(nl) wrote: Dull, uninsightful. I hate coming down on it because of the interviews with real people, but there are too few interviews, the presentation is awful, but worst of all there is no insight in this documentary. It's not even creepy despite the horrific material. How did they make Dahmer boring!?
(gb) wrote: Born Into This, its title taken from one of his poems, is a remarkable movie, because, like Crumb or even American Splendor, it adores the very people most of us might ignore if they passed us on the street. This portrait of Bukowski is both wide ranging AND intimate. I learned that Bukowski was tireless at plying his craft. Despite his alcoholism, he wrote daily and continually submitted work for publication. This doc is an amazing worthy journey.
(au) wrote: Spoiler Warning: This Review Will Contain SpoilersWhen this film was originally released, it was very revolutionary. It is also, arguably the film which started the "French New Wave" movement. It is very influential, and it has had a huge impact on cinema. I had a couple issues with it, but overall, it was a pretty impressive film, and I'm glad I watched it.After a small time car thief named Michel Poiccard shoots and kills a policeman, he reunites with a love interest named Patricia Franchini as he attempts to convince her to run away with him to Italy, all while trying to avoid the cops.This is arguably one of, if not the most influential movie of all time. It has made many contributions to cinema that have been used again and again in other movies. When it was originally shot, the filmmakers attempted to film it differently than how most films were shot. They used real locations instead of man-made sets and it was filmed in mostly natural lighting. Raoul Coutard, the cinematographer of the film, said "When we were shooting Breathless, we tried to film it the way news reports were shot, i.e., with a handheld camera and natural lighting. In other words, for me it was very much like filming in the heat of battle." Also, since the cameras they used were very loud, Jean-Luc said the lines to them as he filmed it, and he edited their voices into the film later. These differences made it stand out from other films.However, what this film is perhaps mostly known for is its use of jump-cuts or discontinuity editing. Jean-Luc got the idea for this in director Jean Rouch's 1958 film: "Moi, un Noir". Jean-Luc was a huge fan of that film, and it's credited as a major influence for this film. However, Jean-Luc gave his own interesting twist to this concept. Instead of jumping from one scene to another, he would cut short clips out of the middle of scenes to shorten the films running time to 90 minutes instead of just removing entire scenes altogether. This caused some of the scenes to skip from moment to moment. This gave some of the scenes in the film a jagged and fast-paced feel. Essentially, what Godard did was take an already existing cinematic technique and add his own, unique style to it to spice it up or to change it around in an appealing way.Also, since Jean-Luc didn't have that big of a budget, being that this was his first film, he had to make use of what he had and try to find clever ways to cut down on cost. Godard had to film in locations that he already had access to, use cameras that he already had access to (the entire film was shot by using handheld cameras), and he hired people he knew to help work on the film. Often, he would film on the streets of Paris without any permits. At some parts, cinematographer Raoul Coutard would film scenes while sitting in a wheelchair as he was pushed along by crew members.I've spent a lot of time discussing its influence, but now I'm going to talk a bit about what I think of its story.I thought that it was really interesting how Michel was slowly able to gain Patricia's trust as the film went on. At the same time, Patricia had to decide whether or not she should stay with him or inform the cops that she knows where they can find him. As the 2 made their way through Paris, there was always a slight amount of tension since Michel's face is everywhere in papers. Also, people often happened to be reading them when he would be going by. There are also a few scenes in which people recognized him, and he had to escape the area quickly.However, there are 2 flaws (mostly minor ones) that I had with its story.The first one is a minor complaint towards its intro. I felt like it rushed the entire intro scene when he steals the car, murders the policeman, and meets up with Patricia. It seemed very fast-paced to a point where I could hardly keep up with it. I wished for it to slow down a bit to an enjoyable pace. I was a bit worried that the entire film would be like that. Fortunately, it wasn't, but my complaint here does not vanish despite this.My second issue with the film is not as minor as the first one, but it bugged me a little bit more. This complaint is about the predictability of the films ending. After Patricia informed Michel that she did tell the cops where he lived, and that they were coming for him, it became clear to me what was going to happen next, and I was instantly able to figure out how it would end. It became obvious which direction the movie was going to head in next. I wished that they revealed it in a less obvious way than that. For example, they could've revealed it right when they were about to drive away, and the cops could show up right after that revelation. My issue might still exist in a few remnants, but it wouldn't be nearly as glaring.In conclusion, I really liked this film, and I can respect it for its huge influence on cinema history. It did many things different from most other films, and it showed that you don't have to follow any rules when writing films. I did have a couple issues with its intro and outro, but other than that, I liked everything else about the film. I can understand why it would be brought up on "best movies ever made" lists and I'd probably add it too if I made one. It has had a huge impact on cinema history, and I can respect it for what it's done.