cooperaitaliano Reviews

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Deeply Moving and excellently filmed

[9/10 · 28 December 2006]

This movie was clearly set to be highly controversial right from the start and I can fully understand why. However I went to watch it at the cinema and then saw it on DVD more recently. It is extremely well done and adheres to the Gospels, covering the crucifixion of Christ.

I am familiar with the details of what Jesus went through, along with reading from a medical perspective, the injuries that were inflicted upon Him when He was beaten and finally crucified. It is beyond comprehension to even imagine, let alone view in film, particular where other older films have given a more sanitised view. It is certainly not easy to watch, but it challenges each person who watches it. It is unlikely that anyone can be indifferent about the Passion after they have seen it.

The Devil portrayed as a female character, the demonic children, the rain drop from heaven. These were interesting elements that certainly are not shown in the Gospels, but they do not detract from the film's main purpose.

It was very brave of Mel Gibson to make such a film and certainly he has come in for enormous criticism as a result of such a film. Much has been made of the supposed anti semitism and the level of violence. Others have already responded adequately here to such criticisms and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat them. Personally, I am glad such a film was made and shown. Its subject, quality and integrity speak clearly enough. The most important thing is that it challenges people, forcing them to make a decision concerning what they believe and in what they put their faith.

A very good and challenging film.

We Were Soldiers (2002)

A good movie and a realistic one

[8/10 · 28 December 2006]

I do not particularly enjoy watching movies of this genre. I originally remember seeing We were Soldiers at the cinema and saw it last night again, this time on DVD. Firstly, the filmmakers endeavoured to be authentic in the details and the attention to detail reveals the seriousness to portray the events that occurred and reflect them with an honesty. The second is that an effort was made to show both the North Vietnamese and the US during the battle, not just from the American point of view. It did not glorify war but was sufficiently graphic to reveal that war is indeed horrifying and to dissuade those of us who may never find ourselves in such circumstances of having an illusions of it being otherwise.

Like Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan, it brings a gritty realism to film. I do not watch such films for 'entertainment'. They shock me sufficiently enough to recognise to a degree what the reality of war can be like. I say a degree, because unless any of us find ourselves physically living and experiencing such things, we will never comprehend what it is like, but in as much as is possible, I think that such films do accomplish this.

Before I saw the movie I understand that it depicted real events and having seen the documentary on the DVD, I appreciate further the enormous effort made behind the scenes in the making of this film. I think that it dealt with the battle, the issues surrounding it, the men that fought and died in a respectful and realistic manner.

Whether we agree on the larger issues of the Vietnam War, about Mel Gibson as an actor/director/person or the morality of war in general we should all be able to agree on one thing. This is that War is a horrifying fact of life in our world and that we should recognise the costs of it and respect those who sometimes find themselves fighting in it and dying in it.

Tears of the Sun (2003)

A very powerful and authentic film with a strong moral theme

[9/10 · 22 July 2005]

This film was simply incredible. I didn't see it at the cinema, which upon seeing it later on DVD release, regretting missing first time round.

It made some incredibly powerful statements and was very difficult to watch. I rarely admit to this, but I actually found parts of it so moving, that I cried! And I never cry.

The choice of Bruce Willis was a good one and he plays a deeply conflicted character, he plays him with depth. I have seen Monica Belucci in films before. She is an incredibly gifted actress and she really believed in this project. Her character comes across as having strong religious and moral convictions, prepared to die to help and protect others. This comes across in the decisions she takes and the willingness to stand strong under pressure.

Having seen the Documentary on the special features section of the DVD afterwards, I could see the incredible lengths that everyone attached to the filming went to. Each of the actors playing Seal Team members, went through some very authentic training in preparation and stayed in character outside of filming during the day. Given the commitment of all those attached to the film, I can see why the film is what it is.

The director, Antoine Fuqua, from the films I have seen in which he directed, brings a strong moral theme to his characters and the story. The whole visual manner of filming, camera angles, close ups etc adds to the intensity here.

The choice of filter during filming, that gives a subdued and darker feeling visually, was perfect. The use of Africans as extras was an interesting and a suitable choice, given their backgrounds. Many of these extras were showing genuine emotions which was captured on camera, as they relived traumatic moments in their lives when certain scenes were filmed.

On that note, one scene in particular made for very difficult viewing, but totally in context and I would expect it would provoke a strong reaction from viewers, for good reason. The actual combat scenes are kept selectively short and in context to the overall film. They are also very realistic.

The soundtrack was well suited and complimented the whole overall feel to the film. I would not say that this film was entertaining, it is very hard to watch but it is an example of good film that will challenge everyone who watches it and who has a conscience.

After seeing this film, as with Hotel Rwanda and Tears of the Sun, I am constantly reminded of our individual and collective moral responsibilities in the 'civilised Western World' when atrocities are committed. And it sits badly with my conscience that 'we' in the West do so little and so late in trying to stop such genocide from happening. I for one think that every adult should see it.

King Arthur (2004)

A unique and clever contribution to this genre

[9/10 · 10 May 2005]

I liked this film a lot. I originally saw it at the cinema, but only really appreciated it when I saw it on DVD. Which is strange, it is usually the other way round with films as far as I am concerned. To start with, it is a novel approach to the King Arthur genre. Setting the film, probably around 900 to 1000 years earlier, for a start, during the era when Rome was supposed to be in decline and shrinking back from its empires. I believe that there are a number of historic inaccuracies, including the fact that I believe Baden Hill, where the battle is set is much further south and Hadrian's wall is in the North. The large scale 'invasion' of Saxons didn't happen in the manner reflected, it was a more gradual process. Also, like with 'Braveheart', the concept of 'freedom' is much more recent one. People of this eras in history prior to the feudal system were used to living in subjection to a ruling power. However to be fair, the concept of freedom came from Greek philosophy which predates the era in this film.

