Reviews

After a second viewing, the qualities of this film became apparent. It was erroneously labelled a comedy, misleading some viewers towards escapist shallowness, but it's actually a tragedy, with satirical aspects aimed at the hypocrisy of present day media, politics and society in general.

The script is clever, the acting is excellent (especially by Léa Seydoux, of course), and even the long close-ups on her character, who is breaking the fourth wall by staring at the camera on those occasions, appear now as justified to highlight her introspection and loneliness. Therefore, such close-ups are not just for enjoying her beauty (which may be also a contrast with her inner drama). And the long takes are also like pauses to let the viewer digest what he has seen before.

France the character is facing perhaps the same problems as France the country (and the Western-type society in general). She is the center of the story and apparently her inner humaneness awakes after a minor accident she's caused, allowing her to really see the suffering in society and thus the lies she was being paid for.

One example among many others: her re-awakened soul makes her uncomfortable during the dinner with the rich globalists, who tried absurdly to justify their greed. In contrast, her one-sided, irresponsible and delusional personal assistant (Blanche Gardin) said in another scene a line betraying her utter lack of moral principles: 'The worst is the best'. Just like the witches in Shakespeare's 'Macbeth': 'Fair is foul, foul is fair'.

Seeing the manipulative essence of her job and the disaster of her family life, France de Meurs sinks in depression. She craves for real human contact, but in the fake society around her, even that is denied to her, and her short 'speech' towards the end of the film confirms her tragic resignation. Apparently, her evolution brought her back at the starting point, but now with a new understanding. And the final close-up on her face adds subtlety and complexity to this bitter and hard gained awareness.

The tone of this film is dreamy and almost surreal, betraying the literary background of its screenwriter (Horia Lovinescu). This style and its erratic subject may have been the cause for its interdiction by the Communist regime back then, which contributed to its cult aura. But the discrepancy between its goals and means makes it rather tiresome to watch.

It's a story of failure: lack of communication, disillusions, and finally death. Two estranged brothers, one a dissolute and the other a successful actor and rational man, try to get together and later in the film are rivaling for a charming and mysterious girl, who was a fan of the actor. The story unfolds slowly, many lines are contrived (and most characters talk and behave the same), some almost unbelievable situations and the many sudden mood swings don't explain much of their motivations, and the overall dreamlike treatment is enhanced by the nightmarish soundtrack (most of the time overpowering the actors voices - was this another pretentious 'symbol' or just plain bad sound recording or editing?).

All three main actors are very good and they have tried their best for this film, which admittedly is not for the average viewer (or is it just a flop, in short?). The hidden gem here is Ileana Popovici, an undeservedly neglected great actress who was not only absolutely gorgeous in her prime (albeit in a subdued and not self-conscious way), but especially one of the most natural actors ever, full of innocence, charm and feminine mystery. She thinks rather high of this film, which is why I watched it, but all in all it looks at best raw and unpolished, despite its ambitious intentions.

The excellent premise and start and the effort put in this movie deserve respect, although its totally unbelievable situations and twists make it for a missed start. It's not about some factual, archaeological nitpicking, but about plot holes and a completely flawed ending (it would have been much more realistic if the boy didn't make it because of so many dangers and ordeals, not to mention the sudden giving birth by "the wolf").

Any person endowed with common sense, let alone a survivalist or an outdoors person, would cringe at the boy's fall in the canyon and his survival on the rock wall with just a twisted ankle which heals in a few days (by the way, a scavenging vulture finding him on that cliff would have tasted first his softest part, the eyes). Or at his escape by running with a twisted ankle from a pack of wolves. Or at him not slipping on ice, not getting frostbites, not being traced based on smell by chasing wolves or hyenas, or at him killing the cave lion (which was fighting fiercely the wolf) with his first and only arrow, and so on. Sure, people were much tougher back then, but many of them died while confronting all kinds of perils.

Yet this film wants so much to be about coming of age that they show us first a "pansy" or "snowflake" who is actually so tough on the inside. Really? Come on! And the CGI is totally over the top, unrealistic and tiresome.

This is not exactly a film about Shakespeare, because the historical Will is so poorly documented. The real, core theme here (not fully developed, though) is conflict between career and personal life. Or heart over mind, or duty vs. love as in classical drama. Does conjectured depression after the Globe Theater fire entirely explain renunciation of art in Will's case? Anyway, the film deals with the given situation, so that's it. But do we feel any of Will's greatness here? Hardly. Was he like Prospero exiled (probably) or just a broken man (like in this film)?

