Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For (2014)

Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For (2014)

Director: Robert Rodriguez

Cast: Mickey Rourke, Josh Brolin, Eva Green, Joseph Gordon Levitt, Powers Booth, Rosario Dawson, Jessica Alba, Bruce Willis, Jeremy Piven, Christopher Lloyd, Jaime King, Lady Gaga

Sin City (2005) is to me, one of Robert Rodriguez finest days behind the camera, it was sheer cinematic perfection, the mood, the images, the words, everything flowed with amazing finesse and clarity. So of course when I heard that Rodriguez and Miller were teaming up again for a sequel, I was more than excited. True, Robert Rodriguez can be a hit or miss type of director, but you have to admit, when he’s running on all cylinders, the guy can make some damn entertaining movies. El Mariachi (1992), Desperado (1995) From Dusk Till Dawn (1996), Planet Terror (2007) and Sin City (2005) are all high watermarks in his career. And let’s not forget his more “for the hell of it” films, like Machete (2010) and Machete Kills (2013), two great examples of the fun b-movies that Rodriguez is so good at making. Here’s a guy who understands Pulp Fiction, not the Tarantino movie, but the concept. He knows how entertaining over the top violence can be. To top things off, he’s got a kinetic style of storytelling, with a high emphasis on never letting the audience get bored. He wants to give you that shock, that cheap thrill, he wants you to chuckle and stare in awe at the screen. And on this aspect, Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For delivers the goods.

This time around we go back to the seedy underbelly of Basin City via four short stories all written by comic book mastermind Frank Miller. The stories are: A Dame to Kill For, Just Another Saturday Night, The Long Bad Night and Nancy’s Last Dance, which by the way was a story written specifically for the film. On this sequel we get to see many of the characters presented to us in the first film, like Marv, Nancy Callahan, Dwight, Gail, Hartigan and the evil Senator Roark. We are also presented to a whole bag of new ones like the wonderfully conniving Eva, played by Eva Green. She’s the ultimate seductress, using her sensual powers to get what she wants, seducing her way to anything. Welcome to Sin City, a place where nobody is squeaky clean. 

Going back to Sin City feels like I never left, the characters, the images, everything holds a certain familiarity to it. The film still has that distinctive black and white look and the characters talk in that special unmistakable Frank Miller talk. It’s cool to see the same characters again, the only thing you have to be ready for is that certain characters are now played by different actors, for example, the character of Dwight, who was played by Clive Owen in the first film, is now being played by Josh Brolin.  The character of  ‘Manute’, who in the first film was played by Michael Clarke Duncan is now played by Dennis Haysbert. Devon Aoki, who played deadly little Miho in the first film, has been replaced by Jamie Chung, and so forth. They are still the same characters, it’s just different actors playing then. Good news is that since they are all Frank Miller comic book characters, they still look and sound the same, you might not even notice the changes so much.

So this film is interesting because its half prequel, half sequel. Some of the stories take place before the first film, some after the first film. This is the reason why we see some characters who died in the first film back again, the most notable example would be Marv, who dies electrocuted in the ending of the first film. Marv is featured prominently in this film, which is a good move in my book since he was everyone’s favorite character from the first film. He looks just a bit different, but he’s still good old pill poppin’, head chopping Marv. The last story in the film, called Nancy’s Last Stand is a good old revenge tale with Nancy looking to avenge the death of Hartigan, the detective that saved her from being raped, and “the only man she ever loved”. So yeah, you’ll feel like your revisiting your favorite, most fucked up friends. This is the nature of Sin City, it’s not a pretty place; these aren't wholesome characters. The stories that Frank Miller cooks up for these Sin City graphic novels are about greedy, selfish characters, hatred and revenge pour out of their every pore.

