Fighting (2009) November 20, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Dito Montiel, Channing Tatum, Terrence Howard, Zulay Henao
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2009
Hard economic times have struck today’s world, and even the Hollywood is forced to acknowledge those realities. At least, this is one of the impressions given by the opening scenes of FIGHTING, 2009 drama directed by Dito Montiel.
Young protagonist Shawn MacArthur (played by Channing Tatum), who came to New York in order to pursue American dream, is forced to make ends meet by selling cheap counterfeit merchadise on the street. This kind of activity brings many risks and in one of such incidents MacArthur is forced to display his fighting abilities. This leaves good impression on Harvey Borden (played by Terrence Howard), quiet street hustler who tries to make a name as a street fight promoter. He approaches young man and becomes his manager, trying to use his talents in the sleazy world of professional bare-knuckles street fighting. MacArthur gradually make his name and some money, but soon he has to confront some ghosts of his own pre-New York past.
While the opening scenes of the film suggest something like an honest portrayal of social realities of contemporary New York, FIGHTING soon reveals itself to be nothing more than formulaic and not particularly formulaic sports drama. Dito Montiel, former punk rocker with a troubled street past, was supposed to give this film, which purports to expose “dark underbelly” of New York and its illegal fighting scene, some “street credibility”. His talents, however, couldn’t hide the series of cliches, including the bet scheme subplot and romance that appear to be obligatory for many films of the same genre. Audience also might have some trouble suspending their disbelief, since the protagonist happens to be played by an actor who looks more like a fashion model than tough street fighter.
Ironically, casting appears to be the only thing that makes this film watchable. Terrence Howard, one of the best character actors of contemporary Hollywood, again shows great skill by making his character of soft-spoken, quiet and dignified street hustler much more impressive than the rest of film. Another hidden gem is Altagracia Guzman who gives great does of humanity to the role of overprotective grandmother of protagonist’s love interest Zulay (played by Colombian actress Zulay Henao). Their efforts, however, can’t compensate for the increasingly annoying defficiens of overcliched and utterly predictable script which makes FIGHTING look much longer than its 93 minutes of running time. Although watchable, this film has already lost its fight against descent into cinema oblivion.
RATING: 3/10
The Recollection Thief (2007) November 10, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Dino Milinović, Nikša Kušelj, Sven Medvešek, Vicko Ruić
add a comment
(KRADLJIVAC USPOMENA)
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2009
Croatian cinema in 2000s – due to various political and economic reasons – is generally in better shape than in 1990s. “Generally”, unfortunately, doesn’t mean that Croatian audience won’t be spared from the cinematic monstrosities that gave national film industry such a bad name in previous decade. One of such examples is THE RECOLLECTION THIEF, 2007 spy thriller directed by Vicko Ruić.
Plot of the film is based on 2003 novel by Dino Milinović, former Croatian diplomat who also co-wrote the script with Vicko Ruić. It begins in Autumn of 1999, in a time when Croatia had to deal with fatal illness and imminent death of its first president Franjo Tudjman. Protagonist is Gawain Skok (played by Nikša Kušelj), war veteran deeply traumatised by his experiences during the Battle of Vukovar and forced to earn his living as an agent in one of many intelligence services of Tudjman’s Croatia. He is given the task of investigating mysterious disappearance of Juraj Fran Krsto Križanić (played by Sven Medvešek), Croatian diplomat in Paris. During his investigation, Skok uncovers many dirty secrets of Croatian intelligence community and also tries to exorcise his own personal demons.
THE RECOLLECTION THIEF was supposed to be one of the more interesting and intriguing films made in contemporary Croatia. Although not the first one to deal with 1990s war – almost all Croatian films made in past two decades dealt, directly or indirectly, with that subject – it was the first one to explicitly portray some of its shady political background. That included the use of certain real – and rather controversial – historical characters which are unnamed yet quite recognisable in the best tradition of roman a clef. Another broken taboo is portrayal of factional struggles within Tudjman’s party – hardline nationalists and former extremist political emigres on one and former Communista and Yugoslav loyalists on the other side – which found its reflection in inter-service rivalries within intelligence community.
Unfortunately, the intriguing subject was ruined by director Vicko Ruić, filmmaker who showed that he hadn’t learned a thing after fiasco of his 1996 debut NAUSIKAJA. Just like in that film, Ruić in THE RECOLLECTION THIEF showed utter lack of sense for pacing or talent to tell any meaningful story. Most of the film is made of flashbacks that are nearly always incomprehensible, despite Ruić’s attempts to navigate viewers with the use of titles that indicate different year. Some of those flashbacks – like the one set in 1971, during the crushing of Croatian Spring – don’t serve any purpose, apart from reminding Croatian audience of national traumas. Incoherent flashbacks, bad editing and weak pacing destroy any sense of suspense and mystery, and even some scenes that are supposed to be thriller-like look cheap. The acting – apart from few honourable exceptions, like Ivo Gregurević in the role of late defence minister – is mostly bad, making audience care very little about characters.
Viewers, who might have been attracted to this film because of its ground-breaking subject, would soon regret their curiosity. Even Croatian audience, which has some previous knowledge about certain events, characters and situations portrayed in this film, will have problems in connecting the dots. Foreign audience, which doesn’t know or care about finer details of post-Communist history of Southeastern Europe, will be at complete loss. Because of that, THE RECOLLECTION THIEF, despite its relatively short 100 minutes and despite relatively short budget, looks very much like the embodiment of a popular phrase “epic failure”.
RATING: 2/10
Thick as Thieves (2009) November 2, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Antonio Banderas, Mimi Leder, Morgan Freeman, Rade Šerbedžija, Radha Mitchell
add a comment
(THE CODE)
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2009
Feature films fail when they incite emotional responses different from those intended. Sometimes this shouldn’t be a bad thing – serious film, if it is bad enough, can provide audience with unexpected entertainment. More often than not, though, films that are supposed to be entertaining are anything but. THICK AS THIEVES, 2009 crime thriller directed by Mimi Leder and distributed under title THE CODE in USA, is one of such examples.
Protagonist of the film is Gabriel Martin (played by Antonio Banderas), criminal from Miami who tries to make a living on the streets of New York. His dashing robbery in the moving subway train catches attention of Keith Ripley (played by Morgan Freeman), old, experienced criminal who needs a younger partner for another big job. That job includes stealing precious Faberge eggs from a New York museum owned by Russian “businessmen”. Their scheme is complicated by two things. One is Ripley’s old nemesis in the form of NYPD lieutenant Weber (played by Robert Forster) who is determined to bring behind bars. Another is Alexandra (played by Radha Mitchell), Ripley’s goddaughter to whom Martin becomes attracted.
Based on Mimi Leder’s reputation of an action-oriented director, THICK AS THIEVES was supposed to be exciting heist film. In reality, audience will hardly experience any thrills, except in the subway scene which introduces outrageously bold protagonist. The scenes depicting heist, despite great care to make them look “spectacular” (mostly through the use of various gadgets), leave much to be desired and actually draw comparisons with much better films of the same genre.
Much more visible (and irritating) flaw of the film is bad casting. The otherwise dependable actors like Morgan Freeman sleepwalk through the role, while Banderas simply looks too old to be convincing as young criminal. His character’s obligatory romance with Alexandra falls victim to complete lack of chemistry between him and Mitchell. Furthermore, Banderas’ efforts are also burdened by Ted Humphrey’s uninspired script which brings plenty of “unexpected” yet completely nonsensical plot twists at the end. Seeing great Spanish actor in his unsuccessful attempts to act his way out of this mess gives more sadness than thrills among the audiences.
People in this part of the world will have additional reason to feel sad when they see this film. Rade Šerbedžija, once among the most popular and charismatic actors of former Yugoslavia, is again reduced to one-dimensional and stereotypical role of a Russian mobster. The sadness created by this film could be cured only by its quick descent in well-deserved oblivion.
RATING: 3/10
Coco Before Chanel (2009) October 26, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Alessandro Nivola, Anne Fontaine, Audrey Tatou, Benoit Poelvoorde, Coco Chanel
add a comment
(COCO AVANT CHANEL)
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2009
The author of this review was never a particularly big fan of fashion. Main purpose of clothing is protection from the elements; there are rather few occasions or examples when someone can appreciate its aesthetic qualities. Despite being overrated element of modern culture, fashion nevertheless can be good source of fascinating stories for a feature film. At least, that was the idea behind COCO BEFORE CHANEL, 2009 French biopic directed by Anne Fontaine.
In it Audrey Tatou plays titular character – Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel (1883 – 1971), famous French fashion designer, founder of a business empire and one of the most influential persons of 20th Century. The film deal with her humble roots and depicts rags-to-riches story. After a prologue set in 1890s orphanage that depicts little Gabrielle desperately waiting for a father that would never come, plot advances few decades to Belle Epoque France. Gabrielle and her sister Emilienne (played by Marie Gillan) are poor seamstresses that try to make ends meet by performing in music halls frequented by wealthy men. One of those men is Etienne Balsan (played by Benoit Poelvoorde), heir to the business empire, who would try to sponsor Gabrielle’s show business career. Those attempts end in fiasco, and desperate Gabrielle takes residence at Etienne’s chateau. There she is revolted by Etienne’s paternalistic attitude towards her and her rebellion manifests in designing and wearing “unwomanly” clothes. This attitude, however, intrigues Etienne’s English friend Arthur “Boy” Capel (played by Alessandro Nivola) who falls in love in Gabrielle and helps her set up hat shop in Paris.
At first glance, there are plenty things to like about COCO BEFORE CHANEL. The most noticeable is cast. Belgian actor Benoit Poelvoorde (best known for his role in cult film MAN BITES DOG) brings a lot of roguish charm to the otherwise thankless role of heroine’s sugar daddy. Emanuelle Davos is also very effective in the role of Coco’s courtesan mentor. On the other hand, Audrey Tatou – who tries very hard to make her portrayal of Coco as faithful as possible – lacks certain chemistry with Alessandro Nivola. However, the other elements of film, notably the period detail and wonderful score by Alexandre Desplat, make this flaw less visible.
The other flaw of COCO BEFORE CHANEL – bad script – is somewhat harder to hide. Feature film is not always the best medium to present someone’s biographies, especially in case of long and eventful lives like Coco’s. Her early life was supposed to provide more drama. However, script by Anne and Camille Fontaine concentrated solely on her love life, while ignoring certain important historical events that shaped her life, most importantly First World War. It was the absence of men, drafted into cannon fodder, that forced industries to take women to men’s job and forced women to wear practical yet “unwomanly” clothes that would make Coco empress of world’s fashion. The film mostly ignores this important aspect of Coco’s life. The last “fantasy” TITANIC-like scene, in which Chanel supervises modern-day fashion show, comes less like proper way to finish film and more like a desperate attempt to tell audience why they had to watch it in the first place. That scene only reinforces impression that there were better ways to portray fascinating life of Coco Chanel.
RATING: 4/10
Alien vs. Predator (2004) October 20, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Alien vs. Predator, Lance Henriksen, Paul W.S. Anderson, Raoul Bova, Sanaa Lathan
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2004
It is not easy being a fan of 1970s and 1980s science fiction films, especially these days. Too many times memory of great films is ruined by Hollywood’s uninspired and often unimaginably bad sequels, remakes or prequels. In some rare occassions a single title can offend more than one science fiction movie fandom. One of such examples is ALIEN VS. PREDATOR, 2004 film directed by Paul W.S. Anderson.
The film is prequel to two classic genre films that introduced memorable science fiction monsters – ALIEN and PREDATOR. Idea of a film that would combine those two was one of the more popular among science fiction fandom two decades ago. In 1990 first glimpses of those two films sharing the same fictional universe appeared as production design details in PREDATOR II. This was followed by popular video games and comic books. Many attempts to use this concept for a new feature film didn’t materialise until 2004.
2004 is the year when the plot begins. Satellite belonging to corporation owned by wealthy industrialist Charles Weyland (played by Lance Henriksen) discovers mysterious large pyramid-like object buried under the ice at Bouvet Island, 1000 miles north of Anctartica. Weyland quickly assembles team of mountaineers, archeologists and other experts to investigate. The expedition enters pyramid and discovers that it was built by ancient human civilisation worshipping strange creatures descending from heaven. The worship included human sacrifice in the form of victims being incubators for chest-bursting alien acid-bleding monsters or “serpents”, which are later hunted by alien hunters as some sort of their rite of passage.
ALIEN VS. PREDATOR was savaged by critics, and that shouldn’t have been much of surprise. Paul W. Anderson, director who was also credited with screenplay, built his film more on the video games than on previous great works of Ridley Scott, James Cameron and John McTiernan. Furthermore, decision to use PG-13 rating made ALIEN VS. PREDATOR look like less realistic and cheap version of previous films. But the worst problem is in script. Aliens and Predators are already established as characters in previous films. Unfortunately, the audience that expects their formiudable presence has to wait before they are properly revealed and instead has to deal with weak, underdeveloped characters whose ultimate fates – which are rather predictable – don’t attract much sympathy from audience.
The film is almost unbearable until the real showodown – between Aliens and Predators – begins. Anderson then uses some of his skills, as well as CGI, to make few interesting and spectacular fight scenes. Those scenes, however, end relatively quickly, just as the film, without making ALIEN VS. PREDATOR more than merely watchable. “Surprise” ending that points to a inevitable sequel, however, only completes the generally negative impression.
Basic premise of the script – inspired by the works by Erich von Däniken – was interesting, and opened more opportunities for film to be something more than cheap genre entertainment. Those opportunities was wasted, just like the cast that would have made wonders in different films. Sanaa Lathan tries very hard, but ultimately fails, to fill Sigourney Weaver’s shoes in role of tough female survivor. Others, like Lance Henriksen, Raoul Bouva and Ewen Bremner are tragically underused due to their characters being cliched and forgettable. Such disappointments, considering what Hollywood does to its legacy, weren’t so unexpected, so this is main reason why ALIEN VS. PREDATOR isn’t as bad as its critical reputation might indicate.
RATING: 3/10
The Proposal (2009) October 11, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Anne Fletcher, Betty White, Malin Akerman, Ryan Reynolds, Sandra Bullock
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2009
Book with a title like When Bad Films Happen to Good Actors should have Sandra Bullock on its cover. Bullock, one of the brightest stars of 1990s Hollywood, managed to turn some mediocre films into tenable, and sometimes even pleasant experiences. Yet, those talents often weren’t enough to compensate for lack of other people’s talents, even when such films belonged to genre of romantic comedy, which was supposed to be Bullock’s forte. One of the latest examples is THE PROPOSAL, 2009 film directed by Anne Fletcher.
In it Bullock plays Margaret Tate, 44-year old chief editor of a New York publishing company, a tough workaholic woman who runs her subordinates with iron hand. Her career is threatened when it turns out that she, as a Canadian citizen, failed to properly apply for US visa. Faced with the prospect of deportation, she quickly finds solution in the form of Andrew Paxton (played by Ryan Reynolds), her loyal and long-suffering assistant. She blackmails Paxton, an American citizen, into marrying her. Imigration agent Mr. Gitberson (played by Denis O’Hare) suspects that the marriage is sham, so before the actual wedding Paxton and Tate must learn as much as possible about each other in order to play real couple in love. Paxton brings her new bride to his home town of Sitka, Alaska, in order to marry her surrounded by his large family.
