Bad Education (2004)

This is an intelligent portrayal of the lives of gay men, perhaps autobiographical, that strikes universal chords. It is frankly erotic, but in the context of telling a story. You do not necessarily like the characters, but they are complex and three dimensional. For those of us who like to lose ourselves in a movie, and not critique it as it unreels, the movie has plenty of suspense, action, and mystery. It is one of those movies you leave, debating the plot twists with your movie companion. This is a visually appealing work, not only of the characters but of the different locales shown in the firm. The film sticks with you long after you have seen it. The underlying themes of child molestation, and the power of adults in the lives of children give the film gravitas. Some scenes in the movie will no doubt bring back haunting memories to many film goers, both straight and gay. Notwithstanding the seriousness of these issues, this is not a polemic against the Church. Rather it is a multi layered exploration of complex relationships that clearly fall outside the limits of what we consider acceptable.

Fmovies: Bad Education is risky film-making at its craftiest, a tightrope of innuendo, gay sex, murder, cinema, narrative, et all. Sounds like it might be pretentious, but it isn't. Almodovar's film folds into its storytelling like its the only way to go, stylistically and consciously, as if the only way to experience this is to find out where truth blends with fiction, and reverberates back again. Is the real thing as involving and melodramatic as the truth? Almodovar- contrary to what the Village Voice critic said- wisely only hints at the rampant pedophilia on hand, all we really get is that one suggestive moment with the priest and the boy as he tumbles out and cracks his head. Everything else is implied, but with such an emphasis on what more than likely happened that all we need is suggestion- anything more would be exploitive of a much larger issue than Almodovar wants to get into.

What Bad Education gets into then at its best is desire, and the paranoia surrounding desire, as well as revenge, and lustful abandon. One can find this in Hitchcock, but it's also found in the steamiest of film-noir. Appropriate then that for almost half of his screen time star Gael Garcia Bernal is in drag, practically as a femme fatale, named Zahara. Of course, she is only a fictional construct, though based on emotions and settings loosely based on true events for the character Ignacio (or is it Juan...wait, said too much, though he now wants to be called Angel), who visits his friend, Enrique, from back in Catholic school. There's a story he wants to give to his friend, soon a film deal is made, despite shady history surrounding the death of Angel's brother. Then comes the priest- no longer a priest of course- and then the story goes deeper, with what the real truth is, and while it contains the same level of heart from the characters, it's all the same melodramatic.

As well as the melodrama, Almodovar loves it as lurid and classy as possible (not to mention gay, of course, which Almodovar embraces to the point where the sex scenes carry an eroticism all their own, in spite of the NC-17 usually with only just enough shown to get the idea). But it may also be one of Almodovar's most disturbing pictures, and as it grows darker and more fatalistic in its last third one knows how deep the fissure is in the crime of passion at hand. But Almodovar, save for the experimental storytelling, like paperback novel style Citizen Kane, there's not a whole lot of messing around technical-wise, which is just fine for the actors (especially Bernal) to show off their amazing dramatic skills. What he does strive for, which he nearly gets as a great film, is the sensibility of cinema, the intoxicating power of a story told through conflict and danger, crime and (lack thereof) punishment. Hence the scene where the two boys sneak into the movie-house and the 'act' that they commit. Is it as obvious as it looks, or is there a quality to what they're watching- an old movie with Sara Montiel- that has them riled up? And what about the aspect-ratio change when going between The Visit and the 'main' narrative?

Almodovar's Bad Education is certainly not for the squeamish, and leaves a feeling that everything is left darker for a purpose. By the end no police have been involved, and everything unfolds as torrid love affairs gone awry. It's also appropriate then in The Visit that Zahara blackmails to send the story to Diario 16 on TV. The difference between this and a telanovela is simple: a telan

OK, so you'd have to make sure that they could all handle the subject matter, but once you're past that, it's perfect. This is only the second Almodovar movie that I watch(and I haven't seen the other version of this, either), the first being Volver, which I *loved*. I've heard that his work is usually divisive... I guess so, because this one simply did not grab me. It's not the overall story; in fact, I have to commend the man on an impeccable job done on the structure, the sheer fact that you can *follow* this thing, with several narratives, is a genuine accomplishment, and I personally enjoyed immensely how the director in this was trying to make motion pictures out of real events, right down to finding inspiration in newspapers, to see the artistic process, although I suppose that not everyone will necessarily feel the same way as I did about it. I have no problem with exploring pedophilia in the Church, rather, I consider it vital to do so. It's probably not that this is a crime mystery, and I hadn't figured out the solution before it was revealed. The plot is good, and it moves along nicely. I can only applaud the acting, even the kids are utterly and completely convincing. The characters are well-written, thoroughly developed, credible and three-dimensional. This is put together well, the cinematography and editing are smooth and clearly had effort and talent behind them. You know what? I don't think I can define why this didn't click with me. However, I'm not going to take it out on something as expertly made as this. It wasn't for me, that doesn't mean it won't be for you. If what I've described here sounds appealing, give it a chance. There is a lot of pretty graphic(apparently, originally downright explicit)sexuality and nudity, a little disturbing content and some infrequent strong language in this. Also, for anyone bothered by such, this is about transvestitism and homosexuality. The DVD comes with four and a half minutes of deleted scenes, a handful of galleries, a minute and 45 seconds behind the scenes montage, a theatrical trailer, a teaser and a TV spot. I recommend this to any fan of drama. 8/10

