As far as convincing kick-ass US presidents go, William Hurt has to rank towards the bottom of the list. I’ll chose Harrison Ford any day over Hurt whose physiognomy seems better suited to Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985) type roles. Yet, Pete Travis, the director of the wasted effort Vantage Point, has no qualms about showing us Hurt, as the US president, getting into some kind of fistfight with the terrorists who kidnapped him.

Vantage Point starts intelligently enough, with the attempted assassination of the US president during a speech in Spain, being shown from different points of view. Every 10 minutes or so, we are offered a new perspective on the events, through the eyes of a new character. And each time, we seem to be getting closer to finding out what really happened. Except that after slowly raising the tension and having us fairly attentive, Travis decides, mysteriously and shamefully, to throw it all away and to turn his film into some kind of ridiculous over the top action flick. And to make things worse, Travis has the audacity to still pretend that it is intelligent by merging all the different stories into a silly denouement that reminded me of the terrible Crash (2004) in its mediocrity and pretentiousness. Rashomon (1950), this film isn’t.
Imagine a scene where for ten minutes we follow a little girl as she runs looking for her mother, and we can feel from the selection of shots and from the editing that the director is leading her towards a busy road with lots of incoming traffic. At that point, the only thought that logically must enter our mind is: no, the director cannot possibly be aiming for such a cliché scene. Something new and unexpected is going to happen, right? Well, no. Travis does indeed lead the little girl to a busy road in the middle of which she suddenly freezes and stays there screaming, waiting for a car to hit her. Didn’t Travis watch Austin Powers (1997)? Didn’t he get Mike Myers’s joke as Austin Power spends several minutes warning some guy that he is about to run him over with a bulldozer?

As I recently did with Jumper (2008), I will still manage to extract something interesting from this film. Aside for the MTV style shooting and editing, and terrorism aside, Vantage Point does capture a very relevant aspect of our lives. In the film, each character seems to be encountering a different reality, not only based on his or her direct sensory experience but also through their use of technology. Mobile phones and video cameras play an important role in the film as they help to assemble the various pieces of the puzzle. Yet, each version of the reality they convey is incomplete and misleading. Technology has the power to show us images that constitute only one type of reality. The question that is increasingly pertinent today is: what makes one’s reality any less significant than that of someone else? We live in a society where everyone now has the ability to be a witness and to create their own reality out of the different pieces they chose to select.

In addition, in Vantage Point, the mobile phone is used by both the terrorists to organize and implement their plan (a smartphone is used, among other things, to remotely control and trigger the riffle that is used against the president) and by the authorities to locate the terrorists and to avert their plot. This seemed particularly significant as several recent headlines have discussed terrorism and the use of mobile phones.
So, if anything else, Vantage Point does at least offer us a little something to think about in terms of how technology is affecting our lives.

So here I am, at this party in the Hollywood Hills, hanging out with my loser screenplay writer friend, when Michael Bay walks in with a girl around each arm. Out of all the parties in LA, Michael Bay has to walk into mine. Determined not to let it get to me, I undertake a precise and thorough strategy of avoidance, which works for most of the evening, until another loser friend of mine, this time a Foley operator, who mysteriously appears to know Bay, decides to introduce me to this evilest of all evil directors. Doing my best to hide my repulsion, I reluctantly shake the man’s hand and immediately start to feel nauseous all over, as if I had just put on the ring to rule them all, and had acquired the ability to see the darkness and shadows around me, or in this case, in front of me. And, clearly wanting my death, some guy who evidently exists on a different cinematic plane than I, barges in and exclaims some idiocy along the lines of ‘loved your Transformers Michael’, which naturally brings me closer to regurgitating my Shirataki noodles dinner. Not that I would mind plastering Michael Bay with some no-carb, no-fat vomit, but even Themis, the Greek Goddess of Justice, is not on my side this evening, and I must try to take consolation in the belief that, while slightly more successful than me, Michael Bay remains a cinematic barbarian with no appreciation of cinema as an art.