If THE PROPOSAL is to be compared with travel, the most appropriate comparison should be with a daily commute rather than an exciting adventure into the unknown. Scriptwriter Pete Chiarelli appears unable to defy or at least avoid romantic comedy cliches, so the average audience member doesn’t have to be an experienced filmophile to know plot in advance. Two main protagonists are, therefore, destined to end with each other despite the apparent antipathy they feel towards each other. Margaret is, therefore, hard but competent and fair boss, and her “hardness” is conveniently explained by growing up without family. Andrew, of course, has exactly that – family which is not only large, but exotic and so adorable – especially the 90-year old grandmother played by Betty White – that even Margaret can’t resist its charms.
The only thing that could be characterised as unexpected twist in THE PROPOSAL is realisation that Andrew’s family is not only adorable, but also very rich. Andrew could have solved all of his existential problems by inheriting business of his rich father Joe (played by Craig T. Nelson), but he left for New York in order not to compromise his own artistic ambitions. This noble character trait is hardly reconciled with Andrew’s cynical acceptance of Margaret’s marriage scheme. Such contradiction, however, is only one of many unsolved problems of this film.
Much bigger problem for THE PROPOSAL is miscasting of Ryan Reynolds. He has comic talent, but he lacks any chemistry with Sandra Bullock. The romance between their two characters doesn’t look credible. The “comedy” part of film works only slightly better. Bullock appears to be good when Reynolds isn’t around. Some bit players – like tragically underused Oscar Nunez – appear to be something of a pleasant surprise. Those surprises are, however, too few and far between for THE PROPOSAL to be anything other than annoyingly predictable and barely watchable piece of Hollywood routine.
RATING: 3/10
Brüno (2009) October 4, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: brüno, Sacha Baron Cohen, Larry Charles
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2009
There are many ways in which humanity can be divided into two opposing camps with notions that leave little room for compromise or middle ground. One of such examples could be found in BRÜNO, comedy film directed by Larry Charles. Based on the reactions of critics and general public, it is hard not to conclude that there are two kinds of people on this world – those who like comedy style of Sacha Baron Cohen and those who don’t.
That division is not new. It was created three years ago with BORAT, film that also combined talents of Charles and Cohen. The new film uses similar concept – a flamboyant, “exotic”, over-the-top foreigner who comes to America to expose its dark cultural underbelly through series of outrageous gags. Unlike BORAT, who represented “primitive” post-Soviet East, protagonist of BRÜNO belongs to the mainstream of Western civilisation.
Brüno Gehard (played by Cohen) is a Austrian fashion reporter who hosts popular “Funkyzeit mit Brüno” television talk show. At the beginning of a film, life is good for Brüno – apart from being popular, he enjoys happy gay relationship with Filipino air steward Diesel (played by Clifford Banagale) with many of its technical details being explicitly portrayed to film’s audience. Disruption of Milan Fashion week catwalk, however, destroys Brüno’s career – he loses a job and a lover, and is forced to seek fame and fortune in America, followed by his loyal assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarstan).
Brüno’s attempts to become famous – first as a celebrity talk show host, then by producing his own sex tape, adopting a child and fighting for world peace – fail, mostly due to tendency to express his homosexuality in most graphic ways and in the most inopportunte moment. Realising that the homosexuality might be impediment for his show business career, Brüno tries to become “straight” – by talking to Christian gay converters, stint in National Guard, hunting party and, finally, by becoming cage fight star under stage name “Straight Dave”.
Many of those who like and those who don’t like Cohen’s work might agree in one thing – BORAT was better than BRÜNO. The reason for that is, perhaps inadvertently, given in many of trailers for BRÜNO. In it, it is claimed, that BORAT was “so 2006″. Three years have passed and what used to be described as revolutionary display of comedic genius – combination of scripted gags, mockumentary and guerrilla-style making fun of unsuspecting real-life people – is now looking very old.
