866. The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)

Running Time: 104 minutes
Directed By: Stephan Elliott
Written By: Stephan Elliott
Main Cast: Terence Stamp, Hugo Weaving, Guy Pearce, Bill Hunter, Sarah Chadwick
Click here to view the trailer

Note: As a follow-up to my little diatribe at the beginning of my "Thelma & Louise" post, I've decided to now ban comment posting from anonymous posters. I want to firstly apologize to any anonymous followers of mine who were playing by the rules. I know it sucks for you guys, but to make things a little tighter, I think this is the best way to go. Maybe someday I'll reopen the comment posting to everyone, but for now, hopefully signing up for a Gmail account isn't too much of a hassle for people who really want to make their comments heard. Although, I can't imagine anyone is THAT gung ho to leave a comment on my lowly, little blog. Now then...

MAN, AUSSIE'S LOVE THEIR ABBA DON'T THEY?

Not only did P.J. Hogan blast the ABBA tunes in "Muriel's Wedding" (which also starred Bill Hunter), but that very same year Stephan Elliott went a little ABBA crazy, filling his film with chit chat about the Swedish pop, not to mention the finale number - "Mamma Mia".

ROAD TRIP! Yes, this is a road movie, but it has drag queens so it's kinda' set apart from all the other road flicks you and I may be used to. While there are a few main characters in the film, the true central character is Tick (Weaving), a Sydney based drag queen who, early in the film, gets a call from his ex-wife to perform at a hotel, located in a remote part of Australia. Tick hesitantly accepts the job, partly because it's time to confront old demons and offers an opportunity to two fellow drag queens to join him: Bernadette Basinger (Stamp) and Felicia Jollygoodfellow a.k.a. Adam (Pearce). Before the final arrangements on how to get there are made, Adam buys a bus, which the girls christen "Priscilla" and head out on the road, complete with suitcases full of shoes and recording of all their favorite hits, which they'll lip sync to during their act. Along the way, the girls become victims of hate, victims of a broken down bus and victims of each other, as the girls get in and out of spats daily. They also meet various characters along the way, including Bob (Hunter), a mechanic whom Bernadette falls for.

Not only do Aussie's love their ABBA, they also love Bill Hunter, as I've seen three Australian flicks in the past month and he's been in all of them. I've gotta' say I'm a big fan of the guy, although I will say I didn't care much for him here and Stamp, Weaving and Pearce were clearly the stars of this show. In my opinion, Bill Hunter is a tried & true villain and should never be cast as anything else. Anyway, while we're on the subject of cast, I can't deny the talents of our three stars. I can't even begin to express my shock at the fact that Terence Stamp played a drag queen. I had no idea he was in this and it wasn't until I saw his name cross the screen, that I realized 1) he was a main character and 2) my God, was he going to be a transsexual? Yep, he sure was! That alone automatically makes this a must see. Kudos to Hugo Weaving too, who carves out his path to Hollywood with his portrayal of Tick - letting La La Land know that he has what it takes to land two of the biggest trilogies they've ever produced (The Matrix and LOTR). Even bigger kudos to Pearce, who, perhaps, plays a woman better than he plays a man and again, Hollywood takes notice. I'll tell you this, if smiling is important to you then see this movie now, because I smiled dozens of times and there were big chunks were you couldn't wipe the smile off of my face with mom's dish rag. Scenes to look out for include basically all of the musical numbers, including "Finally" (my personal favorite), "Mamma Mia" and "Shake Your Groove Thing".

SPOILER ALERT!

On the other hand, while the film made me smile immensely, it also played out very predictable and the only real, lasting appeal is 1) the cult personality of the whole thing: the garb, the songs, the costumes, the over the top nature of it all and 2) seeing Stamp in drag. The film doesn't really worry about putting too much stake in it's plot and worries more about things like choreography and costume design, knowing where it's successes lie. Therefore, everything plot wise is pretty cookie cutter stuff. It's a film that IS a LOT of fun, but in the end, you realize that fun doesn't equal quality filmmaking and you acknowledge that. It's something I'd gladly watch again, while probably never quoting it as a favorite or anything. It just sort of left me with that *meh* feeling, again, despite all the smiles. To put it a better way: This film's fun exists in 5 - 10 minute moments and then we're left to trudge through a lot more average movie making until we get to another 5 - 10 minutes of fabulousness. Had they added about five or six more musical numbers and totally abandoned trying to establish any sort of plot, I think I'd have enjoyed it loads more. As it is, we're left with plot points that never get cleared up - ie. the never budding romance between Bob and Bernadette and likewise, there is a hinted at romance between Tick and Adam that is never explored or cemented.

