Munin75's Reviews

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

9/10

The rather numerous negative professional reviews almost made me lose hope. Turns out they were wrong. The Hobbit is a fantastic film.

13 December 2012

Warning: Spoilers

First of all, let me first say that while I enjoyed the LOTR trilogy, and admired the directorial and technical greatness of it, I'm no LOTR fanboy, and I also recognize its flaws. I'm saying this so that one understands that I'm not the type of person who will blindly speak greatly of any film of the Tolkien/Jackson series if I don't feel it deserves it.

This being said, I have difficulties understanding some of the negative professional reviews which said The Hobbit is a failed attempt, and not as good as LOTR. The artistic and directing style are exactly the same (so I won't comment on this more). I also wasn't expecting to like the 48 fps since I'm the kind of guy who squints even at high definition TVs, but surprisingly, I thought it looked great in The Hobbit, and I think 48 fps is the future. There are slow moments in The Hobbit, broken regularly by excitingly over the top action scenes. Again, just like LOTR - so I don't see why one would like the original trilogy and not The Hobbit.

The Hobbit is perhaps a little less dark in tone than LOTR, considering the source material which is more of a children's book, but it's clearly not a children's movie anyway, and displays many exciting and stressful moments. It also offers something more than the LOTR, that is five genuinely important villains right then and there. The dragon Smaug, in this first film, is like Sauron in the LOTR. A distant, mysterious figure who is the ultimate goal of the quest, whom we don't see much of yet, but we know it's going to be brutal. The "necromancer" is mostly alluded. Those who know the book will know who that is, and he'll surely be important in the sequels. Azog, the giant orc, is a main villain and is much more appealing than the Uruk-hai chief in Fellowship of the Ring, or any other orc villain in the LOTR series. The Goblin King also has a strong key role in the movie. And of course, Gollum, who's riddle scene with Bilbo is fantastic.

Martin Freeman as Bilbo is superb and there couldn't be a better choice. The rest of the cast is pitch perfect as well. While the 13 dwarfs are too many for us to get to know each and every one of them well enough by the end of this first movie, I didn't feel it was a downer. We got to know at least a third sufficiently - and I'm sure we'll get to learn about and appreciate the rest in the subsequent films - this allows us to still have characters to discover later on.

Anyway, great film. I think it's better than Fellowship, and I'll be seeing it again for sure and can't wait for the sequels.

670 out of 1,142 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Asterix in Britain (1986)

8/10

A good adaptation with funny animation

18 July 2012

Every Asterix full length animation film is fairly fun, but Asterix in Britain is undoubtedly one of the best, along with The Twelve Tasks of Asterix. While children will surely enjoy Asterix in Britain, it can also be enjoyed by adults.

The soundtrack is particularly good (even epic at times), and the animation is very funny. This film is a relatively faithful adaptation of the comic strip, with some pertinent additions, and the jokes are good. I saw it in French and much of the humor stems from the stereotypical speak of the Britons, caricatures of British people, so I don't really know how it would translate in English, but I'm told the translations of the comics tend to be pretty good in capturing the original humor. The authors admired the British very much and they show it here as the Britons are depicted as a brave people, and the little jokes are akin to "love taps" more than anything else, so British people shouldn't be offended by it. There are only little stabs about bad food, tea-drinking, sports-loving and nice lawns.

Anyway, it's a fun little animation which might look a little dated (it was released the year of my birth, in 1986), but fans of the Asterix comics will surely enjoy it.

3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Southern Comfort (1981)

8/10

Like "Deliverance" with Cajuns instead. Decent film throughout, with an ending elevating it to greatness.

10 June 2012

As a Frenchman I've long been fascinated with Cajun culture, surviving against all odds, so when I learned "Southern Comfort" was like "Deliverance" with Cajuns I figured it had to be fun and that I should check it out. I wasn't disappointed.

The plot is pretty simple. A National Guard squad gets stranded in Cajun country swamps, and are victim to attacks from the locals who consider that it's their land, and the film predictably proceeds in having the soldiers killed one at a time while they also destroy each-other because of their increasing paranoia.

The score and cinematography are great, as is the acting. However I must say that ultimately most of the movie with the soldiers stranded in the swamps isn't as intense as it could have been. It's surely entertaining, but pretty basic, and for that only I would have given "Southern Comfort" a 7. However, the last 20 minutes of the movie are absolutely fantastic, elevating the film to something highly satisfying. I don't want to spoil anything, and anyway I probably couldn't accurately describe how superbly cut the climatic ending of "Southern Comfort" is. If most of the film is just above average, the ending makes sitting through it even more worthwhile, as it all builds up to those last scenes.

The theme of the film obviously borrows from the Vietnam war, and the film itself inspired later films. Just a little trivia for you, I actually first learned about "Southern Comfort" from reading about the film "Aliens". "Southern Comfort" producer David Giler convinced the studio to make an "Alien" sequel by making the sequel like "Southern Comfort" in space. And it's true that "Aliens" does have a similar Vietnam war theme.

Anyway, "Southern Comfort" is a good 80s film which truly did remind me of "Deliverance", so if you liked that film, you will like this one too. Recommended.

48 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Prometheus (I) (2012)

8/10

Impressive watch

30 May 2012

Warning: Spoilers

Ridley Scott's Alien is my all time favorite movie so I've been anticipating Prometheus ever since the prequel was announced. Since I couldn't resist the wait, I saw it early this morning the day of its official release in my country.

