Reviews

This film deals less with Hervé Villechaise's real life than with a dull interviewer meeting a forgotten actor he wasn't even interested into in the first place. Only 42 minutes out of 105 of screen time are indeed showing bits and pieces of Hervé's life and career through mostly uninformative flash backs. The rest is only uninspired and irrelevant conversation wasting time showing the interviewer's problematic life. Who cares ? There is no mention of Hervé's health issues which led to his suicide and Peter Dinklage bears no ressemblance with Villechaise apart from being small and poorly imitating his voice and accent. Avoid this film and rewatch Billy Wilder's "Sunset Blvd" instead.

I wan't expecting much of this direct to video epic. Did I have to be so much disappointed yet ?

And I was for sure. This film is not only poorly produced and directed, the whole plot is uninteresting from beginning to end. None of the cast (no more than 11 actors) shows the slightest charisma or even talent. The chicken seen early on in the film seems more appealing than the two young heroes of this sad excuse for a film.

As for the dragon parts : 10 minutes of decent special effects hardly make the 97 minutes of total boredom worth while.

Please, go back to the 1981 Disney classic "Dragonslayer" instead, even if it's for the 50th time. That was a good film ! Now, you are warned !

I wasn't exactly expecting to get the very same kind of entertainment than the one broadcast in the 1970s. In fact I was even willing to get a fresh angle to the TV classic series, a bit like the excellent 2003 Forsyte Saga version, for instance.

Someone mentioned faults in the story telling and indifferent characters. Quite true. But for my part, I was very annoyed by the excessive (and often overstating) music score throughout the whole show. Not a minute without the damn melody in the background. On occasions, you hardly even hear what people say because of it. More than distracting, it irritated me to the extreme. A part from that, the actor weren't bad and the production values were quite impressive, but the music … Was it so necessary to have some in every single sequence.

"Silence is made of gold", they say. A bit of it would have been a good treat.

That pretty sums it up!

I was really hoping that this film would be still part the period where you could REALLY have fun in front of a romantic comedy . By that, I mean before the horrifying amount of ghastly Bridget Jones imitations started to invade theaters with silly plots filled with empty-headed and unsympathetic characters, not to mention unbelievable situations. "Maybe Baby" adds insult to injury by purely and simply riping off John Hughes' delightful classic from the late 80s. A time where you could spend your money on a mainstream movie without systematically feeling totally mugged.

The nice bunch of co-stars doesn't save this poor excuse for a film either: Joanna Lumley is wasted, Rowan Atkinson's hamming doesn't help a bit, Emma Thompson is just passing through, and so on and so on...

On top of that, all is so unbearably neat and tidy like in a clinic, that you could fear to have been impregnated without knowing it while watching this junk. I'll have to see "Rosemary's Baby" again and again to forget that terrible experience.

As for the 90 minutes lost, well, so much for my naivety!

I'll be totally honest with you: No, it's not the best film in the World. Yes the music score is really annoying. Yes the whole visual aspect is pretty colorless and dull, not to mention the badly made gore sequences. But for my part, I liked seeing the trio of actors (Taylor/Perrine/Lee) make their best and save it from being a total mess. Which is quite remarkable considering the poor premise of this would-be slasher movie. Sure it's not a great thriller, but it's still a decent time-passing show. I also liked its flaws amazingly enough: it's SO MUCH an 80s film, you could swear going back in time just by viewing it. Watch it for the actors if anything.

Terrible picture from any angle you could take it! I felt curious to see Vincent Price in that seldom shown British horror comedy which nothing could prevent to be hilarious... except the total lack of talent from the authors. No gag what-so-ever is a tiny bit funny in there! Often vulgar, not a bit clever, it seems as if the writers deliberately collected in one script the grossest pile of jokes they could imagine. I can hardly understand how Price excepted to deliver the terrible lines he was given. It made me quite sad to see him involved in that shameful piece of cr*p.

Try to avoid this waste of Kodak film at all cost, if you want to save 90 minutes of your life. I mean it. Honnestly!

1 out of 10 is the lowest I could put. It deserves at least 5 below zero.

