Chris Knipp Another relentless study by Kitano of an artist with no talent who refuses to give up, this goes on far too long and bludgeons the viewer with its relentless picture of a helpless sycophant trying to become a success by imitating his betters or copying trends that have just gone out of style. There is a disconnect between the early passages of the artist as a boy, which are fable-like, haunting, and touching (but also droll and odd) and the segments of the artist as an adult and "old" man (when Kitano himself takes over), the latter being simply a series of conceptual put-ons. Throughout the film is hurt by its suggestion that art of limited merit has no merit at all; that a child artist wouldn't produce anything of interest. And its later scenes are increasingly brutal and macabre. Another example of Kitano's limits as an "auteur." His work is distinctive and persistent, but there is a coldness, even a cluelessness, about it that is unappealing. The Allociné critic rating of 3.0/70 is full of raves, showing Kitano's strong "auteur" status among the French. Seen in Paris in April 2010.

Harry T. Yung "Achilles" is the last of the Kitano's trilogy about the joys and woes of a creative artist. I have watched the second, "Glory to the filmmaker" (2007) but not the first, "Takeshis" (2005). "Glory" was a little disappointing, mainly because it was unfocused, seeming to wander and meander without s clear course. "Achilles" is anything but unfocused.While this movie is generally labelled a comedy, the first half comes off like a Dickensian tale of an orphan. Coming from a well-off family, little Machisu finds himself plunged through a series of misfortunes – the family financial disaster, suicide of father, and then mother, an existence of drudgery under an unsympathetic uncle, then the orphanage, and finally making a living at a lowly position. The tale is told, however, with little poignancy. One reason is that the misery our protagonist goes through is nowhere near an average Dickensian orphan's. He has schooling, a kindly aunt and a very reasonable employer, just to name a few blessings. But the most important factor is Machisu himself.The taciturn child has a singular passion for painting to the extent that he at times almost seem autistic, although he is in fact not. But painting is such a consuming passion that nothing else counts. This is portrayed with remarkable consistency by the three actors from early childhood to young manhood, when he marries an insanely (just a manner of speaking) supporting girl who not only understands, but also embraces his addiction for painting. At this point, the comedy takes over, mainly generated by Machisu and his cohorts in their various imaginative attempts at creative painting. Hilarity ensues, but also some lethal consequences, literally. There is black comedy, but comedy nonetheless.In comes Kitano, playing Machisu at middle age (and wife played by Kanako Higuchi, whose heart-wrenching performance in "Memories of tomorrow" I still remember) with a daughter in late teens. Those who are familiar with Kitano's work will appreciate how well this character fits with his best-known screen persona – the expressionless face this is full of expressions, if you know what I mean. By this time his passion has gone completely out of control, and all hell breaks loose. I shall not, of course, disclose the ending. Better than "Glory", this is not Kitano's best. Still, it has all the good old Kitano ingredients such weird humour and underplayed characters. The profusion of colour scheme (often, but not always, through the paintings themselves) reminds me of "Dolls" (2002) which he directed but did not act in. On the title, the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, often used as an introduction to calculus, is adopted here to depict Machisu's perpetual pursuit of the elusive art of painting.

Chung Mo This should be required viewing for everyone in the "art" world. Kitano skewers global modern art culture and also makes fun of his own work.The story is simply of an artist from childhood to "middle age" (which seems to be around 62) as he tries to be a successful artist. He starts out as an untrained "primitive" but with a certain talent for texture and color. He is insulted at every turn while we get to see the "good" art by "masters" which are all really, really bad. Unfortunately the artist gets progressively worse as he takes advice from gallery owners on how to make his work "sellable", which it never is. Every time the work gets better, he's advised to go in a different direction. Many mildly humorous situations arise but the film isn't going for outright laughs most of the time. The scenes of the "middle aged" artist (played by Kitano) getting his supportive wife to make his art are very long, get progressively cruel (probably part of the point) and could have been cut down a little. The issue of autism isn't directly addressed but the character certainly exhibits symptoms.This is a very good film although a little long. It may not be as good to someone who has no experience with the art world of today. Kitano created all the art in this film, good and purposely bad.

Max_cinefilo89 Achilles and the Tortoise is the last installment in a loose trilogy actor/director Takeshi Kitano has made about the figure of the artist. Whereas the first two entries, Takeshi's and Glory to the Filmmaker, could basically be described as one big self-referential absurdist joke, Achilles is a more controlled film, with a proper story and a precise set of themes, albeit decorated with cheerfully absurd humor.Such a scenario occurs right from the beginning, in an animated prologue which explains the bizarre title: as pointed out by the philosopher Zeno, if Achilles (the fastest mortal man, according to Greek mythology) and a tortoise competed in a race, and the latter had even the slightest advantage (say three feet), logic demands that in the time required for Achilles to reach that point, the tortoise would keep moving forward, and therefore the famous warrior, paradoxically enough, would never be able to catch up with the notoriously slow animal.In Kitano's film, Achilles would be Machisu, a young boy fascinated by art, and the tortoise is success. Despite the boy's determination and occasionally bold choices of subjects (he has a knack for painting macabre events), his lack of stylistic originality makes all galleries shun him and most of his friends abandon him. Only his wife will keep supporting him, even in his older days (at this point, Kitano himself plays the role), when they're practically broke and their own daughter is ashamed to live in the same house as them.Kitano's passion for painting is quite well known among those familiar with his work (he personally makes all the artwork that shows up in his movies), and so Achilles and the Tortoise is a good opportunity for him to use his hobby as a tool to reflect on the elusive subject of art and its various ramifications. Naturally, he does this with his usual penchant for darkly humorous set-ups, especially in the third act, with some scenes so audacious it's doubtful even something like Six Feet Under would have featured them. And yet one does not feel repulsed by those scenes. On the contrary, it's the absurdity of the plot, paired with Kitano's quietly composed directing and minimalistic performance, that constitutes the movie's primary point of attraction. In fact, Kitano's on-screen presence is so charismatic that perhaps he would have been better off shortening the first section of the picture and granting his quirky alter ego more room. Furthermore, the straightforward "happy" ending feels completely at odds with everything else, but then again coming up with a suitably crazy epilogue might have proved too arduous a task.Ultimately, the only thing that seriously damages a part of this strange and, in its own way, funny opus is the running time (almost two hours), with minor help from the somewhat off- beat conclusion. Nevertheless, Kitano fans are likely to find something to embrace yet again, and anyone with some kind of interest in art should take a good, close look at this original take on the matter.