Intacto

For us "normal" people luck comes in streaks of good and bad, sometimes we have rotten luck, sometimes we fluke something and sometimes miracles happen. However for some people "luck" is a gift that is always with them but can be lost with the touch of another person with the same gift. When Federico is stripped of his gift by Samuel, a survivor of the concentration camps, he sets out to find another gifted as he was and use him as a way back into the series of games they play. He finds Tomas – the only survivor or a massive airplane crash that killed over 230 others. However, when Tomas flees his hospital bed he is pursued by a police officer, haunted by the loss of her husband and son, who also has the gift.

This film opens with a cool sense of atmosphere with people wearing hoods, long corridors, mysterious characters and so on, providing it with a good start but not one it builds on. That it manages to continue with a good visual style and a cool thriller atmosphere is what I will give it credit for but to me these are not enough to make this film work. The plot is very little more than a basic premise, which, although it acted as a very interesting hook, failed to serve anything in the way of substance or narrative up. The plot lacks logic and it relies on a series of reasonably good set pieces (the games) to keep the interest in the film up – I can see why Hollywood has bough the rights to remake it because it does have style and, if it gets a big name and a thriller director, the lack of substance shouldn't worry too many execs. The ending is good but by that point I wasn't feeling all that involved in the film and it had missed its chance to really get me on board.

In many ways the film reminded me of "Lucky Star", which some may remember was an advert pretending to be a trailer for a film about a man with impossible luck (played by Del Toro and directed by Michael Mann) but I thought the advert did it better. The characters are also pretty thin; I expected them to be complex and interesting considering the plot, but they were tools more than people. With this in mind, the cast actually did OK with what they have. Sbaraglia was a good presence with a good range; Poncela was coolly mysterious; Lopez was passionate and held the attention, but von Sydow just seems to be off in his own film somewhere, just filling time with the second unit director until the rest of the cast meet up with him.

Overall this has a concept that will bring many too it, but it doesn't do anything with it and it never really managed to get a good, involving story built up around it nor create characters to be held by. It is not terrible though, just hollow and unsatisfying – a few set pieces and consistently stylish direction and atmosphere all add value but this will be one time when I'm actually looking to a Hollywood remake to be an improvement.

This Spanish film is a strange one, a hard one to follow story-wise, but visually striking and interesting most of the way. The fact is wasn't always easy to follow will help me want to watch this again to see if I can figure things out better.

The story involves people with th ability to steal "luck" from other people and then taking it away from fellow takers. Make sense? I didn't think so. Despite the difficulty following and understanding everything, I still enjoyed this film.

The DVD transfer is sharp, too, and has good sound. It's an intriguing film and, perhaps, I should have waited for a second viewing when I understood more things about the story. Suffice to say I thought enough of this film to buy it because I knew I'd be watching this multiple times.

INTACTO (INTACT) is the story of a group of `gamblers' whose ultimate bet is their own life (or others peoples life). Sam (Max Von Sydow) a Jewish only survivor of a concentration camp, runs a high class Hotel / Casino in the in a volcanic island. There; while normal people use money, others come to bet their possessions (which are not money) against Sam's wealth (the casino and other `things' he won over the years). The game, Russian roulette, one empty chamber, the challenger shoots first. Sam's protégé, Federico, concerned that Sam may someday lost, and moved by his own ambition, decides to go against him, but to avoid the confrontation, Sam `de-activate' Federico.

At this point you are probably questioning about what I am writing; well, basically these characters can control LUCK. Yes, they have plenty and are able to steal others people luck and use it for their own profit or as a possession to bet against others.

Federico is no longer able to control luck; so he must find his own protégé to play against Sam, and finds Tomas, a fugitive (only survivor of a plane crash) whose only interest is to run away. Three other characters emerge: a police woman, a bull fighter and Tomas ex-girlfriend; everyone is a part of the destiny of the others.

Harry Potter is nowhere around; there are no WIZARDS or enchantments. If you ever knew a gambler, you probably heard about their eccentricities, like do not touch them, do not take pictures a some other things many people believe and many others are afraid to confront.

The basic principle of atheism is that men control their own destiny; and that is precisely the question here. All these people believe in themselves; they are their own God, but also when their faith is lost, also are their powers. Are there really powers ?. The answer of these questions is absolutely metaphysical because faith in itself has no logical explanation.

Fresnadillo's movie is not for everyone. There are no likable heroes (every character is moved by selfishness or ambition), and the premise is absolutely about religion and nothing about the material world (even when seems the contrary). At about two hours, the pace is more European than American and are not quite clear, but none of these things are faults, is just a matter of taste.

There are also very intense and interesting scenes like the run in the forest, that will take out your breath.

If you are out for something unconventional, give it a try. It is an interesting game.

There is a strange atavistic, primitive even primeval core to this film. I spent part of my childhood in south west Ireland; I can clearly remember that people (men with a winning streak at the races or at cards or anything where luck is involved) would be touched by others to steal some of their luck. Those individuals with the lucky streak would do their best to avoid such contacts, often with threats of violence! This was all over sixty years ago. These primitive superstitions ought not to be easily discounted. Not so long ago man was much closer to the shadows of the forest than we sophisticates. The evil eye was a real force, the green man really existed. Our ancestors knew this. I loved this film I know something of what the film is trying to recapture before it's lost forever. It's not an easy film to sit through first time but stick with it. There's gold here. Technically it's making is first class. The acting is flawless and the directing to die for; it succeeds brilliantly on every front. This film will remain in my collection of great film memories. I recommend it to all and pay homage to those who made it.

What is perhaps crucial about this movie is that it is shaped for a sophisticated cine-maniac,not so very keen about action and plot,rather willing to focus on the very atmosphere of the movie and the questions it puts in front of the viewer.

Whole idea of the movie is to find the real connection between love and luck,to investigate whether they are two sides of the same story. If one believes love could be a drug much more powerful than heroine , what to tell about luck - especially if one's life is all about taking advantage and satisfaction of luck possessed.

Slow,bit dream-like narration,avoiding obvious solutions,think-forcing movies and great photography makes Intacto my favorites.

To conclude I can quote Jill Scott:"gave me things to think about"