L'ombra di Caravaggio (2022)

It happens sometimes, quite rarely I'd say, to find in the schedule of the mall cinema non-mainstream titles produced outside US or locally. But it's also rare to make me interested enough for a big screen experience, and to be able to get to what's typically one scheduling per day in cinema requires luck. Well, one exception was "L'ombra di Caravaggio". I can say that visually did worth the time, except that so & so...

The subject, the life of Michelangelo Merisi known as Caravaggio, is one that you'll find very fitting for a movie if you do some quick online research. This production starts from the point where the painter, fled to Naples after being sentenced for a murder during a street brawl tries to find his way back to Rome, needing for this an official papal pardon. The script introduces in the story a character hired by the church for investigating the accused. From here onward we have a radiography of Caravaggio's entire career getting us through the troubled life of the man from his first paintings to the status of recognized artist of the time, but permanently in conflict with the clergy for the freedom taken to depict his works.

The director of the movie is Michele Placido, probably known for his main role in "La piovra" decades ago, and all I can say is that.. well, unfortunately it confirms my opinion that when directing is done by an actor it typically shows, and not in a positive manner. What we have here is a "deconstructed" Caravaggio. The connections are sufficiently coherent for linking the experiences in the life of Caravaggio the man with the impact over Caravaggio the painter, which more or less speculating what history preserves as known facts tries to get to deeper meaning. Still, the keyword remains "sufficiently". You can feel that the movie is sort of disconnected and made by patching pieces, permanently jumping from flashbacks to present and back to the past. Another problem, even more obvious, is the secondary cast. If Riccardo Scamarcio makes a perfect role for how the history preserved the image of the charactere, the rest of actors seemed to me overacting way too often, starting with the "shadow" Louis Garrel as the church investigator. Maybe it's a directing metaphor as reference to the contrast met as specific element in Caravaggio's pieces, although I doubt it. It looks more like an economy for more takes on a scene.

Over all the above problems, we still have left a visual story that's done very well, getting you through the history of Caravaggio's paintings, up to reconstructing an entire piece on the screen. So, I can say that if you're interested in the cinematography of a movie, this one definitely deserves watching. Besides that, what's presented behind the documentary value of the production, is also probably up to a personal interpretation for each viewer, on which, at least at the current time, I'm not sure how objective I could be. The essence is probably that during history, whoever had some level of inteliggence high enough, more obvious in arts but there are examples in other areas, also had his or hers own demons. The important part is how well can you keep these for your own without affecting the people around, and it's complicated to find a balance that allows you to leave something behind you. Over time, history seems to say that Caravaggio managed to get right at least the second part. Besides that... Happy Holidays ;)

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Kundun (1997)

It's been a while since I've watched "Kundun", and unfortunately I didn't have time to write a fresh entry. So, we'll deal with one a bit more stale, but somethin' is better than nothin'.

The movie, directed by Martin Scorsese, relates the history of the last living Dalai Lama since his early childhood up o the exile in India forced by the Chinese troops invading Tibet. It's debatable how well the movie presents the main points of Dalai Lama's ruling as the de facto leader of the second largest Chinese province. It's also debatable what connection you can draw, in the sense of "history repeats itself", between what happened more than 60 years ago in the far east and what happens now in the closer east. But this is not a blog for politics :) So, thinking on some of the latest more or less controversial positions expressed by a man that got through most of his life, probably it's more important to get to live in peace and harmony with the people around you indiferent of their urge for singing whatever national anthem. So, let's keep things peaceful and get back to the movie.

It's neither the best, nor the worst film made by Scorsese. It's definitely not on par with Bertolucci's "The Last Emperor", but it has its own merits and some distinct nuances still raising it to the level of a classic epic movie. First of all, I don't know if there's any known name in the entire cast. On the contrary, there are quite a few actors for whom this was their only movie in their cinematographic career. I'm not sure how Scorsese worked here = how many are amateurs, how many are stage actors, etc - but there's nothing to complain in the end. Besides Dalai Lama, we have some other characters with relatively consistent parts, like the chancellor for example, an excellent actor who in his real life is actually a tibetan painter. The cinematography of Roger Deakins and the minimalistic score of Philip Glass transform the movie in a visually-audible jewel. There are movie with a good subject, but where you have moments when you just drop out of the story, just to better sense some seconds or minutes of camera work mixed with sound. That's what I like to call "cinema movies", because there you get the max effect out of this. Well, getting over all the small issues in the story, maybe some lightness in dealing with a heavy subject here and there, and an ending that's a bit abrupt, for me "Kundun" remains a "cinema movie" - and there are less and less that provide this feeling.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Gandhi (1982)

 

There aren't many titles I didn't see that would fit in the "epic movie" category, which were released in the sound era of the the cinema. It's not such a large set anyway. "Spartacus" might be an exception that I missed, although I might have seen it when I was too young to remember it. "Kundun" and "Gandhi" were two others. I always had my doubts about the first, which got more doubtful after "Silence" directed by the same Scorsese. For the second one, the three hours it spans made just too complicated to grant it the needed time. This week I finally decided to break it in pieces and remove it from my "to watch" list. 

I'll try to discuss "Gandhi" in brief, and mainly from the cinematic perspective. Any movie has a story and a story has a morale, but especially when the story is a real one the comments made on the morale slip to easily beyond the border of the social, political, etc, and often forget about evaluating the movie as a movie. And this is a movie blog and I'll try to keep it that way. Even though in this case is quite hard because "Gandhi" is mainly a movie with a political message. But it's late anyway, and I'm not really in the mood for writing :) ...

Obviously "Gandhi" is a biography of Mahatma Gandhi, starting with the end, returning to the activity towards gaining rights for the Hindu minority in South Africa, passing over to the period of peaceful fight for the Indian independence and finishing again with the end. Which was a senseless assassination of an old man already on the dusk of his life, coming as a bitter irony after a series of almost suicidal fasts, a main weapon Gandhi used during his life to solve various conflicts.

I didn't watch all movies directed by Richard Attenborough, but out of what I watched I think "Gandhi" shows the most powerful influence of David Lean. If you wouldn't know the director, you probably could align the movie with "The Bridge on the River Kwai" or with "Lawrence of Arabia". That's both good and bad. 

On the positive side we have the attention to the details, the importance given to the actors (practically "Gandhi" made Ben Kingsley a star), the way to build a key scene, and an almost documentary-like flow that doesn't seem to lose anything. On the negative side we have the "lengths". Even if you see the movie in three parts as I did, and you'll notice these less, they are present. As in Lean's case there are moments where it just drags. Also on the negative, the sound is fine, but definitely not the best part of the movie, but this is somehow specific to the pre '90s period when the sound was much more discreet than now. However, this is a contributing factor to an aging feeling about the movie, aging that's not so obvious in other titles of the '80s such as Bertolucci's "The Last Emperor" (true, that's 5 years younger than "Gandhi").

"Gandhi" is still a movie to watch, even only for your general knowledge or for the pacifist message which would summarize to something like "there's no good & evil, just two sides that should come together", but I said I won't delve into comments, although this seems still valid at a global level during current times, unfortunately a bit hard to grasp both for the "good" side, as well as for the "evil" side, whichever these might be.

Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Anthropoid (2016)

I don't know how I'm getting there, but I'm again discussing a movie based on real facts, despite my strong belief that the main reason to lose two hours with a film is to escape real life. "Anthropoid" describes an operation conducted in 1942, having as target the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, the number 3 of the Nazi hierarchy at the time. It's the only thing I watched this week, so that's the topic of today.

I won't teach a history lesson here. In a couple words, this assassination was the only event of this kind that was successful during WW2 vs. a high rank official in the Reich. The action was planned and executed by a small group in the Czech resistance, Heydrich being assigned to Prague at the time to coordinate the occupancy of Bohemia and Moravia, and earning his nickname of "The Butcher". The historical analysis makes debatable to this day the utility of the assassination, considering the harsh reprisals in balance with the elimination of the main architect of the Holocaust, but let's leave the historical analysis for historians.

About the movie: it's split in two by the assassination, which takes place around half of its running time, between the planning and the outcome. It's a pretty accurate description of the facts if you compare them at least with what Wikipedia gives, where the details that are not that easy to grasp. In this context it's actually good that we have some tiny additions like two romance stories to compensate a bit, which anyway don't impact much the realism of the story. The two main agents deployed by the exiled Czech government to execute the mission - roles made by Cillian Murphy and Jamie Dornan - are very convincing, with an interesting nuance at some point of switch between certainty and anxiety. Besides that, the movie is quite good on the technical side, especially on editing. Even though it might not look so out of reality as the "Valkyie" operation that barely failed in removing Hitler from power, it has its own degree of spectacular which would put it normally in the action movies category. Unfortunately though, even the exaggerated facts seem to be mostly based on true facts, which finally makes you look at the movie a bit different than on an action film. Anyway, it definitely delivers on the impact side...

