IN: Review: One of the last classics of the French New Wave. For direction, cineaste Jean Eustache drew from the simplicity of early-century cinema; for story, Eustache drew on the torments of his own complicated love life. So many things can be said of this film - observationally brilliant; self indulgently overlong; occasionally hilarious; emotionally draining...etc. etc. In my mind, whatever complaints that can be leveled against this film are easily overshadowed by its numerous strengths. Every film student, writer, or simply anyone willing to handle a 3 hour film with no abrupt cuts, no music video overstyling, no soap opera-like plot twists, and no banal dialogue should make it a point to see this movie. Everything is to be admired: the writing (concise, clever, surprisingly funny), acting (everyone, quite simply, is perfect in their respective roles), and, simple direction (the viewer feels like a casual observer within the film) make this film unforgettable. This is undoubtedly a film that stays with you.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.

The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.

Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.

The film starts off Brian who is the cliche image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.

The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.

This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.

I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.

My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliche scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?)

The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.

There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?)

No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.

I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.

For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.

1/10
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Roman Polanski masterfully directs this sort of a variation on the same theme as Repulsion. I can't imagine there is one honest movie goer not able to acknowledge the fine director in Le Locataire, yet both parts of the dyptic may not be thoroughly satisfactory to most people, myself included.

Polanski is very good at making us feels the inner torture of his characters (Deneuve in Repulsion and himself in Le Locataire), starting with some lack of self-assurance soon to turn gradually into psychological uneasiness eventually blossoming into an irreversible physical malaise. The shared ordeal for the characters and audience is really dissimilar from the fright and tension of horror movies since there's no tangible supernatural element here. While horror movies allow for some kind of catharsis (be it cheap or more elaborate) Polanski sadistically tortures us and, if in his latter opus the dark humour is permanent, we are mostly on our nerves as opposed to on the edge of our seats.

Suspense, horror, all this is a matter of playing with the audience's expectations (alternatively fooling and fulfilling them), not literally with people's nerves. In my book Rosemary's Baby is a far greater achievement because sheer paranoia and plain rationality are in constant struggle: the story is about a couple moving in a strange flat, while we are forced to identify with a sole character. What's more if the fantasy elements are all in the hero's mind the situation is most uncomfortable since we, the viewers, are compelled to judge him, reject him while we have been masterfully lured ("paint 'n lure") into being him.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
positive