pol-mas

The much awaited Friends reunion suffers from poor production, direction and edition. As if they knew their guaranteed success with how much of a revival there has been with Friends lately, and did not put an effort to make something memorable.

The whole thing is misguided, for starters, you never get what is this supposed to be: reunion, documentary, talk show, testimonials, stock footage, or what exactly?

There are nice nostalgia-fuelled moments, specially in the beginning, when they are revisiting the set, remembering scenes. The interviews with producers and script reads were fun too, but unfortunately, much time was devoted to pointless filler segments like:

1. Testimonials: really? Do we need to hear 20 minutes of random people, telling us how they liked the show and how it "saved their lives" (some parts had cult-like vibes).

2. Celebrity cameos: completely unnecessary, we don't need nor care about their opinions and stunts.

3. The talk show segment: a badly scripted, poorly presented cringe fest in its entirety, should be completely edited out.

Instead of the above, secondary characters should have had a much stronger presence. Most are completely ignored or given token 20 second segments.

All in all, a sadly missed opportunity for a memorable reunion, that with Perry is no longer with us, cannot be remade. Besides Leblanc, who is having a blast, the rest look uncomfortable, uninterested, and only there for the paycheck. Aniston is even checking her phone during Gordon's interview. Don't feel guilty Jennifer, I was checking my phone too.

In the XVIII century, a retired Danish army captain is a given barren crown land to try improve it, a task deemed impossible by most due to its poor soil conditions. If he succeeds, he will be given a title and become an aristocrat, his long held ambition. Growing crops in marginal land will not be his only challenge, he will have to face the unforgiving weather, the wandering outlaws, and worst of all, a megalomaniac aristocrat that does not tolerate a commoner owning his own land besides his manor.

The movie had all the ingredients to be a thrilling "Eastern" (a Western set in Europe) and to appeal to a broad audience, even American ones if done right. It does that during the first half, we see the captain struggling with all the aforementioned foes, and despite may setbacks, his unbreakable will prevailing. We accompany him in a journey of turning a desolate land and desperate people into a blossoming grove and a jolly community.

However, because of European pessimism or some other reason, all the hope built goes to naught in the second part as the movie descends into ever darker parade of explicit violence, cruelty, and revenge. The dreams, the hope of a better life of the first half we were starting to feel a part of are thereafter turned into nightmares, and the only hope that seems to remain is that of revenge.

It is because of this inexplicable dark and bloody turn in the second half that I cannot recommend this movie to a general audience. It is a pity that the director, maybe out of ideas, or wanting to avoid a happy outlook to life at all costs, chose to grip the audiences with shock value and hateful motives rather than more subtle character development (and believe me, the movie has an immense unrealised potential on this part).

Yes, in the last three minutes of the movie there is a sweet pill, but it happens so late, so randomly, that it might have as well not been there).

Let's start by the positive things: acting, photography, settings, detail. What could go wrong with so many tasteful ingredients? That the measures were wrong. Instead of focusing on the promising and mysterious relationship unfolding between the main protagonists, for most of the runtime we are forced to gorge on an endless parade of French culinary glories (unfortunately, only visually, which is what makes it frustrating). It is not that I did not like the movie, it is more like I felt that there was no "movie", no drama. I consider myself a fan of European slow paced cinema, but only when a drama is actually unfolding. Maybe it's just that I missed something. Would not recommend unless you are a studying French high cuisine from the XIX century, in that case, go ahead, it is the perfect documentary.