"To protect your family, first reason with them"

Title: The Purge
Year: 2013
Genre: Horror, C. Fiction. Thriller
Director: James DeMonaco
Writer: James DeMonaco
Runtime: 85min
Cast: Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Max Burkholder, Adelaide Kane, Edwin Hodge, Rhys Wakefield, Tony Oller
Produc.: Blumhouse Productions, Platinum Dunes, Universal Internation Pictures (UI), Universal Pictures, Why Not Productions
Budget: $3 million aprox.

The year is 2022 and society has achieved something once thought impossible: to eradicate, almost completely, unemployment and violence. In The Purge, unemployment is actually not explained, while violence is the trigger for the entire plot. 

James DeMonaco imagines what a near future would be like, where the political regime (the "New Founding Fathers of America”) had the population living in peace, with isolated exceptions. Also as part of this, it has been implemented the "annual purge". Nocturnal event, that happens once a year, so that anyone who wants it, can commit their crimes freely. 

As far as I am concerned, I must congratulate the director for trying to be original, although I do not think anyone would settle for one night, to commit a crime. 

James Sandin (Ethan Hawke) is, in this movie, a father who sells security systems. The same one he has placed and now he activates, to protect his family during the purge. 

What James does not know though, is that between the foolish reasoning of his son Charlie (Max Burkholder) , and the mistaken relationships of his daughter Zoe (Adelaide Kane ), the night is about to become very chaotic. 

Starting with the boy, once the doors and windows have been blocked, and that the purge has begun, he disables the security so that a black man (Edwin Hodge) who was asking for help can come in. Based on this, I can only say that Charlie lacks of the sense of survival, for not considering the risk he was exposing his own people too. His father reactivates the system, but when they are no longer alone. 

If what DeMonaco wanted was to get the Sandin into trouble, Charlie´s action in good faith was not the answer. Better to have invented a power failure, to give the stranger a chance to get in by his own means. 

Adding more problems, Zoe has a boyfriend (Tony Oller) that goes out the window when they hear James arrive, but to reappear, armed and vengeful, with his girlfriend´s father in mind. If only he was as good shooter as his objective, perhaps he would have fared better. 

Until here, what we have is a James with complicated kids, and to whom yet, awaits another surprise. 

With the security working, one dead body, a disturbed teenager and a visitor, then appears a group of masked people in front of the house. Dangerously equipped, they express their intentions through their leader (Rhys Wakefield), who speaks from a surveillance camera. He grants the Sandin a two-hour deadline, for there man to be delivered to them. After that period, if nothing has happened they will be forced to kill them all. 

James is now aware that this has gotten out of hand. However, he also keeps in mind that it can still be fixed. 

Nevertheless, the logic in DeMonaco´s characters seems like taken straight out from a world upside down, when Charlie shows the intruder where to hide from his own parents. Or the child has got understanding issues, or he has not yet realized that the thing goes this way: or he dies, or everyone dies. 

When the Sandin finally capture the stranger and tie him up to a chair, here it is clear that Mary Sandin (Lena Headey) is not much more clever than her own son. Why, if not, she would have suddenly decided not to obey the outsiders? That, that it is not humane?, she thinks. But, what about her family´s safety? Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, this Mary, I would say. 

Definitely, DeMonaco uses not very lucid characters, to carry the argument forward. And, in what could end, so much stupidity? In that the group, breaks into the house, given a, not so solid, security system. Then comes the confrontation, with blows, smashing and dead masked men, before the neighbors arrive, to also take advantage of the purge. 

The Purge ends up being about a family of such mentally retarded, that nothing of what happens to them, surprises.

