Author: Joseph Fahim

Summer film festival defies myth that culture has no place in the sun

CAIRO: Less than four months since the last one, the Fourth Caravan of the Euro-Arab Cinema opened last week in Alexandria and ended on Tuesday with a surprisingly successful round. The festival gave film lovers an uncommon opportunity, since most cultural activities have been suspended until September due to the fact that a majority of both Egyptians and foreigners are vacationing.

The launch of its second film festival in Egypt represented a considerable risk on the part of independent film company SEMAT (the principal organizer of the event), coming at a time when the majority of the Egyptian public are mainly drawn to big commercial summer flicks. However, despite the usual low-key publicity for the event, the Caravan succeeded in packing the French Cultural Center and the Creativity Center in Alexandria with large audiences thirsty for alternative entertainment.

Unlike the last festival, the Caravan did not include any new major European fiction films and opted instead to showcase the latest blockbuster world documentaries along with some Lebanese selections. The real highlight of the festival, though, was the tribute to the great Polish filmmaker Krzysztof Kieslowski and the screening of 13 of his films. These films were shown on six consecutive days in the crammed theater of the Creativity Center to a predominately Polish audience that included other members of different foreign communities.

Apart from the Kieslowski films, the selected fiction movies were less impressive than the documentaries. The most high-profile film of this selection is Brides, the most expensive Greek film ever made, that tells the story of one of the 700 European mail order brides on board the steamship King Alexander in 1922 who falls in love with an American photographer appointed to photograph every single bride. The real events of that voyage are the backdrop for the melodramatic love story between the helpless Greek girl and the heartbroken young American. The love story is touching, yet trite, and the subject matter of the film appears dated despite the overlooked relevance to various contemporary issues.

The most disappointing film of those shown is James Marsh s The King, a nihilistic clichéd prodigal son story starring Gael García Bernal and William Hurt. Bernal plays Elvis, a young man discharged from the Navy who travels to a little town in Texas and claims to be the illegitimate son of the town s born-again Christian pastor (Hurt). Later on, Elvis seduces the preacher s daughter, who may or may not be his sister, and smoothly infiltrates the small quiet community. Elvis viciousness is unjustified and the script never delves deep inside the complex nature of this young man. The King aspires to be an allegory about sin, religious bankruptcy and dozens of other undeveloped formless ideas but ends up being nothing more than an exercise in cruelty and flawed filmmaking.

On the other hand, the three major documentaries featured in the Caravan represented the newfound buoyancy and beauty of recent European documentaries. March of the Penguins, winner of this year s Academy Award for best documentary, was the most successful film of the Caravan in terms of attendance. The French documentary, shot in the stark natural beauty of Antarctica, chronicles the mating rituals of the emperor penguins and the arduous measures they go through in order to breed their infants and obtain food. The film was marketed in some parts of the world as an account of familial love and monogamy. The truth of the matter is penguins, like most animals, hardly show any emotions and the mating cycle is mechanical. What March of the Penguins in essence presents is a beautiful, amazing story about survival and perseverance and an outstanding look at an incredible different world.

Crossing the Bridge: The Sound of Istanbul is the latest documentary from the Turkish-German director Fatih Akin who was propelled to international stardom after winning the Golden Bear two years ago for his controversial film Head-On. Crossing The Bridge takes a look at the exceedingly diverse and rich musical scene of one of the most vibrant cities in the world and the increasing cultural conflicts that accompany the music. Alexander Hacke, a German avant-garde musician, guides us through a city torn by the traditions of the East and the contradicting modern values of Europe and the West. Hacke introduces us to various artists including rappers, Kurdish folk singers, street musicians and Muslim chanters. Each musician embodies a particular aspect of Turkish culture to form a truly beautiful love letter to a city and a people searching for a unified and coherent identity.

The best documentary of the festival is arguably the sweeping The Story of the Weeping Camel. The film takes place in the Gobi Desert in South Mongolia and starts with a family of nomadic herders trying to help one of their camels going through an awfully tough labor. The camel gives birth to a rare white calf and its mother refuses to feed him. After several failed attempts, the family sends their two young boys to town in order to fetch a musician who, with his music, might persuade the mother camel to accept her son and save the baby.

The role of camels in this documentary isn t central and the film is definitely not another natural documentary about a cute animal; these camels are plainly tools for the family’s continued survival. Weeping Camel is a story of a family living an almost utopian life. The nomadic family adopts an ancient and bare style of life; their only concern is one another and the desire to continue surviving in such a basic manner. All the family members fully realize that they can easily avoid leading such a rough existence by moving to the city. However, after years of experience and immense wisdom, the family has come to learn that modernity rarely leads to happiness and emotional fulfillment.

It s hard not to think about one s own life after seeing this film. The joy and innocence of this family seems to be out of this world and can be too overwhelming for the viewer, at some point, to completely grasp. Civilization and technology are supposed to make humans happier by providing them with a more comfortable, luxurious life; but after seeing this film, it s hard not to think that this might have been a mistake after all.

The success of the Fourth Caravan of the Euro-Arab Cinema paved the way for the Caravan to expand to Cairo. Unfortunately, the European documentaries screened in Alexandria will not take part in the Cairo program. The Krzysztof Kieslowski films will be reviewed next week along with the Lebanese documentaries. For more information about the Cairo Caravan, check The Daily Star Egypt Web site or call the Cairo Creativity Center at 02 736 3446.

An inane celluloid portrait of modern Egyptian man?

Mohamed Saad is a genius. a young man in front of me uttered these disconcerting words while standing in what seemed like a never ending queue for the top Egyptian comedian s latest film Katkout (Chick). It wasn t the first time I’d heard such words, yet the conviction behind every word of that sentence still astonishes me.

It all started six years ago with the release of the late Alaa Waley El-Din s smash El-Nazer (The Headmaster). Saad played the role of El-Limby, an uneducated, ill mannered thug who appeared to be under the influence 24/7. Saad s character became an overnight success and many producers saw significant potential in creating a spin-off movie. The first, El-Limby , stormed Egyptian movie theatres in 2002 to rapidly become the second highest grossing film in Egyptian box office history. Saad s popularity soared to even greater heights, despite the unanimously negative reviews that bombarded the film.

The next year, Saad unleashed Elly Bally Balak (What We re Both Thinking Of), a sequel to El-Limby. The film topped the box office yet again, selling more tickets than former box office champions Mohamed Henedi and Adel Imam. At that point, Saad realized that making another Limby film would be completely unacceptable to both the critics and his fans. And yet the commercial prospects of producing another Limby film were too enormous to ignore.

That s when Saad and his faithful comrades came up with the nifty idea of recreating the Limby character by changing his name, while keeping all the shtick that made his character so memorable. Of course, they would also stick to the same kind of thin storylines. The result was Okal and Booha, the box office champions of the last two years, surpassing LE 20 million each.

Mohamed Saad and his Limby character are not a mere cinematic trend or an outlandish commercial fluke, Limby is a true cultural phenomenon. His massive fan base is composed of various age groups from different social strata. Most of his fans have seen his last four movies several times and easily recite the inane dialogue crammed into every one of his films. It s hard to ignore such a phenomenon when people are shoving these lines in your face wherever you go these days.