First of all, the trailers showed it, the cinematography is fantastic. Ridley Scott nailed that aspect like a genuine master. The entire movie is basically a succession of grandiose shots which surely will have other directors blush in shame. The cinematography is accompanied by great sets and fantastic special effects for which Prometheus should receive a bunch a nominations.

The acting is flawless, except perhaps for a few minor characters. Special praise goes to Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron whose characters are also extremely well written and convincing. Noomi especially deserves applause for her flawless acting. There are a good number of scenes where her character is understandably very disturbed and terrified, and Noomi's acting is so genuine I wanted to scream out "just throw her a damn Oscar already!". One refreshing aspect of her character is that, contrary to what one might expect, she's not like Ripley from Alien. Ripley was from the start a pretty strong woman, close to a tomboy. Noomi's character, Elizabeth Shaw, is much more impulsive, insecure and feminine. She grows stronger as her situation becomes desperate, but she remains endearing and delicate enough that the extremely shocking things she must endure are genuinely heartbreaking.

The plot for Prometheus is where I have more reservations. The attempt at making some characters seem like scientists, including Noomi's character, made me cringe at times. It's typical Hollywood scientists, by that I mean not very believable. How a teenager would imagine science-speak to be like. The build up for the climax was somewhat disappointing in comparison to the first two Alien films, and to me lacked a distinct atmosphere so essential for a horror film. The action and horror scenes were genuinely good and exciting, sometimes shocking, however I wasn't scared any time, but perhaps I've just grown insensitized to horror by now. I'll also add that if you thought the classic Alien life cycle (queen lays egg, which hatches facehugger, which plants embryo in host, which grows into a xenomorph) was a stretch, wait till you see what Prometheus has to offer, which I find makes little sense and I'll probably be wondering more about that than anything else. Obviously, the creatures in Prometheus are some forms of ancestral or primitive types which may evolve into what we know from the Alien franchise. Regardless, Prometheus offers some very pleasing surprises throughout, and it's great to discover this universe which will surely become a franchise. Ridley Scott wished it, and the end of the movie shamelessly confirms it, to the point that one could expect a "To be continued..." before the credits. Also many questions remain painfully unanswered, which is somewhat cheap.

Anyway, Prometheus remains an impressive watch and paves the way to what could be a grand new mythology. It doesn't match the first two Alien films in quality, and one shouldn't expect it to or he will be sorely disappointed. I will probably go see Prometheus again, because the first time was somewhat overwhelming. I wouldn't be surprised if Prometheus is the kind of film which gets better after a few viewings. I'll add that the ending of Prometheus announces an epic sequel, probably much better, so I'm pretty hopeful for one to happen.

499 out of 958 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Daredevil (2003)

3/10

Failure

28 May 2012

I may sound like a total douche-bag, but how any mature adult can think of Daredevil as a good movie is beyond me. Sure, all tastes are out there. In all honesty I'm willing to understand that some specific movies that I didn't particularly think much of are loved by others. The difference is that Daredevil is in a whole different league of bad.

The main problem I have with Daredevil is the style. The cheesiness. It's like Ang Lee's Hulk, which coincidently came out the same year in 2003. These two films are to me the heirs of such cheesefests like 1997 Batman & Robin. Daredevil is an example of how not to make a superhero film, while movies like Nolan's Batman series, or Ironman, stand as opposite examples of how to go about this admittedly extremely difficult genre. Actually, I feel the Batman character is much more difficult to render on screen than Daredevil, who is more naturally cool (because less eccentric but still naturally "dark"), so kudos to Nolan and Burton for their achievements.

Another criticism for Daredevil is that it drags on too much. It takes 40 minutes into the film for Matt Murdock/Daredevil to meet Elektra, which is arguably the moment when the movie actually starts and stops feeling like an origin-story flashback. I'm not against long character development, but Daredevil's first 40 minutes of nothingness were not compelling to me. They were enough to draw my attention, not my interest.

And when the movie actually starts, 40 minutes in, Matt Murdock/Daredevil flirts with Elektra by fighting her, which is probably one of the most ridiculous moments in modern cinema. Only after that are we truly introduced to the bad guys and the cheesiness of the film skyrockets. I actually had cramps in my eye sockets for rolling my eyes so much.

Anyway, Daredevil belongs in the temple of failed superhero movies, with Batman & Robin, Ang Lee's Hulk, The Fantastic Four, and of course Daredevil's spin-off Elektra.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

A Prophet (2009)

9/10

A modern classic

24 May 2012

I read somewhere that in directing A Prophet, Jacques Audiard wanted to create an "Arab Scarface". While the premise is somewhat comparable, the rise of a small-time criminal, both films don't have much else in common. A Prophet is much more modest, or humble, more psychological, dirtier, and dare I say, better.

Jacques Audiard directed a genuine masterpiece which surely will stand the test of time. A Prophet's style is gritty and feels real, and the actors are all fantastic, especially the main character, Malik, played beautifully by Tahar Rahim. The plot is quite diverse, but I don't feel I need to delve too much into it since many here already have. Some have criticized the rather out of place supernatural element in the movie, which is hardly addressed although it inspired the title of the film. I like the fact that it stayed humble in that way, adding a touch of mystery and bizarre in an otherwise realistic movie.

