Ash512

Five is by far Kiarostami's most perfected film. His art has reached a level of maturity that very few directors can ever dream of reaching. This is what minimalism really is : saying nothing yet expressing everything.

In a nutshell, Five is an experience for the sight. There is a strong narrative in every shots. Suspense is created from these Deleuzian pure optical/aural situations, you watch every wave hit the shore and suddenly your mind awakes. All of the elements of narrative films is right there, albeit being in their most absolute minimal form : suspense, tension, relief.

Five, unlike Hollywood films, works only if the viewer submits himself entirely to the experience. It takes cinema back to its very beginning : unipunctual "views", like Lumière films. One might argued that it's a film about cinema in many ways.

Five is actually a very entertaining film, as long as you walk in open minded and keep your brain active. Food for thoughts.

I saw this at the Fantasia Film Festival. I have to admit the first act has some really funny moment, and the actor who portrays Leslie Vernon is great. That being said, the second part turns into a full-blown slasher. The break is WAY too rough to really make it believable, plus the slasher part does not deliver the suspense nor the action, nor the gore we would expect from that kind of movie, which makes it quite monotonous and basically, dull. The director did an okay job, alternating between hand-held video cameras for the documentary parts and stable HD cams for the slasher parts. The guys does have a respect for the genre, but that won't necessarily make the movie good. The cast is pretty solid, especially the guy who plays Leslie Vernon like I said earlier.

So the ''mockumentary'' part is pretty funny, but the ending is terrible. Watchable, but not amazing.

It is sad to see that such a good film received so many bad reviews. I guess it's because it was distributed on such a wide market, and a lot of neophytes got the chance to rent it and didn't quite understand it. I've been a huge Van Bebber fan for years, and while I admit Charlie's Family (or The Manson Family) is probably Jim's weakest film, it remains nevertheless a very stylish and worthwhile little flick. It has the same kind of documentary feel that made "My Sweet Satan" such a brilliant movie, and that's probably why so few people got it. The actors are all amateurs (of course), but the overall acting is actually pretty good. The photography is one of the film's strongest point; strong flashy, 70's style colors.

The main problem with the movie to me is Van Bebber's way of demonizing Manson, in a way that doesn't really make it feel real, which sort of contradicts the documentary style used. But in some way, it makes it pretty unique: a surrealist, oneiric documentary.

Great movie.