Film Perfection

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

I have to mention what the movie reviews (and news media) ignored. Mark Lepine was born Gamil Rodrigue Liass Gharbi. His father was Algerian. It is weird and creepy that Canada's multicultural media (and its movie productions) ignore this bit of information. I only learned of it by a chance glance at wikipedia and I was shocked--since I had no idea he was biracial. The news media never mentioned this in 1989. They framed the entire issue around gender hatred. This appears dishonest and deliberately so.

I'm finding it hard to write an in-depth review about this movie, but of all the mass murder films I have seen, the imperfections of this film seem to make it a very good case in point to comment upon. The thing I most take issue with is how the film makers decided to relate the film to any real life incidents it was based on, by telling the viewer upfront at the opening of the film that it was based on the Montreal massacre, but saying all characters in the film are fictional. The purpose for this is clearly for nothing other than the capitalization upon real life human suffering, otherwise really why would it need to be blatantly stated if the film is a fictional account? When film makers do that, they knowingly attract the interest of people in such events, and moreover they place their film on a pedestal above fiction which tends to endear people towards the film, however this IS fiction and it is difficult to tell where the fiction and biogrqaphy begins and ends.Adding to this tasteless fact, the film makers decided to make their film in black and white (for whatever official reason). The likely and common reason, is that it bestows a certain respectability and legitimacy to the film, a technique used many times before in action dramas which may otherwise come across as exploitative, for if it were in color like most films, it might have been regarded as "just another made for t.v. movie" which to be honest wouldn't be that unfitting.As to the content, is the film in itself horrible? Not necessarily, though because the scenes depicted are very matter of fact, and mainly action driven with very little dialogue, not to mention that of all the films involving mass murder I've seen, this film shows probably the greatest amount of actual violence, it may not be intended to shock, but there is very little depth outside of what we instantly know the film pertains to."Polytechnique" can very easily be compared to "Elephant" in terms of the feel of the film, though Elephant really did seem to have a purpose and real depth and artistry, whereas this film seemed to be merely showing us events. While Gus Van Sant in "Elephant" badly messed up on chronological timing, there isn't much in "polytechnique" to scrutinize other than the fact that in the 30 or so minute range of time that the shooting takes place, it remains questionable that there would be so many people still simply milling about the institution unaware of what was happening for such a long time, though all things said and done, it is very hard to say exactly how such events would play out in reality.There was very little buildup, very little contemplation on the event, and since I came away from the film feeling empty, and really asking what the point of the film was, ultimately the film just doesn't have very much to say. What it does, is it merely coldly shows us a horrific event without giving it much of a face other than (The shooter hated feminists... so he killed them.) Again, not a horrible movie, but it doesn't possibly in any way do justice to the actual event that took place, which is really a bit shameful.

The movie starts off with a bang and if you don't know what this is about (like me when I watched this, I hadn't read anything about it), then you will be awed by this very strong beginning. While it's almost like a documentary, it is very strong and has very good natural performances! It's not for the faint hearted and it will be a very intense and strange watching experience. You can't say that it will entertain you in the normal sense of that word, but it will be gripping and it will be a movie that you won't forget that easily. Whether you like it or not, it is grim and it is down and dirty.

I hadn't planned on seeing this film but was invited by a friend. Thank yous came out of my mouth the moment we stepped out of the theater; the only words which managed to escape my rattled mind.This is a film which I believe is a must see. Brutal and raw, it breaks a real story into a few basic elements and lets the events speak for themselves. The film depicts the sad events of this day in 1989 with such realism that the viewer feels himself part of the drama, a witness to the violence. Filmed in black and white, and with very similar stylistic elements to Gus Van Sant's Elephant, few words are needed for the director to properly convey the desired range of emotions which take place in the movie.I must add that there were shots of such beauty which contrasted the ugliness of the shooting in such a moving way that while trying to old back tears at one point, I thought to myself "Life is a wonderful gift.." I have never written a review for this site before, and enjoy a great variety of films: I walked out of the silent, full theater, packed with viewers just as shell shocked as I, thinking that this might have been the most gut wrenching movie experience of my life.Do see