Sadly Over-hyped

An absolute waste of money

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Superb, gripping take on France's Algeria quagmire.Not writing a review as such, just keen to share some thoughts.Spoiler Alert: The Iraq comparison hits you in the face early on. And from a western point of view Iraq is THE telling comparison.America's occupation post Saddam ouster is much more in keeping with the tone of the Algerian experience. Afghanistan, as wars go, is a more just one - fought in response to an international act of mass murder.The Colonel, although made essentially toxic by his long exposure to war, is waging, with the apparent blessing of the French military hierarchy, a campaign to bust up an insurgency and seems to have succeeded.He's displaying the whatever it takes mentality to win, isn't he?. I'm sure it wasn't only the Gestapo who practiced torture in WW11.I'm NOT saying this is right, but the film, at least for me, begs the question - is it necessarily wrong as part of an overall war-fighting/winning strategy - especially if it will save lives.The ultra naive young Lt bothered me. Completely unfit for military service, psychologically and physically.Clearly, I know he shouldn't have been in the army, let alone Algeria - joining up because of a broken heart.Spoiler Alert/s: But I was repulsed by his cowardice when he finally made it into combat but couldn't even bring himself to use his gun to save the life of a French comrade.In fact he didn't fire a single shot during the village skirmish, preferring to cower behind a stone wall, as those about him blast away at the insurgents. And HE is the one who opens the Colonel's mind to his process of bloody realpolitik, but doesn't see it until his musings about summary execution become a gut churning reality.As an earlier contributor wrote, I agree this film is more interesting for the historical/human conduct questions it raises rather than the obvious Oh-My-God! this is just like the Americans in Iraq thing!.."The Colonel", much like his job in the film, truly toys with your mind.

The French film, Mon Colonel, is ostensibly about the Algerian war for independence from France in the 1950s, but it has obvious, and apparently intentional, relevance to present-day conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The film is presented as a murder mystery: a color, present-day story concerning the murder of a retired colonel, wrapped around a black-and-white version of the events, years ago in Algeria, that motivated his killer. The story is gradually revealed in excerpts from a diary that are delivered to the police and the military. The diary is that of a young law student who volunteers for the army in Algeria and is assigned to assist the colonel in charge of a large town there.The framing device is a bit clumsy, but it does serve to bring the story into the present, the better for us to consider its implications. This is not done in too obvious a way: Iraq and Afghanistan are never mentioned. But we certainly get the point. We'd probably suspect something like this anyway, from the fact that the script is by Costa-Gavras, long a politically-engaged director with a leftist viewpoint, who is probably most famous for his film Z (1969), about the military junta in Greece.In particular, the Colonel has definite ideas on the uses of torture. It is to be used to extract information that could save the lives of French citizens or defeat the insurgents. It is not to be covered up, or called something else: the Colonel scandalizes visiting French dignitaries by telling them exactly how the "pacification" of his town has been achieved. And very importantly, one must dislike torture, and must not enjoy inflicting it on people. It is to be used only for serious purpose, and not to humiliate people unnecessarily. It is to be used in the service of "justice", if not necessarily "legality."The Colonel's young protégé is a law student. First he is assigned to finding a legal justification for the Colonel's methods. Because of emergency laws that have been enacted, he succeeds in preparing a plausible case. Pleased with his work, the Colonel then puts him in charge of the torture. The young man has great difficulty with this assignment. Eventually he refuses to carry out his orders, and disappears under mysterious circumstances.The background for the situation is carefully shown. The French have been in Algeria for 125 years and consider it part of France. Many Algerian Arabs consider themselves to be French and some have fought for France. On the other hand France resists giving them the vote, fearing, as one senator remarks, that the parliament in Paris would be "turned into a bazaar." The towns all have signs on their outskirts proclaiming that they are French, but most of the countryside belongs to the insurgents. There is a great scene where almost the entire French (i.e. non-Arab) population of a town is driven out to the countryside, with visiting dignitaries from France, for a picnic. When the young student asks his Colonel whether this is safe, he is told that the area has been scoured for rebels for weeks, and the whole area is full of soldiers. There is even a tame Arab chieftain making a show of welcome. Obviously this is not the sort of outing the townspeople would undertake on their own.There is no doubt that the filmmakers are opposed to the Colonel and all he stands for. Even so, they give him plenty of opportunity to explain himself and try to justify his actions. The rebels are committing terror attacks against civilians, the supposedly loyal Arabs are paying off the rebels, there are spies in their midst (a friend of the young officer turns out to be one of them.) And the techniques of the Colonel, including torture and summary executions, seem to be working --- the town is "pacified." As the Colonel points out, in an insurgency, whichever side is supported by the people will win. (The Colonel is not naive in the matter of guerrilla war, he even has quotes from Mao posted on his walls to remind him how the insurgents think.) The Colonel's job is to make sure the people support him, through fear if necessary, and, temporarily at least, he succeeds.Of course we are intended to relate this film to current events in the Mideast, Abu Graib and so on. But I found it more interesting on two other levels, one, the historical, and two, as a more abstract meditation on human conduct. It made me realize that in spite of seeing the film Battle of Algiers many years ago, and reading Camus in college (his name turns up in the film, the Colonel thinks he's a traitor), I know very little of the history of the French in Algeria. I should learn more. As for the more abstract arguments, they hang in the air. What do you do about terrorism, if not to fight it by any means necessary? We know what the French did: eventually, they left. They could do that because Algeria, whatever they claimed, was never really part of France. Questions hang in the air, like an argument that has only begun.It's a good movie, believable, thought-provoking. It probably opens some old wounds in France, which would mostly, it seems, like to forget about Algeria. There is nothing minimalist about this film. It is full of the sense that thoughts, motives, actions matter, that we are responsible for our actions and had better consider them carefully. Definitely worth seeing.

Laurent Herbiet's near-perfect film plays out like a post-mortem murder mystery, but perhaps its most engaging moments are spent in the past - filmed in gritty, black and white, evoking newsreel footage from the Algerian War of the late 50s. It is a stunning first film, which manages to both incorporate and shrug off the influence of producers the Dardenne brothers and politically-minded filmmaker Costa-Gavras. This is clearly Herbiet's show, and his confidence with the camera is highly evident here.As co-writer and producer Costa-Gavras mentioned in his preamble at the 2006 Toronto Int'l Film Festival, this film is less about history than a metaphor for the present. One sees frightening parallels to the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon. Olivier Gourmet gives a riveting performance as the morally flexible titular character, and Robinson Stévenin is convincingly sympathetic as the conflicted apprentice and unwilling accomplice Lt. Rossi. It's worth seeing, despite a lackluster framing device that betrays the immediacy of scenes set in the past.

I attended the World Premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival.Incredibly shot, marvelous acting and a story that will make you think strongly not only about the situation then but of the situation in our current day world. Costa-Gavras' script (co-written with Jean-Claude Grumberg) is tight and stimulating.I really hope to see this movie in theatres soon for every one to enjoy.Terrific final cameo with Aznavour!Congratulations guys.