Patuquitos Reviews

Swordfish (2001)

Godawful ridiculous no-brain movie

[1/10 · 6 August 2006]

My head is still shaking in disbelief after knowing this movie has a rating higher than 4 here in IMDb. I'll take some time to get over that before I start writing my review.

[...]

Well, if you're into meaningless and completely made-up computer technical babble, this movie is a gem. With terms like "worm", "hydra", "512 bit encryption" and "DS3" used at random, you can't go wrong. If you take into account the countless times when hacking is portrayed as typing furiously in front of a flat screen filled with ad hoc graphics and perennial connection to any computer in the world, we're talking Oscar material here. From a wider point of view, this flick wallows in the vice of technology aesthetics. Well, I mean what some Hollywood mentally handicapped men understand as technology aesthetics.

If you don't enjoy technical crap, you can try it with lame characters and dialog ("I'm not here to suck your d**k", anyone?). John Travolta's character, aside from dressing like s***, is unbelievable, awfully portrayed and speaks an unintelligible ideology. Halle Berry is there to show us her breasts and nothing else. Hugh Jackman is a hacker (enough said) that seems to be made of wood, except for the "hack-it-right-now-or-someone-dies" sequences, in which he spills his guts out in embarrassing overacting. All in all, this is one of the most cringe-inducing movies I've seen in my life. Every cliché is there (why the f**k every loner/loser lives in a caravan?). Every script line is either wannabe-cool or plain stupid.

To add some aggravation, the movie opens with a John Travolta's monologue in which he digresses about the unrealistic nature of Hollywood films. Yes, some screenwriter lost a marvelous opportunity of shutting the f**k up.

I use to write longer reviews, but anybody with a brain will probably know what I'm talking about in the paragraphs above, and that there's not much left to say.

A future embarrassment for everyone involved. Granted.

RATING: 1.1

The Descent (2005)

Maybe the only good horror movie since 2000...

[8/10 · 9 October 2005]

...so that's enough for a little praise, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, this movie is not a masterpiece, but I'm pretty sure it'll be a tiny little classic 10 years after now. It has a lot of the elements that make a movie memorable, and a couple of shots that stick with you. The reason it is a step above the awfully mediocre horror films from the last years is the same reason that "Dog Soldiers" (Neil Marshall previous film) got a similar response: both films have a heart. They're not products ready for consumption. They are the vision of somebody. Let me explain its virtues and its failures.

For the first hour, the film is sort of atmospheric. it's cleverly claustrophobic, dark when needed and has the edge few other horror movies have. To cut it short: it is what "The Blair Witch Project" should have been instead 3 guys arguing in the daylight for 70 minutes. The characters, despite some corny dialogue and with the exception of the angry-rebel-youngster-by-the-numbers, and maybe Juno, are not paper thin. Nobody is free of guilt and nobody is a straight bad girl. They are human. Maybe they share teen conversations, but they're human. Maybe their choices are dumb at times, but most of them are even credible.

So this is how the movie goes in its first 60 minutes: well developed tension, some reasonable gore, and a feeling of abandon and menace. Then its little failures flourish: cannibals are shown too clearly, making their sight a lot less shocking, even familiar, towards the end of the film; action kills the atmosphere (just re-watch "Alien" in order to learn how not to do that) and the movie takes a turn to blood & action which would have nearly spoiled the movie hadn't it been for the highly stylistic shots and the gorgeous use of color. Both aspects do not only redeem the film last 30 minutes, but add something different. Despite being cinematically less compelling than the first hour.

One more thing. 'The Descent' has the highest jump-in-the-seat rating in recent memory.

RATING: 8.2

High Fidelity (2000)

Now this is what I would call a musical

[9/10 · 9 October 2005]

It was about time someone put together a film with a genuine appreciation for the love/music connection that didn't end up being something along the lines of "Singles". For music lovers who tend to put a soundtrack to everything they experience, this film is a blessing. I am one of those people, so I understand that if you're not, you'll get less from the movie. All I'm trying to say is that this is one of those films that demand you to root for the characters and the events if you want to enjoy it. The deeper the affection you feel for them, the more you'll enjoy the movie.

Personally, I think John Cusack's character is one of the most engaging in the comedy genre of the last decade. This is the kind of character I like: simple and complex at the same time, just like in real life. Somebody likable but annoying at times. Again, I feel a deep personal connection with him, and I understand him every time, even when he acts stupid.

But he is not alone. The rest of the cast is terrific.

Anyway, don't forget this is a comedy. You will laugh your ass off with some situations and dialogue. Hilarity comes from many different sources: you've got black humor, silly humor, complex (people would say "intelligent", but I despise the term) humor... Special mention goes to Tim Robbins paying a visit to the record store. Genius.

On a very personal level, I think there's a magnificent scene that sums up the heart and the brains of this movie. John Cusack talks to the camera (something that happens often) instructing the audience on how to make a perfect music compilation for your loved one. If you like that concept, the movie will grab you and won't let you go. If that idea doesn't sound seductive to you, you might just have a good time. If you are a rock music devotee, this flick is heaven.

RATING: 9.0

Torso (1973)

Embarrassing exploitation with a lame psycho within

[3/10 · 27 September 2005]

Taking place in a miniworld of bad haircuts and awful dressing trends, 'Torso' is a terribly narrated and bad acted movie whose only merits rely on artsy environment and occasional stylish direction. Anyone calling this a giallo is completely missing the point, because all the common places of giallo are missing here. This movie is nothing more than an exploitative bodycount in the vein of any European 70s movie. In fact, this could be the epitome of "blood and tits". Well, way more tits than blood.

Two adjectives that shape this movie are "silly" and "embarrasing". I'll start the dissection.

The director shows a striking inability to tell the story properly. It takes 30 minutes to introduce all the characters, and many of them are thrown in to fill the quota of possible suspects. There are lots of irrelevant roles. The story takes twists too, but in the most unfocused way imaginable. I got the feeling the story wasn't written when the shooting started.

On the funny side, the movie shows no shame in displaying the most cheesy images I've seen in ages: silly hippies, ugly rednecks in their rural world... The embarrassment goes on with the painfully exploitative scenes. Most notably, nude scenes. It's so blatant you'll blush. Some character reactions are indescribably dumb too. This flick will be a hard time for people who get easily embarrassed, and a hell of a good one for the cheap "blood and tits" lover. The gore is seductive, but FX are on the lowest level of all.

I bet Sergio Martino knows a thing or two about film-making, because it shows every now and then, but this cheese fest is not the right opportunity to display his talent. Such bad actors, such lousy dialogue, such incompetent storytelling cannot make it into a good movie. Who is actually the main character here? What's the use of the street seller? What about the opening credits? Some happenings border on impossible, the end with the killer's expository dialogue made me laugh. The movie gives birth to a new acception of the word "unexpected", but in the less "Psycho (by Hitchcock)" way. Only for fetish lovers of italo trash. Like me? I thought so, but this lacks so much quality...

RATING: 3.1

Donnie Darko (2001)

Nothing more than tricks... but, god, how they work.

[8/10 · 8 February 2005]

Sweets. They are not nourishing, but they're delicious.

This is how I feel about this film. If I make a conscious attempt at explaining why I like "Donnie Darko", I can see no real meat in it. I got no lessons from the flick, I hardly got a story... Forget what others say about this movie as "philosophical", "clever" or "trascendent". It's not. But, my!, how such a young director almost manages to make you believe it is... I don't know about you, but I call that talent.

Yes, the movie is empty. The story goes nowhere, there is no message, no moral, but the way it's all wrapped up keeps you salivating throughout. Don't think it's mere flashy fireworks, though. This is not a case of style over substance. It's something more complex, and that's where "Donnie Darko" distances from the rest. This movie is freaking special, is full of personality. I wish more films had this character. The charm of this film relies on a lot of pieces that fit like a giant puzzle:

-Chosen time (1988) is strangely proper (you'll have to see this movie to understand it, sorry).

-The movie is BLUE. Its photography is blue, its characters are blue, its story is blue. Everything is blue.

-Music is great.

-Emotions are overwhelming. They come from everywhere and at the same time. You don't know what's happening, but what might be happening actually affects you.

-I can see some Lynch influences. The scene where the gym teacher talks to Donnie's mother at the doorstep is 100% Lynch.

-Some scenes are, almost, scary.

-This is one of the movies that present the idea of "beyond" in a most seductive way. You feel there's something more than this world. It never gets explained, but heck, I don't care.

