Andreman

The title had me hoping for some kind of futuristic world with trains and alienated people in a world of robotic efficiency. Instead, I had 2+ hours of a Chinese man with a mustache and a blinking problem. Chow must have blinked more than a billion times in this film. Rather annoyingly "cabotin", especially when compared to the (very) good performance of the other actors.

Also, why was Chow's character so damn macho? How can we believe that a rather small, oily, slug-mustached feller with no money and hillariously toad-like can go frolicking about with the superb women playing the female roles? My WSD was ironically suspended every time the plot started exploring a new relationship. And the man's supposed to be a writer, therefore at least somewhat sensible to other people's feelings and stuff. The scene where he hands the girl money after their first night together will have you cringe, both because of the contradiction with the presumed characterisation of Chow and with the impossibility to punch him in the throat.

Apart from that, it was unnecessarily long; at one moment it made me think of those Grandpa Simpson stories that go on and on ladden with boring details that no one will ever care about.

Now, the spoiler: Did Lulu die? From what I gathered, Chow rents the 2046 room after her death in it, at the hotel. Years after, around the time his ex-neighbour/lover is leaving for Singapore, he sees Lulu again. How/why? Is it a poetic licence or did I just miss something? Anyway, I rated this film a six, for the beautiful photography and the hope for a brighter future provided by LG electronics.

Thank you LG electronics! (art film, eh? first and last sequences were as blatantly commercial as publicity can be).

Attention, possible spoilers

This film is so lousy that it actually becomes funny. The director has put in all the clichés that have ever plagued B-series movies. The stupid bimbo (nice rack) getting caught again and again by the bad guys, chief villain smirky and revealing his plots before they happen so they can be ruined and who, of course, bullied/killed the hero's father in an unclear past, a side-kick in the person of a policeman - small, bald and whose only preparation for the last battle (another cliché) is returning his baseball-cap rim-backwards etc.

The film's end really tops it. After the chief villain dies when the hero Paralised Stoneface Jack or whatever throws him from the roof of a building ten stories high, they walk out of the building. Which, from the exteriors, looks three stories high only and very much like your regular city hall.

When they exit the building, the side-kick can't walk, being that his right leg appears to be wounded. How, nobody can tell: ten minutes earlier he fell down shot in his shoulder and his feet were fine. There is no further explanation for the inquisitive mind of the viewer who would be curious to know such trivial things as "Where is the villain's body which should lay near the building?" and "Why is there no police or even curious folks gathered round the said body?".

I could go on forever with the list. Why does another one of the bad guys claim to have invented martial arts when he gets his ass kicked in no time? Why do bad guys in general make silly movements when attacking? Why does the hero look so faggy? Is there anyone really thinking "yes, these characters and this plot makes this a film to remember"? And the actors suck. Our hero and saviour of the day wears the same expression on his face. The whole film. That disgusted-trying to be cocky smirk must be some copyrighted feat of him.

Also, thinking that until now 12% of the people having rated this film gave it a 10 makes me full of fear inside. They might have been serious and then we're doomed.

I really went seeing this crap with high hopes. Having seen Amores Perros and enjoyed it pretty much.

21 grams is s***. If the film would have reduced to the trailer it would have made no difference. I hated the cutting: Iñárritu wanted to shake his audience, so he cut it all in short scenes and then balanced back and forth in time and intrigue, probably in a pitifully failed attempt to create tension and stirr up the spectator's feelings or whatever (thence the grainy film he used, or the shaky camera, in a deceiving tentative to implicate the viewer). He only managed to make me nauseous and completely disinterest me in the story, which, by the way, could be and was probably written on a back of a post stamp. When Naomi Watts yelled at Sean Penn and there was that silence, like, dude, all those feelings, man, I laughed out loud, and people in the theater did too. It was too caricatural. It could have been the Simpsons' version of 21 Grams. I really hated the film for dissapointing me so much. As much as Amores Perros was genuine, 21 Grams was a film built around nothing, counting on rather good actor performances and that s*** cutting and camera work to inspire that genuity which it lacked. Very, very dissapointing. Don't go see it. Just watch the trailer and save some bucks.

P.S. And that poem or whatever...pathetic.

Warning! some spoilers

I really enjoyed watching this film. I think that the people who disliked it on behalf of its lack of realism are a bit too serious for it. It's fiction, people, and a pretty funny one. I also tend to see somewhat of a parallel between Ravenous and Dances with Wolves (the beginning of the story is more or less the same: after a battle, lieutenant/army guy is decorated for bravery and finds himself assigned to an outpost, only for Boyd it doesn't turn up that well :)). Ravenous is full of humour, and the music is excellent (putting that banjo theme on during the chase made me roll on the floor, and in the same time it builds up the incongruity of the scene - people run one after another to eat themselves!). I watched this movie three times so far and I plan to do it again these days, of course before skipping dinner.

And after all, why not believe that silly legend?...:)) The film manages to create the willing suspension of disbelief very well and maintains it. The actors contribute to that to a great extent: I'd rate Robert Carlyle a B+ and Guy Pierce an A.

André.

I remember seeing this film years ago, when I didn't knew much about films, film-schools, film-tendencies and all that. My only criteria in appreciation of a film was if I liked it or not. And did I like this one! Florent Pagny's acting makes the spectator even forgive his songs. Sergiu Nicolaescu's directing, much like his acting, is serious and puts the accent on the strong-yet-retained-inside sentiment, which adds depth to the characters. The film is a must-see, and the ending scene magnificent, and also bears Nicolaescu's "patte" to a full 100 %. Great film.