The decision to reflect the knights as what one critic put 'Russian mercenaries', was a novel choice and gave the film a further uniqueness in this genre. Arthur as Roman officer (half Roman/half Briton) is also interesting.

That said, the weapons, armour and battle tactics are authentic for Woads, Romans and Saxons. This aspect of the film is to be credited. The location is also good. Using Ireland as a location was a clever idea and reflects a mainland England that was once more rural than now. The training that the actors and extras were put through is admirable. The extra special features on the DVD gives you an appreciation of what lengths were reached to make the resultant film. The choice of cast is also a good one. None of them are what most people think of as major stars in the Hollywood sense. A wise idea, not just from a budget aspect, but also because it would have been a distraction. The use of colours, weather and landscape set the mood for certain scenes. The action scenes were particularly good and very realistic. There was no sense of making sanitising the film in that sense. It reflects a stark reality, also in the way the actors behave, their clothes and general appearance.

One aspect was the reflection of the Christian faith. And as a Christian myself, I found this interesting. Those who are supposedly Christian are shown is an unsympathetic characters, some are shown as persecutors. This is an interesting thing as throughout history, the Christian church has become institutionalised and run by power hungry people who twisted the truth for their own ends and instituted Biblical heresies. In this respect, Arthur as a Christian is the only one shown in a favourable light. It is interesting that the Director and Producer should choose to make this distinction. In fact, Arthur is shown as a Christian with a practical faith prepared to fight injustice and make sacrifices. For this, the film makers deserve to been given credit.

The musical score is very appropriate and compliments the film very well. I noticed the music more than in other films, because it stood out and was distinctive.

The actual plot is a clever one, weaving the storyline between Arthur and His Knights, the Romans, Woads and the invading Saxons. This keeps the suspense and film builds a pace up to a finale that is a little predictable.

The Saxons are brooding menace as the main enemies, Stellan Skarsgård and Til Schweiger play their parts up very well and looked very authentic. Ioan Gruffudd looks arrogant, ruthless and cynical. He makes a novel Lancelot. Whilst Clive Owen, an unusual choice for Arthur fills the part well. He sometimes appears a little wooden, but overall, plays the part better than some of the Hollywood set would. Physically, he looks the part well. He plays up the virtuous and noble in contrast to villains of the piece. Keira Knightley is also a good choice. She brings an interesting twist to the portrayal Guinevere. One that I wouldn't have expected. She compliments the film well. Her Guinevere works well with Ioan Gruffudd's Lancelot, though I think that given time, this subplot could have been developed further.

Each of the knights are portrayed as having a different fighting style and this adds an additional note to the film. Ray Winstone plays up very much the cockney as almost a 'bar room brawler'. Ray Stevenson's Dagonet, was apart from Arthur, the most sympathetic character in the film. More could have been made of his character.

Overall, it is a novel entry to the Arthur legend genre and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I think that it almost makes an epic piece. Certainly it is better than some of its contemporaries. Worth watching. Just keep an open mind.

Arsène Lupin (2004)

An excellent all round film

[8/10 · 6 April 2005]

This is really an amazing film. I watched it only in French with French subtitles as my friends whom i am staying with are French speaking. Like the majority of European films i have seen, it is superior to what has and is coming out of Hollywood. From the start, it is gripping. The audience are taken on a ride of suspense to the last moment. Twists and turns in the plot, unpredictable things happen. The casting is good. I am familiar with Kristen Scott Thomas. I knew she spoke French as i understand she lives there, but her French accent is quite amazing. I could here English accent on some occasions, but it was so subtle that it was hardly noticeable. Her casting in this film was so contrary to type that i had seen in other films. It was so refreshing. The action scenes were again amazing. So well choreographed and still almost believable and realistic. The original idea originates from an animated book, which makes it ambiguous and sets it apart from a lot of other films in the similar genre. Films based upon Comic books are being done to death in Hollywood, and i am trying to avoid them. I am glad that this was made by European Film makers, not Americans, otherwise it would have been almost painful to watch. The romance that develops is another interesting addition to the plot. All of these little things, develop well and come together. The choice of location was again just perfect for the scenes and the setting of the film in the mid to late 19th Century made it quite unique. A very clever film, which is definitely worth watching.

Secret Agents (2004)

The potential to be a good film, but a disappointment

[5/10 · 6 April 2005]

I watched this film entirely in French without subtitles with some french speaking friends, as someone with reasonable French skills and still learning, i paid more attention to it than i would with an American film. I understood what was happening. From the start it had the potential to be a good film. Good locations, reasonable camera work, a good cast and some believable action sequences. A proportion of the film was located in Geneva, where i am staying at the moment, which i recognised, so effort was taken to be on location, unlike some films which are filmed in Prague and then set in Paris, Zurich or other European cities. I liked much of the story, the way that the characters interacted with each other and how the plot developed. Nevertheless, i found it disappointing and thought that more effort could have been made to develop the plot and perhaps develop the characters better. The actual action scenes were more brief than i had expected, which was another disappointment, but they were more believable that many in this specific genre. Having watched a number of French and other European films, i believe that they do have an edge over what Hollywood is producing. This film i think would not, i am sad to say. Not i think worth buying. If you rent it on DVD, then rent something else as well at the same time. That would be my advice.