Furthermore, the world has changed. Three years ago, Cohen and Charles could expect accolades for taking jabs at America under Bush and its jingoism and bigotry. Few months before BRÜNO Obama’s election appeared to scatter those stereotypes into the wastelands of history. Cohen and his co-writers were left without proper targets – there are scenes in which they try to attack the stereotypical bigotry of rural, conservative America, but those attacks seem repetitive and unfocused. More promising are scenes which are supposed to satirically deal with modern obsession of celebrity. Unfortunately, they too are unfocused, and the audience will be confused about what Cohen wants to achieve – satirise bigotry, homophobia, celebrity culture or the modern expressions and stereotypes of homosexuality. Cohen does this only at the very end with “We Are The World” celebrity video that looks more like a cheap sermon that display of comedic wit.
Actually, there are very little or no examples of comedic genius in this film. Perhaps Cohen’s methods of creating humour became overexploited. Perhaps the film was – just like so many Hollywood comedies – overhyped, with the best or potentially most effective gags used in trailers and various publicity stunts months before the premiere. Cohen tries to compensate this by employing shock tactic in the form of full frontal male nudity and plenty of scenes featuring penises. Unfortunately for Cohen, this seemingly last Hollywood taboo was already broken – much more effectively – by Judd Apatow and his comedies that, unlike Cohen’s, have some meaningful plots, characters and stories. Cohen’s use of male genitalia – which is supposed to expose the inner prudishness among average viewer – only reveals Cohen’s lack of inspiration and make watching this failed film much longer than its 81 minutes of running time.
RATING: 2/10
Drag Me to Hell (2009) September 14, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Sam Raimi, Alison Lohman, Justin Long
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2009
Current economic woes that are, sometimes euphemistically, referred as Global Recession, tend to reflect themselves in various places, sometimes quite unexpected. Some of those reflections could be found in supernatural horror films made by contemporary Hollywood. One such example is protagonist of DRAG ME TO HELL, 2009 film directed by Sam Raimi.
Christine Brown (played by Alison Lohman) is a young, ambitious loan officer who lives in Los Angeles. On surface, her life looks good, since she dates college professor Clay Dalton (played by Justin Long) who is not only good-looking, but also has wealthy parents. Underneath, she still has to deal with legacy of unhappy childhood, poverty and broken home, as well as increasingly vicious office rivalries. Christine comes to conclusion that she can professionally advance only by showing her boss Jim Jacks (played by David Paymer) that she can make tough decision. Opportunity comes in form of Mrs. Ganush (played by Lorna Raver), elderly Gypsy woman who, like many people these days, can’t pay mortgage and will lose house. Christine rejects her pleas for loan extension and Mrs. Ganush doesn’t react very well – physical altercation is followed by terrible curse. Since Mrs. Ganush is actually a very powerful sorcerer, Christine is faced with increasingly nasty apparitions. Spiritual advisor Rham Jas (played by Dileep Rao) explains that the she has three days to lift the curse, otherwise she will face eternal damnation.
Contemporary economic crisis provides interesting backdrop to otherwise simple and rather predictable horror movie plot. Another, more interesting and more important thing about DRAG ME TO HELL is the fact that Sam Raimi returned to his roots by making another combination of supernatural horror and dark comedy. Experienced viewers, even those who aren’t great fans of the genre or Raimi, can predict what would happen on the screen. What they can’t predict is how Raimi would portray that. Author of EVIL DEAD again shows great creativity by spicing cliched situations with ingenious details. One such example is Christine having to battle handkerchief or deal with Mrs. Ganush’s denture.