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Favourite (2018)

"My life is like a maze I continually think I have gotten out of, only to find another corner right in front of me." ... it got me at this one ;) despite the context... let's say a bit "strange" of associating this line in the movie :)) No spoilers - just that "The Favourite" is not really a drama in the strict sense, contrary of what looks like.

Queen Anne ruled ove the United Kingdom sometime at the beginning of the 1700s. The exact date is less relevant. More relevant are the intrigues, the political clashes, the war seen more or less as a board game, etc., which either 100 years before or 100 after (or more..) probably won't show much difference. What we have in the movie is an episode with lots of satire in it set in this environment, where a duchess and her less noble cousin end up fighting for the status of a "favourite" at the court of a queen plagued with diseases, anger and solitude. And contrary to the relaxed tone it starts from, this conflict evolves towards hardly predictable Machiavellian proportions.

Let's take a slight detour to the more technical side, otherwise I'll lose some ideas, and I'll move back to the story in the end. We have some camera angles resulting in a very interesting cinematography, and a score based on a classic line, but bringing a series of intermezzos simple but very effective, mostly in underlining the tensed moments. The three actresses in the main parts - Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, and especially Emma Stone, are brilliant in their acting. I've been recommended at some point to watch "The Lobster" directed by the same Yorgos Lanthimos, but I got scared by the perspective of an acute depression when I saw a tagline saying something like "single people obliged to find a romantic partner in forty-five days or are transformed into beasts", so I skipped that. I don't know what this guy did there, but what we have here looks like a lighter "royalized" and "anglicized" Tarantino :) I'm exaggerating a bit, but the movie is structured in the same episodic style, in which every segment comes with a "punch" that changes a bit your perspective over the story.

And coming back to that... I have the unfortunate habit (due to losing time + filling my head with cu useless stuff) to do sometimes a "fact check" when a I watch a movie based on real stuff. And here you get a bit intrigued by the evolution of a character, who you wouldn't believe at scene two how far could get. What you see though in "The Favourite" seems way more romanticized compared to the historical truth. Including the not so orthodox relationship between the three main characters that gets a lot of attention in the movie, about which there doesn't seem to be any solid proof. But in the end, it doesn't write either anywhere that William Wallace cried "Freedooooom!" before the axe fell down, or that he had any affair with the future queen of England. But how would've been "Braveheart" without these? :) Honestly... I'd even say that I regret that "The Favourite" has the ending it does, which might leave you a bit disappointed waiting for a more... balanced closure of the "war". But going so far to re-write who won the fight probably won't work... or?... :P just referenced Tarantino, "Inglorious Basterds" anyone?...

Rating: 4 out of 5

Darkest Hour (2017)

In case "Dunkirk" seemed to event-centered, you're in need of more detail, and Wikipedia is not catchy enough, probably the best option is "Darkest Hour". I never got this trend in the western cinema of getting out releases on the same topic at so short time intervals. I doubt there's that much financial gain in a movie like that, but let's not get busy now with details on the inner economics of the movie business...

I doubt there's much to say - the movie is a historical piece describing the context of UK entering WW2 from the appointment of Churchill as PM, until the retreat from Dunkirk. As a plus, you get to improve maybe a bit your knowledge on the events flow in that period and about the political intrigue in the English Parliament (more or less romanticized). The movie bets a lot on Gary Oldman's performance in the title role, which indeed is a good one, although I still cannot explain myself this choice. The transformation is impressive, but the effort for it seems likewise = without taking anything out of the result, I think that it would've been more... let's say, direct to choose somebody more close to the age/look/etc (Hopkins comes now to my mind).

The bad part is that, relying too much on the main character, the rest is a bit lost. If in "Dunkirk" Nolan for me seems that he managed the impossible = to get something surprisingly decent out of an event where the movie potential is close to zero, but this required a complete mix between the camera work, sound and a very simple script, here we're a bit lost in cliches... This is to be expected from a history movie, especially one centered around Churchill = words of wisdom, inspiring speeches, solemn moments and all the rest, but still... the presented timeline seems a bit short and overfilled with such stuff just to cover more movie minutes. It would've been more natural having a historical speech at the right time and an action timeline spanning beyond Dunkirk. As it is, the movie looks like a sort of "Episode 1", just that unlike "Star Wars" we don't need any sequel to find out the ending...

Rating: 3 out of 5

A Royal Affair (2012)

I managed to see "A Royal Affair" in two rounds, during last weekend, after having the movie on my "to see" list since around 3 years ago when it stirred some interest among the European productions that typically don't get into other cinemas besides their origin country. What we have here is a "history piece" made in Denmark, which tells us a political episode happened there, probably not very known, and let's say ... rather surprising ...

Why surprising? Well, first, a bit of history: we have a Denmark at the end of the 18th century, where the French Revolution movement didn't get yet. The state ruling is still dominated by the noble class, the church enforces very conserving rules, torture and executions are normal punitive measures, etc. On top, we also have an insane king ... harmless apparently considering he's used without any difficulty when signing the ruling council's decisions. There's still a problem .. actually two: 1. the king must have some heirs, so with or without his will he's married with a queen 2. the king must be calmed down somehow, so he's also getting a personal physician. "Bad choice" of options for both of the newcomers. Not for the country, but for the ministers who are suddenly getting some unannounced opposition. Getting back to the surprising part, somehow spoiling the plot a bit, in this whole context, a small town doctor manages somehow to gain the full power in the country for something like two years ... How that ends, and why we don't have only the doctor in the poster, remains to be seen in the movie.

"A Royal Affair" is an interesting picture. I don't know when I've watched last time another Danish production, and definitely it's been a while since seeing a non-American historical film. Still, either because I didn't have the right mood to watch another real case based drame, either because I thought that sometimes it's moving to a cold and dry direction more close to a Norwegian film, I can't say that I've seen something that impressed me much.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Gunpowder, Treason & Plot (2004)

"Remember, remember the 5th of November ...". Yup, the title relates to that. Not to "V for Vendetta" but to the real historical source of the rime = the plot meant to kill King James I of England and Scotlans in 1605 AD. I don't really know where to start from. I've probably watched one of the most .. weird .. filmic production in a long time. But let's try to disect somehow the subject of this so called two part mini-series, although "Gunpowder, Treason & Plot" is actually only the last half.

The first part presents the most vivid period of the reign of Mary - the Queen of Scots. Some historical background: she was the closest rival ruler in geographic terms of the much more known (and put on film) Elisabeth I. I don't want to get too much in details, because that's the movie's role, but what I can tell from my minimal general knowledge in that area, what is presented is decently accurate compared to the truth. A catolic queen, arrived from France after her mother's death, Mary didn't have the easiest rule in a protestant Scotland, and also not a very bright end to it. But she had a son, unlike the rival from the South, which son is the subject of the second part ...

The second part looks like a completely different production. Not a single character from the first half is present for more than a couple minutes. It's true that we have a gap of quite some years between the two (after a pretty abrupt ending of the first part). But besides that there are enough elements that would make me double check if the production team was the same. I'll leave this for later and get back first to the subject. As said before, Mary had a son, James, who in the context of no other direct heir of the England throne, got the crown in London based on the British monarchs genealogic tree. Of course, the main event consists in the gunpowder plot caused by the religious tensions. Sort of ironic, if Mary got to deal with the protestant opposition, James was close to be killed by the catholic resistance. But for more details, see the movie.

I'll get back to the weird part, as I characterized the production. The script differs a lot as style between the two parts. If the first looks relatively close to a history book, the second allows itself more building an evil devious portrait for James which seems slightly exaggerated compared to what seems to have been in reality (although, here and there, especially towards the end, the production leaves some humanity to get out from him too). Well, I don't know much on UK history anyway ... We have intrigues, assassination attempts, etc = the complete menu also in the first part as a historical drama. The second starts as a History Channel documentary in which the characters speak to the viewer from time to time to update to the news of the moment, after which it turns (more or less as a nuance) towards a dark comedy with a grim dry humor that's felt quite often. It might sound surprising .. but I guess this actually saves the not so good script. The differences continue .. In the first part we have a torid and tensed loved story involving Mary, in the second we have a cold and pragmatic marriage with a Danish princess (= we get three kids, after which you can get lovers), but the relation finally gets a certain charm for which I'll leave the movie to say more (although again, I tend to think that the historical accuracy is pretty thin on this matters).

I don't know what final verdict to give. The script varies from abysimal to extremely bright lines. I forgot to mention the actors - I noticed Clemence Poesy for the first time (although theoretically I've seen her before in "In Bruges" or "Harry Potter", but I must have been blind). For the rest, Kevin McKidd and respectively Robert Carlyle capture the screen in each of the two parts. Well .. overall it was an interesting movie experience, relatively different from everything seen as a history production by now (if we take the two pieces together). And as additional factor, it deserves to be seen at least as a documentary if you want to find more about the origin of "Remember, remember the 5th of November .." .

