Le baiser du serpent

I found this movie to be very strange, and indeed it is! The first time I watched this movie I thought to myself "What the heck is going on here!" I completely missed the point of the movie the first time I saw it. Fortunately, I was already acquainted with some of Ewan M.'s work, and thought that surely Mr. Mcgregor would have more sense than to make a pointless movie. Thankfully I was right. I would advise anyone who doesn't understand this movie, or who has only seen it once, to watch it again. There is a deeper meaning. All of the actors and actresses were fabulous in this movie! Although the movie could have served just as well as a short feature, I'm glad that it is longer so that I can enjoy the chemistry between the cast members longer.

Like most period pieces, The Serpent's Kiss is long and seemingly drawn out to the average modern day movie goer. However, when it comes to the very core and heart of a movie, (its story and the actors that portray it,) everything is well thought out and enjoyable to watch. Just make sure you are not particularly tired and are up to watching the movie intently. Very surprising, and what makes the movie enjoyable-I might add, is that at the very beginning you find yourself caught in a intriguing plot which slowly unfolds to the unveiling of each character's real motives. Although there are no twist or turns, that would make it suspenseful the movie's full captivator lies in its puzzle piece of a story. Each scene has a plethora of knowledge and insight that proves at times to be quite the delightful opposite of what each character says. Yet, make no mistake, I definitely recommend this movie to anyone with patience and an infatuation for well written, fully understandable stories with moral meaning. If none of this is important to you, however, I would still recommended it. If only on the basis that Ewan McGregor's acting is something to watch intently and eagerly. Catching every detailed moment of his portrayal will leave an impression on even the more action driven movie goer.

I found both script and acting to be painfully bad for the first half hour or so, but things seemed to take a turn for the better after Meneer Chrome lost his wig (no, seriously). Scacchi was as glorious as ever; McGregor was as enjoyable as ever; and the other three principles each held down their corner of the story. The biggest weakness was the garden itself - it seems like the filmmakers were even less able to afford Chrome's vision than Smithers was, with a result that was more suited to a stage production than a movie. I'm not convinced that this movie was a good use of two hours of my time, but I also find that I can't get some of the imagery out of my head - generally recommended if you have patience with period pieces and like movies that ask more questions than they answer.

This watchable, derivative, turn-of-the-century piece has a good cast, which could perform this kind of script in their sleep. You can't help but think of THE DRAUGHTMAN'S CONTRACT and ANGEL AND INSECTS all the while you watch it. There's no harm in enjoying this sumptuous film, but remember it's all been done before and better. I'd say Scacchi is the standout here.

If you are an adventurer in film, then you'll know Peter Greenaway. And if you know him, you'll likely know his first feature film: "The Draughtsman's Contract." It wasn't as selfreferentially dense as projects that followed, but its an incredible structure. It references restoration drama in form. While it makes itself that way, the story is of a illustrator who creates reality while drawing it. The "reality" in question is of an English country estate and it involves sexual intrigue toward and by the artist. There's a tussle about who is writing/ drawing the film we see.

Now we have a film built directly on top of that. It stars Ewan McGregor who had the year before starred in Greenaway's most advanced film (as of this writing). You really have to know both of those movies to appreciate this. You have to also know that the "crazy" young woman is the grandchild of our first lucid filmmaker and his wife, herself the daughter of one of our most lucid playwrights. She seems at times to literally control what is seen by all. And it helps to know that the repressed but eager mother is played by the woman who was June Gudmundsdottir in one of our most lucid films.

"Lucid" here in terms of films that see themselves as they unfold.

The actual movie by itself is rather chopped up, and directed in a somewhat incoherent way. But it doesn't matter at all, and I only noticed it the second time. Its about the things behind the things we see. That's what it is and what the story is.

It begins with the most amazing images behind the title. They are blurry images, just barely noticeable as moving humans. Later, they will be conflated with reapers, fishers, statues... and all folded in as the girl's dreams, which are further folded into the book she reads, the letters Ewan's character writes, the design of the garden and its undesign.

Its a mind game. Its lovely without being rich. Its not slick. It has holes. It was done cheaply and without visual flourish. But what a fun ride!

What a ride.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.