dickback Reviews

Love in the Afternoon (1972)

Avalanche

[9/10 · 28 January 2008]

Like all Rohmer's films I've seen, this one is "just" a story, told as by a storyteller, without any of the visual cinematic items that usually make of a film a "movie". The only "special effects", here, are visual, and consist of beautiful women...

So, it's the story that I will comment on.

For me, the story is the genesis of an avalanche, the explanation of how you can get from A to Z, where Z is so far away from A that you really need to pass through all the intermediate steps: an avalanche that gains, slowly, speed, as you move gently from A to B, C, D, and than, a little more unexpectedly, to E, F, G. down to all the furthest and most extreme letters of the alphabet.

No, not the Z, though.

It is extremely difficult to imagine how, or why, a happy man, with one child and another coming, and a beautiful wife, would want to make pregnant an old friend of his, who has no intention - or so she says - of having a lasting or meaningful relationship with him.

Here the intermediate letters of the alphabet consist of the reappearance of an old friend, of a mild crisis of a man who was accustomed and able to choose beautiful women and that now "only" has his wife, of a sort of boredom that appears in his empty (although business-filled) afternoons, and of course of the challenge that all this comports. Step by step, although improbable, he is taken almost down to the most extreme consequence, until he remembers of being a proud father, in the most beautifully (and perhaps only) cinematic act of the film, while he pulls out his jumper, and by doing so he remembers of a playful day at home. Yes, home, that sacred thing that he manages, finally, to save and preserve from that avalanche that ran over his afternoons.

Marco

Suspiria (1977)

Really funny! :-)

[5/10 · 5 March 2006]

I am really in trouble commenting this film. If I had to judge it as a horror film, I'd give it a 2 or 3. But I watched it with a nice group of friends, lightheartedly, and we had lots of laughs together, since this old film appears old (exactly) and clumsy. Much more fun than any poor "comedy." And as a comedy I'd rate it 8. So, 5 out of 10 is my rating ;-)

My main wonder was trying to understand how Dario Argento is considered TODAY a master of the horror, when YESTERDAY he made such funny films. Amateurish in the best sense, a ridiculous acting, and yet full of good efforts...

Munich (2005)

Wow!

[9/10 · 23 January 2006]

I've just proudly seen Munich in a preview in Southampton. I must comment a little on it, and for once I'd like to avoid considering the story: when you start talking of terrorism, and Israel, and Palestine, well, you may never end it. So I won't start.

But... the film! What a film. I'll be afraid, in the next few days, of watching any other film, especially my favourite ones, because they cannot help but seem minor in some extent. What a technique! I'd never seen before so great realism in the acting and in the direction. You may love such a realism, independently of the story which lies behind, so beautifully realised it is.

I loved: 1 ) one of the first scenes, with the television showing the original live footage of a terrorist going out on the balcony of the hotel, shot from inside that same room; 2 ) the photography (each frame could be enlarged and watched as is); 3 ) the photography of the mother smiling and hugging her little daughter, against a beautiful bright light; 4 ) the final lovemaking scene, intermixed with the dreadful memories; 5 ) the tours over all the Europe of the 70s, perfectly recreated; 6 ) the very last scene with the Twin Towers, full of obvious meaning.

Great.

Match Point (2005)

Crimes and misdemeanours, part II

[9/10 · 20 January 2006]

What if I'd praise this film - which is about a traditional love triangle (a handsome man, a beautiful and passionate young woman, a sweet and care-taking less-young wife) - as original? Would anybody believe me? And what if I added that it explores the tormented doubts of a husband, facing a crisis fought by an affectionate wife giving him a "choose a life"-Trainspotting-lifestyle on one side, and a lust affair, adding - again - a praise for its originality? Would anyone believe me? How many hundreds of films like this have already been written? Well, the first part of the film is all about this and, in fact, is NOT original at all. It is simply well filmed and directed and acted. And that's the strength of the story: the non-originality, the already-seen, which compel the spectator to wait for an equally non-original and obviously already seen twisted plot made up of divorces, break ups, etc etc. BUT the spectator is going to find something very different from the expected, and is thus trapped by an anguish which I'd never expect from a Woody Allen's film. He caught me by surprise.