Rating: 3 out of 5

Anonymous (2011)

Since I only have something like four hours of sleep in the last 24 and I'm writing in a work break, I'll get straight to the point. "Anonymous" is a movie that handles a somehow delicate subject = who actually wrote Shakespeare's plays ? And obviously the answer to the question is not Shakespeare but an earl from the respective time, Edward de Vere, the reason behind this being to stay anonymous, considering that such creative activities weren't seen very well by the "politic class" of the age.

The movie is made by Roland Emmerich, who confirms me a hunch that he still has some chances to save his soul from "the movie directors Hell" after catastrophes, more or less figuratively speaking, as "Godzilla", "10000 BC" or even "Independence Day". There were at some point anyway "Stargate" (the movie), "The Patriot" (even with all the cliches in it) and now "Anonymous". And this last one is also probably his best movie up to date.

You don't have to expect here something similar to the previous titles. The movie is quite slow, compared to any of the above. It could be compared actually with the more politically correct version historically speaking = "Shakespeare in Love". Still, in this case the action becomes a bit soapy on the final taking the speculations to a level which is a bit too far I guess (reason to gain the right to be considered by some a complete blasphemy not only regarding the literature history of England, but history itself). Despite all that is a movie deserving to be seen, at least for the role made by Rhys Ifans as lead character (first time when I see this guy in this position in a movie). And after all, if there is something like "The DaVinci Code" that can be watched in a relaxed note without taking it too seriously ( if you don't want that, obviously ;) ), why not ? It's just a movie :)

Rating:
subjectively - 3 out of 5 (because to be honest I'm not very interested by the subject)
objectively - 4 out of 5 (because if you do a harsh evaluation is better than "The Patriot")

Carlos (2010)

I thought I should write about a TV mini-series this week, since I didn't talk about anything on this production area on my blog. Especially considering this is pretty much everything I've seen in the last two weeks. And on top of that, I had quite high expectations from it, because it has a Golden Globe, was quite appreciated at Cannes and scored also 94 on Metacritic.

The movie has three parts, following the life of Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, mostly known on the name in the title, from the time he joined the Front of the Liberation of Palestine in the beginning of the '70s up to his capture in '94. Despite the fact that each part starts with a sort of a disclaimer that can make you think that pretty much all you'll gonna see is fiction, I think this is probably caused by legal issues due to the fact that the only accusations proven in court are two crimes, and for some of the rest there is still a trial going on. So, even if the movie has a certain degree of "story enrichment", I could say that has a lot of value from a documentary point of view. It's like a sort of mini-history of terrorism of the '70s - '90s period of the areas in the world where Carlos activated. One fact that's interesting is that unlike other productions, what you see here is handled quite neutrally. This is if you take it as a whole, because considering the little pieces you have of course the drama part that can add to the emotional factor. But it doesn't add that much, and finally, you can't say that you have a movie trying to put the main character neither in a negative nor positive light. It's like I said, neutral - you have strictly the facts, and from these you can create your own impression. On one side I could appreciate this but overall for me it was a bit "dry" as general feeling.

Getting to the actors + the technical part, the lead role played by Edgar Ramirez, covering 20 years of Carlos' life would've been Oscar material if this was a big screen production. For those 20 years, the movie travels through most of the '70s - '80s Europe and the Arab countries of the the same period trying to keep an authentic look. The are lines in at leas seven languages (you have English, Arab, French, Spanish, German, Hungarian and Russian). What I did like and I didn't like in the same time is the cinematography, editing and sound part. I liked these (especially the editing) because they manage to keep you focused to the action, thing that isn't that easy taking into account the length of the movie. I didn't like them because (leaving apart some scenes) generally these give the same "dry" atmosphere that works for a documentary but not so much for a movie in general ... (well, maybe it's a matter of taste).

I think the final rating I'll give is a bit lower than the actual movie value, but like said above it might be just a matter of taste, coming mostly from the overall movie production value than from it's action or subject. I would recommend it as movie that should be seen, at least for the part written "between the lines" to put it like this (considering that in the years depicted there was also IRA, ETA, and other groups activity going on) ... meaning that the "global terrorist threat" (to use a standard cliche) is indisputably smaller today, despite all the fuss after 9/11, than it was in the '70s-'80s (well, maybe it depends also on the continent you're talking about).