If you want to see a modern serious French film, A Prophet is the one to see. Highly recommended.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pirates (1986)

6/10

A 70s film made in the mid-80s - entertaining enough

11 May 2012

Pirates was shown on TV a few days back so I thought I'd watch it since I knew it was a Polanski film - my knowledge of it was limited to that. When watching, I figured it was a 70s film considering the style, pretty old-school and theatrical. I was later surprised to learn it was actually released in 1986. The first hour or so of the movie was very entertaining. It reminded me, in terms of style, of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", only with a less impressive soundtrack and instead of cowboys in the desert it's pirates at sea. After an hour I slowly started losing interest. The plot seemed to turn around in circles, and it literally does at the end, leaving me somewhat unsatisfied despite the better first half.

Pirates earns points for the fabulous costumes, for which it was nominated at the Oscars, and also the realistic sword fight scenes - the actors don't seem to obey to an elaborate choreography where they hit in the general direction of their opponent, like in Pirates of the Caribbean or Star Wars, but rather they aim directly at their opponents in harsh fights, and that was refreshing. The pirate Captain Red was fabulous, a typical drunkard gritty personality, however I didn't care in the slightest bit for the other characters.

An overall entertaining film and I'm glad I watched it, but to be honest I will probably forget most of it in a few months, and will not go out of my way to recommend it to anyone else.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Dreamcatcher (2003)

8/10

Fun ride full of plot twists

1 May 2012

Among the movies which are generally poorly reviewed and hated for reasons I cannot understand, Dreamcatcher immediately pops into my mind. I haven't read the book, apparently it goes much deeper, making this adaptation understandably disappointing for those who have read it, but this film is also greatly criticized by the average bloke who hasn't read King's novel. And I can't grasp why.

The movie is imaginative, humorous, gory, and entertaining to the very end thanks to a regular dose of plot twists and high originality. What's not to like? I'm the first guy to get bored at most movies. I can't bare bland action films, and often need to force myself to finish a movie. I'm also a sci-fi enthusiast, and Dreamcatcher is far from being my first movie experience in that genre. Some people find it ludicrous, or "so bad that it's funny". That's not at all how I felt watching this film (which I must have seen 3 or 4 times by now), and I was actually surprised when I found out how disliked or mocked Dreamcatcher is. It's very well filmed, the visuals and effects are good, the acting is strong, the humor and shock value are perfectly balanced, and there's nothing cliché about it. On the contrary, it's refreshingly original! If you want a bland cliché film, which is so bad that it's funny, watch Shooter (with Wahlberg), which inexplicably has a 7/10 average rating on IMDb, whereas the rare gem that is Dreamcatcher hardly has a 5.

Dreamcatcher is entertaining and fulfilling. It doesn't take itself too seriously while not being cliché teen horror film like The Faculty. Dreamcatcher provides much needed originality which I hadn't seen before. It's comparable in style to the 2006 film Slither, only it's much better. Recommended.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Avengers (2012)

7/10

Entertaining. Should not disappoint the masses.

25 April 2012

The Avengers is exactly what I expected. It is action packed, it understandably doesn't have much time for character development (although we do see more of Hawkeye and Black Widow than in previous Marvel installments), and the relentless action is accompanied by some fairly good jokes to ease the tension here and there - especially by Tony Stark and, surprisingly, the Hulk (they actually managed to throw in at least two genuinely funny moments around Hulk's utter brutality).

The lack of character development, especially for Thor (who does seem somewhat out of place in this film) but also Bruce Banner, is probably what hurts The Avengers the most. I didn't actually need any character development since I've seen all previous Marvel films at least twice, but it nonetheless does stand as a drawback - it feels wrong even though I was expecting it considering the number of characters already established. I can hardly imagine anyone who hasn't seen the previous films enjoying The Avengers because of that.

I usually don't care that much for relentless CGI action films, but some sequences in The Avengers were so blatantly incredible that I had to enjoy them. Notably, a sequence during the huge battle sees the camera pan from one Avenger kicking butt to the other - that was really well done and exciting. Loki was once again a brilliant villain and the perfect choice for the first Avengers film.

Overall, a very good action ride bringing our favorite superheros together. The movie doesn't try to be pretentious and goes straight to business - which is what it should do.

4 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fortress (1992)

4/10

Decent watch but ultimately disappointing

13 April 2012

In a dystopian future, a morally innocent couple is sentenced to decades of imprisonment in a high security nightmare-like prison, and plan to escape. The premise of Fortress is intriguing. It kind of reminds me of the prison scenes of the 1997 film Face/Off, which were incidentally among the better scenes of that film. Unfortunately, Fortress fails to deliver.

With this premise, I was expecting an elaborate escape. The kind we got used to with old classics like The Great Escape to modern series like Prison Break, only this time set in a gritty future prison where screenwriters could invent the most terrifyingly inescapable jail imaginable and the cleverest escape plans. Fortress had none of that, since the protagonists just escaped guns blazing. What's up with the yellow and red lines on the floor? I was expecting those to be major plot points... But no. No elaborate plan, no stress, the prison doesn't even seem that bad, and the build up to the escape is practically inexistent. Speaking of build ups, did anyone care for the protagonists? I certainly didn't - that's the second major flaw. I also feel the sub-plot with the wife being coerced was a drawback. I didn't care for that, and wanted a cool escape plan. That's all the film needed! On the other hand, I was entertained for 90 minutes. I wasn't bored because the film is short enough. Had they given the film 30 minutes more and a genuinely clever build up and escape, Fortress could have been much better. Disappointing.

