Pierrot-10 Reviews

Resolution (III) (2012)

Excellent, surprisingly effective low-budget sci-fi/fantasy/horror

[8/10 · 12 October 2020]

... And if you like this movie, don't forget to check out its sequel of sorts, The Endless, by the same writer/director duo.

The Endless (I) (2017)

Excellent, surprisingly effective sci-fi/fantasy/horror

[8/10 · 12 October 2020]

... And if you like this movie, don't forget to check out its precursor Resolution, by the same writer/director duo.

House of Sand and Fog (2003)

An American nightmare

[3/10 · 28 December 2003]

This movie is, I guess, a bit like the psychological equivalent of a snuff movie: watching people destroy each other and themselves for two hours. A lesson in "how a series of really bad choices can land you in a really bad place", which might sound reminiscent of Fargo, U-Turn or A Simple Plan, except this one takes itself VERY seriously - it's supposed to be a "tragedy", you see, in the true, Greek sense of the word. Well, sorry but actually it's only tragic in the true Hollywoodian sense - namely, piling up the drama, traumas and overacting to make sure the target audience is sufficiently "moved". It does work well as a catalog of some typically American flaws - selfishness, arrogance and aggressivity to name but a few. The big problem however, is that not only all its characters are deeply flawed, but there's so little else in the way of a characterization that they're pretty much defined by said flaws - as a result, I personally couldn't care less about what happened to either of them because it's no mystery, and no great wonder either, that tragedies happen when the paths of such a bunch of assholes happen to meet. By "assholes" I mean people who not only occasionally on one fateful day, but repeatedly and pretty much, it seems, throughout their lives, fail to rise above said selfishness, arrogance, aggressivity and all-round pettiness. Sitting through this movie is a truly unpleasant experience but unlike some other, nonetheless remarkable movies, this one doesn't bring any kind of reward.

Spellbound (2002)

Best in show

[9/10 · 1 June 2003]

This movie deserves all the praise it got. It's all at once captivating, educational, insightful, clever, fun...

One thing that struck me is that while it has all the qualities of a great documentary, it also has, remarkably, all the qualities of Christopher Guest's best "mockumentaries" (meaning Best in Show, rather than Mighty Wind); the other thing is that one of the many things this movie very unexpectedly turns out to be is a great, truly heartwarming tribute to America's diversity and its most endearing aspects.

Identity (2003)

A gem

[8/10 · 11 May 2003]

I'll admit straight away, despite being an avid movie watcher I'm not a very "insightful" one - never see the "surprise ending" coming, even when other people find it sooooo obvious. Maybe I'm just not trying too hard, because I do enjoy surprises... This being said, if you're just as "easy-going" as I am in that respect, you might find as I did that this little-advertised movie deserves its place on the podium of a genre (or sub-genre - "thriller with a supernatural, almost metaphysical twist") whose recent successes included most notably Frailty, The Others, Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, and more miscellaneously Abre Los Ojos / Vanilla Sky. Like those, it boasts an impeccable direction and cast, a very enjoyable, if borderline formulaic, first part, and a deeply satisfying and most memorable "cherry on the cake" in the form of said final twist. To me this movie confirms, after Copland and (yes !) Kate & Leopold, that James Mangold is one of a handful of directors who can turn even a just vaguely interesting script into a great movie.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)

One more to the Dark Side...

[5/10 · 26 December 2002]

... the dark side of computer graphics, that is. By this I mean that this movie has in common with the latest installments of Star Wars (and, undoubtedly, with an increasing number of Hollywood blockbusters) that the only character worth

caring about and, yes, the only "acting" worth noticing, is computer generated: there Yoda (and the two robots), here Gollum.

As evidenced by the previews preceding the movie - all, with one exception,

sequels or prequels of some kind, with a special mention to "Dumb and

Dumberer" (!) - this is also one more movie that people will watch for what it promises, not for what it delivers - it pretty much doesn't matter what you see, if you liked the first one (as you probably did unlike you get dragged into the

second, as I was, against your own will) and/or liked the book, you'll like this too.