However, Raimi’s ingenuity wasn’t enough to compensate for this film’s major flaw – uneven and too ambiguous characterisation of the protagonist. Script by Raimi and his brother Ivan gives many hints that Christine doesn’t actually meets the moral standard of average Hollywood movie protagonist, making her at times closer to being villain. Idea of protagonist turning into villain had a lot of potential, but it wasn’t explored nor properly used. In the end, that idea was wasted, just like the talents of Alison Lohman, otherwise capable actress reduced to another thankless role. Thankfully, DRAG ME TO HELL is relatively short and competently directed, which is enough for most fans of the genre and Sam Raimi.
RATING: 6/10
Defiance (2008) September 13, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Daniel Craig, Edward Zwick, Jamie Bell, Liev Schreiber
add a comment
A Film Review
Copyright Dragan Antulov 2009
Second World War is an event that happened seventy years ago. Numbers of those who could relate to it through their personal experiences are dwindling, yet the debates about its causes and aftermath continue like the war happened yesterday. Many times those debates revolve about myths, half-truths and attempts to give some sense to global carnage with simple explanations. One of such debates revolve about question why Jews didn’t fight back when faced with Holocaust. The truth about war was, of course, more complex and those who ask that question ignore situations when Jews actually did fight back. One of such examples is subject of DEFIANCE, 2008 film directed by Edward Zwick.
The plot begins in 1941, after German armies invaded Soviet Union and conquered Belarus. Hitler’s Panzers are followed by SS Einsatzgruppen that begin massacring Jews even before the official start of Final Solution. Among the victims are parents and family of Tuvia (played by Daniel Craig) and Zus Bielski (played by Liev Schreiber), brothers who survived because they know forests of Belarus like the back of their hand. They hide in woods and try to survive, occasionally engaging in acts of revenge against local Nazi collaborators. After some time, their exploits become a legend among surviving Jews who join their group that would eventually number hundreds of people. As times go by, conflict develops among brothers – pragmatic Tuvia wants only his group to survive while Zus wants revenge against Nazis and even joins Soviet partisans despite the anti-Semitism in their ranks.
Based on a true and fascinating story of Bielski partisans, DEFIANCE provides something other Holocaust drama rarely do – geunine action scenes. Zwick, whose previous work in GLORY and LAST SAMURAI shows talent for depicting combat, doesn’t disappoint here. Those scenes are well-connected, look realistic (partially due to being shot in Lithuania, near genuine historic locations) and, most importantly, fit into the context of the story about ordinary people being forced to do extraordinary things to survive. DEFIANCE also provides intriguing glimpses into some practical problems of people in such situations, namely how to get food and shelter while trying to evade genocidal enemy. The most interesting segments of the film deal with the “natural” social order being reversed in such situations; petty thieves and smugglers who were treated like dirt before the war become leaders due to their pragmatic blue-collar skills; intellectuals, who were supposed to be leaders of community, are next to useless under such conditions. Furthermore, script also provides characters with difficult moral dilemmas, which is good and mostly well-used opportunity for Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber to show their acting skills.
Generally good impression of DEFIANCE begins to worsen when the film approaches its end. Zwick and his co-writer Clayton Frohman apparently couldn’t provide proper ending to the fascinating real-life story, at least not by succumbing to Hollywood cliches at the expense of historical truth, making this film annoyingly predictable to the experienced viewers. However, even the spectacular battle at the end is un-cathartic and DEFIANCE ends disappointingly.
The film looks even more simplistic when its depiction of events is compared with more complex historic reality. This created some controversies in Poland, because the area portrayed in film – part of present-day Belarus – used to be part of Poland before WW2; this fact is ignored in film, just like the rivalry between Soviet and Polish partisans that made predicament of Bielski partisans more complicated.
However, the biggest flaw of DEFIANCE has little to do with Zwick or anything he could have done. Characters, situations and setting of this film just happen to be eerily similar to COME AND SEE, Elem Klimov’s Soviet 1985 film that is arguably the most intense and the most powerful movie ever to be made about WW2. All those who watched Klimov’s film are bound to be disappointed by DEFIANCE.