-Finally, and most important, the main appeal of the movie is that it throws together unrelated concepts in such a way that they feel ghostly linked. The movie is a melting pot of vague ideas, that, thanks to a great direction, get connected in the subconscious.

Exactly because of this, I understand this movie has so much appeal for some people, and so little for others. If you fall in the trap, it will touch you, and this movie could mean the world to you. If you don't, it won't, and you won't see more than a bag of tricks. Whatever the category you fall in, you have to recognize the skill of Richard Kelly. The execution of "Donnie Darko" is more than remarkable.

I like to think of "Donnie Darko" not as a movie, but as a niche some people feel comfortably unsafe inside, that people being 25-30 year olds with an affection for sci-fi and darkness. The more you fit in this role, the more you'll get into this.

RATING: 8.3

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)

This is movie is what it is.

[7/10 · 5 February 2005]

My summary may be pedestrian, but it's the naked truth. This is the movie you make when you are given millions of dollars and almost two years. It's spectacular, but lacks charm. It's a must see if you are into popcorn cinema, but it shares the same aesthetic of the previous two movies, and it gets tiresome. As an adaptation, it's not perfect, but it's as good as it gets if you take into account how difficult is to make such a big movie.

This the latest modern mammoth movie, so take it for what it is. It hasn't been the first, and it won't be the last. Sometimes your jaw will drop, but everybody knows that there is not much merit in making the film looks the way it does. The merit lies in having finished the movie at all.

It's almost impossible to write a more complex review and not sound like an pretentious asshole. I had a lot of fun, but something was lacking. Apply this review to parts I & II.

RATING: 7.1

The Thing (1982)

Savage bloody paranoia

[9/10 · 5 February 2005]

On a personal level, this is the film that "almost made me throw up when I was 8 years old". It was the first and the last, so you can imagine how much a milestone this film is for me. :) But, of course, I ended up watching this film when I'd become an adult, and it become quickly one of my favorite films ever. In fact, it would be up there with "Alien", hadn't it been the Carpenter film wouldn't have existed without Ridley Scott's masterpiece.

What takes us to the point: "The Thing" owes "Alien" so much I can't give this movie a higher rating without feeling "dirty". However, of all the films that lift ideas from others, this is the best, no doubt about it, and the one who stands on its own more remarkably. In the end, this is movie is so good you will forget about the slight ripoff.

Which are the basements of this movie? They have to be: environment, acting and, of course, FX.

I'll start with FX, because they are so incredibly wild they'll stick in your head for a long time. They are insane and brilliantly implemented. I can only worship Rob Bottin for them, because his work is miles ahead of CGI. This man made me adore rubber and latex like no one. He's a true artist. I forgive him for making me feel sick when I was just a little boy.

The environment is the most appropriate. It enhances the feelings of paranoia and true danger we have to sit through. If you add a disturbing bass beat for music, you get it. An isolation feeling almost impossible to excel. There is a certain shot of pure genius: all survivors meet under the snowfall, each suspecting of the other, dressed up in their anoraks. It's bright, because they all look the same from a certain distance, all their heads hidden under hoods. Everyone could be the monster, so the smell of menace permeates the screen. Great scene.

And what about the acting? Awesome, credible. This is one of the few movies I have liked Kurt Russell unreservedly. You may laugh at what I'm going to say, but even the dog gives a hell of a performance. God, how could he stare at the camera like that?

Ahhh, the 80s... when remakes had a reason to be made and the results were exceptional...

RATING: 9.2

Alien (1979)

The mother of all movies

[10/10 · 31 January 2005]

Back in early 20th century, Lumière brothers didn't have a clue of what they were playing with. I'm freaking sure that if somebody could have magically told them that thanks to their work, a movie like 'Alien' would have been made in the future, they both would have died of a sudden, shocked by the consequences of their labor, like an honest scientist would if he was shown an evil use of his research. In that sense, but in the best way imaginable, 'Alien' is the atomic bomb.

In my opinion, 'Alien' is the only perfect movie in the history of cinema. Of course, this could be debatable, but of all the films I've watched since I was born, this is the only one in which I haven't been able to find the slightest flaw. It gets a golden ten out of ten. Bright, solid and massive.

I could go on with a panegyric, but I'll try to be short and accurate:

The direction is just perfect. Every shot is marvellous, every movement of the camera is breathtaking. There is absolutely nothing you could add or subtract. Touch it, and you spoil it. Seriously.

