13 (Tzameti)

Gele Babluanija's debut film is easily one of the best movies I've ever seen. Reading all this talk about film noir and Bricko really brought this masterpiece back to mind. You can probably still track down a copy on DVD or VHS these days if you look hard enough.

Shot entirely in black and white, the story follows a young immigrant who gets pulled into a bizarre, unexpected game. It also offers a raw look at the lives of immigrants living on the fringes of American society.

It’s hard to say much about the actual plot without giving too much away, but if you're a fan of film noir, this is a must-watch. 😁

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475169/

Thanks so much for the tip—I had absolutely no clue about this 🙏

Noir really hits the spot 😁

It’s definitely worth looking for. It’s a low-budget production that honestly feels like something shot back in the 40s or 50s. Even though the reviews were glowing, I can't help but wonder how much of it is autobiographical given where the director comes from. He probably dealt with some very similar struggles.

A buddy and I walked out of the theater completely stunned. I really wasn't expecting 🙂

...Alright, let me give a quick shout-out to this brilliant young director—I mean, you have to be pretty talented to pull off a flick like this 🙂—but also a huge thanks to Boris T. matica and the crew for bringing him (the movie, not the gel itself 😁 ) over to our shores...

...But seriously, what an incredible film. I’m really hoping it hits theaters properly or maybe even lands in video rental stores soon, so we can all experience it together once more 🙂. It feels totally original, yet somehow sooooo very retro. Just really, really good 👍

Larry Martin11 said:...all jokes aside, it’s a great movie—one I really hope hits theaters or at least gets a wide release on streaming so we can all experience it again together 🙂 It feels totally original, yet sooooo very retro; just really good 👍

It moves sooooo very slowly. I just can't stand those movies where the entire plot exists solely to serve one single gimmick.

My neighbor, a local mechanic, would probably call this 'Kafkaesque neo-noir.'😁
The concept works, and they pulled it off perfectly. Using black-and-white cinematography was a smart move, and at a tight 90 minutes, it doesn't overstay its welcome. Honestly, I walked away feeling like Gelin knew exactly what he was doing—he crafted a lean, mean little film without a single wasted frame. Major props to Gelin. Plus, he somehow managed to squeeze his younger brother into that 5 to 12 movie too.

northerncrane4 said:Man, it’s just so slow. I really can't stand those movies where everything exists solely to serve one single gimmick.

...I kind of see your point—I'm not a fan of films built entirely around a single punchline either... but for me, that’s the issue with directors like M. Night Shyamalan, where once you grasp the trick, the whole thing just evaporates. Babluani, in my humble opinion, actually managed to lean into something else: genuine tension. Something M. Night Shyamalan has never quite mastered. You know from the jump that unlucky number 13 is going to meet a bad end somewhere along the way (there's an early scene with a black cat crossing the road, for instance), but you have no idea how. It forces you to stay on edge, trying to stay three steps ahead—a quality the film shares with, say, Amenabarov's The Others, even though they're totally different beasts. That slow pace is actually working for the plot—the less frantic the movement and the more intimate the shots, the higher the tension builds. What sets Gelin apart from its peers isn't just that famous black-and-white cinematography (which, let's be honest, that blend of old-school photography and basic modern tech is just a stylistic choice, not a gimmick), but the fact that the "twist" doesn't turn into some massive, over-the-top revelation that makes the movie a one-time watch—much like Amenabarov's The Others. The movie holds up even if you already know how it ends. It's a solid film, beautifully acted (Jose Miller17, what was your take on the "pushing" of the younger brother in the film? 😁), featuring some brilliantly hit scenes (seriously, that intersection shot was perfectly executed—it used the most pathetic, cliché symbolism possible, yet it still hit me right in the gut! 😍), and a tempo that I actually find worth defending...

...so, yeah, I haven't exactly reinvented the wheel, have I? But hey, at least I tried to convince you to give him one more shot. 🙂

Larry Martin11 said:the simple fact remains—that "twist" doesn't actually turn into the "fantastic payoff" the whole movie was built on

The issue is that the "big twist" happens halfway through—it’s actually decent for about twenty minutes—but then the movie just drags on and on until the final resolution feels completely banal.

Well, Xavi, you said the "twist" wouldn't turn into some "fantastic ending," but I disagree. Since I already figured out what was going on by accident, I still found myself glued to the screen. Honestly, the pacing works for me—the shots are timed perfectly, and that middle sequence is spot on. Whether the ending feels cliché is subjective. It’s like asking if the end of Kafka’s *The Trial* is cliché; maybe that ambiguity is exactly the point.
edit: Oh, and apparently his brother was the absolute last choice for the lead role, picked at the very last minute right before filming started.

Jose Miller17 said:Well, Xavi pointed out perfectly well that a "twist" doesn't necessarily mean a "fantastic plot twist"... and honestly, I disagree—mostly because I happened to know what was coming, yet I still found myself gripped by the tension. The pacing works for me; the shots are well-timed and that middle sequence is spot on. Whether the ending is "banal" is purely subjective—you could ask if the end of Kafka's *The Trial* is banal, or if it serves as the ultimate commentary on the story itself.
edit: Oh, and apparently his brother was the absolute last choice for the lead role—was supposedly picked at the very last second before filming started...

Risking a deletion for being contrarian, I’ll say this:
Just because a fantastic revelation happens in the middle of the movie rather than at the end doesn't mean it isn't a fantastic plot twist—it's just positioned differently.
I went in blind, and for me, the pace felt sluggish. While the buildup and the competition were engaging, the epilogue felt slow and unnecessary.
When I call it "banal," I'm referring to that forced need to "teach the protagonist a lesson"—which isn't even what this story is about. I've never had much patience for protagonists who move through a film with such an autistic detachment.

northerncrane4 said:When I talk about banality, I mean that forced need for the protagonist to have some big "life lesson," even when the story isn't really about him. Plus, I can't stand protagonists who act completely detached from reality throughout the film.

I don't think it's actually a story about him either, so the "lesson" isn't meant for his benefit... our lead is basically just a way for the plot to move. In that sense, that "detached" vibe fits perfectly. As for the scares? They're totally justified... boo. 😁😁

Jose Miller17 said:I'm not saying the story is actually about him—that's why I call it a "lesson"—it isn't meant for him specifically... our main protagonist is Mr. Bilotko. In that sense, calling it "autistic" fits perfectly enough.

Look, I prefer having an actual protagonist. And by "lesson," I mean that final act in the movie that gives you that feeling of: "Oh, you thought you were so smart? Well, how do you like that."

"He loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not..." Ugh. This guy was basically picking flower petals on a Sunday afternoon... ...Look, you can love the movie all you want, but I’m telling you again: you completely missed the point.

Jose Miller17 said:"He loves me, he loves me not, he loves me, he loves me not..."—man, this guy was losing his mind on a Sunday afternoon......Look, you can love it all you want, but I'm telling you again—you completely missed the point of the movie...

Enlighten me then.

northerncrane4 said:Enlighten me.

…there he goes, our knight in shining armor, reacting with that classic bruised ego because anything that doesn't align with his worldview must be some kind of divine revelation..."enlighten me"... "enlighten me"...Sorry, I don't have any enlightenment to give you. I'm not exactly Gelin, an angel Gabriel, and let's face it, you aren't exactly a saint either. The formula is as disappointingly simple as always: try actually listening—or reading—to what the other person is saying :-) ...or just look at your own previous posts. Our hero was never exactly portrayed as the wise, clever, or cunning type, so I'm not sure where you're getting this from. If you really want enlightenment, listen to my neighbor down the street... though it’s probably been a while since you actually picked up a book! 😁

The film is genuinely excellent. I’ll admit I had to close my eyes whenever they aimed, but damn, the cinematography is top-tier and it masterfully leans into those Kafkaesque themes. 🙂

Jose Miller17 said:...Ah, there he goes—the wounded ego at work. It’s classic behavior—he acts like anything that doesn't align with his specific worldview can only be dismissed as divine revelation.Enlighten me... enlighten me...

