Reviews

contrary to the above "review", this is an excellent movie, but - only for thinking adults. true, this is a relatively slow-moving rendition of the origins of the CIA shown through the eyes of its central character, "Edward Wilson" (Matt Damon), loosely based on James Angleton, the infamous head of counter-ops in the CIA.

at DeNiro's direction, this beautifully played movie shows the audience the gray, somewhat dull world of REAL counter espionage, NOT the James Bond version. obviously, a movie is only a snapshot of real life, & the main goal is to attempt to provide a broad outline of the subject, which this movie does brilliantly. it captures the view of the elitist, who honestly believe they knew what was best for America, & this too, is displayed somewhat scarily via OSS recruitment from the very elistist Skull & Bones fraternity, which exists even today at Yale.

the movie takes place at a time when the U.S. is controlled by the "Wise Men", and as personified in David Halberstam's book: "The Best & the Brightest". Matt Damon gives an Oscar performance as an introverted, same as any Washington DC middle manager taking the bus to work except he is going to the CIA, instead of an accounting job. he takes us into HIS world, showing us what it may have been like to be working in an organization that most Americans didn't even know existed at the time!

to say this was boring is to express a total misunderstanding of what the subject matter is attempting to convey. the whole point was that most of the CIA's work WAS boring, everyday analytical work, not the phony crap we are subjected to in most spy movies. and, if it is sex scenes that make a spy movie, one should go see a less intelligent movie. even the most recent, and fabulous James Bond movie, has very little sex!

DeNiro, as earlier pointed out as playing the "godfather" of the OSS & the CIA is a very uneducated comment. DeNiro is playing William "wild bill" Donavan, who was given the task of setting up the OSS, by Roosevelt, during WWII, which subsequently evolved into the CIA after the war. he (Donavan)populated both, with members of his own background, i.e., from the elitist eastern establishment. he was never thought of as a "godfather"! however, the only quibble i do have with the movie is DeNiro's miscasting of himself which i can only attribute to his huge misguided ego. Donavan does comes off as a "godfather", & DeNiro's Italian-take makes the character more cartoonish than serious.

the previous reviewer also totally misses the point of the Joe Pesci character, which was very central in CIA history, when the CIA unfortunately recruited the "Mafia" to aid them in the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the anchor period in which the movie takes place.

it's a shame when so much rich detail is included, only to be derided, due to misunderstanding why it's there in the first place. if its any consolation, many of our moronic TV reviewers also miss the point of the movie with their mass-media dumbed-down reviews.

and lastly, of course - DUH, there is very little action!! the CIA was NOT the Delta Special Forces, but a covert, deeply-hidden, analytical organization, much which involved infiltrating, passing along disinformation, & decoding - not exactly action-like as most think of when looking at a "spy" movie - think John Le Carre, not Jason Bourne! CIA agents don't smile, tell funny stories, are colorless, blend in sorts.

unfortunately, the incredible brilliance of this movie is wasted on those who simply do not understand the nuance this movie is showing. there was no "cool spy craft" in those days. however, one of the COOLEST scenes does take place when CIA operatives are able to pinpoint where a liaison takes place through very hard dull work, which i won't describe due to spoiler reasons.

this is a story about the CIA & its history, good & bad & gray; & where characters (as in real CIA life) whisper to each other, don't trust anyone as per the total fear of double agents which was the order of the day!

if one wants a "godfather" moment - go see "The Godfather"! if one wants to see a very well made intelligent adult movie, brilliantly acted, except for DeNiro (oddly) - go see "The Good Shepherd"

receives a 1, instead of a -0- due to the quality of the actors. the amazingly beautiful Isabelle Adjani as Ellenore, an incredibly boring, one-dimensional, stupid woman. Stanislas Merhar, who delivers an incredibly un-nuanced performance as the moronic "Adolphe". the usually always wonderful Jean Yanne in a wasted performance as The Count. Romain Duris, as usual, an excellent performance as the effeminate D'Efeuil; and the fabulous Jacquot muse, Islid Le Besco as a wasted bit player, La Lingerie. i spend time on the actors because of the incredibly UNtalented directorship of M. Jacquot! where his reputation comes from is a huge question mark? however, he does have the unique talent of both selecting very unteresting topics, then making each of his movies very very boring, droll, and worst of all, he simply does NOT know how to tell a story in a way that "doesn't" put the viewer to sleep; OR, he thinks of himself as a genius and selects subjects, (only) he believes, will be of interest to the viewer. after having seen, actually wasting time, 3 of his movies at a Benoit Jacquot festival at Lincoln Center, NYC June-July 2006, i can unequvically say, he may be the worst director, or the most boring, of the last 35 yrs!!! it's a shame, so many fine actors have been gulled to appear in his odious interpretations, & hopefully, he will retire, left to watch his own boring work, which should easily put even him to sleep, as most of the audience in attendance at this "Festival" were?!

