Movie Review High Tension

High Tension (2005) 

Directed by Alexandre Aja

Written by Alexandre Aja, Gregory Levasseur

Starring Cecile De France, Maiween, Phillippe Nahon

Release Date June 10th, 2005

Published June 10th, 2005 

I must say I was quite impressed with Lions Gate Films' commitment to High Tension. Often, when a studio acquires a foreign picture, it's treated like a low-budget product--rolled out slowly and oftentimes drops onto video before anyone outside of New York or Los Angeles even knows it exists. So for that, I give LGF credit; they have shown a great deal of courage pushing High Tension as a major release.

However, I must question, why this film? Why did this little French horror pic earn the faith of the studio when superior products have, in the past, languished? (Anyone remember the brilliant May?) The fact is that while LGF has shown great faith in this flick, it's not really worthy of that faith. A B-movie exploitation flick at best, High Tension is of the rare breed of bad foreign films. Rare because, usually, bad foreign films don't even make it to the U.S.

College friends Marie (Cécile De France) and Alex (Maiwenn La Besco) are spending the summer at Alex's parents' newly-purchased French farm, somewhere in the middle of nowhere. The place is kind of creepy, surrounded on all sides by cornfields and with no unnatural light anywhere. It's the perfect place for an insane killer to wreak unpoliced havoc.

And wouldn't you know it, there happens to be a nutcase patrolling the area in search of new victims. Phillippe Nahon plays the stalking killer whose method is pretty straightforward: invade a home; and kill, kill, kill. His violence is more brutal than your average American movie killer. Much more blood and gore than we've seen from the recently neutered genre that, in America, has succumbed to the monetary menace of the PG-13 rating.

Marie manages to hide herself away as her friends' family is brutalized and Alex herself is held till last and finally taken prisoner. This is where things begin to get goofy, with one of the all-time most nonsensical twists ever put to film. I have been debating whether or not to delve into spoilers here, as I think they could be quite constructive to reviewing the film. However, I will not, mostly because I just can't figure out what the spoilers are.

The film tips its hand with about forty minutes left, but then persists with scenes that fly in the face of that very twist. When the twist does come, it's predictable but incomprehensible--as if the film were directed two different ways and then combined in a blender.

Director Alexandre Aja has a flair for horrific violence and disturbing imagery. Watch for the killer's introduction, as it's one of the few memorable moments in the film. Aja, unfortunately, doesn't seem as interested in directing a horror film so much as an exploitation film of the Joe Bob Briggs, late-night-theater variety. A good example is Maria's masturbation scene intercut with the violence of the killer's arrival. Good scene for an exploitation film; however, Aja is not fully committed to exploitation either.

The film is bereft of the cheap thrills that make exploitation sickly entertaining. The masturbation scene is fully clothed and there is only a brief bit of nudity. The film was rumored to have been cut extensively to get down to the more audience-friendly R-Rating from the box office kiss-of-death that is NC-17. On the bright side, that could mean a heck of a Director's Cut DVD.

One might wonder if the cutting room floor is the resting place for the footage that helps High Tension make any sense at all. Maybe the scenes that tie together the utterly incomprehensible twist are all so disgustingly lascivious, they had to be cut. Whatever the explanation, High Tension remains a dopey, nonsensical horror film with violent potential unrealized by poor editing and a ludicrous story.

Movie Review Hereafter

Hereafter (2010) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Written by Peter Morgan

Starring Matt Damon, Cecile de France

Release Date October 22nd, 2010

Published October 21st, 2010

At 80 years old it appears that Clint Eastwood is ready to start a conversation about death. He's touched on the subject before, in both “Million Dollar Baby” and “Gran Torino,” but that conversation has mostly expressed his futile desire to control his destiny and decide how he goes out. In his new drama “Hereafter” Eastwood begins a conversation about the afterlife that some will find fascinating and others will find unsatisfying.

Matt Damon is ostensibly the star of “Hereafter” as George, a former psychic turned factory worker. George had a very successful business talking to the dead with books and his own website but the inherent sadness of what he did finally forced him to give it up. Now, George keeps to himself out of fear that if he even brushes someone's hand he may pick up some psychic connection to the dead. Needless to say, this has put a crimp in his love life.

Across the globe a French journalist named Marie Lelay (Cécile De France) is on vacation in some unnamed Asian country when it is devastated by a massive tidal wave. Marie is nearly killed and experiences a near death experience. When she returns to Paris to resume her life she finds herself plagued by visions of the hereafter and wanting to know for sure if she had indeed experienced death and proof of an afterlife.

Similar thoughts consume a British youngster named Marcus (Frankie/George McLaren) who has just lost his twin Brother Jason (George/Frankie McLaren). Jason was 12 minutes older and the leader to George's follower personality. Without Jason calling the shots George is unmoored and desperate to find a way to contact Jason in the hereafter. After he is removed from his junkie mom and placed with a nice foster family, George continuously runs away to seek psychics, mediums and any other crackpot promising a glimpse of the afterlife.

These three stories will eventually coalesce into one story in one location and it's a rather jarring use of deus ex machina on the part of director Clint Eastwood and Oscar nominated screenwriter (Peter Morgan). You can forgive the forced and mechanical way the plot trips into one space but it's not easy and requires some serious heavy lifting on the part of star Matt Damon.

Damon is the key to much of what works in “Hereafter.” He plays his psychic wound with a deep, soulful longing that is highly compelling and yet another example of Damon's exceptional talent as a character actor and a movie star. Damon carries off George's ability as a medium with a believable solemnity and sadness. He doesn't want this gift but wields it with care and sensitivity and you believe in it because he does.

French actress Cecile De France is an astonishing beauty in her elegant French-ness. She is both aloof and alluring. Less interesting are the young twin actors Frankie and George McLaren. It's not their fault really. Rather, it's the feeling that placing a young boy in this role feels a little emotionally suggestive. It feels like a dramatic shortcut to cast someone so young in such an emotional role.

None of the actors gets much help from the story which is basically nonexistent. “Hereafter” is not really a story so much as a cocktail party conversation starter for existentialists and true believers alike. Do you believe in the hereafter? What do you think it's like? Is there life after death? Can you talk to the dead? Are dead relatives waiting for you on the other side?

The conversation starts and each of the characters in “Hereafter” seems to have a perspective but what you really want is a definitive idea of what Clint Eastwood believes and that is just not there in “Hereafter”. Mr. Eastwood is comfortable touching off the conversation but when it comes to offering a definitive point of view on the hereafter Eastwood backs away and leaves the audience to attend to the major questions on their own.

There is nothing wrong with this approach; it's certainly a fascinating conversation. However, when it comes to raising these questions in a film it raises an expectation in the audience that the filmmaker will offer some kind of declaration of belief. We want answers and Clint Eastwood is not interested in giving an answer, just posing the questions and fobbing the conversation off on us as we walk out of the theater.

In the end it's not unfair to feel that Clint Eastwood cops out on the big question: What do you think the afterlife will be like Clint? With him being unwilling to answer the question “Hereafter” the movie feels aimless and adrift. Damon's ability to speak to the dead certainly hints at what the director believes the hereafter is like but the film hedges on just what heaven is like or even if there is a heaven. Where exactly are these souls in the hereafter? Earth? Heaven? Some strange abyss? What religion does this version of the hereafter adhere to?

Since we are talking about Clint Eastwood, an artist of the highest order, I will not assume a commercial motive behind the vagary of “Hereafter” and this version of the hereafter but if it were any other director who offered such a vague notion and failed to address any kind of religious order when talking about the hereafter one would certainly have to consider a commercial motivation. 

So, do I recommend “Hereafter?” It's a good question and one I've been wrestling with since I watched it. The answer is; kind of. Clint Eastwood is a masterful director and even his vague notions about the afterlife are populated by fascinating characters and elegant images. There is an overwhelming feel to “Hereafter;” the film casts a compelling shadow over the audience. At the end however, it's hard to escape the feeling that Eastwood chickened out. He wanted this conversation but is unwilling to commit his own true feelings about life after death to the big screen.

There is a fascinating divide in opinions developing over “Hereafter”. Older film critics are embracing the film while younger critics have been rejecting it. I am 34 years old and fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not so close to the grave that I spend much time thinking about death but I am not the young whippersnapper who believes in his unending invincibility. I am open to the conversation begun in “Hereafter” but I am not interested in vague notions, I want someone to be direct about their feelings on this issue and Eastwood is not being direct in “Hereafter” and that leaves me wanting more from this otherwise highly compelling film.

Movie Review: Around the World in 80 Days

Around the World in 80 Days (2004) 

Directed by Frank Coraci

Written by David Titcher 

Starring Jackie Chan, Steve Coogan, Cecile de France, Jim Broadbent, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Release Date June 16th, 2004 

Published June 15th, 2004 

History can be unkind to a movie. Take Mike Todd's immense vanity production 1956's Around The World In 80 Days. The film was the most extravagant and expensive production of it's time and was awarded Best Picture, beating Giant and The Ten Commandments. However, ask most critics about the film and you get a different picture altogether. The film is a God-awful mess for the most part.

Still it's a well-known title and has the Jules Verne name to back it up and thus we have a remake on our hands. Sure, it doesn't have the extravagance of original film but it does have the charm the previous film lacked. And there is a lot to be said for charm.

Phileas Fogg (Steve Coogan) is not one of those “head in the clouds” types and he's not a dreamer. He's just a scientist with faith in man's ability to accomplish any task. With his sometimes-unusual inventions, he pushes the boundaries of known human limits and pushes the patience of Britain's club of top scientists, led by Lord Kelvin (Jim Broadbent). Fogg's boundless imagination has yet to invent anything that impresses Lord Kelvin. In fact, Kelvin does all he can to prevent Fogg from becoming a full-fledged member of the club.

It is fate then that Fogg should meet a would-be thief who calls himself Passepartout (Jackie Chan), which is French-Chinese or so he explains. Passepartout, unknown to Fogg, has just robbed the bank of England but it's not what you think. Passepartout was merely retrieving an ancient artifact that was stolen from his village by the vial General Fang (Karen Mok) and sold to Lord Kelvin. While evading the police, Passepartout hides out at Fogg's mansion pretending to be a valet sent over by a service. It is Passepartout who hatches the 80 days bet as a way of getting Fogg to transport him back to China to return the artifact called The Jade Buddha.

The wager is thus: if Fogg can circumnavigate the globe in less than 80 days then Lord Kelvin will step down and name Fogg head of the Royal Academy of Science. However, if Fogg fails he must never invent again. With the wager in place we are off on a wild ride around the world with Passepartout being chased by the Chinese army of General Fang and both being pursued by the bumbling, Brit Inspector Fix (Ewan Bremner).

The guys aren't alone though. In France, they are joined by a sexy French painter Monique La Roche (Cecille De France) who basically exists as a function of the plot. After all what adventure movie doesn't have a love interest? It's in the movie rulebook so she's in the movie. It helps that she is easy on the eyes and quick with her spirited wit. Monique has an immediate attraction to Phileas who’s somewhat clueless, again, as the plot would have it.

Okay, we are not breaking new ground here and not just because this is a remake. There are a number of contrivances and shortcuts. This was after all directed by Adam Sandler's in house director Frank Coraci, so what else would you expect?

Still, the film does have a joyous spirit to it. It's funny and at times even exciting, especially Jackie Chan who has never been better. Some have said that Jackie Chan has lost a step but I didn't notice. If he's being helped by computers, wires or stunt doubles, it's well covered up and his stunt choreography is as good as it's ever been. Keep an eye out for his bench fighting scene against General Fang's men and the Statue of Liberty fight, two terrific, exciting fight scenes. Chan can also mug with the best of them and here he takes on an almost silent movie hero vibe as his face contorts into all sorts of exaggerated emotions. His facial expressions make up for his still nearly unintelligible accent.

Sadly, the wonderful Steve Coogan who was so memorable in 24 Hour Party People never really comes to life in this film. Coogan's Phileas Fogg is entirely too straight-laced and uptight to be interesting. His main emotions stem from his constant need to keep track of time. The rare scenes where he does spark are the romantic moments with the lovely Cecille De France, who has enough energy and spark for the both of them. She looks as if the French have cloned Brittany Murphy and given her an accent, and like Murphy, it's her boundless spirit that makes her so sexy.

As a family movie, Around The World in 80 Days will try the patience of young children with it's few dead spots. However, once Chan has some butts to kick the kids and some of the parents will be very entertained. Try and forget the original film and especially forget Jules Verne who deserves better and has yet to see his work fully realized onscreen. Around The World in 80 Days is not for purists or nitpickers, it is simply a brainlessly entertaining piece of pop candy.