Almost Blue

The 99% of thriller/horror movies are based on this assumption: people are stupid. Only in this way we can explain the ridiculous plot and naive subject that the majority of this kind of movies have. A few examples are: The Bone collector, The Crimson Rivers, The Cell and, obviously, Almost Blue. Common 'features' of these movies are: - They want to be psychological thrillers. It's a pity that the psychological aspect of the killer seems written by a five years old children. - They want to be 'belivable' but I think that an episode of The Simpsons is much more realistic. There's always a super-policeman/fbi agent that seems to have the control of all the police department. He/she knows every single move of the killer...but always 2 minutes later. There's ALWAYS someone that can help the 'hero' to get the killer but doing this he/she risks his/her own life... They are all the same! - They want to scare the audience. The problem here is that after the first 5 minutes you are able to predict EXACTLY how the story will end.

Almost Blue has all the above features and much more :) The only good thing about this movie are the last 2 minutes...the final scene is somewhat poetic but, unfortunately, it can't save Almost Blue from being a really mediocre movie...

It is hard to see how anyone could trash this film on the criteria of craft. It is a very well made film that understands its genre and goes beyond it. In terms of generic revisionism, this film goes beyond the genre by structuring within the plot a woman trying to compete in a man's world: the detective charged with catching the serial killer. Layered onto that is the role of technology in creating a surveillance culture. Carefully plotted so that the viewer will suspect the wrong person for half the film, it creates a complex investigation, not into personal psychology, but into contemporary society: university culture, techno-pop and music culture, cop culture, and patriarchal culture.

Ironically enough, such a sustained examination of these cultural cross-currents do not anchor the film into Italy specifically--something that is exceedingly rare for an Italian film. This plot could have been just as easily set in Kracow, Oxford, Munich, Ann Arbor, or Berkeley.

It is compelling, complex, and well crafted. Tension builds, is dispersed, and builds again, only to have a twist throw it off yet again. Complaining about it generically is not only off-base, but the equivalent to complaining that every western has horses in it.

This could had been a pretty good genre movie but instead it's a pretty average and forgettable one now. Just when you think the movie is starting to get more interesting it doesn't go through with it and the movie doesn't go anywhere really with its story.

Watching a movie like this always makes you think why did they even make a movie out of this. The story could had just as well been one for an average detective-series, for TV. There isn't really anything that makes this movie stand out.

No, it's not bad all to watch but it's also easily a movie you can do without.

The movie tried to give the movie some more style and class by making the movie it's visual look quite artistic at times, like lots of 'modern' Italian movies often do. It could had worked out if the shots had actually served a purpose for the movie but instead these sort of scenes would just irritate me because the movie was trying too hard at times. I just don't like it when a movie is trying to be constantly different but it doesn't actually enhance the movie its style or story.

It's also pretty much a movie by the numbers. The movie is perhaps lacking in some good surprises or plot twists and now instead also ends pretty disappointingly. The way the way story progresses also doesn't exactly help to make this movie a credible one or even not a compelling one.

Nothing too bad but the movie isn't really heading anywhere with its formulaic story and is not good enough with any of its other aspects to really stand out within its genre.

6/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

As a fan of giallo, and after reading one reviewer liken this to Manhunter (1986), I decided to give it a go. I was curious: was early millennium Italian crime genre as cutting edge and provocative as it was in the 60s, 70s and even early 80s? The answer from this film for me is unfortunately mostly no. There are a few problems. First, this not a murder mystery, but more of a police procedural and light character study. We get glimpses of the killer, and the police ID him quickly. That removes any element of suspense of classic giallo and Italian crime movies which keeps the viewer guessing. Second, there is not much horror. There are one or two jumps, and there is some blood (including the memorable image of hands typing on a computer keyboard covered in blood), but again there is no building of dread and deep sense of the horrific. Lastly, the characters are lightly studied but only the surface is touched. Apparently this was based on a well regarded book, so it's unfortunate the film wasn't as successful. The acting is fine, though not spectacular. The direction is definitely above average, with modern lighting, thoughtful angles and shots. The story is also good - there is so much potential with the elements of a female lead detective, a blind witness, a killer obsessed with internet chat rooms and techno music - but the parts don't connect fully and never add up to much. Keep your expectations very low and see it just to cross off your list, but definitely not essential and I wouldn't waste money on owning a copy.

There's a serial killer loose in the Italian city of Bologna, and from the get go, we're introduced to the aftermath of a very brutal killing in the hands of a psycho, with a preference for extremely loud music played through his headphones. I thought the killer here is very much like the one in the 2004 film Taking Lives starring Ethan Hawke and Angelina Jolie, where the murderer lingers and adopts the persona of the person he kills, before moving onto the next victim.

In essence this is your classic cat and mouse thriller that explores the links between the three leads in rookie policewoman Grazia (Lorenza Indovina), the psycho killer played by Rolando Ravello to Aamir-Khan-Ghajini's crazed perfection, and the blind man Simone (Claudio Santamaria), who gets caught up in the entire episode because he wilds his time away at his computer listening in to chatrooms, police scanners and what have yous, like an online busybody oracle. In doing so, he puts himself unwittingly in the line of fire as the killer decides to make him the next target. And so the premise is set, and I felt there's a truck load of potential here to at least live up to average thriller expectations.

There was what I thought a perfect moment set up in allowing the audience's imagination to run wild with one killing - you can hear audible sighs of sorrow when the killer picks his mark, because while the character was nothing more than a supporting one, appearing only to nag, everyone understood instantly the impact it is going to have in the story moving on. The aftermath of that was nothing short of poignant, and that hammered home the notion of how evil is as evil can be.

If there's a major letdown in the exciting build-up, it's how everything gets wrapped up in the end too conveniently and in major anti-climatic fashion. Big clue being the need to adopt the persona, and having everyone turn up at the right place at the right time, with room for some sexy time thrown in as well for good measure, just because it's Gialli. It turned what could have been room for a tight, climatic finale into a joke of convenience probably stemming from a lack of ideas. Great build-up, but terrible finale.