It's a film terrifically different from all his other works. A murder! Oh well, yes, there was "Manhattan murder mystery", but it was clearly a funny comedy. And there was "Crimes and misdemeanours", as tragic as it could be, which however threw a totally different ethical responsibility upon the author of the crime. Match Point is a film about luck, which wickedly determines whether or not a homicide shall be punished. A question of fraction of millimetres, in a wedding ring which hits a railing as well as a tennis ball hits the net.

Technically, I had the impression that Woody took longer than usual in the "introduction" of the film, for the presentation of the characters. In the same way and time, I had the impression that he needed to "introduce" an unusually new character for him: London.

As for the comic side, I'll cite Trainspotting again, because Woody chose its Ewen Bremner to give us one of the few tiny (and great) spots of comicity in Match Point.

Enjoy the film - and good luck!

The Constant Gardener (2005)

It's a love story!

[8/10 · 23 November 2005]

It would be unfair to say that this film is just a love story, but it would be false to state it is anything else but a love story --- a great, one of the greatest, love stories in the cinema.

Yes, another theme is present: Africa. But, although the film is dedicated to "those who worked and died in Africa giving a damn", and although the theme is, alas!, realistic, the theme is above all a fiction, from a novel, and regarding it as more than that would be a mistake.

A love story, I said: of course, the cinema accustomed us to great and passionate love stories, mostly trivial and girlish, a few of them wonderful. But where this film triumphs is in showing us how Love can only grow when two people end up knowing each other: no, not knowing the favourite colour, or the sexual fantasies in bed; but knowing the thoughts and the passions of the beloved one to such an extent to love each other DESPITE these opinions at the beginning, and BECAUSE of them eventually, even when they are originally so contrasting and opposite. A few miracles occur in everyday life and so sometimes we watch loves who continue existing after the beloved's death; this film presents us with an even bigger miracle, astounding to seem almost incomprehensible, that of a love that grows and reaches the perfection AFTER the death.

It's also the film of the similarities and of the differences: Ralph Fiennes so similar (too much?) to the English Patient (I cannot imagine him without an exotic place like… Africa), and of course his touch of German reminded me of his role in the Schindler's list; Alberto Iglesias' score so different from those we were used to with Almodovar; the director so different (in themes at least, thanks God!) from his City of God.

Oh, by the way, I like the film.

Boredom (1998)

Relationship without rapport

[8/10 · 30 September 2005]

Every adult human being has proved, at least once in his life, the tormented agony of being in love and not corresponded. Obviously, what usually happens (and we wouldn't need a film to understand this) is sheer sufferance because we want he/she be our lover, girlfriend/boyfriend or, in other words, we want a relationship. But no correspondence means that this relationship is negated, rejected, refused, delayed --- and this is painful, of course, and leads to desperation, or to desperate actions to conquer her/him.

In this film, we see that this kind of ache can have a different form: yes we "have" her/him, yes she/he is with us, we have a relationship, we are together --- or at least so it looks. But, yet, we feel we do not really have her/him. She's with us, but absent; she makes love, but doesn't know our name. And then? Pain, again, and even worse, because we cannot know how to react. What would we like to do? Make love to her? Already do. Be with her? All the time. Love her? Be loved back? So she says. What we don't have her. We cannot do anything but to go crazy.

This is the theme of this film, quite well depicted.

Pride & Prejudice (2005)

It's a caricature!

[5/10 · 28 September 2005]

I understand that not every single film is intended to be a breakthrough in the history of the cinema. and that some films just want to entertain; I also appreciate that "Pride and Prejudice" is probably one of the latter. Nevertheless, if I have to judge a film, I'll judge it as a film, exactly, and not as a fun fair.

And, as a film, I reckon it shouldn't have been done. The story had to remain on the paper, written, because (besides nice postcard-wise sceneries and catwalk-wise women) nothing wanted to be shown, to take off from the paper and land on the big screen.