The acting is splendid. The performances build a credible world centuries away. I don't know about you, but this take on the future was unveliabably acceptable. Sigourney Weaver is more than a revelation, John Hurt is a master, and the rest are nothing short of marvellous.

The script is a work of art, the story is mesmerizing, well-constructed, well-developed, and free of absurd twists. Its simplicity and efectiveness are yet, 25 years after, to be matched.

The atmosphere is pure genius. Gothic, claustrophobic and sometimes baroque. The use of light and dark is beyond description, the use of sound is as creepy as it gets.

The FX are the best possible for 1979. In the time of the release, some scenes were stomach churning.

The score. Jerry Goldsmith's work matches the images so perfectly it seems to bleed from them. It is and will be the best soundtrack for a sci-fi flick in space ever.

The tagline. "In space, no one can hear you scream". THIS is a tagline.

And, of course... the alien. The only alive creature that can steal Weaver the movie. Its design is the most innovative I've seen. It has spawned dozens of disgraceful imitations. This is the real deal. Not only the look, but the complete design of a life form, including biological features. Acid instead of blood. Jaws inside jaws. What more could you possibly want? This is how a movie is done.

A very good sign of a movie that has gone down in history is the amount of collectively well remembered scenes. Well, 'Alien' has so many that I won't go into it. This movie contains so many iconic scenes that has become an icon itself.

So, what else? I urge all young directors to watch this movie a zillion times, as I've already done, and take notes all along. But not in order to rip off from it, as many others have done, but to learn, learn, learn, learn and learn how a movie should be done. 'Casablanca'? You must be joking.

Oh, I almost forget! There's a lovable cat in it.

RATING: 10

Ed Wood (1994)

One of the most charming movies ever

[10/10 · 31 January 2005]

When thinking about Ed Wood there is a word that always comes to my mind in first: charm. This movie oozes a worthiness for loving it few movies do. Because underneath its mix of genres, it's the most unnoticed one which ends up revealing itself as the most important: affecting drama.

Ed Wood is an all-around player. It has tons of humor (white and dark), including many comic scenes and hilarious characters. It has an experimental feel too, reflected on a couple of bizarre shots. It is an impeccable drama, full of feeling and transcendent events. But in the end, Ed Wood is, overall, a sort of a romantic comedy between the characters and the audience. I know it sounds pedantic and weird, but remember this thought when the final credits roll.

What does this feeling come from? It comes from Tim Burton's genuine love for the characters. No matter how pathetic they are, Tim shows love for them in every shot, and he shows it so well that the affection is contagious. You just can't help but feel that Ed, Bela, Tor and Vampira have been there in your life forever. They are family.

And just because of that, the film is so affecting. Bash me if you want, but Bela Lugosi's death saddened me more than 200 dramas. The affectionate friendship between Ed and Bela is touching, and Bela's death put an end to that. It also helped the fact that Martin Landau nails the character, playing the role of his life. His performance is one of the most astonishing I've ever seen, and clearly one of the three main reasons to watch this movie. Hats off.

Tim Burton is in top form too, constructing, in my opinion, an almost perfect film that ranks first in his work. Other Burton's movies are tremendous, but this simply has it all: awesome performances, intelligent script, prominent aesthetics, historical accuracy (although this is not an inherent value in Burton's work, it is here), and a jaw-dropping direction. Just take a look at the scene that takes place inside the "spook train" and you'll know what I'm saying. There's a care for detail too that shows in credits, music...

And one more thing: if you don't laugh with this film, you're dead.

RATING: 9.8

2046 (2004)

Monumental bore fest.

[2/10 · 30 January 2005]

First of all, I'd like to introduce myself: I'm not the kind of guy who likes Hollywood crap. At all. I appreciate quality in cinema, no matter what the genre or the origin country is. I enjoy mainstream flicks like "X-Men", slow paced foreign movies like "Raise The Red Lantern", dramas like "Remains Of The Day", brainy ruminations like "Dead Ringers", indie films like "Happiness" and plain fun like "Top Secret". To put it short: I tend to like quality. No prejudices.