All in all, this is a perfect no-brainer as (some people claim) only Hollywood can make, where plot and characters are replaced with grandiose scenery, special

effects, fights, noise and furor.

What I found most disturbing is, in addition to the racist undertones common to all of Tolkien's work (a simplistic world where one's character and almost every action is dictated by their "race"), the obvious pro-war propaganda

(miscellaneous and coincidental maybe, but still remarkable) conveyed by a

plot whose center theme is the necessity - no, the beauty and holiness - of

(some) wars. Although understandable from someone who wrote (maybe with a clear vision

of what the near future would bring) in the late 30's, the clear message that "sometimes", delaying war is a fatal mistake appears here, with Evil itself as the enemy, in the simplistic form which has been used so many times - and still is - as an excuse for random, unwarranted acts of aggression. In a story where any kind of deep meaning is hard to find, stumbling upon this one is particularly disturbing in the current political context.

The Truth About Jane and Sam (1999)

Rich and delicate love story

[8/10 · 8 December 2002]

I don't know much about Hong Kong movies, or just enough to know there's a lot of junk, but after two viewings I still feel that by any standards this is a truly good movie. The main attraction here is the center character of Jane, who embodies with great liveliness a fundamentally good girl strayed into a depraved life. The movie oscillates between light comedy and (especially towards the end)

powerful drama triggered by the girl's unshakable (or hardly so) addictions and bad habits; but ultimately it is a very refreshing, uplifting and tender love story.

Frailty (2001)

Take it for what it is...

[6 October 2002]

An interesting, although clearly not ground-breaking, thriller which is - like many others - entirely built up towards its climactic, final twist. There's a good atmosphere, it's satisfyinlgy creepy and, yes, the above-mentioned twist is pretty much plastered on it without much forewarning. The point here is that there is just _no way_ you'll expect _that_ - period. Now to those who absolutely hate the movie for its "message", I'll say they totally missed the point. There is absolutely, obviously, no "message" here, except maybe "Think you got it all figured out ? Think again" - which, I'll be the first to admit, isn't much of a message - and then again, it addresses mainly cinematic smart-aleckness as opposed to say, religion. (And finally, to those who love this movie because of its so-called spiritual message, I'll just say I feel sorry for them...)

The Good Girl (2002)

If you hate indie movies...

[5/10 · 7 September 2002]

... maybe then (although I couldn't swear it) you'll enjoy what I find best described as a pathetic parody of one. Let me see, what is it again that I've heard some narrow-minded opponents of "independent" film-making say about it ? Boring movies about boring lives, boring situations in boring places; characters with nothing more to offer than despair and/or depression and with whom, as a result, you just cannot empathize at all; suicidal teenagers; unhappy hence naturally adulterous wives of alcoholic or otherwise addicted husbands; harmless and not-so-harmless morons... Hey, you know, what ? This movie has it all !!! Which I wouldn't mind if, say, it was a conscious exercise in parody or actually had something to say about film-making, but I really don't think that is the point here: it's just an independent movie made by someone who actually believes (and enjoys ??? go figure) that they're all about what I listed above ! The single redeeming feature of this movie is Jake Gyllenhaal whose part as an angst-ridden teenager is almost as enjoyable as the one he had in Donnie Darko; as for Jennifer Aniston, she isn't bad (actually, I usually like her) but definitely won't save the movie. My conclusion is: if you like Jennifer Aniston, just go (re-)watch some "Friends"; if you like Jake Gyllenhaal, just go (re-)watch the excellent "Donnie Darko" - a movie where teenage angst was put to good cinematic use as opposed to being just one ingredient in an insipid, indigest indie-flavored mush.