a '4' only due to the brilliant (Vincent Lindon as Marc, & the equally brilliant Emmanuelle Devos as Agnès) performances in this pretty much 2- person movie. F.Tabouring's above review was excellent, but he seems to miss the most obvious & real point of the movie, which is, quite simply, ridiculous. the premise is excellent, & the movie begins & continues halfway excellently, unfortunately Emmanuel Carrère, the novelist, screenplay & director has no idea what to do from midway to the end. i did not read the novel, but if this is a faithful adaption, then i can only assume the book is as convoluted as the subsequent movie. it is not anywhere near an accurate picture of an individual's fall into insanity; it is not thought-provoking; it is not Hitchcockian in any way; & turns into a farce when the main character either physically or unconsciously supposedly travels to Hong Kong, where he repeatedly rides the ferry between Hong Kong-to-Kowloon "as if" searching for "something"? the ending scenes are equally ridiculous, as well as not thought out, & reminds me of a very young, untalented, unsophisticated director, who "thinks" he is an artist.

i say unfortunately in my summary line above because this could have been a brilliant story of loss of identity, & subsequent fall into insanity, & told in such a way as to not have any neat conclusions, but carried the viewer along for the ride. this movie attempts to challenge the viewer, but seems to have forgotten how to tell a story. even the insane have moments of clarity, which this movie clouds by being obtuse & simplistic.

it's a shame to have wasted two brilliant actors & their brilliant performances with such a terrible script, & by association, an amateurish & clumsy interpretation by the director/novelist, proving that a novelist should not write the screenplay, & not direct the finished product.

this movie started off very slow, and unfortunately ended slower. due to the lack of maturity of the screenwriter, the director, and the star (all the same person - xavier beauvois) its hard to believe this film was released. fortunately, the powers-that-be in the European film industry chose not to release his next film. i saw this film under the auspices of the prix jean virgo film series at nyc's MoMA, & now question the quality of the future films selected to be exhibited.

this story unfolds in a very odd and uninformed way so that the audience is unfamiliar with preceding events, & therefore, has very little sympathy with the main character. without going into any detail of the movie, the ending is so undeveloped, again one wonders how this film was allowed to be financed. i love french films, & understand this unspoken rule of the "good with the bad...", so i do accept the occasional clinker. sadly, the wonderful actor, roschdy zem, participated in this farce. as to chiara mastroianna, she being the product of two cinema giants, i find her role difficult to define. maybe as an "angel" or as a "diversion", or simply an odd inclusion for no real reason, because "if" one were to follow the story line, there would be no woman in the latter stages of this movie.

at the end of the day; when french movies are good, its such a pleasure, when bad, they can be incredibly boring.

first off, this movie is without a doubt a "10"! MY usual good movie is either french, or dark, or serious, or film noir, or message-driven, or all of the above or a combination of.

when a movie has all of these attributes, or if not all, most; it is amazing to watch, savor & makes ME feel "as if" i have reached movie- nirvana. a perfect example would be "casablanca".

HOWEVER, when a movie comes around with none of the above, but still manages to take one to places one don't often visit, its "magic". this movie is "MAGIC". i don't remember when i have seen a movie that i have been so taken with. the dialog is fast, witty & sharp. robt downey just may be the finest actor in the profession, so natural, his talent is scary. val kilmer is truly an excellent actor & perfect for this role. michelle monaghan is divine, & should have a very bright future, hopefully she will receive the roles that she truly deserves.

i could go on-&-on, for this is just one of those very few movies that does what Hollywood entertainment is supposed to do, but rarely does - ENTERTAIN! THIS ONE DOES!! GO see it before it falls between the cracks & goes to DVD-land. this deserves the big screen.

and, i hope this movie receives the acclaim it should, as well as the revenues it deserves. sadly, i assume it will play for a short period, go to DVD, maybe claim a "cult-like" following, a very limited audience. & that would be the real tragedy!!!

how do the French do it?? & why can't American film makers come close? this is a remake of the film "Fingers" released in the '70's directed by James Toback & starred Harvey Keitel. this remake is a beautifully told story that grabs you from the beginning & only lets go at the very satisfying end. brilliant acting by all, most notably Romain Duris. briefly, it is a study in the psychological make-up of a late 20's macho guy torn between his artistic nature inherited from his concert pianist mother & his real estate thug of a father. Duris walks/acts on a very high wire balancing the 2 sides & has the audience rooting for his desire to overcome his distaste for the seamy business he has "inherited" from his father. if 1 were to see only 1 film this summer, i would highly recommend this film.