There's, however, one unwritten universal film-making law that has been dramatically overlooked during the production of this movie: don't ever bore the audience. Do whatever you like. Do you wish to make a very slow movie? OK, right, there are a lot of beautiful and interesting slow movies. Do you like long dialogues? OK, perfect, just remember to keep them meaningful and relevant. The list of movie attributes that can be adjusted to avoid yawning in the audience while being true to your work is almost endless, isn't it? Well, "2046" managed to bore the hell out of me and forced me to take a look at my watch many more times than it is desirable. In fact, the movie felt like it was endless. 129 minutes? God, it felt like 229.

There are a lot of problems with "2046". The first of all, is that this is supposed to be a film about love (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). I don't know if I'm getting soppy with age, but "2046" was cold as ice. The direction is distant. The main character is an irritant tiny man that we're supposed to buy for some kind of heartbreaker dandy. I can't empathize with him. Furthermore, of all relationships (?) presented in the movie, the only one appealing (hotels owner's daughter) is criminally underdeveloped. The story focuses on relations devoid of feeling. But don't think this is a beautiful look on the decadent side of relations between men and women. It isn't, either. It's an unsatisfying middle ground where characters you don't care about just come and go.

So you'll imagine how surprised was I after realizing how many people were praising this movie. Well, not so surprised, but I don't want to be pricky.

People are eulogizing the direction, the lightning and the poetic of the film. Excuse me? 1) With regard to direction: camera angles and rhythm are nothing I haven't seen before; there are occasional beautiful camera settings, but not much more; on the other hand, there is a cumbersome story development (in the most turgid way). 2) With regard to lightning: there is some remarkable use of shadows here and there, and the darkness of the film is nothing magical, it's just darkness; the most effective use of lightning appears inside the "futurisitc train", and my jaw didn't drop. 3) With regard to the poetic: the android mini-story does it for me, and the hotel owner's daughter, which I mentioned before, is the real deal in the movie. What a pity it didn't last even 15 minutes.

I really wanted to like this movie in the beginning. Later, I only wanted it to end.

As a last comment, I've been shocked to hear some people say that "2046" is the Asian equivalent to "Lost In Translation". I see what they mean, but there is an ocean between both movies. An ocean full of true emotion, sense of humor, likable characters, non pretentious style, varied music and endearing happenings.

If you are planning to watch this movie because of the hype, be warned: although you could love it, it might be a long, long, boring trip.

RATING: 2.3

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Loose ends vs. hypnotic images (as usual)

[7/10 · 13 January 2005]

And who's winning the big prize? It's hard to tell. Every Lynch film has to be evaluated this way, I think. On one hand, you've got the surreal and beautiful happenings, and on the other, all the nonsense. You put it in the scales, and usually the first outweighs the second. By far.

This is the first time I found myself doubting about it, because the mind toying was just way too much. The last minutes felt like a rehash of 'Lost Highway', but even more hallucinatory and illogic, and condensed in much less time. The fact that the crazy part started just when the story was getting REALLY interesting was a pain too. They were all noticeable symptoms of what everybody knows: Mulholland Drive was meant to be a TV series, in the same vein of "Twin Peaks". So the first half of this movie is, basically, a pilot (introduction of characters, some action, a bit of thriller, humor...) with a zillion of loose ends, and the rest, a milk shake of undeveloped ideas. Creepy and fascinating, but too much incoherent even for Lynch.

The main reason this movie is, despite of all, a winner, is that Lynch has outdone himself this time. First, there are four or five shots in this movie which I can describe simply as unforgettable. Second, we are introduced to hilarious characters (the cowboy, for example) who are worth the movie alone. Third, we are presented with a few sequences in which Lynch shows a great sense of humor. And fourth, Badalamenti is still at top form.

So, yes, he has done it again. But the margin is getting narrow. I'm really looking forward his next movie, because I have no idea which path will Lynch take. I'm already waiting.

RATING: 7.4

Charlie's Angels (2000)

An impossible to enjoy mess. Certainly not a movie.

[1/10 · 12 January 2005]

I bet you feel misplaced sometimes. At certain moments, you don't relate to anybody or anything and you feel alone in this world. We all experience that feeling every now and then. One of the times I felt I was from another planet took place inside a theater, and I was watching, despite my resistance, this movie. I was among a cheering, laughing crowd.

You might think I was prejudiced. Wrong. Knowing for sure that this movie wasn't my cup of tea, I prepared myself for getting everything I could from it. "I wish it contains action, I wish I can laugh" I was thinking. Well, the only thing I got was an awful need of walking out.