Rating: 3 out of 5

Fatherland (1994)

I didn't have many options for today because I'm a bit "out of service" due to some eye problem (which I hope it will solve by itself next week ...). Getting to the point, not very long ago I was writing about "Enigma". "Fatherland" is an adaptation based on the same author, Robert Harris, pretty much keeping the same feeling of a mix between drama and thriller based on 2nd WW history facts (well, not directly WW2 related this time and in a fictive setting, but nevertheless the movie has pretty much the same "air").

As setting we have an alternate history, in which the Nazi Germani won WW2 becoming an empire, and in the 60's Hitler is celebrating his 75 birthday while on the eastern front there still are ongoing guerrilla battles and on the west side the US president is expected to arrive in Berlin for a historical peace treaty meant to end up any frictions between the two powers. The movie starts with an SS officer (SS becoming a police force after the war) who is called to investigate a body of one of the former major Nazi party leaders found in a lake a few days prior to the US-German meeting. Simultaneously, a female journalist just arrived from the US for the coming event is approached by a mysterious old guy who gives her an envelope with a group photo, a name and an address that might have something important to tell. This is pretty much the beginning of the movie plot, that might seem sufficiently interesting at a first sight but it has a major problem. The action development becomes quite obvious quite fast, the two mentioned before getting entangled together in a sort of investigation that finally reveals something well hidden by the Nazi regime in the history context of the movie - the Holocaust. No spoilers here, because it's almost 100% obvious from the beginning which states the official version of the alternate history context about relocating the Jews into the east .. but considering that in the same alternate history context we don't have anything to give a reason for this difference from the real one it's quite clear that the statement is a fake.

I didn't say everything about the action of the movie, but it's probably not very difficult to see in what direction it goes. Thing that's the main problem of the movie. You pretty much can figure at every moment how all this is going to end, well ... maybe without the fate of the main characters, but give the context this is secondary to the main plot. Considering the rest, for a TV movie (it is for TV - made by HBO) I think it's quite good as production value, beginning with the cast - Rutger Hauer and Miranda Richardson (awarded with a Golden Globe) up to the production design, quite detailed, giving a feeling probably quite close to how you would imagine a 60's Nazi Berlin. Instead of the trailer (which I don't know if it even exists) I'll end with a clip from the first part of the movie that gives a pretty good example about this. And I think that actually the production design is probably the main reason to watch the movie. Personally, I'm waiting for an adaptation of P.K.Dick's "Man in the High Castle" or Len Deighton's "SS-GB", those following a pretty similar alternate history, and even if I didn't read any of them yet, from what I've heard they have a bit more potential in the story.

Rating: 3 out of 5

13 Assassins (2010)

Generally, I try to write about movies that are from lightly to strongly deserving to be recommended. There are exceptions when I don't have the time to see something to fit into this. Today however, I'm gonna make an exception from the exceptions and although I could find a much better (talking about movie value) title to focus on, I've chosen the current one deliberately for an anti-recommendation blog entry. The reason is simply that I was surprised (well, retroactively .. after I've seen the movie) by the ratings it has on pretty much all of the sites: IMDb, Metacritic, RT, etc. And to that to, just fill it up, I could add also some mini-reviews I quickly read to be sure I'm talking about the right movie. It's not because I was expecting more (although I was expecting more ...). It's not because it's an asian production (Japanese to be more precise) that has its specific elements related with the country's culture, reflected in the script, general feeling, etc, and those might seem a bit stupid or exaggerated at some points in time for somebody who's from the western or central part of the Globe. This is not a problem, and as I actually recently wrote I really do have a positive opinion about the eastern cinema (even better than about the European one I might say). The thing is just that "13 Assassins" is a weak weak movie.

Let's say two words about the subject. We have an action set sometime around the early 19th century, the final part of the shogun era in Japan. A pretty quiet period, considering the internal armed conflicts, according to the movie at least. Thing that seems to bore a lot one of the lords placed in charge of a province by the shogun, especially considering that the guy seems to be well qualified for a position in a dark and isolated room of a mental sanatorium for his demented lust of blood. By the way, the first part of the movie has some scenes R rated considering the roughness of the visuals you get to see (and those may make sense if what is following would have been any good or at least more complex .. but in this case are just a piece of trashy gratuitous violence). Going on with the story .. because the appointment of the tyrannical lord was official his subject can't do much .. also officially .. Unofficially however, we have a bunch of samurais - 12 in number in the end + one more .. cheerful .. character added to the group, deciding that things must be set in order by assassinating the evil lord. I don't know if I should give other details because I've already said pretty much everything. There isn't any more in the main subject besides this, half of the movie is the plotting and the other half is a final battle = the execution of the plan.

