Café de Nuit

My goodness, the film only came out over here today. I hope to see it soon. To be honest, I never expected it to be very scary, considering it's a Gilliam film.

In terms of setting the mood and creating atmosphere, I thought it did very nicely. Some of the city-scenes were especially nice. The actual plot was a bit weak. I definitely second what Tobias said, that the "foreign" (i.e. non-German) characters tended to distract from the real story. I was especially confused by the Italian. How did he go from being a blood-crazed killer, to willing to sacrifice himself for the Brothers? I guess I missed his epiphany...And then the very end. So Jacob gives the girl (forget her name...) the "Kiss of True Love." And...that's it? If it's "True Love," shouldn't it be a little more involved than that? I don't expect him to lead her off to his father's kingdom or some such drivel, but his feelings for her seemed to fade with the night clouds...grr, inconsistency

Ok, sorry about the rant. Overall, I think the character concepts were solid (minus the Italian & French), the idea was good, and the photography excellent. Plot execution lacked a bit, but, hey, it was still a fun movie!

I have seen the movie and it is
Not a Ravenloft movie!

If you want a generic D&D movie, this one is very good! It is like the D&D in 80's. The bad lich on the tower and the minions around it.

I give it 4 out 5 stars. I liked it very much.
PS. The lich isn't extremely powerful. It is just a normal lich. Remember that normal liches are very powerful.
Hardcore D&D fans will like this movie! As for Ravenloft...

* minor Spoiler*
The lich is about to try a power ritual!

alhoon wrote:I have seen the movie and it is
Not a Ravenloft movie!

Al, why do you think it isn't a Ravenloft movie? I'll agree with you that the plot isn't too Ravenloftian, but otherwise...

Good question:

- It has a classic D&D feeling. A fairy tale where the heroes battle the lich on top of a big tower.
- No tragic heroes. Common D&D rogues, rangers, fighter and wizard. No cleric btw... . Happy-go-lucky type of heroes. Even the villains were comic figures.
- It was an action-comedy. The whole cinema gave a good laugh on some scenes. There was not even one scary or unsettling scene. A 13 years old kid could watch and enjoy it.
- The references to the various fairy tales were very funny.

Ok, I stand convinced...good answer!

I loved it. Not what it could have been (or what Gilliam wanted it to be) but still very cool. Had a Gaiman feel to it. More an excuse to throw in as many fairy tale references as possible into a single narrative.

I thought it wasn't bad--not great by any stretch of the imagination, but still not bad.

SPOILERS (if it matters, since I waited until DVD to watch this one)

...

...

...

...

...

Good Points:

1.) Good use of CGI--not too much, just enough (which is a rare thing these days); the wolf transformations, the initial staged witch-battle, the forest, and the crumbling mirror "face" at the end was just about it.

2.) Some very disturbing moments (I don't care what anyone says, the little girl losing her face when the "dead" crow flapped the mud from its wings onto her and then the mud creature sucking her inside it as a demonic Gingerbread Man WAS disturbing).

3.) Good scenery and stage setting, and some excellent ideas for DMs who want to incorporate the "dark forest" aspects of Forlorn, Kartakass, etc.; I kept waiting for Azenwrath to make an appearance.

4.) Skillful blend (overall) of humor and horror--too much horror becomes farce, and too much humor loses the "funny"; this wasn't a bad mix for the most part, as it gave you moments to laugh and let down your guard and then it threw another scare at you (such as when the French officer mentions the "confession" that the Grimms are charlatans and reveals the decapitated heads of their associates).

Bad Points:

1.) The guy playing the Italian is also the guy who played Lucifer in "Constantine" and the guy who played John Abruzzi on the TV series "Prison Break". He's got the strangest accent I've ever heard on anyone--and it keeps changing thoughout the film (and the TV show, for that matter). He does the whole "quiet menace" thing fairly well... but I'm not sure a comedic role was best for him.

2.) Plot holes (i.e., the "kiss of true love" drivel at the end, the story of HOW the "cursed" girl's father came to be the queen's slave and why he could turn into a wolf, etc.)

3.) Overuse of the whole "magic beans" thing; the scene at the end between Will and Jake (the one where he mentions finding a "real" fairy tale and having to do something to give it a happy ending) would have been a lot more poignant if Will hadn't been shouting "Magic Beans!" at least five or six times throughout the rest of the movie.