Why is El-Limby so popular?

Some of his fans simply love the druggy tonality of his speech; others just relish his crude attitude and the sneaky ways in which he resolves his conflicts. But the most distressing fact though about El-Limby is that a considerable percentage of Egypt s young men can easily empathize with him. El-Limby is not an entirely unique character after all; men who share similar personality traits with El-Limby populate Cairo s alleyways and other numerous parts of Egypt. In fact, many of Saad s fans claim that El-Limby accurately embodies the spirit of the modern Egyptian man. El-Limby, Okal, Booha, whichever name you choose to call him, is essentially a man of no skills, lacks initiative and ambitions and holds no appeal for any sensible person. His stupidity is legendary and the methods he employs to reach his inconsequential objectives, which are usually formed by unusual, illogical external circumstances, should be studied and gathered into a new textbook about life in modern Egypt.

Katkout, the latest installment of El-Limby, is the last of the major summer movies to be released this year. The film was released in approximately 100 movie theaters (the largest number of theaters assigned to a single film in recent history) and is expected to, yet again, top this year s box office.

Believe it or not, I don t mind brainless, fun flicks that offer a good 90 minutes of pure entertainment. Yet, I never found El-Limby films either funny or entertaining. These movies were nothing more than unworthy attempts of a man trying hard to be funny and failing miserably. Katkout continues these attempts and is distinguished by being Saad s worst movie so far.

The character Katkout is the saeedi (southern Egyptian) version of El-Limby with a much lower IQ. The film starts with Katkout preparing to be killed by another family in Upper Egypt for some absurd, unclear reason that neither Katkout nor the audience can fully comprehend. Later on, he is rescued by a bunch of cops who transport him to Cairo in order to prepare him for a mission involving national security. It turns out that Katkout possesses an uncanny physical resemblance to a terrorist named Youssef Khoury who was preparing for a terrorist attack before he was haunted down by our always dependable police forces. After being set up for the assignment, we learn that a crooked terrorist organization, of unidentifiable nationality, is preparing to bomb Egypt s subway. Who exactly are these terrorists? What is the main reason for carrying out such an onslaught? The answers to these crucial questions are never provided to the audience, which honestly doesn’t seem to care.

This so-called-film is a one-man show. It s an empty vehicle for Mohamed Saad to indulge in some tasteless monologues, perform some physical comedy and have another go at trying to be a serious actor. Moreover, part of this uneven comedy attempts to be a spoof of spy films, but it sorely lacks the wit and imagination to create anything akin to the classic Egyptian films of the ’60s.

It s impossible to discuss the standard film elements of Katkout such as acting, direction, cinematography, music or editing because, simply, they don t exist. Tariq El-Amir s script, though, is a marvel; a screenplay that contains no plot, no logic, promotes all conceivable stereotypes about southern Egyptians, characters that lack even a single dimension, and a mind-boggling number of clichés tailored by the same people who churned out Shaaban Abdel Rahim s last masterpiece.

Watching Katkout was a pretty traumatizing experience. There wasn t anything to laugh about. The second half was too excruciating for me to bear. I tried to inject some happy thoughts into my head, but Saad s manufactured, nauseating nationalism expelled any remaining hope inside my broken soul. I wasn t the only one, though, since not a single laugh rang out during the last 30 minutes of the film.

Katkout is a hideous film, an ugly picture devoid of any actual entertainment or art. But Mohamed Saad will continue his reign over the Egyptian box office and flocks of people will continue to see his upcoming films regardless of Katkout s predictable destiny.

For the majority of Saad s fans, Katkout might be a minor disappointment but still worth seeing. For the rest of us in Sane Land, this is a worthy contender for the worst film of the year.

Mohamed Mounir proves he’s still got it with a magnificent performance

CAIRO: The first time I was introduced to Mohamed Mounir s music was in 1999, when I listened to his album “El Farha (The Joy). I have personally never been a true fan of mainstream Arabic music, and none of Mounir s previous few songs that I listened to throughout the years succeeded in changing my views.

The music of El Farha, however, differed from the regular Arabic music that was making the rounds – it was original, with multiple layers of traditional Nubian music; smart yet accessible and serious without any self-important sentiments.

The lyrics were full of social commentary, simple yet profound philosophical thoughts and little nationalistic ditties. El Farha was the beginning of a long fascination with Mounir s music that has been nurtured ever since.

Mounir is not simply an accomplished recording artist, but also a great live performer as well. The full Mounir experience is never complete without attending his famous concerts, which is where the scope of his music is fully expanded and realized. His latest performance that took place last Friday at the Cairo Opera House is not only a reminder of his excellence at his craft, but a testament to the never-fading popularity of Egypt s finest musician.

Mounir s first concert of the year began on somewhat shaky ground, despite the unexpected legions of fans that showed up. The concert was supposed to start at 10 p.m. and, as usual, Mounir was late – exceedingly late, in fact. Fans were warming up by chanting some of Mounir s most popular hits and cheering for the band, but the excitement started to wane and was gradually replaced by frustration and fatigue. The fans started to call on Mounir without getting any response. Finally, and after almost an hour and half, the band arrived on the stage followed by Mounir, who emerged from a small blaze of fireworks.

Mounier began the set with the raucous Hela Hela, a stupendous patriotic song devoid of any tackiness or fake sentimentality. The whole place suddenly erupted with ecstasy, with every single person singing the words “Hela Hela to start an evening shadowed by political subtexts.

The crowd was not completely won over yet, and remained unable to forgive Mounir for causing them to wait for what seemed like an eternity. Mounir attempted to give some vague, unconvincing excuses that didn t fool anyone before mentioning how sorry and hurt he is for recent Israeli attacks on Lebanon.

Mounir followed Hela Hela with the beautiful Alimoony Enake (“Your Eyes Have Taught Me ), an upbeat song that puts all the necessary ingredients of a jazz melody into a memorable, flawlessly crafted pop tune. Mounir s performance, along with an excellent Saxophone solo, was too good for the crowds to hold any more hard feelings toward him.

Ibn Marika (“Marika s Son ), a playful, indirect attack on the U.S. was next. The song tells a story of a young expatriate living in Egypt who strives to inject his foreign, destructive ideas into his neighborhood using underhanded, covert methods. The song is full of cynicism and doubt and filled with conventional eastern dance rhythms, resulting in one of the most of the unusual dance songs of recent years.

Later on, Mounir expressed how grateful and pleased he is with the reform in the Press Law, before singing Salah Jahine s undying words of El Kelma (“The Word ).

But despite the clear undertone of Mounir s songs, his comments for the night seemed somehow uninspired and too gracious, which is why it was shocking hearing a new version of his celebrated hit Hadoota Masreya (“An Egyptian Tale ) with utterly different, politically bashing and extremely agonizing lyrics such as, Amid the blood and pain we re born. The song lasted for less than two minutes, yet it was arguably the highlight and the most memorable moment of the evening.

Men Awel Lamsa (“From the First Touch ) was the sole disappointment in a rather eclectic set. Mounir s rendition of one of his classics was bland and wholly forgettable.

Mounir quickly redeemed himself with a quartet of some of the best songs he s ever sung. Ya Ana (“Hey Me ) is a cute and overwhelmingly endearing ditty about a new blossoming love, Lama El Naseem (“When the Whirlwind ) is one of Mounir s most tender, heart-throbbing love songs and the simply brilliant “Lehaf El Sheta (“Winter Cover ), is a jaunty account about the death of a dream.

The concert came to end with the new crowd favorite El Donia Ressha Fi Hawa (“Life is a Feather in the Air ), which drove the crowds to a state of frenzy. The Saad Abdel Wahab s long forgotten classic found new life through the hands of Mounir, who transformed it into a soaring epic of freewheeling life. This was, without a doubt, the most joyful and liberating moment of the evening.

Mounir s music is not ordinary, mindless pop songs or mild folk music – it is unique music filled with plenty of passion, intelligence and power. Mounir s music continued to evolve throughout the years until it reached the refined state presented in his numerous concerts. This concert was filled with different people from different backgrounds, different social strata and different age groups. Young and old men, mothers and young women, foreigners and children were all singing, dancing and imitating his signature gestures and moves. What Mounir created is not mere pop songs but little anthems for the lives of different generations.

The crowds kept shouting Mounir, you re still the greatest throughout the evening and, judging by this concert, it s hard to believe otherwise.

CAIRO: Back in 1999, comic book fans from around the world were startled to learn that 20th Century Fox were producing the first screen adaptation of the massively popular X-Men books. The film was released in 2000 to rave reviews and a domestic box-office gross of $157 million.

I personally was not enthusiastic about the film, as I was never a loyal fan of the X-Men books. The film was directed by Bryan Singe, the young filmmaker who was behind The Usual Suspects, one of the landmark films of the nineties. Singer desired to create a serious, thought provoking film out of the poorly-regarded comic book adventures and rise above the conventions of those stories. It wasn’t until my second or third viewing of the film that I found myself satisfied by Singer s mature, refined approach.

X-Men , which took place in the near future, revolved around a new breed of humans born with special powers and known as mutants. Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) owns a school that shelters and protects young mutants from the external world that refuses to accept their differences and prosecutes them for being unordinary. At the center of the story is Wolverine (Hugh Jackman, in his breakthrough role), a brooding, mysterious drifter with no memories or aim who, with the help of Xavier, attempts to deceiver the enigmas of his past.

The film was low on action, putting the dilemmas and various conflicts of its characters at the forefront of the story instead. The mutants symbolized any minority group the viewer could relate to and that was the unique aspect about it; it was a comic book adaptation filled with substance and weighty topics. This trend continued with the sequel X2, where a special military force lead by General Stryker, conspire to exterminate all mutants after an attempt made by one of them to assassinate the president. X2 was far superior to the first film, introducing new interesting characters combined with high-octane action scenes. I admired the first film for what Singer wanted to achieve and loved the second one for being an excellent action drama produced by an artist with a distinctive vision.

The third, and allegedly final, film is now released, with Brett Ratner, director of the Rush Hour films, taking over Singer s directorial chair this time around. The film contains two plot lines; the first sees Jean Grey (Famke Janssen), who sacrificed her life at the end of the second film, return from the dead as the mighty, diabolical Phoenix, whose limitless powers start to run astray to impair everyone close to her. The second and more captivating plot line revolves around the discovery of a drug, extracted from a mutant called Leech that cures mutants from their irregularities.

This cure leaves the mutant community divided into two groups: those who encourage the mutants to embrace their differences whilst giving them the choice to decide for themselves if they would like to lead a different, more common existence and those who regard the cure to be a new governmental weapon used to force the mutants into an alternative lifestyle that they might not necessary wish to adopt. As a result, the latter group s forces, lead by Magneto (Ian McKellen), decide to wage a war against the government and demolish the source of the cure.

The second plot line presents a thought-provoking argument; would anyone choose to eliminate one s own differences, no matter what those differences are, for a normal, easier living? How far can one s own idiosyncrasies affect his/her social life and would a simple cure magically solve those problems? Why can t most societies come to accept those who don t fundamentally share its traits or blindly accept their questionable norms? The film stirs up such an excellent debate but never cares to discuss it or allow its characters to develop an inner turmoil over this subject.

One of the aspects that struck doubt in my heart about The Last Stand is how the second film ended in a way where all threads of the story came together in a tight, perfectly fitting ending. The main problem of X3 is the absence of character development for the protagonists, whose sole occupation in the new film is acting in ceremonial, figurative roles.

Wolverine is not particularly interesting anymore since his secrets were unraveled in the second film and his character is saved largely by Hugh Jackman s commanding presence. Storm (Halle Berry), who has the power to control weather, is given more space to do nothing more than act as the potential new leader of the X clan. Even Rogue (Anna Paquin), the mutant who uncontrollably destroys anyone she touches, is changed from a young woman with diverse emotional arcs to a jealous, ordinary and boring teenager. Even new characters, fascinating as they are, do not fare well in trying to enrich the story with more depth while weaving new relationships and inner struggles. We see shades of characters like Beast (a hardly recognizable Kelsey Grammer of “Frasier ), the mutants representative in the government and Angel (Ben Foster), the son of a billionaire who has two big white wings, although we re never given any insights into these characters exact motives and they don t seem to function outside the action scenes.

Nevertheless, the film is thoroughly enjoyable. Brett Ratner is not a film auteur like Bryan Singer. He s a classic example of the Hollywood scriber whose resume is composed of movies he was hired to direct rather than projects he created and developed. “X3 lacks Singer s subtlety, profound characterization and those touches of sophistication. What Ratner brings to the final X-Men film, however, is eye-boggling action sequences and flamboyant, over-the-top dark imagery. Three principal characters die during the short course of the film, each one in a stunning, memorable setting that wouldn t definitely disappoint devoted fans of the books. This is Ratner s specialty and he excels in it. His action sequences are immaculately choreographed and he brings a sense of intensity that was missing from the first two films.

X-Men: The Last Stand, is a good yet flawed summer blockbuster that could have been great had it fulfilled the premise of its story and allowed its characters to grow. I enjoyed the film a lot and continued to love the characters despite all the inadequacies of the script.

Film fans will be talking about nothing this week but the winners of the Cannes Film Festival which has just ended. X-Men is, unlike the Cannes films, a movie you will not remember a couple of months from now. The film s main mission though is to entertain and, on that level alone, it succeeds.

X-Men: The Last Stand is now playing at Ramses Hilton, CityStars, Family Cinema, Galaxy, Odeon, El-Salam Concorde, Green Plaza and Amir.

CAIRO: The most fascinating thing that always intrigued me about films is the viewers relationship with the film and its characters. There are various types of links the audiences create with the fictional characters of a drama – fascination, sympathy, idolization . etc. The most important relationship of all, however, is empathy. Any ordinary filmgoer attempts to find any type of connection through which they can relate to the story s protagonists and, consequently, related to some familiar experience.