RATING: 6/10  Tough one to rate, because I DID enjoy parts of it so much, while never really loving it as a whole.

MOVIES WATCHED: 764
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 237

November 20, 2013  12:02am

Read More

835. Thelma & Louise (1991)

Running Time: 129 minutes
Directed By: Ridley Scott
Written By: Callie Khouri
Main Cast: Susan Sarandon, Geena Davis, Harvey Keitel, Michael Madsen, Christopher McDonald
Click here to view the trailer

Note: Here's the deal guys: I am not a movie critic! I say this because 1) it's true and 2) because I think some people out there think that I'm here, on this blog, trying to be the second coming of Roger Ebert and that couldn't be further from the truth. The reason I say this is because I've recently gotten a couple of bitchy comments submitted, from people (or actually I think it's one person) who seems to be really taking my opinions or comprehensions of movies to heart. First of all, if you're such a destructive personality that you take the time to not only read something that you dislike, but then turn around and take the time to make a nasty comment about it, I pity you. Realize people that OPINIONS are not facts and that just because I don't like your favorite movie doesn't mean the world is going to end, I promise. I say I'm not movie critic because this was never meant to be anything professional. This blog was only ever meant to be a diary, for me personally, to track the movies that I watched so that maybe I could remember them a little better years from now and why I thought what I did. I think it's awesome that a few of you have taken that personal diary and made it mean a little more, by reading what I've written, by leaving comments and by, maybe, taking my suggestions. I like movies. I grew up in a world filled with video stores where you could go and you could look at a wall with hundreds of choices and pick the ones that appealed to you. I've worked in three video stores and I'm proud of my taste in film. SO...before I get too winded here: to the persons (or person) who saw fit to come and leave comments that I didn't even care to finish, I say this: Relax. Next time you want to leave a comment that doesn't add positive discussion to the blog and only serves the purpose of making you look like a jerk, don't. Because 1) They will not be published and 2) You won't change my opinion or my comprehension (or lack thereof) of a film. Of course, maybe I should be flattered. I mean, if you're going to get THAT upset over something I wrote, then maybe you really do value my opinion. Is there a "thank you" that I'm forgetting to dish out? Seriously people, it would be different if I was posting this stuff on IMDB or some other open forum, but you're coming to my little corner, my little home base on the internet and your asshole attitude won't be tolerated, nor will it impact what I write. Now then....

GUYS HAVE TERMINATOR, GIRLS HAVE THELMA & LOUISE

So my wife has been hounding me for LITERALLY years about when I was going to watch "Thelma & Louise". Every time she'd mention, I'd tell her we'd get and then it would slip my mind and it wouldn't come up again for a while. Well, last night I finally got around to sitting down with her and giving this one a go - and not for the first time.

I have a hard time believing you guys & girls haven't seen or at least heard of "Thelma & Louise", but I'm a stickler for a little plot detailing before I get into the opinion sections, so lets go over the meat & potatoes of T&L. First you'll need to know Susan Sarandon is Louise and Geena Davis is Thelma. The two are best girlfriends and the film kicks off on a Friday, when Louise plans to take Thelma for a weekend away in the mountains - an all girl, weekend getaway. Louise plans for Thelma to run the news by her overbearing, controlling husband, Darryl (McDonald), but knowing he'll forbid it, she decides to skip the permission talk and just jet with luggage in tow. On the road, the girls stop by a small town bar for a drink and a bathroom break and get henpecked by Harlan, a local yokel, redneck who wants to dance with Thelma. However, Harlan's fun doesn't end on the dance floor, as he sees Thelma to her car and tries to get a little frisky. When Thelma cuts him off at the pass, Harlan gets a little cross and a would be rape is cut short by a gun toting Louise. The girls get away, but when Harlan makes one last snide comment, Louise flies off the handle and blows him away, killing him. Now the two gals are on the run, with next to no cash and a lot of land between them and Mexico - which is where they plan to hideout.

Oh I suppose that should just about do it for plot synopsis. My wife had actually seen "Thelma & Louise" multiple times prior to last night's viewing and only wanted to watch it because she liked it so much. After her latest showing last night, she's actually lowered her opinion of the movie, citing it as "too long" and a "bit too boring". I can't say I disagree with her, as T&L could've benefited greatly had they somehow been able to shave off about thirty minutes or else beefed up the plot a little bit, to justify a running time of over two hours. At times, I got the feeling that we were just killing time until we got to the next hurdle and all the stuff with Brad Pitt (as good as he was) and the stuff with the obscene truck driver, just seemed tacked on to give the film a few more "hoot & holler" moments. On a more serious note though, what the hell happened to Geena Davis? She was decent here - I mean she was no Susan Sarandon, but she turned in a fine performance - and she was certainly attractive enough. It seems like she may have taken a wrong turn somewhere and fell off the face of the Earth. I suppose I could go to Wikipedia or IMDB and just look it up, but I find it more fun to ask it here and have (probably) no one answer me.

Anyway, the film isn't all bad, that's for sure. The cast choices, for the most part, aren't bad, as you've got Susan Sarandon becoming a hero to women everywhere and Christopher McDonald tearing it up in a supporting role. I'd say that Harvey Keitel may be the oddest cast choice, as he seemed to more resemble a fish out of water, as opposed to a "Thelma & Louise" cast member. He was just sort of there and perhaps just as confused as the audience as to why he was onset. I mean, I realize he was the cop and his role was important, but...I don't know, he just seemed miscast. Likewise for Michael Madsen. If you're watching this for the first or even the second time, it may hold up just fine and provide you with a perfectly enjoyable night at the movies. But beware, it doesn't hold up against multiple viewings and after about ninety minutes or so, you may be the one wanting to drive over the Grand Canyon.

RATING: 5.5/10  That's about as good as it gets for T&L. I really expected this one to hold up too and be a contender for the next TOP 20. Oh well...

MOVIES WATCHED: 763
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 238

November 17, 2013  10:31pm

Read More

824. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1990)

Running Time: 83 minutes
Directed By: John McNaughton
Written By: Richard Fire, John McNaughton
Main Cast: Michael Rooker, Tom Towles, Tracy Arnold, Mary Demas, Kristin Finger
Click here to view the trailer

OH HENRY!

After this one, there are eighteen movies left for me to watch from the decade of the 90s (not counting a handful I tucked away for finale time). So expect me to jump around throughout those eighteen, as I reserve the right to jump around randomly. Anyway, today I took a sick day from work, because I toughed it out earlier in the week and because I still wasn't feeling up to snuff. With my wife at work, I curled up under a warm blanket, inside my warm bed and watched a not so warm movie.

"Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" uses the story of real life serial killer Henry Lee Lucas as a blueprint and casts Michael Rooker to perfection in the title role, telling the story of a man who uses murder as a means of getting off and letting off steam. The film begins with a dead woman lying in a field, her body beaten and bloodied - surely the work of Henry,  our title villain. The film plays like a real life horror movie, following a mild mannered, seemingly normal Henry in the day and showing us the monster that is unleashed during the night. The film picks up when Henry's roommate, and later accomplice, Otis invites his sister to stay with them for a little while. Her name is Becky and for some reason she is fascinated with Henry and the story of why he was incarcerated - for supposedly killing his mother, because she molested him and forced him to watch her have sex. Becky is as normal as they come and she thinks Henry is too, but little does she know is that Henry is a monster. Later, Henry takes Otis under his wing and shows him how to be a successful serial killer: never killing anyone using the same method, never having a motive, etc. After a while, the two come into possession of a video camera and begin filming their murders and watching them later.

SPOILER ALERT!

Boy, I gotta' tell you, watching this after watching a handful of foreign films probably wasn't a good idea. For starters, I really liked this and because I really liked it, I kind of felt like a miscreant. I mean, the film really scrapes the bottom of the barrel, both in subject material and in production values and is probably the polar opposite of the beauty that Kieslowski and his cameraman were able to capture. Of course, the subject matter that we're dealing with shouldn't be told in the same way that Kieslowski's subjects should be, so I guess making a comparison between the two is unfair. With "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" we're talking about a film that had a $110,000 budget and inexperienced actors. I'm always fascinated by films with small budgets, the kinds of movies that turn chump change into a real life, moving picture - it's amazing. The acing, in my opinion, isn't that great - but again, the bad acting almost lends itself to the deplorable storyline and it all seems to make some sort of odd sense.

What you have to do is realize that this is a horror film. It can be viewed in the same vein as "Night of the Living Dead" or "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", in that it's gritty and ugly, but that it needs to be both of those things in order to be genuine. The film is disturbing too (in places), as we're taken inside the home of a family, during a home invasion and watch as they're murdered, in cold blood. Add to that the fact that Otis, after the fact, takes it upon himself to attempt some necrophilia. We also deal with incest in this very scummy, grimy, ugly picture that really makes your skin crawl and makes you feel like you need a shower when you're done with it. There's also a sequel to this, released in 1996, but no Rooker means no buys for this movie goer.

RATING: 7.5/10  Really good stuff, but watch don't watch it amongst a bunch of beautiful French films; it's like drinking orange juice right after you've brushed your teeth.

PS. I have no clue why THE BOOK lists this as released in 1990, as all other sources have it being released in 1986. They apparently really messed this one up....

MOVIES WATCHED: 762
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 239

November 15, 2013  5:38pm

Read More

842. La double vie de Veronique/The Double Life of Veronique (1991)

Running Time: 98 minutes
Directed By: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Written By: Krzysztof Kieslowski, Krzysztof Piesiewicz
Main Cast: Irene Jacob, Philippe Volter, Claude Duneton, Wladyslaw Kowalski, Sandrine Dumas
Click here to view the trailer

MORE KIESLOWSKI

Technically, I should have probably done this in conjunction with the "Three Colors" trilogy, but I didn't and now, here we are. This will be the final Kieslowski film for a while, as I plan to stash away "The Decalogue" for the finale.

So this film is just a little bit confusing, so beware heading into it and be prepared to give it your full attention. In fact, maybe confusing isn't even the right word - just know that it DOES need to have your undivided attention. Irene Jacob stars in a dual role, first as Weronika, a Polish opera singer. Toward the beginning of the film, Weronika travels to Krakow to be with her sick aunt, telling her father goodbye and leaving behind a boyfriend. In Krakow, Weronika auditions for the lead in an operatic concert and gets the part. Later, during the first performance of the concert, Weronika passes out and is declared dead. Skip to France, as Veronique (also Jacob) makes love to her boyfriend and is overcome with sadness. From here on out, the film becomes more and more about the fluctuating emotions of Veronique and the advances of a puppeteer named Alexandre (Volter). Strange things begin happening to Veronique, as she receives an empty cigar box and a shoelace in the mail, with no return address. She is also awakened one night by a reflection from a neighboring apartment. I'll just go ahead and let you experience the rest for yourself, because trust me, the film is an experience.

SPOILER ALERT!

But is it an experience I enjoyed, that is the question? Well, I don't know. Man, I've been kind of undecided and wishy washy lately haven't I? Oh well, I reserve that right! But, for those of you who have seen this, I think you'll agree that this is a tough nut to crack (damn, I've been overusing that phrase lately too). Anyway, in my view Kieslowski presents to us a slice of life version of French/Polish life, but then doesn't really give us a slice of life movie. The movie that we get is an extremely poetic, extremely artsy film that is sometimes a little overwhelming and sometimes, just sometimes, a little dull. Now, don't get me wrong, the film is beautiful, filled with an unbelievably emotional performance from Irene Jacob (who has surely never been more stunning) and comes off more like a 'come to life poem' than a motion picture. However, for as beautiful as the film is, I feel like we, the audience, were kind of stiffed on the plot and set up for something that could have been really interesting and didn't get it delivered.

