Reviews

I saw this on the BBC iPlayer, the BBC which prides itself on providing unbiased and factual content.

It was neither impartial nor accurate. I'd say don't bother watch it.

It starts well with a good retrospective on the singer's earlier life and career. Then as we reach the end of the 80s, it claims that was when Jackson started bleaching his skin, and it all goes down from there.

If you're a journalist reporting on trials and accusations and you do your job - i.e. You investigate and go to the source, like legal documents and court transcripts - you cannot come to the conclusions expressed in this programme, it is not possible.

The director either did not do his job or he had an agenda. He clearly appears to know his subject though, so I'd say he had an agenda, and chances are that it was to surf on the cheap wave of "look how low Jackson has fallen".

The director has replied to complaints that it was not impartial by saying "but I interviewed both sides", with the prosecution appearing maybe 3 times as much as the defense, and relying on "evidence" that proved to be false - like the anatomy drawing that, in reality, did not match, as confirmed by the singer's autopsy, which also confirmed he really did suffer from vitiligo and lupus skin conditions.

Jackson was trialled and died in California and under state law, all legal documents are public, meaning anybody interested enough to look them up online will come to different conclusions than those in that programme.

Can RuPaul get into drag without aid at all? Pandemic-driven lock down is one thing, but the final contestants deserved so much more. We knew they might have to film it each from their own homes, but the only creative step we could see from the production to adapt to the situation was to provide the identical background for the lipsync. Surely some fans had bought tickets for the finale before the lockdown, don't they have the means to connect a couple thousand people and create an online party, showing members of the public's reaction? And couldn't RuPaul really get into drag at all? They finalists were some of the best contestants across the 12 seasons nd deserved way more.

When you go to see this movie, you KNOW what to expect: a movie intended for children about a dog getting super powers.

There are 2 situations which might greatly affect your judgement:

• you have never had a pet, you see a rather... say simplistic movie where the bad guys are either stupid and strong or weak and very smart but so full of themselves at the same time, and the good ones are, aw... cute and sickenly endearing, aren't they ?

• you have had a dog and it even was a BEAGLE !!! Then you will absolutely LOVE this movie, just picturing your four legged friend in the same situation will make your day.

I've had a beagle, and yes, your honour: guilty. I've LOVED it !

This comment does not contain spoilers.

So, 3rd installment of the holidays of the "Bronzés" (the "sun tanned" in French). Boy, am I glad I did not buy the DVD. And do I feel sorry for the friend who did.

Anyway, 27 years after the previous 2 movies (Les Bronzés, 1978, tt0077276 on IMDb and Les Bronzés font du ski, 1979, tt0078907 on IMDb, both excellent comedies), the characters all get back together again. They are the same, played by the same actors. The comedy, unfortunately, is not the same.

The first 2 movies relied on well too known situations to anyone in France (or in Europe) going on holiday. If you have been on holiday skiing or to the seaside, you have LIVED what the previous 2 movies depicted. They both were very, very good at pointing all these defects we have, all these little things that can go wrong, all these little stupid reactions you have because you just can't help it. And they felt so true. The characters were mean, greedy, selfish, jealous, stupid, you name it. But somehow, they were endearing, you felt like you knew them, because you had gone through the same. Everything felt so familiar.

All this is exactly what all of us, who had seen the first 2 and were waiting for the 3rd one, were expecting.

And all this, is precisely what this 3rd movie is not. This movie has nothing to do with you, nothing to do with me, nothing to do with your holidays and how they can look or feel like. This movie mostly relies on obvious, exaggerated jokes. If you see some mildly comic effect at the beginning, you know it will be repeated over and over beyond the limits of your patience. You might come to identify with some of the characters: when they don't want to hear about one of their "friend's" problem, you will think, just like them, "just leave us alone and shut up, I don't want to hear about it anymore!!!"

About half way through it (well I was hoping a good 90 minutes had passed already and that the end was near, but my watch, the traitor, told me there was still quite a lot to bear), after so much screaming and so much of the same over and over again, I just wished it would finish QUICK !!!

Don't waste your time nor your good memories of the old films. No, seriously. Don't.

I saw the movie last night at its premiere in Madrid. As I prefer to go unbiased, I had not read about it and hardly knew what it was about.

Technically, some shots seemed a bit awkward and felt like "in this one steady angle, I want to see the name of the bar above plus the table the man is sitting at AND be close to the character's face". At some other points I wondered if the camera was shaking because the cameraman was, or if it was an effect to render the violence of the train passing by. The actors seem to be wearing no "movie" make-up (apart from a man in a Rover with eye-liner), which ads to the realism and the "day-to-day" aspect (does he really have spots on his face? Were they made up? Did they choose to leave them?)

The pace of the movie is rather slow and I felt some scenes could have been shorter. You sometimes have the feeling that nothing is going on. And then you wonder if 'anything' is really going to happen. Yet, it does give the sensation you are sharing some of the characters' real lives for a short moment and things do happen and characters do evolve, as you realise at the end of the movie that, even if subrepticely, the characters have gone through an experience that have changed them and made them reconsider part of their lives.

I really enjoyed most of the dialogues. The prostitute at the very beginning felt so very true. There were very nice touches of humour using the absurdity of some situations. However I noticed I was the only one laughing when the young man in a wheel chair replies «pues nada, aquí andando» ("you know, walking around").

By the end of the movie, I did wonder though if it was ever going to end and what conclusion could such a movie have, if any. Yet the end felt logical and natural.