The appeal of glamorous Hollywood stars to the average citizen lies in those actors ability, through their roles, to allow anybody to experience, to a certain extent, how it feels to look, behave and live like them. The majority of these superstars strive to maintain a particular image through which the audiences associate them with. Once that image is distorted, viewers lose their association with those stars who face the grueling challenge of disappearing into other characters.

Tom Cruise, one of the world s biggest film stars over the last 20 years, is a prime example of what happens when stars break their protective shield and unveil the tiniest, unnecessary details about their typically trivial lives. It all started last year when Cruise sacked his long time manager Ron Meyer, who flawlessly handled his public relations affairs for all those years, and replaced him with his sister. Meyer succeeded throughout the last two decades in concealing Cruise s bizarre actions and persona from the public eye. During those years, Cruise was solely known for his golden smile and poster-boy figure, and that was adequate enough for the public who never cared to ask for more.

It wasn t the jumping-on-the-couch incident on Oprah or his unpersuasive relationship with Katie Holms or ever his relentless advocating of Scientology that caught the public’s attention; it was his unpleasant, patronizing, shallow and unlikable persona that he unconsciously exposed through interviews. By the time War of the Worlds was released last year, Hollywood s former poster golden-man lost both his mystique and public respect. War of the World s success depended largely on Steven Spielberg and the widespread interest in the concept of the film. Mission: Impossible III was always regarded as the first real test for Cruise s fading star power and, unfortunately, he miserably fails.

Mission: Impossible III finds ex-spymaster Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) leading a quiet domestic life with his new fiancée Julia (Michelle Monaghan). Ethan decides to break his retirement when his mentor Lindsey (Keri Russell) is kidnapped by Owen Davian (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an effete arms dealer. The repercussions of the rescue mission force Ethan and his team to rove around the world to capture Davian and unravel the mystery of an identified weapon called Rabbit s Foot.

That s about it. If the plot sounds thin and banal, that s because it truly is. The previous “Mission Impossible films relied on one formula; combing Tom Cruise s appeal with big explosions and some flamboyant espionage tricks. Cruise s appeal has obviously suffered a lot. Throughout his career, the only character he essentially played is the cocky, irresistible hunk in search of redemption and peace. In Mission Impossible III, director J.J. Abrams takes away the superciliousness from his character and replaces it by a father/saint like qualities, and as a result producing some of the cheesiest lines I ve heard in a long time. Cruise fails to disappear in a character that seemed to have been tailored from his PR staff than from respectable writers. The protagonist of this film is not Ethan Hunt; it s Tom Cruise pretending to be someone else. That said, a large part of the process of enjoying the film is lost due to the fact that you don t care what happens to the main character.

The large, eclectic cast of the film is given little room to play with their uninspired, one dimensional characters. Luther Strickell (Ving Rhames) is always Hunt s trusted right-hand man; Declan (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) is the bright transportation whiz; Zhen (Maggie Q) is the sexy, smart background operative; (Brassel) Laurence Fishburne, is the suspicious director of the IMF agency and John Musgrave (Billy Crudup), the honest, soft supportive agent. The winner of the most irritating character of the film proudly goes to Michelle Monaghan. From all of the women in all of the countries in all of the film studios in the world, Abrams had to choose an actress that looks exactly like Katie Holmes. Monaghan plays the girl-next-door who s thoroughly tedious and annoyingly sweet. Monaghan appears in every horrendously insufferable sequence of the film that includes one of the tackiest film weddings ever.

The saving grace of the latest “Mission Impossible installment is the impeccable Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman, fresh off his Oscar win for “Capote, easily owns every scene he s in. He overcomes the shortcomings of his undeveloped characters to give one of the coolest, malicious and deliciously evil villains I ve seen in a long time. Hoffman is so good to the extent that, despite the predestined predictability of the story, you do believe that he might in fact kill Hunt.

Director J.J. Abrams doesn t exhibit any promising vision in his directorial debut. Hollywood s new wonder kid is the creator of two of the biggest TV shows of recent years (“Alias and “Lost ). MI: III doesn t hold a candle to either shows and makes you wonder what was the deal with all false hoopla surrounding him. The “Mission Impossible movies are supposed to be about big explosions and impressive visual stunts, but apart from the Vatican entry and the bridge showdown between Hunt and Davian s men, all action sequences are dreary and unimaginative. I tried to enjoy those scenes as much as I could, but I didn t see anything remotely attractive as those visual feasts apparent in “Kill Bill, “The Matrix, or even the inferior “James Bond films. Abrams biggest failure though is his unwise approach to instill in what s supposed to be a fun action flick with a sense of dread and out of place seriousness. The end result is a film that s neither as fun as the first “Mission Impossible film nor as compellingly serious as The Bourne Supremacy.

The last few years have witnessed an unexpected rise in the quality of several summer blockbusters. From the comic book heroes like Spiderman and Batman to the aforementioned Bourne films, these films were built on solid involving plots, multi-dimensional characters, threatening conflicts and terrific action. The difference between these films and Mission Impossible III is that the plot drives the action in the former, while the plot in the latter feels like a vain excuse to blow up as many objects as possible. Do we still need films like MI: III ? I don t believe we do. Cruise, on the other hand, needs a good role in an independent film like Magnolia in order to retain his credibility as an actor.

CAIRO: While I was thrilled to learn of the release of “Pride and Prejudice in Egypt, none of my acquaintances seemed to share my enthusiasm for the latest adaptation of Jane Austen s beloved novel. They were divided into two camps: Fans of the novel who were discouraged to see an adaptation with a young, pretty Elizabeth Bennet, and those who perceive the novel to be another boring, British period drama.

I would have liked nothing more than to come back at them with a strong argument, I had none, and my own excitement began to wane. Now, however, after seeing the film, it is obvious that “Pride and Prejudice is one of the most pleasant surprises of the year so far.

The first cinematic adaptation of the novel was released in 1940 and starred Greer Garson and Lawrence Olivier. Several other TV versions have been made since then, including the highly celebrated 1995 Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle mini-series. For the last 10 years, this mini-series has been regarded as the quintessential Pride and Prejudice adaptation. Finally, the British production company Working Title (of “Four Weddings and a Funeral, “Notting Hill fame) assigned new filmmaker Joe Wright in 2004 to direct the first adaptation of Austen s novel in more than 60 years.

Pride and Prejudice opens with a shot of a young woman strolling down the meadows of what appears to be an old English countryside with a smile on her face. The picture is heavenly, and everything surrounding the young lady appears to have been touched by her unusual beauty and tenderness. The camera follows her until she reaches a small house filled with a group of girls laughing, arguing and playing. The lovely sight of these girls seems to have distracted the camera from its main concern but, like a stalking eye, it returns swiftly back to the young lady, refusing to abandon her company again.

