hetzevendegeitje

Frank Van Passel proves again he is one of Belgiums leading directors. Once again, the crew he uses is very talented, he has some big international stars in the film (some), and the film is an adaptation of Willem Elschot classic novel. You can understand, we have been waiting for it. But Frank van Passel fails in this adaptation (or is it screenwriter Christophe Dirickx, who hasn't been very impressionating any more for some years).

The novel is a tipical multi plot story about the guests of an old pension in Paris. Christophe Dirickx and Frank Van Passel choosed to pick out one story line, and to minimize or forget the others. They tri to tell a little and painfull love story about a young servant and a german guest in an old paris hotel in 1913. Sure the story is painfull, but not always as it was ment to be. They meet, the seem to fall in love, 3 minutes later Grunewald (the german guest) seems to have lost his interest in the girl, they have some emotional conflict (Grunewald still loves her?) and the world war one begins and ends the story.

During this film you keep on asking the question why. Why do they fall in love in the first place? Why does she has to give up her father and son for grunewald? Why does grunewald believes they can't live together when they love eachother so much? You don't get any answer, and as a result of this, you lose interest in the story.

Maybe, Villa des Roses just doesn't work as a movie, maybe some novels can't be translated to the screen. But I lost the trust I had in Christophe Dirickx since Manneke Pis, Frank Van Passels debut. There are just to many holes in this script. To many personages disapear before they are properly introduced, like the abandond girlfriend of one of the guest, who we see for the first time the moment she has to leave the pension. Or the "nurse" who "helpes" the couple with an abortion, and then seems to live in the pension?

Not a bad film after all, thanks to the talent of Frank Van Passel and dop Jan van Caille. But after Manneke Pis and Terug naar Oosterdonk, never the less a disapointment. 7 out of 10

this is the story of a young boy who tries to forget the loss of his dad. Not all the actors are very good, but the imagination of Vincent Ball and the performance of Ides Meire makes this film one off the best Flemisch film of the last 10 years. Very nice small film.

Storytelling has two parts. Fiction and non fiction. In fiction Tod Solondz tells us how we have to watch part two, as soon as you start writing (filming in this case) everything becomes fiction. It is not surprising that the first part (fiction) seems to be more non-fiction than part 2 (non-fiction). The first part is the very raw and painful story about a young girl who is raped by her literature teacher. The second part is the story of a documentaire filmmaker who tries to make a film about teens in suburbia. The guy is a looser, and nobody believes his film will be succesful. But the family he follows (by accident) gets involved in a serie of dramatic events, and the film becomes a hit. When the filmmaker tells his subject he is sory for what happend to him, scooby tells him not to be sorry, because his film is a hit.

Tod Solondz is a genial storyteller. He doesn't follow the normal structure of a hollywood film, a protagonist with an dramatic purpose, an antagonsist with an invert purpose, ... Like the bad guy in part one tells us, the second story is way better, this one has at least a begin, a middle and an end. In fact Non-fiction has a begin, a middle and an end, but that is not the reason why you will like the movie. The dramatic events that will happen to the family livingstone are not the motor that makes this movie turn. As in happiness, it is the way Tod Solondz shows us how we really act in life, different than how we think we are acting. watching a Tod solondz movie is like when you watch yourself in the mirror early in the morning when you aren't completely awake. there is an ocean between where i live, an where tod Solondz films his movies, but everytime again, i see myself reflected in the personages of Tod Solondz. That is wath makes his films so wonderful painful, you see people doing stupid things, but you can't blame them, because you know you should do the same thing. You love the personages you are laughing with.

Well, i love Tod Solondz, in my directors all-time ranking i'll put him on the same level as lars Von Trier, just under Ingmar Bergman, and igmar bergman, that is the top.

Awful, a seriel killer has to kill with no reason, so you can be next. The only thing Hannibal does without reason is coming back to the states. He is not the only one, some pigs makes the same trip. Imagine this. Hannibal, the same guy who escapes in part one by putting some one elses face on, now actually shoots his victims. Bwa, this film s****

And the ending, I've seen it before, it was in a flash movie called zombie collage and meant to be funnie.

No third part for me, thx

After the success of a modern romeo and julliet, this film tries to update othello. The middleage battle field becomes an 21st century basketball field. At first sight, that is ok. But, this meens that our protoganist now will try to destroy O only because he is the mvp off the schoolteam. And there you lost me. I' didn't believe one second of this film. Our protagonist is a young modern guy, acting like an old king in 13th century England. Awful

This is a very strange movie. The first half hour you don't have an idea where the film is goïng to. The films jumps from one time to an other (leolos birth, as a small child, as a young boy and to the present as an 12 year old) and the only help you get in following the story is a poetic voice over and an very nice soundtrack. But once you have survived the first half hour, the film gets some more structure, and you fall into a wonderful story of a boy who hates his family because they are stupid, poor and mental unstable, but on the other hand loves his family for beïng his family.

This film is almost perfect. I've never seen a film with so less structure, moving me so much. I've never seen a film so funy and so dark at the same time. This is one of those film where it hurts to have fun. And you'll have fun with this film. I can't give you a plot summary, this is about a boy who ties to escape from his family he loves and hates at the same time. Can't tell you more than this. In Robert Mc Kees scenario terms this is a multi plot, a lot is happening at the same time. To much to write it down. I've seen this film discribed as a mixture between 'toto le heros' and 'delicatesse'. It is tru, and leolo is way better than both very good film classics. Must see.

Oh, Jean Claude Lozon plays a trick with the voice over, witch makes the ending kind of a surprise. I 'm not gonna say what it is, but i wonder if this trick was meant to be or just happened by accident, like this whole films seems to happen by accident.

again, must see

belgium has been one of the latest countries where this film has been released. So I could read quite a lot about this film before I went to see it. This certainly helped me watching this film, i knew less or more what to expect. I'm not a big fan of spielberg, and i'm not a big fan of kubrick. But thinking they were kind of directing this story together, maked me believe it could be a very, very good film. Well, it isn't a very very good film. It is a very very strange film. When I was watching the film I never got completly lost in the story. But it has been 5 days I have seen the movie, and I'm still thinking about it. Heck, I'm even writing some comments about the film.

Because he is a robot, it is not easy to sympathise with david, but at the other hand, it is not easy not to sympathise whit the "cute little boy". I don't know what the most difficult scene is in the movie, the scene where his mother leaves her mecha-child in the woods, or the scene where that mecha-child sits at the table and is watching how his parents eat. You are scared of the person you want to identify with. This is what makes this film so strange and difficult to love. But this is also what makes this film so much better than all the other movies playing in the same theatre.

The discussions about what is kubrick and what is Spielberg, they are useless. When I watched the film I never wonderd which of the scenes were created by spielberg or which by Kubrick. The second ending where so much is written about is not as melodramatic as everybody seems to agree. It is this latest twist that makes you want forget the film so easy.

Did I liked the film? I like him more and more. I like this film more than i like ET and i like this film more than i like 2001. So, this film may have a lot of things I dont like, the movie it self is quite OK. It may not be a very very good film, but as it is a very very strange film, you have to see it.