Intacto

A masterpiece of the new wave of Spanish cinema that is invading the world in this new millennium, this strange, fascinating thriller has one of the greatest ideas of all times used very well till the end of the movie: imagine someone who has the power to steal good luck from other people and using it he may become powerful, but bored in the end. So he uses his wealth to research other people who has the same power or a similar one (people who has survived all sort of terrible accidents) to challenge them in a sort of Russian roulette. Max Von Sydow is the old concentration camp survivor that establish this "game", while other interesting faces of the Spanish scenario are his comrades in this trade over each other destiny that is gripping, tense and full of surprise until the end, when all comes full circle and you exit from the cinema conscious that you have seen a gem, a rare, rare gem.

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"

Juan Carlos Fresnadillo is a Spanish director who dares to be different to show us this visionary tale where chance, luck, passion and possibility are behind the action of this thriller. In doing so, he gets away from the formulas of the other Spanish filmmakers working in the Spanish cinema of today. He belongs to a new bred of creators with a sharp eye for detail and cinematic style.

This film pretends to be a game of wits between Federico and Tomas, who are connected in a strange way to the mysterious inhabitant of the casino, Samuel. Much of the early action is a bit confusing because the viewer doesn't have a clue as to what's going on. The scenery where the casino is located looks as though it could be on the moon, for its bareness and lack of life.

The acting if very good. Leonardo Sbaraglia is Argentina's gift to Spain. He's an interesting actor to watch; he has a very enigmatic look about himself. Eusebio Poncela is very effective as the shadowy figure of Federico. Max Von Sydow brings his royal presence as Samuel, the master player of the game that pits him against all the others that dare come close to him.

This film exudes intelligence and a film script above the mediocrity of what passes as Spanish Cinema these days, thanks to director Fresnadillo and his team.

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.

The more I think about this film, the more I liked it. The script was extremely well-written, with appropriate twists and turns for each of the numerous characters-- not just the antagonist and one other, as usually happens.

It's a great idea. What if Luck were a quantifiable commodity, and certain people had the ability to take it from others? What if such people were only one in a billion? The premise reminded me somewhat of "Unbreakable," but this movie has so many more complex characters and is so much better written-- yes, really.

However, the more I think about this film, the more I realize how much I disliked the cinematography, editing, production design, and lighting. I know they probably didn't have a lot of money to spend, but a good DP isn't hard to find. Making much of the movie literally dark to go with the psychological darkness was a fine idea, but executed poorly. It's unfortunate.

The script would make a great read, though, and I suspect that's why the film was able to be made. Those talking about "Adaptation" as an argument for a screenplay to be a legitimate piece of literature would do well to read "Intacto," and leave it at that.

As a film, though, I'd still recommend it. Good job keeping Max von Sydow away from the other actors... he acts circles around them. But the others do okay too. 8/10.