very enjoyable, & as many professional reviews indicated, an incisive glimpse into the inside world of artists, via writers & publishers; & how manipulative & narcissistic those who have fame & power can be. on the other hand, it also portrays those who are more than willing to fawn over the powerful to advance their agendas. without giving away plot, etc... several questions are raised after viewing this movie: 1. it is never made clear who m. tessier is? is he the purchaser of etienne's publishing house? or what...? 2. it is unclear what is happening when pierre is snubbed by etienne at the reception after etienne's daughter's recital? is etienne bored with him? is he discarding him? 3. it is very unclear as to etienne's reticence about going to italy? for what? & why is pierre affected? 4. has pierre left his agent & his old publishing house to join etienne's? or what? 4. sylvia represents morality; however, there is no real finality after she leaves the country house? at the very least, the director owes the audience an explanation for sitting thru the film.

none of these detract from the film, but it leaves empty voids that could have been easily explained.

i originally did not want to go see this movie, but on a cold December (20th) Monday, off we went. at one point in time, i was totally infatuated with Howard Hughes (HH), & read everything i could about his life. so, i assumed the movie would be not only full of distortions, but also "thought" Leo was a terrible choice.

1st, the bad news, Scorsese did the requisite surface research, but, just did not seem able to capture the magic of Hughes's essence. the "rosebud" theory re: HH's slide into germ madness via his mother's influence was never really explored accurately, just little bits & pieces, haphazardly strung together at different parts of the movie, that come across as a convenient lazy way to attempt to explain Hughes inner depths & subsequent slide. in fact, it was both his mother & relatives who re-inforced his awareness of germ spread, as well as the premature deaths of both his parents, the smothering of his mother, & other personality-forming events from his 1st 18 yrs that may have equally contributed to his later madness. no one really knows. Scorsese's appearance of 1sthand knowledge of HH's relationships, scenes, & conversations with Hepburn & Ava appears to be too much artistic interpretation of HH's Hollywood yrs. Scorsese seems to accept too much of the hearsay as gospel & the relationships come off as affectations of the director, unfortunately. movie biographies are incredibly difficult to bring to the screen, & to bring someone as complicated & larger-than-life as HH's early yrs to the screen is particularly difficult. its too bad, Scorsese is not as attuned as this story demands, but given the amazingly difficult subject matter, he "sort of" tells the story within a framework that gets "close, but only 1/2 a cigar".

on the positive side, i must "eat my hat" & anyone else's who does NOT think that Leo was not an inspired choice! he was perfect! he was sublime! just as i became an early believer in Brad Pitt's terrific acting, i am now a believer in Leo's! he no longer has to prove himself. to say he "nailed" HH would be an amazing understatement. it was eerie watching his performance - he WAS HH. from his boyish good looks, just as HH's was, to his appearance before the congressional committee, to taking up the controls of the "spruce goose", he actually made you feel as if HH had come back to star in this film. an earlier review could not have been more wrong. anyone who has taken the trouble to read & view photos from these several periods in HH's life would HAVE to agree there is a remarkable similarity. capturing HH's obsession with the aerial scenes in "hell's angels", Russell's bra n "the outlaw", the aviation speed records, the undertaking of building the largest aircraft ever, the appearance before the congressional committee, the treatment of subordinates, the phobias, the obsession with details was sublime. as i said above, Scorsese does get close. maybe it was just too difficult.

in conclusion, with someone as brilliant, as complicated, as mad, as HH; it is virtually impossible to capture these nuances & transfer to the screen. "Hollywood" always errs in translation, then excuses itself for failing by falling back on the tried & true "entertainment for entertainment's sake", a la Oliver Stone unfortunate falsehoods wrapped in sincerity. on the other hand, no one should ever go to the movies expecting the truth. so therefore, Hollywood's ultimate contribution is story telling. knowing this, "the aviator" could have been made somewhat more interesting, less boring, & certainly shorter. true, it was too long, true, a number of scenes were unnecessarily long, as many in the audience expressed leaving the theatre. however, i did not share that sentiment. why? because, in spite of everything i have said, this was a good "movie"! i believe Leo nailed the role better than Scorsese's direction, & a long movie was necessary to tell the story. wishing for a more factual rendition is probably too far beyond the talents that believe they have more talent than they actually have. if i had not been so mesmerized by Leo's unbelievable performance, this movie would not have been as entertaining. BUT, due to Leo's performance, the movie does take on life, & makes you believe what you're watching IS the early period of Hughes's life. the theory that the story is always the main feature is mostly a truism; however, every once in a while, an actor comes along that is able to "lift up" an endeavor, & we should all be appreciative.

as for HH, on the whole it was a sad life; however, for his 1st 45-47 yrs, he was a truly brilliant American pioneer who captured the public's imagination with his derring-do, warts & all! although the "warts" did not surface til later. one can say whatever they want, but his 1st 47 yrs could not have been more exciting or more magnetic.

saw "The Dreamers" last nite, & after thinking about the movie, & reading ALL the wonderful comments/reviews here, i decided to add one additional comment.

the movie itself, unfortunately shows the public how untalented the director is, but for some mysterious reason, there are those who embrace his work? this appears to be bernardo's "heaven's gate", but only time will tell.

the previous comments do an excellent job in dissecting the movie. the 1 scene that was remotely interesting was the one in which the sister's virginity is "broken" as her twin brother is "breaking the eggs"! how's that for brother/sister connectivity?

HOWEVER, I will be curious as to the future of eva green, of whom i believe is both a beautiful woman as well as having that elusive "screen presence". in the hands of the right director, & with some decent projects, we may well be gazing upon a future star, in my opinion. the movie is worth seeing only to view her performance, & I AM NOT REFERRING TO THE SEX OR THE NUDITY!!!!

the most intelligent movie of the year. great story, great cast, makes american movies look infantile in comparison. no reason to go into any great depth, other than to say "SEE THE MOVIE!" it will be a shame if this movie is not nominated for an oscar, but then again, it would not only highlight the short-sightedness & low intellect of hollywood, but also lack of creativity that exists today.

i'm thankful i waited to see this movie on dvd instead of wasting $20 at the theatre. quite possibly the WORST motion picture of all time. pacino should retire! he has ruined whatever acting legacy he had established. its the same old, same old; & it proves pacino was, is & always will be, a 1-dimensional actor. farrell is basically ruining his budding career by not only appearing in this movie, but in other movies which are equally as bad. i don't know if it is because of hollywood's lack, or of the actor's selection, or of the lack of roles offered; but there is no question that the former is way past whatever prime he enjoyed, & the latter is starting his decline rather early. can't wait for the next movie for each to prove my point even further!!

being a francophile AND very fond of french movies, as well as american movies; this was 1 "classic" i had not seen til now. i must say it was disappointing to say the very least. intellectually, it stuck me as a bad remake of an american 'b' movie. structually, it makes the very worst of the film noir movies of the 40's classics in comparison. i now understand the faux sophistication of the "artistes" who claim originality, but would not know "art" if they tripped over it. after seeing several godard & truffaut movies, it seems they have played 1 heck of a joke on the world wide movie going public. IF this was considered advancement of the french movie industry, i now know why jerry lewis, sandals with socks, & berets are thought of as "icons" of french culture!!!

highly enjoyable! do not understand previous comments, i.e., story, character development, etc. i walked away with a completely different understanding!! & how much can one do in 90 min???? anyway, as compared to the crap that is currently out on the american market, THIS ONE STANDS OUT as intelligent, well-acted, with a satisfying ending. hallyday's fabulous face tells of a hard dissolute life (if only that was true), but also, as the character played by the beautiful isabelle petit-jacques, tells him, he is a dangerous man ... jean rochefort is perfectly cast as the dreamer, etc.

as a true lover of french films, as well as am admirer of ms. huppert; i was terribly disappointed with this film, particularly with all the hype. unfortunately i have to totally agree with the previous reviewer, david from belgium. the only thing he forgot to mention was the amazingly ridiculous ending. i used to wonder at why french films were not better accepted in the US; however, with the recent films, i find myself asking - why bother????? it appears french filmmakers have forgotten as to why their films mattered in the 1st place!!! its a shame because the current spate of US films is at an alltime low, creating a wonderful opportunity for the real story tellers to return. alas, where are they????????????

after seeing this movie for the 1st time on 'cuny' in nyc, & being a lover/francophile of french movies, i have to comment that this may have been the worst movie, us, french, etc, that i have ever seen. gainsborough's performance was gratuitous & only n movie due to father, the story line was ridiculous, & depardieu, but then again not only has he sold out, but has been embarrassed by the us movies he has appeared in, should be ashamed. besides that, joelle was beautiful!! this was french "new wave???, at its worst.

i enjoyed this movie very much, both for its acting depth & its dramatization. however, some scences were edited too quickly & not developed. what i am confused about is the absolute ending! if the movie had ended with the main character looking at the countryside as the pickup truck drives away, one may conclude a certain awakening from her spiral. however, the last scene shows agnes @ a cosmetic table? in her bedroom? partially dressed? looking at who? a very unsatisfying ending to a beautifully told movie & one that clearly tells a very moving story that only the french appear able to do!!!