Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
The Man in the White Suit (1951)
The Man in the white suit
First of all, the film is free market propaganda. We see a scientist that is written in such a way that makes him act almost as an artist or a poet, altruistically going through any job that would give him the opportunity to work on his experiments. Right off the bat we see that the film consciously, in an effort to make a martyr out of its hero, ignores the class war and acts as all he has is due to his individual effort. This is reinforced by the interactions he has with the syndicalist workers who are painted to be blind to whatever is happening around them and incapable of speaking outside of marxist catchphrases. What we see is a great example of Heteroglossia, when the writer incorporates a language in order to reproduce it but injects in it his own commentary. In this case, he incorporates the marxist dialect in order to ridicule it.
Moving along, one of the big industrialist take an interest in our hero only to be later confronted by the other big industrialists as the discovery of this new kind of linen would essentially bankrupt them all. The film then proceeds to make the syndicalists side with the industrialists to show how the individual is oppressed by both the unions and the monopolies and how all they do is stop the "development". It also works on a different level as in making the syndicalists have the same point of view as the industrialists the film manages to successfully ridicule both of them.
Superficially seen the film can be ambiguous and thoughtful, which is a good thing i do not however buy into its discourse though. Also the film is quite a fun watch.
Le septième juré (1962)
Le septième juré
Amazing film. amazingly shot, the first sequence got me totally off guard with its overwhelming and amazing soundtrack and its dream like directing style.
Le septième juré was most likely one of the most depressing films i have ever seen, it had no redeemable characters besides Sautral and Catherine and essentially nothing good ever happens, it is almost like a kafkian nightmare. Still, unlike most polar i have seen so far, it manages to be ambiguous enough to keep it from being too preachy and moralistic.i am also really grateful for how, despite how the characters see her, Catherine was treated with a certain distance and lack of judgement by the film. That made the film seem more like a comment on how moralistic and hypocritical are some spheres of society, in this case, the political and bourgeois classes. I also thought it was a really smart way to deal with the issue by making the lead character at the same time regret what he did while not exonerating him of all the guilt. Not to mention that making him, a calm and respectable man rather than a criminal or an angry man or a jealous husband or a drug user commit the crime raises the question of why would someone do that. This unanswered question instead of making the discourse seem incomplete deepens greatly the ideological reach of the film BECAUSE it leaves room for interpretation. So in short, very interesting film and considering how dark it is, quite an easy watch.
I really like this film, it is really beautiful with its super contrasted black and white which to me works really well making 1960's Paris look like a futuristic city. I also rarely enjoy science fiction films because their predictions of the citie of the future often seem to me as inauthentic and silly. Anna Karina is amazing in this even though i wish she had a bit more screen time. I also love the long takes, the silent stares and the uninterrupted walks down the corridors as they talk, it gives me a sense of continuity that i seem to rarely get. The soundtrack is really impacting in a weirdly not Godardian way, what i mean by this is that the soundtrack here does not really clash with the film, it actually complements it unlike films like Le Mépris where he uses the abrupt cuts in the soundtrack in order to detach you from the film in a Brechtian manner. I also really like how experimentative his films were in those years ( not that they are not now, but i think he does not do it as intentionally as he did back then) so this film came out the same year as Pierrot Le Fou and it looks nothing at all like it.For one it is a science fiction film which is an unusual thing for him by itself, for another it is a science fiction film with a popular french noir character, that is, Lemmy Caution in it.
Even though it is quite straightforward It still has some Brechtian detachment to it even if significantly less than his other films. That makes Alphaville probably one of his most accessible ones. At least superficially. In depth this film is actually quite dense. Alphaville deals with the ambiguity of rationality.Because rationality functions over our knowledge of the language and since language is interpretable so is reason. So we see this utopic ( or is it dystopic?) society where everything and everyone is governed by a totalitarian artificial intelligence, Alpha 60, who imposes its rationality to the people of Alphaville. It claims that all that he does is for the common good and he even goes as far as using his rhetoric to prove it. So in this mechanical rational society where the rationality is leading to their oppression the answer can only be poetry and love. Kind of romantic idea but it works really well in the context of his film making career. It even seems as a way to explain his modus operandi as a film maker at that point in his career. He would later become a Maoist and do more political films, but even then ambiguity played a huge role in his films( just watch tout va bien and see). You don't have to know all of this to like this film however. There is plenty to be interpreted and seen. The association of the idea of spectacle with the execution that to me suggest the responsibility he and other film makers have in what they create and most importantly how they create ( let's not forget the major role the cinematic medium had in the third reich), this also is to me reinforced by the repeating theme of propaganda in the film. The message is as conflicted as the role of the producer of the message. So at the same time that Alphaville is an anticapitalist film showing the dangers of the modern capitalist world ( Godard himself was an anticapitalist), it is also a film that rejects any idea of universal truth and with that rejects the totalitarian forms of socialism . This reflects his own struggle as a film maker since in one hand he has the responsibility to stand the oppressive capitalist system he also has to deny all forms of control in order to achieve what he perceives as the revolution ( in his context the revolution of the cinematic medium). So in summary it's the idea that the only way to transcend power and oppression is by rejecting any rules, in the case of the film, by loving.
The Bigamist (1953)
Good film. The film was quite amusing and went by really fast since it is both really short and quite compelling. However i was really annoyed on how moralistic it really is. It is implied by the film that the reason why he went out and got a new wife was because his original wife was cold and insensitive. Not only that but it is also implied that the reason behind her being like that is because he introduced her to the business so it is almost like a really anti feminist discourse saying that women should be at home and not work. This is intensified by the way that the film ambiguously at the same time crucify the actions of the bigamist and still makes it look like he had no choice and was ultimately just a victim of the circumstances. My point is that the film went a lot harder on the women than it did on the men. Another example of this is the scenes where he try to tell his wife he cheated on her but she dismisses that as a joke. No one would do that. Besides, even if they did that would make him a real bad faithful man for not attempting to come clean again.
The film deals with a real cool subject but unfortunately relies too deeply in common sense to be able to actually say something really meaningful with it
You Only Live Once (1937)
You only live once
I'm always amazed whenever i see a film that's over 60 years old and still manages to surprise me so much time later. That is the case with You only live once. The film is beautifully shot, acted and scored. I love the message behind it too, about the impossibility of an honest life in the context of an ex convict. I love how the movie shows the contradictory essence of the judicial system and how it jot only refuses to reintegrate the ex convicts in the society but also makes an effort to further alienate them. I also really like how Sylvia and the layer stands by his side throughout the whole thing and how Fritz Lang make the institutions as gullible but not people. Which reminded me of Hangmen Also Die that was also directed by him, where the focal point in the film is the union of the worker people against the oppressive state. Really beautiful film. The scene where he gets fired from his job without any justification felt really powerful to me. If i had to nitpick anything that i did not like in this i would have to say that the death of the priest felt a little bit forced. Even though the film explains is as a result of Eddies disturbed mental state i felt there was little to no reason why in the context of the scene he would consider doing that. Besides that i can't praise this one enough.
Was surprised to find out about this one. Very rationalistic film making. Kind of Brechtian.
I am really fond of the way the actors just recite their lines as opposed to act them, i also really liked the way it was shot, its static quality was very comforting for me even though this film is anything but comforting. It has, like everything i have read so far from kafka, this nightmare-ish feel to it. Everything always spirals down, everyone is alienating and confusing, every action has a undoable consequence. This time however, it is all in the context of a german immigrant in the united states who, deprived of his nationality becomes a sort of sub proletariat. But being him from a bourgeoise bringin he refuses to accept that fate which only makes thing worse for him. To me the point seems to be the impossibility of a decent living under the capitalist system or at least the easiness of the marginalization by it.
The film was really good, i am really glad i got to see it. It is a really tough watch though. The scene where he is let go of his job in the hotel was one of the most frightening scenes i have ever watched in my whole life.
Der siebente Kontinent (1989)
Der siebente Kontinent
Quite possibly the one film that disturbed me the most.
I like how the film does a conscious effort not to imply a reason to why things turned out the way they did, even though the mere fact that they did and that we see things happening before it is enough to stimulate the imagination of whomever is watching towards an answer. There is also an effort in making every thing seem as impersonal as they possibly can. This works greatly for the film. I don't know if the purpose was this but, this impersonality just gave room for me to project myself even further into the characters psyche, so halfway into the film i had no idea what would happen but i was already incredibly tense.
The film is beautifully shot, i love the rigor in the filming, the rhythm ,the unrealistic, montage heavy rawness of it. In summary, i liked this one quite a lot. The one bad thing i can say about it is that it is way too ambiguous. At the same time i'm still not sure weather it really is a bad thing or not. watch it if you can
Chinesisches Roulette (1976)
Amazing film. One of Fassbinder's greatest.
I love how simple and short this film is. it has a very limited cast of characters. Basically one location. And also one conflict, which is way too complicated and entangled to be solved.
It's about this couple that has been conflicted by the illness of their child, who, because of that started to despise them, so she orchestrates this scenario where she essentially does her best to emotionally cripple them the best she can. All common themes in Fassbinder's vocabulary. The exploitation of feeling. The class war in the context of relationships. Power relations. The patriarchal oppression.
But the thing that gets me the most about this is how direct it is. It has absolutely no mercy. It curses in any way it can the idea of monogamy and matrimony ( evidenced by the text in the last shot of the film). I love how Fassbinder used some of his films as ways to vent about his failed relationships and all of the harm he's done to others, and that, in this film specifically is very clear to me.
I also love the camera work by Michael Ballhaus who is great as expected. The way that the camera follows the climate of the film and essentially goes nuts in the end when all of the characters are tense and stressed out is very amusing and expressive. Also the whole entirely of the last 30 or so minutes are absolutely astounding. I have watched this film 3 times already and i still get anxious every time i see it.
Anyway, if you like Fassbinder's films you will probably like this one. If you don't then you might. And if you never watched one before i suggest maybe watching Ali Fear eats the soul or The Marriage of Maria Braun first.
Okay film. The Lunga character is pretty cool so i'll give the film that but it is kind of lackluster.
It had more to do with my expectations than with the actual film i guess but the film surrounds itself with this political film aura and does not live up to it. I mean it has some nods to brazilian politics like the whole "south Brazil" (referencing the small but still frightening contingent of south separatists) or the fact that the film takes place in Pernambuco and the whole context of exploration that the northeast of Brazil has faced for since the country was first colonized by Portugal. But that is it. I thought the film would develop even just a little bit the social economic situation of this dystopian Brazil but no they do not. It just kind of goes into this Hostel situation where rich american people kill the citizens of Bacurau for fun. I mean, the film is good for what it is, but the political aspect of it is really underdeveloped.
Also, the film builds this theme of neo colonization and the oppression of Brazil by Europe and North America but ultimately ditches all of that by making the villains not act in bigotry but in complete insanity.
Anyway, that's just me. The film is good if you don't really mind the politics. My only complaint is that in its politics the film COULD'VE AND SHOULD'VE gone even further.
Ali G Indahouse (2002)
When deprived of his live prank quality, Sacha Baron Cohen's humor suffers deeply.
i went into this expecting something close to Borat or even the Ali G show but no.
It is a sub par comedy in which i didn't even laugh once.
The Giant Buddhas (2005)
The Giant Buddhas
It has always upset me the way that documentaries have to add some degree of theatrics to themselves, for example, like when they make one person reenact something that did happen. In this film this was particularly off putting. So the scenes where the lady is writing or travelling and gazing at the horizon or something like that , they always feel so forced and uncomfortable. But talking about the most prominent of the film's features i was mildly interested in what it had to say in the beginning but the uncompromising and unclear way that they put some of the issues related to the theme of the movie, namely the multiculturalism and the whole al qaeda conflicts was really unsatisfying. The film makes a big deal out of itself as a political film but, at the same time, refuses to any sort of didacticism. Not only that but the points of view expressed in the film are many times ambiguous and confusing.
So this is a documentary that doesn't really document much as it refuses to explain things, at the same time as it is an art film without much feeling to it. Not feeling it too much but the subject was interesting enough
Il Decameron (1971)
Il Decameron represents a cinema of freedom. Not only in its discourse but also in its form.
I feel like what Simone de Beauvoir said about Marquis de Sade is in many ways valid for Pasolini. To Simone, a large body of Sade's work was his way for him to justify himself and free him from all guilt. Il Decameron does the same. Being Pasolini a gay catholic communist, he seemed to be eternally under judgement, repression and ostracism. Il Decameron in many ways reflect that, so what is the biggest point behind all these short stories? Freedom. Its the embracing of the proletariat at the same time as the catholic religion and the complete rejection of the anti sexual morals. For the Decameron he abandons his pessimism to reveal how much the joy of life can be revolutionary ( subject he would latter develop in Salò).
That's it, i don't know what else to say. Great movie.
Zazie dans le métro (1960)
Zazie dans le métro
The film is good, it goes by relatively fast, it has that early nouvelle vague charm that i find very difficult not to be amazed by and is overall a lot of fun.
I have some complains about it though.
