On The Run without Jeanne or Bruno. This makes for a good experiment, but it means that scenes which would normally be in a movie of a specific genre don't necessarily appear in that movie. As a result, the trilogy is more than the sum of its parts, but those parts are less than they could be by themselves.

If you go for this, try to see it relatively quickly. I saw it spaced over two months, and had to work to recall some details. Here in Cambridge, The Brattle will be showing all three this Thursday (8 April 2004), and then one a week for the next three weeks.


Ted (or anybody) - have you gotten to finish the Trilogy yet? Is it better if you see them without a month between movies like I did?
post #27 of 298
Quote:
(Not to be an elitist snot, but how sad is it that the box-office thread gets more action than this?)

I have to admit that I’ve not made many posts in this thread this year—but I’m still seeing as many of these films as ever—I’ve just been a bit lazy.

I’m not surprised about the ‘box-office’ thread size—the one that really sticks out in my mind was a thread in software that discussed the color of the to-be-released extended edition of ‘The Return of the King’. Nothing really about the content—just what the outside would look like in terms of color. And why the expected choice was all wrong (or right, depending on the poster).

That puppy grew like wildfire, hitting four or so pages in a couple of days.

And to dodge the elitist snot label, I have the first two LOTR EE sets and will purchase the final one. I just can’t imagine that the possible color of something to be released so far in the future was of such passionate interest.
post #28 of 298
Thread Starter 
Alright, my six-week self-imposed hiatus from posting and watching theatrical films is over and it is now time to get serious again. (It is actually quite a refreshing experience that I go through every year).

The list of films on the first page has now been updated.

~Edwin
post #29 of 298
Bon Voyage is a farce and a caper set against the backdrop of the imminent occupation of Paris in 1940. That's a hard one to pull off - you've got to be pretty much perfect - but co-writer/director Jean-Paul Rappeneau manages it, and as a result produces one of the best pure popcorn movies I've seen since Brotherhood of the Wolf. It feels against the grain to suggest people go to a French movie for escapism, but they've gotten very good at it.

The film opens in a movie theater. The audience laughs, as a comedy of apparent genius unspools on the screen. One woman (Isabelle Adjani) is not; she is Viviane Denvers, the movie's star. She attracts the attention of Minister Jean-Étienne Beaufort (Gérard Depardieu), but also of another, who follows her home. Next, we meet Frédéric (Grégori Derangère), a young writer and old friend, whom she calls for help, though she hasn't talked with him for years. Helping her will land him in trouble, though. Two months later, as Paris is being evacuated, he and Raoul (Yvan Attal), a friend with dubious respect for the law, meet a pretty young physicist (Virginie Ledoyen) on a train south to Bordeaux, where the government has moved. Her mentor is not only a "Jew without country", but his work is something the Nazis would very much like to get their hands on. She seizes on Frédéric's friendship with Beaufort to try and arrange passage to England for her carload of people and cargo. This must be kept secret, which will be difficult, as Viviane's previous beau (Peter Coyote) is a reporter, and is still hanging close.

I've left out details, because a great deal of the fun of this movie is watching it unfold. The movie is split down the middle between comedy and adventure, and plot twists often double as jokes. The film moves quickly, but often in circles. That's okay, though, since it's a pleasant back-and-forth, and even if not every scene advances the plot, it's never boring and always enjoyable. The director makes a conscious decision to maintain a playful tone despite the setting. It's not that the villains aren't threatening, it's that the heroes are too lovable and concerned with their own issues for the pressure to really get to them. I've read a review or two that found this disrespectful, or can't even conceive of the story as a comedy, but there must have been isolated bits of absurdity amid everything during WWII; even Schindler's List has occasional comic relief.

And there are hidden depths. Viviane is comically self-centered, though it becomes less comic toward the end. Rauol displays surprising heroism despite his early apparent amorality. Beaumont's desire for peace is almost disastrous. The movie moves at the speed of farce, but it's far from an empty one.

The cast is top-notch. The make-up folks probably deserve Oscars; both Adjani and Attal are playing characters roughly half their age (48-year-old Adjani must be hiding a picture in her closet as the young starlet). Derangère spends much of the movie looks confused or surprised, but he's got good comic timing and charm. Virginie Ledoyen is luminous.

This movie was apparently submitted as France's Oscar entry for 2003; the nominating committee may have found it too light and fluffy. It's a pure bit of entertainment, with few harsh edges (its American PG-13 rating could easily be PG). Indeed, it shares a certain sensibility with movies of the thirties and forties; it's fast-paced and witty, beautiful and exciting. It's fun, pure and simple.
post #30 of 298
Bubba Hotep is one I think everyone should check out.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
This thread is locked  
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › 2004 Foreign, Alternative and Independent Films