First, the title itself is provocative and unfounded or simply ironic (Will's birthday is unknown and its coincidence with St. George's Day and with his final day is mere hagiography convention). The pace and tone of the film are slow and morose, perhaps suggesting depression as a possible cause of Will's retirement. Still, how could such a great playwright give up completely on writing and isolate himself in such a mundane environment? Not quite believable. The real Will still did some collaborative work in his last years - if he really was the same man as the author of the great plays.

Here Stratfordians would jump up with rage and contempt, as they accept the mainstream didactic view on Will (exhibited in this film, too) and easily skip the huge question about how could a man with so limited education and traveling experience have simply imagined his extraordinary oeuvre (a question so unconvincingly answered in this film). Why did the historical Shakespeare not leave any books and manuscripts in his will? On the other hand, could possibly the Earl of Oxford or other candidates have been much more educated and experienced with all walks of life than Will the actor and theater man? Such questions still linger on because we know so little about Will and about genius in general. And this film, albeit a work of fiction, does nothing to explore the possible motivations for the actions of a great writer.

Anyway, the filming is great and the acting is generally excellent, but the script looks in places almost like a soap opera. Which is not necessarily a bad thing (aren't even some of Will's plays almost soap operas, if only brilliantly done?). Many facts and hypotheses about Will's life are alluded to and briefly touched upon in this film, as if the filmmakers were to check the boxes.

Again, this is a work of fiction, so the liberties taken by Will himself in his plays should warn us against expecting a literal, documentary style approach here. But this is exactly why the film should have probed more deeply and imaginatively in the creative mind of a great writer and theatrical producer. Sorry to say, but Brannagh's himself was the least complex character (and performance) in the movie. This would be understandable only if Will was really depressed in his final years and thus devoid of any previous greatness and creative mind, which would make too simplistic an explanation for the core conflict inherent to this movie.

I feel so sorry for Charlize Theron, June Diane Raphael and Seth Rogen, who are very good actors and tried to save this awful flop. And I feel sorry for the people who let themselves so easily distracted and mindlessly entertained by such a movie. The standards and basic intelligence are gone so low if one thinks the public would laugh at disgusting jokes about cum and drugs in a high brow diplomatic world.

Sure, the script is totally unbelievable, and the fish out of water scheme went too far in this. But what if some of the people in charge actually behaved like that in private? Doing drugs, casual sex, jeopardizing a lifetime education and career, not to mention international meetings and agreements. And part of the public seems to like that vulgar debasement, if the IMDb score of this film is of any use. Or are we groomed for such idiotic and 'cool' leadership? Have you listened to those hollow speeches? Paradoxically, they are the most lifelike part of the movie, and sadly some people keep falling for them in real life.

Female president (former secretary of state) - check (wishful thinking of bad losers). By the way, women should not be discriminated, but hired based on their competence, not just for being women. Dumb president, coming from showbiz - check (such fun, they really hate the POTUS - democratically, don't they). Vile businessman with crappy hairstyle and political influence - check (see the previous bit). The republicans are the bad guys - check (such a movie cliché). Being a Christian is weird and has to be hidden even from your best friend - check (freedom of speech and belief, anyone?). And so on. But it's too late for that, folks! Many people don't dig that one-sided approach anymore.

This travesty of a show is not only ridiculously unbelievable, but also boringly repetitive. A bunch of fat bearded men roaming around in woods while shouting and laughing have finally solved some of the age-long mysteries of cryptozoology - really?

The same sequence of events takes place in each and every episode I've seen, and it's full of contrived scenes: the fat guys immediately find eye-witnesses, images or videos of the hunted monster, its tracks and whereabouts, then they quickly build a trap and lure the monster right away into it, while their trap-cameras produce in the end only conveniently blurry footage or photos. And where are the captured beings or at least their hairs or blood for further analysis?

I've only watched a few episodes but it's obviously just a prank (if someone have had really produced publicly the least physical sample of a Sasquatch or the like, it would have been major news and then in-depth research would have followed). The sad aspect is that it's a mockery of the needed research of mysterious reports, which shouldn't be ignored from the start, but verified. Furthermore, it has no real humor, which would have saved it at least in part.

While the first Super Troopers was a riot and deservedly became a cult movie, none of the other Broken Lizard movies stood out with something for me. This is of course just a weaker sequel as usually happens, rehashing almost the same jokes and the same (thin) plot of the first, but since the first was hilarious this weaker sequel still benefits much from that one's special aura, so it's still a fun movie to watch for its atmosphere, characters, situations and low brow humor. Still, the first film remains one of a kind.