The film is not just intended to entertain (only): it also seems intended for people a little stupid, who need the things be emphasised in order to be understood. All the characters are caricatures: Mr Darcy was a "do not dare to speak, do not laugh, look serious and dumb"; Elizabeth Bennet was witty and clever and not a single line was down to the earth; the nice mother didn't just wish her daughters be married, but DESPERATELY needed them so; and so on.

And, yes, the film does achieve its (only) goal: making people weep... but only at the very end.

This film reminded me of "Little women" (which wan not spoilt by all this artificial comicality) and Keira Knightley reminded me of Winona Ryder and, no, I don't think they are at the same level, nor that Keira has Winona's talent.

For me, 5 out of 10. The only nice thing at the screening was the company I was with. ;-) Luckily I can't say I'd been disappointed, because I already had a (bad) prejudice of the film before the screening and, of course, I'm too proud to admit I was wrong. ;-)

Marco

The Aviator (2004)

look at the Oscars...

[7/10 · 11 September 2005]

The best summary for this film can be provided by the prizes it won: lots and lots (editing, cinematography, costumes, even acting), but not for the best picture. Really, looking at it I continuously had the impression of grandeur, greatness, and that the director, the actors, the crew had made a terrific work... but for what? To narrate the life of a movie producer, billionaire, hypochondriac aviator, whom we have no reason to like. Surely Di Caprio is a great guy, and mesmerising probably for many, and so we end up liking the figure of Howard Hughes; but I think that the emptiness of this character *is* Di Caprio's ability to make us like him.

Perhaps this film is just like Hughes' life: a great effort, put down with enormous ability, to build nothing. So, 7 out of 10 for me.

A little curiosity: it seems to me the second role for Di Caprio dealing with Pan Am, the first being "Catch me if you can".

Scarface (1983)

Er... soundtrack...?

[7/10 · 26 August 2005]

I don't have much to comment about this film, but I'd like to say a word on the soundtrack. Be it nice or not, it's the most inappropriate music ever written for a film, in my opinion. It almost made feel its intrusive presence and, while I usually like to watch a movie in its entirety --- end titles included --- I really felt like cutting it at the last scene, because of the soundtrack. What have a I seen --- I thought --- a rock musical or what?

I like considering the music as an integral part of a film, so I cannot consider this film worth more than 7 out of 10.

Also, I hate watching dubbed movies, and although I saw Scarface in its original English, I couldn't help noting the absence of the original Spanish language!

Contempt (1963)

A good film? A bad film? Really can't tell!

[8/10 · 5 August 2005]

If I think of "Le mepris", I cannot think of even a simple judgement of mine (I like it, I dislike it, I loathe it?). I simply cannot set my mind on this.

Partly, I reckon, it's because I can't think of the film as a whole. All the scenes, the dialogues, the issues around the film making of The Odissey, seem to be boring and amateurish. I really could do without. But, on the other hand, the rapport between the husband and the wife are enchantingly involving, realistic, and dramatically real.

Partly, too, it's because She is wonderful. And I just cannot (cannot!) say it's a lousy movie because, after all, she's in it. I mean: what's the use of a plot, a characters development, if she is in the film? And finally, because I needed the subtitles to watch it and, whilst this is not usually a problem, in this case I simply couldn't keep my eyes on the titles ;-) So, I rate this film 8 out of 10, but honestly could be much less, or much more. I really can't say.

The Descent (2005)

Not just bad. Ugly.

[3/10 · 5 August 2005]

I don't personally know the authors of this movie, but they couldn't be my friends, not anymore, not from tonight on, since I've seen this horrifically bad horror. No friends, because I just feel they wanted to tease the spectator, take the mickey out of them.

Simply not fair. Yes, of course he who goes see an horror film wishes to be scared; sure as hell he wants. But politely. Intelligently. You simply cannot ground all the horror in scenes with sudden screams and thunders, sudden visions, sudden whatever. I can as well come to you and shout in your ear and probably scare you, if you aren't thinking of me.

