IN: Review: it's hard to tell you more about this film without spoiling it. I enjoyed it because I wasn't expecting what I was seeing, but an ordinary sex-drama so.... It's a pscyho-sexual thriller, in which nothing is what it seems. It features Emmanuelle Seigner, no stranger to the genre (and to nudity) in which her husband, Polanski, had directed her. And a creepy performance (did I say creepy/yes CREEPY) from Toreton (Bernard Tavernier's actor). It looks like a Pascal Bruckner meets Roman Polanski (better than Bitter Moon), like a Chabrol gone astray or Clouzot thriller (I have seen someone mentioning Les Diaboliques), but closer to Georges Franju's Les Yeux sans Visage (Eyes without a face, the godfather of Dr. Phibes and more). A gem ! I am just afraid they will blow this into a Hollywood remake like they did with Nighwatch and The Vanishing.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: As the one-line summary says, two movies have left such a remark on me when I walked out of the theater. The one was "Stir of Echoes" with Kevin Bacon, and the second was "Vanilla Sky".

Its one of those movies that you sit deep in the theater seat and stop thinking about anyone around you, stop wondering what the end of the movie will be and just leave the movie swift you where it wants... Walking out of the cinema was a bit weird, like that feeling you get when you are sick and cant think of anything. One of those movies that you become one with the guy, and feel that nothing else moves around you than the things in the movie.

One thing is certain. The actors are awesome, the sound track is excellent, and everything in the movie is 9+.

Surely one of the best movies I ever saw, and the movie that made the best and most shocking awaking about my life and my purpose in this world.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The first Cube movie was an art movie. It set up a world in which all the major archetypes of mankind were represented, and showed how they struggled to make sense of a hostile world that they couldn't understand. It was, on the non-literal level, a "man vs. cruel nature" plot, where the individual who represented innocence and goodness came through in the end, triumphing to face a new, indefinable world beyond man's petty squabbles; a world where there were no more struggle, but peace. I rated Cube a 10 out of 10, and it's a movie that was never meant to have any sequels.

The second movie, Hypercube was a massive disappointment. Some of the ideas were kind of cool, but in the context of the original movie, both the story and the setting made no sense and had no meaning. Still, for being fairly entertaining, I rated it a 5 out of 10.

The third movie, Cube Zero, while ignoring the second, plays like a vastly inferior commercial B-movie rehash of the first, sans the symbolism. There is no "homage" or "tribute" here; there is only ripping off. The same kind of plot, with some elements idiotically altered (like having letters instead of prime numbers between the cubes - an idea which shows more clearly than anything else that this is a rip-off with absolutely no originality and nothing to say).

That we see something from "behind the scenes" means nothing, because the watchers are just part of the Big Bad Experiment, the architects of which we hear nothing of. And, in this movie, those who get through to the exit (like Kazan did at the end of the first movie) are just killed - where the *bleep* is the sense in that?! That's just flippin' stupid. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.

The production values and acting in Cube Zero are not too bad, but the story and the ideas are so utterly devoid of any inspiration that this movie can only get from me a rating of 3 out of 10.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: The premise of this movie is revealed on the DVD box. A textile worker develops a miracle fabric that doesn't degrade. But the movie fails to get on with it. Instead it pads for 45 minutes, noodling around a preamble before he makes the big discovery. Since audiences don't benefit much from seeing a whiz kid figuring things out, it's a strange choice: the movie has successfully been prevented from engaging any topic. Once the fabric is discovered, the movie too rapidly establishes that both industry bigwigs, and blue-collar co-workers want the invention squelched, leaving the movie with just two flimsy movements; inventing the chemical, and running from oppressors.

I can't understand why anyone would describe this as comedy. The tone isn't funny or comical. It's more like serious social criticism of the day: that capitalism warps both supply chains and production. Which in turn prevents innovation from reaching and improving the world. Yes, that's probably true, but without some toying with an attitude towards that fact, the movie is simply an earnest argument. You'll need an extremely broad definition of comedy to find any here.

This is more like a British Meet John Doe (Meet Nigel Doe ?).
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative