msultan

First of all, I don't understand why the title is so badly translated. "Baise-moi" means "f*ck me" and not much else, and translating it as "rape me" I think makes the movie worse by giving it another direction (since there is a rape scene in the movie after all).

Not that it isn't bad to begin with. I was actually disappointed (yes, I was hoping for a difference). I was hoping that a female pornish movie would have more taste than this, but it's just as bad as though it were filmed by a man. I still do think that this movie fulfills more male than female fantasies. So although there was a lot of sex it wasn't interesting. If you are familiar with French TV, this movie is equivalent to a Canal + movie on a Saturday night (although this has less sex, but it's the same type of sex and sex shots, give or take degrees of intensity). But I have to say, that even in terms of a sex movie this was a let down. Since Nadine and Manu are so into sex as a thing in itself, why didn't they sleep together when they were bored and had nothing to do? It might have given the movie some dimension.

I'm surprised though how everyone is taking time to write about this movie although all the reviews are bad. I'm also surprised that it was released worldwide, it really does not deserve all that attention. And I don't think we can blame it solely on the script; it's bad direction (had Tarantino been given the script he would have made something very different). It was a flat movie, with horrible dialogs (and performances) and a trashy soundtrack.

I see that most reviews describe this movie as amazing, etc. but I was actually pretty disappointed by it. For one, it was too long. My other criticism is that it lacks unity, somewhat like Full Metal Jacket but even more so. It touched on many important and interesting topics (the friendship and quest for Pran, the "year zero" program, the hypocrisy of war, the hardships of journalism, etc. , the list is long) but ended up skimming the surface of each. As a result, this movie is under-developed. It could have been made into more than one movie; Pran's experience in the labor camp, for example, could / should have been made into a movie of its own.

On the other hand, "The Killing Fields" should be given credit for coming before all the great war movies we all refer to now (Platoon, Full Metal Jacket...) and most likely influencing them. It should also be given credit because so few movies actually refer to Cambodia. Everyone is so interested in Vietnam and WWII that Cambodia is very often left behind. The acting was great (although I'm not sure about the Oscar... opposite John Malkovich? No-one should win opposite John Malkovich!) but the music got on my nerves for the most part.

Overall, the fact that the movie was so chopped up and that it went everywhere (and that it was long) didn't really do it for me. I just waited for it to end, but I suppose I'm glad I watched it.

Cradle Will Rock is well-filmed and has a political message. It is, however, boring, predictable, and patronizing. I don't see anything wrong with artists putting politics in their art, in fact I encourage it, but Tim Robbins' characters are like Duracell rabbits who carry their messages without any personality or depth (is 'investment' better?). In Cradle Will Rock, Vanessa Redgrave's character mirrors Susan Sarandon's character in Dead Man Walking. They're filled with a mission and they don't ask questions, but hopefully and cheerfully carry their missions out. Dramatic tension? Nope, they're above it (the scripts, characters, and movies). The parallel between the French monarchy (Louis XVI at the eve of the French Revolution, to be exact) and Gray Mathers and his crowd is plain tacky and void of character development. Robbins' is a very shallow reading of history. He can't figure out if he wants to do high art or reach the masses, and the result is not very good at all.