My rating 3/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Same story. Different Aggressor"

Title: Even the rain 

Year: 2010 

Genre: Drama, Historical 

Director: Icíar Bollaín 

Writer: Paul Laverty 

Runtime: 103min 

Cast: Luis Tosar, Gael García Bernal, Juan Carlos Aduviri, Karra Elejalde, Raúl Arévalo, Carlos Santos, Cassandra Ciangherotti, Milena Soliz, Daniel Currás, Vicente Romero 

Produc.: AXN, Alebrije Cine y Video, Canal+ España, Canal+, Consellería de Cultura e Turismo, Eurimages, Haut et Court, Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO), Instituto de la Cinematografía y de las Artes Audiovisuales (ICAA), Londra Films P&D, Mandarin Films, Morena Films, Natixis Coficiné, También la lluvia, Televisión Española (TVE), Vaca Films 

Budget: €5 million aprox. 

In Even the rain, Costa (Luis Tosar) and Sebastián (Gael García Bernal) are a producer and a director, who take the shooting of a historical film to the chaotic city of Cochabamba. 

Costa and Sebastian, just about to begin a casting process, find that the attendance has been excessive. Costa then suggests to the director to do a preselection right there, and those who are not selected will be sent back to their homes. Sebastián goes, in this way, discarding candidates, until he meets Daniel (Juan Carlos Aduviri), an individual who claims his right and of all those present, to be seen, as is set in the call sheet. Sebastián, in spite of what the producer thinks, decides to follow the original plan. 

Already in the next scene, producer and director see Daniel´s tape, this small but explosive subject that appeals to Sebastián, though not, to Costa, who foresees problems. Costa, however, fails to dissuade Sebastián of not choosing him as Hatuey, the taíno chief. 

The film, from here, handles an interesting parallel between the aboriginal situation, during the conquest, and the one of the current inhabitants of Cochabamba. In the late fifteenth century the inhabitants of the new continent had been violated for their gold, and today (2000) the same is happening in this town, though on a smaller scale, with the "Water War". The circumstances have now replaced the colonists with a foreign multinational, besides this not being for gold, but because of the privatization of something more important. This parallelism then comprehends the similarity between scenarios, where a race is always attacked, only changing the disputed resource. 

Columbus, at the time, had disembarked to do as he pleased, with no respect for the colonized, and now here, something similar is happening. Costa himself, in a careless and underestimating Daniel, tells in English to an investor, of the misery they are paid, as if highlighting of these people, their ignorance. Costa does not know that Daniel, who is fairly close, understands the language, although, all the same, there will be just an occasion for apologizing. 

In terms of social complaints, no one is left aside. Here there does not exist to treat certain aspects and let others out. Taking a visit from the heads of the crew, to the Bolivian president, we hear one of the best discussions of the movie. What, with this exchange, more than to make it evident, is emphasized to us, is that, even though these filmmakers want to believe that there is nothing wrong with their work, making art and telling their story, they are actually no angels neither. Costa, speaking scenes before with the investor, is a perfect reference. That would be like pointing out that there, they can take advantage of these people without too many complications. Luckily, still hearing his words, we will then see his most sincere and kind side, helping Daniel's daughter in a touching and dramatic ending. 

Something completely different is what happens with their host. This corrupt and racist politician does not plan to give in to the protesters, according to him, unable to reason, among other things, because of them being illiterate, as if that were of any excuse. 

But beyond complaints, this is a movie from the "film within a film" type. A movie that shows us how it is a movie, exactly created. Where the actor has to rehearse his lines and where the time and the shooting schedule are as valuable as the gold for the Spanish, or like the water for the Bolivians. Or where the lack of communication may result in upset actresses, as happens here, and therefore, in unfinished scenes. 

For all this, Even the rain should interest filmmakers and those preparing to become ones, for how it covers the behind the scenes, and where nothing is ever a piece of cake. 

Furthermore, I think it is a good choice for getting to know another chapter of history, if one is interested in the events of the conquest. 

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"In this therapy they don´t only talk..."

Title: The Sessions

Year: 2012

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance

Directed by Ben Lewis

Writer: Ben Lewis (written by), Mark O `Brien (from his article:" On Seeing a Sex Surrogate ")

Runtime: 95min

Cast: John Hawkes, Helen Hunt, William H. Macy, Moon Bloodgood, Annika Marks, Robin Weigert

Produc.: Fox Searchlight Pictures, Such Much Films, Rhino Films

Budget: $1 million approx.