And this film doesn't just (try to) scare in a stupid way; it's also stupid, too. In the plot, in the characters, in the occasions created to introduce the events. I can understand that some movies just need a very basic plot to introduce amazing and entertaining SFX scenes... but besides some little pale scary monsters, there really was nothing amazingly beautiful to see or follow.

"It's beautiful", says one of the cave divers as soon as she reaches the bottom. Perhaps the scene was really beautiful (an hidden cave with a rich vegetation), but not even once the director chose to show us some of that beauty.

Deprived of any beauty, this movie, very bad, is just and plain an ugly movie, which surely shocks you, but not more than a long series of loud bangs and explosions you could hear in your room.

Young Adam (2003)

A different Ewan McGregor

[8/10 · 24 July 2005]

It's the film with the most perfect match with the soundtrack I've seen. One of the few films I couldn't imagine without, indeed. The music is not just beautiful, but also as strident as the pictures and the streams of Joe's thoughts. One of the song titles ("mnemonic discordance") gives the idea perfectly.

You can't say it's a beautiful movie just because the story is not beautiful, and though it's beautifully acted and written.

The story wouldn't need an exact time frame (it's not science fiction, it's not history, it's not a costume movie), but of course it needs to happen some time, and probably having put this enough back in time (clearly before the death penalty by hanging was discontinued in UK, in 1964) just adds some pathos.

One curiosity: it's the second time I see Ewan McGregor in front of an old typewriter. The first was in Moulin Rouge.

Bombón: El Perro (2004)

Too nice!

[7/10 · 11 July 2005]

This film is too nice. It's about a dog ("El perro" is just "The dog"), as the film poster clearly shows, with Bonbon the dog's head filling all the frame, and the main character's head only in the background. And then it's about the dog owner. Secondarily.

Above all, it's about a simple life. If you just do the good to the others, give your time when you've got plenty of it, help your next even when you'd be in the first place the one who needs help more, plan your future as it was your present, and enjoy what you get... well, if all that is true, a dog can really help your life. Especially when it is a gift.

Marco

War of the Worlds (2005)

An eye candy visual show

[8/10 · 2 July 2005]

I usually don't like action-packed movies, SFX, gun fights, wars, explosions, 5.1, etc etc. So, I usually don't see them.

Yet, my wait for this WoW was... spasmodic, I'd say. And it is curious (a coincidence?) that the last film I went see BECAUSE OF the special effects was Independence Day.

I'd heard that the point of view in the film was that of Ray. But I was impressed the same NOT watching scenes that I could expect, such as a President of the United States' speech, or the plan for a military attack... All the military I could see was that passing in front of the terrified eyes of Ray's.

I'd also read that our Ray is a sort of anti-hero. Bully, not kind... Yet, again, the perhaps biggest surprise for me came seeing that his son, not himself, started, on the ship, to help the passengers to come on board.

I wanted to see this film for the special effects, I said, and for the special effects I'm glad I've seen it. The story is probably nothing special, and if you know the book, of course you also know the ending.

But the special effects were amazingly BEAUTIFUL. The same kind of astonishing beauty, I'd say, that keeps you eyes wide open in front of a Gothic cathedral, or a sunset on the sea. The tripods were on the screen, and it was as they were in front of my very eyes: there, living, with their amazing technology and splendour.

An eye candy visual show.

Batman Begins (2005)

No news, bad news

[7/10 · 27 June 2005]

No, we're not in the ballpark...

I went to the cinema to see Batman for a break. Although the cinema I like most is that which makes you think, today I did NOT want to think.

But... but! The fights were all close-ups. No full-body ones. Much better, for this, The Last Samurai; or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; and so on.

The car races were - again - close-ups of tyres burning in front of you, of cars speeding so close that you can't even admire them. For this, I'm sure that Taxi is much better.

The gadgets (the car, the little bombs, the other stuff) were not impressive. For this, I'm sure that any James Bond movie is better.

The filling love story was superficial and not interesting. I'm sure you'll agree the one in Spiderman is better.

The idea of the guru who teaches the disciple is not new. Go and get The Matrix of even Highlander for that.

