Intacto

For us "normal" people luck comes in streaks of good and bad, sometimes we have rotten luck, sometimes we fluke something and sometimes miracles happen. However for some people "luck" is a gift that is always with them but can be lost with the touch of another person with the same gift. When Federico is stripped of his gift by Samuel, a survivor of the concentration camps, he sets out to find another gifted as he was and use him as a way back into the series of games they play. He finds Tomas – the only survivor or a massive airplane crash that killed over 230 others. However, when Tomas flees his hospital bed he is pursued by a police officer, haunted by the loss of her husband and son, who also has the gift.

This film opens with a cool sense of atmosphere with people wearing hoods, long corridors, mysterious characters and so on, providing it with a good start but not one it builds on. That it manages to continue with a good visual style and a cool thriller atmosphere is what I will give it credit for but to me these are not enough to make this film work. The plot is very little more than a basic premise, which, although it acted as a very interesting hook, failed to serve anything in the way of substance or narrative up. The plot lacks logic and it relies on a series of reasonably good set pieces (the games) to keep the interest in the film up – I can see why Hollywood has bough the rights to remake it because it does have style and, if it gets a big name and a thriller director, the lack of substance shouldn't worry too many execs. The ending is good but by that point I wasn't feeling all that involved in the film and it had missed its chance to really get me on board.

In many ways the film reminded me of "Lucky Star", which some may remember was an advert pretending to be a trailer for a film about a man with impossible luck (played by Del Toro and directed by Michael Mann) but I thought the advert did it better. The characters are also pretty thin; I expected them to be complex and interesting considering the plot, but they were tools more than people. With this in mind, the cast actually did OK with what they have. Sbaraglia was a good presence with a good range; Poncela was coolly mysterious; Lopez was passionate and held the attention, but von Sydow just seems to be off in his own film somewhere, just filling time with the second unit director until the rest of the cast meet up with him.

Overall this has a concept that will bring many too it, but it doesn't do anything with it and it never really managed to get a good, involving story built up around it nor create characters to be held by. It is not terrible though, just hollow and unsatisfying – a few set pieces and consistently stylish direction and atmosphere all add value but this will be one time when I'm actually looking to a Hollywood remake to be an improvement.

This film puts you in the middle of a world where luck isn't all luck. In this world some people really *do* have more luck than others, and it can be transferred from one person to another by touch. But this isn't a film that spells things out-you're immersed and have to figure it out on your own.

Very early in the film we see Federico win several rounds of roulette in a row, betting on single numbers. He goes to see the owner of the casino, Sam (Max von Sydow), who hugs Federico (taking his luck) and then throws him out of the casino. Federico wants revenge, so he begins to look for a very lucky person to help him. He finds Tomás, the sole survivor of a plane crash.

To say more about the plot would give away too much, so I won't. The film is visually beautiful and unique, and there are a few scenes that will likely stick with you for weeks (I can say this with certainty since as I write this it's been over two weeks since I watched the film). I'm not normally someone who seeks out thrillers, but I'm very glad I saw this one.

Seen on 11/9/2002 at the 2002 Hawaii International Film Festival.

This Spanish film is a strange one, a hard one to follow story-wise, but visually striking and interesting most of the way. The fact is wasn't always easy to follow will help me want to watch this again to see if I can figure things out better.

The story involves people with th ability to steal "luck" from other people and then taking it away from fellow takers. Make sense? I didn't think so. Despite the difficulty following and understanding everything, I still enjoyed this film.

The DVD transfer is sharp, too, and has good sound. It's an intriguing film and, perhaps, I should have waited for a second viewing when I understood more things about the story. Suffice to say I thought enough of this film to buy it because I knew I'd be watching this multiple times.

The more I think about this film, the more I liked it. The script was extremely well-written, with appropriate twists and turns for each of the numerous characters-- not just the antagonist and one other, as usually happens.

It's a great idea. What if Luck were a quantifiable commodity, and certain people had the ability to take it from others? What if such people were only one in a billion? The premise reminded me somewhat of "Unbreakable," but this movie has so many more complex characters and is so much better written-- yes, really.

However, the more I think about this film, the more I realize how much I disliked the cinematography, editing, production design, and lighting. I know they probably didn't have a lot of money to spend, but a good DP isn't hard to find. Making much of the movie literally dark to go with the psychological darkness was a fine idea, but executed poorly. It's unfortunate.

The script would make a great read, though, and I suspect that's why the film was able to be made. Those talking about "Adaptation" as an argument for a screenplay to be a legitimate piece of literature would do well to read "Intacto," and leave it at that.

As a film, though, I'd still recommend it. Good job keeping Max von Sydow away from the other actors... he acts circles around them. But the others do okay too. 8/10.

What is perhaps crucial about this movie is that it is shaped for a sophisticated cine-maniac,not so very keen about action and plot,rather willing to focus on the very atmosphere of the movie and the questions it puts in front of the viewer.

Whole idea of the movie is to find the real connection between love and luck,to investigate whether they are two sides of the same story. If one believes love could be a drug much more powerful than heroine , what to tell about luck - especially if one's life is all about taking advantage and satisfaction of luck possessed.

Slow,bit dream-like narration,avoiding obvious solutions,think-forcing movies and great photography makes Intacto my favorites.

To conclude I can quote Jill Scott:"gave me things to think about"