The young lady is Elizabeth Bennet, played by Keira Knightley in her first actual breakthrough role. Ms. Bennet is the second eldest daughter of a lower middle-class family in Georgian England. The Bennet family is composed of five daughters who are drastically different in manners and personalities. Mrs. Bennet (Brenda Blethyn), the matriarch of the family, is a kind, yet annoyingly nagging mother whose life revolves around one thing: finding suitable, wealthy husbands for her daughters. One night, a new potential suitor emerges in the shape of Mr. Bingley, who decides to spend the summer in a large mansion in the country. Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods) is accompanied by Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen), a wealthy, haughty cheerless gentleman whose unyielding straight face suggests a deeper baffling different persona.

The Bennets are introduced to Mr. Bingley and his friend in a small neighborhood party. Elizabeth doesn t think much of Mr. Darcy at first, especially after she overhears him describing her as Perfectly tolerable but not handsome enough. Elizabeth grabs every opportunity to embarrass and indirectly offend Mr. Darcy until his mask gradually starts to disintegrate to reveal a compassionate, gentle and honest man who s desperately in love with a woman too proud to see his sincere affections.

Jane Austen s story deals with clashes between social classes and the bigotry of the rich, the concept of marriage and the barriers that prevent us for engaging in meaningful relationships with others. But, first and foremost, Pride and Prejudice is a love story. It doesn t dwell deep into Austen s themes in the manner of the 1995 300 minute version, reducing in the process other prominent characters in the story such as Mr. Wickham and Mr. Collins to supporting roles. Instead, it chooses to focus on the Darcy/Elizabeth relationship with all its tribulations, misunderstandings and warmth.

The biggest appeal of both the story and the film is Elizabeth Bennet. Lizzie still remains a great character not only because of her wit, strength, allure and dignity, but also for her utter devotion, unpretentious courage and delicacy.

If there s one reason though to see Pride and Prejudice, it has to be for Keira Knightley s performance. Lizzie isn t supposed to be good-looking, but Knightley after all, doesn t have the features of a standard Hollywood beauty. The pointed cheek-bones, scruffy teeth and boyish figure aren t worlds away from Ms. Bennet, but it is Knightley s eyes that disclose her beauty and capture the real essence of Lizzie. Knightley perfectly displays both the strength and fragility of Elizabeth, infusing her with a multitude of different emotions that many actresses failed to realize in past performances.

As for Matthew Macfadyen, he might not be as dashing as Colin Firth, but he s more human and empathetic. Macfadyen succeeds in portraying a man who hides his insecurities under his protective conceited guise.

Joe Wright s direction is simply dazzling. There are enormous doses of spellbinding beauty infused in every frame of the film. Wright s sense of realism in depicting the small details that formed life at the time gives the film the authenticity it requires without compromising the beautiful structure of his frames. What Wright created is a realistic dream; a stunning world that doesn t deviate from reality but stands as a portrait of a place and a time that is no longer there.

Pride and Prejudice is a film about love with all its confusion, yearning, complications, hurt and ecstasy. It is a film about the uncertain feelings that occupy lovers and the fear of rejection that troubles every man on a brink of a new relationship. Most of all though, it s a film about two good natured characters who, despite their small flaws, represent a better version of us and what perhaps we would like to be. We love those characters and expect the best for them, simply because that is what we would like to have were we as pure as them.

The onslaught of big summer blockbusters begins next week with “Mission Impossible III. “Pride and Prejudice doesn t contain explosions or big special effects, but it s as enthralling as anything you ll see all summer.

Pride and Prejudice is playing at Genena Mall, Bandar Cinema, City Center and Renaissance Nile City.

CAIRO: One of the most discussed topics in film circuits these days is the current sorry state of American animated films. Many film analysts foresaw a big surge in Animation production after the massive success of the Pixar films in the late nineties and the emergence of other players like DreamWorks, most notably with the “Shrek franchise, Fox with the “Ice Age films and Warner Brothers with “The Polar Express. Disney, on the other hand, kept rolling out one flop after another, culminating with last year s unbearably dreadful “Chicken Little. The trouble with those films, despite their commercial success, is their lack of the magic, innocence and visual inventiveness that were the hallmark of the deceased kingdom of Disney. Even Pixar s standard buddy formula started to wear off until they eventually decided to drop it with The Incredibles.

The last sanctuary for true Animation fans was principally confined to Japanese Animation, with the works of the great Hayao Miyazaki (“Princess Mononoke, “Spirited Away ), the new independent animators such as Sylvain Chomet (“Triplets of Belleville ) and Richard Linklater s groundbreaking animation team (“Waking Life and the upcoming “A Scanner Darkly ) and the tiny, enchanting world of Aardman Animation, the British based production company responsible for 2000 s “Chicken Run and, most famous of all, the “Wallace & Gromit films.

“Wallace & Gromit began their screen life in the mid-eighties as a part of some short films produced by Aardman and the characters inventor Nick Park. Soon enough, Aardman, one of the last few clay animation production companies, noticed the broad appeal these characters stirred and by 1989, the world saw the debut of “Wallace & Gromit s first short film, with “A Grand Day Out. The enormous success of the movie was unexpected and Mr. Park was rewarded with his first Academy Award for best short film. The success of A Grand Day Out spawned two further films; “The Wrong Trousers (1993) and “A Close Shave (1995). Both films were as equally successful as the first film creating a world wide sensation of the oddball duo and earning two more Oscars. The three films were dubbed and distributed in numerous countries, winning new fan bases everywhere they went. It took Nick Park and Aardman 10 years to showcase the first full-length feature of “Wallace and Gromit, but it has been worth the wait and, at last, Egypt becomes the latest country to join this splendid British parade.

“Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit sees the wacky, kind-hearted and cheese loving inventor Wallace (Peter Sallis) and his loyal wise dog Gromit managing a pest-combat company named Anti-Pesto. The company is responsible for protecting their small English town from the veggie-eating rabbits as the town folks prepare for the annual Giant Vegetable Competition organized by Lady Tottington (Helena Bonham Carter). Wallace starts to develop a charming infatuation for the bunny loving lady and vies for her affection against the snobbish, uncivilized Victor Quartermaine (Ralph Fiennes). Nothing seems to disrupt the neighborhood until suddenly a mystifying, vegetable-eating, giant monster starts to ravage and devour on the town s carefully protected precious veggie crop. As a result, Lady Tottington assigns the two chums to uncover the mystery of the Were-Rabbit and save the day. What happens afterwards is a series of unexpected revelations that leads to one of the funniest third acts in Animation film history.

The key reason behind the “Wallace and Gromit phenomena is the core nature of these two characters. Wallace is always reckless and up for new adventures that always end up in a complete chaos. His actions are deemed to be selfless and his child-like innocence seems to perfectly suit his always appreciative community. Gromit, on the other hand, is the caretaker of Wallace s world. Unlike Wallace, he s responsible, realistic and firm. Gromit s primary occupation in life is taking care of Wallace and protecting him from his nutty endeavors.

