it just falls short. a little bit of this, a little of that but in the end there is no strong cohesion of a structure. it is not a powerful film. i ended up saying "well, so?"
it does not want to be political and impose a message, that is clear. it wants to focus on the individual, his lack of direction, ignorance, tendency towards evil without any guidance. but it does not convey that feeling strongly either. this is a tepid movie. the fire within was a calm movie in its style too but it was powerful. it made you feel the suffocation of the character. but in this movie, everything seems to be done for provocation just for the sake of provocation. for example, remember the scene where they destroy the kid's model ship? how out of place it was? so crude, superficial.
and do we need to be shown the actual killings of the animals? can't we understand that he kills them if you just cut the scene at the appropriate point?
i did not watch malle's american-era movies, but before 80s, i think his only notable movie is the fire within. most of his works seemed so pseudo-intellectual for me.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 5 of 5
greennui
The banality of evil. Great film.deadendjob
One of Malle's best, both a precursor to Au Revoir les Enfants and a sequel of sorts to Murmur of the Heart.deckard.
it just falls short. a little bit of this, a little of that but in the end there is no strong cohesion of a structure. it is not a powerful film. i ended up saying "well, so?"it does not want to be political and impose a message, that is clear. it wants to focus on the individual, his lack of direction, ignorance, tendency towards evil without any guidance. but it does not convey that feeling strongly either. this is a tepid movie. the fire within was a calm movie in its style too but it was powerful. it made you feel the suffocation of the character. but in this movie, everything seems to be done for provocation just for the sake of provocation. for example, remember the scene where they destroy the kid's model ship? how out of place it was? so crude, superficial.
and do we need to be shown the actual killings of the animals? can't we understand that he kills them if you just cut the scene at the appropriate point?
i did not watch malle's american-era movies, but before 80s, i think his only notable movie is the fire within. most of his works seemed so pseudo-intellectual for me.
ClassicLady
I just couldn't get into it.Skyscore
http://www.afisha.ru/movie/170226/review/146489/