4.) Overacting and scenery chewing; I'm prepared to forgive it in the brothers--the way Heath Ledger and Matt Damon do it in the film isn't a big deal, it's easy to see it as part of their characters. The rest (particularly the chief French officer, played by Jonathan Pryce, I think) just became tough to watch.

...

...

...

...

END SPOILERS...

Again, not a great movie, but not a bad one. It does drag in a few parts, so keep the remote control close. I probably won't buy it, but it wasn't a bad rental.

SPOILERS ! ! !

AdamGarou wrote: 2.) Some very disturbing moments (I don't care what anyone says, the little girl losing her face when the "dead" crow flapped the mud from its wings onto her and then the mud creature sucking her inside it as a demonic Gingerbread Man WAS disturbing).

4.) Skillful blend (overall) of humor and horror--too much horror becomes farce, and too much humor loses the "funny"; this wasn't a bad mix for the most part, as it gave you moments to laugh and let down your guard and then it threw another scare at you (such as when the French officer mentions the "confession" that the Grimms are charlatans and reveals the decapitated heads of their associates).

OK now you make me feel bad. I didn't think any of those two were disturbing and I laughed heartily in both of them. OK the mad creature had a funny aspect, but the beheaded charlatans shouldn't have seem so funny to a norman man. Perhaps I'm a psycho. In fact I'm smiling know that I remember their faces in barrels.

To my defence: The kids sitting near me laughed too in these scenes. They weren't older than 13-14 years old.

AdamGarou wrote:
Bad Points:

2.) Plot holes (i.e., the "kiss of true love" drivel at the end, the story of HOW the "cursed" girl's father came to be the queen's slave and why he could turn into a wolf, etc.)

4.) Overacting and scenery chewing; I'm prepared to forgive it in the brothers--the way Heath Ledger and Matt Damon do it in the film isn't a big deal, it's easy to see it as part of their characters. The rest (particularly the chief French officer, played by Jonathan Pryce, I think) just became tough to watch.

About the girl's father, didn't you ever had a character that had been abducted by an evil spellcaster and become charmed/dominated? And he made his a werewolf with spells. She was a lich after all. A 9th level wizard can create goblyns, a 11th level wizard can transform to a powerful almost undestructable undead. So it isn't above the powers of a 14th-15th level lich to create a werewolf.

About the true love thing... I totally agree. It annoyed me. The whole end in fact seemed to be a forced happy end. OK, the spells are broken, the ice blade disappears. But what about the hole? How did it disappeared?
Also the ranger was clearly the true love of the J brother. What kind of brother does such a stupid thing only to kiss just another pretty girl (for him) but one that is the one woman for his brother?

About the overacting, I agree. It was a bit too much.

Drinnik Shoehorn wrote:

Orang Santu wrote:I haven't seen any Gilliam movies (blasphemy, I know) - wasn't he either in or connected with Monty Python? Anyway, based on what I hear about Brazil, this movie might have a slightly Gaiman-esque feel to it. Is that a good comparison?

He was the artist who did the cartoons. Brazil was a weird film. It's part of the Imagination trilogy (Time Bandits being the first and The Adventures of Baron Von Munchausen being the last). Gilliam has a uniques style. I thought Hitchhiker's Guide had some very Gillliam-esque moments, even though, AFAIK, he wasn't part of the production crew.

I believe he also did "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".

Gilliam has done more restrained-and more quietly horrifying-work.
If you get a chance,look up the film KAFKA with Jeremy Irons...bleak,a touch Gothic and more than a touch grotesque,one of my all time favorite films.

Gilliam has done more restrained-and more quietly horrifying-work.
If you get a chance,look up the film KAFKA with Jeremy Irons...bleak,a touch Gothic and more than a touch grotesque,one of my all time favorite films.

Ooops,double post.

alhoon wrote: SPOILERS ! ! !

About the true love thing... I totally agree. It annoyed me. The whole end in fact seemed to be a forced happy end. OK, the spells are broken, the ice blade disappears. But what about the hole? How did it disappeared?
Also the ranger was clearly the true love of the J brother. What kind of brother does such a stupid thing only to kiss just another pretty girl (for him) but one that is the one woman for his brother?

I whole-heartedly third this opinion! What kind of "true love" says, "great, I just saved you, and you're the only one for me. Don't bother reciprocating. And we don't have to have a relationship or anything? AAAND I don't mind letting my brother kiss my One True Love just because he feels like it. That's fine. I share everything..."

The ending overall was very disappointing. It seemed rushed, as though everyone involved with the film just got tired of doing it and decided to wrap things up...