“Wallace & Gromit s world is tremendously endearing, filled with overwhelming optimism and serenity. There s no sense of danger, doubt or fear in this world. Even Victor, the chief antagonist of the story, with his funny antics and odd English manners, is never regarded as genuine evil force, while the Were-Rabbit has got to be the cutest, most harmless beast ever put on celluloid. There s not a moment of despair in the film and the opposing factors that work against our heroes are rendered to be another exciting challenge for them. We know that everything will end up perfectly fine and we don t expect or accept any other different turn of events because, plainly, that s what we truly crave above all.

“Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, the winner of the Oscar for best animated film, is the first “Wallace & Gromit film to expand on the former limited world of the two. Various eccentric characters are introduced into the pair s world, this time with many other beautifully designed set-pieces. The texture of film is mind numbing; breathtaking colors are injected in every single frame of the film and the cinematography astoundingly coveys the general bright mood of the film and the mildly creepy tone in the other scary parts.

The film contains its fair share of horror film conventions that turn into a source of a very original parody, with the influence of Mel Brooks clear in those parts. But this parody is a part of a rather tightly plotted comedy. The film is filled with hilarious sight gags and one-liners that don t slow down until the very last scene of the film. Best of all though, The Were-Rabbit does feel like a true animated film. The clay animation doesn t match the perfect-looking picture of CGI films and that s the beauty of it. It s those flaws that maintains the magic of the animated world that can easily loses its magic and sense of disbelief the moment it tries hard to mimic the real world.

“Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is that rare feat in a time where most of the superior entertainment is infused by darkness and uneasiness. It s a world where you can easily escape to and come out with embracing feelings of utter glee and joy. “Wallace & Gromit is not just the funniest animated film ever, but one of the most amusing and delightful films period.

“Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit is playing now at Genena, City Center and Renaissance Nile City.

CAIRO: My interest in Hitler and the Nazi-era Germany stemmed from one of the most unusual discourses about this issue in my Public Opinion and Propaganda class back in university. Part of the course focused on the use of propaganda during that time and the various, devilishly-intelligent techniques used to shape German public opinion in accordance with the will of the Third Reich.

In order to gain a full understanding of that period, we had another side-discussion about Hitler himself and his beliefs and viewpoints. My professor hardly spoke badly about Hitler, as this was beside the main topic. However, he did speak about Hitler s contemptible views of the Jews and justified the holocaust as a well deserved sentence for a race that was composed of a bunch of traitors, spies and profiteers. The Jews, according to my professor, were sucking dry the blood of the poor Germans and Hitler had no other choice but cutting these roots of evil from the German soil.

I was not, however, so shocked by this claim; our long history of Jewish hatred is well known, after all. Frankly, what repulsed me is the basic idea of finding an excuse for killing millions of people in such a degrading, sadistic manner, no matter what crimes they ve supposedly committed. And if indeed the millions of Jews did commit those crimes, what about the Gypsies, the Roma, the handicapped, the mentally handicapped, the homosexuals or Jehovah s Witnesses? What atrocious crime did they commit to be subject to such punishment? But the questions that lingered the most in my mind is how could any man could continue to have a guilt-free conscious knowing that he s responsible for such mass murders? The answer to this question is the safe proposition history had longed adhered to: A monster, a fiend, a creature that under no circumstances can be classified as a human.

Truth of the matter is; he wasn t. Hitler was, after all, a human, a former artist whose sole ambition in his adolescence was to become an architect. Downfall, the latest of many recent German films set in the country s most disgraceful period, not only displays Hitler s covert human side, but also tries to understand how almost an entire nation could be transformed for 11 years.

The film, which chronicles the last 10 days of the life of Hitler and the Third Reich, is almost set entirely in the Fuhrer s bunker. We are initially introduced to the grim, morbid world of the dictator via the fresh young innocent eyes of Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara), Hitler s new hired secretary. The heydays of the German might are over; Russia and the Allied Forces are attacking from the east and west respectively. Berlin is bound to fall soon, with death looming at every corner of the ravaged capital.

In the midst of all of this inescapable destruction, the Fuhrer (Bruno Granz) vows to fight back, moving back and forth his imaginary troops on maps and insists that victory isn t the distant mirage everybody else knows it is. Hitler is still surrounded by his advisors and supporters, including his mistress Eva Braun (Juliane Köhler), his propaganda engineer Joseph Goebbels (Ulrich Matthes) and his wife Magada (Corinna Harfouch) and other senior commanders who are now moving away from the improbable plans of their maddening leader while trying to reduce the losses as much as possible.

Downfall has a very distinctive theme and a plot but doesn t follow the classical narrative style by including a beginning, middle and an end. The film feels more like a documentary or a travelogue through hell. The film flows from one point of demolition to another without any kind of proper relief or signs of hope. We know the outcome of these events, but that s not the point of the film. What s fascinating and unique about this story is watching the process of destruction itself and its effect on the multitude of characters inflicted by it.

The principle character of the misguided flock is, without a doubt, the leader. I cannot begin talking about Downfall’s Hitler without mentioning Bruno Granz, the great German actor who played dozens of sad, dreamy idealistic loners, including his most celebrated role as the angel Damiel in Wim Wenders masterpiece Wings of Desire. Hitler was always regarded as the ultimate screen villain, whose grotesque persona became the subject of numerous films. It was always unacceptable for both the Germans and the world to see a different Hitler and that s where Downfall’s notoriety emerged: Granz plays Hitler at a time when he was facing his demise. He still rants, screams and announces a series of inconceivably hideous declarations. He doesn t care about the civilians and believes that if his helpless soldiers can t defend their land, then death should be the petty price they must pay for their weakness.

Hitler appears completely engrossed in his ideology and his unreal universe. Nevertheless, the much talked about humanistic side still creeps out of him to give us not only a glimpse of a different man, but also a small aspect of what made millions of deluded Germans blindly follow him.

Apparently Hitler was a vegetarian; he liked good food and always kept up good relations with his chef. He was enormously fond of his dog and was, to some extent, kind and generous to the majority of his staff and subordinates. The most peculiar feature that Granz brilliantly infuses Hitler with is his bare frailty. Hitler isn’t the rigid, confident and plainly cruel character we all remember from the various documentaries and footage taken of him; rather, he’s now an ailing, dying man with a bent back, shaken, desperate voice and a continuously twitching hand. Such a sight temporarily suspends all memories of the Fuhrer and replaces them by entirely new ones.

The key behind deciphering the behavior of the German citizens lies in simply observing their behavior, along with Hitler’s followers. The primary reason for Hitler’s rise to power was the humiliation the Germans felt after the defeat in WW1 and the severe injustice imposed upon them through the Treaty of Versailles. Furthermore, the post economic depression and high rate of unemployment left the ordinary dignity-broken citizen searching for some kind of a savior that would rescue the country from those stern conditions. Hitler, with his sincere voice, sense of national pride and everyman’s attitude, reached the hearts of his people and became the great father figure of the German public. Hitler, to Germans at that time, wasn’t a mere president but the symbol of the German spirit and all it stood far.