Frank Miller gets lots of heat because his stories have been deemed ‘misogynistic’ by some…in the parlance of our times, misogynistic means that his stories display a certain amount of hatred towards women? Um, I’ve read most of the Sin City graphic novels and I don’t really see that at all. Actually, I honestly think that’s just a bunch of horse shit. Let me see, if I remember correctly, Hartigan saves a little girl from being raped…how is that misogynistic? That very same girl grows up, and Hartigan once again protects her from ‘that Yellow Bastard’ who wants to rape her and kill her? This very same girl that Hartigan saves, later becomes a strong female character by going out to avenge the death of the man who saved her. Not misogynistic. Some of his stories actually empower the female, by making them strong protagonists, like in Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For, where Nancy becomes a kick ass revenge hungry female lead.  Sure these are stories about prostitutes, so what, there are prostitutes in the real world so how is that displaying hatred towards women? Prostitutes are a real thing in the real world, especially in the world of Sin City. In the first film, Marv falls head over heels for “Goldie”, a woman he worships with every word that comes out of his mouth. Another character called Dwight protects a waitress named Shellie from a violent, psychotic ex-lover. In any case, if violence is inflicted upon women, it comes from villains, not from the heroes who always protect the women, or love them with tremendous amounts of love and admiration. And it’s not like women are always depicted as being helpless victims, just ask the girls of old town, who can more than take care of themselves. If you ask me, Miller actually displays respect and admiration towards women, not hatred. Miller actually addresses some very real issues about women, issues that need to be addressed and talked about. So get outta here with your self righteous sanctimonious bull crap. These are stories about a town called Sin City, if you can’t take the heat, get out of hell’s kitchen. 

Truth be told, being accused of being misogynistic is the smallest of Miller’s problems; what Miller really received a lot of heat for was for a story he drew and wrote called ‘Holy Terror’; a story that at one point was going to be one of the most controversial Batman stories ever told. At one point it was going to be called ‘Holy Terror, Batman!’ But through the course of creating this tale, Miller decided this was no longer a Batman story, so he changed the main character from Batman into a new character of his own creation called ‘The Fixer’ and printed the graphic novel through Legendary instead of DC.  But originally, Holy Terror was going to be all about Batman kicking Al Qaedas ass and killing a whole bunch of terrorists. The thing with Holy Terror is that Miller lived in New York during 9/11, and it affected him in a big way, Holy Terror was made as a direct response to that. Miller has gone down as saying “I can tell you squat about Islam, I don’t know anything about it. But I know a goddamn lot about Al Qaeda and I want them all to burn in hell”. So yeah, his public hatred towards Al Qaeda garnered hatred from many. Miller knew this was going to happen. He labels the book as “Propaganda” that is “bound to offend just about everybody” But then again, if we look back in time, Captain America and Batman both kicked Hitler’s ass in their own time, so to Miller, having Batman kick Al Qaeda’s ass was just a way to pay homage to those classic politically charged comics and a way to comment on the 9/11 attacks. Does it show hatred towards Muslims? Or just towards a small terrorist group? Is it racist? I don’t know because I have yet to read it, but you can’t expect a review of it here soon. Whatever the case maybe, Miller doesn't back down from his work, he makes no apologies for it, and maybe this is why as a form of retaliation, Sin City 2 has sadly tanked at the box office. I doubt that many people have read Holy Terror, but god knows there’s a couple of sites, and a couple of blogs and articles out there spewing nothing but hatred for it. It could be that this all backfired on Miller and now Sin City 2 is suffering at the box office for it.  