I think it's a low budget movie, or at least it looks like (or maybe just looks and it's not .. which already tells a lot). The cinematography, the editing and the sound are quite ordinary. I won't say bad, but they don't have anything remarkable. Which is a minus, considering that's a movie with potential at least here if for the story we can't say much. The action takes place more than 90% of the time outdoors and there is a lot of action in the raw sense of the word. As a script, besides the fact you don't have any complexity in the story, and leaving out the cliche parts for which we can consider that those are specific to the culture, time, etc ... there is the final battle, which is very very bad written I think. First of all, is way too long, that's why I'm actually giving thought to that (and also because it's praised as action part on some sites ...). The thing is that besides it's long, it's also plain stupid as script and direction in some points. We have some battle decisions that are amazingly dumb even considering the way of the samurai - to die in battle (but completely forgetting that the battle is supposed to be won as main purpose) - something like "well, it seems it's too boring killing with arrows from an elevated position without much risk, let's drop into battle and see how it's feeling to be surrounded face to face by ten armed bad guys" (at least if the arrow stock was depleted ...). And after this we get some scenes that look like taken from a B series Hong Kong movie where the ten bad surrounding guys try to be as fair as possible and to attack one at a time - and it's actually visible ! (you have at least two scenes where the enemy has the spear almost in the back of a samurai and seems that he's just watching for birds ...). And to add more the ten bad guys are actually more like 20 and maybe it won't be a problem if at some point it wouldn't be stated that there are only 130 enemies left (like it was reported by some electronic scoreboard ...) and they are still flowing in numbers surpassing for sure that value.

Maybe all the bad stuff above could be ignored ... but the problem is that there isn't anything left to appreciate. The only good part of the movie is the acting I think, but .. without much use .. because with two or three exceptions, the characters remain quite undeveloped. You have 13 assassins, but if you try to enumerate all of them after the movie ends, I don't know if you'll be able, because some have only a few lines during the final battle. I'm really wondering, where is the resemblance with the Kurosawa movies, that I've seen mentioned here and there. Well, I don't know .. Probably I'm also overrating it but ...

Rating: 2 out of 5

Centurion (2010)

Unfortunately, even if I wished having another topic this week, I didn't have the time to see something else, and I also have some other stuff to solve on my head to be able to do a memory search for an older better movie ... Anyway, I should have on my blog from time to time something for the "better avoid it" category too, don't I ? :) ...

"Centurion" wants to be something between epic, history and action. In what's concerning the middle part, we have the context set in the year 117 somewhere in Britain in what seems to have been something like a Bermuda Triangle of that time for the Roman IX-th Legion. Not until today is known what really happened with that troops, besides not being able to pose too much of a fight against the local tribes resistance. The most common theory is the one given by the movie as far as I know = the IX-th Legion disappearance was more exactly a massacre that happened somewhere in the Britain's woods and swamps. That's actually pretty much about the historic value of the movie (not 100% certain though). The rest it's about a chase where the chased are a small group of roman legionaries escaped from the slaughter, but still hunted by another small group due to the imprudence of killing the tribe's chief son. In theory, about taking sides, the movie probably wants you to care for the hunted ones. But.. if you try to consider a bit more objectively the whole situation (or mess ... it's more appropriate), you probably won't be so sure anymore who's the good guy and who's the bad one, if there is good and bad here ... thing that I don't know if it's ok or not, but for sure it can get a bit confusing.

One part that bothers is the gratuitous violence you get. And I'm not against the violence part in this kind of movie, I'm against the gratuitous one. Maybe it is about presenting a war as it is, but for me it's a bit exaggerated in the number of beheadings, eyes removed, etc. Especially considering that the whole "realistic feeling" is completely messed up by the stupidity of quite many situations that probably don't have any chance to happen as presented in the movie. It ranges from the well known and met verbal cliches up to really senseless actions. Too many to enumerate here ... I can tell only about the intelligent plans of running in the opposite direction of your own side, and figure out an U turn after, just to fool the enemy, with you being on foot, without food and with injured people, and the enemy on horses + you stick to the plan even when it's clear it doesn't work ... and you leave also a big helmet behind you, just to be sure that the best tracker in the country who's able to smell the wind to get your direction gets 100% percent chance to follow you. For the verbal cliche ... I'll better leave it without saying anything. It's enough to mention that the pict tribes speak something that's probably old Gaelic, and the roman Latin is pure English. And even more sometimes .. with Scottish accent (the area where the picts lived) - the movie is made in UK ... now ... I wasn't expecting to hear Latin, but you have to admit it's a bit ironical considering the whole context.

The only good parts from the movie are probably the score by Ilan Eshkeri (although not extraordinary) and Imogen Poots' warm blue eyes (but this is a very subjective appreciation :-p). There is also the cinematography, but this takes a dive at some points from beautiful (supported by the landscapes) to an abysmal kitsch (for the credits part, that wants to be something like a 3D stuff in a 2D movie, I'll better not comment at all). What I can say more, is that recently another movie was released, "The Eagle", based on a book, and also placed in the IX-th Legion context. I was planning to see that, but considering that IMDb ranks it even a bit lower than "Centurion" I'll probably have second thoughts on the probability to lose some time again for too less to worth it ...

Rating: 2 out of 5

Balibo (2009)

I didn't start the english version of my blog since long but from what I had up till now around here, and most certain also from the next entries of this year, this is probably the hardest film to be watched. The main reason, as the poster says, is more that it's based on real facts and less the blood & gore scenes (which aren't many). As a comparison, if you've seen "Hotel Rwanda" and you thought it was hard to grasp, it might be best to avoid "Balibo". Don't get me wrong - as a movie (historical drama) probably it deserves all the attention. Like I numerously stated on my Ro blog version I'm not usually pro real life depicting dramas (especially sick of Romanian cinema focusing on life in Ro before/after '89) and I usually want a movie to try to pull me out from the every day reality. History stuff (especially old history stuff) however it's the exception from the rule - because I usually see it as a story (without the "hi" :) prefix). In this case however it's the kind of movie that leaves you with an acute desire to make an online petition to Bill Gates in order for him to start buying weapon factories and refocus them on can production (idea for a new Microsoft branch :-p).

What's the story anyway? The film shows a glimpse of history from a little country named East Timor, which somewhere in 1975 declared its independence from the former Portuguese colony status and almost immediately came under the occupation of its neighbor - Indonesia. Obviously, like the poster suggests, the whole story was not exactly peaceful (and as it seems also the years that followed), going on under the tacit acceptance of other neighboring countries, and especially of the Australian Government. I'm not going to discuss anymore the subject from the political point of view because I just don't do that and this is a movie blog. The action is centered on six Australian journalists caught up in events. More specifically it follows the steps of the last of them who came to East Timor to learn something about the fate of the first five. What fate ... see the movie ...

The film advances simultaneously on two plans - one plan is the route of the sixth journalist in search of others before him, following the path through the same specific places, points where the other plan comes up with flashbacks of the first group. The film is excellent work from that point of view. It's hard to describe the feeling created ... but the idea is that it's probably as successful as it intends to be. It doesn't serve you the ending immediately on a platter. Instead, as I said, it goes step by step along with the investigation thread, which you can't actually say that it gets explicitly worse as long as it's advancing regarding the fate of those involved. But somehow, after a while (not too long), even if you know nothing about the real facts, you will get the feeling that something is going to get really ugly in the end. And this feeling grows until it reaches its maximum in the final point (or rather points because we have two) - climax that ultimately leads to a kind of repulsion, connected with the "can factory" idea mentioned at the beginning ... :) ...

I don't think I should say anything more about the directing part - that's behind everything I've tried to explain above. It's not a movie intended to make you feel good and it succeeds. Technically, the editing contributes greatly to that, namely through the tension created (you can only think as an example to the flashbacks about the first journalist group, and the way these are integrated, having relatively long durations compared to the usual technique for this stuff). Even the cinematography gets some points for the feeling created by the movie - it's one of the cases where shaky cam (or kinetic to name it "scientifically correct") is used without exaggerating and at the moments it should be. On the soundtrack we have Lisa Gerrard ("Gladiator," "Man on Fire", etc.) who I thought up till now only providing the voice part in movies, but it seems that she also works as a composer (and it doesn't sound bad). All these being said, I can mention also a weakness, namely a few cliche/cheesy lines in the script accompanied by some overacting, but this doesn't happen very often and gets lost among the rest.

Conclusion - better than my general opinion vis-à-vis the Australian cinema, despite a budget that doesn't seem very high ; recommended to see if you don't dislike historical dramas or you're just in the mood to add something to enrich your general knowledge about that part of the world ; clearly to be avoided if you want a comedy for dinner ... :)

Rating: 4 out of 5