Reviews

I kind of miss the old Cronenberg, who I think was more himself, everywhere. BUT for those who complain of gratuitous violence in this movie: THAT'S Cronenberg. His movies are violent, chilling and gory. They're immensely bleak and have no mercy. In Eastern Promises you're actually watching a "civilized" version of David Cronenberg's work. Besides, the violence is so masterfully depicted that it's beautiful (and horrifying, at it should be) to watch.

The acting here is superb. I think the movie could have done without the Naomi/Anna & Viggo/Nikolai "love" storyline, which I thought was banal and added nothing, but it looks like I'm alone in this. In any case, for me the "love story" here is between Nikolai and the capo's son Kirill (Vincent Cassel). The latter is loud, hystrionic even, and eager to prove he's not what his father thinks he is. But his repressed homosexuality is blatant and his silent disapproval of the father's way is quite apparent at times, and of course Nikolai is fully aware of both things. Kirill is a tormented individual and very lonely, looking for genuine affection in his father and finding none. He is also a man hopelessly in love with someone (Nikolai) who would probably only fully reciprocate to serve his own interests and who benefits from his sexual and emotional isolation. Cassel's performance is simply perfect. I would even rate him slightly above Viggo Mortensen, who excels all the time (IMO he's a vastly underrated actor). Kirill's underlying tenderness and excruciating longing come to the surface for some very brief moments when Nikolai has a caring, intimate gesture or word and then, ashamed or panicked, he retreats to a wannabe-machista-thug attitude again. It's fascinating to watch.

On second thoughts, the character Naomi Watts plays may be helping in providing a contrast. She's someone who cares for people, who works to save lives and who would never cross a line between good and evil. On the other hand, also by way of contrast, Nikolai won't let his feelings for her or his sexual attraction to her ruin his career to the top (and I think his telling her to stay away from him is as much out of concern for her as mere self-interest), while Kirill can't help but feel and want and suffer. Nikolai will also stay loyal to Cassel's character, but is it because he loves him (as a friend or otherwise) or only because it suits his interests and he's easy to manipulate? He's a clever, calculating guy and a survivor. He won't cross certain lines, but he'll have no problem crossing most.

Did I say I miss the old Cronenberg? As a matter of fact, one of his most recurring themes is here. Deviant/subversive sexuality (a loving gay man in the Russian mafia: it can't get more subversive than that). And there's also the disfiguration, the violence and the shocking moments. This is old weird Cronenberg, upgraded and updated.

I had a low level of expectation when I rented this movie because you just can't hope for too much when preparing for a horror flick. However, a GREAT beginning immediately raised the bar. Both the "before and after" sequences in the Milwaukee suburbs and the opening credits were thrilling, chilling and fabulous.

Much to my disappointment however, things become much more predictable and clichéd when they all get together in the mall. The characters I found hard to really care for, or at least dislike because, even in the case of a good actress like Sarah Polley, they're not very well sketched. The mall itself, what purpose did it serve? As many other reviewers have pointed out, in the original movie social commentary was everywhere and the mall, the ultimate symbol for (especially suburban, middle-class) consumerism, was an ideal location. Plus, the zombies kept wandering around the shops, which was funny! This movie lacks, besides a political slant, a good sense of humor. Even the celebrity-shooting scene I found somewhat uninspired (although many find it hilarious, so to each his/her own).

The good points however are the pace (which allows for repeated viewing) and, if we judge the movie strictly by its own merits (ignoring the fact that it claimed to be a remake of something else, which could have been left out because it's a DIFFERENT movie), that it's a dignified horror and action story, decently acted and has a couple of memorable moments, which is a lot right now. Don't expect too much and you'll be okay!

When I watch a lesbian-themed film, I try really hard to like it. Because there are so few examples of this sort of story, where a lesbian relationship/romance/love is the main focus, I'm always eager to have a great time and praise it endlessly. However, I don't like to be fooled and, somehow, I feel fooled with this kind of movie.

Let me explain.

Because so many of us (lesbian and bisexual women) long for more visibility in the arts and in society as a whole, I think that in general we're more willing to accept any fair representation as a good one and give the film a high rating no matter what. In my opinion, though, that works against us. It tends to keep the standard low. Yes, Imagine Me And You is, I guess, cute in an über-conventional way: the actors are fine, London is charming, the main characters are of course incredibly beautiful (and there's the handsome and amazingly understanding guy for the bi-straight crowd as well!)... But really... Why should such laziness portraying a love story deserve so much praise? Because it's directed at a traditionally ignored or badly-treated group of people? Yes, thank you for that, oh dear producers and writers, but why not try and really sweat a credible lesbian love story the next time? Please???!!!

