HardKnockLife210
Joined Jan 2003
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings1.3K
HardKnockLife210's rating
Reviews61
HardKnockLife210's rating
The Intruder (L'Intrus), a film directed by French director Clair Denis, is the liberation of film. It follows its own spirit across time, space, and character. There may be a plot, but what I understood of that I picked up from the description on the Netflix DVD sleeve. Honestly, it's probably better to know nothing about the film before watching it, because then the viewer can set aside any and all expectations. The film demands that the viewer think, but also taunts the fact that he or she will not gain full understanding.
The human heart is the film's enigma. Every image questions its role, its nature, and its form. The heart is the intruder, that of the viewer and that of Louis. Louis' character is played by Michel Subor with the peace and mystery required by such a character. Honestly, anyone could've played Louis' character, if he or she possessed a wandering, willing, and comfortable heart. Yet Subor is the one featured here; he becomes the film, his identity is inseparable from it. Many of the film's images lingering in my mind revolve around his expressions, vocal but mainly physical.
The Intruder is poetic in its ability to capture the stillness and fullness of movement, but more fluid than any literature in the shape it refuses to take. "Surrealistic" has been a term used in describing this film, but perhaps "quasirealistic" is a more adequate term. Nothing in the film exists outside of the possibilities of reality; the simple omnipresent score confirms that by imagining in music the connection between heartbeat and dim light.
Watch the trailer a few times if you're attracted to visual imagery; see the film to see the consequences of the combination of verse and a grasping for freedom.
The human heart is the film's enigma. Every image questions its role, its nature, and its form. The heart is the intruder, that of the viewer and that of Louis. Louis' character is played by Michel Subor with the peace and mystery required by such a character. Honestly, anyone could've played Louis' character, if he or she possessed a wandering, willing, and comfortable heart. Yet Subor is the one featured here; he becomes the film, his identity is inseparable from it. Many of the film's images lingering in my mind revolve around his expressions, vocal but mainly physical.
The Intruder is poetic in its ability to capture the stillness and fullness of movement, but more fluid than any literature in the shape it refuses to take. "Surrealistic" has been a term used in describing this film, but perhaps "quasirealistic" is a more adequate term. Nothing in the film exists outside of the possibilities of reality; the simple omnipresent score confirms that by imagining in music the connection between heartbeat and dim light.
Watch the trailer a few times if you're attracted to visual imagery; see the film to see the consequences of the combination of verse and a grasping for freedom.
Brick, the new film from director Rian Johnson (May) and winner of the Originality of Vision Award at Sundance, is a film that follows the adventures of a high school student, Brendan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a kind of self-appointed private eye. The trailer is enticing on the first viewing, but loses some of its power when viewed again. The previews for films with multiple nuances rarely capture exactly what they intend. Yet for all of the trailer's problems, it forewarns, probably unintentionally, that this is a film of contradiction. The first watch is enticing, the ones that follow reveal an ugly aspect that makes the film look silly. The contradictions in the film itself make it worth your while.
1. Noir, yet modern. Roger Ebert's quote reads: "Noir to its very bones!" Perhaps he's right. The film follows a single character who wants to solve a single mystery to avenge the death of someone he loves. A complicated trail leads him to pieces of the puzzle that fit perfectly together (see #6). The film has little to no bad language, which is uncommon (especially in films about teenagers) and hearkens back to another era. Yet there is a reason Johnson filmed in color. The events of the film, although surprisingly distant from modern technology, could only have happened in a modern world and could only have sprung from a modern mind. More on this in #3.
2. Keep up, yet slow down. Go see this film with your friends, preferably some people who aren't geniuses. Wait until the credits start (if they can wait that long), and see if the first sentences out of their mouths aren't questions. Chances are that there will be a string of queries in the film's wake. To be honest, I have a hankering for a second viewing myself, not just because I enjoyed the film but because there are definitely some unanswered questions. Johnson, who also wrote the screenplay, dares you to keep up. Yet the cinematography (Steve Yedline) and direction, even the acting, beg you to take a second look. The moments of peace, the deep breaths between the action, scream (irony intended) at the viewer to take in the beauty existent even in a world full of twists and brokenness.
3. High school students, yet independent. This is probably the contrast that, if you didn't like this film, turned you off. "These kids are in high school?" is probably another response you'll hear after the credits roll or have yourself during the film. Yes, it's unbelievable. There's no way this actually could have happened. Good. We got that out of the way. Nonetheless, Brick has enough fact, enough "truth," to ring true. Perhaps it takes place in the not-so-distant future; maybe its action occurs in another world. Regardless, the kids in the movie are in high school. But their actions are their own. There is hardly any mention of parents, and when there is, there is no question that they will never know or understand any of the film's happenings. This, too, contributes to the film's modernity.
4. Ugly, yet beautiful. See #2. What strange bedfellows are beauty and violence! 5. Good guy, yet very bad. This is the film's true brilliance, and the brilliance of other film noirs. You root for Brendan, the protagonist. You simply can't help it; you want him to win, to overcome the odds and come out victorious on the other side of things. But who is this guy? Why does he love Emily? Does he love Emily? What secrets lie in his past? What good will it do if he does find answers? Joseph Gordon-Leavitt embodies Brick's mystery, but also manages to capture the spirit of the likable hero. More on this in #6.
6. Mystery solved? Watch the movie and wait until the end. I don't want to spoil it for you. See this, especially if you're still young enough to feel it and old enough to appreciate it.
9 out of 10.
1. Noir, yet modern. Roger Ebert's quote reads: "Noir to its very bones!" Perhaps he's right. The film follows a single character who wants to solve a single mystery to avenge the death of someone he loves. A complicated trail leads him to pieces of the puzzle that fit perfectly together (see #6). The film has little to no bad language, which is uncommon (especially in films about teenagers) and hearkens back to another era. Yet there is a reason Johnson filmed in color. The events of the film, although surprisingly distant from modern technology, could only have happened in a modern world and could only have sprung from a modern mind. More on this in #3.
2. Keep up, yet slow down. Go see this film with your friends, preferably some people who aren't geniuses. Wait until the credits start (if they can wait that long), and see if the first sentences out of their mouths aren't questions. Chances are that there will be a string of queries in the film's wake. To be honest, I have a hankering for a second viewing myself, not just because I enjoyed the film but because there are definitely some unanswered questions. Johnson, who also wrote the screenplay, dares you to keep up. Yet the cinematography (Steve Yedline) and direction, even the acting, beg you to take a second look. The moments of peace, the deep breaths between the action, scream (irony intended) at the viewer to take in the beauty existent even in a world full of twists and brokenness.
3. High school students, yet independent. This is probably the contrast that, if you didn't like this film, turned you off. "These kids are in high school?" is probably another response you'll hear after the credits roll or have yourself during the film. Yes, it's unbelievable. There's no way this actually could have happened. Good. We got that out of the way. Nonetheless, Brick has enough fact, enough "truth," to ring true. Perhaps it takes place in the not-so-distant future; maybe its action occurs in another world. Regardless, the kids in the movie are in high school. But their actions are their own. There is hardly any mention of parents, and when there is, there is no question that they will never know or understand any of the film's happenings. This, too, contributes to the film's modernity.
4. Ugly, yet beautiful. See #2. What strange bedfellows are beauty and violence! 5. Good guy, yet very bad. This is the film's true brilliance, and the brilliance of other film noirs. You root for Brendan, the protagonist. You simply can't help it; you want him to win, to overcome the odds and come out victorious on the other side of things. But who is this guy? Why does he love Emily? Does he love Emily? What secrets lie in his past? What good will it do if he does find answers? Joseph Gordon-Leavitt embodies Brick's mystery, but also manages to capture the spirit of the likable hero. More on this in #6.
