yduric

I must admit, to my great shame, that I was also convinced by this crap upon first viewing: I have to admit, like other viewers pointed it out, that it is nicely filmed, that the complexities and subtleties of the love triangle formed by Jonathan, Carrie and Shane, the main characters of the movie, are well-rendered, and that it plays well with the ambiguity about Shane, one of the two male characters of the film, who may unconsciously harbour the same feelings that Jonathan, the other male character, consciously has for him.

Everything plays well for almost the entire duration of the movie, until we arrive at a disgusting moment, that all of a sudden struck me after a second viewing and totally ruins the movie: it is the moment when Jonathan is studying at night with Shane lying drunk on the bed and the latter, (it is a little bit hard to describe an obscene act with polite words, but since foul language is prohibited if you want to write a review on IMDb..) literally FORCES HIS WAY INTO HIM, in other words, RAPES HIM: a proof is that Jonathan's scream at this moment is definitely not a scream of pleasure, but a scream of pain. And what stuns me the most is that the following morning, they so ridiculously express their so-called 'feelings' on the beach, as if nothing had happened. What is all the more disgusting is that if Shane had done the same to Carrie, the female character, everyone would have yelled 'RAPE!', but here, it seems to be perfectly admitted, and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is a filthy homophobic message, that is to say: 'Oh, this is not surprising, since they are engaged in a homosexual act, it happens all the time, all of them are more or less rapists!' However, as far as I know, RAPE id a CRIME in the vast majority of the countries of this world, liberal or conservative.

So, fundamentally, this crap of a movie, and the fact that it was so well-praised, is only the not-so surprising reflection of the fact that, contrarily to what the politically correct speech try to brainwash us with, in recent years, homophobia has become more and more pervasive and is increasing.

Thsi is the reason why, after having initially given a 10 to this crap, I changed it, and gave it a 1. which I think is far more appropriate...

Well well, this waste of celluloid has probably been labeled 'gay-friendly', although the ONLY non-stereotyped element is that the character played by Daniel Wu can fight: oh, what a surprise it is, did he really think that this would redeem him for all the disgusting stereotypes he inserted in his so-called 'film', or did perhaps this no-brain sick head think that it was revolutionary to suggest that gay men are able to fight? Talking of these disgusting stereotypes, there are two that are particularly repulsive in this strong bias of a waste of celluloid: 1) a scene where a gay triad member puts his entire hand into a roasted pig's arse!!! 2) another scene where one of the female characters asks the character played by Daniel Wu: 'When did you first know you were gay?' and we see immediately an image of him as a child with a thermometer in his rectum!!! That clearly borders, or even fully is, ... pedophilia.

Well, checking Stephen Fung's background, it comes as no surprise, since he started acting in 'Bishonen', another falsely 'gay-friendly' film, that of course ends badly: this was, I am sure, the only reason why he starred in this previous crap, because he probably thought, like a huge quantity of empty brains like his, that it couldn't be otherwise: since it ends badly, the general, good straight-laced morale was preserved, so contrarily to what many think, he wasn't putting his actor image at risk AT ALL.

And it goes the same way in this commercial crap, since the so-holy disgusting venerated stereotypes are inserted and overused: I do therefore not acknowledge him as a director, but just as a lousy film cutter at best. Moreover, it should also be noted that in his next film, 'House of Fury' although it doesn't deal with homosexuality at all, he couldn't help himself inserting a gay stereotyped character.

I, and I am sure, many viewers don't give a damn about his homophobic obsessions, and definitely wish that his career will be ruined one day: he deserves it far more than Edison Chen, whose only fault was to bring his computer to repair without erasing the photos of him having sex with actresses, that a bigot employee with no respect for private life at all, (After all, these women were all adults) and with a super straight-laced morale like Stephen fung's, was so eager to display to the view of the whole population of Hong Kong...

Thailand always likes to advertise itself like a country of 'great sexual freedom', an image that unfortunately many people buy. However, after having watched quite a big amount of their so-called 'films', I think that their mentality is in fact exactly the opposite, and that in this respect, they are no better than the West: I would even say that, by trying to imitate it, they're sometimes even worse: for what affects 'Slice, this 'film' is essentially disgusting, like the country it comes from: those Thais are so obsessed with homophobia, that they feel compelled to insert it in all of their so-called 'films': in this one, for instance, the director obviously films with great delight the homophobic scenes(mainly in the scenes when the main protagonist recalls his childhood) And in a countless number of their 'films', an observation I made after having seen many of them, they ALWAYS portray gays as ridiculous or degenerate beings. NEVER in a Thai film ('Bangkok Love Story' being the notable and UNIQUE exception)would you see a normal gay man.In 'Slice', this dirty mentality reaches a peak: although the director used a so-called 'gentle' and 'understanding' approach to show the extreme effects that strong abuse during childhood may produce, the FACT is that nevertheless, the gay character here is portrayed as a vicious and completely perverted serial killer who even turns out to be the main protagonist's 'girlfriend'!!! And , of course, he/she has to die in a completely over-sentimental and ridiculous final scene. So the cycle here is complete: they have come to the ultimate cliché, which was in fact the real goal of the director: gay= vicious and perverted assassin. For what affects me, I am definitely done with Thailand, and my suggestion to them would be, the majority of their films being polluted with pervasive homophobia, just to stop making them: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!

... is ultimately ruined by a totally stupid, cheesy and unnecessary homophobic subplot, first, when one of the colleagues of the inspector tells him in the car 'Everyone at work thinks you're gay' and later on, how the chief of police is portrayed, they could as well have made a complete screaming and gesticulating drag-queen out of him.

This is what really irritated me to the highest degree and gave me want to throw up, because otherwise, and even later on, Johnnie To's direction and handling of the plot was excellent, the story was involving, even moving to a certain degree and the action extremely well- handled.

Moreover, that aforementioned subplot is completely useless, because it definitely does not contribute to the story, and is totally OUT OF CONTEXT for what affects the SUBJECT MATTER of the film. Those scenes should have been deleted.

I am otherwise definitely a great admirer of Johnnie To's films, and I do not put the blame on him for this obnoxious element.

However, when I checked who the writers of the film were, I found out that there were two French screenwriters and only one Chinese So I suddenly said to myself that it was definitely not surprising. So my suggestion would be that these two french bastards stop polluting Hong Kong cinema with filthy and disgusting Western clichés!!! As I said before, without this disgusting subplot, i would have given a 10 tho this film because both Ching Wan Lau's and Andy Lau's performances are perfect, and the plot is otherwise almost flawless.

I substance this is what drove me to give this film a 1, a thing I deeply regret, but unfortunately, there are, however, things I do not tolerate, and think (but this is a personal opinion) should not be so easily overlooked.

This is definitely one of the best cop dramas I've seen in a long time, and a film that has a lot more going for it than a mere justification of violence that many people seem to see in it. Let's first start with the main character: another reviewer said he is macho (I don't know if he talked about the film in general or the main character Jang Do-Young played by Sang-woo Kwone): I tend to agree, but I would say that he is macho in a good way: neither is he misogynous/homophobic nor is he a Charles Bronson-vigilante type, dispensing justice at random. No, our hero is a man with balls of steel who won't hesitate to take on an entire criminal organization on his own. Well, actually he won't be alone, since, and no spoiler here, since this is the basic plot outline, he will be helped in this task by another cop of completely opposite temper, played by Ji-tae Yu. What I liked in 'Ya-soo', is that is is above all a film driven by FEELINGS: instead of opting for a cerebral approach like, for instance, Chan-Wook Park in his three films about vengeance, or a more philosophical one, like Ji-woon Kim in 'A Bittersweet Life', the director opts for an 'stripped-bare-emotions' approach, which can be qualified as melodramatic, and it is true that drama overwhelms the film, but it worked for me, and I think it was a wise choice from the director to try to explore the issues taken on in 'Ya-soo', that is to say, mainly deficiencies of the judicial system and political corruption this way, instead of copying the work of other film makers. What we have here is the direct, raw impact of an extremely unfair situation and the direct, raw response of the two main characters to the aforementioned situation, and in this context, the amount of action and violence of 'Ya-soo' is perfectly understandable. However, I think that the director is intelligent enough to inter cut this very fast-paced ride with moments when we get to know the main characters feelings and motivations, and to some extent, to SHARE them. In this respect, both KSW and JTY acted very well and managed to convey their emotions to the viewer. As for me, I was finally deeply moved by the film, and I think that this was also the primary intention of 'Ya-soo', this is a film intended to make the viewer FEEL. What a ride!!! As the tag lines suggested it on the title page for this film on this website, this film will definitely remain in my heart.

After my first viewing of 'Bangkok Love Story', I was so disappointed by the melodramatic overload at the end of the film, that my first reaction was to write a very hateful comment about it, and I even wanted to smash my DVD against the wall, literally! However, something prevented me from doing so, and I think I figured out what it is. I was actually extremely moved by the story, and I think that I somehow just couldn't stomach its sad outcome, but after re-thinking about it, I finally realized that what I loved in it actually exceeded by far all the rest. Apart from the beautiful cinematography and the first rate acting, that the other reviewers here have already examined, I think that it is above all the authenticity of the love between the two characters and its unquestionable nature that I found absolutely beautifully rendered. This is a love story between two handsome and masculine men from a completely different social background,who, by a series of very unusual circumstances, succumb to a mutual passion, even if the time and place for this passion are inappropriate. What I loved in the director's approach is that, contrarily to a typical Western approach, like for instance in 'Brokeback Mountain', where the characters are devastated by the realization of the fact that they love a person of the same sex,and struggle with a typically Western guilt, an approach that I find nauseating,at NO MOMENT in 'Bangkok Love Story' do the characters waste time by asking themselves the question 'Am I gay?' or try to deny their feelings. What makes this love story tragic is above all their FATE, which is above all determined by the circumstances of their first meeting,and this fate is also determined to a certain extent by their social background. The tragedy here comes from DESTINY, and NOT from the sexuality of the characters, If 'Bangkok Love Story' had been a straight love story it would also had made perfect sense.(I do not want to spoil this review, but those who have seen the film can easily figure it out by examining the plot, nothing would have been out of place if the story had involved a man and a woman). Another reviewer talked about, I think, something like 'clan-destined' lovers, and I think, he's actually got the point and the heart of the story very well. So I finally decided to forgive the over-melodramatic turn the director gave to the story, and to focus on the beauty that lies within instead, and my rating of the film jumped from an initial 1 to a final 10. But, after all, isn't love a feeling of extreme subjectivity?

I saw "Koi no mon" at a film festival in Geneva, Switzerland, with my mother and a friend of mine; there are almost no words to describe the impression that this film made on us!!! Let's say that we were almost breathless from non-stop laughing and admiration: this film really rocks!!! At the beginning of the film, I was thinking (because I knew that it would last 114 minutes) : is it possible to maintain the same pace for such a long time without boring the viewer? I wasn't expecting such a performance from the director, but he really did it!!! Until the very end of the film, the three of us were totally filled with non-stop enjoyment. Besides, I have to say, without spoiling anything, because it would really be a shame for a future viewer, that 'Koi no mon', although some of its aspects (the depiction of some characters or certain situations) might seem a little bit 'over-the-top', is really far from being stupid; the humour is in fact quite cleverly conveyed, never considering the viewer a fool: there are many different issues explored, all of them in an original, absolutely unique way, making 'Koi no mon' a truly original and completely unpredictable gem.I would also like to add, and I think that many people would agree with me on this point, that it is in fact very difficult to make a very good comedy: most of them are somehow 'formatted' in a way or another, which makes them somehow 'cliché'.There is nothing like this here; you go from one surprise to another. I never gave a 10 to a comedy, this is the first time today, but this one really deserves it.Finally, i would really like to say: Bravo, Mr Matsuo, you have really made a true masterpiece, which will remain in my heart forever!!!

I am definitely beginning to get sick of recent tendencies in gay cinema, which seem to have reverted more than 30 years back in time for what affects the treatment of this issue. Even the 1980 'Cruising' seems to be more original that this on-screen garbage, this time from Australia. The present tendencies seem to be reduced in about 90 % of the cases to two categories: 1) over-tragic story with of course, a very tragic and melodramatic ending 2) cliché-ridden film with gays either described as effeminate, almost drag-queen like creatures or, which is the case with 'Tan Lines' as sex-obsessed, inconsistent characters who would go to any extremes to satisfy some sexual appetite, their dick completely obliterating their brain. Maybe the director of this nauseating flick wanted to show the unpleasant and homophobic atmosphere of a small Australian surfing community. So far, so good. But, why the hell did he render the two main characters of the movie, here the teen Midget and the older Cass, as obnoxious, or even more obnoxious , than the rest? If we take a look at their behaviour, everything is completely inconsistent. I will not re-tell the entire movie , but if we look at the end: why does Midget in the first place propose to the girl he was making sexual favours to to run away with him, and then, after being told no, reverts to Cass, and wants to leave with him, saying all of a sudden he loves him?(an obvious lie)Why does he finally turn, visibly out of disappointment, to the effeminate boy in the surfing village (to whom he NEVER paid attention before)to satisfy his sexual lust? This is another obvious cliché. Then, take Cass. He is supposed to have traveled the world and to be a bit wiser, but no way. Why does he, for instance penetrate Midget without condom, claiming at the same time that his own rear part (to stay polite...)is SACRED???!!! Another cliché: his partner is a pure sexual object, it doesn't matter what he could infect him with. (Obviously, he already has infected him with his foolishness...)Then, why the hell does he beat up his former schoolteacher under the shower, (even if we learn later that he was fully consenting when he had sex with him as a teen)and finally leaves the island with him? Another cliché: gay = sado-masochistic. If even gay film-makers of film-makers frequently dealing with this issue succumb one by one to what I call this new nauseating 'homosexual martirology', then all the homophobes in this world do not need to worry. They will definitely not have to do much, since these film-makers already have laid the red carpet before them...

OK,taking an unflinching look at the small value human life seems to have in Medellin through the eyes of Fernando who returns to his home city after 30 years and sees all the ground crime has gained was maybe a good idea to start with. OK, his subsequent encounter with Alexis and the beginning of what seems to be a love story seem to bring some kind of a redeeming quality to these two somehow cursed characters, the first one by his disappointment and disgust for life in general, the second one by the very background he was born in. However, the problem with this on-screen garbage is that these two aspects only serve as an excuse for a fundamentally sleazy and exploitative display of any kind of gratuitous violence, to such a degree that at a certain point, the movie loses all its credibility and value. This happens somewhere in the middle of the movie, when Fernando is arguing with two men in the Medellin underground/subway and literally gets Alexis to kill the two men for NOTHING. It is here that the director starts displaying with great complacency an authentic killing spree that Fernando and Alexis go on during their walks in Medellin. If the whole population of that city acted this way, I think there would be no single living soul out there anymore. And the most pathetic scene is definitely the one with the dog, which both of them seem SO DESPERATE to have to kill. OK, the movie is misanthropic, but this aspect is no way a redeeming quality: after all, the Nazis also preferred animals to the overwhelming majority of mankind. And after that, we have that encounter with Villmar, which is supposed to make us sympathize with Fernando, suggesting that he hasn't after all lost all his humanity and is still capable of forgiving? No, I do not buy it, and I would even add that Mr Schroeder hasn't enough balls to kill the character of Fernando after Willmar's death at the end of the movie. At least, this would have made a point, that is to say that violence had totally prevailed. To sum up, this is only a huge, pointless and nauseating crap.

So,so, after the U.S. on-screen garbage that 'Alpha Dog' was, now comes its German update, with which it shares striking similarities: in the first case, we have this coward degenerate sub-human sissy of 'Johnny Truelove'(what a ridiculous name, is it supposed to be funny?) with his bunch of scumbags, in the second case, we have the coward pusher degenerate sub-human sissy 'Chan' (which is supposed to mean 'soul', oh, what poetry, I'm impressed....)with his own bunch of equally degenerate scumbags. The first one kidnaps and decides to kill in cold blood a 15 year-old boy, because he hasn't got the balls to face kidnapping charges and to face jail, the second one terrorizes another 15 year-old or something beyond exhaustion, and then takes on his family, because he equally has no balls at all to face jail life: it is much easier to take on a harmless kid, especially with your band, than to face men who got, for instance, the balls to rob a bank and face armed cops, isn't it? But the most important point that these Z-graded flicks share, and which is, I think, the most nauseating, is that 'Wut', exactly the same way as 'Alpha Dog', glorifies and describes with a very disgusting complacency, the behaviour of the harasser and his followers, take for instance the numerous scenes (staightforward 'Alpha Dog'ripoff) where the director wants to give the impression that the victim has the 'time of his life' with his torturer, and therefore clearly tries to arouse sympathy for this scumbag of Chan, and suggests that this is an excuse for all the evil he spreads around him. Oh, and on top of that, the stupidity here reaches a peak at the end of the movie, when, after the 'hero' or rather the CRIMINAL, because that's what he (or should I say it) is, has finally gotten what he deserved, we hear this sad music as the credits rolls, which, is I suppose, intended to make us feel sorry to what happened to him? No, I do not buy it, this is totally ludicrous. In short, these two 'filmmakers' are a real shame to cinema because of their one-sided and disgusting position on that subject matter.By the way, I suggest they should team up to direct, let's say 'Johnny Truelove meets Chan'. Oh, sorry, I forgot Chan is dead and Johnny Truelove will probably also be, so it would be difficult, unless they make them meet in the after life...

Did director Nick Cassavetes, who , by the way, hasn't got one hundredth of his father's talent, try to make fun of any viewer with some brains? After watching this obnoxious and nauseating waste of celluloid, I really tend to think: yes. If we examine this Z-graded flick carefully, there is no doubt that his goal was purely exploitative, trying to arouse sympathy for a bunch of completely degenerated scumbags, and attract young audiences in order to put some money in his pockets: first of all, the fact that during the movie, he provides some details of various witnesses who saw one element of what happened at a given time only serves as a mere excuse to try to look 'objective', as if he were to provide some account of what happened or to try to explain it. But any attempt in this direction stops at this point. All the rest is a disgusting and clearly complacent display of the behaviour of completely degenerated characters who think they are like the kings of the world and the very essence of virility. But they are not: on the contrary,they are fundamentally just a bunch of sub-human coward sissies, who, after having kidnapped an innocent young man, are unable to cope with the fact that they will be charged with kidnapping, and so decide in cold blood to kill him. Because, of course, it takes some balls to face real men like bank robbers in jail and get beaten by them, and these balls they never had: it was much easier to kill a defenceless 18-year old boy, hoping you will not get discovered. As for the aspect that the victim had 'the time of his life' during his captivity, I clearly doubt it. This is another way of excusing the actions of these coward jerks, even to glamourize them. To sum up, this is a clearly exploitative and totally nonobjective way of telling a story, which definitely goes in the wrong direction, that of making the viewer sympathize, not with the victim but the kidnappers. But, very hopefully, they got caught and the only thing that fills me up with joy is the hope that other inmates in jail will beat the hell out of them!!!

'Le Fate Ignoranti' was released 5 years after Ferzan Ozpetec's first (wongly acclaimed) feature film called 'Il bagno turco'. In this first film, a married man coming to Turkey to take over a Hamam ended up having an affair with a young Turkish boy, but was stabbed at the end: of course, he was 'officially' killed following orders from his rival ruthless Turkish businesswoman, but I highly suspect that he killed his bisexual character at the end to render the film more 'virtuous'. In 'Le Fate Ignoranti', which was highly prized as a sensitive drama giving voice to marginal members of society, I cannot help but notice that he maintains, once again, the same kind of schizophrenic attitude: despite describing, sometimes in an explicit way, the gay behaviour of some of his characters, the film is at the end completely ruined by an incoherent and superfluous emerging romance between the wife and the gay lover of the deceased husband:so my question is: what is the point of explicitly describing the gay behaviour and at the same time turning one of his major characters straight at the end of the film? I definitely think that this director has a problem with this issue, and that he tries every time to transmit some guilt about it to the viewer. So I am definitely convinced that he has no balls, that he is unable to clearly take a stand once for all. And I therefore have to conclude that 'Le fate Ignoranti', due to its falsely 'virtuous ending', is ultimately a huge imposture.

When William Friedkin directed 'Cruising'back in 1980, he put a disclaimer at the beginning of his film saying that it was no way intended to describe the gay community in its whole, but only part of it. (Probably in order to avoid hurting certain sensitivities, or maybe to avoid a law suit..) Anyway, his film, despite of having been labeled homophobic by some people, was much less one-dimensional and had a thousand times more substance that this French on-screen garbage, which does definitely not take such precautions: it pushes all the clichés to the extreme limit, and is definitely an insult to any viewer who has some brains. All the gay characters in this nonsense obscene caricature are uniformly depicted as a totally amoral and degenerate population: the director wants to give the impression that any of them is capable of the worse at any given time, postulating so the equation gay=potential murderer.There isn't the tiniest trace of any attempt to give this issue a balanced treatment. Of course, given this situation, it is definitely not difficult to guess how it ends, although I will not say it here... Act to this an absolutely awful acting, an over-dramatized music (probably to fill the lack of any coherent plot)and you can have THE perfect description of a total and premeditated bias, reinforced by the fact that it has been broadcast on prime-time, moreover on a public French TV-channel, this probably in order to 'educate' people the way the new right-wing French government wants them to be. To sum up, this is a pure waste of time for any even slightly educated person and a must-see for brainless homophobes.

When I read the plot summary for this Z-graded TV-movie, it said that it was about d the dilemma and doubts of a young East German border guard during the seventies. However, instead on concentrating on that point, it goes completely off-focus: the time devoted to the exploration of the doubts of the young border guard about his country and the communist system are reduced to a minimum. What the director actually focuses on and films with an obvious pleasure that would give nausea to many people is the process of bullying that takes place within the platoon, and what is even more disgusting is that he is definitely on the bullies' side: all their victims are depicted as pathetic, as if they 'got what they deserved'. This is even made clearer at the end, when we read about the destinies of the border guards after the end of the communist East Germany: all the bullies got away, and all the victims ended up badly, especially the most bullied boy, who was labeled 'gay' by his 'comrades' ended up in Berlin stabbed by a homosexual. This clearly shows an extremely nasty and obnoxious nostalgia for a fascist system, where everyone who did not 'fit he right profile' could be prosecuted and made a scapegoat and it is a definite shame that the director disguised it in a wannabe 'liberal' drama, and that apparently many people, judging by the high rating this on-screen garbage got, swallowed that lie.

Although 'Road Trip' is a mainstream film, I cannot help thinking that it displays some kind of very refreshing 'political incorrectness' that could be found in this type of film in the 90's America, like for instance, despite their subject being different, 'Threesome', or 'The Faculty', featuring unusual,well, not-so-ordinary individuals in a rather positive way. The jokes and the situations may not always be hilarious, but at least, there is some kind of freedom of expression in 'Road Trip' that seems to have disappeared from today's US comedies. But... If we look at the release dates of the movies I quoted, we have: 1994 (Threesome), 1998 (The Faculty) and 2000 (Road Trip), that is to say, BEFORE W. It really seems that since him, there is a terrible downfall in the making of comedies and other genres in the US, which definitely gives me some nostalgia, for what affects American cinema, for the Clinton era...

Some critics have said about this disaster of a film that it somehow echoes Claire Deni's 'Beau travail' or Fassbinder's 'Querelle' for what affects the way of filming male bodies/male colonies: I would rather say that Mr Morel attempts to plagiarize them and is very, very far from mastering the same art as them; I would even add that in some scenes, he even (unsucsessfully) tries to plagiarize Pasolini.Now, let's come to the plot: contrarily to his co-writer, Christophe Honoré, whose film 'Ma mère', no matter how unpleasant it may be to some people, knows exactly what it is about,'Le clan' is a huge mess that claims to explore the aspects of an all-male colony, and , as the director so kindly expresses it, the human male in its vulnerability, but fails at every level. First of all, almost all of his characters are formatted: same look, same shaved heads, same deliberately unclear sexual behaviour: it is as all of them have repressed homo-erotic fantasies, but at the same time display the most caricatural straight macho behaviour: take for instance, the scene when they're watching a pornographic film together, and in the adjacent room, there is a transvestite!!! (if they are so male, why not pay a female prostitute?) waiting to be f***** by all of them. Another example of total absurdity is when one of the brothers wants to avenge himself from drug dealers by provoking a hit-and-run car accident, and deliberately later crashes his car on a tree: another complete inconsistency; there are many others, such as for instance, the 3 brothers sleeping nude together with their father watching them with an appalled glance (are all young men supposed to be incestuous???!!!) Not to mention this bastard of youngest brother who uses the Arab boy (the only consistent character in the film) to make him lose his virginity and then dumps him for no apparent reason and continues to have sex with his flying instructor. And with all of this, are we supposed to have understanding/compassion for a bunch of degenerate characters? No, I do not buy it, and, being a male myself, I would NEVER IN MY LIFE identify myself with these repulsive boys, who no way, in my opinion, represent a coherent portrait of today's young men.

This could have been a good film. it had all the ingredients, but is ultimately ruined by two thousand times overused clichés which seem to have become fashionable again nowadays (see, for instance 'Brokeback Mountain' or the French 'Le clan'):the first one: the old homosexual teacher, OF COURSE, had to die at the end (the fact that is is a motorcycle accident and not a bashing doesn't matter, finally...); the fact that everyone mourns him at the end does not matter, the moral is safe, he finally 'paid for his sins'. The second one: the fact that the repressed (or maybe just hesitant) gay temporary teacher Mr Irwin, OF COURSE, succumbs to the offer of Dakin, the most disgusting jerk in the film, degrading himself just in order to satisfy some desire he could satisfy with any given (and probably much more honest) prostitute. because here, this is no matter of feeling, Dakin's 'offer' is not, as he so kindly expresses it, a favour he gives Irwin in order to thank him for his admittance at Oxford, it is an attempt made by an immoral being in order to confirm to himself that he can control and manipulate others by exploiting their secrets. I am really extremely disappointed that the British too seem to have succumbed to that crappy Hollywood-type moral and ending. Deleting these two scenes from the film would have been far more appropriate.AND MUCH MORE ORIGINAL.

How far back in time will W's America revert in film-making?

After watching this 'wannabe-politically-incorrect' comedy, I am definitely beginning to fear the worst. Although 'Little Miss Sunshine' aims at satire, it is completely overwhelmed by perfectly acceptable clichés for the US mainstream public of today.

Take, for example, Uncle Frank: if you are gay, you can either end up bashed to death (as in 'Brokeback Mountain') or be a poor effeminate failure attempting suicide as in 'Little Miss Sunshine'; if you're rebellious, like brother Dwayne, you can take a wow of silence, but of course, your dream should be a correct one, that of becoming an air force pilot, and, of course, you definitely have to cry aloud that you f*** the entire world after discovering you can't. Of course, like the mother you should not smoke (THE crime in the US): notice that the husband blames her for that, but that nobody blames the grandfather for taking hard drugs every day: no surprise, since, as 'Traffic' has shown it brilliantly, the Americans have long ago lost their war on drugs: it has therefore become an acceptable vice. The only compassion might come from the fact, that, although Olive is fat, she is encouraged to go to the contest: again, this is no surprise, since America having become the fattest nation on Earth, you would offend about half of its 300 million citizens if you did not show this compassion. For what affects the final dance scene, it is totally ridiculous, with Olive being dressed almost like a prostitute. it is even bordering pedophilia, which does not seem to annoy the Academy Awards that much. To sum up, compared to various good satires of the '90s, for what affects social satire and family dysfunction, 'Little Miss Sunshine' definitely feels like a 1949 maccarthyst- approved satire.

I just saw 'Iluminados por el fuego' at the 'Filmar en America Latina' film festival in Geneva, which takes places here every year and lasts about three weeks in November. Fist of all, I would like to say that I have read all the 3 comments posted so far and found all the three useful. What I would also like to say is that even here, people who had seen the film I talked to also felt like me that it was very strong and extremely intelligently made because, instead of depicting details of military operations, it really focused on the real drama, the drama of young conscripts who DID NOT want to go to war and were sent to a completely useless slaughter and the tragic aftermath of it. Another strong point of the film is that is also emphasizes the total lack of humanity of a bloody dictatorship, which, non content of having already killed about 30'000 people (I think this is the official number of the 'disappeared', and I heard there might have been more; anyway, anyone who might confirm or correct what I say here is welcome)could not, before leaving power, perform another final act of abominable criminal madness, which, in many respect, reminds of the criminal madness of the Nazis at the end of WW II in Germany,which also sent thousands to a useless death simply because they knew their time was over. This very war, which many people around the world tend to forget nowadays, is the final tragic demonstration of the Nazi-like nature of this military dictatorship, and it is even more disgusting to know that many of those involved in it have benefited from amnesty, instead of being sentenced to death by hanging like their models!!! This, I think, is one of the very reason why films such as 'Iluminados por el fuego' are important.

What I think is that this extremely tasteless movie tries to do, with the use of bad taste and the piling of clichés upon clichés combined with a plot totally lacking credibility, to push in the direction of a 'funny bad movie'but ultimately fails to provoke the desired effect. Or, to explain this a little bit better: instead of making fun of EVERY character in the movie, it seems to deliberately spare the two main characters, which are, in my opinion, quite obnoxious, and even tries to arouse a certain sympathy for them, while at the same time, it ridicules everything and everybody surrounding them, to such a degree that it even becomes quite offensive, and it is there that the failure lies, because, in order to make a 'funny bad movie'(in my opinion) the necessary condition is that EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, including the lead characters be ridiculed, and it is obviously not the case here, suggesting that some categories of people can be freely ridiculed without any restriction and others not. The conclusion emerging from that can be summarized in one word: DISCRIMINATION

I was really pleased to the extreme to watch this intelligent, venomous and brilliant dark comedy: I thought: yes, finally I'm watching a film in which everybody gets what he/she deserves and which is depicting the characters in a much more appropriate way than the great majority of American teenagers films. Because what we do have in more than 90% of this teenager films is the following, and finally extremely boring code : on the one side, you have the so-called 'school-stars',who are of course, always depicted as an example, and which are free to do everything they want, and on the other side, you have the so-called 'outsiders', whose DUTY is to keep their mouth shut, and not, oh my God,please not to disturb the good order established at school by its 'stars', with the following, insidiously disgusting message: if you belong to the first category, you can bully, spit upon, despise, in short make everything you want to anybody and get away with it, simply because you're popular. What is so delicious to watch in 'Heathers' (by the way, even the title is funny, I have always considered Heather a ridiculous and ugly first name...)is that the situation is actually reversed, and, in my opinion, much closer to the truth: the school-stars are all depicted as stupid, extremely self-centered and brainless, and this time, THEY pay the high price for their stupidity.What is even more funny is that this stupidity is very carefully dissected, depicted and analyzed, to the point that the director does not give the impression to shoot the film from a great distance, but like an infiltrated 'enemy within'. Now, for those who might think that the message of the film is that the solution is to start killing, I think that they entirely missed the point: it has to be taken in the second degree, it is after all a dark comedy, and the killings are much more a symbol, a call to end with that stupid order, a message of freedom: what you should kill is not people, but actually a narrow-minded, boring and intolerant behaviour and way of thinking. I wish there were more similar funny and intelligently subversive alternatives to scum (in its British meaning of 'garbage', I insist)like for instance 'Dude, Where Is My Car?' or others of the genre nowadays.

I saw 'The Hamburg Cell' for the third time a few days ago and read all the 20 comments written so far. What struck me the most is that the comments on this film (I will use the term 'film' because the term 'made-for-TV movie' seems a bit pejorative to me in this case)are, in my opinion mostly (though not all) polarized around two things: the film is considered either as biased or as underdeveloped, bringing nothing new. I will try to show that it is neither biased nor simplistic. First, a few words about director Antonia Bird: as everyone can see from her complete filmography available on IMDb, she is not a 'Michael Moore-type' director specialized in political films, nor is she known to be affiliated to any radical group whatsoever. Now, if we examine the film closer, although it immerses us in the intimacy of the terrorists, it can definitely not be argued that it shows sympathy towards them: with the exception of Ziad Jarrah, (to whom I will come later) all of them are portrayed as intolerant, full of hatred and completely fanatic, which is what they were, because it must not be forgotten that their way of thinking is considered extremist by the vast majority of the Muslims themselves. For example, at one moment in the film, Mohammed Atta, when discussing with two young Muslims who accuse him of using the same hateful words against the Jews as the Nazis, replies: 'Well, it might be true that they have been slaughtered by the Nazis, but finally, it was to their advantage, they gained a lot out of it!!!' Or later in the film, when he is giving instructions for his funeral, he insists that no woman be allowed to come to visit his grave. Portraying such an individual hating and despising everyone (including women) who is not a Muslim thinking like him and his fellow fanatics, is definitely not showing sympathy towards him. Now, for what affects Ziad Jarrah's depiction, it is true that he is portrayed as more human and much less fanatic than the others, what he indeed was at the start. Here comes, in my opinion, the most frightening element of the film: this man underwent a virtually complete lobotomy from part of his 'fellows': I'm using the term 'lobotomy' on purpose, because contrarily to brainwashing,which consists of making you accept everything a given 'leader' says without discussion, lobotomy only targets a portion of the brain, the one needed, while still giving you the illusion of free choice. How is this lobotomy performed? Gradually, in a very insidious way: if we examine the film carefully, we can see that Ziad Jarrah is not sent to Afghanistan training camps straight away, but that he first starts doing some charity work, dispatching food to Palestinian children from Germany. Here, they have touched his 'sensitive string'(According to numerous sources, he was involved in several social welfare programs in Lebanon prior to coming to Germany,a fact certainly known to Al-Qaida members). Moreover, at several moments during the film, Mohammed Atta says: 'Ziad is not ready yet'So, by showing him the 'positive' aspects of their work, they gradually persuade him that he could do 'more for the Muslim cause'. This is how you turn a basically good-hearted man into a terrorist. He feels 'he has to do it' as he writes to his wife just before the 11th of September 2001. Now, for those who might think that the film is one-sided, it must be also underlined that 'The Hamburg Cell' is no way tender with W's administration. While carefully avoiding any allusion to alleged acquaintances between it and the terrorists or people supporting them,which would be a new, but unverified element, it thoroughly enumerates various facts which have been well known: apart from some famous purposefully ignored memos, it mentions various reports made to Condoleeza Rice, meetings of high ranking CIA officials with the White House Staff giving warnings that civil aircraft may be used as weapons, and the presence on U.S. Soil of Cheikh Mohammed, Al-Qaida's chief of operations, several times during the year 2001, all known to W's administration, with always the same answer: no action to be undertaken. So, why set up a complicated 'conspiracy'when you already have a band of crazy fanatics ready to 'do the job' for you? Just do NOTHING and both sides will be satisfied. The first one will promote and glorify its so-called 'holy war', the second one will promote and glorify its so-called 'war on terror'. And, seriously, what do the lives of more than 3000 innocent people mean to crazy fanatics or cynical calculators? Nothing. This is why this film is so disturbing to many people...

I am paraphrasing Gloria Gaynor's lyrics of 'I Will Survive' substituting 'afraid' by 'impressed' to express the first impression this film made to me. However, as time passed by, I changed my opinion very much and came to a very different conclusion:yes, I have to admit that I was at first moved by it, probably influenced by all the hype surrounding it but... After having thought about this film a very long time, I became convinced that its great success and overall high rating is due to its tragic ending. The question is: If Ang Lee had slightly 'deviated' from Annie Proulx's short story, and put a less tragic ending (something like, for instance, Jack Twist fleeing to a supposedly gay-friendlier country, or disappearing in a big city, or something like that...), would the film have been so highly praised? I am convinced that the answer is a definite NO. The 'sacrifice' of one of the gay characters at the end (killing them both would have been too much, of course...)is certainly what a great part of the audience unconsciously demanded, in order to render the subject matter acceptable. This is precisely what fills me up with some kind of nausea, and I therefore disagree with many people who claim that this film could contribute to a greater acceptance of homosexuality. It seems, that also nowadays any gay-related film, in order to gain some success must absolutely add a so-called 'virtuous' note, in the case of 'Brokeback Mountain' one of the protagonists ending up bashed to death.Moreover, if we compare 'Brokeback Mountain' to the, in my opinion, far superior 'Mysterious Skin' (whose director was, by the way, nominated for best director alongside Ang Lee at the Independent Spirit Awards, and it is a shame that he did not win it), things become even more clear: despite of its sometimes questionable behaviour, Neil McCormick, the gay character played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt in 'Mysterious Skin' (terrific performance, by the way...) does NOT end up tragically, on the contrary... But this, of course, does certainly constitute a 'major sin' to many viewers, and this is why, very unfortunately, some very courageous films do not stand a single chance against the fundamentally homophobic weepie I just reviewed...

There is one principle in politics which roughly says that the bigger a lie is,the easier it can be swallowed by a great number of people: I think that this can also be extended to films, that is to say that sometimes a film is so bad that it appears like a masterpiece to a great number of viewers: Oldboy, (and, in my opinion, 'The Shining' as well)illustrates this to a degree I have never seen before: what do we have in this film? 1)the movie is filmed like an below-average MTV-clip all along, something that, I do not doubt it, might be viewed as 'great cinema art' by some people, but, in my opinion, only denotes bad direction. 2) this film is full of totally and extremely distasteful violence and gore,added for 'shock-value, something that, I suppose, can certainly seem 'extremely impressive and audacious'to some people, but only left me and very probably other viewers as well with an impression of extreme boredom and reinforced my feeling that this denoted the total vacuity and senselessness of this film. 3)The plot, which I will not reveal here (I will leave it to the 'appreciation' of future viewers), is of a poverty many B-grade TV-movies would be jealous of. 4) And, of course, last but not least, the film got a prize at the Cannes film festival. So, what we do finally get here is a perfect 'screen of smoke'generated in order to prevent the viewer to see what lies beneath. There is, however, one thing that I noticed which greatly reassured me: the fact that the comments of the users who disliked the movie were found useful by a far greater number of people than the comments of the people who liked it: taking this into account, we get a far more accurate perception of the general feeling of the audience, a fact which is, unfortunately not reflected in the overall user rating, a user rating which would have been significantly different and maybe have sent 'Oldboy' out of the IMDb top 250, a better deserved place.

So, If I have a wish , this can be summarized in four words:

NEXT TIME, PLEASE VOTE!!!

I have read with great interest the only available comment made before mine on this movie and I would first like to say that I understand the point of view of the previous user who commented on this movie very well: viewed from an Israeli perspective, I can very well imagine that this movie touches upon very sensitive issues and that the slightest detail can have a great importance for a viewer who is more or less directly concerned by the events depicted in this movie. What I would like to say is that 'Distortion' was shown at a film festival in Geneva in November 2005 (Festival 'Cinéma tout écran') where it won the award of the audience ('Prix du public'in French). For what affects me, I liked the 'nervous camera' work of Mr Bouzaglo, who, in my opinion, portrayed an atmosphere of extreme tension and uneasiness in the movie very well, and I think that most of the swiss viewers appreciated this in the movie. This perspective, however, might seem totally 'alien' to an Israeli viewer, but not so surprising when it comes to swiss viewers, because Switzerland is a country which has NEVER been subject to any terrorist attack. It therefore comes as no surprise that the audience in Geneva judged this film with a much more 'detached' perspective.I would also like to quote what Mr Bouzaglo said when he was interviewed by a Geneva newspaper (I'm translating from French): ''After 50 years of living here and after undergoing all this violence, we may ask ourselves if it is still possible to remain normal.We might sometimes think that it would be easier to commit suicide than to go on living. We are like the characters in my movie,''on the edge of the edge''. This is the reason why the private detective, who is somehow ''voyeur'' is the happiest character in the movie, because he earns a living thanks to the system, he takes advantage of this situation'' This is, in substance, the main thing that I and the swiss public, in my opinion, pointed out in this movie, and that we did not pay attention to some inconsistencies regarding the characters in the movie which the precedent reviewer pointed out with great accuracy and humor. So, to sum up, different country=different perspective, but I think that this is somehow great, because it reassures me for what affects the future of cinema, that is to say that it well never be subject to a 'unique' of 'formatted' way of thinking.