This is all too bad, because to me Sin City 2 is fun times, as fun and mean spirited as the first film was. Many have labeled it as “more of the same” and I have to say that I agree. To me this sequel being more of the same doesn’t bother me one bit because I love the film noir world of Sin City, if it’s more of what I loved from the first film then so be it, I welcome it. I got no problems with these stories being about prostitutes and psychotic characters, this is Sin City, keyword ‘Sin’. If I had to say something negative about the film is that the stories from the first film where slightly more shocking and darker…by comparison these stories feel somewhat less important. It’s not that they don’t chop off enough heads or that there isn’t enough white blood, there’s tons of violence and nudity to garner the film it’s ‘R’ rating, but by comparison, the stories from the first film felt like they had more of a punch to them. But whatever, Sin City light is still Sin City and the film still has enough grittiness, nudity and comic book violence to please fans of the ‘R’ rating. I’m saddened that Sin City 2 has tanked the way it has, there’s no real reason for it to be flopping as hard as it has, it’s an entertaining film. Is it that audiences nowadays have become complete softies that can’t take blood and violence in their entertainment? Has society grown only to accept PG-13 films? Whatever, it’s their loss. I hope they enjoy their umpteenth Step Up film.

Rating: 4 out of 5  

   

300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

Title: 300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

Director:  Noam Murro

Cast:  Eva Green, Sullivan Stapleton, Rodrigo Santoro

Here’s a movie that I had extremely low hopes for…yet ended up loving the hell out of! I love it when that happens. Why was I ready for 300: Rise of an Empire to be a stinker? Well, a couple of factors had diverted my judgment, number one, Zack Snyder was not returning as a director and that to me immediately brought the film down a couple of notches for me because in my eyes, it was Snyder’s stylish visuals that made 300 (2006) such a winner. Number two, I didn’t know who the hell this new director was, when I look him up he’s only directed one other film called Smart People (2008), which I still haven’t seen, so I had nothing telling me that this new guy had what it took to make a decent sequel to 300. I mean, his only theatrical release was a dramatic comedy, what did that have to do with special effects and action? Nothing. To me this new director was simply hired to ape Snyder’s style in order to make a similar looking sequel, to cash in on the success of the original. So yeah, those were the factors that made me judge 300: Rise of the Empire harshly before I’d even laid eyes upon it, something I rarely do. So anyhow, positive reviews and great word of mouth made me give this one a go and boy was I wrong! This movie rocks!

300 Rise of an Empire has a very original concept behind it: it’s not exactly a sequel or a prequel, 300: Rise of an Empire actually happens parallel to 300, so while King Leonidas and his 300 where kicking ass in Thermopylae, this film is happening simultaneously in Athens. I don’t even know what to call a film that happens parallel to another? So anyhow, I thought that was an original concept, so original I don’t even have a word for it! So anyhow, this time around we follow Themistocles as he and his naval fleets go up against Xerxes and his ever growing empire. Will the Spartans decide to help Themistocles go up against Xerxes? Can they put a stop to the despotic leader?

First up, I recommend you pony up the extra dough and go see this one 3-D, it really exploits what 3-D technology has to offer, in other words, the film doesn’t feel like a cheap last minute 3-D conversion;  blood will practically splatter on your face, axes will almost cut your nose!  Trust me, you’ll love it. Of all the preconceived ideas I had about this movie, I was right about one of them: director Noam Murro is trying to deliver a film similar in style to what Zack Snyder and crew created with the first film, and we can’t really blame the director for this because I’m pretty sure that one of the requirements from the studio was to not mess with the formula and give the people more of what they loved from the first film. And 300: Rise of the Empire does just that, it gives us more of what we loved about the first film; stylish visuals, tons of blood and sand, rousing speeches and awesome battle sequences. Funny thing is, I can’t say I didn’t like it. You know how some people complaint about the use of slow motion in these films? I don’t, I freaking loved it! I wanted to take in these beautiful visuals in slow motion, there’s just so much to look at. The film is eye candy, it has a lot to offer to your pupils! Trust me! Best part about the whole thing is that it does feel like Frank Miller’s drawings coming to life. In his comic book work, Frank Miller has always been all about style, and the images on the film reflect that. By the way, if you like this film, you should try and find Frank Miller's Xerxes, a five issue story that's going to be released through Dark Horse Comics. Funny how the movie came out well before the book! Still, I don't think we'll be dissapointed with what Miller is working on. 

