Change Your Image
lunogled
Reviews
The Last Kiss (2006)
Do yourself a favor, see the original (SPOILERS)
L'ultimo bacio (the original film by Gabriele Muccino) happens to be one of my favourite Italian films, if only the last 6 years are counted. Its not a timeless masterpiece, but it's a very ironic, realistic, and entertaining look at the age through which I am presently going. I was already cheesed that a perfectly good movie has to be remade just because the original is not in English. But if you have to remake it,for god's sake, don't change a sarcastic, ANTIromantic film, with an ending cynical to the core, to a romantic comedy with a Hollywood ending.
SPOILERS START HERE. For those of you who did not see the Italian film a) Kim was a naive 18 year old, certainly not a slutty 20something
college student. b) When asked if "it was only a kiss", Michael looks sweetly in the
eye of his would-be wife and says "yes, I swear". c) Then they happily get married. Right before the credits, however,
a flash-forward leaves little doubt that the marriage will not be
so different from that of the parents d) In this film, one can not understand at all why Chris left Arianna
In the original version, while he is still somewhat of a loser,
its also hard not to feel some sympathy for him.
And he leaves. At the end, during Michaels and Jennas wedding,
they are shown to go into the sunset. e) The ONLY character who is reasonably similar, in personality and how
he relates to the other characters, to the original, is Stephen
I could go on. These are not details. They take the meaning of the film and turn it on its head. It would be fine if it was a different film, which was going to have a different message. But this is a "remake". Please, don't subsidize present Hollywood's lack of talent, and try to find the original film. You will not regret it.
The Holy Land (2001)
Cheap racist ending spoiled film (BIG SPOILER)
Imagine you have a film in which there is only one black character. For the entire film he acts OK, but it's just a ploy.
In the final minute, he reveals his true colors and does "something black people do" (rapes a white woman, or whatever), and that was his main purpose all along.
Why not? It "could happen". Just as it's possible that the only Palestinian character in the film is just putting on a show, getting along with people and everything, while in reality all he wants is to get a 10-year old kid to become a suicide bomber and blow everyone up to smithereens (despite all the propaganda you might have seen, there have never been children suicide bombers. ever. So this is a _complete_ fantasy).
But if the black character was used in this way (or Jewish, or any other ethnicity) it would be crystal clear to everyone that this is racist, stereotyping garbage. Yet somehow, to portray Palestinians as terrorists it's OK. Heck, that's all they do. I have seen it in the news. Without that ending, the film would be OK. Not brilliant, but OK. With the ending, it's another example of how easy it is to dehumanize people who happen to have had a different language, culture or historical experience from you. Attitudes like this are exactly why people are still getting blown up in that part of the world.
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)
Good cinematography, ludicrous story (spoilers)
This film's conclusion really messed with my head and got me asking questions about life and death. As all films of this type, crafted by people with the Coen brother's experience, should. However, in this case the cinematography also "hides" something, namely that the story just doesen't stand up.
Ed stabbed big Dave while holding his wife's knife with his bare hands. The knife was found (and that IS mentioned in the film, as evidence against the wife), and the police did not check it for fingerprints? Even if one overlooks that, it was pretty obvious everything happened during a FIGHT (the scattered papers & the cracked window). Big Dave's history of fighting, his sheer size and the fact everything happened in his office makes it obvious
that this was not premeditated, and makes it likely that the murderer
acted in self-defense.
Even decades ago, a white middle class woman would never have gotten a capital verdict under these circumstances even if there was no doubt about she did it. Same would be true as far as the man is concerned. Yet the lawyer does not even consider this as a line of defense, and makes the case out to be desperate.
As for the second trial, the Coen brothers skip telling us anything
concrete about it. IMHO deliberately, because I don't see how any jury would find the man guilty of a capital offense in a case like that. Hell, even the fact that he BEAT THE VICTIM TO DEATH would never stand
up.
So, good cinematography. Lousy story. Unlike Fargo, in which both were up to scratch. And, since this film, in many ways, explores
Fargo's themes, I'd say it's a step down.