One Hour Photo (2002)

Smart and different

[8/10 · 7 September 2002]

Maybe you've heard about this movie, maybe you know roughly what it's about,

maybe you've been lucky enough to see a trailer (I hadn't when I went to see it) and maybe even, half an hour or so into the movie, you'll think as I did: "OK, so that's what all the fuss is about !" - well, you'd better think again. This is a powerful, interestingly ambiguous and non-judgmental, subtle portrait of a psycho - or is he ? The whole movie is very restrained in both filming and acting, yet very suggestive and often chilling; the story appears simple at first but it has more depth than first meets the eye. Forget about supporting cast here, this is the story of one man and Robin Williams (as usual or for once, take your pick) more than suffices to make it grippingly successful. I heard the director used to make videos for Nine Inch Nails - well, it sure looks like Trent Reznor knows how to pick his collaborators !

S1m0ne (2002)

Unobtrusively brilliant

[8/10 · 25 August 2002]

Simone might get blamed for not going far enough in either of the many directions it explores. This is no pamphlet against Hollywood's fakeness at large, no slapstick comedy, no cyberpunk exploration of technology's alluring traps, no deep psychological study of how far an artist's crave for fame can take him - yet it's a little bit of each of these things and many more, a subtle mix of genres and ideas explored just enough to arouse interest and, maybe, provoke some thought while remaining thoroughly entertaining. The result is a light, often hilarious and very intelligent film which has no interest in realism, technical or otherwise, and works rather on a allegorical or fairytale-ish level. And it doesn't hurt, of course, that while Simone's character is adequately two-dimensional, the main part is played by an Al Pacino in great shape.

Waking Life (2001)

It's either of two things...

[4/10 · 25 May 2002]

Visually, no doubt about it - this is a remarkably innovative movie, maybe worth the watch from a purely technical viewpoint. Now, regarding the contents - two possibilities: 1) the director aims at portraying a certain type of people - or maybe, as some have suggested, a certain state that anyone can achieve after a few drinks or other kinds of intellectual "stimulants" - characterized by raving, exalted, prolonged speeches presenting as philosophical a collection of raving thoughts oscillating between the obvious, the cliche, the ludicrous and the purely nonsensical. 2) the director actually aims at enlightening, educating, enriching us with his personal collection of thoughts (borrowed from various sources) on the meaning of life and, more generally, the stuff philosophy is supposed to be made of - I mean, REAL philosophy. In both cases, the result is utterly pointless and a total waste of time (apart, of course, from the above-mentioned stunning visual experience) - it's not just a series of dialogues, it's a REALLY LONG series of dialogues with (if you dig just a little) no real substance whatsoever. Considering that, and particularly in the second option above, it is tempting to bundle the (lack of) contents with the form as one of the most pretentious attempts at "artsy" cinema recently made. By the way, for an interesting criticism of the kind of vacuous discourse (part of) the script is made of, I recommend "Fashionable Nonsense : Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science".

Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)

If you like movies...

[4/10 · 18 May 2002]

... mainly for the same reasons I like them, which are: Plot - Characters - Story - Dialogues, this is one of the worst movies of all time. On the other hand, if you don't mind sitting through more than one hour of mind-numbing, pathetic ersatz of a movie (in the above-mentioned sense) to wait for a truly enjoyable last hour or so of spectacular, epic battle scenes, then go for it ! Generally speaking the performances of Yoda and, as usual, R2D2 and C3P0 are very entertaining; all the human actors, however, disgrace themselves with some unbelievably pathetic acting.

Spider-Man (2002)

Flabbergasting...

[9/10 · 11 May 2002]

This is a very cute movie, built around a love story and a teenager stepping into adulthood and discovering his own body - slightly superhuman body, that is. I think Sam Raimi (and the script writer David Koepp, who previously did a great job on Stir of Echoes) is faithful to the spirit of the Spiderman comics by focusing deliberately on the human side of the story, which is well served by a good cast - Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco - the weakest being probably Willem Dafoe, who looks so much a like a goblin anyway that he didn't have to put much effort into his part. This portrait of the superhero as a young man blends skillfully his apprenticeship as a human spider with his more common teenager concerns and love interest. The result might not be as spectacular as X-Men; on the other hand it's not trying to, but instead depicts a very human and attaching Spiderman.

