City of Ghosts

I'm not necessarily saying it's as good as "Casablanca", but I'm saying there are some interesting parallels. "Casablanca" is probably one of the most atmospheric and characteristic films of the 20th century. It was one of the first films to sink itself into a dreamlike setting, drawing heavily on its location: a forgotten waterhole in the desert where Western exiles slog through their lives waiting for who-knows-what. "City of Ghosts" is filled with the same dreamy, surrealistic feeling but with a layer of grime and sweat that gives it an air of realism at the same time. Hats off to rookie director Matt Dillon for not only having the guts to attempt it but to succeed.

You may hear people, including Roger Ebert, calling the plot preposterous. A white collar hustler (Dillon) flees the USA and ends up in Cambodia searching for his enigmatic mentor who seems to be neck deep in bok choi himself. Sounds sorta like "The Color of Money" meets "Apocalypse Now", huh? Why not. Even Roger Ebert said the plot is not nearly as attention grabbing as the impressive setting, cinematography and mood.

"Cityu of Ghosts" is reportedly the first major motion picture to be shot in Cambodia since the 1960s, and Dillon & his filmmaking crew didn't skimp on finding the best settings. The locations can best be summed up by a line from the film when James Caan, who is occupying the ex-governor's estate, says "What do you think?" To which someone answers, "Could use a coat of paint" and Caan fires back, "The entire country could use a coat of paint." In other words, the locations are full of majesty and grandeur but with a raw, unkempt appearance that only add to the charm.

Some of my favorite scenes were at the tavern and hotel of innkeeper Emile (Gerard Depardieu), again reminding me of Bogart's "Rick's" in Casablanca. Depardieu plays a curious character, a tough guy who kicks thugs' butts while holding a baby under one arm. Among his staff is a trained monkey who steals from the patrons while Depardieu feverishly denies the monkey's existence. Haha, pure magic! Dillon himself plays a tough but clueless American who learns the ropes fast, while Caan plays a wiser type who seems to be on the verge of insanity with his delusional ideas. Both actors deliver.

The soundtrack is also worth noting. Subtle yet memorable, particularly a recurring piece called "Dear 5" by Peter Whitehead. Look it up on Youtube if you get a chance, it will give you a decent idea of the moody, atmospheric show that's in store for you.

Like I said earlier, don't expect to be blown away by the plot. Heck, even Casablanca had a pretty linear storyline. But what matters in this film is the presentation. In addition to "Casablanca" I would compare this film to "Witness in the War Zone" (with Christopher Walken) and an excellent Taiwanese gangster/zen flick called "The Drummer".

If all City of Ghosts was was a travelogue of postwar Cambodia it would be an accomplishment, but it is in its own way a well built film noir in a very unusual, very appropriate setting. Dillon's character goes to Cambodia to collect money from a real estate scam artist. Like the best noirs, what he finds has more to do with who he is than with any money.

Dillon is strong as the stories jaded, soiled hero. James Caan and Stellen Skarsgaard support well as the con men. And Gerard Depardieu provides strong support as a man who has apparently adjusted to living in hell. The movie starts a touch slowly but be patient. It's worth it. There isn't a lot of violence in this movie but what there is is fairly shocking.

This is one of the few sleazy films that I've seen more than once and will continue to watch every couple of years. Perhaps it's just because I love the colors in here and it's a strange movie, a strange story in an exotic locale: Cambodia. Exotic, but you wouldn't want to live there, at least the parts shown in this film!

Although showing a lot of dingy city scenes, the Cambodian scenery was fascinating. I found the story to be, too, only if to find out what was in store next for the lead character played by Matt Dillon. There are so many bizarre characters in here, nobody that you can really trust, that it keeps you on edge.

Another odd thing about this film: it's quite a mixture of international actors: Dillon and James Caan, both from the United States; Natasha Melhone from Great Britain, Gerald Depardieu from France, Stellan Skarggard from Sweden and Kem Sereyvuth from Cambodia. The latter is the only truly nice person in the whole movie, playing Dillon's faithful guide, "Sok."

The movie, which plays like a film noir, gets a bit ugly at the end but is well worth your time.

Yes the resolution of the movie was somewhat weak and contrived. But when I was sitting at the movie theater I was taken away to another place for the 2 hours that I was watching the movie. Having traveled in the third world I have to say that the movie captures perfectly the atmosphere of a place that is so far away that it could exist in another space and time as well as all the strange characters that tend to inhabit places like these. May be the movie does not do a good enough job of explaining things to those who have never visited a place with a different like Cambodia but I don't think it has to. Why do moviegoers expect the director to present everything neatly arranged on a platter? I was glad to go and see a movie that did not assume that I had no knowledge of history and no sense of what is happening in the Southeast Asia. While some of the characters may seem to be cliche I have actually met people like this while traveling. Local people are very friendly they have very tough lives but they open up in incredible ways if you try to get to know them as human beings. Part of the reason we go to movies is to be taken away. For two hours I was transported to a different world. Matt Dillon had enough sense to linger his shots to reflect the fact that times flows very differently in Cambodia. The contrast between the beauty and the serenity of Cambodia with the violence that goes there is great. I think the movie was absolutely magnificent (flawed but still beautiful)and one of the best I have seen in a long time.

After reading some of the comments left by IMDB users I wasn't sure if I should actually waste a couple of hours by watching this film. After watching, though, I thought the comments were a little harsh.

Criticism's included under developed characters, thin plot, unexplained actions, and a poor performance by Matt Dillon. I am not, and never will be, a film studies student so I guess I am not 'qualified' to comment on any of the above, but in my own humble opinion the film progressed nicely and if people cared to watch carefully each action was easily understood.

If you can get over your immediate 'Matt Dillon, no thanks' attitude you may end up enjoying this film.