Some of the jokes, namely the restaurant destruction one, seem gratuitous and go on for a lot more time than they actually should. Other than that i think i don't really like the way women are portrayed in this, i mean, Zazie is great and i love the way they made her smart and shameless, but like le quatre cent coups her mother is a bit demonized. So instead of showing how smart and cool Zazie is, the film actually seems to show that this sort of behaviour was caused by her mother's carelessness. So in the end, the best thing about this film, that being Zazie's character is canceled out by a moralistic kind of misogynistic undertone.
But anyway, really good, fun film, and if you can ignore the traditional family values undertone you might enjoy it even more than i did.
Foxy Brown (1974)
Kind of cool film.
I like how many of these blaxploitation films have this dichotomy between the lightheartness of the directorial style, that is, the super cool soundtracks, the beautiful costumes, the overall positive black positivity and the really dark, dramatic and tragic turns the films take.
Foxy Brown is no exception to that rule but at the same time the film, unlike across 110th street, doesn't feel heavy or anything like that, which to me is a good thing.
The troubles i had with it however, came more from a certain underlying sense of moralism, mostly directed towards drug users. The film touches upon the african american condition but completely denies determining factors such as the class war, choosing instead to favor this anti drug agenda which is way to ambiguous and tends to portray black people themselves as the source of black oppression. With that said, the film also has some good things in that respect, namely it's really nice to see women taking the leading roles in films such as this and it is also really nice to see them being portrayed as able and intelligent. You can argue that Foxy is really sexualized and you would be right but i thing that irregardless of that the outcome is mostly positive.
So in short, kind of cool film, watch it if you can.
Once upon a time
While its not new to anybody acquainted to the man's works that tarantino loves to indulge himself in pastiche like cinematography but in most of his other films that comes off as a bleeding through effect of his emotional bond with the films and genres that he is referencing. In this one however, his most pastiched one so far , not only he does what he usually does but he also neglects the value of his source material by making fun of the same kind of films he build his whole career on referencing. For example the infamous Bruce Lee scene. You can say that Bruce Lee was not the nicest or most humble person in the set and that is okay, that is not the point. The point is that, HIS CHARACTERIZATION was humorous. He was written to act as a big mouthed fool and you get the impression that essentially anyone could beat him up if they wanted it, which to me seems uncomfortably odd considering all the nods to Bruce Lee films in Tarantino's filmography such as Beatrix Kiddo's outfit in Kill Bill. Not only that but he dismissively makes fun of western spaghettis. The same man that literally build his career on top of pastiche style remaking each and every style of European exploitation films. The funny thing to me is that he ridicules western spaghetti, he makes fun of kung fu films but what he DOES NOT DO is make fun of american westerns.
I also never saw one Tarantino film that was this openly reactionary. The film makes every hippie look like an assassin, it deviates the guilt for the charles mason murders from mason himself to the hippie culture. Also is really weird that he makes the hippies speak in left wing cliche slang when they were following charles mason who literally had a swastika on his forehead. And if that weren't enough the film is also very violent towards women so if a woman is on screen she is either being viciously killed or being sexualized or just being Sharon Tate. I feel bad for the generation that sees Tarantino as one of the biggest names in cinema ( mine).
Trois couleurs: Bleu (1993)
The film is from top to bottom a homage to the sufferings of the individual bourgeoisie person.I had absolutely no joy watching this, could not relate at all to her suffering, thought all the characters were shallow, the dialogues artificial, the conflicts manufactured. The lead character is not charismatic at all, the whole film she essentially walks around bossing people, acting like literally everyone owes her the world. The weird thing is that the film seems to support and romanticize her bad faith.
The cinematography was okay, even though the flashing blue lights not only looked out of place but the whole idea of using blue lights as a sign of something bigger is really redundant and pretentious. And that is what the film is after all; redundant and pretentious.
Éducation sentimentale (1962)
I haven't read the Flaubert book in which this movie was is based on but i believe this will not affect my judgement since it was made by Alexandre Astruc, one of the critics in the now famous cahier du cinema, and therefore a supporter of the whole autheurism thing.
Anyway, i was kind of surprised to see how banal and frankly boring this one was. There is a general distrust towards the bourgeoisie to be seen in this, but it is made in such a romantic way that it loses all of its potential edge. Actually the whole film is quite romantic. We have the undecided woman that needs to be saved from her oppressive life and husband ( actually all women in this one fit into some pre established archetype of women, so we have the woman who does not know what she wants that i have mentioned above, we have the clingy and needy model who needs anyone who treat her mildly seriously,etc.), we have the good young, sensitive man that is dying to do it for her. Jean Claude Brialy is portrayed essentially as a knight in shining armor ( except for the fact that he slaps women across the face).
