Review CLVI - The Plague Dogs

Review 156
The Plague Dogs (1982)

Christmas came and went and we're heading toward the new year. It's already 2017, guys. That's crazy. 2016 was a stress-induced, depressing personal journey that I'd rather never relive, but some great things came out this year, so it wasn't a complete waste at least. All I can say is people will try to bring you down, but if you persist in your conquest, you'll make it. May you move forward in your endeavours.

With that said, with the passing of Richard Adams on December 24th, I couldn't not say a word. I didn't follow his work explicitly, but I loved his novel, Watership Down. I also reviewed the movie adaptation, so I figured that I'd review The Plague Dogs, based on his novel of the same name, and directed by Martin Rosen, the same director of Watership Down. With the familiar voice of John Hurt, Christopher Benjamin, and James Bolam. Now, I never read the original source material, so I'm reviewing the film purely on itself. Take that as you will.

Rowf (Christopher Benjamin) and Snitter (John Hurt) are two dogs living in a animal-testing facility, who can only dream of freedom. However, a chance at liberty brings the dogs the new high, until the media catches wind of the whole escape, claiming the dogs may be rabid and carrying the plague.

Guys, if you thought Watership Down was depressing, The Plague Dogs is worse. It was a hard film to watch, especially as a dog lover and animal enthusiast who had worked in an animal lab (almost contradictory, right?). Now, before I continue with this review, I want to be clear: I am not against animal testing one hundred percent. If ever I take a medication, I am fully aware that it was tested on an animal at some point, and if that medication could save my life, I wouldn't deny it or condone it for its animal testing. We live in a world dominated by hierarchy whether we like it or not - in the wild, it's kill or be killed. The same applies to the human race. So for practical purposes, like medication testing (which, honestly, is sometimes experimented on people to an extent), I do not disagree with animal testing.

Now that we have that out of the way - because this isn't a black and white issue in the least - I am against animal testing which serves no purpose. Regulations have been imputed since the making of this movie and Richard Adams' novel, but at the time, it's true - animal testing was kept more of a secret. Animals were tested for the sake of testing with no real valuable data obtained (like shocking a puppy for no other reason than to conclude that "it would hurt", for example). Even if valuable data is obtained, if an animal suffers longer than necessary, than again, I am against it. Now, The Plague Dogs takes on a more global message, but again, recall the stance of animal testing at the time. Watching Rowf's massive phobia of water and seeing Snitter's panic attacks just broke my heart. And honestly, the film doesn't mess around at all - just as in Watership Down, the violence is real. There's one scene in particular with a gun that just scarred me for life (you'll know which one it is) - yeah, I admit I'm a pansy. And just this dogs running away just breaks my heart... But I'm sorry, that's my emotional reaction. I watched this film maybe a year ago, and it still affects me. But I'm a big softy, so take it as you will. The Tod (James Bolam), the fox character, also gives you the feels as he tries to help these hopeless dogs.

The film itself, along with a less certain ending, The Plague Dogs really hits hard. But the animation has that low-budgetness of Watership Down. It's fine, and honestly, thinking back on the film, I remember the story nonetheless. Still, I could see myself reading the book to delve deeper into the story, which really was the highlight of this thing.

If you're an animal lover, The Plague Dogs will be hard to watch. It shows the harshness of the world and the cruel world animals can face, particularly before particular bills were put in place to help out our fellow companions. Really, I can only give you an animal lover perspective, so if you don't care for animals at all, what can I say? I don't know how much you'll enjoy the film. I think it's a worth, but prepare the tissue box - at least, I know I definitely needed it.

With that said, thank you Richard Adams for your charming-yet-hard-hitting stories of animals. From rabbits to dogs, you showed us imaginative escapes from a different view. Rest in peace.

Review CLV - Wall Street

Review 155
Wall Street (1987)

Hey guys, it's been a while. After nearly dying due to school, I'm on my winter break, scrambling for free time in between working and getting all those underlying chores completed. Anyway, let's get on with today's review on Oliver Stone's Wall Street, starring Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen, and Daryl Hannah. It was not exactly what I wanted to watch, but my boyfriend pointed out that it was a "classic" in a sense, so we should check it out. I can't say I could disagree with him, so we decided to check out Wall Street, despite Oliver Stone's shall we say inaccurate political views.

Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is a stockbroker, desperately trying to work under Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), a multi-billionaire playing on Wall Street with great success. After providing inside information about where his father (Martin Sheen) works, Gekko decides to help Bud Fox, who, in his eyes, is an expendable nobody ready to put himself on the line to make it big.

Wall Street has potential. While I accept capitalism as a means in society, philosophically, it falls. The film definitely addresses this, as well as showing that an honest man's work can bring greater joy than the corrupt billionaire with all the money in the world (sounds real commie, eh?). If your aspirations include becoming rich, there's nothing wrong with that, but I also believe that if you lose yourself in getting rich, especially in a let's-make-a-quick-buck kind of way, there's a problem. If, as Bud Fox's dad explains, you start judging a man by the size of his wallet, you're entering capitalism as a philosophy, and it will not provide true happiness, shall we say. Bud Fox's dad works hard for his money, Gekko does not. This is where we see a problem. So Wall Street has a nice little message.

But, and it's a big but: I can't say I liked the acting from our main protagonists, apart from Michael Douglas. Charlie Sheen seemed so straight and bland all the time, except when he visited his dad, whereby the emotional scene was nice, but super rushed (blaming editors and director for that one). Otherwise, I felt like there wasn't much going on whenever he opened his mouth, except that he would deliver lines to keep the plot moving forward. I think Oliver Stone said he was going for this style from him, but I didn't like it. I thought it was a poor choice - I like animated acting, not bored-out-of-their-minds acting. However, the animated acting from Bud Fox's friend there, played by John C. McGinley was so exaggerated... I don't know, honestly.

But by far the worst acting is from Daryl Hannah. She won a Razzie for her acting, and honestly, it is piss-poor. Not to mention her character doesn't seem like the type who would be going after rich men - she studied some shitty liberal shit, and she's not even hot, so why Gekko would have gone for her is beyond me. Every time she spoke, and anytime I saw her shitty choice in contemporary art crap, I was gagging. Why Oliver Stone would have picked her is beyond me - an absolutely lousy choice. I mean, she was fine in Blade Runner, but I guess her placement in this role was bad - or maybe Oliver Stone can't direct actors and actresses for shit.

Overall, Wall Street is a nice little film, criticising the self-made millionaires who made themselves through stocks, not through hard-work, and taking capitalism as a way of life. However, the acting falls short in a film. The humor thrown in from Bud Fox's boss was lame in my opinion as well, but whatever. Basically, the movie is a cute one-watcher which doesn't really stand up to the test of time. Check it out if you're interested, but if you're not, skip it - you aren't missing much.

Review CLIV - Triple Halloween Feature

Review 154
Triple Halloween Feature

Halloween 2016 has creeped up on us slowly but surely, and while I am sitting at home, feeling incredibly sick, I nonetheless have some reviews for you. Yes, I made an effort to watch some more Halloween movies before the time was up, so today, I present you with a triple Halloween Feature! Get ready to scream, cry, and laugh for this Halloween edition.

--

Grabbers (2012)

Lisa Nolan (Ruth Bradley), a high-achieving Garda employee, comes to a remote, Irish village off the coast to baby-sit drunk colleague Ciarán O'Shea (Richard Coyle) while his boss is away for two weeks. Tension is high until the local drunk (Lalor Roddy) discovers an alien which, according to British marine biologist, Dr. Adam Smith (Russell Tovey), survives on blood and water. Now the team must help save the town in a journey filled with blood, guts, and lots and lots of alcohol.

I fell on Grabbers from John Wright and Kevin Lehane completely accidentally when I thought the title suited my boyfriend perfectly well. And it actually turned out to be quite a ride! Released the same year as The Cabin in the Woods, the CGI is better and not over-used. It is also way better in plot and silly scariness. I also absolutely loved the characters and mourned those who were lost - how often can you say that about a horror movie? Although that might be more of a North American thing - we watch to see people killed. But anyway, let me tell you that, if you're looking for a pretty funny monster movie, check out Grabbers. I think maybe the love plot fell a bit short (I don't get how our main two love interests actually end up getting it on), but I was still happy with it in the end. Not fancy, but definitely a gem in its own right, check out Grabbers this Halloween season - or any season for that matter!

---

Doghouse (2009)

A group of friends, out to cheer up their recently-divorced friend (Stephen Graham), accidentally wind up in a remote village instead of a party centre. It turns out they get more than they expected when the town turns out to be zombie central, where only women are infected.

I watched Jake West and Dan Schaffer's Doghouse around the time it came back after a recommendation from my sister's boyfriend and remembered liking it, and somehow in this day-and-age of political correctness and SJWs, it seemed more appropriate than ever. Once again, this is a funny one, but it definitely exploits the blood-and-guts of typical zombie movies. If you haven't seen it and you're into zombie movies, check it out - you'll like it. Not to mention the underlying themes of oppressed men in this modern society is pretty accurate - though my boyfriend said it would probably convince more men of MGTOW than anything else. I definitely don't encourage it, but I think Doghouse is right in that you still need to be your own person and that a woman shouldn't mold you to what they want you to be. Regardless of its meaning, you should still check out this movie for its funny situations and awesome gorefest. Let's shake things up this Halloween, shan't we?

---

Theatre of Blood (1973)

A well-renowed Shakespearean actor, Edward Lionheart (Vincent Price), is neglected at an Actor's Choice Award for his lack of diversity, sending him to suicide. However, suddenly the critiques who denied him his award are being murdered in the fashion of Shakespeare, sending the suspicion that perhaps Lionheart is alive after all.

A la The Abominable Dr. Phibes, Vincent Price's takes revenge once again on those he feels have robbed him. And it continues to be as cheesy and funny. Honestly, Theatre of Blood starts off with murder, and, if you knew nothing of the plot, you'd be left in the dark. Explanations only rise as the film continues, which definitely differs from the usual way of story-telling, but the initial confusion wears off as Theatre of Blood continues. I'm pretty sure the movie wasn't taking itself too seriously, but man, it is still as funny, especially with the gang of killer hobos and the windshield-wiper fluid that makes an appearance toward the end (watch the movie, you'll understand). Nonetheless, while you'll get a chuckle out of the film, the deaths are pretty neat and horrific, even if it is kind of cheaply slapped together at times. But it is from 1973, so I won't raise hell on that. This one is kind of different given the different day-and-age of the other two films reviewed, but if you're into classics and don't mind a little Shakespearean acting, you should definitely give Theatre of Blood a watch. Vincent Price was known for his horror stunts, and this one was do not disappoint.

--

And so our triple feature comes to an end. I hope Halloween hasn't already passed where you are, but even if it has, how about some films for All Saints' Day, eh? Until then, happy Halloween and be sure to not overfill on candy! Cue creepy music!

Review CLIII - The Cabin in the Woods

Review 153
The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

Hey guys! It's been a while, hasn't it? The semester started and my attempts for staying on top of my game have been futile. I haven't even been watching a lot of movies, and when I did, I just didn't have time to write reviews. However, I can recommend The Warriors (with its obviously strong racial message) if you're looking for a funny film and Sicario if you're looking for something awesome. Anyway, I realised Halloween was approaching quickly, so I knew I had to try and get a horror movie in here while I still could. I have a few films lined up, and I'm hoping to write some reviews before Halloween passes, but we'll see given the intense school schedule. Regardless, I'm here today to talk about Drew Goddard's The Cabin in the Woods starring Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, Chris Hemsworth, Fran Kranz, Richard Jenkins, and Bradley Whitford. Whew, that's quite a few names - you know we'll be seeing some people dying in this one. Let's review this (popular?) movie!

Five friends head off for the weekend to cabin in the woods (whoa, that was unexpected), hoping to get away from their daily routine. However, it seems that their trip will actually be a murderous rampage for a bigger cause.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard of this movie - it seems like one of those films you would eventually watch if you watched horror movies. I'm usually not a fan of horror movies - my boyfriend even less - so I raised my eyebrow when he asked to watch this one. The reason? A scene with an elevator and a S.W.A.T. team. Yeah, if you watched the movie, you'll know what I'm talking about. If you haven't, let me actually review this.

The Cabin in the Woods pokes fun at other horror movies with its almost breaking-the-fourth-wall dynamic. You'll be sitting there thinking of a bunch of other horror movies while you watch this one, as early as when you see the cabin itself (The Evil Dead anyone?). For that, it breaks from the generic horror movie plot. However, that doesn't mean it's good and doesn't use stock horror jump scares to get your heart pumping. Honestly, I don't mind a clever jump scare - Insidious was not bad at all in this regard. It had some clever ones. But these typical ones where they're standing there, and it suddenly gets completely quiet, you're sitting there just waiting for the loud sound and sudden jump. It's such a cheap tactic and overly-used that it needs to change. I don't mind one every once in a while, but otherwise, I need an eeriness to the film that stays with me afterward.

