katjoeuk WEnt to see this yesterday as part of the programme of our local Film Society. Absolutely hated it! It started out okish, if not great and then got progressively worse!!! I did, however, like the two dancing scenes (apparently, there was a third one towards the end but I didn't see that as we walked out after about an hour - something I never do!!! With this one, though, it almost pained me physically, if you know what I mean!! What little dialogue there was was terrible, and that sort of stupid slapstick comedy type humour I thought was more suited to kindergarten kids (if that!!). Also, everything was dragged and drawn out wayyyy to long!! Some of the stuff that was supposed to be funny was just repeated ad nauseam - I mean, even the village idiot would have gotten it after 3 or 4 repetitions!! I am sorry, I am normally pretty open-minded and I do love unusual movies, but this one was just plain awful and had absolutely NOTHING going for it - complete waste of time!!!

tedg Some films begin with the vision of the story, followed by its shaping for the screen. If we are lucky, the match between the edges of the story (or whatever the artist has in mind) and the expression will be cinematic. The things that matter to me are usually in this form.Others begin with a set of tools and resources. You have a rock star, or a collection of gee whiz effects, or franchise characters, and put together a project to exploit this asset. I still can appreciate these if the craft has art, or even competence. Often the vocabulary of cinema is advanced in these projects and exploited in the other kind. I can follow some filmmakers as they wander through these two modes, wonderful filmmakers.This is the second case. We had a performer with a collection of effective tricks developed with her stage partner. She built a situation and story in order to use what she has. The woman in question is Fiona Gordon, a redheaded Australian. Perhaps six two high, gangly but busty, a physique that one would guess is unmanageable.What she has done is master this body, move to Franch where there is stage tradition that supports physical humor. She finds a partner, a talented enough fellow. She fosters a persona of a woman who lives in a separate world, entirely separate except for two points where we can encounter each other: her body art of course, and her language which she uses almost not at all.So the story here is of a woman who teaches English in a rural French school. We almost never hear her speak in French and any speaking is rare. She lives by either being fenced from reality or performing by dancing, where she is unfettered, joyful. She is a real pleasure to watch, a deliberately unsexy character expressing her sexuality. She enters a situation where both are denied to her. At the end, there is some, slight dear reward for her earnestness.The fold: she is married to a man. His relationship to her is precisely the same as hers to the rest of the world, both in language and body expression. He is a physical education teacher in the same school. Where she has what we might call a mental impairment in real life, it seems natural in the world of the film, rendered in cartoonish oversaturated pastels and sparse sets. He lives in a world more removed, a step within the world of the movie. The two have an encounter with a third character, someone who is determined to take everything from himself, and accidentally takes everything from them instead. It woks, because though the story is built to give this woman a path to artistic expression, the story is about her character (also named Fiona) and her relationship to her artistic expression. You will not fall in love with her; you are not intended to. But you will fall in love with the unremitting quest for love and life.There are cute dogs in several guises, also folded in the same way.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

zetes Delightful Belgian comedy in the vein of Jacques Tati. Dominique and Fiona (both played by the directors of the same name) are a married couple who both teach in a rural elementary school. Their hobby is dancing the rumba, and they've won many awards for doing so. Unfortunately, after one competition, the two get in a car accident that claims the wife's leg and the husband's mind. Far from being sentimental, this film plays pretty much everything for comedy and is really just a handful of comic setpieces strung together. Like Tati and the silent comedians who influenced him, some of the comic moments seem forced, but they're all amusing. There are three dance sequences, the first two of which are completely awesome (not to demean the third). Abel and Gordon are tall, gangly people and their dances are truly unique and a wonder to behold. The film also has a wonderful, candy-colored palette and a playful sense of artificiality (like really obvious sets and the use of rear projection). The only real problem is that it, being mostly just a collection of sketches, the story is pretty thin and the resolution is a tad disappointing (despite Fiona's one leg, I was hoping for one final, real dance).

David Traversa A half baked movie. The original idea is excellent, the realization falls almost flat. Almost, because not everything is lost, it has some enjoyable moments among a lot of forgivable ones; moments, you know..., when you feel the embarrassment the other person should feel? The main couple are not candidates for a beauty contest (but after seeing "Precious", I suppose that has nothing to do with the excellency of a movie); she has a receding chin; his face looks like he didn't sleep for the last six months. I don't know how to put it with my execrable English..., the movie is BAD, but extremely enjoyable. It's obvious they did it with a tiny budget, so, maybe that has something to do with the final product. But what really grabbed me was the soundtrack: A few gorgeous Cuban boleros that blast one's mind with delight! with lyrics that don't make much sense if one analyzes them, but that are so romantic and enjoyable as to have one repeat and repeat the moments when they are being played.The color photography is charming, since the hues are very saturated, giving a childlike effect of a kindergarten. The deja vu feeling of watching an early Almodovar movie is very strong!! The choreography is basic, almost amateurish, and they both dance with gusto, but let's assume they didn't pretend to be the next Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth... Oh, Fred and Rita...where are you now!!??