Reviews

Have you noticed the similarities between, not only «Conflict» and «Vertigo» (1958), but also with «The Two Mrs. Carroll» (1947)? Indeed, in these movies, there is at least one of the following occurrences : 1) A husband planning to get rid of his wife. 2) A woman who «mysteriously» disappears after entering a building while being followed by a man. 3) A clue that gives away the guilty person (a rose, a necklace). I'll stop here : if you're familiar with the three movies mentioned -- or just curious about the «mechanics» of good suspense/noir films plotting -- then I'll leave it to you to find more connections. You may argue that, since «Vertigo» came after the others, if any «imitation» is to be pointed out, then Hitchcock's film would be the one to «blame». Perhaps.... Yet, none of the other two come close to the first part of «V.», in the atmospheric and hypnotic suggestion of a «romantic ghost».

At first viewing, I barely noticed the «special pen» that belonged to Miss Greer. And then, I started asking myself the following questions -- which I put to you, dear reader. Did you ever wonder what may have caused the plane's compass to go astray -- which, in many ways, could have provoked the forced crash landing in the middle of the jungle ? Did you notice how, when they first sat in the plane, Mr. Widmark promptly moved away from the top of the dashboard his gun -- which Miss Greer had just put there ? Did you notice the magnetic pen with which Miss Greer took notes in her leather-covered note-book -- that pan that automatically jumped and glued itself on the side on the note-book, as soon as it was placed near it ? My theory is that the plane forced landing was due to.... that magnetized pen ! By putting her hand-bag, with that pen in it on the dash-board, Miss Greer inadvertently caused the compass to malfunction.... And that's why Mr. Widmark displaced his gun from the top of the dash-board... NEAR the compass ! Both the gun and the pen contain METAL (easily magnetizable) which may have affected the good functioning of the compass ! «Elementary ?»....Indeed, yet... after the fact, since I admit having not noticed that, at first. And so, if YOU DID notice all that, upon your first viewing of the movie, then.... my most sincere congratulations !

Do not be mislead by «djquigley»'s review. Here is what that honorable person writes, and I quote : ********* « Overview: Remember those 1970s Sunday night murder mysteries: McMillan and Wife, McCloud and Columbo? Well, I believe the McBride series is an attempt to hearken back to these. A murder gets committed and its up to the viewer to try to figure out who did it as McBride tries to solve the case. » ******** NO ! NO ! NO ! In the Colombo series, it was exactly the OPPOSITE : at their beginning, we were shown HOW and WHY each murder was committed, and most importantly, WHO DID IT ! So....to err is human, and sometimes to write just about ANYTHING that's UNFOUNDED is (....). -- Out of sheer politeness, I won't spell out the missing word, but any reader can easily imagine «IT» !

Hi, there ! I'm referring here to the other review entitled : «A well crafted, smartly done package», dated 19 August 2008». With which I beg to differ respectfully. Indeed I disagree with it, on numerous points -- on my own accord, regardless of all the other many rather BAD reviews which that film received from MANY other knowledgeable sources, such (if you read French) this one : http://www.excessif.com/cinema/critique-la-capture-4708245-760.html. I summarize its last telling paragraph, thus : «.... a film which annihilates itself from its very first moments by building an empty story line -- shamelessly so ! -- and by scaffolding a banal and vulgar «market-place-gossip» type of psychology, in order to justify its characters' deeds -- often sensationally exploited ! In short, that movie is like a «dead electro-«brain waves reading machine» : there is almost nothing really worth noting, except sometimes some nice poetic touches that are wasted in such a pretentious wanderings of an awkward tale of revenge and pointless overall motivations! With all due respect, my opinion is that Miss Laure, now in her sixties, should either start playing, under good direction, parts of an elderly woman and NOT try, again and again -- UNSUCESSFULLY -- to write and direct her own movies ! »

First, allow me to state my thanks to C. L. for having enlightened me a lot on the rich underlying historical background of that important movie ! ************************* Who would ever believe in the eventual success of the «last strategy» depicted, in that film ? It's allegedly directly based upon the famous classical «Art of Warfare» ancient writings. And it did work -- even if it could seem naive. You could well ask: «Would an experienced, mighty old ruler be so easily «fooled» by one of his worst enemies' wife (knowing who she is and especially at a time when he's in the midst of a very violent war with her husband and two others -- even if she IS rather beautiful ... ?» In fact, she comes to him, with no other explanation than to «prepare some tea» for him ! This occurs when that ruler should be watching very carefully the «crucial-to-his-immanent-victory» changing direction of the wind. Not only does he «forget» about that, but he even drinks some tea — not suspecting at all that the warm, delicious liquid COULD be drugged .... which, of course, it IS!!! All this may seem like a huge blunder from the ruler's part... when, in fact, it is a very clever strategy from the young woman’s part, aiming to avoid a lot of more bloodshed. I don’t want to give away too much of what underlines this clever move –- but let it suffice to say that it’s linked to a beautiful portrait of a lady, in profile –- and the evil ruler’s hidden REAL reason in wanting to conquer one of his opponents’ armies ! In fact, this situation could be reminiscent of a kind of «Asiatic Helen of Troy situation» ! And so, famous director John Woo us offers one portrayal of the military strategist Zhuge Liang’s, who developed the 'Eight Dispositions'. These eight battle strategies (which include the one of «The Lure of the Beautiful Woman» (as exposed above) were reportedly based on Liang's reading of the I-Ching, and proved to be devastatingly effective in this memorable battle. On the whole, it is a very spectacular movie, with lots of action, bloodshed and, at the end, a lot of necessary explosions and fire.... In between, there are some very soothing and beautifully quiet moments, including a kind of «musical duel» between two rival men… And I must be fair and admit that, towards the end, there's also one exceptionally wonderful shot, lasting quite a few minutes (a breathtakingly continuous one) which remains vivid in my memory, with admiration and almost wonderment : it starts with a close shot of a dove on a ship then, tracking back and tailing it, it follows the beautiful «flow» of its flight above an immense river -- running between high cliffs -- and filled with hundreds of war ships.... Overall, rarely have I seen such a expertly-staged and lavishly filmed war movie -- with such esthetically satisfying images -- and enhanced with many wisely philosophical undertones ! NOTE: The story (read, «History», too) of «Chi bi» is a very well known «classic» in many East Asian countries -– comparable to the Western World’s knowledge of Homer’s «Odyssey» and «Illiad» --, and, while the U.S. and Canadian release version lasts about 2 hours and 30 minutes, it’s actually shortened from the two-part, five-hour edition the director released on the Asian continent.

This is my opinion on this movie, one of the very, very few I could not tolerate to the end. Half way through, I ran out of the theater almost like a madman ! I know straight from the horse's mouth -- in this case, straight from a famous female Outremont clown -- that her kid sister went around raving about Mouawad's talents, ever since he had read a draft of his play to her. Now, I had seen an early version of that same story in a «try-out reading». It was his first work for the stage and in it, Mouawad himself played the main character. It could be most politely described as the trials and tribulations of a «search in a very dirty and smelly lavatory» ! It was a grotesque kind of so-called «comedy-drama» (!). While this movie HAD to avoid many of the most «repelling» aspects of the first version of the play, it still transpires with the surprising way violence can disturb an adolescent, but also later inspire him, as an author... with a minimum of talent and a maximum of pretensions and opportunities. And also perhaps as Freud might have said, this is an example of what can happen with an anal fixation transformed, metaphorically and financially speaking -- thanks to the disguises of art -- into an «acceptable» (well, almost !) form and even into a «gold mine» (no kinky pun intended). To be fair, I write all this from what I saw of the film : only about the first 45 minutes. Could a «miracle» have happened with the other half ? I doubt that very much.

I don't think anybody came up with what I've written in the «Summary». Which is the gist of what «Minority Report» is about. Can one be judged by his intentions to commit a given crime, even if one does not actually commit such a crime ? Also, playing the «Time Machine» game would, in fact, be «useless» in the sense that TIME could then be run forward OR backward... In other words, all real actions could then be annulled and re-enacted... endlessly... again and again... Anyway... Am I one of the very few rare viewers who did NOT enjoy that film ? I hated the bluish all-invading tints (so very «COLD» and very unpleasant to look at!). Tom Cruise, whose profile is somewhat «birdlike», makes for a boyish, almost midget-like «hero» (notice his constant elevator shoes that hardly make up for his short 5 foot 7 stature). Although the special effects and the pictorial inventions are amazing (with obvious echoes of «A.I.»), it's just another action fare disguised as a futuristic, so called philosophical fable. As almost always with Spielberg's films (perhaps apart from «Schindler's List»), when I was viewing it, on the spur of the «action/moments», I got involved. But then, later when the dust fell down, so to speak, I realized that I had fallen for another spectacularly rather superficial tale (oh, yes!), with high-brow pretensions. Sorry folks, that's MY opinion. And I'm as entitled to it as you are to yours.

Has anybody noticed (or, for that matter, mentioned) the many similarities (and of course, discrepancies) between this Woody Allen great comedy-mystery entry and Alfred Hitchcock's mid-fifties classic «Rear Window» ? Apart from the basic premise of a neighbor's murder, some similarities are «sex-wise reversed» : for example, the Diane Keaton and Jimmy Stewart characters suspect foul play whereas the Allen and Grace Kelly characters at first dismiss that suspicion as fantasy. Besides this linkage - as far as I know -, the only Hitchcock movie Allen does refer to directly in one of his own films is «Notorious» : it occurs in «Hollywood Ending» in which the Woody Allen character discusses the effect that the ending of the Cary Grant-Ingrid Bergman movie has always had on him ! And he does mention that «Notorious» is one of his favorites films. Overall, I found the «cinéma-vérité» type of photography (had-held and seemingly improvised) a little bit disturbing... even if I suspect that this was done in order to give the picture a spontaneous documentary style.

Perhaps because I had already heard and read so much about «Laura» - while always avoiding to find out about it's most important spoiler i.e. who was the murderer, I expected if not guessed the plot reversal which occurs after about 45 minutes. Besides, it was unlikely that lovely Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews, the two first billed stars, would be together in a film without ever meeting -– or falling in love (which was something that their very presence and the posters hinted at). I have a few reserves about the movie in spite of the fact that I liked it and found it quite captivating : 1) It's somewhat too talkative and the «red herring» regarding Shelby Carpenter's (Vincent Price) possible guilt took too long to be dispelled. 2) I expected Laura's «return» (for the reasons stated above) but the disclosure of the «who» and «why» were still very interesting. 3)(A very personal opinion) Clifton Webb is present constantly on the screen during almost the whole first half of the movie - therefore I think it was a bit unfair that he was nominated for a «supporting» role. Of course, this was very lucky for him since he did win the Oscar for that part – and this launched his «second» and more rewarding film career. 4) «A dream or not a dream : that is the question.» What happens during the second half could be a dream except that I wouldn't fully buy that because of the huge «sense of not having been fulfilled» it would leave the viewer with : a) It would leaves too many loose ends untied (can anyone imagine what the movie would be like without it's second part – even if the first half was «expanded» to last some 90 minutes ? BUT b) It might explain the fact that Waldo Lydecker - having not died - would be telling the story, in the first place – UNLESS the beginning narration was quoted from some of the late Lydecker's writings. But this would be an extrapolating supposition... Isn't it obvious that «Laura» would need too many of these extrapolating suppositions in order to be coherent ? I think so ! This brings me to c) Webb's beginning narration should have been «balanced» by an ending narration - one way or another... even if, considering the film as it is, I wouldn't know how this could adequately be done (I am NOT an experienced screenplay writer) d) McPherson's «sudden love» for Laura seems to be... too sudden - even if we all know that love at first sight does happen. But could it be so when triggered by a dead woman – as a result of seeing her portrait and of listening to what others had to say about her ? e) Lydecker's sexuality is very ambiguous (even though I know that in 1944 homosexuality was, so to say, inexistent in movies and had to be hinted at very obliquely). ****HOW ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT LYDECKER WAS A SEXUALLY IMPOTENT BISEXUAL???**** Whatever might have been his sexual inclinations, his motives for wanting to murder Laura are therefore not only most ambiguous – but also somewhat incredible : going to such an extreme intention of murdering, is not only a «useless risk taking» project but could have been easily avoided. Was Lydecker, the very possessive «mentor», really as paranoid as that to commit a murder ? He seemed to be able to function very well in society. It's somewhat incredible that, since in the past, he got rid of Jacoby, the painter with whom Laura was involved, he couldn't break up Laura's affair with Carpenter (described by a reviewer as «dim-witted»). Why couldn't Lydecker succeed in concocting another efficient and wicked way of getting Laura's new suitor out of the way... ? Unless, of course, using the «excuse» of Laura's «betrayal», Lydecker is triggered into having at last a chance of committing a murder - and of getting away with it. I know, I know : with too many «ifs» and suppositions, there wouldn't be a movie - or a completely different one (no wonder that the author on the novel on which the film was based was not satisfied with the result of the adaptation!)! At any rate, fiction has to be somewhat more «believable» even if we all know that movies (as fiction) are often magnificent «illusions». After all, we like so much to be «taken on a ride» by a good story with a solid construction - not a patched-up one. Alas! in spite of all its undeniable qualities, «Laura» fails to past the test of logical close scrutiny ! Notice how many scriptwriters have worked on the film : three – one alone and then two others together. It's usually a bad «omen» which often gives... patched-up results !