I guess you could say the movie tries to do this, but... Okay, this will be a spoiler, so stop reading this paragraph if you actually care enough to want to watch this without spoiling it. All right, so, the movie is basically showing how these men are hired to kill people in a sacrificial way in order to give "blood to the blood god". They have a certain way these people have to die, and they set up the deaths as a horror movie set-up. It's trying to be self-aware, but let me tell you, this organisation is just bullshit. Not to sound like a conspiracy nut to the average Joe out there, but it's Baphomet all over the place. "Gods that used to rule us"? "Blood sacrifice in a gruesome manner"? One of the workers even comments at one point how it used to be easy when they could just throw people into a volcano. Now, all right, whatever, this is nothing new to me, but I was just sitting there wondering what the hell this dynamic of killing all the people in this particular order. I also don't understand why it had to be set up like this. Apparently it's to please the gods, but when they show Japan's failure (which is really hilarious - you'll get a good chuckle), they show a bunch of nine-year-old girls, not the dynamic set-up in the United States. So what the hell? Is it just based on horror movies from each country? Why would the gods care? And even then, why nine-year-old girls and not some guy after a hot chick? And what is with these shitty Gods? A bunch of people die horrifically in the process, but nope, it's not the designated people, so they fail. It's just bullshit. Not to mention the ending... The stoner (Fran Kanz) survives along with the "virgin" (Kristen Connolly), and the two decide they'd rather destroy all of humanity than sacrifice their lives. Which already means they buy into the bullshit story, but yeah, they don't care. They decide one last joint is all they need. And seriously, I would have preferred the stoner NOT giving us all these "premonitions" - why the hell would he guess that everyone is "watching them" and "alternating them". Sigh... The Cabin in the Woods is really just stupid even in its attempts to be above other horror movies. It fails. And the Baphomet/Illuminati bullshit is just bad writing. And let me say as well that the CGI was real cheap. Not good either.

However, you will laugh a few times during the film. When Chris Hemsworth's character dies, my boyfriend had a good laugh. But honestly, I'd rather watch Dead Alive for a comedic horror movie than a mediocre film about everyone being a designated, stock role.

The Cabin in the Woods is not the worst, but its pathetic CGI, bad writing, and annoying ending just make it a meh ride. While there are humorous parts, I'd only check it out if you're not into actual scary movies and want to play something in the background.

Review CLII - Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace

Review 152
Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace (2016)

I don't know if I'm stretching this with the title of a review, but it nonetheless will get a piece of action here. I was not familiar with the original sketches from the trio at Million Dollar Extreme, and I have not checked them out either, but let me tell you, Million Dollar Extreme Presents: World Peace (short: World Peace) is something. I was going to wait until episode six was released, but unless they decide to throw everything down the drain in that episode, I have a feeling my views will not change.

World Peace is a comedy series of approximately eleven-minutes currently being shown on Adult Swim, a late-night program on Cartoon Network. I don't live in the United States - nor do I watch television - so I would have missed out on this series, but thankfully I managed to catch it on youtube (note: a quick search seems to produce negative results for the episodes at the current moment - I'm sure copyright issues are the culprit). For those of you wondering what it's about, it's a skit show. Given the length, there are usually about three major skits running through the show. As for the type of humour, it's definitely off-the-wall anti-comedy in general, with some sketches honestly not being all that funny, apart from a little joke in the middle of the sketch. C'est en style de The Eric Andre Show, for example, where you sit there awkwardly at times because stuff is just happening and it is just off. I'll admit, it isn't a style that's for everyone - I can't say I always enjoy it - but World Peace goes above and beyond with its political commentary.

Yes, I did say political commentary. I mean, it's damn obvious when you watch an episode, but I think it's important to remember that you should not be disregarding the commentary made in comedies. Monty Python's Flying Circus, while silly at times, still made some pretty strong political comments at times that can maybe be overlooked given the general context of the show. The Meaning of Life I can say for sure had a lot to say - only because I haven't watched the show in its entirety. A drama, when taking on political positions, is taken seriously and can cause a backlash, but comedy can have liberty as it can be taken more lightly. However, I can't say World Peace takes itself lightly at all. Check out the tap water sketch to see what I mean.

