Laissez bronzer les cadavres

I believe that people will enjoy this film in direct proportion to two things: your appreciation for bravura cinematic style, and your hard-wired facial recognition talents. The two collide immediately, as we are introduced to some of the characters (I think) via extreme closeups of eyes and mouths. The filmmakers avoid all of the usual techniques for establishing character identity and relationships, especially among members of the gang. I can't honestly say that I know what happened in the film's last third: who betrayed whom, who was firing what weapons, and so on.

In the meantime, though, I saw things, cool things, good things, that I'd never seen before on a movie screen. The stylistic flourishes kept me just engaged enough to not walk out. In the end I'm glad I saw it and even more glad that I didn't pay for a ticket (I have a membership at the local arthouse cinema). Mostly I'm frustrated, because if the filmmakers would put storytelling first and then maximize style as much as possible (like, you know, every other filmmaker on the planet) rather than vice versa, this could have been a kinky classic.

All style, no substance. It's extremely hard to follow after the setup establishes the theft of gold bullion, with some of the worst storytelling and worst character development I've ever seen. We never learn anything about these people, and have little idea who's shooting who over most of the film; meanwhile the directors give us pointless cuts back in time which add nothing, and the film quickly descends into unexplained scenes of sex, violence, crucifixion, and urination. This dreamy/nightmarish style leads to interesting imagery at times and the scenery in the ruins overlooking the azure waters of Corsica is striking, but mostly the film is an exercise in wild surrealism and a mashup of old film references that was more frustrating than compelling, at least for me.

First, let me tell you that I highly liked the Jean Patrick Manchette's novel which this film is based on, and written and - or - produced by Doug headline - Manchette's son. That said, this film is faithful to the novel written back in 1971. At least if you consider the narrative ark, the basic scheme. This book from 1971 was a turn in the French crime novels history; it was one of the last French crime novels where it was question of gangsters, bank robbers and so on, which was a topic usually spoken about since the fifties and Auguste Le Breton, José Giovanni and so on...After this novel it was the beginning of the post May 68 era and the rise of the "subversive" crime novels, inspired by extreme left winged ideas and topics, stories highly against the establishment and political power. Manchette was the master in this field. He opened the road. Back to this film, it is faithful to the book BUT the aesthetic aspect is too much hysterical, totally crazy. NOT FOR ME. Most of the scenes are unexplained, absolutely senseless, you wonder where the screenplay drives at. This was unbearable for me. Sorry. I won't say that's a crap movie. No, but simply not for my taste. But I am aware that this feature is a big tribute to the sixties ear and the spaghetti western in particular. I won't even mention the Ennion Morricone like score. This movie seems most of the time boring. I nearly fell asleep at some times. I deserves although to be seen. The armored truck heist sequence is also a tribute, but to Jean Pierre Melville's masterpiece THE SECOND BREATHE, in the heist attack scene, on the lost sea side mountain road.

This movie is like a pasta dish, with or without red pepper. It could have been told in a raw way, without all those artifices. But maybe some audiences could have found this tasteless. So they used this camera eccentricities.

See for yourself.

Dang. Can we get some more arthouse action movies like this, please? This movie was a freaking blast.

"Let the Corpses Tan" is a highly stylized neo-spaghetti western (complete with a Morricone score!), and for all I know it's a pioneer in it's genre, because I've never seen anything like this: it's exciting, sometimes intense, and undeniably weird. To be fair, the weirdness in this movie works wonders up to a point, but there are other moments where I had no idea what the hell was going on, because (dare I say it, and risk angering the cinephiles?) the film was a bit too stylized at times, particularly when it came to the frenetically paced editing during the shootouts, and the rapid back and forth flitting between time. Still, if you've got a smidge of patience and a bit of imagination, you can totally understand what the directors are getting at, even if they are showing the audience a fully nude woman whose been painted gold and is peeing on a man's head whose been buried up to his neck.

It makes sense, trust me; you've just got to work with the movie.

The people who are giving this really bad reviews must be knuckle draggers. This is a very unique and interesting flawed thriller. Flawed because is a little hard to follow with all the time jumps and inserted symbolism.

But if you stick with it you should be rewarded with a very interesting layered movie like you have not seen in a long long while.

It's a thinking man's (or woman's) movie. Pay attention.