RATING: 6/10
Metastaze (2009) September 6, 2009
Posted by Dragan Antulov in Film Reviews.Tags: Branko Schmidt, Franjo Dijak, Rakan Rushaidat, Rene Bitorajac, Robert Ugrina
add a comment
History can be ironic even in the case of Croatian cinema. In 1990s, the lost decade of Croatian film, Osijek-born director Branko Schmidt used to be embodiment of everything wrong in this country’s film industry. He was widely perceived as regime filmmaker, creating government-sponsored works that presented state-sanctioned “truths” of Tudjman’s Croatia without much talent or connection with reality. In 2009 all that changed with METASTAZE, a new, “hip”, “different” and “edgy” film that won initially sceptical critics and received Golden Arena of Pula, Croatian equivalent of Oscar.
Script by Ognjen Sviličić, based on well-received novel by Ivo Balenović, describes everyday lives of four men in contemporary Zagreb. All of them share fanatical devotion to local soccer club NK Dinamo, as well as lack of any future. Their lives revolve around Dinamo’s matches and large quantities of alcohol, sometimes accompanied by drugs or outbursts of nonsensical violence. Kizo (played by Robert Ugrina) appears unaware that drinking ruined his liver, skinhead Krpa (played by Rene Bitorajac) regularly abuses his wife while Dejo (played by Rakan Rushaidat) tries to finance his heroin habit by cross-border drug smuggling deal. The only one who tries to put his life in order is Filip (played by Franjo Dijak). He returned to Zagreb from Spanish drug rehabilitation commune and tries to get a job before his neighbourhood friends manage to bring him to old ways.
METASTAZE was advertised as “Croatian TRAINSPOTTING”. There are plenty of reasons to compare those two films. Both feature realistic portrayal of post-industrial urban underclass stuck in vicious cycle of poverty, substance abuse and violence. Even the characters of Renton and Begbie have their equivalent in characters of Filip and Krpa. However, there are some major differences – Schmidt’s film lacks humour, “cool” soundtrack or any element that would make his characters and situations pleasing to audience. As a result, METASTAZE is deeply unpleasant experience, especially to those Croatian viewers more than aware that the unsympathetic characters and situations on the screen are not that far from unsympathetic characters and situations they might encounter in their real lives.
Another thing that makes METASTAZE different from TRAINSPOTTING is the context of 1990s Yugoslav wars and its consequences – the “metastases” in original title. Guns are silent, Croatia is independent and “normal” country, but many of those affected by those “years of pride and glory” can’t adapt to prosaic peacetime reality. Patriotism is distilled into most virulent forms of right-wing chauvinism and justification for vicious street thuggery. The film tries to make this point sometimes too obvious by displaying Dejo’s Serb ethnicity and suggesting that his heroin habit originated in frustrating failure to be “one of the guys”. Crime that was rampant during war years is, however, still there and the criminals don’t care about ethnicity – when it comes to smuggling heroin, Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks work together just like they did during Yugoslav days of “Brotherhood and Unity”.
Schmidt makes this depressing picture somewhat bearable by making METASTAZE short. Thus he leaves less opportunity for audience to notice some of film’s flaws. One of them is unrealistically thick Serb accent by Dejo’s father, played by Predrag “Pedjo” Vušović, one of them). Another is in some convenient plot details that diminish suspension of disbelief, especially towards the end. Schmidt, on the other hand, directs in a way that emphasises realism, with a lot of steadycam, genuine Zagreb locations and dialogues filled with too much profanity – so different from gentle, theatrical displays of verbal culture in average 1990s Croatian film. The acting is, unlike most of Croatian films in previous decade, superb, with Rene Bitorajac excelling in the role of detestable sociopath.
The result is mostly satisfying that could do wonders for Schmidt’s reputation and serve as a good sign of Croatian cinema standards being raised. On the other hand, those who were fortunate not to live in 1990s Croatia won’t be able to get many of its finer details or understand why it is so good.
RATING: 7/10