The title of the show already speaks volumes given the movements pushed by governments to accept and tolerate everyone, and to bring about world peace, which, given human nature, is a complete fallacy and should already provoke laughter. Check it, I do have a belief to treat people with respect regardless of their origins, but the general population does not. "But shouldn't we try?" Of course - but what the government pushes is not this - it only pushes agendas which are self-destruction to its own people. This is what the show presents. It presents the double-standards, political correctness which plagues Western society. It makes you laugh, but then you have sketches like this one which make you wonder what the hell is going on. Again, I believe in respect among people, but what exists today has taken on a whole new level. I was speaking to a fine arts graduate student the other day, and he complained that in one class, the teacher was analysing a piece of work and saying the author was just a "privileged white woman" with nothing to say. I can't say I didn't feel an anger from that comment - not because I am in that demographic, but because this was exactly the problem minorities had to face in the past. We are not progressing, instead we are just pointing at a different race. My field of study keeps me away from art and critiques from these pieces, so I can't say I face the consequences of it in general, but I'm sure my blood would boil in such a class. It's just a sad story all around when, by attempting to get other voices heard, we shut up others.

I guess I don't really have much else to say about World Peace except expressing how flabbergasted I am that this show was even produced. It's damn raw, pretty funny at times, and has a lot to say about the political climate now. Regardless if you agree or not, sometimes you need to listen to stuff outside of your bubble to keep your views in check, and one hundred percent, World Peace does this. So thank you, Sam Hyde, Nick Rochefort, and Charls Carroll for your sketches, as well as Andrew Ruse who directed and also helped write this.

I would link a promo or something, but I linked you a bunch of sketches, so check those out! Youtube should also have some episodes uploaded somewhere, so be free my minions!

Review CLI - けんかえれじい

Review 151
Fighting Elegy (1966)

Seijun Suzuki (鈴木清順) entered my life and well, he never left. Having started his filmography with Tokyo Drifter (東京流れ者) and followed with Branded to Kill (殺しの烙印), it was bound to continue. This time, I checked out the forever-violent Fighting Elegy (けんかえれじい) starring Hideki Takahashi (高橋英樹), Junko Asano (浅野順子), and Yûsuke Kawazu (川津祐介).

Kiroku Nanbu (高橋英樹) has fallen madly in love with Michiko (浅野順子), without any release for his love. He fears destroying her innocence, and his Catholic prospects stop him from expressing any sexual desire. Consequently, thanatos takes over as his way to alleviate the pressure. With Turtle (川津祐介) taking him under his wing, Kiroku Nanbu claws his way to the top of the machismo social ladder.

If you're familiar with Seijun Suzuki's work, you already know what to expect in terms of violence. However, Fighting Elegy is in black and white, escaping from the beautiful colours presented in Tokyo Drifter (among others), which is unfortunate, I must say. However, if you're new to Seijun Suzuki, let me say that this is one Japanese filmmaker who stands apart. Now, Akira Kurosawa (黒澤明) and Yasujirō Ozu (小津安二郎) are phenomenal directors whose work continues to inspire, but you know when you sit down and watch À bout de souffle (Breathless) for the first time? You remember that feeling of uneasiness and shock that you aren't in normal French cinema? Well, that's Seijun Suzuki's work. He is, in a way, the New Wave of Japanese cinema, taking risks, going nuts. So much so that he basically got fired after Tokyo Drifter came out and the sequel to Fighting Elegy was put into limbo and never completed. Even if you can't really enjoy the weirdness of his films, you can nonetheless appreciate his cinematography and palette choice from his films if nothing else. Plus you got Mr. Cheeks (Jō Shishido (宍戸錠)) from some of his films, which never ceases to make me laugh. No offense, Mr. Shishido - you're still great.

Fighting Elegy does not disappoint in his style, though I would say it is tamer than the two other films I watched from him. The violence is still there - oh yes, is it there - but I find the plot didn't delve into crazy spots like in Branded to Kill. So if you're looking to be introduced to Seijun Suzuki's work, Fighting Elegy is not a bad start. However, I can't say it was my favourite. I got a great laugh from the opening scenes with Kiroku Nanbu's adolescent lust for Michiko, all while fanning over the love birds and missing the innocence of teenagehood, but I kept yelling at Kiroku Nanbu to just pay attention to Michiko as she obviously crushed on him. And the thanatos part really went far. I dunno, with the mace and changing prefecture (is it correct to put it that way?) insanity, I can't really say I dug the whole view on machismo. Our protagonist could have gone to anything else, but instead went to hardcore violence and believed he could still get Michiko from it. Since the source material was from a book, I can't really blame Seijun Suzuki (although apparently he took many liberties with the script), but it still made the plot kind of eh for me. I think Seijun Suzuki's work in hitman/yakuza stories works well, especially when he's given liberty. Fighting Elegy definitely wasn't bad in its plot, but the more it went on, the more I just sat there wondering what the hell was going on - and not because Seijun Suzuki was going topsy-turvy with the plot.

