Contrôle

In the final credits it says that Philip G. Zimbardo served as scientific adviser for this film. Not only the author of a world-famous introductory book on psychology, Zimbardo was also professor at Stanford University and in this position responsible for the infamous "Stanford Prison Experiment" that was later, among others, turned into a decent film by German director Oliver Hirschbiegel in the 90s. "Il Giorno prima" has some elements of that particular experiment. Whereas back in Stanford volunteers were given the roles of guardians and prisoners and stuck into an improvised prison, "Giorno" has a bunch of people residing in an atomic bunker for two weeks to explore the psychological difficulties that may arise from such a situation. In Stanford, things went wrong: The "guardians" used their roles to punish and humiliate the "prisoners", displaying raw violence in a surrounding that was only to be taken "as if"; Zimbardo had to stop the experiment in order to save the participants' lives. The "Stanford Prison Experiment" gave an insight on how people behave under extreme circumstances. This is repeated in "Il Giorno prima", this time located in a German bunker, with Burt Lancaster in a sort-of "homage" to Zimbardos own original role. As one would expect from an experiment (though the inhabitants of the bunker are not so suspicious), stimuli from outside are brought in, thereby creating arguments, discrepancies and finally even violence. The "moral", so to say, is not surprising, and the acting isn't so great, but the main fault is the very naive script. Then again, it still is an entertaining flick, well worth a look – but probably not two.

This movie was all right, about what I'd expect from a made-for-tv movie.

I had three problems with this film. The first is that I figured out the surprise plot twist that occurs at the end of the movie very early on in the movie. Maybe it comes from being a psychology major. Or maybe it was blatantly obvious.

My second problem was the way in which the characters behaved at the end of the movie. While I agree that in such a situation, otherwise normal people may behave in atypical, illogical, extreme behavior. However, I thought this film made such behaviors too extreme; this is the same problem I had with Lord of the Flies, where children turn into murdering cannibals when left alone on an island for awhile. I get the point both this film and Lord of the Flies were trying to make, but I think they both overstated it.

My third problem with this film is the characters themselves. There was very little depth to them, and they tended to be quite stereotyped. This problem likely arises from the fact that there are several important characters to flush out and only 2 hours minus commercials to do it in. Because of this, I think they should have either limited the number of people in the shelter to about 8, or they should have picked one or two characters and told it from their perspective.

This movie was a good way to waste time when I was having problems sleeping. If you want a movie that deals with either nuclear attack or the problems with a bunch of people confined to a small space in an intellectual, intriguing manner, this is not the movie for you. However, if you just want to waste a couple hours, this movie is great, because if you end up having something you have to do or if you can finally fall asleep or whatever, because this film does not engage you enough to prevent you from turning off the television.

"Control" is a fictional movie where a group of volunteers agree to live in a bomb shelter for 20 days. It's to show the practicality of such living arrangements for groups of strangers during a nuclear attack. Not surprisingly, over time, all sorts of problems develop...many of which are caused by the various personalities of the participants. For example, one is a bit of a pervert and another insists on doing magic tricks all the time.

While Burt Lancaster is listed among the cast, he's a small portion of the movie, as he's not one of the participants in the shelter. The only star there I easily recognized was Ben Gazzara.

The purpose of the film seems pretty obvious...to show how impractical shelters are and how nuclear war should be avoided at all costs. This is likely why the aging Lancaster appeared in the film, as he was a strong proponent of nuclear disarmament.

So is it any good? Well, the story is very slow...but it also brings up some excellent points and is quite thought-provoking. Not a great film by any standard but an interesting one.

You could say that the anti nuclear theme here came a bit late to the party, The Day After was from '83 and Dr Strangelove from '64, but it was probable brought back by the '86 Tjernobyl disaster. I was twelve and can vividly remember the fear of the nuclear fall out, the radiation cloud that suposedly drifted through Europe. But I can't remember the idea of building fall out shelters like they make out in this Italian film.

Maybe this should be more seen as an psychological or social experiment like the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971) or the much later Big Brother reality TV shows (1999).

A group of diverse people locked in a single location and with a pressure cooking situation that brings out the best and worst in people. I'm thinking Lost, Lord of the Flies, Dark Star, Breakfast Club. There are so many.

This one does a fine job of making you dislike all the characters because of their stereotypical behaviour. The actors are unable to do anything interesting with their parts and the lack of direction makes every scene like something taken from an amateur filmschool. Burt Lancaster's part is probable the only interesting and most convincing character. But he's not used in most of the movie.

Sadly, there are no surprises, the plot is thin but not all bad. It is barely watchable. Only interesting for people like me who enjoy cult and b-films or are interested in vintage scifi and disaster movies or cheap direct to video flicks.

And to Spaghettify it some more, there is some music by Ennio Moricone.

I saw this movie almost 20 years ago and I cannot say that I remember any great acting or technical excellence. However, I remember that I felt mesmerized by it's ambiance and that the ending declares important thoughts that are just as relevant today. We are missing the point. Just as it does not help in 1987 to build fallout shelters because they only cause other problems that are greater for the future, it does not help to feed and immunize millions of the world's poor today if we have no food for their children and grandchildren tomorrow. Technology and fairness cannot solve these problems today, just as fairness (letting everybody in) cannot work in a fallout shelter. Our Earth is a lifeboat, and there are only finite seats in any vessel. This is neither cruel nor selfish. It is a simple declaration of truth. The sooner our policies face the truth, the sooner the suffering will end.