samizdat7

The IMDb database gives a runtime for this film in the alternative as either 24 or 75 minutes. I saw (most of) the 75 minute version. The premise of the film - investigating the 'real life' events underlying the Al Pacino film "Dog Day Afternoon" - is sound. The problem is that large chunks of the film are devoted to disagreements about money between the filmmakers and the main protagonist (the man behind the robbery). The filmmakers try to cover up the fact that during shooting they failed to secure the adequate co-operation of the protagonist by half-heartedly turning the documentary into an exploration of the nature of documentary truth, but this is clearly a cover for a failed documentary and is superficial and unconvincing. The more honest approach when it became clear the key guy would not co-operate would have been to abandon the project, return any unused funding (yes i know this is unlikely) and find a new documentary subject.

Having had the unfortunate experience of seeing the premiere for this Miramax-produced vanity-short by a first-time director (gee, isn't she married to someone famous!?!) in her presence, I felt the need to stifle my giggles (as did much of the audience, I suspect). Simply put, it is crap. The concept is one which may seem a good idea to a commercially-minded first-year film student but it just does not make for an interesting short film. And even if it did, this is not it! Apart from being uninteresting, the massive hyper-overacting, together with the lurid score, means that it verges on being a farce without ever quite getting there. The film is technically excellent but with the talent available to it that it just not enough. The direction is totally uninspired, shot selection is appalling, each of the actors was clearly making a different movie to every other (no direction!) and the end result just doesn't work.

This is the third Michael Haneke film I've seen and I rate it highly but just slightly below his incredibly disturbing masterpiece "Funny Games".

Like his other films this one will stick with me - Mr Haneke has a unique talent for getting under the skin of a middle-class, comfortable audience and his films are a reminder that comfort, success and even life are temporary and not to be taken for granted. There are no guarantees and life can be cruel and random.

Isabelle Huppert leads a large and extremely impressive cast as the mother of a family caught in a disaster. The young actor and actress playing her children particularly demand notice due to the brilliance of their performance.

The film sets a slow, deliberate pace giving time for the audience to really soak in the atmosphere. A dark, relentless film that will jolt you out of your comfort zone. Do not expect light entertainment.

As a veteran of many, many pretentious French films I thought I'd taken the worst the industry had to offer and was able to stomach anything. But not this. Pointless, relentless, violent, unpleasant, meaningless ... The film has nothing to offer and is random hatred and aggression dressed up as pretentious art. Avoid at all costs.

Yes it is better than The Phantom Menace, but is that really such an achievement? For my money, the best thing about Episode II (by far) is Natalie Portman. She has great presence, is incredibly beautiful and successfully portrays the dignity and youth of her character.

Obviously GeorgeL and his team have again created a universe which looks great and this is of course an achievement - it really does look spectacular.

You may notice I have not commented on the plot or dialogue. This is because there is nothing remotely positive I can think of to say about them.