Bad Education fmovies. Bad Education is an interesting and dark crime film by Pedro Almodovar. This film has many layers and various dimensions of a story; stories of obsession, role-playing, and revenge. Almodovar's mis-en-scene was the excellent use of bright colors which helped the scenes pop from the screen. These colors were used as a vibrant explosion that helped in the dramatic effect of the stories this film presented. He also used excellent cinematography to lead his audience into this mysterious, bizarre world where graphic simulation of sexual acts was used. When viewing this film, the audience will notice that it is impossible not to get lost in the story played by the characters, because Almodovar augments the width of the image to where the audience will not notice the dimensions of fiction and reality.

As a viewer of this film, I began to notice several themes. The first theme I noticed was the theme of indifferent attitudes toward women because there were no significant women's parts or roles played in this film, besides the role played in drag. Another theme is that of false identity - the movie's present tense is the 1980s, where a film director Enrique is searching desperately for a new project, hoping to find it by clipping through newspapers, when a young actor comes into his office with a story he's written. The young actor claims to be Ignacio, the boy Enrique fell in love with while they were in a Roman Catholic boarding school together. Although Enrique wanted to believe it to be true, he knew that something was not right. Enrique would eventually find out that Ignacio was not who he thought he was but played with the thought anyway; the theme of falling in love was also prominent in this film as it was shown - the Priest falls in love with Ignacio and the love between two young boys.

In the end, as a reviewer, I enjoyed all the different art forms that this film presented. The art of mis-en-scene, the art of realism versus fictional and the art of love.

Enrique is a film director working on his new project when an old school friend, Ignacio, arrives looking for acting work. Enrique fobs him off with excuses and Ignacio leaves him with a story he has written called 'The Visit'. The story is based on their childhood together as well as having a totally fictional section where Ignacio (Zahara). As Enrique reads the story it takes him back to his childhood effectively where they fell in love as boys before being separated by Father Manolo who also loved Ignacio. When he decides to make the film of the story it only serves to spark more memories as well as bringing revelations.

When I read the plot summary for this film I assumed that it would be difficult to penetrate (pardon the pun) and that I would struggle to follow it. Now that I think back on it I wonder how on earth I managed to follow a film that has threads and characters that don't exist even within the film and it is to the film's credit that it works really well. The film appears to have about three of four stories but really it is only one story that we are being told and a very effective story it is. It is engaging and very well written – we care about the characters even as they change and trick us. Only the final 20 minutes appear to be unsure of themselves and it is here that the film drags slightly, but at till this point it is all great. This is not to say it is an easy watch because it isn't.

If you are homophobic then this is not the film for you – I am used to seeing shows (Oz, 6 Ft Under) where such acts are portrayed but I was taken aback by the graphic nature of the acts here. I don't mean you see anything but it leaves very little to your imagination. This is not a problem – it's just that many men may find this difficult to watch. Likewise scenes involving mutual masturbation between young boys is hardly something that one can watch without feeling slightly uncomfortable. However the one thing the film does through all this is deliver good characters. As much as I couldn't watch Ignacio licking his fingers to wet his 'area' and ease penetrate I still liked him as a character. Even more pleasing was the fact that the film never makes Father Manolo a monster; of course there is no sympathy for the man in the film but it could have just made him a lecherous beast who the audience immediately hate – a pantomime villain – but the script creates a more complex character.

The cast do a great job of delivering these characters and they make it work very well even if come of them have to change characters midstream or be one of several actors playing the same character. Martínez plays the most consistent character in the film and he does well with a good part, even if he has a less showy role than some others. Bernal has the most difficult role and he does really well to keep the audience with him while delivering all sorts of roles! If nothing else he is a brave actor and he deserves good parts to do more work like this. I don't know the rest of the actors by name but I enjoyed the other queen in the fictional part and also the guy who played Manolo in the fictionalised and childhood sections. Boira's Ignacio lacks subtlety and is overblown – but by his point of the film I think that was the whole point.

Overall this is far from most people's cup of tea – even those used to seeing art films may find it hard going due to the graphic simulation of the sexual acts within the film. But despite this the film is really well delive

The latest film by Almodovar after the awarded All about my mother and Talk to her has divided the public opinion. Part of the audience say its the continuity of the director's talent and the other part does not like the film at all. But this division has always happened with Almodovar films, you love it or you hate it.

Of course the subject of the church and the pederasty has provoked scandals, like the cancellation of the film in many French cinemas, but despite this fact the film has been the one chosen (and the first Spanish film) to open the Cannes festival.

In the film we can feel Almodovar touch everywhere: the tremendously deep characters, the unbelievable plot and the colourful scene as well as in the camera angles. All this things make Almodovar maintain a fidelity to his style. Another curiosity is the cameo that the director's brother, who appears in most of his films, does, in this case as a pool cleaner.

The Gael Garcia's acting, without Mexican accent, is wonderful and he shines as a travestite femme fatale, an icon to noir films, just as Almodovar likes to describe the film.. The atmosphere of the film carries us to the 80s thanks to its perfect job of decoration and wardrobe documentation .