Cought this short gem while recording some other film on cable TV and was amazed by the effectiveness of its story telling. Through the lens of a home camera, a little boy shoots a movie dealing with his adorable rabbit Hoppy, probably for some school project. Then something weird happens, beginning with some strange bug appearing at times while the boy is filming himself introducing his pet... Very soon, his little sister makes a quite frightening discovery... This could be the introduction for a longer story about some monstrous events, certainly genetic... But sadly, it ends pretty abruptly after 3 short but intense minutes. Very funny and very frightening at the same time. Highly recommended!!!!! I love it! i love it!

I was looking forward to watch this rather unknown historical tale. Especially when I saw on the packaging of the old tape I came across that there would be no less than Jean Marais, George Marchal and Jean Pierre Cassel as supportive actors for what was about to be an ambitious film adaptation of the short lived heir of the Emperor Napoleon.

Alas! they all do some short appearances and the whole thing has to be born on the poor Bernard Verley's shoulders. The uncharismatic young actor can hardly deliver a line without wining (even if it has to be typical of the character). You just can't wait to see him die, which takes more than 100 minutes to happen, by the way. All in all, production values are pretty lame in spite of the fact that most of the film was shot in some genuine historical settings, which ARE really impressive but don't do the trick though.

Sacha Gutiry would probably have done something interesting out of this subject. Dialogues establish historical facts, but no humanity actually comes out of this poorly done puppet play. Hardely good enough to make a decent TV movie of the 60s. Even colors are not so good (maybe the copy I watched was to blame). Not much recommended... only to go to sleep maybe.

I wasn't expecting much from the fraud of a remake that was certainly bound to be. And it is actually. This IS NOT a remake of Romero's masterpiece. But what the heck? so much the better! How about going on a fresh start on this one and simply take it for what it is: a darn good horror movie, for a change. Who cares about the so-called "Zombie rules" as long as the film gets the audience on the edge of his seat. And it did as far as I was concerned. OK the film is not so good as the DAWN remake, but fair enough. Just don't take too much into account the first 5 minutes around the usual brainless teenagers partying. It goes wrong early enough in the film to get intrigued, and finally scared. I consider myself a very peaky movie-viewer. This one is worth seeing for sure!!

I was about to enjoy this documentary at least as much as I loved the 20 minutes bonus featurette on the first DVD edition of "Friday the 13th" Part 1. Alas, even if it has some irresistible elements (Tom Savini tremendous hosting, all the cast and crew reunited, occasional nice info...) I began to get quite irritated by some pretty obvious flaws half way through:

what is it all about this horrible and distracting heavy metal score endlessly spoiling the viewer's pleasure? It sounded as if I had an inconsiderate neighbor having his stereo playing out loud just to p*** me off.

At times, I could also get fed up with the bloody effects systematically interrupting the interviewee just when he or she was about to tell us something interesting.

Will anyone tell me what guideline exactly the editor used to do his work? It is as if the interviews had been put together pretty much at random, for all I could understand.

Finally, the last 10 minutes outrageously promoting the so called remake recently released (which I didn't much like by the way, but that's another story!) was the last straw.

And I ended up almost hating what I was bound to love in the first place. So paradoxically, I put 5/10 because the good elements just couldn't be overlooked. But, please Mr Farrands, try to be a little more modest next time. YOU'RE NOT the interesting part of the show, the SUBJECT IS. Be a little more at the service of it, not the contrary. When you get that, try and make another documentary.

Christian Gion was never a masterpiece maker. Some of his films are even not particularly recommendable, I must admit (I think of Aldo Maccionne's infamous vehicles, for instance). But this title delivers far more than any French comedies fan could expect. We easily get fond of the characters and the plot evolves with some very funny gags and touching moments. Performance by the cast is more than satisfying and Henry Guybet certainly display some real talent here. Supporting actors are all great, Michel Galabru, Claude Jade, Claude Piéplu and Claude Dauphin... But the teenage actors also steal the show at times. A very sweet film I haven't seen in years and I highly recommend to anyone willing to spend a good moment watching a film. "Le Pion" rules!!!!