This films strengths lie in its visuals, and I’m a sucker for films that have a strong visual sense. I didn’t want to stop looking at the screen, I mean, this is a well constructed film, the people behind it made sure that the viewer wouldn’t be bored for a second, there’s many exciting and visually interesting moments here. You know how most films have this formula where it’s a big explosive opening sequence, then we pull back and slow it down and then something cool in the middle and slow it down and so forth till the end? Well, on this one it’s cool stuff happening all the time! One of the coolest things about the film is how much of it focuses on the battles that were waged at sea, between these huge ships! At times it almost felt like a pirate film in that sense. Honestly? This is the kind of film I like to watch more than once at the theater, I wouldn’t be surprised if I caught myself seeing it one more time in 3-D. Another plus for me was that on top of the awesome visuals, we actually get a decent story. How cool is it that we get to see how Xerxes became Xerxes? Very cool to let us in on that back story.

On the negative side of things Sullivan Stapleton as Themistocles is a poor replacement for the awesomeness of Gerard Butler’s Leonidas. Stapleton’s Themistocles, comes off as too soft spoken to be the commander of such a savage army. I’m not saying he does a bad job as Themistocles, I’m just saying that in comparison, Butler’s Leonidas was way more explosive and intense. But everything evens out because we get Eva Green who brings intensity to her Artemisia, she’s a highlight of the film. Last words on 300: Rise of an Empire: it kicks ass, great action, never boring, awesome visuals and another thing, this is without a doubt the bloodiest movie of the year! A film very deserving of it’s R rating, it has blood, decapitations, nudity and violence galore! Frank Miller would be proud! I didn’t know who this new director was, but after seeing 300: Rise of an Empire, I say he’s earned my respect, the film has some visually impressive moments and camera angles, you’ll be blown away, this one was made to be enjoyed in a movie theater, go see it!

Rating: 5 out of 5    

  

Dark Shadows (2012)

Title: Dark Shadows (2012)

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helena Bonham Carter, Eva Green, Jackie Earle Haley, Jonny Lee Miller, Chloe Grace Moretz, Bella Heathcote

Review:

Tim Burton’s always been one of my favorite directors. The guy is an artist through and through and it shows on his films. He always puts such emphasis on the mood and look of a film that even if the film is crappy (which has happened) you can rest assured you’ll at least see something that will look interesting. But even I must admit that he’s turned into a pretty hit and miss kind of director. Some of his films reach perfection like Sleepy Hollow (2004) and Ed Wood (1994); which to me are his brightest days behind the camera, some are halfway decent like Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007), and some are downright disastrous abominations like Planet of the Apes (2001) and Alice in Wonderland (2010). This is why whenever one of Burton’s films comes to the big screen; I always give them a chance. I could end up watching one of the good ones. Now take in consideration that I was never a follower of the old Dark Shadows television show, I only saw a couple of episodes sporadically. I’ve never seen any of the previous Dark Shadow films either so I’m judging this one solely on its own merits. This review comes to you from a Tim Burton fan whose been dissapointed with his recent batch of films. So, the question remains, was Dark Shadows a good Tim Burton film?

Dark Shadows is all about Barnabas Collins, a young man in love with a girl called Josette DuPres. At the same time, a powerful witch called Angelique Bouchard also has the hots for Barnabas, and she doesn’t take kindly to rejection! So when Barnabas rejects her advances, she puts Josette under a spell and sends her to her death. As for Barnabas, he gets locked inside of a coffin, buried alive and cursed to live the life of a vampire! Fast forward 196 years later, and some people unwillingly unearth Barnabas who is now faced with the fact that he’s been buried for nearly 200 years. Barnabas is now headed towards  a culture clash of gargantuan proportions! He must quickly learn the ways of Lava Lamps and Rock and Roll. He also discovers that the Collin’s family is no longer as prominent and rich as it once was. So now, Barnabas’ has only one major concern in his mind: restoring the Collin’s family to it’s former glory. Will he achieve it?

So I went into Dark Shadows kind of skeptical, would it be one of the good ones, or would it be a sucky Burton flick? If you ask me, with his recent slate of films, Tim Burton has been kind of selling his soul for money with films like Alice in Wonderland and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). Would Dark Shadows be one of these fluffy colorful get rich quick films? Or would this be one of those Burton films that he puts extra care and attention to? My answer is yes, this is one of the good ones! First off, I enjoyed the humor. Going into this I was expecting Tim Burton’s version of The Addams Family. You know, a cooky, spooky, funny family, and that’s pretty much what I got, only thing is that this film is aimed more towards adults. It has sexually explicit jokes, and lots of dark humor. My only gripe is that this film should have been ‘R’ rated. I mean, you’re having a female character giving Barnabas Collins oral sex for Christ’s sake! Make it an ‘R’ rated film and you don’t have to shy way from the blood and gore which brings me to the one and only thing I didn’t like about the film, in terms of the gore it felt restrained.

Tim Burton, working his magic with Johnny Depp

Let’s take for example Sleepy Hollow (2004) which I consider to be Burton’s masterpiece. It’s a fairytale, it’s dark, it’s gothic, it’s gory…and it was rated ‘R’ which was the perfect thing to do. After all, this was a movie about a guy who goes around decapitating people, there’s no way around it, Sleepy Hollow, though based on a fairy tale (which are usually aimed at kids) needed to be rated ‘R’ so you wouldn’t shy away from the gory nature of the story, from the horror. If you ask me, Dark Shadows should have been an ‘R’ as well. Aside from the fact that it’s a film filled with a sexual situation or two, Barnabas is a vampire, a blood sucker. One scene that has Barnabas feeding on a group of young kids should have been a blood bath, instead, Burton cuts away and we don’t see the potentially gruesome scene, even after all the build up that goes on before it. I guess this is the way films are made today. Everything has to be watered down PG-13, just to play it safe. Just to make sure you’re film will make as many millions as it possibly could. Well, you know what, I got news for you Hollywood; Sleepy Hollow was ‘R’ and it still made a huge amount of money. But whatever, filmmaking is equal parts business and equal parts art, I’m sure here Burton was just following orders from studio execs not to go over the top with the blood and gore. I’m just saying; this film needed a bit more gruesomeness. Still, this is a minor hiccup with the film, what else worked about it?

Well for starters as it is expected in a Burton film, the art direction was superb. I loved the look of Collinwood, the mansion that the Collin’s family inhabits. It’s this gigantic old mansion filled with room after cob web filled room, with dark hallways and secret passages. At times, with certain shots, I felt like I was watching an old Hammer film, which is probably exactly what Burton was going for. Burton did a good job of mixing that look that horror films from the 70’s had with his gothic, artistic sensibilities. The result is a film with a very different color palette then your usual Burton film, the film is colorful, but the colors are kind of muted, the way the colors looked on the old Dark Shadows television shows. I would say that Burton was successful in replicating the way Dan Curtis’s films and television shows looked. But the film still has Burton’s ‘gothicness’ to it. And by the way, I want to applaud the fact that CGI was kept to a minimum on this one, finally, this film like a real film and not like a bunch of actors are standing behind a green screen. The CGI is used the way it should be used, whenever it’s necessary. Mr. Burton, The Film Connoisseur salutes you for this!

Dark Shadows is a spooky flick filled with everything from ghosts, to witches, to vampires and even werewolves, a horror fan should be happy with this film. I also enjoyed the phantasmagorical images Burton came up with in those scenes dealing with the ghosts that inhabit Collinwood. This is a horror film, but it’s also a comedy, and the characters are funny in their own kooky ways, with that mordant Burton sense of humor which is present in many of his films. Dark Shadows marks Burton’s eight collaboration with Johnny Depp, who is great as Barnabas, the character is likable even though he’s a villain which is a tough feat to achieve, its Barnabas that will keep you entertained through out, great character. Some complaint that this movie is slow, or boring, but I found it to be great fun, the dialog, the sarcasm, the witt, honestly at times it felt like The Royal Tenenbaums (2001) of the horror world. You know, the story of a family trying to recover its former glory. And for those that complaint about this film being ‘boring’ just remember that Dan Curtis’s films were never action packed films, they were always quiet, spooky tales about family. And this is what this film captures well, it captures that fog filled cemetery, with the ghosts creeping about the hallways of the mansion, the dark corridors...the gigantic ominous looking house with a history. I’m guessing what some people might not like is that this version of Dark Shadows is a comedy, and the old show wasn’t, but if you look at the campiness of those shows today, you might find comedy in it.  

In terms of the comedy, I say the film succeeded. I was laughing like a mad man with some of the jokes, especially those dealing with Barnabas and his clash with the 70’s, great fish out of water stuff there. The comedy is a bit subtle, and it’s more related to the dialog than slapstick or physical comedy, so what these characters say and the way they behave is what should keep you giggling. The film reminded me of The Addams Family (1991) in many ways, let’s see, we have the eccentric family members, the gigantic and spooky mansion, the family treasure and the strangers who want to get their hands on it, and finally, the honor of the family name. These are all elements that both films share, but Dark Shadows adds the element of sexual obsession to the mix, though Gomez and Morticia had a little of that going on as well. So both films are similar, but Dark Shadows is decidedly more adult in a way.  Final words is that this was a satisfying Tim Burton film, and I’m glad because I’ve been waiting for a good Burton film for a while, glad I didn’t give up on the guy. He’s still got it in my book.

Rating: 4 out of 5

  

The Dreamers (1993)

Title: The Dreamers (2003)

Director: Bernardo Bertolucci

Cast: Michael Pitt, Eva Green, Louis Garrel

Review:

Bernardo Bertolucci’s The Dreamers is a film filled with nostalgia for the late 60’s, a time of chaos and anarchy. The time was 1968, and France was undergoing all kinds of revolutions. The workers were angry, the students were angry, people wanted to earn more, work less. Students wanted education to be more affordable. And film buffs wanted to watch their movies! That’s right; this was also a cultural revolution! You see the government decided they needed to close down theaters because films, as I’m sure most film buffs and critics understand, is a powerful medium with which to transmit ideas, almost too powerful in some peoples eyes. Film transmits ideas faster than anything, faster then reading a book or a pamphlet. In other words: film would make the masses think; a dangerous thing in the eyes of any form of government. People getting smart? People expressing themselves? Artists, cinephiles and poets gathering? Talking politics? Not a good idea! So the French government decided to close down a major theater called ‘Cinematheque Francais’; this was an action that was met by uproar from the film buff community, which at the time was growing strong.

I found this so interesting because actually, a similar situation occurred in my country a couple of years ago. There was this theater in San Juan (the capital of Puerto Rico) called ‘Filmoteca Nacional de Puerto Rico’ and it was this small theater with two screens with room for little more than 150 people per screen. These screens where used by local indie filmmakers (such as myself) to play their independent films in. The place was thriving, people where coming to see the movies they made themselves. It was a theater for the people and by the people. Money was being made, I know I made a bit. But making money was beside the point, what I was loving about the place was that people were coming to see my movies! And enjoying them! Other indie filmmakers were doing the same and so, a local underground film movement was being born. The government got a whiff of it and what happens? They shut down the place for no reason whatsoever. Supposedly, the air conditioning system couldn’t be fixed. Which of course was total bull, what they did was shut down a venue where people were expressing themselves through film. The real problem was that most of the films being made were anti-government!

The Dreamers takes place under similar circumstances, but on a much more violent scale. Film buffs where angry! Filmmakers went out on the street and protested against their voices being muted. What happened during 1968 in France was a real cultural revolution! Of course this revolution was way bigger then censoring filmmakers, but it’s a small example of the repression that was going on in the country. And people don’t like to be repressed; we all enjoy our freedoms don’t we? So this is where The Dreamers begins, right smack in the middle of all this chaos. Matthew, is the naive and kind of innocent American teenager who goes to France to study; he's a a true film buff, and so he ends up meeting Isabelle and Theo two French revolutionary film buffs themselves. That day when they first meet, they immediately hit it off! They talk about movies, take strolls down Paris and that very night become inseparable friends. One thing leads to another and Theo and Isabella end up inviting Matthew to move in with them. A love triangle ensues.

Sex was a huge part of the revolution back in those days, same as it was in the United States. It’s as if having crazy sexual exploits was something that no one could take away from them so they were going to do it. In a way, it was the ultimate revolution. Matthew says it at one point, he mentions that violence is something that the police does; it’s not what they do. What they do is kiss and make out, as much as they can. And so, The Dreamers got the dreaded NC-17 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America because of its explicit nudity and sexual situations; in other words, everybody goes full frontal on this one. If you can’t take that sort of thing, then don’t bother because this film is very graphic in this department, the camera gets right in there, right in the middle of things. Characters walk around naked in their apartment through a large part of the film. The three main characters reject what’s happening in their country and instead choose to lock themselves in their apartment and make out day and night. So anyways, I’m European at heart, so nudity in a film is really not a big thing for me, in fact, it kind of natural, as Sigmund Freud used to say we are all sexual creatures and well, sex is a part of life, there’s no point in denying it. Yet the film does address the fact that certain sexual behaviors are wrong. Theo and Isabelle are too close for comfort and Matthew points it out to them. The threesome uses their sexual adventures to ignore the realities of the harsh world, but what the film tries to tell us is that there’s no point in denying these realities, sooner or later they come crashing into our lives. 

The film also functions as a huge love letter to cinema, and I say ‘cinema’ because that’s how films are referred to in France. No one says “movie”, its either ‘cinema’ or ‘films’. Bertolucci constantly quotes other filmmakers in this film; in fact, he quotes Godard quite a lot. But Bertolucci doesn’t excuse himself for this; he says he is quoting Godard and there’s nothing wrong with that because Godard himself quoted other filmmakers and writers himself on his films. So this is a film about film; the three main characters are true film buffs in the best sense of the word. They go to the theater regularly, they analyze films, and they have discussions on who is funnier Buster Keaton or Charles Chaplin? They quote films, reenact films; they even play games where you have to guess which film the quote is from. I loved this about The Dreamers because I get them, because I myself love film as much as these crazy dudes, and I, like them, also went through my own revolution. Funny how similar the revolution portrayed on this film was to the one that occurred here in Puerto Rico in 2010 and in many parts of the world for that matter.

Same as the characters on The Dreamers, when cops were hitting students and spraying pepper spray on their faces for no good reason,  we asked ourselves the very same questions that Matthew, Theo and Isabelle ask themselves. If we care so much about the repression; then why aren’t we out there? Should we take up Molotov bombs and attack? Should we, should we, should we? Will a revolt change anything? Or will the powers that be get their way anyways in the end? It seems this scenario has been played to death across time. The documentary images that Bertolucci includes in the film of cops hitting students and protesters are so similar to those I saw and lived through a few years ago in my own country, that it almost feels uncanny. Same as in France of 1968, the revolution fizzled away, yet the people where victorious in some respects, the revolution wasn’t a total loss. The ‘Cinematheque Francais’ opened it’s doors yet again, and film buffs got to watch their films once again. The Dreamers is a revolutionary film in every sense of the word, cultural, social and sexual. Bertolucci made a beautiful, shocking yet poignant film. Very relevant to our times even though it takes place in 1968.

Rating: 5 out of 5