The Past is a film that is truly summed up in the two words of its title. Every person in the film is, in some way, held captive by their past behavior or entanglements of others. On the surface it is a film about a man returning to Paris to sign divorce papers. His French wife is involved with a new man (Samir) whose wife is in a coma. Her two daughters and his young son sit right in the middle of the "mess" as one of characters refers to the situation to Ahmad, the main character played with a cool dignity by Ali Mossafa.

Sounds melodramatic. It is but it never turns into a soap opera. Many of the issues of personal and cultural identity are raised only in passing. No one mentions them verbally but they are there. Both Samir and Ahmad exert control by "fixing" things around the house for instance.

Once you start to sympathize with one character you find out more about the perspective about another character. What you are sure happens is often, subtly and realistically, turned  on its head. It is a superbly written and acted film.  Bérénice Bejo is flawless. You understand her manipulations, her anger even if you do not totally sympathize with all her actions and words. This role is a long way from The Artist's Peppy Miller.

Director Asghar Farhadi is justifiably compared to John Cassavettes. But in some respects Farhadi's work seems more real.  He has a different visual style from Cassavettes as well (his movies often felt suffocating for some reason and this is meant as a compliment).

This is a serious film. It isnt about some larger than life story. No one here is trying to save the world--just themselves.  It is about real people and lives and it manages to capture something incredibly close to real life on screen. This is especially true in that the characters do not do what we want them to necessarily. There isn't some grand resolution here either. Life goes on.

Farhadi, who also write the screenplay, is best known for A Separation, the Iranian film that won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film (and was a hit in Iran). This film is like that one both in that it is a personal film about a small group of people and in that it is structured more like a mystery. You see different perspectives on the action throughout the film

In both films also there is a focus on how the actions of adults affect children. It seems to be something Farhadi is preoccupied with--but, again, it isn't articulated. You see the trauma kids go through because of their parents.  And, like in real life, no one really talks about it.

The Attack is a film about terrorism it is true but it is also a love story, a mystery and a personal story about the individual’s place in society. It is a film that is best walked into knowing little. It is probably a bad idea to even watch the trailer.

The story is basically about a Palestinian doctor, living in Israel and is connection to a terrorist attack. The doctor is played by Ali Suliman who brings a quiet intensity to the character. He chews no scenery and seems so real in the role you forget you are watching an actor.  The film revolves around him but the supporting cast is also stellar and gives the same sort of truly human portrayals. Reymond Amsalem is also excellent in limited screen time. Dvir Benedek, with even less time, creates a human face for the Israeli security forces. He conveys humanity in a role that might have been unnoticed.

The film works so well because it is not focused on the details of politics or the grand scheme of things. It is the story of this one man and his journey to find the truth. It is about him, one human, interacting with others, all of whom seem perplexed by some part of his motivation. The great tragedy is reduced to one of its helpless parts.

The Attack has something American filmmakers could learn from--even in silly action movies. Cartoon-like terrorist villains are not scary. Actual humans, who seem normal and even decent but who become terrorists are. The last time an American movie even tried to do this was Traitor with Don Cheedle.

Yet there are no villains in this film. Some will be shocked by this notion after you see the film yet it is true. It is a movie full of victims. Even someone who kills almost a dozen children in a restaurant is a victim. This isn't put across in some obvious way. You are not beaten over the head with the woes of the Palestinians. In fact, an Israeli security officer is the one who makes the statement that resonates throughout the movie as to why such attacks happen.

The film does not take a "side" but gives viewers a feeling that the whole notion of “sides” is irrelevant now. Everyone is playing some predestined role in a great tragedy. Decent, good people look at other decent good people and see an enemy--or a potential enemy. It is not a film that fills you with hope about prospects for peace but it does leave you with some positive feelings about human beings as individuals.

The Attack is also a beautifully shot movie. It looks fantastic. And even though it deals with some terrifying and gruesome material it never feels the need to revel in the visual side of this. It makes you feel through the story, not through gore. But there are moments where you just marvel at the beauty of the work here--moments where the camera is used to convey feelings when no words are spoken.

Director Ziad Doueiri hits all the notes perfectly here both visually and in the writing. There isn't a discernible flaw here. Doueiri uses visuals to be sure you never lose sight of the fact that this is about people--not ideology. At the same time the film never feels the need to preach. It is startling, sad and keeps you engaged from beginning to end.

The film was released in 2012 but is in USA theaters now.

If you only care for films about angry people, made by angry people The Intouchables may not be for you (I like movies about angry people made by angry people myself). It isn't a great film but it doesn't have to be. It is still touching and, perhaps, an introduction to an actor who may appear in heftier fare down the road (Omar Sy).

The word "great" is used too often these days anyway. It is like "hero." Someone who saves a spider from the sink is a hero these days. And everyone calls every film they see "great." Go look at the online reader reviews. Even the dumbest movies get 4 out of 5 stars.

I digress.

This film deserves to be called great more than others that are described as such.

The gist of the film is a paraplegic with a boatload of money is in need of a new assistant; someone to get him up and shower him in the morning, to feed him, exercise him and other less pleasant tasks. Instead of the line of qualified applicants he hires a young man who came to apply solely because he wants to keep his unemployment benefit (as we would call it in the USA). When he is told that this street denizen has a record and likely no pity he replies "I don't want pity."

There is some sentimentality. Given the subject matter it is almost unavoidable. How is it that sentiment has come to be a bad thing? Is it SO awful to feel some compassion and see a change for the good in a character?

Not that any character in this film is bad. That may be part of the point. People can go wrong just because of circumstance, lack of opportunity. It doesn't mean they are inherently bad. But that may also be getting too deep for this film.

