Lawbolisted Powerful

Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Stevecorp Don't listen to the negative reviews

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Pierre Radulescu A small boy seems to have a wonderful gift for painting, and that's what he's doing all day long, painting. As his father is very rich everybody is encouraging the boy. The father bankrupts and commits suicide, followed by the mother, the boy remains alone and he continues painting, against all odds. And painting is what he'll do for all his life, against all odds, sacrificing everything, his life, his self-respect and the respect of the others, his family, everything, never getting public recognition.A story that's tragic, while put before us with a mix of surrealism and black humor. Behind the story there are autobiographical elements. It comes in the life of director Takeshi Kitano after a long artistic career, during which he tried different ways.I've read about it that's the third movie in a louse trilogy, dealing with the condition of the artist. I didn't watch the other movies, so I'll speak only about this one.The title sends to the well-known paradox of Zeno: Achilles can never catch the tortoise though the distance between them gets smaller and smaller. Here in the movie it is the artist playing Achilles, while the tortoise is the never reached public recognition.It is a movie about art and artists, about their place, their value, their meaning. A movie that is itself an exquisite artwork, a lesson of modern art. As I was watching it each image was cutting my breath.Exquisite and disturbing, and as autobiographical suggestions are loosely implied, this movie might be, to a certain extent, a form of exorcism. A beautiful movie putting bluntly brutal questions. Is art necessary? Is it moral to be an artist? Is the artist just a mentally disturbed guy, a deviant? And, when becomes an artwork truly unique? This movie does not give simple solutions, actually it shows how complicated are the answers. The name of Turkish writer Elif Shafak comes here in my mind, she was saying in an interview that art (in this case this movie) should not come with quick fixes, rather it should look for all nuances, making matters more complicated.

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.

8thSin Beat Takeshi's "Dolls" is one of my favorite movies, and I really enjoyed his other films "Kikujirou no Natsu", "Zatoichi", and "Brother". However, his last two films I viewed, "Kantoku, Banzai!!" and "Takeshis'" were nothing but narcissistic garbage, so I expected nothing from this movie. To my surprise, it turned out to be a fantastic film that's not only funny, but also deep.The story follows the life of a boy who loves art and destined to become an artist, though fail to achieve success due to lack of originality and excessive imitation.What I really liked about this film is that it explores what art really is, and pokes fun at the absurdity of some of today's so-called 'modern art'. It also depicts the suffering of an artist whose works are not 'understood' by others. It's interesting Kitano Takeshi's films are often artistic in its own way. Makes me wonder if his previous two films were too artistic for me to comprehend? In any case, I enjoyed this film tremendously, and there were many memorable moments. Casting was done extremely well, especially in the 'college days', and all the actors gave a great performance for this wonderful movie.

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.