Nocturama

This film truly lives up to its description as a thriller. For much of the first part, and almost all of the second, I was biting my nails and sitting on the edge of my seat. Additionally, the scenery is very beautiful as it takes place in Paris and then an extravagant department store. My thoughts are these: Firstly: BE WARNED if you don't speak French. I do, so I could understand without the subtitles. However, my friend who was sitting next to me often had to ask for translation because she didn't understand what was happening, due to the fact that the subtitles are often inaccurate. As in, whole chunks of dialogue just left out. Secondly: A few of the other reviews mention how the terrorist's motives are unclear (as in, we have no idea why they did what they did). However, I didn't see this as a flaw: It allows you think about possible motives and identify with the characters more easily. Thirdly: For anyone who cares: I would rate this movie R (it's not rated last time I checked) for: Cursing (In French and English) Some nudity (two butts) Violence - not for the sake of being violent though.

Overall though, I really enjoyed this movie. I am still thinking about it for days afterword.. a good adjective is PROVOCATIVE. Don't be scared away by the long run time - it wasn't boring at all. Bonus points if you speak French, that would definitely help your understanding.

The movie is clearly split and its audience will likely be as well. The movie may desperately want to be provocative, thought it tries to down play both desperation and provocation and replace them with style.

I went in not knowing much and the tense action style of the first half of the film pulls one to the seat's edge.

I know the director has said the film is more about insurrection than terrorism, but I'm not sure I agree. That said I think it succeeds in portraying the emotional nature of terrorism, both for us aghast as "viewers" (on film and sadly in life) but more importanty for the terrorists themselves.

The director stridently avoids any sort of manifesto, and gathers a United Colors of Benetton cast. Youth is their uniting aspect, there are vague threads of rebellion for sexuality, for economic repression, for immigrant intolerance - but I think their motivations are intentionally vague. Again an accent on the emotion.

And an accent on style - the youngest member of the gang wearing his golden mask feels eerie and mythic. The whole second half of the film, staged in an empty mall as the nocturama for us to watch creatures more than children/people. It almost felt like a Brazen Bull scenario....polished, sleek and artful. But it may be more than just a pretty and warm place to hide out.

Surrounded by screens, as youth these days are, they try to resist watching themselves, but that is difficult. They play house, they play music, they play at rebellion. But maybe that is where rebellion, insurrection and terrorism come from - half baked ideas that catch fire. It's a game first that somehow becomes real.

Seems like the cast was comprised of non-actors or actors that the director worked hard to make into ciphers. Weirdly wooden while brimming with emotion. They stand in stark contrast to Adele Haenel, her face says more in silence than the other actors say with lines through-out. She is supposed to be the audience's touch point, a reluctant sense of this had to happen...even if we don't track the Jiri coefficient...in fact we're not sure why some anti-capitalistic or sense of human unkindness it had to happen, didn't it?

Again I think intentionally stepping far away from a rationale. The film wants to think less and act boldly. The setting of the second half of the film is arguably the biggest star, certainly shot in loving detail.

For what it's worth that image of the statue engulfed in flames, felt like an homage to something old - was it from "I, Claudius" - the movie features a lengthy lip-synching scene. More play-acting, play driving a tiny care. Again that young couple playing house, he in particular is perfectly frustrating as a leader who falls behind, who makes mistake after mistake.

Anyways, the movie has its moments and for me I found worked better than "Triangle of Sadness" but neither film is really rewarding.

How could this be? A big budget film that wants to blow up the big budget businesses?

Of course maybe I am too addicted to the status quo at this point, a real concern, but burn it all, blow it all up - even in my younger daze felt too childish. Thinking too much, just give this a 7, it's got a good beat and younger people can dance to its lack of coherent lyrics.

All of the music and more than a couple of dance scenes.... I'm left with a sense of AgitPop.

Even though it's quite clear from reading the premise that the film is surely not for everyone, that is still an understatement. The filmmaking here is incredibly detached of emotion, cold, and very, very clinical. That's part of the genius of it. A film like this needs to be executed this way, or else wavering too far into one side would be controversial, either being labeled as a film too forgiving of its protagonists and wanting us to sympathize with them, or portraying them as completely evil and not adding enough layers. In that respect the film works. It is mostly without a musical score, and scenes play out in long stretches in ways sure to infuriate many, but also impressive in their commitment. I think it's a fascinating, powerful film, but not an easy one to like.

I can understand why they have their reservations over this movie. Some essential plot points are barely touched upon, the central motivation of the characters is kinda bland and underdeveloped and the lack of realism is really annoying, specially towards the end. But this movie hits a fair amount of highs as well. The cast is interesting and nuanced, the direction is bold and it works, the score fits the movie quiet well and, in the first half of this movie, it never ceased to intrigue and weird me out. It's true that the second half has its mentioned problems, but it was kinda interesting too. The fact that the characters have such a ball in the mall when it's a total contradiction of their values... is it not hilariously ironic? And the movie never verbalized this, which it's a very clever way of conveying information. But, of course, that makes me wonder something as well: Why these characters are so dumb? I mean, so dumb? I know they are young, but come on! They make some (well, almost all) inexplicable actions in this movie!! That drags the movie down in my opinion. But, overall, I think it's more than decent. 6.8/10.

The film knows exactly what it's audience would like to see, but what it's withholding is integral to it's statement. This can be a difficult pill to swallow as it forgoes many of the simple pleasures of a conventional movie, testing both your patience and suspension of disbelief in the process.

It makes a group of terrorists into the central protagonists, but makes no attempt to offer any explanation for their actions. You keep waiting for a big reveal that will make it all seem justified, but it's absence leaves the film in a moral purgatory.

They come together to stage their attack in an almost heist movie like fashion, without any of the flair of say, Oceans 11. Then they retreat to a mall, which functions artistically to highlight the consumerist hypocrisy of our would be anarchists, but also makes absolutely no sense to the literal narrative, as it's clearly a terrible hiding place.

The pacing is deliberately slow, encouraging the audience to read between the lines of the minutia, though it does occasionally pick up at points. While it does seem to succeed at it's own intentions, it's impenetrable minimalism will probably alienate all but the most tolerant film buffs.