0 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Plus belle la vie (2004–2022)

1/10

"Bisounours" is the French term to describe this vile series

8 April 2012

I don't usually give a 1/10 because films or TV series tend to at least have something of worth, be it action sequences or something, and I'm a merciful person so most of the time I resort to a 2 or 3 for really bad things. "Plus Belle la Vie" (or "Poubelle la Vie" as I like to call it), is the most grotesque, politically correct, cheesy, obnoxious and of course, unrealistic waste-of-my-life TV series I've ever seen. I have seen a few episodes in their entirety, all against my will. When I accidentally fall on an episode, I quickly change channel because I don't want to give this vile trash any more viewership than it deserves.

I remember an episode about some right-wing racist businessman who was the bad guy (who am I kidding, most of the bad guys in this show are right-wing racists - but not the realistic kind, the kind that can only be fantasized by "bourgeois-bohème" writers). In the end of the episode, it was revealed that this right-wing racist businessman was actually... Satan. Yeah, you read that right. That's fine in a De Niro or Pacino thriller movie, not in a awkwardly colorful and politically correct French TV show.

Also, the actors are bad as can be, playing cardboard characters, acting in boring plots, which are often about political or social subjects, the TV show always happy to make tolerance and upper-class hippie naivety be the correct thing to do against the bad meanies! That doesn't mean that you'll like it if you're left-wing. I know of many anarchists and communists who detest this series for those reasons. I will never in my life understand the appeal for "Poubelle la Vie".

9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

100 Million BC (2008 Video)

2/10

The only thing of any worth here is Marie Westbrook's smoking curves!

31 March 2012

...and the unintentional comedy.

I watched 100 Million BC because I had nothing better to do so I thought I could give this dinosaur film a try, and the story seemed fairly intriguing, although unoriginal. Since it's a TV movie, my expectations were pretty low to begin with. Turns out the film was even worse than expected.

The CGI was appalling but that's fairly understandable for a low budget production. What really got me was the poor acting, and the terrible, terrible editing and sound. The directing was so bad that I think even I could have done a better job although I have no training in movie making. Also, my advice to the actors is to find another profession. How can they possibly be that bad? If the cast was random people picked up in the street, statistically they couldn't have been this poor. 100 Million BC was probably filmed in a few days and grossly sold off to cable channels that needed fillers.

I'm still giving it a 2/10 because the beginning of the film was mildly intriguing, and because Marie Westbrook (yes, I actually looked her up) is a treat for the eyes, the only one in the entire movie by the way.

5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Un village français (2009–2017)

9/10

One of the best TV series I've seen

27 March 2012

"Un village français" is one of these rare TV series which suck you in through realistic plots mixing suspense, love, betrayal without being sensationalist, and staying simple (although the numerous love triangles are a little too much at times). French TV being filled with painfully mediocre, if not absolutely bad series, "Un village français" stands out as the best one out there, by far.

The realism of it is one of the factors which make it great. The actors are superb, their characters genuine, the women beautiful in a classy way (not tasteless bombshells), and the plots explore simple people's decisions during the hard circumstances of the Occupation, without ever openly judging their acts.

The series starts kind of slow. I'd say the first season is the weakest yet, even though it has the ultimate spectacular scenes when the German army takes control of the village. The series only gets better as the viewer is more familiar with each character, and follows their individual paths, their interactions, their fears and decisions. It takes its time. It doesn't rush into the events of the Occupation, and rather presents the slow evolution of French Collaboration as things get harsher and more fixed, and the characters ultimately need to find themselves and chose their definite side, or remain torn.

As said before, "Un village français" doesn't judge, staying remarkably neutral when possible, not opting for an easy manichean presentation of the Occupation. Many characters turned collaborators are not bad people and even try to do good, like the mayor of the village, or one young woman who has an affair with a German soldier. Even the young chief of police (Jean Marchetti) is likable. As I'm writing this, the series is only in its fourth season, so I can't wait to see how these characters will be treated in the last season which will presumably depict the Liberation. Hopefully, it will continue to show the harsh reality (I'm expecting head shavings, trials, public dishonor, executions, escapes and pardons... the characters are so diverse that each fates are possible).

A great TV series, which I highly recommend to those who have a chance to see it.

75 out of 78 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Sleeping with the Enemy (1991)

6/10

Entertaining but mediocre

13 March 2012

Sleeping with the Enemy screams "I was made in the 90s" from start to finish, in style and atmosphere. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I think it's important to note first and foremost that it's a typical 90s movie, so if you're seeking originality you won't find it watching this one.

The subject matter is that of domestic violence, yet the only wife-beating scene is extremely tame, and instead the film focuses on the psychological repercussions of such violence. Unfortunately, that was pretty tame too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a sadist who'll only like a movie if it contains harsh physical or psychological harm, but when I watch a thriller on domestic violence, I expect it to be thrilling and violent. Sleeping with the Enemy is practically a family-friendly movie. That's not good because actual domestic violence is absolutely terrifying and horrible, and the movie doesn't do the subject justice. No spoilers here, but the climax is also pretty disappointing. The entire movie was (very decently) building for the final confrontation between the spouses, only for it to be surprisingly quick. Meh!

The main theme, Berlioz' "Symphonie Fantastique" was perhaps chosen as a homage to Kubrick's Shining, which also contains the theme and domestic violence. Unfortunately, whenever the song came up in Sleeping with the Enemy, it only reminded me of how much of a superior movie Shining is.

Now, for the good aspects of the film. It's entertaining, which is the least I can ask for in a movie. Not a dull moment. The acting is very decent, and Julia Roberts is at her prime (that is, physically). I must say though, that the two main males (including the abusive husband) weren't in the least bit interesting.

Other than that, I don't have much else to say. I'll probably forget most of the movie in a month or two, and I won't want to see it again. It isn't very memorable, but I was entertained enough for 90 minutes.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Lethal Weapon (1987)

5/10

An action classic... I don't get it.

12 March 2012

I watched Lethal Weapon first as a kid in the 90s and I guess I liked it because - let's face it, I was prepubescent so anything with action was good enough. Now in my mid-twenties I almost fell asleep watching it, the only reason I stayed awake was out of shock that such a stale and monotonous film is considered an action classic today.

What was original about Lethal Weapon when it came out? Perhaps the unusual cop duo set in a seemingly realistic crime plot - which I realize has since probably inspired all the later films with that same ingredient. So I give it credit for that. Nonetheless I can't give it more than the average 5/10. I found the crime plot uninteresting, and the dialog now feels so cliché and outdated that if it were released today it would probably receive much ridicule. Some scenes are absolutely ludicrous, like when Gibson threatens to kill himself while Glover encourages him, or the final fight scene (Gibson going personal, and the cops just agreeing to watch them get it on...). This wouldn't be so awful to me if there were other good scenes to make up for the bad ones, but I honestly can't think of one memorable and good scene.

I admit though, that I'm not so much into generic cop films which rely almost exclusively on action. Straightforward gun-shooting action tends to bore me unless a scene is particularly impressive or original in some way. Caring for the characters is also necessary to enjoy the action sequences. Unfortunately, I didn't care for any of the characters in Lethal Weapon, and wasn't impressed by the discreet attempts at humor.

To each his own I guess. If you like stereotypical 80s action crime films, you may want to check this one out.

1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Beauty and the Beast (1946)

9/10

A black and white classic and unforgettable masterpiece

28 August 2011

To the negative comments here : indeed, Jean Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" isn't a family musical comedy cartoon. What did you actually expect? If that's what you're looking for or expecting, do not watch this original adaptation of the tale, which is in no way comparable to the Disney movie (which, granted, is enjoyable too) except for the main plot.

Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" is a piece of art, a fairy tale for adults. It's mysterious, slow (in a good way), eerie, poetic and beautifully filmed. It leaves you with a sense of awe. I place the dinner scene, with the conscious statues and serving furniture, as one of the most incredible and memorable scenes I have ever watched in my young life. This gem of a film is so unique that it can't be fairly described. You need to watch it for yourself.

A masterpiece which has already stood the test of time, and will certainly never be forgotten as long as art stays a human passion.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001)

5/10

When the French make a Hollywood-like movie

26 August 2011

"Brotherhood of the Wolf" has all the ingredients of a mediocre Hollywood action film. Don't get me wrong, my favorite movies tend to be American, but Hollywood also produces many cliché action flicks lacking in originality, but champion in cheesiness. With this film, one can see the French have masterfully picked up on it.

Let me list examples showing how "Brotherhood of the Wolf" looks like a typical Hollywood movie :

-A narrator presents the movie to make it look more intellectual than it really is,

-Fight scenes in the rain with slow motion moments, typically with one dude kicking many people's ass all at once using eastern martial arts (in 18th century France),

-Cool American-Indian thrown in, whose medicine and knowledge is somehow better than that of a developed country, cause he's so close to nature and all..,

-Very politically correct denunciation of racism and ignorance (but granted, typical French movies also do that a lot),

-References to real historical facts in order to flatter the more cultured audience's intelligence,

-Female characters who other than their hotness are absolutely useless,

-Lack of character development (does anyone actually care for the main characters?),

-Surreal dream-sequence added to make the movie seem mystical,

-Uninteresting romance seemingly thrown in the movie for the Hell of it,

-Scene where the main character takes his revenge in a hate-fueled bloodbath,

-White guy goes all Rambo on the bad guys, dressing like an American-Indian in the process because he surely learned how to be a commando when he fought with Indians in North America,

-Unrealistic conspiracy theory revealed like it's something awesome,

-Final face-off fight during which the antagonist explains his actions,

-Many anachronisms,

-Cheesy ending which tries desperately to be tragic.

I surely forgot some moments, but these are examples which made me smirk or sigh.

"Brotherhood of the Wolf" stays a relatively entertaining movie, although sometimes I wished it could just cut to the chase, so I believe it at least deserves an average 5/10. But contrary to what many people have said, it most certainly does not look like a French movie. I believe many non-French people rated the movie highly because in truth it looks American, yet it's French so it felt "exotic" and they were perhaps pleasantly surprised. But if this movie were American, it wouldn't have been praised so much in my most humble opinion.

If you want to see a typical French movie, don't watch this one. If you like Hollywood action movies which aren't particularly original, you might like "Brotherhood of the Wolf" and then feel good about yourself for having watched a foreign film.

27 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Mesrine: Killer Instinct (2008)

9/10

Surprisingly good gangster film

17 August 2011

"Mesrine: Killer Instinct" is the first movie of a two-part saga on real-life gangster Jacques Mesrine. The second part is called "Mesrine: Public Enemy #1". I saw both of them in the theaters, and was blown away. I didn't know contemporary French cinema could actually make good (and serious) gangster movies. Well now it's done.