This is a slice of life movie that doesn't really get too deep into the characters in the script--that is left to performances. And these performances seem like they have a back-story that isn't actually there. Which is probably the sign of good performances. There is no real conflict here to resolve but the film keeps you with it anyway.

There are montages that have little to do with the plot--the time honored (to be kind) "getting dressed" montage for instance. There is also a funnier "shaving montage". They do it well here so it never makes you want to claw out your eyes. If this were a big budget Hollywood film they would last 15 minutes and have a Beyonce song played throughout.

The main character, though disabled, is never pitiable. He isn't trying to end it all. He isn't trying to find a cure. He is trying to live his life in his current state and has problems--for instance with women--that he simply does not know how to solve. This is what is refreshing about the movie. He is a man. Just a man who cannot walk or move. He has the same brain as the rest of us. He isn't some precious hero or a freak. Getting that across in a film is no small thing.

There is something extremely likeable about Where Do We Go Now?, the Lebanese/French/Egyptian/Italian film about a small town divided between Christians and Muslims trying to get along in the midst of unrest in the outside world. The film is a sort of modern day Lysistrata but it is a tad less focused (to be charitable).  

Directed and written by Lebanese actress Nadine Labaki, the movie focuses on the effort of women to keep sectarian violence from breaking out in their town. The town is isolated by a destroyed bridge that will only let a moped in and out. The women strive to keep the hot headed men from killing one another after religious tensions from outside flare and there are several incidents where a mosque and Christian religious icons are profaned.  They try deceit; they try (improbably) hiring exotic dancers to distract the men and various other tricks. None of these seem to be particularly well conceived or effective. But this may be intentional. Getting the men under control seems like something of a fool’s errand.

It is probably best to think of this as allegory in any case.

The previews are a problem for this film—they make it seem like a wacky comedy. It isn’t. It has comic elements but these are subtle and not at all what the previews imply. This is a drama. Many scenes work. One scene where Labaki’s character, Amale, tells the men, fighting in her café to “go die at home” rings particularly true. And when the shamed men leave, she is left with her child—also a boy. Will he be part of the cycle? Labaki is a real presence on the screen and the acting is all professional and believable.

It is also a good idea to keep in mind that Westerners may not be the intended audience. Americans especially like neat films with all the loose ends tied up. In this film there is no “bad guy” and you never find out who does any of the things that light the fuse of a potential powder keg. That isn’t the point.  Although sometimes it can be a little difficult to discern what, precisely the point is. Again, this may well be intentional. The problems, the reasons behind the turmoil under the surface, are in the film and real life not easy to pin down.

One truth is easy to pin down; men are singled out as the root of the problem.  It is hard to argue against this, be it in the real world or in the film. Women, with a few exceptions, are not the one’s starting wars or even localized sectarian violence.

Interestingly the film begins and ends in a graveyard, one side Christian and one side Muslim. Apparently men in the village have killed one another before and even though they seem to coexist more or less peacefully. There is no real attempt at showing real closeness between the men—more tolerance. The women are another matter, they are friends; they joke and laugh together in a more intimate manner than the men. This isn’t to say the men initially seem hostile but just not close.

The film breaks out into song now and again (one funny song and one about love) in a way that will make the average American filmgoer roll their eyes. But this sort of scene is common in films from various places around the world; from Egypt to India. It seems odd to Americans in a film like this these days. But it wasn’t so long ago dramas and comedies alike had musical “numbers” in them.

This is not a great film but it is a good one.

When a film comes out of the Middle East and is directed by a woman there is a justifiable tendency to give more praise than is merited. In this case praise is merited—with caveats. The film meanders and frustrates.  There are a lot of characters and they are hard to keep track of and hard to feel much for specifically. You can care as you would for any human being but there is not a great deal of character development.  

It lacks focus but it is still a likeable film especially in the discussion it raises. Unfortunately the people who need to see films like this most are not likely to be in the audience. Nor would it get through to them if they were. And that is a shame.

After watching the Mesrine: Killer Instinct I vaguely recalled being a kid and hearing about the death of a French gangster shot to pieces by the police in France.

I give nothing away saying that.

The film, distributed by Music Box Films, follows the "career" of Jacques Mesrine, a notorious French criminal, in a sort of Goodfellas au Francais. It is a very good movie but not life changing. Character development is not exactly this film's forte, people meet, then you see them as best pals or lovers. BUT this is probably by design and the acting goes a long way to make up for this lack of development. And it would have taken too much time to really develop all the characters. We get sketches instead. This bothers me less as time goes by and I think more about the film.

Vincent Cassel (who won a Cesar for the film) is particularly good as the lead but supporting roles, and indeed very small ones, make a difference in this film. Michel Duchaussoy, who plays Mesrine's father is barely on the screen but you completely understand who his character is just from these few minutes. No one ever talks enough about how important supporting roles like this are. They can make a movie.

Gerard Depardieu (forgive the missing accent!) also appears in what could be equated to the Paul Sorvino role in Goodfellas and, as usual, also makes a mark, again, despite less than massive screen time.

There is something ramshackle about the film but it also moves smoothly, if that makes sense. Suddenly years go by but you do not FEEL as if anything is missing necessarily. At one point a never seen robbery leads to a prison sentence. Do we NEED to see the robbery? Nope.

My only real complaint was that I didn't know this was part one of two. It leaves you hanging a bit.  I enjoyed it. I was never once thinking about my laundry or phone bill while in the theater. Kudos to Music Box yet again for bringing a fine foreign film to the good old USA.