First off—yeah, I know you know, and honestly, everyone who’s shown even an ounce of interest knows too. Most people who haven't? They know as well. So, I'm still here. Big deal.
Second point—it’s not about my ego being bruised. My take is simply that we’re looking at a film that uses violence to stretch out a premise that, as I noted before, relies entirely on a gimmick. I don't follow. What are you getting at? It’s okay, but it doesn't hold up for ninety minutes. My sense is that young, idealistic cinephiles are mystifying this film—they're just desperately hunting for some new hero, preferably someone obscure, just so they can feel superior to the masses by knowing their work. But maybe I'm wrong. You invited me to be enlightened by your vision, only to snap back at me like this. How is one supposed to have a conversation with you?

Jose Miller17 said:Our protagonist was never portrayed as some cunning mastermind—not clever, not strategic, and certainly not resourceful—so I honestly don't see where you're getting that point from...

I still don't see it that way. Actually, I feel the exact opposite—what our protagonist did during the competition, especially that exchange with the cop, strikes me as wise, calculated, and sharp. That’s where my point comes from.

1) Honestly, I don't know and I don't really care... so yeah, big deal. :-) 2) I get where you're coming from, and you might be right, but aren't you just being biased because of your stance on the movie? I have no clue if people are actually glorifying it or whatever... the number of people in this thread certainly doesn't prove that. :-) 3) There's no reason for me to get worked up or for you to lecture me—I'm saying the exact opposite. It was described as a "noir" film, though maybe more like a neo-noir with a Kafkaesque vibe. Gelin isn't exactly reinventing the wheel here. What is it actually about? I don't want to sound like a cliché, but it's essentially about an individual caught in a surreal, bizarre chain of events that they have zero control over... just numbers and instructions. A sequence where things only make sense once they reach their physical end, and the greatest human virtue turns out to be the sheer luck of a miserable number. It’s the tyranny of an all-consuming present, regardless of the naive, arrogant idea that some noble purpose must emerge from suffering—or that the hero can actually be a subject who influences anything. It's that feeling of being squeezed, of being forgotten because you're irrelevant and invisible... like trying to crawl out from under a meat grinder.

Jose Miller17 said:regarding point 1)—I don't know and I don't care... I agree, it's a big deal :-) ...

Sure thing. You just happen to stumble into ambiguous metaphors quite often.

Jose Miller17 said:2) I get it—you might be right—but aren't you biased against the movie because of that stance? I have no idea if people are glorifying it... and this thread certainly doesn't prove that by the number of participants :-) ...

The participation level in this thread fits my theory perfectly. A theory that is likely wrong, though.

Jose Miller17 said:3) I don't want things to turn out the way I fear: talking about an individual caught in a surreal, bizarre chain of events over which he has zero control... just numbers and instructions... a sequence where meaning only exists at their sheer physical conclusion, and the greatest human virtue is merely the luck of a miserable number... the tyranny of an omnipresent present, regardless of the reckless, crude idea that some noble, righteous purpose must emerge from suffering... especially the notion that the hero can be a subject—someone who influences things—to suggest he can squeeze something out, or that someone will forget him because he's insignificant, invisible... to suggest he can step out of the grinding gears...

Some of those points simply don't add up for me. In the end, the hero actually became a subject; he exposed the game organizers and secured his people's financial stability. Certain of the hero's actions don't fit the image being pushed of him as a mere victim of circumstances with no agency whatsoever.

haha Look at this guy acting like he’s some dark cloud looming over the horizon... spreading his claws over the fate of an average Joe like he’s some cosmic entity...😁😁 ...well, look, you eventually have to accept the fact that some people just won't care who you are... but honestly, take it as a compliment. I don't like you because of your fame, I like you because you're actually 😁 😁...
>-possible spoilers-
....sure, we could get lost in the weeds here... did he actually expose the organizers? Does the word of some random anonymous guy—who, let's be honest, ended up like a character in a Kafka novel shortly after—really carry that much weight? Is the money in the box about a family's survival, or is it more of a metaphor for what a single life is worth? Just a few deep questions to keep us thinking :-)