Reviews

A lot of comments hear say that this movie is obviously racist.

I think this an nervous knee jerk reaction. It definitely dose not put a phony PC spin on colonial Africa but that doesn't mean it is racist.

Certainly the racism of the safari leader who refuses to respect the tribe with a gift is portrayed and is most likely accurate. It should be noted that the rest of the movie is a direct result of this racist white mans ignorant arrogance and that the hero knows better and tries to warn him. It is improbable that one man, out of his element, could over come his pursuers who must know the terrain better and have more experience hunting and fighting with spears, however I think this is not an attempt to portray the white man as superior but a convention of action movies (heroes can always dodge bullets). The idea that this movie portrays all Africans as savages is based on the assumption that the pursuers are representative of ALL Africans which is a bit racist in itself. They are a particular tribe. Africa is a big continent full of many different nations and tribes. There are other Africans present including those in the safari party, who are not shown to be savages. There are also two other tribes depicted towards the end. One is the village that the man comes upon. These people wear dyed clothing and seem to have a more advanced, structured, and less violently primal, society. The white mans life is saved by a child from this more peaceful tribe. They are attacked by another tribe, obviously working for colonial slave traders, who wear more modern clothing and have guns. This really happened. Some Africans at war with other Africans would sell their conquered foes to the white slave traders.

When will people learn that portraying racism in all its ugliness and complexity is not equivalent to being a racist. The man who plays the hero was also the director. he is a white man and the story is told from his perspective but not exclusively. Part of the films context is that of cultures colliding, both European with African, and African with African. Another important point to this movie is that this is an educated, civilized man who is (literally) stripped of all the trappings of his civilization and thrust into the primal, and universal, struggle of shear survival. Im no expert on Africa but from what little I have read about its history, the movie, while a simple tale in itself, did not seem to over simplify its portrayal of Africa. I suspect that, quite far from being racist, the makers of this film probably had a respect for African culture. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Over all I found it to be well acted. Even though the film makers did not have had a big Hollywood budget and may have used some stock wild life footage, it seemed to blend seamlessly. As far as the chicken chasing scene, I liked how comic it was. In reality a starving man, desperately chasing a chicken around with a spear would probably look pitifully comical and I believe the irony is intentional.

I recommend this film. I found it to be very original but if forced to describe it I would say its a mixture of Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout (though not as pretentious) and Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

Sorry I don't think it was any thing special. I thought Festen was great but his movie is just mediocre. With dogma the movie rest on the strength of the story and acting, (and the directing although they say other wise). Just another "guy falling for the hooker with a heart of gold" story to me. The plot was sort of dumb and silly and not all that believable and characters did things that made no sense to me at all. I'm not saying it was horrible, just that it wasn't all that great.

I think the whole idea of Dogma is pretentious as hell. I saw Mifune and I just thought it was lame. The whole idea of writing a purist manifesto turned me off to the these movies. Italian neo-realism by Danish guys with camcorders. So I was expecting to hate the Celebration but instead I think its great. When a movie gets hyped like this one or Eyes Wide Shut, then allot of people, understandably, turn off and decide weather they are going to like it or hate it before they even step in the theater. I watched this movie with out thinking about the dogma thing at all and if you watch it that way then it really is very good.

Sure its easy to shock with stories about child molestation but the film that is built around that plot device is well made and it didn't seem to exploit the subject matter cheaply. I thought it provided an entertaining, some times comical character study of family and public humiliation. Gbatokai, the black American boyfriend, was cool and I loved watching him taunt the hothead jerk of a brother. The characters seemed very real and their actions rang true (unlike Mifune in which some character motivation made no sense at all). Iv seen a few films that were made with Hi8. I think its a great democratizing technology (low light shots have an eerie quality) but the transfer to film can be an annoying strain on the eyes. I cant sit through one in a theater but on video its just fine.

I know it can be hard to do but try and forget that its a dogma movie or art film or whatever and just approach this film with out any preconceived notions or expectations. You don't get to feel culturally superior by ragging on it after its over but at least you wont feel like you wasted your money.

This little movie works so well with music.

The Video I rented came with some drab classical music that was horrible.

It goes best with silly up beat pop type music. I watched it to an CD by a band called Stereo Total. This worked for me because all the lyrics are in French and there for I couldn't understand a word, plus it lent the right air of Euro trashness. I bet Japanese pop would work just as well though, unless you speak Japanese. If you have little ones try using Brittany Spears or in N'Sync as a sound track, this is a good way to expose young people to the magic of moving pictures.

I ate pizza too, but Im not so sure this worked out so well. I think it would have been better with bean and bacon tacos.

No, on second thought I think its more of a desert movie. A good dose of sugar should accompany it ( but be careful with the hypoglycemic little ones). I got a lollie pop with a scorpion in it as a novelty gift from a candy store when I was on vacation in San Francisco. I think I will eat it the next time I watch Un chien andalou.

Its amazing how varied peoples take on what this films message is. Some take it at its simplest face value, "consumer culture bad, violence good, duh!". A lot of people (though know one I know personally) think its pretentious. Over all to say that this film implies that any one thing (consumerism, violence, conformity, mob mentality) is good or bad is a very shallow interpretation. Real art usually doesn't carry a obvious message like "making fun of people with cancer is bad" or "over coming fear is good". Life is more complex than that so what could a film that made such obtuse statements have to offer. There are all kinds of interesting things going on. Some may think it pretentious, but I enjoyed scenes like the one in which Pitt whispers to Norton from the basement "this conversation is over".

This film seems to have many levels. The "consumerism bad" level seems obvious (though done well) but its a set up for the next level and so on. The protagonist pitiful consumer, worker drone existence leaves him spiritually bankrupt. This leaves him ripe for the attractive (somewhat Buddhist in a way) philosophy espoused by Pitts rock star like uber man. Its justification for the Id run wild. Of course it is ultimately destructive when taken to extreme but at the same time their are some undeniable truths in the things Tyler says. Fight Club explores many themes but it does not take any stands on what is right or what is wrong. That's up to the viewer and that is why people have such different takes on it. To me that's good film. In some scenes the violence is disturbing and you want it to leave the screen, in others it is beautiful and glorified. This leaves the responsibility of interpretation to viewer. Ideas are dangerous in irresponsible hands but because some lack the capability to distinguish between hypothetical ruminations on the nature of violence and a call to blow up their high school, does that mean that movies have to always clearly state that murder is wrong.

If you can't figure out that you shouldn't be watching.

Some movies don't make any sense the first time you see them but beg for repeated viewing to uncover subtleties.

Some don't need to make any sense they just present an interesting universe, juxtaposition of images or effectively immures the viewer in certain states of consciousness.

Then their are those that just cobble a bunch of pretentious crap together and hope that when the audience cant make heads or tails of it, they will pretend they like it so they don't seem unsophisticated.

There is nothing going on hear. Its not too "weird", its not too "deep" or "personal", its not "poetry". O.K. maybe it is poetry but if so, then its the worst cliched type of really really BAD poetry, and bad poetry is worse than no poetry at all.

Good lighting, set decoration and cinematography do not give this movie any more cultural depth than a perfume add on TV.

The cinematic equivalent of one of those posters of famous baroque paintings that freshman art school girls buy at the collage bookstore to hang in their dorm room.