Reviews

My screenwriting prof., Thomas Pope (author of Good Scripts, Bad Scripts), always talked about the danger of "talk about" scenes. "Talk about" scenes are scenes in which characters "talk about" something without doing anything. Film is a medium that combines sound and moving imagery and it is wasted in "talk about" scenes. Tom's theory was that you should always show your audience instead of "talking about" what you want to show them.

Which brings me to "Waking Life." I had never heard anything about this film, read anything about it, seen any previews. At first, I thought it was some of the best animation I had ever seen. But then I thought, "wait a minute, did they just videotape some scenes and photoshop them?" Essentially, yes. The footage was shot and then the "animators" rotoscoped the scenes on computer. Why did they do this?

My hypothesis is that the filmmakers actually just made a miniDV movie and when they saw how badly it turned out, they decided to animate it. Somehow, animation would lend the film credibility.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. Animation is a wonderful art form, allowing artists to do things that you couldn't normally do in a real movie. I've seen all sorts of animation, from Japanese to disney, and in almost all cases you get things in animation that you couldn't actually film. Weird angles, fast motion, explosions, grand cities, talking animals, etc. "Waking Life" is about our dreams, what a perfect time to use animation... ...but they blew it. Instead of showing us the beauty of dreams through animation, this is merely an amateur miniDV movie that's been painted over. People could argue I didn't "get" the movie. Understanding the movie is besides the point. The filmmakers had a chance to animate a complete dream world and instead we get very long, pretentious "talk about" scenes. The film could have allowed us to be inside a dream; instead, we merely watch people talk about dreams. Only two of the scenes were really interesting, the rest of the vignettes had dialogue that was so laughably absurd that I almost stopped watching.

No matter who you are or where you live, people don't just suddenly bring up their ideas of dreams or these reports they've read. It seemed like everybody in the movie was able to say "That reminds me of something (famous philosopher) said or this (famous study)." Somehow, everyone studied dreams in their free time.

With the tools at their fingertips, why didn't the filmmakers show us a dream instead of telling us about it? What a wasted opportunity. If I wanted to watch people talk, I could. I wanted to see a dream, and that they did not provide.

This is not the greatest film of all time, nor do I think it is perfect. I think "The Princess and the Warrior" is a flawed masterpiece. It is too much of a good thing and is so close to being great you can feel it.

The short description of the film is this: this is Germany's "Amelie Poulain" this year, a complicated love story of two complicated characters. However, this film reveals that German and French film versions of romance are not similar. "Amelie Poulain" was a very cute, romantic piece that ended in a truly inspirational fashion.

"Princess" is far more intellectual with far more "real" characters. They are both wonderful films.

I can honestly say that this film explores all your available emotions. There are some scenes that are very difficult to watch because what is being shown. Then there are other scenes that are difficult to watch because of what is being said. Finally, there are scenes that are breathtaking to watch. The film is an "emotional rollercoaster" (to use a nonsense quote by Peter Travers) and pulls you along with it.

Excellent acting (with the male lead acting obsessed and driven), very nice directing, and great soundwork. But, unfortunately, some scenes just seem to clunk together. The film, at 2.5 hours, is a tad lengthy and could be trimmed by 30 minutes, creating a tighter narrative.

I went into this movie knowing nothing about it and I recommend everyone else try the same. The less you know, the more rewarding it will be.

"Dis 'Hard'" was what the posters for this movie read, a "clever" french play on the American film "Die Hard". La Tour Montparnasse is a blatant spoof of "Die Hard" by the two incredibly popular French comedians, Eric and Ramzy. I'm not sure there is an American equivalent to these guys, but Martin Lawrence comes to mind. Eric and Ramzy combine to create the "mis-matched" comedy pair: one tall, the other short, one loud, the other shy. Although this pairing has been done over and over and over again, Eric and Ramzy are good natured and playful and are enjoyable to watch.

The film, on the other hand, isn't so easy to watch. La Tour Montparnasse is the sole "skyscraper" in Paris, the natural setting for a French "Die Hard" knockoff. The movie starts off with Eric and Ramzy playing window washers on the side of the building. They are wasting time spitting off the building and trying to flirt with the women inside the building. Within 3 minutes of this movie, you have a rough idea of the intelligence behind it. It is dumb. It is childish. It has pretty low production value. But, there are some decent gags.

The scenes I thought were quite funny was a matrix spoof (yes, it's pretty topical humor) and an incredible spoof of Bruce Lee's "Game of Death." This joke probably flies by most of the audience (I think I was the only one laughing in the theater) but it is hilarious. There is also a decent "Speed" spoof at the very end of the film.

The negatives to the film? It is pretty dang homophobic. Apparently in France it is still okay to have homophobia in the films, but I found it a little jarring. There is a constant banter between Eric and Ramzy about "gayness." The production values for the film are also quite low, but considering comedies usually aren't huge budget blockbusters anyway, it's not such a huge deal. Maybe the most blatant problem is the film's tendency to act like "Scary Movie": it comes off as a series of gags with no real connection between them. The plot is thiiiiiiin and it serves only to bridge the gags or spoofs in the film.

Overall, I would give the film a middle of the road 5. It's not great, it's not terrible, and any Bruce Lee fan should definately watch the great spoof near the last half hour of the film.

When Luc Besson is attached to a project (but not directing) it can be good (Taxi), okay (Yamakasi), or painful (Kiss of the Dragon).

Yamakasi is a tale of a group of young men from Paris, all from different backgrounds, who jump off, across, and on buildings for fun. Supposedly, there are french kids who do jump from building to building, but maybe I missed that documentary. The movie kicks into gear when a kid with a heart condition attempts to re-inact a Yamakasi stunt, only to fall and be sent to the hospital. Low and behold, he needs a crazy amount of money for the operation to fix his heart and so the real Yamakasi go into action.

Here we have your standard action fare movie, with the usual (and sometimes baffling) subplots going around. The jumping and flipping is very well done and flows nicely. The French cops are (dumb, old, slow, mean) bit is getting a tad dated as every French police chief in recent French film seems not too far away from the villian.

I managed to catch this one in Paris and I doubt it'll be coming state-side. If you're looking for a couple laughs and some good action, see if you can catch Yamakasi sometime.

Rating: B