Reviews

It made me nostalgic for a time and place I never experienced: the mid 1930 in Barcelona, Paris and North Africa. The range of everyday objects is so radically different from my time and space that it makes those olden times simpler, thus more meaningful. This is before TVs, commercial airplanes, computers. It made it easier to concentrate on the scenery, the people themselves, the story and morals behind it, there was less distraction. The protagonist, played by 31 year old Jean Gabin, kills someone in Paris, flees to Barcelona, runs out of money joins the foreign legion, but a cop follows him there too. I won't give away the end of the action though. Despite being a(n accidental) murderer, Gabin plays an honorable man.

The movie's focus is about honor as the title (meaning Flag) suggests too. But looking from today the concept of honor is limited: women and Arabs are excluded by default. The former group is clearly subservient and in best case are good looking prostitutes. The latter group is not even shown (with one short exception) despite that the second half of the movie is about the heroic European soldiers who fight them, the inferior "bastards". So maybe, thinking about my 21st century social sensitivity I should not think so nostalgically of that era. I loved the overhead shots on the street of Barcelona's markets. They were so full of life.

It is a science fiction movie, based on a Philip K. Dick short story so I had to see it, right? Sure, but nobody said that I have to like the movie, so I didn't. The worst part was that after 10 minutes I realized that a few months ago I read the short story the movie is based on. From then on I had a vague feeling lingering that the story was much better, than the movie. Sure, the events lined up the same way, although I don't recall any romantic thread in the original one. It was action packed as one would expect from John Woo. The clichés were all there too, down to the seedy hotel rooms, sexy and smart blond sidekick, a bit dumb but sympathetic FBI agents, the overuse of blue lights and backgrounds, technological marvels (that doesn't look so far-fetched any more), evil corporate boss and so on.

I wasn't exactly bored with it, but would have preferred more emphasis on what our heroes learn and act upon: Looking into the future is bad for you and for everyone else. I am no scientist and have no idea whether looking into the future technically will ever be possible. But this moral has been handed down from Abrahamic religion and I strongly agree with it. The future should left to its own devices. More precisely we should make the best possible version of it without trying to get a shortcut to it by peeking. This is what the protagonist did through a research project. Once done his memory of the work was erased, but apparently before that he decided to change the future (for the better) by destroying the look-into-the-future-machine he developed. So he is playing 'god' so nobody else would play god later on. Nice paradox. The movie returns to a punchline twice according to which saving the world equals changing it. I don't think it does. We all keep changing it with our day-to-day activities. Hopefully we, altogether can save it from ourselves humans. But it is not guaranteed that the continuous change will bring safety.

For most of my life I went to see a movie on January 1 of each year and was glad that I didn't break my tradition. I was with 3 friends and I saw the future. First time I purchased movie tickets from a machine. It worked fine and much faster than staying in the line and trying to communicate with the teller. To get our popcorn dosage though we still needed human assistance. It was particularly helpful, because when I was getting off my jacket I managed to spill half of the content of the pop- corn bag on the floor, but they refilled it for us free of charge.I got a special treat this slushy afternoon in Seattle because I love stories and got a great one.

As stories go this was a compelling one and well told. We are used to Tim Burton presenting Gothic themes. This movie is no exception but he matured, because the dark side is only just part of the story. Not too many movies can end with the burial of the main character and still present it as a happy ending, but he managed it. The culmination of a life where everyone is happy. But I am getting ahead of myself.

The Big Fish one hand is a metaphor for the protagonist's larger than life figure. It is also a symbol for the tall tales fisherman tell to make their catch seem bigger. This person was doing that. But not entirely for the usual reasons of making himself larger, but to entertain. Stories told without passions details and imaginations are just fact. That is the big lesson here.

I loved the way its expounding was driven by stories themselves. How time stops and fastens when you fall in love, the (not so) eternally happy village at the dangerous road, the friendly giant, escaping from China with the help of the Siamese twin singer sisters, life in the werewolf owned circus all stand on their own as imaginative, colorful attention grabbing stories. Together they form a life worthy living even if not entirely truthful.

This modern Baron Munchausen story was emotional. A son trying to understand his dying father whom he considers a liar. By the end we (and the son too) know that he was just making life more meaningful by enriching the sometimes gray, boring reality. Beside hearing his words we also saw the beautiful, often surreal imagery he lived in. The Alabama accent at the very beginning reminded me first too much of Forrest Gump, but I got over that pretty fast. I was immersed in the story, like everyone else. This is terrific myth-making. The only point I am hesitant about is the ending. On one hand I hate that nowadays most Hollywood movies are ending in a way that if it is successful at the box office they could make a sequel. This movie was not done like that. It had a definite closure at the end. On the other hand I would love to see more of this world. More from the hero's life. Till then every time I think back to this movie it brings a smile on my face.

I rented this movie because the text on the cover appealed to me. It was speaking about the transformation of a King who lived in the 3rd century India and turned from a warrior to a Buddhist and then helped to spread the message. I also suspected from the cover that it is a grand epic, based on a true story I didn't hear about so far. I got the epic part right, there were plenty of action, battle scenes. But I was disappointed because the Buddhist years of Asoka's kingdom were not pictured at all. Instead the whole movie was focusing on the love story thread.

(Side track: My house mate walked in while I was watching the movie and said he was "in love" when he saw the actress playing the king's love interest, Kareena Kapoor, granddaughter of legendary Raj Kapoor.) I was hoping to see how Asoka transforms from the mightiest and bloodiest war hero to the calm Buddhist, but saw none of it. Thus it was not entirely believable for me, that just because he lost his true love and found her after the battle that would be enough to turn him into a meek person. And why did they have to put in the obligatory music-video-clip type of songs, all 5 of them. They were fun, but didn't add anything to the movie. To close on a plosive note I would like to acknowledge that it was shot beautifully and the cutting was modern. Mostof it was a treat for my eyes. A tad bit too long though with its 170 minutes.

Children learn behavior by copying that of adults. In turbulent times they copy turbulent behavior. In this case when bandits have the power they become the role models. That's exactly what happened here. This Mexican movie is set in 1913 in that country.

There are 3 points worthy to mention. Most of the film is set in sepia colors. Very much like the color of the photograph from that area of the Wild West. The whole movie is like an animated "most wanted" picture. The only scene where I remember colors is the one we see right after the children kill their archenemies. That brings some color in their lives and in our eyes. The second ting is the children are fantastic. Both the little Jesuit student whose school was destroyed by bandits and the little band of young bandits he joins. Finally I would like to comment on the poor quality of the subtitles. I don't speak Spanish but it was clear that the DVD's subtitles were omitting a lot of the original. I was making a living from writing subtitles for half a year, so I know how difficult it is to capture the whole movie in those short lines. But here there were long minutes where the characters were speaking and there was nothing written. At 3 different occasions the text became non-sensical.

The movie is about children and violence so I feel obligated to mention Lord of the Flies. The similarity is that the social norms and rules in both societies is lax and have to be re-created by inexperienced children. Left to their own devices they go for the filling their role in the "survival of the fittest" game. For me the similarities were stronger to a Hungarian movie: Somewhere In Euorope (Valahol Europaban). That one is set after the World War II and a group of children create their own little community in an abandoned building. Compared to both of these movies Bandidos moves one because here the children end up killing their enemies for real.

A few words about the story just to give a general outline. Bandits destroy a Jesuit school. One boy survives because he has sneaked out before the attack. After the adult bandits leave, a group of 3 children bandits arrive to the school in hope for some loot. Our hero joins them and eventually revenges the bandits who killed his friends and teachers. Meanwhile we get to know his life and feelings and that of his new friends.