In summary, the plot is not that well transcribed into the post modern world, the characters come out a bit shallow and the conflicts, to me at least, seem very easy to solve. Also, the beginning of the film is really confusing, there are a ton of characters and we never really get a proper introduction to a large portion of them. Also also whatever happened to Barbara? she just sort of disappeared halfway through. I would've liked to see more of her.
I know that nouvelle vague is far from a homogeneous movement, but still, this one stands out a lot and to me looks a lot like what Truffaut used to call "cinéma de papa"
Didn't really enjoy this one. To begin with i just didn't think the relationship between the two lead characters was all that well developed , i mean i can understand why Max needed Lion but i cannot understand why Lion needed Max at all. The only reason why Lion got along with Max is because Lion was really nice and patient to him even though Max didn't really give anything for him at all. With that said i wonder why didn't Lion make friends prior to the beginning of the film? He is not that problematic at all as the film shows us that in reality the sum of his problems are essentially that he got his former girlfriend pregnant and just disappeared. Far from me to sympathize or even justify that kind of behavior but that's hardly something you get ostracized for.
I also thought that the whole prison quarrel between them felt forced just so that they could include the completely unnecessary and out of place rape attempt scene. But now i get it. Hadn't the rape scene occur the viewer would've been a lot less inclined to believe that Lion snapped at the end.
And about that. By far the thing that i disliked the most about this film. The film develops during its length that there is a better way to deal with life, that if you just make people happy then everything will eventually turn out okay, but then out of nowhere the film creates such a scenario in which both of their characters are being penalized for acting in good faith, resulting ultimately in Lion being institutionalized and Max abandoning him. The film is okay. Quite slow but okay. That is if you like to be bummed out by defeatist nihilist films.
La coda dello scorpione (1971)
La coda dello scorpione
Pretty good film. La coda is probably the most cohesive of Martino's Gialli though not his best.
As one would expect after watching films such as Your vice is a locked room and Signora Wardh the film is beautifully shot and also beautifully scored by Bruno Nicolai( who also did the films mentioned above).
Unfortunately for me La coda lacks the multiple coexisting plots that at the other Martino gialli, particularly the ones with Edwige Fenech, give them their rewatchable qualities.
Even though that is the case , La coda is still very much not linear, has its share of twists and it's a really fun watch. Also this might be the goriest giallo i've ever seen, and probably with the largest body count too.
One thing that i think is well worth pointing out is that, even though the film ends with a happy ending with the killer dead and the lead possibly finding a new love in the interpol detective character, the way that the film presents us the killer kind of induces you to root for him. The film goes as far as filming his death in a really dramatic and melancholic manner that makes you feel really sorry for him, something that i believe i have never seen before and that for me was the coolest thing about it.
Série noire (1979)
Probably the best film i never intend to watch again.
This film is absolutely stressing, every minute of it is stressing. Nothing good ever happens, i cringe at every decision the lead ever made and the overall atmosphere is that of absolute claustrophobia.
Everyone absolutely sucks in this film ( the character, not the actors), they are violent, selfish , mean spirited and cruel, with the exception of Mona which is portrayed as sort of a Venus at the same time as a saint. I thought her portrayal was a bit problematic since we get the idea that if you refuse to essentially take advantage out of someone , then this someone is immediately in debt with you. It also bothered me how the film makes you like her and root for her best and at the same time gives us a lead that sells her short in every chance he ever gets.
Anyways, the film was good it's just a little bit too depressing for me, i got to say though that i was happy that it had a sort of a happy ending, i mean things probably went pretty badly for the characters after the end but i'm just grateful that the film chose not to show that.
Dramma della gelosia
I had never before watched an italian comedy but this one impressed me very much. The way that Ettore Scola deals with the tragic themes of the film is absolutely remarkable. By a use of the brechtian detachment he at first makes you laugh at horrible things such as suicide and conjugal violence while at the same time reminding you that what you are seeing is a film by constantly breaking the fourth wall and then at the end of the movie he makes the audience feel absolutely uncomfortable and guilty for indulging themselves in the humor of the film as he points out that these are not laughing matters and actual things that happen.
I also love the not monogamous undertone this one has and i can't help but thinking that the director implies that monogamy is outdated and one of the sources of violence against women. One thing that in a way validates this argument is the fact that Ettore Scola casts Monica Vitti in this, the same Monica Vitti famous for L'avventura and La notte, both films that deal with some of the same issues and always with the thought that maybe we would be better off if we renewed our morals (that by the way was sort of a obsession of Antonioni at the time, just watch his interviews).
Anyway it's a film and you can interpret it in whichever way you like to, i'm just here to say that it is a great, funny, beautifully shot, amazingly acted ( i absolutely love Monica Vitti in this), and amazingly scored and for those reasons, even if the politics in this don't interest you, you should see it regardless.
The best way i can describe it is as existentialism for people who never read Jean Paul Sartre.
The film is beautifully shot, filled with odd angles and camera movements that, sometimes remind me of John Cassavetes' Faces, which would be released two years later( i wonder if John watched this one). The soundtrack is also pretty great and fits the mood perfectly, the problems that i have with the film as a whole come mostly from the plot. I just can't see how a enterprise like that would be financially viable, and besides that, in the end we see that the whole scheme depends on some not satisfied customers being later used as identities and corpses but what gets me confused is how after days, weeks or even months ( in the case of the leads friend) the client doesn't just give up and just tries again to live as his second self? Besides that i don't think that the movie is clear enough in why exactly Wilson was not able to adapt and most importantly why did he think that in another persona he would be happier?
Not to mention the whole "now you are a painter" thing. It would literally take seconds for someone to realize that he is not what he claims to be. It's like the movie thinks that being a painter is something that someone can become from one day to the other, and it makes me think that the sole reason why the character became a painter is that the screenwriters thought that it would be unbelievable if he became a lawyer of something because that clearly demands a higher level of dedication. Well spoiler alert, being a painter is a work of a lifetime.
I just cannot stand how the films just has a way to put that old cliched moral of "money cannot buy happiness". Well it sure did buy you another life. That by itself makes the film seem so tiring for me, because it treats the existential crisis ( something that literally everybody faces) into a character flaw, while films like The Passenger deal with the exact same thing in a way more sensitive and thoughtful way. In Second we are reminded at every second how this was a bad choice and yet when he sees his former wife the films essentially says "nobody would miss you if you were gone". So where does this takes us? Nowhere. If you run, you are a bad person that will never feel fine because you are a coward. If you stay you are going to be miserable anyway because you are a bad husband and dad. So in summary, a really remarkable film that unfortunately indulges itself in nihilism way more than it should.
Les amants (1958)
Malle's films plots have a certain banality that i find to be very moving and Les Amants is no different.
The cinematography is beautiful, the soundtrack, which is consisted in its entirely by Brahms works, works really well creating the sometimes agonizing and claustrophobic, sometimes relieving and sexual atmosphere. The thing i love about this film is its way of showing infidelity and feminine sexuality without judgement and false morality. Many pointed out how Jeanne doesn't know what she really wants but i think that the point is elsewhere; nobody ever does know what they want, the film just shows it, and more, show that where is jealousy and coercion there can be no love and i think it is a very good, liberating message.
Great film, and Jeanne Moreau is absolutely great in it.
Moulin Rouge (1952)
For a film about one of the biggest names in french post impressionism, it sure is romantic.
I was looking forward to watching this one, seeing that its about Toulouse Lautrec, a painter which i very much respect, but was really disappointed to find out that the film does very little justice to him as a historical figure. While my knowledge of his life is very limited it is still enough to point out some major character changes in the film's portrayal. For an example, it makes me wonder why was Toulouse Lautrec, the painter that got famous painting brothels and prostitutes painted like a prude eunuch who died of heart break? It is a wide know fact that he actually died of siffilis, most likely because he very frequently had sex with prostitutes. But no, in the film we see this poor soul ( the film makes sure that not a minute passes without the viewer feeling sorry for him) getting mislead and mistreated by women, which brings me to my second biggest complain, i just hate how some films like portraying women like these evil entities while men are ethical preys to their schemes. He might have been alcoholic and he might have been broken hearted and mistreated in any number of ways due to his height and deficiency, but i refuse to accept that these are the things worth pointing out in a 2 hour long film. We see almost nothing of him being a painter and dealing with other painters, all we get is this melodramatic sexist soap opera that happens to have Toulouse as a character. That being said, the film was well shot and the one scene where we see him producing the posters for moulin rouge was very nice.
Well written, fairly well acted, well enough scored, the film manages to keep you tense whenever it needs it. That being said i have one complain about this one, and that is the demonisation of mentally ill people as in the end, the film induces us to think that none of it would've happened if not for the post modern treatment praxis of the clinic. The film could've been so much better had it focused on how the manipulative, brainwashing doctor was the source of the issue and not just how "intrinsically evil" one of the sisters where.