Which explains why thousands of Germans decided to commit suicide after Hitler took his own life. There is one scene where a nurse breaks down, asking Hitler to reconsider killing himself and to lead them again into an imaginary victory. The sequence though that accurately portrays the hypnotic state of the German people during those times takes place when a young eager boy enlists in the army, preparing himself for a cause he mistakenly believes in, and then begins to wise up after seeing the repercussions of the war and the Third Reich’s policies. Hitler created this bubble for the Germans to reside in and feel free and natural in to unleash their hidden barbarism and gradually erase in the process their individualistic distinction between right and wrong.

Downfall doesn’t attempt to make us sympathize with Hitler and I didn’t come out feeling any kind of pity for him; but by emphasizing Hitler’s humanism, we come to realize that a man like Hitler was no exception, or a fluke in history. There have been many Hitlers before and will be many more as long as there are leaders like him who are controlled by their own narcissism, believing that the only means to change the world for the better is solely through their own questionable, self-righteous visions.

Finally, the film doesn’t try to find excuses for Germans at that time and their actions. Germany, just like many other nations in history, wanted a leader to guide them and grants them the sense of security every citizen requires from its leader, employ
ing any required measures. You don’t have to think too long to find similar nations in this so-called civilized world of today, using almost the same practices and recycling the whole tragedy all over again.

CAIRO: For decades, Africa s role in Hollywood was restricted to a mere backdrop of picturesque exotic locations. Classics like Out of Africa, King Salmon s Mines, Mogambo and The African Queen told typical stories centering on white characters, with the native Africans playing stereotypical supporting roles. Never has a movie of that period dared, or rather had the interest, to look beyond the beautiful scenery and the unique imagery of the continent.

Some may claim that the black continent, being placed in such a context, evolved into a full character with distinctive spiritual and artistic dimensions. But in reality, such a character was generally shallow and inferior, and those dimensions were nothing more than a pretentious attempt by many filmmakers to look important and give their hollow stories depth.

The turning point in Hollywood s relationship with Africa didn t occur until after the events of 9/11, when Hollywood began to open its eyes and take note of the world outside its borders. Africa s former role in American films has grown both unbelievable and unacceptable amid the social and political unrest. In 2004, Hotel Rwanda, the first serious film about Africa, was released to great acclaim from both the public and the critics.

The success of Hotel Rwanda encouraged other filmmakers to present more serious topics about the continent and examine sensitive, controversial issues that Hollywood used to refrain from in the past. This resulted in no less than five films released last year discussing various issues concerning Africa. The most successful, highly profiled film out of this group is Fernando Meirelles cinematic interpretation of John Le Carré s The Constant Gardener.

The Constant Gardener begins with the murder of Tessa Quayle (Rachel Weisz), a political activist and the wife of Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes), a British diplomat on an assignment in Nairobi. Tessa s disfigured corpse is found in the Kenyan crossroads along with her black driver Arnold Bluhm (Hubert Koundé). Justin, despite his profound grief, seems to be composed, with a touch of concealed, unjustified bitterness on his face. An earlier scene indicates that Justin was not aware of his wife s whereabouts and preliminary evidence denotes an affair between Tessa and Arnold, resulting in a crime of passion. Despite Justin s contradictory feelings of loss and suspected betrayal, he decides to investigate his wife s death, unintentionally unearthing the malpractices by major Pharmaceutical companies on the continent.

The Constant Gardner is the follow-up to director Fernando Meirelles outstanding City of God, which is now regarded as one of the landmarks of contemporary South American cinema. Similar to everyone who loved City of God, I was looking forward to seeing The Constant Gardener. In addition, the sole notion of seeing Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz reunite on screen after their spectacular turn in the underrated and little seen Sunshine was another bonus for me. Somehow, however, I was slightly disappointed.

The film is part love story, part political expose in the form of a thriller. One of the major problems of the film is that the love story comes as the stronger, more alluring components of the story, with complex, unusual characters and relationships. Tessa appears to be the larger, more fascinating riddle of the film that both the audience and Justin try to solve throughout.

Tessa and Justin appear to have nothing in common at the outset of the film; he is courteous, she is furious and strong-headed; he is discreet and peaceful, she is outspoken and a hell-raiser; he is thoroughly indifferent to everything outside his own neat little world; she is an activist with a dangerous, fearless attitude that threatens to wreck her life. It appears very unlikely for a couple with such grave differences to have any kind of relationship. The key scene though in deciphering Tessa and Justin s bond comes after the first time they make love, when she tells him that she feels safe with him. Tessa may indeed be a complex, hard to figure out person, but her feelings are simple and very true.

Rachel Weisz, in her career-making role, plays a character we constantly doubt throughout the film, has incredible sincerity. There are some moments in the film when we start to believe that Tessa might be no more than a cheating, hateful and mildly mean wife to her honest, loving and kind husband. But it is this genuis and compassion Weisz brings to her role that forces us to ultimately feel Justin s grief over a woman he hardly knew or understood and, as a result, to regret for ever doubting her intentions.

Justin, on the other hand, is as clear as a blue sky in springtime. He s an un-ambitious, quiet and fairly lethargic man whose central concern in life is tending his garden. Yet he is also caring and forgiving, and so it is hard to condemn his apathy or lack of empathy for both Tessa and the Kenyan poor. The only interesting aspect of Justin s gradual transformation from his current state to a person who is no different than Tessa, is watching Ralph Fiennes in one of his most revealing roles. I can t recall seeing the great Mr. Fiennes previously playing a fragile, emotionally open character like Justin. Fiennes always succeeded in hiding his characters passions and true personas behind his stoic face and dark charm. In The Constant Gardener, he peals off all those layers and presents a character that lost all its reasons to live.

The major problem of the film is the political/moral aspect of the story. The story s chief antagonist is the major profiteering western Pharmaceutical companies that sacrifice the lives of thousands of poor forgotten Africans every day and crush the souls of many others who might endanger their profits. Director Meirelles not only condemns those companies, but also the greedy British government and the corrupt African authorities. This is a rather intriguing theory that, nevertheless, is not remotely original or unfamiliar. The course of events of the thriller aspect of the film is all too predictable and the tiny details that are supposed to be illuminating and outrageous are, in fact, small, already acknowledged facts. In addition, the villains, with their common Hollywood mannerism and vague excuses, are never believable enough to generate strong feelings about them and consequently take actions toward the real cause.

I can t deny though that I was impressed again by Meirelles impeccable direction. As in City of God, he uses a non-linear narrative style, going back and forth between events and resulting in a deeper, more heart-shattering effect. The film is also visually stunning. Never has Africa been portrayed in a more realistic, grittier way. The part of the film that is set in Africa was actually shot on real locations in Kenya and many scenes between the actors and the Kenyans were improvised. Meirelles produces his biggest visual impact though through the juxtaposition of the sunny, pulsing and humble slums and deserts of Kenya with the British luxurious, untroubled and soulless world.

I am not sure if I should recommend The Constant Gardner or not. The film does have good intentions and both the acting and direction are superb. But it never succeeds to engage us like Hotel Rwanda in its primary subject matter or ignites a valid debate afterwards. I have to recommend the film, however, because it is a good one regardless of its drawbacks; just don t expect another Hotel Rwanda.