And yeah, the movie is a little confusing too. Apparently Kieslowski is suggesting that we are all connected somehow, or perhaps he's saying that we all have someone, whom we do not know, but whom we are emotionally and spiritually tied to, not to mention looking exactly like them. It seems to me that the physical appearance isn't so important and really Irene Jacob could have just played Veronique while another actress altogether played Weronika, as long as we knew they were connected. Also, why such a short time with Weronika? Why not bounce back and forth between the two, so that we could draw parallels. Remember at the end when the puppeteer suggests his new story, about two doppelgangers, one burning their hand on a stove and the other ALMOST burning their hand on a stove? Why not run with that and actually show us things like that. Again, I feel like this was an opportune time to play the plot a lot more than it was played upon. Beautiful film though, I can't say that enough.

RATING: 6/10  Beautiful doesn't always equal best though and I think a '6' will suffice for now, until such time as I can give this one a rewatch.

MOVIES WATCHED: 761
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 240

November 15, 2013  12:25pm

Read More

854. Ba wang Bie Ji/Farewell My Concubine (1993)

Running Time: 171 minutes
Directed By: Kaige Chen
Written By: Wei Lu, from novel by Lillian Lee
Main Cast: Leslie Cheung, Zhang Fengyi, Gong Li, Ge You, Lu Qi
Click here to view the trailer

LET IT BE OVER!

Now this was a rough one to get through! Of course we're talking today about "Farewell My Concubine" - a 1993 Chinese film that gained worldwide attention when it won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival that year and was purchased by Miramax, for release in the U.S. Gotta' tell ya', if I was in Bob & Harvey's shoes, I'd have taken a big 'ol pass on this one.

Let's see here...plot, plot. Look, I'm going to level with you, I watched a good forty-five minutes of this one before mentally checking out and I won't lie, from that point on I was watching but I wasn't paying much attention. I kept reading the subtitles, but I had other things on my mind and what I really wanted was for this to just end. I can tell you that the film was about a couple of male actors, who were brought together at a young age at an acting academy, where everyone was groomed as if they'd be the next big stars. I'm talking about the main characters: Dieyi (Cheung) and Xiaolou (Fengyi). In their case, they did grow up to be China's two most popular actors, starring opposite one another in the opera, "Farewell My Concubine". Xiaolou is a boy, who plays female roles on the stage and a hint of homosexual undertones can be sensed, especially when Dieyi gets engaged and Xiaolou becomes enraged with jealousy. Their bond is tested over the course of fifty years, which include a war with Japan and the Cultural Revolution. That's all I got for ya, plot wise.

Here's the deal: I'm not going to spend a lot of time detailing why I didn't like this one, because I'm going to say - and I'm confident that this explanation has never been more true than it is in the case of "Farewell My Concubine" - that this just wasn't for me. Call it a culture clash, call it something completely out of my taste range, call it whatever you like, but it was clear to me from the get go that I wasn't going to take to this one and that the audience for this picture was elsewhere. I'm not going to lie folks, I tried, I really did. After a good ninety minutes, when I knew the plot wasn't going to recapture my attention, I tired to focus more on the cinematography, the sets, the costumes and the score, to try and find something redeemable about this movie, but even those aspects failed to really capture my attention and I was left with a head full of thoughts, none of which had anything to do with this picture. You know how sometimes when you read a book and your mind will wander off elsewhere, but you'll keep reading the words even though you really have no idea what you're reading? That's how I was when I was reading the subtitles to this. I had so many other things going through my mind and no matter how much I tried to concentrate on the film, I just couldn't stay focused on it. It was like I had temporary ADD or something. And no, it wasn't the cold medicine, because I hadn't taken any around the time that I watched this.

So there you have it. Not a very elaborate or eloquent viewpoint, but this was never meant to be anything more than a public diary of my progress through the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" book. And in this diary entry, I choose to write little and simply say that the film wasn't my cup of tea. I take full blame and I'm sure that the movie earned whatever awards and praise that it was showered with, but as far as this viewer is concerned, it's something that I guarantee I'll never sit through again.