Otherwise, what about cinematography? It had some typical Seijun Suzuki moments, like in the bar, but I must say that his work with colours has really been my absolute favourite, so my bias means I missed out in Fighting Elegy. As well, since I feel like our beloved director was trying to make more of a quote unquote normal film, it didn't have the same level of craziness that I remember from Branded to Kill. But it has also been a while, so I'd have to get back to you on that.

In the end, the film has some Seijun Suzuki flavour, but it lacks his superb yakuza story telling, it isn't super colourful (which he handles so well), and it isn't his most New Wave-y film. Again, if you're looking to slowly dip into the pool of Japanese New Wave, Fighting Elegy is the way to go. If you're a sommelier of Seijun Suzuki, I would say it isn't his best. It's still worth a watch for his take of a school tale ("Chasing girls is a sign of weakness! Break all the rules!"), a good laugh (at least initially), and a freakin' crazy mace, but he's definitely released better. Honestly, though, that mace haunts my nightmares *shudders*

Review CL - Le samouraï

Review 150
Le samouraï (1967)

I have reviewed Alain Delon films before, and I've mentioned some of the classics, but I figured it would be fair to review the first film I ever watched him in, Jean-Pierre Melville's Le samouraï (The Samurai for the anglophones in the audience, although the English-known title is the same as the French one, but with a capital on the "s". I'm done). I think my boyfriend was trying to impress me with this film before we started dating, and he definitely did. This is one of three partnerships between Delon and Melville, and trust me when I say that I enjoyed each of those films. I've also checked out other films from Melville, including Bob le Flambeur, and Melville really has it going down. But putting the two together just gives me some of my favourite films ever. Pure eye-candy all around with frigid awesomeness. Le samouraï also stars François Périer, Nathalie Delon, and Cathy Rosier. Let us begin!

Jef Costello (Alain Delon) is a professional hitman, normally known to be superb in his work. However, after killing a night-club owner, a group of witnesses and a persistent head investigator (François Périer) may be enough to overthrow his fake alibis and send him away to prison.

If any of you love French cinema, or super clean, beautiful cinematography, or love Alain Delon/Melville, you've seen this film and don't need any convincing to give it a second watch. For those of you who aren't familiar with any of this, well, you need to have an appreciation for cinematography and crime films in order to enjoy this one. It's truly a film from the sixties, taking its time and showing us the beauty of an image as opposed to focusing on dialogue. Definitely very French as well, which I am biased to, of course. Consequently, this film might not be as accessible to modern viewers as an American film, we'll say, but if you want an initial look into some real class cinema, Le samouraï is the way to go.

Honestly, I guess my review could be longer, but the film is great. I especially love the chiaroscuro feel you get in this film - Melville is not afraid of showing us darkness. The opening shot is just Alain Delon's character lying in bed, smoking, with our focus on his slender, large windows. I mean, that enough to me was a sigh of happiness. Melville's concentration on the film's palette being muted (at least in the beginning) is obvious and soft on the eyes. Otherwise, placements of characters and angles are great. I would expect nothing less. It's not crazy and did anything that particularly had me jumping in my seat, but it was still very pleasurable.

Acting was great. Alain Delon is very quiet and serious in this one, which was great, and François Périer was great, but I really liked the female characters. Nathalie Delon is not very present in the film, but her way of keeping cool and innocence in loving Jef Costello was great. I also liked Cathy Rosier's portrayal as Valérie, the pianist. Again, subtle. Like the palette, no one is screaming and yelling and being outrageous, but I liked her coolness.

What else now but the plot? It's a typical crime plot - nothing really hidden happening here. I remember the first time I watched the film, I was skeptical of the title, but it holds its meaning in the end. But yeah, Le samouraï is not trying anything crazy here. It's a fun movie, but is taken to a new level with the aesthetics of it.

That's all I really have to say about Le samouraï. It's a film that isn't daring to go crazy, but it definitely has a lot of beauty to it. If you like old crime films, check it out. If you like beautiful shots, check it out. If you like a super chill Alain Delon, check it out. And if you're familiar with Melville and never checked this one out, that's a crime itself. Happy viewing!

Psst... Sorry about the roman numeral screw-up. Everything should be in order now.