Chris Knipp Another relentless study by Kitano of an artist with no talent who refuses to give up, this goes on far too long and bludgeons the viewer with its relentless picture of a helpless sycophant trying to become a success by imitating his betters or copying trends that have just gone out of style. There is a disconnect between the early passages of the artist as a boy, which are fable-like, haunting, and touching (but also droll and odd) and the segments of the artist as an adult and "old" man (when Kitano himself takes over), the latter being simply a series of conceptual put-ons. Throughout the film is hurt by its suggestion that art of limited merit has no merit at all; that a child artist wouldn't produce anything of interest. And its later scenes are increasingly brutal and macabre. Another example of Kitano's limits as an "auteur." His work is distinctive and persistent, but there is a coldness, even a cluelessness, about it that is unappealing. The Allociné critic rating of 3.0/70 is full of raves, showing Kitano's strong "auteur" status among the French. Seen in Paris in April 2010.

dbborroughs This is the third part of Beat Takashi Kitano's trilogy about artists (especially Takashi himself) and the creative process. The first film was Takashis and was an off beat semi-autobiographical look at director Takashi. The second film in the series is Glory to the Filmmaker. It concerns a filmmaker trying to come up with a way of completing his latest film. As of this writing I haven't seen it.The last film in the sequence is this one, Achilles and the Tortoise.The plot of the film has young Machisu Kuramochi meeting an artist as a child. The artist is impressed by the boys work and gives him words of encouragement. From that point on the boy does nothing but paint, through school, through marriage, through happy times and sad. Art is all. Unfortunately he never really tastes any sort of success seemingly just behind the curve of the happening artists.To be honest I'm not sure what I think of the film. I'm not sure the story really hangs together. Essentially a three part film with three actors playing Machisu, one as a child, one as a young adult and Takashi himself playing the artist in middle age. Each part has a different feel. And the work as a whole left me feeling rather depressed.The early part of the film is a bit awkward as Michisu is "discovered" and then moves to live with an uncle when his family is broken up by bankruptcy. It the film feels unfinished.The second part of the film where our hero tries to sell his work, gets into art school and meets like minded people is a very funny destruction of artists and their drive for "art for arts sake".The last part of the film, where Takashi takes over, is a darkly funny look at the extremes some people go to create.This is a vicious destruction of "artists" and the world they exist in. Critics are savaged. Art dealers are shown for what they are. Artists and their attitudes are ridiculed. The public and its taste and ability to know what's good is roasted. It's a black comedy that leaves no one unhurt. Takashi lays waste to everyone and everything. Anyone in any sort of creative endeavor is torn apart.This isn't to say that Takashi is against art or creating. He isn't and its clear from watching him create on screen (all of the paintings in the film are his, a fact that creates a weird sense of reality since his own paintings are being judged as poor when compared to his own paintings) that he loves to create, he's just against the attitudes of those who take their art too seriously (he doesn't hence his deconstruction of his life and work over the three films) and those who criticize or market the art. The only thing spared is the joy of creation (though this is a cautionary tale about letting that get too far out of hand).I hope that Takashi enjoyed making the film, because I'm unsure about what to really say about it.To be certain Takashi hits his targets with deadly and hysterical accuracy all along the way, but in the end I don't know what it all means. I was left wondering what the point was and why I bothered to stay all the way to the end. Okay, yes I know the reason I stayed, the bits carried me to the end, but when I got there I was kind of left wanting and unsatisfied. Perhaps the lack of meaning is the point, but at the same time I don't know why it took me two hours to get there.Perhaps the films darkness and almost nihilism got to me. More than a fair number of people die both by their own hand and that of others (there is an undercurrent about suicide here). We also see the dark existence of some of the characters, for example Machisu's daughter becomes a prostitute to support her family. This is not a happy film despite the laughs. When it was over I was left in a very dark place.What does it mean? I don't think it means anything. After seeing the film last night I sat down at the computer and tried to see if I could glean anything from what other people. Out of the six or seven pieces I read I got six or seven different interpretations. Everyone had the film speak to them in differing ways. Good "art" speaks to each of us in our own way and by that definition this would be good art, but then again so does a muddled mess.Do I like the film? Yea, maybe, possibly. I like the bits. As a whole I'm not too sure. I don't think it all hangs together. For me its too mannered, too obviously constructed. I could pull it apart but I don't see the point. The films anti critical stance makes it a tough prospect (Though if I were to say something I'd say the first bit needs to be reworked. The middle section works and the final third needs to have an ending).I think the film is worth trying, especially once you get to the middle section. Its almost required for anyone who has ever tried to create anything and had to put up with the slings and arrows of people "who know better". Its an interesting misfire with moments of brilliance.Beyond that you're on your own. As for me I'm still pondering

Harry T. Yung "Achilles" is the last of the Kitano's trilogy about the joys and woes of a creative artist. I have watched the second, "Glory to the filmmaker" (2007) but not the first, "Takeshis" (2005). "Glory" was a little disappointing, mainly because it was unfocused, seeming to wander and meander without s clear course. "Achilles" is anything but unfocused.While this movie is generally labelled a comedy, the first half comes off like a Dickensian tale of an orphan. Coming from a well-off family, little Machisu finds himself plunged through a series of misfortunes – the family financial disaster, suicide of father, and then mother, an existence of drudgery under an unsympathetic uncle, then the orphanage, and finally making a living at a lowly position. The tale is told, however, with little poignancy. One reason is that the misery our protagonist goes through is nowhere near an average Dickensian orphan's. He has schooling, a kindly aunt and a very reasonable employer, just to name a few blessings. But the most important factor is Machisu himself.The taciturn child has a singular passion for painting to the extent that he at times almost seem autistic, although he is in fact not. But painting is such a consuming passion that nothing else counts. This is portrayed with remarkable consistency by the three actors from early childhood to young manhood, when he marries an insanely (just a manner of speaking) supporting girl who not only understands, but also embraces his addiction for painting. At this point, the comedy takes over, mainly generated by Machisu and his cohorts in their various imaginative attempts at creative painting. Hilarity ensues, but also some lethal consequences, literally. There is black comedy, but comedy nonetheless.In comes Kitano, playing Machisu at middle age (and wife played by Kanako Higuchi, whose heart-wrenching performance in "Memories of tomorrow" I still remember) with a daughter in late teens. Those who are familiar with Kitano's work will appreciate how well this character fits with his best-known screen persona – the expressionless face this is full of expressions, if you know what I mean. By this time his passion has gone completely out of control, and all hell breaks loose. I shall not, of course, disclose the ending. Better than "Glory", this is not Kitano's best. Still, it has all the good old Kitano ingredients such weird humour and underplayed characters. The profusion of colour scheme (often, but not always, through the paintings themselves) reminds me of "Dolls" (2002) which he directed but did not act in. On the title, the paradox of Achilles and the tortoise, often used as an introduction to calculus, is adopted here to depict Machisu's perpetual pursuit of the elusive art of painting.

Max_cinefilo89 Achilles and the Tortoise is the last installment in a loose trilogy actor/director Takeshi Kitano has made about the figure of the artist. Whereas the first two entries, Takeshi's and Glory to the Filmmaker, could basically be described as one big self-referential absurdist joke, Achilles is a more controlled film, with a proper story and a precise set of themes, albeit decorated with cheerfully absurd humor.Such a scenario occurs right from the beginning, in an animated prologue which explains the bizarre title: as pointed out by the philosopher Zeno, if Achilles (the fastest mortal man, according to Greek mythology) and a tortoise competed in a race, and the latter had even the slightest advantage (say three feet), logic demands that in the time required for Achilles to reach that point, the tortoise would keep moving forward, and therefore the famous warrior, paradoxically enough, would never be able to catch up with the notoriously slow animal.In Kitano's film, Achilles would be Machisu, a young boy fascinated by art, and the tortoise is success. Despite the boy's determination and occasionally bold choices of subjects (he has a knack for painting macabre events), his lack of stylistic originality makes all galleries shun him and most of his friends abandon him. Only his wife will keep supporting him, even in his older days (at this point, Kitano himself plays the role), when they're practically broke and their own daughter is ashamed to live in the same house as them.Kitano's passion for painting is quite well known among those familiar with his work (he personally makes all the artwork that shows up in his movies), and so Achilles and the Tortoise is a good opportunity for him to use his hobby as a tool to reflect on the elusive subject of art and its various ramifications. Naturally, he does this with his usual penchant for darkly humorous set-ups, especially in the third act, with some scenes so audacious it's doubtful even something like Six Feet Under would have featured them. And yet one does not feel repulsed by those scenes. On the contrary, it's the absurdity of the plot, paired with Kitano's quietly composed directing and minimalistic performance, that constitutes the movie's primary point of attraction. In fact, Kitano's on-screen presence is so charismatic that perhaps he would have been better off shortening the first section of the picture and granting his quirky alter ego more room. Furthermore, the straightforward "happy" ending feels completely at odds with everything else, but then again coming up with a suitably crazy epilogue might have proved too arduous a task.Ultimately, the only thing that seriously damages a part of this strange and, in its own way, funny opus is the running time (almost two hours), with minor help from the somewhat off- beat conclusion. Nevertheless, Kitano fans are likely to find something to embrace yet again, and anyone with some kind of interest in art should take a good, close look at this original take on the matter.