RATING: 1/10  Yup, for me personally, it doesn't get any lower. 'Nuff said.

MOVIES WATCHED: 760
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 241

November 14, 2013  10:48pm

Read More

852. C'est arrive pres de chez vous/Man Bites Dog (1992)

Running Time: 96 minutes
Directed By: Remy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, Benoit Poelvoorde
Written By: Remy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, Benoit Poelvoorde, Vincent Tavier
Main Cast: Benoit Poelvoorde, Remy Belvaux, Andre Bonzel, Malou Madou, Jenny Drye
Click here to view the trailer

IT HAPPENED IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD

Wow, I've made it all the way back to 1992, moving in reverse chronology. The goal within the next forty movies is to finish off the 90s (except for a couple that I've set aside for the finale) and continue movie chronologically backwards through the 80s too. Then, next season, I'll likely tackle the 50s and start moving in regular chronology. Anyway, I'm jumping the gun by a mile and we've got a movie to talk about - "Man Bites Dog"...

...is a mockumentary wherein a camera crew follows around  serial killer, documenting his kills, his motives and his techniques. It's more of a comedy because the serial killer that we're talking about is actually quite entertaining and funny. His name is Ben (Poelvoorde) and he's very natural in front of the camera, treating the film shoot as his personal claim to fame and speaking with a tone that more implies he's curing cancer, as opposed to taking lives. He's cocky, confident and never feels remorse for the brutality he dishes out. Along the way, the camera crew (consisting of characters named Remy and Andre - played by co-writers Remy Belvaux and Andre Bonzel) begin to assist him in his spree; helping him sink bodies and even accepting financial help from Ben, in the form of the loot he steals from his victim's homes'.

To be honest, the film doesn't have much of a point, except maybe to poke a stick at the media and the way the eat up random acts of violence with a spoon and then try to feed it back to the public, by filming it and showing it over and over. It's not particularly a subject that I found riveting and satirizing usually leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth and "Man Bites Dog" was no exception. Sure, I'll be the first to admit that Benoit Poelvoorde was a talented guy - I'd go so far as to call him extremely talented, keeping tied to this picture, even when I wanted to just mentally check out. He was funny and had a knack for being in front of a rolling camera and knew how to keep us watching, whether we wanted to or not. Otherwise, this one just didn't do anything for me. No, it wasn't the violence that turned me off either. I can take as much violence as you want to dish out and it doesn't offend or horrify me. It was just pointless to me and I just couldn't settle into it. It surely wasn't meant to be taken seriously and that's a big problem for me, because I like to take my movies seriously. It was too silly to be anything meaningful. I'm just not sure how I was supposed to leave this film feeling. Was I supposed to leave laughing? Was I supposed to leave with a new opinion and something to talk about with the water cooler gang? Was I supposed to be horrified? I don't know....It was a tough nut to crack, but ultimately, I'd rather just give up on the nut and throw it to the squirrels.

RATING: 4.5/10  It kept me interested for the entire duration, thanks to Benoit Poelvoorde, so I have to give it credit for that. Otherwise, take a pass on this one. Sorry for the short review - still sucking on cough drops, if you get my drift.

MOVIES WATCHED: 759
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 242

November 13, 2013  2:46pm

Read More

867. Trois couleurs: Rouge/Three Colors: Red (1994)

Running Time: 99 minutes
Directed By: Krzysztof Kieslowski
Written By: Krzysztof Kieslowski, Krzysztof Piesiewicz
Main Cast: Irene Jacob, Jean-Louis Trintignant, Jean-Pierre Lorit, Frederique Feder, Samuel Lebihan
Click here to view the trailer

DISAPPOINTMENT

Man, I even warned myself at the end of my review for "White", not to let myself get too hyped up for the finale to the "Three Colors" trilogy, or else I'd only be setting myself up for disappointment. A nasty cold (which I still have) kept me from anticipating it too much (hard to think about movies when you can barely breathe and sleep eludes you), however, "Red" came with a heap if disappointment for this viewer.