This remake of the John Frankenheimer classic is a relatively decent effort by Demme and his screenwriter, who manage to somewhat preserve the sense of paranoia of the original film and the book upon which it is based, while modernizing the story with 21st century issues and themes. The criticism of the Bush administration and of its support of war profiteering corporations, while subdued, is still quite welcome in such a big budget Hollywood film.
While I tend to think that the film would have benefited from withholding the truth from the audience a little while longer, from forcing the viewer to question the authenticity and reality of more scenes, and from being more audacious in its political ‘incorrectedness’, The Manchurian Candidate nonetheless moves along at a solid and entertaining pace.
Just don’t expect the same quality as the original film.

Is 300 a racist film? Is it an allegory for the current events in the Middle East? Is Leonidas, the king who, with 300 of his best Spartans, bravely resisted for two days the attacks of the Persian king Xerxes and his hundreds of thousands of men, none other than Dubya? Or is Xerxes George W.?
300 is none of these things. It is simply a visual treat with no other pretensions, I believe, than to deliver some quality action driven entertainment. Anyone seeing more than this into 300 is probably looking too hard.

I wonder if Lars Von Trier and Mel Gibson have ever met. And if they have, I wonder if they got on well, if they talked about the human condition and the suffering that we must endure as we go through life. Or perhaps they couldn’t stand each other, Von Trier’s nihilist and atheist outlook clashing with the possibly Jansenist (see The Absolute Realism of Robert Bresson for more on this topic) and definitively radical religious conception of life that Gibson has. But at least, maybe they managed to exchange a couple of words about sado-masochism.

Read more »

I grew up watching the films of Brian de Palma.

In those days, he was considered a modern Hitchcock, a master of suspense and an expert at creating worlds full of intrigue and deception. Films such as Blow Out, Obsession, Dressed to Kill, Body Double showed a vast talent for suspense, ambiguity, eroticism, and a masterly control of cinematic technique.

But something happened in the late 80s and in the 90s, and, in a manner reminiscent of John Carpenter, De Palma’s art seems to have vanished during that period (Carlito’s Way being the exception).

It was therefore with some reluctance that I watched Femme Fatale, six years after having almost choked to death in front of Mission to Farce.

Read more »

There is very little I can say about The Departed, other than it is pretty much a perfect film directed by one of the true masters of modern cinema.

Scorsese is back and while The Departed may miss the perfection level of Goodfellas by a hair, it still is, I believe, one of the best thrillers ever made with one of the most furious paces and rhythms I have ever experienced in a film.

I wonder if Infernal Affairs, the Hong Kong film on which The Departed is based, is as good as its remake…

Unmissable.

Animation is the ideal tool for Science Fiction cinema since it can help create and display on the screen what does not yet exist. One of the obstacles that Science Fiction cinema has always faced is the tension between the need to stretch reality and the need to keep it believable and real in a way that most audiences can still relate to it. This is the unfortunate reason why most Sci-Fi films tend to be filled with inconsistencies and a disparity between what the story wants to show us and what it actually does show us.
Animation can relieve this tension by creating believable and abstract worlds. It can free the imagination, which is the point of Science Fiction.

Yet, this free rein of the visual creativity often comes at a price. The traditional aspects of filmmaking such as dialogue, storyline, and, when applicable, acting, have usually suffered greatly in animation films. But today, the line between animation and traditional cinema is becoming more and more blurry. With Toy Story in 1995, Pixar were the first to reach out to such a large audience with an animated film that had strong characters and a solid storyline. Finding Nemo and The Incredibles and the films of Hayao Miyazake were worthy additions and helped continue to increase the popularity of the genre.
Read more »

Recently, as I walked down a very average street of one of the most average neighbourhoods in my city, a book stood out from the outside display racks of a very average bookstore: Michael Mann, published by Taschen.

I felt that the book somehow shouldn’t have been there. In a specialized bookstore of a more artistic neighbourhood, yes. But not here, in this bourgeois, conservative area that attracts mainly tourists and bankers…Yet, there it was, and it said to me that Michael Mann had now reached a level of notoriety and access that enabled him to be known and appreciated by a very wide range of people. A democratization of the visualization of cinema, or perhaps, rather, a middle-upperclassification of the action film. Have you seen the latest Michael Mann? It is soooo beautiful to look at! Hmm, the dialogs were a bit weak….Who cares, nobody can frame a scene like Michael Mann! The screenplay was a bit dodgy…Who cares, who needs a perfect screenplay when you can bath it all in a sumptuous blanket of moody blues and grays!

Read more »

I am bewildered that this film actually received several positive reviews. And it is because of these reviews that I decided to watch it. Roger Ebert even called it ‘smart Science Fiction’. What is he smoking? I should know better than to trust him, but still, my curiosity was aroused. Yet, the film is clichés and inconsistencies-ridden and Charlie Sheen couldn’t look more out of place as the nerd who discovers the aliens’ secrets if he were playing a priest preaching abstinence. And of course, the Aliens walk on two legs, carry guns (hello?), resort to all types of absurd killing methods that never succeed (enough to make Dr Evil proud), and, last but not least, have decided that Man is a menace and must be eliminated through….the terraforming of earth. I guess these are nature loving aliens…

This silly French movie produced by Luc Besson showcases the athletic skills of David Belle, the inventor of Parcour, the urban sport that consists of running, jumping and climbing pretty much anything that comes your way. The movie also takes a shot at French politics and politicians, especially right-wing politicians who favour a radical ‘clean up’ of the Banlieues, rather than a more social and integrationist approach. But, in the end, everyone is guilty in this farcical, nonsensical debacle, and, naturally, no intelligent solution is offered, aside from kicking the butt of the person next to you until they admit that violence is not the answer….

Cypher is, surprisingly, not based on a Philip K. Dick short story. But Brian King, the writer, and Vincenzo Natali, who previously directed the intriguing Cube, must have clearly watched Total Recall, Paycheck and Blade Runner or read the stories they are based on and decided to explore the theme that was at the centre of Dick’s oeuvre: what is reality? The premise is clever, the film moves at a strong pace and the acting keeps it all believable, in spite of a bit of overindulgence towards the end.

The big Hollywood machine at its worse…Films as pure products, with only one and simple objective: generate as much revenue as possible.

Read more »

The problem with V for Vendetta is that it uses too many ‘fear-of-the-near-future’ cliches and stereotypes to tell its story. There is nothing in its vision of the future that hasn’t been shown on screen before, and better. Still, the film has an overall good pace, some fine British actors, great production design, a few electric action/music moments which the Wachowski Brothers are so good at. And, finally, the film has that Voice. Who wants to see behind the mask when we have that Voice? I still sometimes shout ‘Mr Anderson!’ randomly, just to see if i can imitate that Voice…i could listen to Hugo Weaving all day…

This very hollywood-like French thriller could have been directed by Michael Mann. Marchal’s Paris looks like Mann’s Los Angeles in Heat or Collateral, the city bathing in a constant mist of grays and blues, whose beauty is appropriately complimented by a moody, and, at times, overbearing score. Behind this series of sumptuous photographs of a corrupted Paris-by-night, not enough remains in terms of coherence, dialogues or acting (even Depardieu seems out of place in a very underdeveloped role). And what a convenient and artificial ending…

May the Lord of all good cinematic things protect us from Michael Bay. This man is a menace to society. And what were McGregor and Johansson thinking? And while it is clear that there is a growing industry for product placements in films, does it have to be so in-your-face? This film is a disgrace and so are its director and producers.

Most successful actors have that defining moment in their careers, the point where they leave the obscurity in which they had been struggling for years, always wondering when that big break would come. For Nicolas Cage, that point was Leaving Las Vegas, and it was 1995.

Read more »

This film has been so discussed, so praised, and it holds such a special place in the history of cinema that hardly anything new can be said about it. It is a truly wonderful film…

There is nothing, absolutely nothing worth anything in this film. Gratuitous, empty, silly, embarrassing violence. Pompous and annoying camera movements and angles. Exagerated and exasperating acting. Repugnant…ok i stop now.

Interesting idea, beautiful cinematography. Yes, Los Angeles has never looked this good. But Collateral is not one of the most plausible and coherent film. The transformation of the Jamie Foxx character especially is not very believable, while Tom Cruise fails to convince as the i-had-a-bad-childhood-somebody-save-me-by-killing-me-assassin.