In real life, Jacques Mesrine is certainly the most famous gangster in France along with Albert Spaggiari whose life and criminal activities are also astonishing, and whose anti-hero Robin-Hood-like status in popular opinion is as strong. Naturally, both of these gangsters' heists and feats have been adapted on screen numerous times, in fairly disappointing movies, but "Mesrine: Killer Instinct" (let's just call it "Mesrine") is to this date the only film about one of these gangsters which truly is good and may actually stand the test of time. I don't think there will be another movie about Mesrine in a while, because it will be hard to top this one.

All you need to know about the plot is that it's about a real-life gangster known for his heists and numerous prison escapes, which made him a sort of cult anti-hero. Vincent Cassel as a rebel Mesrine with a strong personality is obviously great, as are all the main actors, who were already famous in francophone cinema and with reason. The movie follows Mesrine's adventures in Algeria, France, Spain, Quebec and the USA, making it a fun ride. It briefly addresses political issues of the Algerian War, Quebec independence and living conditions in federal prisons, making it somewhat of a historical film. The political issue actually culminates in the second part of the saga when Mesrine, in an attempt to glorify his image, tries to justify his actions with political strife, although truthfully he's just a very talented thief. The movie's pace is interesting throughout, and we get to see the first half of a gangster's life unravel as his notoriety gets stronger. I do have one criticism : the movie sometimes skips scenes important to the plot. In one scene he's about to rob a bank, and in the next he's in prison. There are many more examples like this throughout the movie and it's somewhat frustrating. I guess the filmmakers didn't feel it was necessary to show how he was caught, or they didn't have the budget, but I would have preferred 10 minutes more of film for a clearer continuity.

Some commentators have accused "Mesrine" of ripping off American gangster films. I personally fail to see how. This movie has a very French feeling to it, it's more raw and realistic, it doesn't rely on a majestic soundtrack, dark cinematography, or mobster stereotypes, the likes of "The Godfather", "The Untouchables", "Goodfellas", "Road to Perdition", "The Departed" or others. I love these American films which are all original in their own way, and "Mesrine"'s approach is just as different as each of these great films. I'd be more willing to compare "Mesrine" with another more recent (and great) French gangster film, "A Prophet", which bears the same typical French or European style.

Anyway, "Mesrine: Killer Instinct" is a great gangster film which I recommend to all. I prefer it to it's second part "Mesrine: Public Enemy #1" but one should see both of them.

4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

An American Carol (2008)

5/10

Many truths, unfortunately poorly demonstrated

10 August 2011

First off, I guess I should mention that as a Frenchman I don't particularly like Bush, or Cheney (for being insulting pricks), or the stereotypical we're-better-than-everyone-else and you're-just-jealous-of-our-freedom types of arguments which do tend to come from some ignorant hard Republicans. Yet, I'm certainly no leftist or liberal.

I was expecting An American Carol to be funny like Airplane or the Naked Gun movies, and I like the fact that it's a Hollywood movie openly critical of liberals, which is a rare thing. If there are many truths in the film, unfortunately, they were somehow poorly demonstrated, and the humor was average at best; earning some cheap chuckles but no genuine laughs even though the material was so promising! A pity. I think the problem was that it mixed gross caricatures with other very truthful points, but the mix made the whole thing look exaggerated or wrong. My guess is that they should have made it more realistic, instead of an over the top parody. A good example is perhaps this Monty Python's Holy Grail scene, where the anarcho-syndicalist peasant Denis screams out "look at me! I'm being oppressed by the violent system!" when King Arthur pushes that annoying guy away. There should be a whole movie like that scene, but unfortunately it's not An American Carol.

People criticizing this film calling it "right-wing propaganda" are completely off. Sure, An American Carol certainly is right-wing, but it's aim is mere exaggerated satire of leftists, and it doesn't hide it. Hence I wouldn't call it propaganda. But it's funny how leftists don't mind humorously gross caricatures of Republicans, which we see all the time, but when the tables are turned (rarely) they get offended and start frenetically insulting their opponents, calling them idiots and so on. I think the overly critical reaction to An American Carol from the leftist media and commentators proves a better point than the movie itself.

In conclusion, An American Carol is indeed average in terms of humor, and is somewhat disappointing when it comes to political critique of liberals. It could have been much better. A better movie of the same kind is Team America, although it's no masterpiece either. If I want some good political humor aimed at liberals, I guess I still need to stick to South Park episodes.

7 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Martyrs (2008)

7/10

As gruesome as a movie can get, but not fulfilling

27 July 2011

First off, Martyrs is one of these rare horror movies which truly do inspire horror and disgust, as opposed to most horror movies I've seen which mainly provide cheap scares and (funny) gore.

Many reviews here seem to complain calling Martyrs "horror porn", and the reviewers are so annoyed about it that they (unfairly) rate it 1/10, reflecting in my opinion their initial distaste although very objectively the movie is well filmed and fairly entertaining. Hence I can't understand how one can mercilessly degrade it to a mere 1/10. Give it a damn 3 or 4 if you dislike it, don't make it some talentless bore-fest which it's obviously not.