The main character this time is Valentine (Jacob), a woman who has the world on a string. She's a student of dance, a model of fine clothing and the girl who appears on the billboards, in the middle of busy streets. She maintains a long distance relationship with her boyfriend Michel and she's always bright eyed, polite and ready to tackle the world. One day, while driving home, she accidentally hits a dog with her car. She goes to the home of the owner of the dog and tells him what she's done. The dog's owner is a former judge, Joseph Kern (Trintignant), and he doesn't really seem to care that his dog's just been injured. Valentine leaves the house, gets the dog looked after and then takes her home, deciding to just go ahead and keep the dog for herself. Later, circumstances lead her to meet up with the judge once again, where she returns the dog and finds out that the judge has a hobby of listening in on his neighbors' telephone conversations. Valentine tells him how despicable his activities are, but Kern doesn't really seem to care about anything or anyone. The two continue talking and eventually Kern sees the error of his ways. Meanwhile, Valentine's neighbor, Auguste (Lorit), also shares some of the film's focus, as his relationship with an over the phone weather girl is chronicled.

SPOILER ALERT!

I hadn't had a proper night's sleep in three nights. The cold, that initially resided in my throat, decided to get a divorce, with half going to my head and the other half taking the kids and going to stay with it's mother, in my chest. I'd wake up at all hours of the night, coughing, hacking, sniffling, sneezing and peeing (hey, bladder's don't take time off for cold's), then I'd turn around and get up at around 6ish to go to work. So, it wasn't out of the question that since I was off today, that last night I'd decide to take a big, slightly oversized dose of NyQuil and get the Zzz's I so desperately needed. So I woke up this morning, after a night of no tossing, nor turning and ready to have a go at a movie. So maybe it was that slightly oversized dose of NyQuil that made me a little loopy and ultimately led to my dissatisfaction of "Red". I doubt it, but have to make heads or tails of this. I mean, we were so damn close to having such an amazing trilogy of films and then...kaput! And, not to mention, "Red" is the most acclaimed of all three of the "Three Colors" films. So why didn't I like it?

Okay, I did kind of LIKE it, but compared to the other two, I didn't like it at all. Maybe it had too much of a plot. I mentioned before that "Blue" really didn't have much of a plot at all; simply a woman trying to heal after the death of her family and that for my money, "Blue" is more about mood and atmosphere as opposed to plot. Then you've got "White", which has a plot that I relied on, yet it wasn't too intricate and it was really basic stuff. Then there's "Red" which doesn't focus on just one character (like the other two films), but rather, several characters and has a more intricate plot than the other two, by far. Not to mention the fact, that I really didn't fully understand everything that was going on in "Red", especially the ending. Why do all of the main characters survive the ferry crash? Why does Kern's life seem to mirror Auguste's?

I did some perusing of the IMDB message boards and found one poster's answer, that I liked the best: Perhaps all three films are just dreams of the Kern's? Now normally, I'm not a fan of the "it was all a dream" defense unless it makes a LOT of sense, but I think it does here. For starters, Kern DOES mention something about a dream he's had to Valentine, near the end of the picture, so obviously his dreams are at least a little bit significant here and obviously we know he has vivid dreams. There's also the fact that "Blue" focuses on one character (Julie), as does "White" (Karol), yet "Red" is the final culmination, the one where we actually meet the dreamer and therefore focuses on a few characters (Valentine, Auguste and the dreamer a.k.a. Kern). Also the theme of color seems to have this theory make sense too. How many times have your dreams been bombarded by a certain color? You wake up and you can't remember much, but "damn, the color red was all over that dream" or "wow, there was a girl and...and...well there was a lot of blue". I don't know...

At this point, I'm just talking out of my ass and probably trying to have it all make sense so that I can just accept this as one of the greatest trilogies ever produced. And I just really really wanted to love this one and I didn't. It didn't make complete sense (to me anyway) and it was too busy (especially considering "Blue" and "White"). Perhaps a rewatch someday will spell a better fate for "Red", but for now call this one the worst in the trilogy, with "White" being the best, with "Blue" trailing at a very close second.

RATING: 6/10  So still a good rating, but I opted to focus on the negatives, instead of any positives because I was SO disappointed with this one. Should've been a '10'.

MOVIES WATCHED: 758
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 243

November 12, 2013  11:01pm

Read More