Reviews

From this director I have seen GRAN TORINO and UNFORGIVEN, both of which are exceptional movies, and after both of those tours-de-forces I must admit that my review may be a bit harder than if I had not seen those films. MILLION DOLLAR BABY is indeed quite flawed in many ways. For one thing, I really have no idea why Morgan Freeman is in this, because his character seems to serve no other purpose than being a narrator (which is unfortunately what the man seems to be most famous for these days). However, this is without a doubt a very good, and for one useless supporting character, we have two very well-written main characters.

At this point I would usually write some sort of light summary of the plot, but it is very hard to do this for MILLION DOLLAR BABY without giving away a very interesting plot twist. And it is this twist that will either make or ruin the movie for most people. All that one needs to know is that this is about boxing and the will to be the best. Mostly.

The main problem with this film is that some of the drama feels clichéd and forced, which is interesting because the film is at its best when its doing exactly the opposite: being unpredictable. The result is a film that feels a little uneven. Nonetheless, this is a satisfying watch.

Recommended to people who don't mind depressing dramas.

This is the pathetic story of a woman who leaves her well-off and educated husband for Loulou (Gerard Depardieu), an unemployed ex-con. The storyline doesn't deviate much from this premise outside of a few interesting anecdotes here and there, and the rest of the film is spent on depicting the interactions between the characters.

So why does this simple film deserve eight stars? In my opinion, it's because Pialat has focused his attention on a single element that dominates all aspects of its development: realism. Characters depicted are paradoxical and confused, just as many people are when it comes to love and relationships. There is no soundtrack to distract the viewer. Perhaps most interesting of all is the way the film is written and acted; every line seems spontaneous, not scripted and polished. Because of this, the film really succeeds in the impression that you really are looking through a window into people's lives. It's all great cinema; the techniques used in this film really should be used more frequently.

Make no mistake, though: this is an actor's film. All three of the leads are equally brilliant. We can feel the raw emotion when one of them make a sudden outburst, though we may not always understand their motivations. This movie certainly would not have been the same without them.

I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys art-house cinema.

A child-murderer is on the loose, terrorizing a German city of 4.5 million people. The police's failure to capture him is driving the city into chaos; mobs appear to interrogate anyone who looks in the least bit suspicious. Public outrage encourages police to step up their game against criminals everywhere, disrupting their activities. These underground organizations become so desperate that they themselves decide to lead their own investigation against the killer.

Yes, I know,the premise is pretty ridiculous; it is very unlikely that a single killer, no matter successful, would be able to make this much noise, but the above paragraph describes the film's only flaw. M is a masterpiece of the thriller genre, and currently my favorite film of the 1930's.

M's greatest strength is its pacing. In M, there are no subplots, no pointless romances, and no distractions. The result is a steady-paced and very focused film (the focus being the investigation(s) itself and eventually its aftermath). Of course, by today's Hollywoodien standards it would be seen as rather slow, but my own opinion is that Hollywood is perhaps just a little bit too fast.

But I suspect that even to a viewer who has never seen a movie made before 1980 would be able to hold their attention through this one without a problem. There are only really two character in this film: the killer (Peter Lorre) and the public. I say the public because none of the characters besides the killer are truly developed. Instead, what we get is a mob of people who belong to different factions of society (the law, the general public, and the criminals) but who all share the same opinion: this murderer is a monster that needs to be dealt with. As a result, the only great performance is Peter Lorre's. But what a performance it is! Lorre's character is only on-screen in the last third of the film, and has only one scene of important dialog, but in that short amount of time Lorre leaves one hell of an impression. The film climaxes with his assertion that he "can't help it!" while he looks on at his accusers, wide-eyed, scared, and deranged. It is in fact his portrayal of a man to be pitied rather than feared that puts his character apart from the psychopaths of more recent cinema.

One of the best of the early talkies, I recommend this film to anyone who enjoys a good movie regardless of its language or age.