CAIRO: Film festivals have become a haven for us, the film fans, from the mediocre commercial films shown for the most part throughout the year on Egypt s big screens. The number of film festivals has been on the rise in recent years, and the unexpected and overwhelming success of the European Film Festival in the Galaxy cinema complex in 2004 dramatically increased the popularity of European films. Film lovers have since been attending subsequent film festivals despite the fact none of them have had an impressive line-up of films to emulate the success of the 2004 festival.

Which is why it was somewhat bizarre when I learned about the new European Film Caravan on Wednesday, March 29. The selected films showing in the festival were quite remarkable, with three of the biggest European films of last year, Caché, Joyeux Noel and L enfant, in their Egyptian premiere. The Caravan, however, featured a surprisingly low-key opening; it wasn t announced beforehand in any major, or minor, media channels, and all publicity was restricted to a tiny advertisement in the Al Ahram newspaper on the day of the opening.

Moreover, there was no actual schedule for the festival until the second or third day, and the festival failed to gain any kind of momentum. The sad fact is the festival screened some of the best films shown in Egyptian theaters in recent months, and had it been done correctly, as in, the organizers presenting information concerning it beforehand, it could have been a commercial success.

Compiling a brief report about the best movies I saw during the festival, which has recently ended, was a daunting, difficult task to undertake since, as I mentioned earlier, there were numerous exceptional films shown during the last couple of weeks. I preferred to choose the four best films of the Caravan. My choice is based on the films that transcended their cultural barriers to present a universal idea or a humanistic set of identifiable emotions. So, without any further ado, here are the best films of the European Film Caravan:

Sophie Scholl- Last Days

I was at first skeptical about Sophie Scholl in spite of the critical acclaim it received. The film is an account of the trial and execution of Sophie Scholl, a member of the resistance group The White Rose in 1943 Nazi Germany, who was caught disseminating anti-Nazi leaflets at the University of Munich.

The film looked at first to be a formulaic Bio-Pick with long, boring scenes of interrogation. Besides, Scholl s life has been the subject of two other notable films (The White Rose and Last Five Days, both in 1982) and I didn t imagine that director Marc Rothemund could have anything new to add or improve to an already well known story. Fortunately, I was mistaken.

The atrocities of the Third Reich are mentioned briefly in the interrogation scenes, which are based on the actual transcripts of Scholl s dialogue with her interrogator, but aren t the main focus of the film. The film is essentially about the courage of this 21-year-old woman who truly believed in something and sacrificed her life for it.

Julia Jentsch s performance is nothing less than astounding. Sophie Scholl appears to be a modern Joan of Arc, a larger-than-life figure, but Jentsch plays Scholl with heart-capturing vulnerability and earthly simplicity. Scholl seemed like an ordinary girl; she liked American music, had a fiancée who she deeply loved and enjoyed all the small things in life. What separated her from the rest is not only her courage, but her great faith as well.

Sophie Scholl is inspiring and moving without the slightest hint of sentimentality; a rare gem among the recent worthless historical flicks.

Les Poupées Russes (The Russian Dolls)

Cédric Klapisch s sequel to 2002 s L Auberge Espagnole is by far one of the best romantic comedies I ve seen in a long time. L Auberge Espagnole, a huge hit in France, was a beautiful, nostalgic postcard from college life. Les Poupées Russes, which takes place seven years later, address the doubts, fears and agony of early adulthood in a manner that feels realistic, but is, in fact, mainly whimsical.

Xavier (Romain Duris) is a 29-year-old soap opera writer who occasionally writes biographical pieces about supermodels and other inconsequential figures. He s still striving to a write a proper cliché-free story; his love life is a mess and his endeavors in finding the perfect girl always end up in failure.

The majority of the first film s cast reprise their roles in the sequel, but the real revelation of the film is Kelly Reilly, whose Wendy has changed from the uptight, sensible college student to an endearing, charming and loving young woman who somehow consistently find herself with the wrong man. Wendy s love story with Xavier is so sweet and tender, you can t help but rooting all the way for them.

Les Poupées Russes is a very entertaining film that doesn t pretend to be otherwise. The characters seem to be shielded from the problems of the real world, but the performances and the script are so good and earnest that for at least the 125 minutes the film is running, the real world becomes a kind of distant alternative universe for us. Finally, I have to note that the ending is so engaging and delightful that I left the theater with a huge grin on my face. This is a film that knows what its audience wants and graciously grants it to them without compromising the integrity of the story or resorting to Hollywood’s worn-out formulas.

Joyeux Noël (Merry Christmas)

On Christmas Eve 1914, amid the First World War, the German, French and Scottish troops chose to cease-fire for just this night in order to celebrate Christmas. Joyeux Noël, which is based on this extraordinary true event, is possibly the only hopeful, uplifting war film ever made.

Director Christian Carion made a clever decision in refusing to concentrate on depicting the dreadfulness of war. The real strength of the film is the detail of the incident itself. The most magical moment of the film takes place when all three troops, still hiding in their trenches, begin to sing Silent Night, start to gradually climb out of their ditches, hold their Christmas trees and cautiously walk to meet with the other soldiers. At this particular moment, I tried to recall feeling so overjoyed in any other of the tens of war films I ve seen over the years; naturally, I failed.

The truce continued for a couple of days and lasted to New Year s Eve on other fronts. The film shows how these soldiers were reluctant to fight after enjoying the sweet taste of peace, and the way they managed to overlook their imposed hatred toward each other.

It s hard to imagine such an event could take place in today s war arena. The world was supposed to have improved after the end of the two world wars, but judging by all the conflicts that took place afterwards, it’s obvious that it hasn’t. Joyeux Noël is a celebration of real men who discovered, in the most unlikely circumstances, what it means to be human.

L Enfant (The Child)

The 2005 Palme D or winner at the Cannes Film Festival is, by all cinematic standards, a masterpiece. The film tells the story of Bruno (Jérémie Renier), a reckless 20-year-old hustler who sells his new born baby in the black market. From this point onward, the film changes from being a social commentary about greed, directionless adolescents and poverty in Belgium to a powerful story about redemption.

The directors of the film, Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne, have developed over the years a distinctive style of cinematic realism, with films like Rosetta and The Promise. L Enfant feels like a documentary; most scenes are shot in their natural locations via handheld camera and despite the gritty reality of both the story and the small Belgian city of Seraing, the Dardennes capture the subtle beauty of both the city and Bruno s instinctive, child-like moments with his girlfriend.

The most striking aspect about the Dardennes style though is how they refuse to inflict any judgment on their characters. Bruno may have committed a seri
ous crime; he appears to be selfish, inconsiderate and totally oblivious to his new responsibilities. But that doesn t mean he s incapable of loving, admitting his mistakes or seeking to become a better man.

Some critics have described L Enfant as a melodrama, but I fully disagree. Melodrama is characterized by unexpected external forces that interfere with the will of the story s characters. L Enfant is about the choices Bruno makes and the consequences of those choices. It s those choices through which Bruno finds his salvation; those choices that finally transform him from a child to a man.