So...? Why this movie? 6 out of 10 for me.

A Very Long Engagement (2004)

Beautiful and...empty

[7/10 · 10 May 2005]

I reckon that what I'm going to say about "Un long dimanche..." might as well say for the other Jeunet's "minor" film: "Delicatessen".

And, well, if I say "minor", it's intended that I've a "major" in mind, and that is obviously "Amelie".

Well: it is beautifully craft, visually stunning, and empty... if I had to use three words.

Let me expand on that, though.

While watching the movie, I was almost annoyed by... the actors, the voices, what they said. It was so interesting to follow the camera movements, the framing, the colours, the scenes, that the actors were, somehow, overabundant, and distracting me from the visual plot.

The best scene was for me the one beginning with a view of Paris, then coming down to the sign of a sleuth office, and then panning inside the office itself. Stunning.

It was one of the few times that when I see a movie, I could easily separate what was done by the director, what by the actors, what by the screenwriter...

I found the story meaningless and messy, just a pretext to carry on and glue together a series of beautiful single scenes that could have as well been many award-winning short movies... without sound. And, yes, some lines from the dialogue are pure poetry, but again they looked to me as not belonging to that story, that plot. Those lines are like fresh raindrops fallen from the sky in a desert...

So, at the end of the movie, I felt enchanted and empty at the same time, and maybe a little seasick for the always present sepia.

And, yes, I think that "Delicatessen" and "Un long dimanche" lump together because they are both visually stunning, but empty at the same time. On the other hand, I found "Amelie" successful on both sides, with a lovely frame and a lovely picture, the story, too.

So, I rate this film and Delicatessen both 7 out of 10, while for me Amelie was 9.

Bullet Boy (2004)

Real doesn't mean good

[3/10 · 30 April 2005]

It's a bad, very bad movie.

Well, for people a real realistic movie is a good thing. For me it is not. Life is also predictable, bad, nasty, trivial, senseless, sometimes. Maybe that's the reason for people say that this film is real.

Too many common places: you're black, you're a criminal, you're doomed and cursed, whatever you do you'll end up by shooting or being shot by someone; don't let the kids play with the weapons, it could be dangerous; and then there are those who go to the church, and then they are good, very good...

Before this one, I hadn't seen such a bad movie. That's perhaps the reason for I never noticed how important the photography itself is important in a movie. In this one, every scene shot in daytime, outdoor, is clearly and annoyingly blue. They didn't even care to correct the colour balance. Oh! I've "rated" more than 300 movies in this database so far, and this (3/10) is my lowest ever.

Boys Don't Cry (1999)

A hint of poetry

[7/10 · 12 April 2005]

To be perfectly honest, I don't like thrillers, murder stories, violent films.

So, if that was all, I would not like "Boys don't cry".

But luckily that's not all the story. Even the slightest touch of poetry can save the world... and a movie, too.

In this case, I found it here two places.

Firstly, in the sky and the clouds. They are not a character in the story, and though the director indulges on them from time to time, with beautiful shots. Maybe, to remember us that what makes you go on, and on, among troubles, and sadness, and hatred, is something that we can only find looking at everyday's life from another point of view --- a little higher.

Secondly, in Lana sleeping, serene as never before in her life, on Brandon's dead body. Simulating, pretending: that that body was still alive, though it was not. Just as before, simulating that that body, that female body, was not.

As if sometimes happiness could only be achieved pretending.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

Genius and inventiveness, but also a great waste of talent

[7/10 · 20 March 2005]

I think that Charlie Kaufman is going to be my favourite screenwriter. I came to "Being JM" after "Eternal sunshine of a spotless mind" and again found with pleasure craziness and inventiveness in great abundance.

Being JM won the Saturn Award for the Best Fantasy Film from the Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, whereas Eternal Sunshine was nominated by the same for the best Science Fiction Film. Very well, because this means there is coherence and a kind of signature from an author.

Said that I loved the genius spread all around the film, I must also say that I'd have been happier if such a brilliant idea of the vessel had been used to develop something more than just a "comedy":

John Malkovich: You see, Maxine, it isn't just playing with dolls.

