Occhi di serpente

Why has this movie not benefited of a good release? I discovered it one night, as it was screened on the tv, and I was simply astonished. This a total perverse movie, playing on the edge of reality & fiction. Simply troubling,and dangerous. If you like getting close to the edge of things...

If you have a dark world view and a great deal of patience,

Dangerous Game might be the flick for you. It made me think

about the individual scenes that make a film, and the performances therein that elicit a particular response in the viewer. The whole movie is difficult to watch-at times I had to look away.

On the surface one might dismiss it as Crackhead Cassavetes.

But Keitel's character Eddie Israel and real-life director Abel

Ferrara's intentions run parallel-both men lead their actors on a

descent into a personalized hell. The script on occasion seems

ponderous and repetitive-at some points it seems as though

director Eddie Israel's film-within-a-film consists of only one

scene. James Russo (always creepy to watch) is a tightly-wound

sickening knot as Burns, and Madonna's portrayal of Sarah as

victim is an equally punishing one, both for the actress and the

viewer. And when Keitel hits you with the signature half-whine,

half-howl we hate to love him for, the fat lady has sung. There isn't

one weak performance in this film, but it's not fun at all. You

wonder why this is called entertainment. It's entertaining in the

same way watching two strangers nearly come to blows is

entertaining-you end up feeling good because it's not happening

to you.

This one is not your typical Hollywood fare. Emotionally gripping and confronting, "Dangerous Game" cuts to the core of human nature and our search for answers and meaning. Abel Ferrara's exploration of our desires, fears, and failings rings painfully true. Starring Madonna (don't let that put you off) Harvey Keitel and James Russo, and directed by Abel Ferrara, this is an interesting psychological drama about a directors obsession with his film, and the stars breakdown of reality during their making of it. This film is filmed like a documentary about the actors in their film how they get on or not get on you will have to watch it to get the benefit, my description is not fulfilling the content of the film very well.

Madonna and Harvey Keitel are extremely good on their roles, and Madonna is actually able to prove that she can be very good if the role is good enough. She delivers a sincere performance about an actress too embroiled in the characters she plays. Along with the legendary Harvey Keitel, the cast does an amazing job portraying the seedy underbelly of the film industry, using what appears to be old- school method acting. Possibly the best Madonna performance in a movie ever! Such a shame her acting didn't continue along this road. She's actually very credible in this and years later, the movie itself seems much more cohesive than it was upon first viewing.

Overall rating: 8 out of 10.

This is a strange and disturbing experimental movie. A rare and great performance by Madonna. She actually can act under the control of the right director. Although, I hear she hated. It seems ironic that she finally makes a good movie and doesn't even realize it. I guess she made some complaints that she thought her character was going to be stronger. (Funny, if she wants to be a Feminist Avenger, or some kind of role model of strength, maybe she shouldn't have made a career out of exploiting herself for fame and the all mighty dollar. Okay, now I'm ranting, but isn't funny how men are especially really down with the NeoFeminist Bull about how it's actually empowering for women to exploit themselves.) Ferrara plays with the autobiographical nature of the subject matter. The plot centers on a film director who compartmentalizes his personal and professional life, until the secrets of his professional life overwhelm him.

As a follow-up to Bad Lieutenant, which could be a possibility for director Abel Ferrara's best work to date (or at least most thought provoking), Dangerous Game aims for lower targets while trying for a similar approach to the dregs of a character's soul. Once again Harvey Keitel is the doomed figure, a man with such a self-destructive impulse that it'll lead him to nowhere decent. But this time he's not a cop on completely the edge of society and self, but a movie director who is making a film with such high-intensity, raw emotional drama that it would make John Cassavetes wince. The main actors in Eddie's movie (Keitel) are Sara (Madonna) and Francis (James Russo) become victim to that old tune of art imitating life, or vice versa (as the chicken came from the egg and back again sort of thing) that starts to make the film within Dangerous Game a very volatile situation. All the while Eddie's demands on his actors involve spiritual death via drugs and alcohol and mutual decay towards one another, an abusive relationship where the sexual games have gone sour and all that's left is remorse and contempt depending on the beat. Soon this seeps out for real, as Francis can't distinguish from acting or reality, and a rape scene within the movie becomes all too real on the set. And, of course, this leads further for Eddie's own path of horror.

Unlike Ferrara's previous film, this time Keitel's character doesn't have that possibility for redemption- in Hollywood, in search of the most brutally honest picture, Eddie Israel won't stop until he practically gets what he's got bottled up inside right onto screen, no matter what it does to his actors whom he professes to enjoy and be friendly with (and with Sara more-so). He indulges in drink and more importantly women via the movie business, while still keeping up appearances with his wife (Nancy Ferrara) and little boy. So with this lack of Eddie meeting towards any kind of possible sign of hope- and keep in mind the Herzog clip from Burden of Dreams- it's almost despair for despair's sake. And watching the scenes being filmed by the actors(The Mother of the Mirrors), though not totally awful, I'm reminded of the old Gene Siskel line about the actors eating lunch being more interesting than the movie itself. Still with these flaws noticed, not to mention a very strange ending that leaves off the character's in some kind of demise either real or filmic (maybe it's the point), it's still a good film, or rather a film that defies its own experimental boundaries to be always fascinating, if only to a film buff like myself.

I liked individual scenes very much, like one where Keitel's character directs Madonna's Sara into delivering lines to the camera believably by insulting her as a 'commercial whore', to which she finally gives him what he wants (it's something that is sometimes mentioned among directors or other actors trying to get believable turns by the other actor), or in seeing the a very understated scene where Keitel and Madonna do a slow dance out by a pool and he sings a soft tune. I also loved the scene involving Keitel and Ferrara (how she's related to the director I don't know) when he reveals to her his major transgressions as she has returned home for her father's funeral (just casting her, too, is wise in showing someone very believable as a person in Hollywood's good & normal side). What helps too is the willingness of the principle actors to just give it their all, as if they'd kill to get what they're doing right for the director, murky script and all. Truth be told, I found this to be a real high point for Madonna as an actress, not playing some easier part to play like in Desperately Seeking Susan or League of Their Own, but having to actually tap into her more decadent side that she loved (at the time) to make as a part of her media image. Russo, too, is good here, if maybe almost dangerously one-note as a man so intense and "method" that he threatens the whole production.

Finally, there's Keitel, who never ceases to amaze me with what he can do even in moments when the material gives him little to do but to look off in a scene with a stare or expression of inner-hell. Actually, that's one of the things he's probably perfected since the 1970s. He has moments where he bends his demanding exterior, and there's tenderness to be found within the self-destructiveness in Eddie. The only problem then lies with Keitel lacking a means to really channel this into something leading somewhere- by the end his character doesn't know what he'll do with the film, or how to finish it, and this sort of abrupt ending leaves the actors as well as the film in the cold. But as a film about film-making, I've seen worse, and I might even like it more if I catch it late one night on cable (definitely *that* kind of movie).