Martyrs is indeed a sadistic movie, the likes of Hostel plot-wise, but much, much more unsettling and with a less commercial pace. Where I feel the bad reviews are unfair, is that they blame a simplistic plot which supposedly puts the entire horror genre to shame. I personally fail to see how horror classics like Halloween or even Alien (which incidentally is my favorite movie) have a stronger plot. Horror classics are in general extremely simple, often focusing on one antagonist whose origins are hardly explained, who massacres people easily and predictably.

Martyrs isn't that simple, and can be divided into two acts. The first 50 minutes can be considered quite canonical for a 2000s horror film (action, mystery and scary creature...), although the initial massacre at the beginning comes to quite a surprise, and is thus pleasantly original. The second act is the most disturbing and controversial, and what makes the movie the monster that it is. I understand why some may dislike it, and I'm not trying to be condescending. I guess it's the kind of movie you either like or hate. I wouldn't consider it to be exploitation and think the plot is very solid and well thought.

My main criticism is the acting. As a native French speaker, I thought the casual conversations in the first half of the movie were appalling. The main female actresses are good at screaming and looking terrified, but their casual acting sounds so fake that it's painful. Same for all the actors in the first half of the movie, including the happy family talking like they're in a commercial. I'm not going to spoil anything, but another criticism is the very ending, which I thought was kind of cheap and disappointing, although the intention was greater.

Anyway, if you're looking to watch a seriously disturbing horror film, the likes which certainly won't liven up a movie-night with friends, Martyrs is what you need to watch. And you won't forget it. It will stay as a reference in how gruesome a movie can get whether you like it or not.

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Terminator (1984)

10/10

Genius in so many ways that it's indescribable

26 July 2011

They just don't make movies like this anymore. Terminator, and Alien, sound to the modern ear as some silly summer blockbuster movies, with all the sequels, prequels, cross-overs and whatnot which have downplayed their image. But what many people ignore is that the first two movies of these franchises were pure 80s (approx.) sci-fi gold, and better ; acknowledged masterpieces in general. Even today, The Terminator is original, exciting, scary and pretty damn hardcore from the first scene when the robot encounters the punks, to the succession of cruel massacres perpetrated by the insensitive killing-machine Terminator throughout the movie.

It is hard to express just how perfect The Terminator is in terms of plot and character development, and chilling atmosphere, which keeps the spectator clinging to his seat all the way. The opening sequences of the movie ; a brief explanation of the apocalyptic future war, the filthy appearances of the two main antagonists (Terminator and Kyle Reese), contrasted with the simple 80s jolly life of Sarah Connor before hell breaks lose, is a lesson in movie making on how to forcefully grasp the audience's attention and involvement. And when you think you can start relaxing, the booming action starts again even stronger, and greater, until the final act which leaves you gasping for air. This crescendo in suspense and horror is found in a later Cameron film, Aliens, which blatantly bears the director's signature style seen in The Terminator.

The special effects were pretty ground-breaking and innovative at the time (something which can apparently be said for almost every Cameron movie since), but what really pulls it off is the incredibly bleak and dirty atmosphere, and of course the great cast. I couldn't possibly imagine other actors than Schwarzenegger, Biehn and Hamilton for the lead roles. All the secondary characters are also fantastic. The Terminator carries a distinct 80s feel to it which I like a lot. I wasn't born when this movie was released, and was brought up mostly on 90s movies, but I must say that the 80s feeling of The Terminator adds to its "charm" (if I dare say so). Nonetheless, it has survived the test of time exceptionally well, it doesn't pass as outdated at all - the climax is still genuinely frightening.

The fact that Cameron, at the time a newcomer, managed to direct this sci-fi masterpiece, and went on to direct sequels to both Alien and his Terminator which practically equaled if not surpassed the originals in quality, marked Cameron as one of the best new directors of his generation.

The Terminator is a perfect 10.

4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Le Dîner de Cons (1998)

9/10

Hilarity guaranteed, for all ages and nationalities

25 July 2011

"Le Dîner de Cons" is one of the funniest French movies of all time. It's adapted from a play and this can be guessed when watching the movie since much of the plot is set in the same place, the main character's Parisian apartment. Apart from the actors' pay (all of them are very famous in France), the movie is low budget. While this doesn't sound appealing, let it not fool you. There are sufficient plot twists for it to stay entertaining from start to finish, and the comedy is pure gold. Obviously, the actors are stupendous, delivering believable yet hilariously funny acts. Unlike most French comedies, I believe this movie is very accessible for non-French people, as the humor in it is pretty much universal and simple. I saw the movie when I was 11 or so and I was roaring with laughter. Now I'm 24 and it's still a great movie for me to work my abdominal area. So I can confidently say that it's a comedy accessible for all ages.

As is now common for successful French movies, Hollywood remade it to cash in on the great plot idea. And thus we were graced with "Dinner for Schmucks" staring Steve Carell. While I love Carell and many Hollywood comedies, "Dinner for Schmucks" was a disgrace, and can't be compared to the great original French version (the American version is also very different plot-wise although the main idea is the same). So if you have seen and disliked the American remake, let it not stop you from watching "Le Dîner de Cons" which I am absolutely sure you will like, wherever you're from and whoever you are.