Long time since I've been totally thrilled by a remake (the last one was "Dawn of the Dead"). I didn't expect much of another rehash of a so-called 1970s "classic", but -I don't know exactly why- I was curious about this one. Not precisely because I looooved so much the Bob Clark's first version. On the contrary, I estimated it had not exploited its potential to its limits. In fact, as I watched it, I even had this uncomfortable feeling of witnessing a disorderly made blueprint of Carpenter's "Halloween". Which made it interesting enough at the time, though. But quite unsatisfying... Here, in the 2006 version, I did not even have the time to think too much about what I had to expect or not. The film just made the deal right away. I particularly love the way the script did not care much in making its female characters too cute. In fact, most of the girls are actually plain bitches. Which made them the more lovable to me, surprisingly enough. Secondly, the killer character's background is told in a series of flashbacks included quite smoothly into the whole storytelling. The different elements are given in a very skillful way. No heavy-handed explanation as we had to get along with in the dreadful Rob Zombie's Halloween. Then, the plot itself grows suspenseful each minutes in a excellently orchestrated crescendo. Not a minute, the viewer feels cheated by twists and turns overblown or artificial. On top of that, the film is filled with original ideas to surprise the audience and play with its expectation. A very intelligent film made out of a tired ingredients (the killer chasing girls again and again), I simply loved its sarcastic tone, its terrifying use of innocent Christmas musics, its own score, the atmosphere, its fast pace, its sharp dialogs... everything. What can I say? I loved it, and yet I consider myself a very difficult moviegoer.

For those who would want to know if i share the same values, here is the list of remakes I simply hated: Rob Zombie's Halloween, Amityville, The Fog, When a Stranger Calls, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, ... in fact almost all of them. Except "Dawn of the Dead" and, of course, "Black Christmas"!!!

... otherwise I would have been quite disappointed by this back-to-back series of theatrical teasers. Poorly embellished by an occasional voice-over commentary, this can hardly be called a real documentary. Only Elvis unconditional fans and trailers completists will honestly enjoy this stock of seldom seen bits. Pity they are sometimes in poor condition, but all in all, I suppose that's the best way to watch those turkeys. In that short format, you can only love their naive and cheerful atmosphere. As long feature, most of them are just plain pathetic. I can only think of 2 or 3 really good films among them. Now, you know better.

Based on a one line idea, this very rarely seen Lelouch flick could have been a quite good short movie. Unfortunately, it apparently had to run as a 90 minutes feature without the amount of script material it needed to justify its length. As a result, the group of actors, as likable as they all can be, try very hard to compensate with a good deal of improvised dialog. None of which could be considered as totally entertaining for that matter. Charles Gérard, in particular, puts a lot of himself into the friendly touch shadowing a bit too much the rest of the cast. The proletarian extraction of the protagonists could have been an excellent element to make a point in that "would be" social satire, but the film never gets a real chance to get involved in any kind of political issue, or whatever... Claude Lelouch tried again the same kind of filming experiment one year later with the much more successful "L'Aventure, c'est l'Aventure". That one was really funny. "Smic Smac Smoc" is just a bit pleasant at times, but not to be really recommended, though. Just out of curiosity, try it but don't put your expectations too high.

Very aware of being part of an important project, the modern artist H.R.Giger made a short film out of his work on the settings and the costumes of Ridley's Scott's classic. As a result, he gives us an essential document focusing on the artistic aspect of movie-making. We are so much used to the standard "making of" concept focused on the director and the actors that we get kind of unsettled by this unusual angle.

So much the better, however! We got a bit tired of those conventional featurettes full of expected self-indulging interviews of stars and movie makers. It's kind of refreshing just to watch the artist working. His own comments just guide us with no pretentious attitude whatsoever. He never tries to "sell" his product either and takes time to explain every details of the process.

Great fun! Very instructive!

Pierre Bourdieu was a highly considered sociologist whose scientific conclusions made him take some occasional left winged political positions. You can imagine it made him a quite controversial character since he frequently pointed out the persistent conservative state of mind of the whole political class (right and left).

Pierre Carles, documentary film maker, followed this exceptional man on several public performances in Colleges and seminaries, as well as interviews, and pointed out without any kind of directive attitude, how charismatic the man could be. Furthermore, the film gives us some essential clues to understand part of his work.

