The Strangers

English/86Minutes/2008/Unrated

I did not like this movie. However, that doesn't mean that it isn't pretty good at what it sets out to do. The film is about a couple on the rocks (Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler) who are terrorized by a group of faceless teenagers.

The first 10 minutes of the film are great drama as both Speedman and Tyler are able to play this disintegrating relationship and the complexities of adult romance. In fact they should just take the first 10 minutes and extend it a little bit as it would make a great short film. Unfortunately the film takes a horror film turn about 20 minutes in and things fall apart.

There are plenty of cliché moments here and characters do the characteristically stupid things that horror movie characters do. There are the loud screeches when a villain appears, lots of screaming and crying. The movie does have a certain intensity but upon reflection its weaknesses become manifest.

Hollywood horror these days has an affinity for downbeat torturous films where villains win and heroes die horrible deaths. Films like this have nothing to offer the viewer unless they are trying to say something more. For example, “Seven” has a downbeat ending but there is closure and a sense of a greater message. Unfortunately for viewers this movie has nothing more to offer us.

Even the film's closest cousin, “Last House on the Left” had a sense of catharsis by the end. The Strangers just offers us up a story without hope and characters who lack a will to live. I know if someone were trying to kill me I'd be a lot more desperate and dangerous than the victims in this film.

I can't say I recommend the film, but I can't say it's not well done. The film is decently made and Bertino definitely has a good eye for composition. The acting is above average for a horror film and is really impressive in the first act. It's just a shame that this is all squandered in favor of a dismal and nihilistic vision.

Unrated: Mature Audiences, contains Violence/Terror, Sensuality and Language

Bent

English/104 Minutes/1997/Rated NC-17

“Queer is out, queer is dead. Ra-ta-tat-tat,” says Greta (Mick Jagger) in “Bent,” a film based on a London play by Martin Sherman. The film is about gay playboy, Max (Clive Owen) who is caught up in the purging of homosexuals by Nazis in 1930s Germany.

Too save himself from worse persecution Max pretends to be Jewish instead of gay (which he has to prove in a rather grisly scene) and uses his family's money and his own wits to live a slightly better life than other prisoners in Dachau.

It is here that he meets and makes friends with prisoner Horst (Lothaire Bluteau) whom he corrals into the same work detail. Every day they move rocks from one pile to another and then back.

The two men try to find love and friendship even though they are not allowed to touch each other. This leads to some interesting scenes of verbal intercourse that are provocative but not all together sold by the players.

There are some wonderful images (the opening orgy in Berlin, a hat on an electrified fence) and some great performance moments (Jagger in drag is devilish), but these moments just make the ones that don't work more obvious. The writing is obviously meant for a small troop to perform on stage with limited props and personnel and the film suffers from this restriction.

Once the film leaves Berlin and moves into Dachau (played in the film by an abandoned cement factory, complete with ductwork) the level of believability plummets significantly. Also, as much as I love Clive Owen, this is not one of his best performances as he never reaches the intensity or honesty of Bluteau. In fact, it is Bluteau's turn as Horst that makes for the most memorable character, even though he doesn't appear until nearly halfway through the film.

The honesty, integrity and desperation of Horst are what ground the movie and push it into moments of brilliance. In one scene where the two men stand at attention, unable to face each other, Horst cries when Max's verbal love play turns aggressive. He doesn't come off as a preening queen, but as a lonely man who wants the comfort of love.

It is a testament to the players that these characters don't come off as farcical or one dimensional. Say what you will about the acting, but at least they are portraying homosexuals in a way other than the "queer eye" flavor we're all used to these days. I think what makes the movie engaging for us straight folk is that the humanity is stressed over the sexuality. We get to know these men as people, not just "gays." The best films about sexuality are this way, whether it's the dysfunction of "Closer" or the true-crime tragedy of "Boys Don't Cry."

Unfortunately the film is handicapped by its budget and its focused writing. With few extras and a less than believable concentration camp the story doesn't hold up. Also the idea that these two men would be left alone to work seems to stretch the credibility. I understand this film was low budget but if you can't effectively sell the drama on film, perhaps your story is best left on the stage.

The play, first shown in 1979 (with a young Ian McKellan as Max), was among the first to openly discuss the treatment of homosexuals during the Holocaust. It asks the important question “what's wrong with being homosexual?” and has lead to such projects as the documentary “Paragraph 175” about survivors of this persecution.

In this age of saturation of stories about the Holocaust and World War II in Europe, it is refreshing to see a different perspective. The Holocaust story has been told many times on film and it is becoming difficult for filmmakers to tell the story in new and engaging ways. Many either make a showcase of horrors (The Grey Zone), or decide not to show the atrocity (The Counterfeiters). “Bent” is a fresh perspective that is honest and non-exploitative and should be applauded as such.

I recommended the film but only as there aren't many of its type. There are better holocaust films and better films about sexual identity, but “Bent” does try and for that it should be credited.

On a more sinister note, while the film is NC-17 there is not much here to warrant it. What sex there is takes place in the opening orgy scene and nary a penis in sight. The offending scene is two men having anal sex, which we see from behind and there is some thrusting. You've seen much worse in R-Rated films. The rating is sad proof that there is still “something wrong” with being gay. Recommended with reservations.

Rated NC-17 for a strong scene of graphic sexuality, explicit sexual dialogue, some brutal violence, language and drug use

The Last Deadly Mission (AKA MR 37)

French/125 Minutes/Not Rated

I happened to find this little gem on the shelf of my local Blockbuster and admittedly I was struck by the cover. It's a profile shot of Daniel Auteuil with a sharp pointed font shouting “The Last Deadly Mission.” I liked that the guy on the cover didn't look like an airbrushed big named 30 something. When I figured out it was a French film, everything made sense.

I'm going to take part of this review to rail against Blockbuster's marketing of their Exclusive films like this one. The front cover you see implies a dangerous thriller or action film. The back cover says:

“Where Justice Ends... Vengeance Begins. An out of control cop dangerously close to the edge is the only one who can protect a young woman from the murderous insanity of a serial killer. Destroyed by the death of his wife and child, Detective Louis Schneider (Daniel Auteuil) is lost until he agrees to protect Justine (Olivia Bonamy) from the madman who forced her to watch him kill her mother and father. Tough, gritty, and violent, this dark, exciting, true crime story is based on writer and director Olivier Marchal's real-life experiences as a street cop.”

Normally I wouldn't quote something so long but I do so to say this: the back cover does not describe the movie accurately AT ALL. In fact it barely describes the last act, ignoring the preceeding 100 minutes all together and his wife is NOT DEAD! There is no agreement to protect the “damsel in distress” and it's a true crime story in the same way that any Law and Order episode is, which is to say, crime happens, so it's based on a true story.

You would think from the cover and the description that this is a cop/victim thriller in the vein of Blink or maybe Jagged Edge, etc. Maybe it will be another titillating bit of exploitation, some T&A and some good gore effects, right? Nothing could be further from the truth. What Marchal provides here is not a thriller but a character study of a cop who is slowly dying on the inside and the slimy world he inhabits. It's closest analogue in American cinema (or any recent cinema) would be Abel Ferrera's Bad Lieutenant or perhaps Takashi Kitano's Fireworks (Hana-Bi).

Much like Keitel in Bad Lieutenant, Daniel Auteiul plays Louis as a man who has been beaten up by the world and is content to just wallow in his misery, going through the motions of life. But Louis is not a man in search of redemption or even considering it. In the films opening lines he says “God is a son of a bitch. Some day I will kill him.” This is as close as we get to his true interior life.

Marchal's characters are enigmas to us, but not to themselves. Gazes between characters are filled with knowledge and history, most of which is left for us to infer. Flashbacks are disjointed, shown in brief glimpses, ever longer, but never revealing all there is to see. We are never allowed the details or to be inside the character's head or motivations.

Just as we are never allowed to experience the interior lives of the characters, Marchal's directing choices seem determined to keep us at a distance (with a few rare exceptions). Even with such lurid material as a serial killer, dirty cops, and sexual misdeeds, the shots are reserved but not hesitant. Nothing is stylized and the sex and violence aren't used for titillation. If anything this respectful treatment of death and the human condition is what makes the violence that much more real.

For example, the first crime scene is presented with little lead up. The men walk in the room and see an older woman, naked and covered in blood laying on a bed. There is no shock, no longing shots of a nude body. Rather it all has a rather stark feel to it, much like anyone else. Go to work, check out the in box (ah, dead body number 5), get started. The film is striking in its unwillingness to engage us on a visceral level and instead lets us think about the characters and their actions.

The story is essentially about incredibly damaged and beaten down people who have given up trying to make a difference. The cops are nearly all dirty and the clean ones are portrayed as slaves to the bureaucracy. The victims are all shattered, if not paralyzed by the evil that has exploded into their lives. Then there are the villains themselves who are just as evil as you might expect (or not expect).

Even in the final reel when the inevitable occurs it is not tinged with rage or catharsis but is shown rather matter-of-factly without extra fanfare, quick cuts or loud music. There is no monologuing. The characters never justify themselves to us or in many cases even to each other. The final showdown features no dialogue at all, just a brief action which is not dwelt upon.

This is a rare film that denies us the visceral catharsis but in doing so gives us something more. We are given ample time to observe and reflect, seeing the tragedies that unfold at a distance. The sympathy we have for Louis is born out of his commitment to doing the right thing. In the end it is his sense that the scales can be balanced, but at a high price, that leads his character's arc. Louis does not justify what he is does and neither does the director. Is what he doing futile? Does he care? That's for us to decide. Recommended.

NOT RATED: Mature Audiences, contains Strong Language, Sex/Nudity, Bloody Violence and Thematic Elements.