Maxine: You're right, my darling, it's so much more. It's playing with people!

I mean: from these very lines we can appreciate how differently and dramatically the film could evolve. In a sense, although as I said I enjoyed the movie, I also had the impression of a big waste of talent. In Eternal Sunshine such a talent was used to develop a wonderful love story, and this is why I think that Kaufman has really grown a lot after Being JM.

The Terror (1963)

Just because there's Jack Nicholson...

[5/10 · 20 March 2005]

I must admit that the very first scene seemed to me the trailer of the parody of an old horror movie. With great disappointment, it was not but the real beginning of this film.

The image quality of the DVD I've got is very poor, but I'm afraid that this reflects the quality of the original. It is impossible to me not to compare the quality (of the picture and of the film overall) to Hitchcok's "The birds": they are from the same year, in both there is a bird attack, and both can be easily defined "horror movies". In "The terror" there is so much ingenuousness that you could think due to its age, and yet "The birds" (OK, I know I didn't choose any movie, but a masterpiece indeed) looks so modern...

The music: oh, so annoying! Lots of times I wandered on the DVD remote controller looking for a "mute music" button...

I think that what made me go ahead and finish the movie was just that I would be able to say "I saw it!" :-) The cast entry in the IMDb: "Boris Karloff ... Baron Victor Frederick Von Leppe a.k.a. Eric", I think is a very big spoiler that should be avoided. I think that who watches the movie should not know in advance that Eric is indeed the Baron.

Of course Jack Nicholson acts well (although there is not much to act here), and the plot has some interesting points. 5 out of 10 is my rating!

Queen Margot (1994)

Confused and over acted

[6/10 · 19 March 2005]

I had a big delusion from this film. I thought that the story was rich enough to make an interesting film, and that the presence of Adjani and Auteuil was enough for that. Yet, I didn't like the acting. And for the story, well, I understand that history is not simple, but I think you must simplify it if you want to make a film out of it. Too many characters, and the short textual introduction at the beginning cannot be enough to enable the average viewer to follow the plot. They are so many that it is impossible to provide adequate background so that to characterise the characters is impossible. So, ruled out a sort of psychological drama, only an action-like fight-and-blood option is left, and though, to make this work, you should at least be able to group the characters in good ones and bad ones! But this is hard too, and so at the end you just happen to side with Margot, and just because she's beautiful.

Not enough for a good film, I'm afraid.

I noticed that the trailing scene with Margot begging the king to save his loved who is going to be executed has been cited in Braveheart quite clearly, which is also the first movie that pops out in my mind for a comparison. And yet, whilst I rate Braveheart with 9, I cannot think to anything else than 6 for La reine Margot.

Burnt by the Sun (1994)

What a nice boredom!

[8/10 · 16 March 2005]

I was anticipated that the film would be "boring" at the beginning. Well, that was true, and though I think it was the first time that boredom was functional - useful - to the film.

We knew, even before seeing the story, that those Stalin's years were all but tranquil and "boring". Thus, who sees the film is maybe surprised to look at smiling faces, funny people, even tanks which stop in front of peasants. And of course a seren family, with a husband who loves his wife, and a lovely daughter who loves them and is loved back, is something "boring" - certainly not to be told a drama about.

But this boredom, I said, is functional. Because, as the story goes on, we discover that what maybe seemed true love was born by a deceit; that old friends only come back to have revenge; that respected generals cherished by people can be tyrants; and so on. And yes, thanks to this initial "boredom", Nikita Mikhalkov is able to catch us by surprise, and showing us that what in those seemed to be normal, probably was not.

And maybe the biggest surprise comes from finding out that in this story "it's all about love"; that even the most politically intrigued plots are pushed forward by the simplest and oldest of all the reasons: love.

Donnie Darko (2001)

Never trust a "cult movie" which is younger than you,,,

[6/10 · 13 March 2005]

One problem of this film is that the main character, Donnie Darko, is an anti-hero, someone not to be proud of - although I guess that his rebellious behaviour can somehow be appreciated by teenagers. It is a problem, because to make you interested in the stupid things he does, there should be something - a motivation. And when other more deprecable characters come into the picture (as the fear-love teacher), and you are supposed to side against her, it's not that easy, because in order to do that you should side with Donnie Darko.

Another problem is that the film - and I don't know why - has become a "cult". OK, time travel is a fascinating thing, but this is definitely not the first movie about that (and, I'd say, not the best). And because it is a cult, your expectations are high - higher than due, and so the absolute normality and averageness of this film pops out evidently.

And maybe the biggest problem is that part of the (little) beauty of the film is outside of it, actually: in the discussions, interpretations, "parallel worlds" that live within the fans.

It is good of course if a film sparkles ideas and discussions, but first of all it should be good itself. And I'm afraid I've seen too many stupid and boring scenes, that yes, they can look less silly "a posteriori", but a film must be a pleasure to enjoy "real time" too.

The 15 BBFC classification reads "Contains...psychological horror". Horror??? Psychological??? Hey, when I see a horror movie I get scared (yes, indeed), not bored. All I see here is laughable. And, among the other things out of place, the politics deserve a special mention: it went too far if its purpose was just to frame temporally the film (and what for?).

When the end came, well, I was still begging the film not to end, but to start! The final was interesting, and the ending scene of great beauty (thumb up for the song "Mad world"), but in my opinion that was the only good part of all the movie. A whole movie should not rely uniquely on one scene.

Probably, if this had been a short film, fifteen minutes say, it would have been a great short film.

By the way, I saw the director's cut.

Risky Business (1983)

Best "value for money" :-)

[7/10 · 12 March 2005]

(Never, ever attempt to watch "Risky Business" right after "Minority Report"! Well, I did that, and it's really weird seeing two Tom Cruise's so close, so different...)

Of course this movie cannot deserve an excellency rating, fairly enough. And though, I think that if we kind of "value for money" rate it, where what you get are the smiles, the laughs, the nostalgic dreams; and what you pay is the plot, the synopsis, really, really trivial, well, then this movie would be one of the best ever!

Maybe the movie today is more worth than it was at its time, because watching it we also plunge into part of the fashion, music, cars of those years. And this is a plus.

Dekalog: Dekalog, cztery (1989) Season 1, Episode 4

"It's all about love"

[8/10 · 12 March 2005]

I borrowed the title of another movie to describe this 4 :-)

In the English language, everything is "love". You can love a song, a pizza, you can love your friends and you can love your parents too (in other languages, often different words are used for such different meanings).

And this film explains very well the difference between the love for your father and the love for your boyfriend. It explains it by showing that sometimes they can be all the way the same thing, for the very simple reason that they can be the very same person - and you don't know that.

At the end, I reckon that this film is not about the love, or the respect, you ought for your parents - there are neither the father nor the mother of this young woman - and so I'd say the film is "off topic". But it is a wonderful off topic, that exists only because we know that the 4th commandment is "to honour the father and the mother", and we know the title. I'd say that the title itself if a character of the film: half of the beauty of the story lies outside of the film: it is in the title, and in what you usually associate with it. And then, you see the film and see the contrast as well.

What happens, then, if the love for your father has been mistakenly addressed to the "wrong" person? To a man, a simple man? As usual, the Decalog never gives an answer pretending it's the only and right answer.

One thing, one simple thing (he is not her father) can start a whole process of rethinking her whole life, her past. Everything is seen from a different point of view, which is like an earthquake I'd really never want to experience. Maybe a pale comparison can be made when you find out that your girlfriend has and had had another story, unexpected, another love, and you think back to those moment you spent with her: she was lying, she was thinking to him, not to me...

Wow. A single moment in your present drastically changes your past! And your future, of course... unless you try to forget, to delete that single moment...

My feeling is that the plot, the underlying idea, is very actual, and a Hollywood remake is not so unlikely.

The film is also full of magical moments, that live their own life, independently from the story.

Yes, it's a film you should see :-)