6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
such a lazy effort!
21 May 2008
Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to love this film, but I just thought it was boring. Apart from a ten or so minute sequence (jeep chase & ants), the pace is lazy, the photography is plain awful and Spielberg's directing uninspired. Even Williams's score doesn't deliver (but, to his credit, he can only do with what he's been given -- cue phantom menace & attack of the clones's lame scores).

I'm quite nonplussed by Lucas choosing this story. It's unengaging, just like the new characters. I'm a huge fan of the underrated and underemployed Karen Allen, but if she hadn't been in this film it wouldn't have made much difference. Was it such an impossible task to write sparky dialog as could be heard in Raiders 1 and Empire Strikes Back ? (Lawrence Kasdan, where are you??? They need you!) When I saw the trailers, I kind of knew this fourth installment wouldn't match the original trilogy, but somehow I happened to be even more disappointed than I expected...
11 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
not that bad, but the ending is unconvincing
27 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Not bad after all, but the ending has a problem with suspension of disbelief. Like in every other mystery identity movie, once you know you the bad guy really is, you tend to rewind the whole film in your memory and see if the whole thing is coherent. Which here is not the case. Even when the main character is alone (and therefore doesn't have to "act" in front of other characters who don't know who he really is) he seems to react like it were the first time he is in fancy hotel, etc. So, in a way, it's not the lead character who is lying to the other characters, but the filmmakers who are lying to us viewers. It's a great joy when it's done playfully by someone like Brian De Palma (in Dressed To Kill and Body Double), but this trick is irrelevant here !

The final twist notwithstanding, the filmmakers are talented enough to create tension without resorting to many action set-pieces.

And, everything being said and done, it's always a treat to watch Sophie Marceau act, though she somehow manages mostly to get involved in projects that don't match her talent.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
unseen French zaniness
14 May 2003
I see about every film that comes out, and I had never EVER experienced such joy at a French comedy. The acting is unexpectedly strong, but Isabelle Nanty (of Amelie fame) steals the show : she is as zany as they come. Go have fun !
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Monsieur N. (2003)
4/10
close to amateurish
18 February 2003
Of the thousands of movies I've seen so far, this is the first one which made me think of the "wasted talents" expression. I had never EVER seen so many fine actors giving so dreadful performances (Frédéric Pierrot, Elsa Zylberstein,and so on). The "aging" make-up is quite awful and, to make it worse, lit broadly. The use of music (e.g. love at first sight for the young aide de camp) is at times so caricatural that I could feel most spectators around me smile awkwardly. So far, Antoine de Caunes has been quite a good actor, but seeing this one and "les morsures de l'aube" I think he should start considering quitting. Please Antoine, give up that "master of balantree" project ; I doubt you deserve it.
3 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
profound and funny, but disappointing ending
23 January 2003
Warning: Spoilers
It is quite unusual to see a comedy which is both funny and relevantly profound. It's just too bad the director did not believe in the ideas she finely develops throughout the film ; indeed, the end is really disappointing and reminds me (here's the spoiler !) of Boxing Helena.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dracula 2000 (2000)
7/10
unusual and deft
15 January 2003
what i liked most was that, unlike most recent productions, it didn't heavily rely on CGI. for example, the very brief montage alternating shots of dracula and shots of a wolf : no morphing involved !!! that's quite refreshing, and maybe more directors should take notice and not systematically resort to (imagination-free) state-of-the-art FX. also, the true identity of dracula is, though far-fetched, quite a find. it's no major movie, but well worth a try
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed