Reviews

The first half was interesting. Scenes of an impoverish inner-country small rural down, somewhere where desertification is advancing, and the small community is slowly dying. The characters where presented, and it got interesting.

But then, somewhere at half-time, things started going haywire.

A flying saucer. A couple of mysterious motorcyclists dressed in kitsch bike outfits. English-speaking gun-toting tourists playing Terminator.

Adding insult to injury, got tired of seeing the Brazilian stereotype of, the prostitute, having chain-sex inside the trailer while a waiting queue of men awaits outside.

What a disappointment !!

After hearing all the hoop-la on radio stations, reviews, newspapers, digital media, I thought this was the new 2001 Space Odyssey, with a new take on it fifty years later by a new breed of idealists and space poets.

1. the opening scene of him falling to Earth from high-rise antenna, is completely gratuitous. What's the meaning? it is just a stunt.

2. the character acted by actor Donald Sutherland, he appears at the beginning and then disappears, never to be seen again. What was he for? why not use his talent for a more lengthy cross-webbing of storytelling?

3. The scene of a monkey eating human flesh, isn't that kitsch? it sure has that shock factor. Why put it there? It really doesn't help much on the overall narrative. What purpose does it have in the overall narrative?

4. The science, physics, and math to support that stunt at the end of him catapulting from the rotating antenna of one spaceship, to get back to his spaceship, and flying in space through a Saturn belt of orbiting rocks, all this while protecting himself with a metal shield, conveniently retrieved from the antenna's cover, is just laughable on the ridiculous. The probability of targeting the mother ship, on a 0.000001 arc sec maximum tolerance, is infinitesimally small.

Woke up the next day and had nothing good to tell or say about it. Woke up 50 years after seeing 2001 Space Odyssey, and I have alot to talk about.

Was recommended this by a friend that I trust and whom I share many opinions on film. Saw it on DVD and had the privilege of using the fast-forward button on the remote control.

Not sure how this happened, but I did not enjoy this film, nor did I find it interesting. If it was supposed to be a punt at today's post-modernistic society, I find Idioterne (1998) by Lars von Trier more interesting. I did enjoy the scene where people just peek in for a second or two into a museum room with piles of dirt on the floor, and a museum guard seated on a chair guarding the dirt. But what about the living room with the monkey? was that necessary? did it really make it a great film. I don't think so.

See it at your own risk. You may end up using that FFWD button on the remote control just like I did.

OK, it is a finished cinematic production. Done deal. It delivers. But it is just ok.

In the first 120 seconds, there is black & white imagery of a beautiful night-life city, people eating outside, cars and scooters jamming together for the city's ritual late-evening social life, the prostitutes with roman ruins on the background. Yes, this is Rome in the mid-Seventies. Great. Just Great.

But then, after the 120 seconds, this beautiful retro vintage display is never shown again.

What follows is quite conventional movie-making and story-telling.

And the story in the movie takes quite some liberties to make it more appealing to viewing audiences. I guess real-life is boring. Yeah, the night-time involvement by the mother, walking in the alleys of the countryside town, knocking on doors and asking if they have seen this teenager, well, that was just pure fantasy. And when the boy reunites with the mother, that was total eye-swelling tear-producing drama.

Even the location where the kid was kidnapped was not accurately portrayed. It looked more like Porta Maggiore, when in reality it was Piazza Farnese.

Despite all these and many more misgivings, the decor, clothing, style, objects, indoor architecture, was all accurately displayed. Even the posters on the wall next to the phone booth were timed to the time: "Solidarieta' con il popolo Cileno di Allende" (Chile just had a political coup by general Pinochet).

A positive note: the Italian spoken language was indeed Italian, with (almost) correctly-applied accents, to show they were from the South (English subtitles appeared). This gives more authenticity.

On a side note, I think the kidnappers where shown to be a bit too "wild" or "rough". You know, unshaven faces, rough edges, crumpled clothing.

On a final note, it seems to me that American film-making is heavily focused on actors performance on playing a role. And that is what most critics comment on, when reviews are broadcast-ed or printed on American media. On contrast, European film-making is more slanted on the overall social condition or message and less on the individual actor's performance. This film was definitely more slanted on the American model, although some weak references on the social environment of the kidnappers came subtly through.

So go and see the film and then, next time you tour Italy, go to Canale Monterano on the northwest of Rome, and visit the XVII century ruin and ghost town, that was used as filming location.

OK, it is a finished cinematic production. Done deal. It delivers. But it is just ok.

In the first 120 seconds, there is black & white imagery of a beautiful night-life city, people eating outside, cars and scooters jamming together for the city's ritual late-evening social life, the prostitutes with roman ruins on the background. Yes, this is Rome in the mid-Seventies. Great. Just Great.

But then, after the 120 seconds, this beautiful retro vintage display is never shown again.

What follows is quite conventional movie-making and story-telling.

A thriller, with a outdoor scenery shots in a snowy rural Sweden, and the rest shot in the central Italian region of Abbruzzi near Sulmona. The photography was great, with beautiful scenery shots of long landscapes, road curves, and medieval urban topography of alleys, steps, and side passages in a gray cold setting. But the plot is slow, and what is what expected never happens. At the end, not much happens. The role of the small town priest is a bit like the priest in CRISTO SI E' FERMATO AD EBOLI and that was a powerful character in the plot. The urban topography of the old town was used to infer intrigue of people hiding and people following, but it was not used as effectively as in RONIN, the latter using the alleys in the ancient roman amphitheater of Arles. One scene that was totally non-believable was the total male sexual fantasy of woman undressing and bathing in the creek - that scene was ill conceived and cast the final doubt on this production.