2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Starman (1984)

6/10

Entertaining but old-fashioned

25 July 2011

The feeling I get from watching Carpenter movies is that they tend to be somewhat naive. This results in his 80s movies to not age well at all according to my standards. Some older movies, such as Alien or E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial for example, are much more appealing to modern audiences. This being said, I still do appreciate some 80s Carpenter movies, and Starman was entertaining enough, although somewhat silly in it's execution. I don't know if it looked silly to audiences back when it was released (I was minus 2 years old in the making at the time), but my feeling is that if it were screened today in 2011, audiences would laugh at many parts of the movie. Starman does have an intended comedic element, since the "visitor" obviously struggles with cultural misunderstandings which leads to awkward situations, yet I believe modern audiences would more likely laugh at the ridiculousness of it, and not because it's clever comedy.

Starman was released two years after Spielberg's E.T., and follows loosely the same plot. A friendly extraterrestrial comes to earth and is helped to go home (he'll die if he stays) by one or more initially frightened humans, while the aggressive government and military want to capture him. The fact that Starman seems to plagiarize E.T. can't be a held against it, since the scripts for both movies were written at the same time. Unfortunately for Starman, E.T. is a much superior movie, whether it is in plot, acting, suspense or wonder.

Karen Allen is both beautiful and simple, thus she fits perfectly for her role as a lonely and sensitive widow. Her acting is sufficiently good, not praise-worthy, but very acceptable. Jeff Bridges was nominated for an Oscar for best actor with his role as the extraterrestrial, and honestly, I don't see why. I think Bridges is a phenomenal actor, and he played his role accordingly in Starman, which means he stays pretty much passive throughout the story, with a few eccentricities when he tries to imitate human facial expressions. Thus his role wasn't difficult in my opinion, and was certainly playable by any low-level actor. Hence the Oscar nomination for such an easy role is surprising to me.

One particularly interesting and original moment in Starman is at the beginning, when the extraterrestrial transforms into human form by imitating (cloning) the DNA from a man's lock of hair which was kept by the man's widow (Allen). In front of a terrified widow, the extraterrestrial progressively (monstrously) grows from the shape of a baby to a fully adult and naked Jeff Bridges, this in a matter of minutes. I thought that was pretty cool since it looked fairly good and the idea of it is somewhat unsettling.

Starman as a whole is very watchable and entertaining, but lacks in originality and atmosphere, which explains, I guess, why it didn't really stand the test of time and stays relatively overlooked when it comes to 80s sci-fi movies.

4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Quest for Fire (1981)

9/10

An epic tale!

15 December 2009

Jean Jacques Annaud's marvelous epic tale "Quest for Fire" deals of a tribe of Neanderthals who lose their precious fire, essential for their survival in this cold and hostile prehistoric world, after a vicious attack by more primitive ape-like humans (probably Homo Heidelbergensis). Having no knowledge in the making of fire, a small group of tribesmen are sent in a quest to find fire by retrieving it from nature or from other tribes they would meet. In their journey they encounter cannibal Neanderthals, Homo Sapiens, mammoths and saber tooth tigers, they travel into freezing and windy steppes, up mountains and through swamps, in a beautifully realistic Paleolithic Europe carved by the ice age, like no movie has yet managed to grasp so beautifully. To add to realism, there is no dialog in the movie. Actually, there is dialog, only it is in a primitive language (invented for the movie) which we do not understand, and there are no subtitles so its to the viewer to interpret what's going on (don't worry, its not hard).

As a student in archeology specialized in prehistory and mainly in the Neanderthal cultures, I must say that this film corresponds quite well to what I imagine Europe was like 80,000 years ago. Only there are some mistakes or scientifically debatable aspects in this movie, but to its defense it was inspired by a book of the same name written in 1911, when our knowledge in prehistory was very weak.

The English title is quite appropriate. It is indeed a "quest", an epic journey in a mysterious and terrifying past where only man's wits and ability to control fire gave him the ability to survive against the cruel forces of nature. During the journey of the protagonists, there is a clever mix of "horror", emotion and humor in their adventures. The photography is baffling, as well as the music and the general atmosphere.

This movie is perfect and if I didn't give it a 10/10 its because of the few scientific mistakes which, as an archaeologist, kind of make me cringe. Nonetheless I recommend this masterpiece to everyone.

5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Duellists (1977)

10/10

Beautiful masterpiece

14 December 2009

"The Duellists" is Ridley Scott's first feature film, and the first of the many masterpieces he eventually graced us with in his now pretty long career as a director.

"The Duellists" is a period drama set in the Napoleonic wars. One may think of it as a war movie, but actually there are absolutely no battle scenes (only one 10 second skirmish of the 2 main characters against a few Cossacks). It is comparable to Kubrick's "Barry Lindon" which was released in theaters just 2 years earlier, but I strongly believe "The Duellists" is actually better and enjoyable to a larger audience. The plot, which follows Conrad's book, is superb and is apparently loosely inspired by true events. It follows two French officers who fight each other in a duel every time they meet during a 15 year long period spanning the entire Napoleonic wars, and for a reason so insignificant that the protagonists and even the viewer end up forgetting it. But the animosity between them and their code of honor compel them to fight whenever the opportunity shows.

The cinematography in this film is fantastic, every shot is like a painting. The impressive costumes and stressful duel scenes were praised for their realism by many specialists. I personally love the Napoleonic era, and love the movie's rendition of that Imperial age. The scenes during the Russian winter are absolutely baffling and awe inspiring.

Ridley Scott was chosen to direct "Alien" thanks to his work on "The Duellists", although the two movies are extremely different. With his two first full-length movies, the world was introduced to a new versatile director, who is now among the greats still living today. I cannot recommend this movie more, just watch it if you can.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Munin75

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed