"N'importe, nous nous serons bien aimés."

Les Herbes Folles/Wild Grass (2009) - dir. Alain Resnais - 3 stars

Resnais made a name for himself first with his documentary short film, Night and Fog (1955), and then with his first feature length film, Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959). His fascination with memory as a subjective phenomenon reared its head in almost all of his films, taking center stage with Last Year in Marienbad (1961). His association with the Nouvelle Vague and the Left Bank movements brought him fame and interest in the 60s and onwards. At the age of 87, Resnais has delivered a rather curious film with Wild Grass, shifting his focus from subjective memory to subjective imagination. At the surface, his latest appears to be a playful and coincidental film with no deeper meaning, but it's riddled with seemingly unexplainable episodes that leave the viewer in doubt as to what really lies underneath it all.


The lives of Marguerite Muir (Sabine Azéma) and Georges Palet (André Dussollier), collide when Georges finds by chance Marguerite's stolen wallet. Georges' imagination takes off upon this discovery, and with what little information he's able to gather from the contents of the wallet, he convinces himself that this could lead to a romantic encounter. His borderline-criminal obsession with meeting Marguerite pulls her in even closer as she finds herself obsessed over him. The unexplained curiosity of both characters disrupts their lives, and their closest, Marguerite's best friend and Georges' wife, find themselves entangled in the confusing tale. 


Resnais employs a wonderful visual motif throughout the film: wild grass sprouting from cracks in the asphalt. By definition, wild grass is unexpected and hard to control. It will find life at the most impossible locations and thrive nonetheless. As such, the film is aptly named as Georges sprouts into Marguerite's life and disrupts her set path, road. No matter how well defined she may think her life is and how much she wants to be left in peace, wild grass unexpectedly comes forth and changes her story. 


Besides the visual motif, Resnais achieves surreal and dream-like visuals with heavy uses of cranes, tracking shots and highly saturated colors. His signature voice-overs tell most of the story, but depending on the narrator, the legitimacy and truthfulness of what's shared are in question. In expected fashion, the film ends in a riddle, which reminds me a lot of David Lynch. All in all, the film is enjoyable, but it's not the best Resnais has made.


P.S. The quotation in the title of my review appears in the film and is taken from Flaubert's L'Éducation sentimentale. It translates to "No matter, we shall have loved each other well."

Jeunet's charm lives on, just not as deep

Micmacs (2009) - dir. Jean-Pierre Jeunet - 3 stars

Jeunet's imagination is an impressive creature. The fact that he pulled off Amelie from a box of thrown-in notes tells tons about the man's talent. Speaking at the BFI preview screening of Micmacs, his latest feature, he admitted that he wrote it in about two weeks out of a desperation to film after failing to score financial backing for the Life of Pi, which had been in pre-production under his helm for nearly two years. And I'm sorry to say that it shows. Jeunet has created another charming universe with colorful characters, but the story can't penetrate much as it's mainly two-dimensional, lacking the depth of Amelie. 


When released, Amelie became the highest grossing French-made film globally, and it still holds that crown. What made it so special for audiences was the complete world Jeunet created and the very special protagonist. Amelie was a part of everyone - she was cute, shy, mischievous, scared and daring at the same time. She did what everyone wanted to do but feared. Audrey Tautou's impressive interpretation took the character to a whole new level, and Jeunet experienced the rare joy of having created a successful film that's loved by critics and movie-goers alike.


Micmacs also features some very colorful characters and carries Jeunet's signature heavily. At the center, we have Bazil, played by Dany Boon, who works at a local video rental store. One night, out of chance, he witnesses a gun-blazing car chase fit for the movies and ends up with a bullet lodged in his brain. The bullet stops short of killing him, and the doctors decide he needs to live with it as the risk of removing it is too high. To add to the coincidence, the bullet lodged in his brain is made by the same company whose bullet also killed his father. A tale of revenge unfolds with the kookiest crew ever as Bazil's new adopted family includes a contortionist, mechanics genius and a mind reader among others.


What starts out as a fun ensemble doesn't expand to anything beyond that. Characters exhibit one characteristic, which serves as a key point in the film. They never really grow or change. Everyone's happy with what they've got so the final experience feels a bit like watching a cartoon. It's like any Japanese cartoon of super heroes who seem silly by themselves, but together, they're formidable. 