6. Mystery solved? Watch the movie and wait until the end. I don't want to spoil it for you. See this, especially if you're still young enough to feel it and old enough to appreciate it.
9 out of 10.
The following are the top ten reasons to watch Jean-Pierre Jeunet's quirky, interesting film:
10. You thought that Travelocity invented the roaming gnome.
9. To prove to yourself that this really isn't a chick flick.
Okay, so a lot more girls than guys have seen it. The main character is female. There is romance included in the film's plot. These are not good reasons for gentlemen and masculine women not to see this movie. You won't regret it unless your heart is made of stone.
8. This film is very different from most other French films.
Okay, so I think the Dardenne brothers' "The Son" is vivid piece of not-for-pure-entertainment, realistic drama. For those of you who may disagree, you'll probably enjoy this - shall we say - more entertaining film a whole lot more than you did that one.
7. You can most likely identify with Amelie in some way.
Well, technically, we can all relate in some way with any character put to film, but I feel strongly that there is something special and different in Amelie's character that causes her to embody our own longings for love in the lives of others and in our own lives.
6. To see why it was nominated for so many Oscars.
Five nominations for a foreign film? Practically unheard of.
5. To get angry at the fact that it didn't win any Oscars.
Five unanswered nominations? For such an amazing film? Come on now.
4. Yann Martel's beautiful score.
Martel's score, romantic with a hint of sadness and mingled with joy, gives the film a lot of its beauty.
3. Jeunet's inspired direction coupled with Delbonnel's lush cinematography.
Jeunet's unconventional camera movement and Delbonnel's use of color keep your attention.
2. The irresistibility of Audrey Tautou.
You can't help smiling while watching her performance and your love for Amelie grows because of how she plays the part.
1. The irresistibility of the film itself.
Even if this movie isn't perfect, you can't help thinking so when it's all said and done.
Its IMDb rating is 8.7 is still perhaps a bit high, but the critics' average of 6.9 is much too low. Approximately 8.5 would be the most accurate rating for this film, so maybe Portland Oregonian critic Shawn Levy gave the most truthful review.
At least give this one a try.
10. You thought that Travelocity invented the roaming gnome.
9. To prove to yourself that this really isn't a chick flick.
Okay, so a lot more girls than guys have seen it. The main character is female. There is romance included in the film's plot. These are not good reasons for gentlemen and masculine women not to see this movie. You won't regret it unless your heart is made of stone.
8. This film is very different from most other French films.
Okay, so I think the Dardenne brothers' "The Son" is vivid piece of not-for-pure-entertainment, realistic drama. For those of you who may disagree, you'll probably enjoy this - shall we say - more entertaining film a whole lot more than you did that one.
7. You can most likely identify with Amelie in some way.
Well, technically, we can all relate in some way with any character put to film, but I feel strongly that there is something special and different in Amelie's character that causes her to embody our own longings for love in the lives of others and in our own lives.
6. To see why it was nominated for so many Oscars.
Five nominations for a foreign film? Practically unheard of.
5. To get angry at the fact that it didn't win any Oscars.
Five unanswered nominations? For such an amazing film? Come on now.
4. Yann Martel's beautiful score.
Martel's score, romantic with a hint of sadness and mingled with joy, gives the film a lot of its beauty.
3. Jeunet's inspired direction coupled with Delbonnel's lush cinematography.
Jeunet's unconventional camera movement and Delbonnel's use of color keep your attention.
2. The irresistibility of Audrey Tautou.
You can't help smiling while watching her performance and your love for Amelie grows because of how she plays the part.
1. The irresistibility of the film itself.
Even if this movie isn't perfect, you can't help thinking so when it's all said and done.
Its IMDb rating is 8.7 is still perhaps a bit high, but the critics' average of 6.9 is much too low. Approximately 8.5 would be the most accurate rating for this film, so maybe Portland Oregonian critic Shawn Levy gave the most truthful review.
At least give this one a try.