This movie is so downright bad I don't know where to start:

First, this is not "Charlie's Angels". Aside from the fact that three girls are the main characters and they happen to follow the orders from a man called Charlie, there's nothing more in common. All similarities end at that. This movie should be called "Three girls and their dumb everyday life" or something like that. But even retitled, this movie would stink. And this affirmation takes me to the next mega-flaws.

Second, the three girls are stupid. The Cameron Diaz character borders on retarded. But not in a funny way. She's plain stupid and acts like a nerd. I know that is supposed to be funny. Maybe for a 5 year old it is.

Third, there is no actual plot, just a badly made up excuse for linking pitiful sketches together. This movie could have lasted 30 minutes or 6 hours. It feels disjointed. It's nothing more than a sucession of sketches.

Fourth, the soundtrack. Argh!. I can't even think of it without getting angry. Who in the world made that compilation, a 17 year old boy? It's the most lazy soundtrack in movie history. Every time there's an action/fight scene, some random hip-hop/metal is thrown, even though the song belongs to another emotional planet. It really sounds like someone would have put together a list of last years' most topical hits and played it randomly. The inclusion of Korn's "Blind" in an action scene can be called blasphemy.

Fifth, the action scenes. Over the top, boring, we've seen them all before.

Sixth, the pace. This movie simply hasn't. It's a steady sucession of boring action and poor jokes. Don't expect a climax. This is LINEAR. Urgh.

As I know there is a word limit, I won't go on. But I could speak easily about 20 awful things in this movie, without thinking too hard.

Wait, there's something good. It's Bill Murray, and I feel very sorry for him, because he alone can't raise my rating to a 1.

Avoid like plague.

RATING: 0.4

Spookies (1986)

Laughable trash. Nostalgic horror fans beware.

[2/10 · 12 January 2005]

This is more a warning than a review. I'm sure that, like me, there are a lot of horror fans out there who think there's nothing like 80s. While they're right, they need to be remembered that even in the 80s, you can find a lot of horror movies that suck. The kind of movies you can't take seriously, the kind of movies that are, at best, laughably.

Well, this is one of those. It's lousy.

Many reviewers defend this film because you have a good time while watching it (I mean laughs and brainless plot). That would be alright if it was filmmakers' aim. But if you see this movie, it's evidently not. They want to scare the hell out of you... and they fail in a way you almost feel pity for them. Of course it's better a funny bad movie than a boring bad movie. But in both cases, they keep being bad movies and that shouldn't affect their rating.

The editing is terrible, the FX are below average, the acting is amateurish, and the plot is so contrived it looks like it's gonna tear apart every minute. Oh, and I almost forgot to say this is the movie with the highest "stupid character choices per minute" rate. In general, every relevant aspect of the movie finds itself below 4, most of them around 2. I won't go into a most specific review because, trust me, it's not worth it.

So if you don't mind laughing at a movie instead of laughing with a movie, go on, this is as fun as it gets. Although I like some B-movies and even some Z-movies, I appreciate some effort. This one is so lazy...

RATING: 2.2

The Isle (2000)

A meandering movie full of symbolism.

[7/10 · 12 January 2005]

I confess I was expecting a lot more from this movie, but overall, you cannot deny that it's a very good work. The pace of the film adjusts precisely to the surrounding, and the actors performances fit smoothly. The main virtue of 'The Island' is its global feel: nothing stands against anything. You just like the concept or not.

And what about the concept? Well, if you like metaphoric storytelling you've got plenty here. Every five minutes there's an allegory. Fortunately, they don't get in the way of the story. Not until the very end, which is one of the reasons I'm subtracting points from the movie score. Another one is the blatant underdevelopment of the first stage of the two main characters' relationship. It hadn't even started when it was already ending. It takes away so much power from the film... To end with the shortcomings, I felt the movie wandered quite frequently, not knowing which happenings to focus on. During those moments, the director drops on us a little more... you guess it... symbolism.

Nonetheless, the fancy visuals, the good photography and the powerful images are truly remarkable, conforming the main reason for watching this film: the lovely mini-world in which the story takes place and the way it is shown, resorting to violence if necessary. The hook scenes would be out of place in any other movie, but they fit here. Are they gruesome? Not as half as people might have told you. It's nothing you have to turn away your head from the screen.

To me, it looks solid, but I have the feeling it could have been much more too.

RATING: 6.8

May (2002)

Conventional film-making + interesting characters.

[6/10 · 12 January 2005]

After having watched 'May', I can't help but to feel mixed emotions: the film I'd been driven to as a blood feast, started as a weird romantic comedy. And you know something? Not only I didn't care at all, but I dug it a lot. My confusion grew and grew when the gore came in and I realized I preferred the tone of the movie's first half. How strange is that? Well, I don't know, but it's the main reason I like this film overall. The fact that it presented an interesting enough story, transcending any genre. So interesting that I almost had a letdown when blood started to splash the screen.

In regards to film-making, 'May' looks a little lazy to me, in the sense that it appears to be devoid of style. I miss the distinctive touch that makes a movie special, so it shows that it's not a mere job the director has been given. On the other hand, I feel he made the actors feel comfortable, since they display their roles very naturally, despite their oddity. And that's great.

The highlights of the movie, in my opinion, are the touches of humor and the evident intention of avoiding conventional roles, introducing multi-layered characters. Of course this is no Shakespeare, but it makes a difference from the rest of mediocre horror movies nowadays, where people could be replaced by good looking dummies. The gore galore near the end and the horror movie references are enjoyable too.

On the downside, a few topics here and there, and the ending. I think it was unnecessary.

In short, a popcorn bloody movie a little above the rest, thanks to the story and the characters.

RATING: 6.4

Irreversible (2002)

Heartbreaking and difficult to endure.

[9/10 · 10 January 2005]

I looked forward to watching this movie since its theatrical release, but it's been today when I've finally been able to experience it. Yes, I mean 'experience'. Because the vast majority of the film is an experience, not just a story.

I was attracted to it by the hugely polarized critical reactions arisen. Nobody showed a mild response to the flick: that's always exciting to me and, sometimes, the sign of a great movie. But even though I was prepared for some sickening stuff, I admit this one caught me off the guard. And this comes from someone who loves gore and stands violence almost impassively (I remark I'm talking about movies, just in case).

'Irreversible' is a movie that feeds on all those aspects of life we shun even talking about, and it's just that, and nothing else (I mean it's not the infamous fire extinguisher / rape scenes, although they are two of the most horrifying images I've seen on a screen) what make the film so incredibly disturbing.

To be quick and to the point: 'Irreversible' is telling you 'this is life, this is tragedy, it could strike you anytime, and there is NOTHING you can do about it, just pray it will never be your turn'. 'Irreversible' triggers feelings of loss, sadness, anger, hate, fear... plain depression, and all multiplied by 100 via camera-work. If an event makes you angry, Mr. Noe will get the camera moving in order to make you angrier; if an event is tragic, the director will make it insufferable. Believe me, this movie goes for the gut, and succeeds.

But that's not the only trick: throughout the movie, we get to see a lot of moments where everything could have been avoided. As spectators, we can do nothing but feel sorry for the characters, and for ourselves too, wondering how much little decisions may affect our fate.

On the technical level, this movie is nothing short of wonderful. The actors are superb, the camera work is sublime (ignore the critics: it may seem gratuitous at first, but once the movie goes on, you definitely see a purpose, and a very justified one), and the script, despite of endless cursing, works fantastically, making it all feel very real. Some scenes are clockwork of calculated chaos: four people arguing aloud at the same time, but giving their lines at the very right moment, adding it all up to the most realistic scenes of confusion I've seen in a long time.

In regards to violence, I've tried to avoid any commentary in order to focus on what I feel it's important about this movie, but it's nearly impossible, so here are my two cents: I find hilarious the accusations of exploitation. As I understand, exploitation is the inclusion of gratuitous scenes of sex / violence in a movie for the enjoyment of the audience. Well, what we see in 'Irreversible' might be considered gratuitous to some (not at all for me, but I understand the debate), but what it isn't definitely is enjoyable. Anyone accusing 'Irreversible' of being exploitative is saying that scenes of rape and brutal murder are enjoyable, when they are devoid of all humor or satire. Well, I think that speaks for itself...

So, if your stomach is strong and your emotional endurance is high, I recommend you this movie without any reservation. You will have an awful time, but it will be worth it from a cinematographic point of view.

RATING: 8.9