The debut feature of the man who would go on to direct 28 Weeks Later, one of the best horror films of the decade. This one is a thriller, of sorts. It has a very weird and original concept. Set in the underground world of gambling, it's about a group of people who see luck as a tangible item, that can be had, bet, transferred, taken away, what have you. The film follows the sole survivor of a plane crash as he is recruited by another man to enter this world. The king of the subculture is Max von Sydow, a holocaust survivor who is supposedly the luckiest man ever to live. Meanwhile, a female detective who also has amazing powers of luck is searching for the plane crash survivor, who was on the plane fleeing after robbing a bank. The concept is interesting, but Fresnadillo and his co-writer, Andrés M. Koppel, have a difficult time establishing it. It never stops seeming silly. It's also confusingly told and badly edited. I never really understood the role the detective played. That whole character could have been dropped, the whole bank robbery thing, too, and the film would have thankfully lost 20 to 25 minutes and been a lot more streamlined. As it is, the movie's a slog. The only decent parts are the bizarre gambling games they play. One has a gigantic, bioluminescent insect released into a dark room. Whosever head it lands on wins. The best sequence in the movie – and even it could have been greatly improved with better editing – has gamblers with their hands tied behind their backs and blindfolds. The object is to run through a forest at full speed. The last person standing, having not brained him/herself on a tree, wins. Someone needs to propose this event as a reality game show. I'm sure at least someone in Japan would produce it!

Like pieces on a chess board, the lucky or unlucky characters move, capture, or are lost. The movie asks the viewer to suspend his beliefs regarding random outcomes, and buy into the theory that some people can get luckier by taking luck from others, while leaving the losers unlucky. There is very little character development, and the confusing story loses steam between "games". The concept certainly is different, and that alone makes "Intacto" watchable. Marginally recommended for admirers of films that are creative but could require some patience from the viewer. A second viewing might be mandatory for even marginal comprehension. - MERK

There are a few good filmmakers alive now, ones I credit. Mostly they are distributed in accidental pools of the industry, a couple in Hong Kong, a master in Amsterdam, a few passing through Hollywood it seems. Singles here and there. But there are three film communities that when I enter them, I feel as if I am entering a magical kitchen of imagemaking shared by a single family. The blood pumping between one pair of lovers, the enhanced tongue of another, the wild creative dialog about spices among a young crowd in the corner — each of these somehow providing juices I will taste.One of these kitchens is Australian, another Canadian (oh how puzzling!). But this big saucy one is Spanish, with emissaries all over the Americas. Not every Spanish film is nourishing, but when I find one that has serious ambitions, it more often than not inherits all the smells, traditions and many of the skills of that kitchen, that world.Superficially, this is an ambitious project, with a young filmmaker whose visual skills aren't unusual, and he has been helped by a crew that pulls off most of the cinematic needs of his scenes. The techniques themselves aren't very striking.See this. It is not full of new ways of seeing story, as you find with Medem. It has no novel parallel narratives as you'll often find. But it parallels it does have, else it wouldn't be in this tradition I like so much of magical overlays of reality, up and down.What is striking is the typically Spanish shape of the thing. Folded realities, agents of fate placed among us, the narrative as game that includes a game. The tokens of the game as images and placed in images we "win." Some players as noir characters, others as filmmakers in the thing.This juxtaposition of noir-related game with gambling with images with conflating images in the film with images of the film is unique. Remember when you saw the first film of a gifted filmmaker, and began a rewarding life with a new friend? Here's one for you, a new friend. I do not think he will disappoint.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Are there really adults out there like the people in this movie? Who believe in such mumbo-jumbo, that is? Blind luck, as opposed to a Lincolnesque luck, may be considered a gift from the gods. So how can it possibly be stolen when someone touches you? Consider. If you're lucky, and you want to keep that luck, get used to spending the rest of your life ALONE in bed, pal, cause sex is all ABOUT touching. So THAT'S out. And what's up with those morons running through the woods? The one's who should be cheering are the one's who smashed into the trees. Because if your idea of being lucky is WINNING that race and then playing Russian Roulette with five bullets in a six shooter, then you need help. And by the way, suppose you win? Then what? I didn't see any legal papers being drawn up saying that you now own the casino. Samuel's life didn't seem to be all that spectacular even then. I mean, what exactly did he do except walk around a casino all day making more money? Which he never spent. This is SPAIN! Or a province under the hegemony of Spain. Everybody dresses like their lives depended on it. But consider. Anything Samuel can buy, like, for dinner, I can too! Only ten to a thousand times cheaper. I shop at WinCo foods and hobnob with the great unwashed. What do I care? Another problem I had was with Sara. Why was she trying to kill that guy? All he did was rob a bank. So what? No, I'm sorry. There's no reason to be called The Luckiest Man in the World if all it means is you have to face off with still another tired contender and murder him after he tries for the umpteenth time to murder you. Some life.