American History X (1998)

Slick and didactical

[7/10 · 5 May 2002]

A good movie with good acting and neat, appropriate lessons or message(s) about how easily influenced kids, even smart ones, can be; how confused, insecure people find in group hatred a natural way to vent their anger; how all it takes to realize one's mistake is to once catch a glimpse of "the Enemy" as a _human being_; how, in more ways than one, hate invariably breeds hate. If, however, you already know most or all of the above, you might get bored, or marvel at what a remarkably "clean" movie was made out of such an inherently ugly subject. Sure, the two strayed heroes have their dark sides but both of them, when they're not doing their white-supremacist gang thing, are mostly mild-mannered, well-behaved, polite kids you'd love to have baby-sit your daughter. It's no wonder then, that this dark side is so easily dropped by both at once - it didn't stick in the first place. This movie probably deserves a good place in a history, sociology or philosophy class, but not in a movie collection - somehow lacks subtlety, although in that respect it sure could have been a lot worse.

Changing Lanes (2002)

A Hollywood jewel

[8/10 · 28 April 2002]

Behind (or maybe in place of) what the trailer advertises - an

exciting thriller about an escalation of violence triggered by a minor

car accident involving two high-strung men - is a far-reaching

portrait of two men, or maybe just of men, in their daily choices

and shifts between good and evil. The impeccable acting outlines

a subtle, well-balanced script which touches (ever so slightly) on a

variety of subjects involving fate and guilt, revenge and

acceptance, miscommunication and mischief, loyalty and

honesty... all neatly wrapped up in an otherwise unobtrusive,

apparently formulaic story of "men getting even".

Go see it with an open mind and you're in for a really good

surprise.

Vanilla Sky (2001)

"The Game" - a first draft

[5/10 · 17 December 2001]

I don't know where Cameron Crowe found the nerve to put in the credits "Written for the screen and directed by Cameron Crowe" - I mean, ALL he did was translating straight from Spanish the original ! And the truth is, some rewriting - maybe even a lot - or at least a slightly more adventurous adaptation might have served the movie well. True, the whole crippled act by Tom Cruise is quite surprisingly convincing and probably better than in the original, but it doesn't make up for the (unchanged) ridiculous ending - not as convoluted as it's cracked up to be, it just looks like a cheap trick from a scriptwriter who couldn't decide how to tie up the story's loose ends. (By the way, the love story, supposedly central here, is not well served by a total lack of "onscreen chemistry" between the Cruizes.) So if you want to see a really witty script toss around "LoveHateDreamsLifeWorkPlayFriendshipSex", you're better off with David Fincher's The Game which, when you think about it, has a lot in common with this movie - except that it opposes, to a relatively bland story with a far-fetched, sci-fi-like ending, a mind-blowing story with a remarkably sober ending. That's what a good script surgeon working on this case might have reconstructed.

Ocean's Eleven (2001)

Mission Impossible, Part 0

[9 December 2001]

This movie has in common with Mission: Impossible a star-spangled cast, an obviously impossible mission (involving sneaking through laser beams) which will, of course, be carried out perfectly, a lot of attitude... but overall, in my opinion it's waaay better, mainly because it never takes itself seriously. True, (as in M:I) there's nothing surprising or remarkably original, but at least the atmosphere of overall coolness of these apparently very amateurish casino robbers who will succeed against all odds AND, accordingly, without much regard for plot credibility, is made thoroughly enjoyable simply by fun dialogues and actors who, yes, all play the type of character they're most well-known for --- and best at. Basically pure, unsophisticated yet good, entertainment.

Open Your Eyes (1997)

Way overrated

[3 December 2001]

I just cannot see what it is that makes this movie so remarkable; to me, it is just yet another attempt, and maybe one of the least successful, to build a gripping thriller out of the age-old theme of dreams mixed up with reality: what is true, what is not ? There's not much to the movie, really, besides this constant questioning; don't look for amazing acting, memorable dialogues, fine psychology or even - that's the biggest problem - a really original twist. The final "explanation" is, indeed, pretty unimpressive. This movie might be what revealed Penelope Cruz to some, but to me it's yet another proof that anything she's in is a turkey. In conclusion, if you want to see why Amenabar is (at least sometimes) a great director, go see his masterpiece "The Others" instead - it has everything this one lacks (see above).

Serendipity (2001)

Surrender to random, depressing, pitiful, insipid stupidity

[4/10 · 10 November 2001]

The word "serendipity" has definitely gained for me, through this

movie, some awful connotations. This is American-made,

so-called "romantic" comedy at its very worst. It's not just that John

Cusack, perfect in parts focused on comedy (America's sweethearts being the latest and perhaps best example), is barely

credible when it comes to eliciting actual emotions, and that Kate

Beckinsale, for all her plastic assets, in (at least here) blandness

personified; it's also and above all that the word "love" itself is

considered enough of a storyline, not in any way depicted or

rendered but just taken for granted and as the starting point of a

pointless series of anecdotes that will, eventually, bring the two

main characters together. "Romanticism" here involves this

Hollywood cliche that "the grass is always greener on the other

side", i.e. there's nothing as boring as love shared (and soon to be

blessed by a wedding), but nothing as exciting as love merely

possible, a chance meeting deliberately mistaken for "love at first

sight" by two people whose empty lives will obviously cling to

anything that can fill it in some way - whether marrying, out of

boredom, someone they obviously do not love, or spending their

time looking for someone else whose main advantage over their

current partner is that they barely know him/her. There is, indeed, one small redeeming feature to this movie:

the alas very brief appearances of Eugene Levy (also seen in Best

in Show, American Pie I & II), who is his usual perfectly deadpan,

hilarious self.

Bandits (2001)

As good as it gets...

[8/10 · 13 October 2001]

In the all too rare comedy-romance-action-gangster movie category, this one rules. As might be expected from such a proven director and mighty actors (Cate Blanchett is particularly amazing here), the result is from beginning to end hilarious, the characters attaching although all quite extreme in their various traits, the ending is surprising enough, and the whole thing very witty. A must-see !

Immortality (1998)

Vampire B-movie

[5/10 · 9 October 2001]

With the abundance of recent good 'fantastic' movies such as Sixth Sense, Stir of Echoes or the Others, the last thing we need is a perfectly bland n-th remake of a classical vampire tale. No atmosphere, no dialogues, no acting - even though I usually love Jude Law, I have to admit that what he does here, almost anybody could have done; he looks more like Ewan Mc Gregor in Trainspotting than any vampire I know. Oh yes, and don't expect any plot twist either, final or otherwise...

Unbreakable (2000)

Truly remarkable

[9/10 · 24 November 2000]

Undeniably, there is a "Night Shyamalan" style. True, you might think from the trailer (and even, to some extent, from the movie itself) that he found one good recipe and is determined to stick to it, no matter how uncreative that would be. It turns out however that, as a true artist, while retaining the same eerie, slow-paced, subdued style of storytelling, Night Shyamalan's new movie has little in common with the first one, except maybe... well, both are masterpieces. The plot, although pretty simple, is cleverly crafted from beginning to end and once again, the final twist (unless you expect it, there are such smarties out there...) will leave you marveling at the director's cunningness.

Amos & Andrew (1993)

Wittily funny

[14 April 2000]

Although the main focus here is undoubtedly on comedy, what makes it all the more successful is the underlying (highly unflattering) portrait of suburban America, often flirting with caricature yet not altogether devoid of subtlety; it avoids in particular the Black/White manicheanism often present even in more "serious" cinematic depictions of racism. Jackson and Cage are as usual wonderful actors, and the supporting cast does a pretty good job too at impersonating a variety of morons and other petty opportunists.