***WARNING: SPOILERS!!!***

A bride walks down the aisle, catches a glimpse of an unknown woman standing in the church and, KABOOM... she's so smitten that her long-time relationship begins to fade in earnest and her sexual orientation is... huh... where is it? Because, naturally, she had never seen and/or met and/or befriended an attractive woman before EVER in her life. Yes, I believe you can have a crush on someone you've never met before. Love at first sight? Maybe, maybe not, but that's not the point... We're talking about a 100% straight girl in her late twenties who all of a sudden, at the mere sight of an unknown female at her own wedding, becomes... confused... Childish? Well yes, but it's only human. If we were to buy it, of course. And we will, but only because we're starving for lesbian story lines, particularly successful ones where the more lesbian character doesn't end up dead or severely traumatized.

Then they fall in love. Oh, so unavoidable. What the Lena Headey character, who was an out and proud lesbian before and surely got to know and love a few interesting women (oh, her friend in the film, Eva Birthistle, would have been a MUCH better match!!!), sees in the character of Piper Perabo (of Lost & Delirious iconic fame -another film I can't totally see the point of-) is a mystery to me. They seem to have little in common. Their chemistry is, in my eyes, awful, although from other reviewers I find out this is very subjective. Their scenes together are, well... Hardly there. They get to kiss, thank God, but nothing else. No, I don't want porn or anything but some sexual tension and real longing would be a nice change! There's much more feeling when the superhumanly-good husband is there, trying to figure out what's going on.

The final reunion was, to me, close to an embarrassment. I'm sorry, I'm as romantic as the next person but I'm tired of those happy endings where a convenient song plays and they get together for ever after an hour and a half of pure air (ie: virtually nothing).

Then there's the husband. Such a nice, affectionate guy. We care about him. Who wouldn't? He doesn't even complain to his cheating lesbian wife once! Wow. I want one of those. Where should I buy?

***END OF SPOILERS***

I'm giving it a 4/10 because, deep down, I still want to support any lesbian story, even the most clichéd, innocuous, dull ones. It's hard for me to give less than that, because I'm always watching out for more. The main problem is, there's rarely more, just "more of the same". It's best summed up by what Ylene Chaiken, the brain behind The L Word, said when asked why not continue with the series: "I'll miss the community of The L Word, but I was personally ready for it to end. Jennifer Beals did joke that someday Bette and Tina would have grandchildren -- but I think all of us agreed that it was best to go while we were still relatively young and sexy." The idea that when a few typical lesbian stories like coming out, adopting or getting pregnant together, transitioning, getting over lesbian breakup etc. have already been more or less gracefully thrown in, there's nothing else to say and we better pack in is sad and unproductive. Heterosexual-oriented series go on for years and years delving into different and same plots and not having to justify their own existence. When we learn to do the same and to demand quality and genuineness, we'll have won much more than a quota of films per year.

A group of young and, quite frankly, rather moronic guys go to Amsterdam to do the only thing (as the cliché goes) that guys like them would and will do there. They're told they can get the exact same thing, only cheaper, in some lost-in-time country where girls are extremely hot and nymphomaniac and, WHY OF COURSE, they go there. They are more than welcomed by a couple of stunning chicks and we get to spot a few perfect and serviceable female bodies in the nude. Once, twice and so forth, you know, because... Because. If you like girls, take a look, you know. And go visit.

But alas life is cruel. It turns out paradise ain't paradise after all and the girls are evil scouts for an evil organisation where guys are kidnapped, tortured, mutilated and ultimately killed. You see one or two stomach-churning scenes which are okay. Yes, it sounds remotely exciting. Yes, the film actually has its moments and is overall amusing. But it's mainly more ridiculous than scary, which is very disappointing because it's gone great lenghts to prove its gory & ideological seriousness (the Evil Bar with the commie memorabilia was a riot, and the same can be said about the vegan vs. meat-eater standpoint).

The idea was good: post-communist countries set up as amusement parks for unscrupulous, hypocritical and nihilistic capitalists, engulfed by an unsatisfactory and numbing life where freedom takes its toll, who may buy female companionship and other forms of "extreme entertainment" and thus feel powerful again. That's happening, minus gory exaggerations. However, a good idea is quickly ruined. The film takes the easy way out: sex, gore and pure entertainment. Which is NICE, but it doesn't even excel in that department. Characters are unsympathetic (it might even be said that the psycho old guy they meet on the train is the only one that showed some real depth), storyline is badly told, the film runs out of ideas often and wastes precious time and as for the shocking scene, I couldn't care less about the guy who's suffering it and shock is alleviated by indifference.

Yet another lost chance.