In The Sessions, Mark (John Hawkes) is a quadriplegic, suffering from polio, who decides to hire the services of a sexual surrogate to stop being a virgin. 

Ben Lewis wrote and directed this adaptation of the essay "On Seeing a Sex Surrogate" of the actual Mark O `Brien, to be captivated by the described experience, after he had survived the disease himself. 

When, as a child, he contracted polio, the life expectancy he was given was of a few months. 38 years later Mark had, however, overcome the odds. 

Mark O’Brien, described in the film as sympathetic and optimistic, had managed to be a poet and a journalist, despite being paralyzed from the neck down. Unlike what many might think, even depending on a caretaker and an iron lung, he was not of the idea of killing himself. 

One day, in which he and Amanda (Annika Marks), his new caretaker, went together to a store, right there he asked her to marry him, proposal that she rejected. Although he dared to ask, he already knew that no one took a quadriplegic as a partner, and, in the same way, no one would sleep with one. Aware of this, of his condition, and of that his days were probably numbered, Mark thought that at least he would like to lose his virginity. Now aware of the existence of sexual surrogates, what remained for him to solve was the moral issue. 

Born into a Catholic family, Mark believed in the word of God, according to which, having sex prior to marriage was a sin. Still, given his condition, he did not see that anyone would love him as a husband. Then, if he wanted to do it, he would first have to talk to someone qualified in this area. In that way he will meet Father Brendan (William H. Macy). 

As pointed out by the movie, Mark was known to have an attitude and a sense of humor, perhaps, not expected in someone dependent on an iron lung. A man to whom Amanda herself, would come to tell him how much she loved him, and how much he made her laugh, because those were the feelings he aroused in people. Or also, capable of making Susan (Robin Weigert), a hospital volunteer, fall in love with him, when he thought that, from his position, he was not a possible candidate. 

As the title suggests, we see the sessions that take place between Mark and his therapist Cheryl (Helen Hunt), which is why there is, indeed, a minimum of eroticism, but rather suggested than anything else. In fact, unlike the truly erotic or pornographic cinema, the director here seeks only to show us the perspective of the disabled person. 

However, the director neither misses the opportunity to subtly criticize the church. So, premarital sex is a sin? says Lewis. Okay, but what about those who, for reasons of force majeure, will never be able to get marry? Will God then deny to them, the possibility of sex? 

Although it is a drama, every time Mark talks with one of the other characters, it can be seen a tone of comedy. One of the best examples is when Mark asks Brendan for approval on using a surrogate. I think it is inevitable to see as funny this indecisive Brendan that makes a pause, looks at the parish´s cross and then responds that, God will have to grant him a free pass. 

Then when Mark begins with his weekly sexual activity, every appointment with Cheryl goes on to become a new story, and with luxury of details to tell Brendan, and it is funny to hear him talking about their most private moments. 

Ben Lewis clearly seeks to separate religion from sex, with a Mark eager to sleep with a woman, and whose wishes have nothing to do with any deity. Beliefs or no beliefs involved, what he wants is to enjoy a unique enjoyment, which can only be done by two people. It would be sad to think that the only way to access it, without offending the one on top and not being married, would be to be, as Mark, a complicated case. 

My rating: 7/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"Family is always first"

Title: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D

Year: 2013 

Genre: Horror, Thriller 

Director: John Luessenhop 

Writer: Adam Marcus, Debra Sullivan and Kristen Elms (written by), Stephen Susco, Adam Marcus and Debra Sullivan (story) 

Runtime: 92min 

Cast: Alexandra Daddario, Dan Yeager, Trey Songz, Scott Eastwood, Tania Raymonde, Keram Malicki-Sanchez, Shaun Sipos, James MacDonald, Thom Barry, Paul Rae, David Born 

Produc.: Leatherface Productions, Lionsgate, Mainline Pictures, Millennium Films, Nu Image Films, Twisted Chainsaw Pictures 

Budget: $ 20 million approx. 

In Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D, Heather (Alexandra Daddario) is a young woman who travels with her friends to receive an inheritance. What will allow her to know her past, while facing a masked man with a chainsaw. 

Long before the world of entertainment delighted us with Saw (2004), Hostel (2005), or Final Destination (2000), the grave robber Ed Gein had already inspired a Tobe Hooper, who in his native Austin would direct a gruesome film about cannibals. 

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre would become an early example of how a trip on a van could go bad. Its scenes of dismemberment, plus the figure of Leatherface would cause sensation. 

After very good results, the man-eaters would appear another five more times. In all of them, on the other hand, keeping the concept of the kids who, for one reason or another, were captured by these madmen. 

As for opinions, none of the sequels would get the reception of the original, to the point that, for example, the fourth Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1994) would be shattered.

As for me, I would be lying if I said that I did not enjoy them all, and that none of them I found, like others, to be a waste. Only now, with the most recent one, is that its argument has not been to my liking. 

Seven years after his last appearance, to continue to get a profit out of Leatherface would change the rules of the game. The events now, would happened in the new century, it would be used the third dimension, and for the first time there would be a blood link between the murderer and a victim, which I intend to address here. Of the 3D, on the other hand, I will not speak, having seen the movie in its home format and without this possibility.

Archive footage from the seventies success is what opens this chapter, to explain the reason for what follows. 

A group of angry Texans opens fire against the Sawyers, for then burning them alive in a fire. Paying good attention one should notice that this does not belong to what was shot by Hooper, but to a rather much more recent material. 

Ended the attack and with the place burn to its ashes, Gavin Miller (David Born) is who finds the  smallest one of the Sawyers. A baby girl, that he grabs from her dying mother´s arms, to keep her and raise her with his wife. 

Sometime later, Heather is with his boyfriend Ryan (Trey Songz) when the bell rings. Soon after, she argues with her parents, when she learns that she is adopted. This, after knowing that a grandmother of hers, of whose existence she did not even know about, has just died and left her an inheritance. In this way, from her past there are things that she does not know, and perhaps going with her boyfriend and friends, to see the house, she finds about it. 

For having lasted, with its sequels, nearly four decades, it is understood that the new screenwriters wanted to bring something different. However, both in the small details and globally, the image they end up giving to us, is of very unserious writers. If not, how do they justify that a girl let at his place and by himself, a complete stranger? Or that, wandering around the place she finds her dead grandmother in a chair. Could they contact her, but not, bury the old woman, having she got a private cemetery? 

Unlike the other installments, the space devoted to the death of the youngsters is very small, showing that their roles are secondary. 

Burt Hartman (present, the day of the fire) discovers that apart from the grandmother, also still lives Leatherface, who survived. 

The following reveals a major spoiler that many may prefer not to read.

Hartman and Sheriff Hooper (Thom Barry) discuss in an office, while in another room of the headquarters, Heather investigates archived data. There she discovers her real family and what happened to them. The thing is that that masked boy is actually her cousin, and from one moment to another she understands to have lived in a delusion. 

Heather, however, could not have foreseen that Hartman was to project on her that hatred felt toward her family, as to want to kill her. For his psychotic purpose (which includes both cousins), is his son Carl (Scott Eastwood), the commissioner, who helps him. 

In a twisted ending, where the roles of good and bad are exchanged, Heather and Leatherface end up protecting each other of an unscrupulous Hartman. 

Then, once in the house, both try to respect each other’s spaces. It seems like if Heather had forgotten the murders he committed, and instead prefer, from now on, to let his relative alone. 

All that, once had meant The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, is lost in a movie that forgets the essence of this saga, to become a story of revenge, and feelings of understanding and belonging, by a character horribly built. Otherwise, it never should have ended with that shot, where both seem to come to an agreement of coexistence. 

My rating: 2/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"U.S horror, with uruguayan raw material"

Title: Evil Dead 

Year: 2013 

Genre: Horror 

Director: Fede Alvarez 

Writer: Fede Alvarez, Diablo Cody and Rodo Sayagues (written by), Sam Raimi (1981 screenplay) Runtime: 91min 

Cast: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore, Phoenix Connolly 

Produc.: FilmDistrict, Ghost House Pictures, TriStar Pictures 

Budget: $ 14 million approx. 

In Evil Dead, five friends who arrive at a cabin to intervene a young drug addict, end up becoming victims to a demon with macabre plans.

1981 was for Sam Raimi, a very good year. Having made several short films with friends, he had formed Reinassance Pictures with Bruce Campbell and Robert Tapert, with whom he would make a picture based on his short movie Within the Woods (1978). Without much money, but with creativity, they would release what would be a success, both in audiences and critics, and then that story would be extended into two more installments. Evil Dead would thus become a cult movie. 

Some time later, with the wave of remakes was born the rumor of a new version. Bad news for the fans, who would claim that their film was not touched. 

And here is where I appear to take advantage of my "non fanaticism" and describe it for what it really was. In fact, far from an "unbeatable product", but yes, very well conceibed, for the time and the little money. Raimi himself would say, how he would like to see the classic remade with the new tools. 

Switching to uruguayan ground, nobody would have imagined that after Drexler, another fellow were to draw the american´s attention. This time, not to be awarded, but for something much better: to surprise in Hollywood, with a video clip, get a multimillion dollar contract and get the chance to direct a remake that caused controversy. 

But Álvarez would not only have the opportunity of a lifetime. According to his statements, the now director of Spiderman (2002) had placed in him his confidence, also as a writer, along with two partners. 

With the production having been completed, then it would reach the movie theatres, with a very good reception from the public in general. 

For my part, I would say that, technically speaking, this version surpasses its predecessor, but otherwise, I was disappointed. 

Unlike the original, now there is an argument that it is more solid. It is not about going to a cabin to have fun, but there is a much more serious reason: to save Mia (Jane Levy) from drugs. To which her brother and friends force her to get rid of her pills, after which Mia begins to suffer withdrawal. 

Right away, they find in the basement an ancient book. Then Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) is set to read it, in a language that is alien to him, and unwittingly summons a demon of bad temper. In a moment of desperation Mia escapes in the car, has an accident and is possessed, kicking off the nightmare. 

As I said before, this remake is a luxury of effects, but wich do not save it from getting stucked in only that. With correct interpretations, what we have is a feast of screams, deaths and amputations, for the lovers of the morbid, and where, one by one, the youths begin to fall, but without being, nothing else, to consider noteworthy. 

Álvarez, who plays with characters, who at first do not distinguish between a demon and altered girl, makes it clear that he has got no more surprises left. The film is faithful to the task of disgust, but sins for being square in everything else. That is how it became impossible to me, no to think: "this, I have already seen it before.". I think that, with more suspense and showing less, it would have been more effective at the momento of achieving what whith me, it could not: to scare me. 

Given that the screenplay does not stands out from the conventional horror, the film entertains, but like so many others have already done it. 

I got very much excited when I heard of its first repercussions, whereas now I wonder if a US director would not have done the same and with the same quality. 

Despite the above, and because it is a filmmaker, born in my country, I wish him all the success in the world. 

My rating: 6/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"He loved his family. She, her divinity"

Title: Prayers for Bobby
Year: 2009
Genre: Drama, Biography
Director: Russell Mulcahy
Writer: Katie Ford (teleplay), Leroy Aarons (book)
Runtime: 90min
Cast: Sigourney Weaver, Henry Czenry, Ryan Kelley, Austin Nichols, Carly Schroeder, Shannon Eagen, Scott Bailey, Dan Butler, Susan Ruttan
Produc.: Daniel Sladek Entertainment, Once Upon a Time Films, Permut Presentations

Inspired by true events, Prayers for Bobby tells us how Mary Griffith (Sigourney Weaver), a religious fundamentalist who refuses to accept her gay son, ends up leading young Bobby (Ryan Kelley) to suicide. 

I saw this drama long ago, when I yet, did not have the blog, and given that now I have the movie in my video library, it occurred to me to watch it again, to refresh my memory to comment it. 

Prayers for Bobby starts at one, with the most dramatic moment of the film. Bobby, in his 20´s and with so much ahead, decides that it is no longer worth living, if by being a homosexual he does not deserve to be accepted, neither by God nor by his mother. Bobby throws himself from a bridge, to be runned over and die instantly. 

The unexpected event has obviously got a strong impact on those who loved him, but not to all, in the same way. Precisely as his mother has difficulties separating this matter from her religious belief, she is not capable of dealing with the fear that Bobby might not be accepted in heaven.

The film is not just about the conflict between a mother and her child, but rather is the starting point, for Russell Mulcahy to denounce the social problem of discrimination. 

By the way, I think it important to clarify that I am not opposed to the freedom of belief, and that believeing is a choice as any other. However, I do consider that, with or without gods, it is essential for one to be able to reason for itself, which is exactly what Mary does not do. 

So devoted is Mary that she lets herself to be guided, in every way, by her faith. She keeps reciting biblical passages and measures people, judging them by her dogma. Suddenly the younger son of hers turns out to be gay, which is contrary to all that, for her, is good and pure, and therefore a sin, so Mary feels that Bobby has strayed from the right path. Her religious fanaticism prevents her from trying to understand him and respect him for what he is, and acts like someone who only wants what she believes to be good at God´s eyes. 

On the other hand, with the secret having being revealed, Bobby Griffith is anything but supported. Instead of understanding, he finds himself with a mother for whom his homosexuality is unthinkable and awuful. A unacceptable offense to the divine plan, which has to be erased, and never accepted. Neither his father is of big help for his poor ability to communicate and for being unable to stop a woman who is solving the issue in a bad manner. It is only then, months after Bobby's death, that Mary finds answers, but when the situation is already irreversible. 

Russell Mulcahy criticizes here the church, but properly, always taking the trouble of showing us its nuances. He also seeks for us to know that, despite its faults, catholicism has also got values. 

Mary, for example, goes to Portland, where she meets Reverend Whitsell (Dan Butler), who tells her of not taking so literally, what says in the Bible. Whitsell explains her that its possible interpretations may vary according to the times, the social groups and according to each person, although most importantly, he gives her to understand that for God, a mother should love her children without conditions. 

Despite this, there is also an extreme negative side. In the mass celebrated in Bobby´s honor we hear Reverend Owens speaking, and who really leaves much to be desired. The incredible thing is that this man has got the courage to say the the kid has been tempted to then sin, when the only sinner here had been his mother, for not supporting him. No one, when Bobby lived, had bothered to ask him if he had chosen his orientation, while, in the same way, now he is so easily accussed of impure. His death is, of course, a terrible loss. But Bobby died a sinner: first, for being gay, and secondly, for taking his life. 

In any case, Prayers for Bobby aims, above all, to expose the flaws of catholicism, being discrimination against homosexuals, only one of the important topics. 

Mary, in her fanaticism, is incapable of reasoning, and she has chosen to understand to the letter the biblical texts, regardless of its consequences. And one thing, in religious terms, is to convey certain values and form thinking minds, while another very different is to shape fundamentalists, who do not even questioned those teachings. 

In the end, I think, no matter what religion one answered to, our religious beliefs should never overlap the acceptance of our loved ones. 

My rating: 8/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí

"An unhealthy, change of look"

Title: La Moustache (The Mustache)

Year: 2005

Genre: Drama, Mistery

Writer: Jèrôme Beaujour, Emmanuel Carrère (novel), Emmanuel Carrère (written by)

Runtime: 87min

Cast: Vincent Lindon, Emmanuelle Devos, Mathieu Amalric, Macha Polikarpova, Hippolyte Girardot, Cylia Malki, Fantine Camus

Produc.: Les Films de Tournelles, Pathé Renn Productions, France 3 Cinéma, Centre National de la Cinématographie (CNC), Cofimage 16, Uni Etoile 2, Région lle-de-France, Procirep, Canal+, Fondation GAN pour le Cinéma, TPS Star

In The Mustache, sitting in the tub, Marc (Vincent Lindon) asks his wife (Emmanuelle Devos) what does she thinks of him shaving his mustache, which he has been using for quite long. 

Emmanuel Carrère, director of this film, makes us clear his intention of not extending too long on presentations, and goes straight to the point. So then we hear, straight away Marc´s voice, who from the tub consults his wife on a possible change of look. Agnès, meanwhile, replies him only vaguely, not giving him a yes or a no, and going on errands. Then, Marc decides to give it a try.

Agnès comes back later, for her husband to have fun in silence. When putting on his shoes he prevents Agnès to see the change, and after her shower, Marc holds the towel up, leaving part of his face hidden. They stop in front of the mirror, where Marc waits to see his wife´s gesuture, when she notices what he has done, but that, that does not happen. Nor does she say anything in the elevator or in the car, when that night they go to the house of their friends, Serge (Mathieu Amalric) and Nadia (Macha Polikarpova), who also, do not say anything. 

The worst, however, is yet to come. Because Marc vents on his wife the anger that he has been building up, until, in bed, Agnes is forced to call her friends. Late at night she receives from them the confirmation that, for the last fifteen years, Marc has never had a mustache. 

But the string of unreal situations does not end there. Marc coworkers also do not notice his shaved, although they realize when he smoks again. As if the madness only revolved around his facial hair. 

Marc takes new pictures of himself and then asks a stranger to have a look a them, along with the one on his ID. The woman immediately points out what looks different, so now Marc understands even less, what is happens. 

Following this, what could be better than to look up for the pictures of his trip to Bali, as an evidence of his sanity. Seeing his album he is relevied to confirm that he is sane. Nonetheless, at the moment of showing them to Agnès she pays him little attention, and I would like to know why, but really, WHY?, he did not insist. If this was the way of keeping us the mystery, I am sorry to say it, but it was not good. Because letting Agnès see that evidence, was something so obvious that it makes no sense otherwise. 

Still, the dilemma of the mustache becomes one out of several. After hearing his father's message on the answering machine, Agnès tells him that, that is not possible, because his father is dead. Marc also mentions Serge and Nadia, so that Agnès ensures him that she does not know them. Marc goes so far as to call to his parent´s place, to what, in fact, the line appears unavailable. At this point he seems to be living an episode of the Twilight Zone. 

Desperate and feeling he has lost track of reality, Marc escapes of the apartment before Agnès hospitalizes him, and arrives in taxis, to the airport, to leave, without luggage, to Hong Kong. 

Marc arrives at hongkonese land to make this city his therapist, and looking to forget about so much nonsense. He settles in a hotel and starts a new routine, which Carrère describes, for several minutes, until getting us bored. He has left unfinished his "long fantasic episode," from the Rod Serling´s kind, to make one wonder, where was it left what we were seeing? 

With China substituting France, the whole mystery of the mustache, Marc´s father and his friends is cast to one side, remaning in a sort of disconcerting stand by. The Mustache undergoes a change of course that leaves us waiting for a nonexistent revealing fact, when, at most, Marc leaves again the mustache and the beard.

Watching him in his days of tourists made me want to accelerate the scenes. Until one day he comes to the hotel, to find his wife in bed, reading, as if nothing. As if he had left on good terms.

At night they get together with a couple, which they, supposedly met on that trip. With them they see pictures of the four, in a digital camera, and in whose snapshots Marc notices as indisputable, the presence of his troubled mustache. However he is convinced he has never met these people, prior to that output, and not to mention that in his memory he has no records of those pictures in which he smiles.

Carrère, in this way, keeps on adding mysteries, regarding what has been lived or not lived by Marc, being married. Not making any attempt to clarify anything and without even giving us clues, his movies finishes as it began, allowing us to interpret as we wish. And to the contrary, I think the idea of the mustache, gave to much more, than such a vague closing.

If not, remember open endings, but well developed, such as in Contact (1997) or The Separation (2011), where at least one knew from which possibilities you could chose, and it was not a simple and indistinct "anything goes".

My rating: 2/10

Para acceder a la versión en español haga click aquí