runamokprods The first part of Belvaux's 'The Trilogy', where three films with very different tones overlap some characters and incidents. This first part is a taught, well made, violent thriller, following an escaped communist revolutionary, determined to return to the bombing and violence that put him in jail 20 years ago, while settling old scores with enemies, and re-contacting old allies. Belvaux shows daring in not working to make his character very sympathetic, and allowing our initial almost automatic sympathy for our lead character to be ever more harshly challenged. We come slowly to realize this is a violent zealot, unmoved by the fact that the revolution that seemed to make sense as a young man now seems arbitrary and insane, and that his callous disregard for his victims isn't much of a start on a new world order. In a vacuum, this dark, cynical noir would still be a good film, but with the next part of the Trilogy, it gains in levels and meanings. There are real flaws here – a few plot twists are hard to buy, some character behavior unclear (although less unclear after part 2). A guy this smart wouldn't make a couple of the mistakes he does. And the score is frustratingly repetitious. But it's never boring, always involving, and with the next film, it's something more.

noralee "On the Run (Cavale)" is the first third of an engrossing experiment in story telling that crosses "Rashomon" with a television miniseries to show us an ensemble of intersecting characters over a couple of days to gradually reveal the complicated truth about each. Writer/director Lucas Belvaux uses a clever technique to communicate just how differently the characters perceive the same situations-- they are literally in different movies and, a la "Rules of the Game," everyone has their reasons. "On the Run"is a tense, fast-paced escaped con on-the-run Raoul Walsh-feeling film, with the auteur himself playing a Humphrey Bogart-type who can be cruel or kind; "An Amazing Couple (Un couple épatant)" is an Ernest Lubitch-inspired laugh-out-loud comedy of mistaken communication; and "After the Life (Après la vie)" is a Sidney Lumet-feeling gritty, conflicted cop melodrama with seamy and tender moments. "Time Code" experimented turning the two-dimensions of film into three with multiple digital video screens. This trilogy is more effective in showing us what happens as characters leave the frame. Belvaux goes beyond the techniques used in the cancelled TV series "Boomtown" or the films of Alejandro González Iñárritu in "Amores Perros" and "21 Grams" with their stream-of-consciousness flashbacks character by character.I don't see how I can deal with each film separately. Theoretically, one can see the three movies alone or independently out of order, but that would be like watching one episode of a series like "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" and wondering what the big deal is. Only a handful of patrons in my theater joined me in a one-day triple-feature; I guess the others have a better memory than I do that they could see each film on separate days, though a marathon does inevitably lead to some mind-wandering that could miss important clues and revelations so this is ideal for a triple-packed DVD. On DVD we'll be able to replay the excellent acting to see if in fact the actors do shade their performances differently when particular scenes are enacted from different characters' viewpoints -- are these takes from the same staging or not? How is each subtly different that we get a different impression each time? Or are we bringing our increasing knowledge (and constantly changing sympathies) about each character to our impressions of the repeating scenes? One reason this conceit works is because of the unifying theme of obsession - each character is so completely single-minded in their focus on one issue that they are blind to what else is happening even as they evolve to find catharsis. One is literally a heroin addict, but each has their psychological addiction (revenge, co-dependence, hypochondria, jealousy). The slow revelation technique also works because of the parallel theme of aging and acceptance of the consequences of their actions, as some can face how they have changed and some can't change. You need to see all three films to learn about each character's past and conclusion, as secondary characters in one film are thrust to the fore in another in explaining a key piece of motivation. The only place they really interchange is in an ironically, meaningless political debate at the public high school they each have some tie to.

CareySandwich I generally don't consider myself the biggest fan of thrillers, but it seems that it may be due to my American upbringing. This makes me real bitter that intelligent, thorough, and stylistically unique films are being made elsewhere, but the American market doesn't seem interested because... why? The subtitles? The acting and writing are still better even if you do have to read the translated subtitles. You know what, I should boycott American movies for a while because I really haven't had much experience with foreign films, but of the last three films I saw, two of them were French, and one was from Hollywood. Guess which two were wonderful, and which one was God-Awful... Cavale was one of the best thrillers I've ever seen. It was dark and shadowy and very well shot. It was full of humanity, which is another thing that American films seem to be lacking. One of the things I liked best about it was the underlying subtlety in the characters. They had tones and textures that really drew me in. If you haven't seen Cavale, do so, you're going to love it.

jfurioli_2000 It is when you alone know the truth and the rest of the world is controlled by the enemy. You can trust no one since the enemy corrupts everything. You must use all means since the enemy is so much stronger than you. This film shows you from the terrorist perspective his path out of jail and back to his struggle from 15 years ago. First, you are with him, escaping the police, fleeing, contacting former comrades and then, little by little you get to know the face of his murders. The question is here: how can one justify such acts ? Well, Bruno, the terrorist, cannot. When he starts arguing, he can only repeat over and over the same mantras without confronting the reality under his very own eyes. And then the corollary question: if 15 years later, when the world has changed, a terrorist can resume his fight while he is the only one left, what to expect in a time where many think his cause is just ?