Visually, the film features heavy post-production digital coloring similar to Amelie, which enhances the cartoon aspect of the film. The Paris we see in the film is very much an alternate Paris as you will not see many references to the modern-day city we know. It's obvious that Jeunet spent quite a bit of time to perfect the look of the film to reflect the contradiction between the emotionless stainless steel of the weapons firms and the coziness of the kooky team's hideout.


All in all, Micmacs delivers an enjoyable time at the cinema. Just don't expect anything like Amelie this time around.

Easy recipe, easy laughs

Shrek Forever After (2010) - dir. Mike Mitchell - 3 stars

The fourth and final instalment of the Shrek franchise doesn't take any risks when it comes to its story but still manages to whip up an entertaining experience with a worthwhile new villain, who is as deviously funny as Lord Farquaad from the original. 


The film essentially picks up where the third entry left. Shrek and Fiona are living 'happily ever after' in their swamp, but the film doesn't lose any time to introduce the dull routine of their lives. Shrek, like any male human who finds himself in a marriage with kids, discovers that ogre males have the same psychology. He feels their world revolves around the kids and that he has no control over his life. He misses the days when he used to roam freely in his swamp scaring the wits off villagers. A fight with Fiona and a magical contract later, Shrek finds himself in an alternate day when people still fear ogres. The fine print on the contract turns out to be a bit more tricky though as our new villain turns the tables on Shrek.  He finds himself on a quest to save not only himself but everyone whom he has ever cared about. It is a worthwhile premise for the franchise as the story goes back to its roots about true love, but a part of me still wishes that we could have accompanied these colourful characters on an all-new quest one last time.


Even though the Shrek sequels have never been as good as Toy Story 2, if there's anything they've done well, it's the villains. From Lord Farquaad to Prince Charming and the Fairy Godmother, the Shrek writers have always created screen-worthy bad fellas. The 'bad' ensemble adds Rumpelstiltskin with Shrek 4, who originates from a German fairytale. Wonderfully voiced by Walt Dohrn, who is also Head of Story on the film, Rumpelstiltskin is quite a character. From having different wigs for different occasions to fashioning the best evil grin to grace the Shrek films, he dominates the film despite his dwarfish size. Given the initial cliché of middle-age crisis, Rumpelstiltskin represents the creative side of the story. He tricks Shrek into the magical contract and gets the kingdom he has always been waiting for.


The original Shrek became a huge hit because it made fun of the age-old clichés of the animated world and brought a modern day take on fairy tales. From birds exploding by the princess' song to the reality show treatment of picking a queen for Lord Farquaad, the original grew from its clever restatement of Disney classics. As new sequels got added to the mix, the writers took off a different direction: the films became about the Shrek universe. The final instalment is a product of that transformation, where the film tries to stand on its own legs without resorting to ridicule of animated classics. It can achieve this to a certain extent as the characters are well-established and loved, but it is also obvious that the writers resorted to some quick and easy gags to fill the laughs. At the end of the day, the Shrek universe is an off-shoot of the traditional animated world, and its admittance of that fact made the original so good. It's valiant to see an attempt to create a new, standalone universe, but there isn't that much new in the mix to support a fourth bloat completely.

Ignorance is bliss

Four Lions (2010) - dir. Christopher Morris - 1 star

One cannot boil down the intricacies of home-grown terrorism into a comedy. Let me preface this review by saying that I do not lack a sense of humour. The truth is that Morris' presentation of his characters does not constitute a dark comedy; it is just a bad film. It completely omits the psychological, social and religious background that would be necessary to develop the mindset of a terrorist. I urge anyone, who is inclined to find out, to read Shiv Malik's article on the issue over at Prospect Magazine, which is well researched and written. Morris, on the other hand, implies that the making of a terrorist is to be laughed at, which doesn't make the situation any more tolerable or funny for that matter. It is just dangerous. As much as I love escapism, this is one film that is so disconnected from its characters and their community that it doesn't just escape the issue but rather misrepresent it.


Morris' TV background glares throughout the film with its handling of the central issue. It picks up with the assumption that the four main characters have decided to be jihadists and never bothers to explain why.  This assumption and treatment may work well for TV productions, but it just doesn't fly high on the big screen. Two-dimensional characters cannot exhibit the urgency required to sustain a feature-length film, especially one that deals with a tough topic like terrorism. Morris' characters start and end the same. They do not learn or grow; they do not change for better or worse. They have no real incentive to have become who they are or continue down their path, nor do they exhibit any identity confusion or have any issues in their life that would push them to pursue jihad. All we know is that they are all rather stupid, except for Omar, played by Riz Ahmed.


Omar is the 'brains' of the group. He's the one who edits their ridiculous videos, the abundance of which says more about their narcissism than their dedication to the ideals they are fighting for. The others are less rounded - if you can call Omar a well-rounded character that is - where their main character trait is their naiveté.  They come off as simpletons frankly, and the viewer gets to find out nothing more about them.  We have no idea about their families, what they do to earn a living, how they have come to be friends with Omar, etc. The worst script flaw though is related to the 5th recruit, a young Pakistani guy whose first appearance in the film ignites a sense of thoughtful commentary. It is the only moment in the film where Morris says something, but then true to form, he later degrades this one single moment of potential revelation by having him become one of the jihadists. 


Despite its focus on unintelligent humour, the film attempts to pull some dramatic strings towards the end and show a hip attitude towards violence a la Tarantino, but what might be construed as a cool approach is actually just annoying. The film really feels like a Western attitude towards the complexity of a suicide bomber. If something's too hard to figure out or understand, people tend to joke around it in an attempt to diminish its importance and their lack of understanding. Four Lions really feels like it was written by four British friends at a pub, who have no idea about the Pakistani community, the confusion that 2nd generation immigrants face when growing up and how terrorist organizations feed off of this.  It is ignorance at its best, and as Thomas Gray says, ignorance is bliss, but it has no part in good film-making.

Blanchett is the saving grace of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood

Robin Hood (2010) - dir. Ridley Scott - 3 stars

I would have loved to be at Cannes to see the reactions of the critics after seeing Robin Hood last night.  Ridley Scott claims to have made the most historically accurate Robin Hood film, and while it may be the case, the film feels devoid of energy despite its attempts to appear epic. A visual and directorial quality that seems more appropriate for a TV series haunts the 140 mins. The film is too focused on getting the story moving that it forgets to pay attention to its characters, which results in the same experience as watching the Tudors on TV. The only scenes where the film really grips the viewer are courtesy of Cate Blanchett, whose Lady Marion owns and rules the screen.

Unlike many previous films, Scott doesn't deal with the traditional part of Robin Hood's story. The film doesn't involve his band of thieves who steal from the rich to give to the poor. The sheriff of Nottingham is reduced to a mere side character. Instead, Scott focuses on the origins of the man himself and how he became to be Robin Hood.  Granted, it is a very good story that involves familial separation, rediscovery of identity, a thirst for revenge, and unexpected attraction. As a common archer in King Richard the Lionheart's army, Robin Longstride witnesses the death of the king on his return home from France. Through chance or some may call it fate, he intercepts the French who are trying to possess the King's crown. This encounter sets him on a path back to England posing as a knight named Robert of Loxley, delivering the crown to King Richard's brother. Through many more story twists, he ends up leading the charge against traitors and the invading French and finally makes a stand for democracy, which obviously doesn't go down well with the new King. Thus, he becomes Robin Hood.

I must say that I have never been a fan of Russell Crowe, and his performance as Robin Hood feels like Gladiator 2 to me. His acting range is very limited so the only character-specific changes I could notice were physical. Crowe is a bit puffier and meatier than before, but the range of facial expressions is still limited, not to mention he looks a bit too old for the character. Cate Blanchett, on the other hand, once again convinces everyone that she is the living, breathing Marion Loxley. Blanchett is one of those few actresses who can really differentiate the characters she plays. If it wasn't for her, my rating for the film would be lower.

But Blanchett can only do so much. The only epic moment in the film is either a copy or a nod to Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan, and the washed out colors don't help the cinematography become somewhat exciting. All in all, Robin Hood leaves a lukewarm taste; it's a not a bad film, but it's not a great film either. It sits on the verge of acceptable, and that just won't do for the great director Ridley Scott.