The film runs for more than 2 hours, Bourdieu's way of speaking is not quite as perfect as we are used to hear on radio or T.V., but we "drink" every word of his non-stop speech from the beginning to the end. Highly instructive! The other film by Pierre Carles "Enfin Pris" also deals with that personality after he passed away in 2002 just to insist again on how impossible it was for a man of that stature to get a chance to express himself on mass media. The eternal struggle of "form" Vs. "content". Just unique!

I used to be a Rowan Atkinson unconditional fan until I saw the unexpectedly mediocre Bean film (which actually had its funny moments, no matter how poor the script was). The disappointment was already tremendous at that time, but I did not want to admit then that Atkinson's career was on the wrong track. This "Johnny English" made definitely obvious that my worst fears had become true: Atkinson's ability to make me laugh has vanished. I don't know if I must blame the actor, but one can only say how unconvincing he is now in his usual "so-stupid-would-be-spy-that-no-matter-what he-does-ends-up-as-a-catastrophe" act. Every single gag is foreseen 3 minutes before it happens. The embarrassment was huge when I watched this lame parody. John Malkovich doesn't help either. His unbearable overacting made me sick. Sorry if I am too honest about it. But I sincerely disliked this film. Bought it second-handed at low price and deeply regret my money.

Not to be confused with Lewis Teague's "Alligator" (1980) which actually IS an excellent film, this "Il Fiume Del Grande Caimano" laboriously ends the exotic trilogy Sergio Martino made around the end of the seventies (including the rather watchable "L'Isola degli uomini pesce" and the not so good "La Montagna del dio cannibale"). Tracing outrageously the plot of "Jaws", the script fails at creating any suspense what so ever. The creature is ludicrous and its victims are simply despicable. Stelvio Cipriani's lame tune poorly illustrates the adventures of these silly tourists presented from the very beginning as the obvious items of the reptile's meal. No thrill out of this, rather laughters actually! And we could find this pitiful flick quite funny if the dialogs and the appearance of the natives were not so obviously inspired by pure racism. Very soon the giggling stops in favor of a sour feeling witnessing such a patronizing attitude. We could excuse badly made films and poor FXs, but not that kind of mentality. Never!

This monthly show (ended in the late 1990s.) allowed the French crooner (and actor) Eddy Mitchell to share with TV viewers his passion for American films from the 1950s and the 1960s. The very convincing setting of an old cinema (a real one too!), crowded with extras exclusively clothed with old fashion outfits, tended to make us believe we were getting back to 30 years earlier. "Monsieur Eddy" (as the old fashioned usherette of the show used to call him) presented 2 main features (the second one late at night in original version) punctuated by Tex Avery cartoons and old commercials in between. This was a excellent occasion to view good old westerns, costume films and sometimes, Sci Fi classics. Very popular, especially in the 1980s, this show also tried to put those old movies into perspective with historical anecdotes and biographical facts. A song by Mitchell was associated with the Show too. Let's translate it into "The Last Picture Show", which happened to be the title of this broadcast. As Cable developed during the 1990s, occasions to watch those kind of movies became more and more common. The concept, though very solid, got a bit less relevant as the years passed and around the end of the second decade, the very fondly remembered show stopped after having introduced Eddy Moine (Mitchell's own son) as a possible replacement. Funny to realize that Mitchell's nostalgia is now part of my own, considering I was a teenager when this show began. For me,"Monsieur Eddy" will always be remembered as the TV host more than the singer. I miss this show very much.

...because so much ahead of its time. The unusual concept of "real-tv-camera-on-the-shoulder" type of film puts the audience in an very uncomfortable position. Despite Brad Davis' overacting , you get that unsettling feeling that what you are watching is actually happening in front of you, FOR REAL!!! You literally "become" the camera and take part of the action. The film gets made while it is shot in an underground world of idle youth lost in punk discos where sex, drug, and rock n'roll are necessarily involved. Don't count on me to tell you the twist ending, though you kind of guess it won't be pleasant for the leading protagonist. But this series got you used to that ironical sense of morality by now. Someone in the team of "Blair Witch Project" MUST have seen this one.

... and yet so untypical: the almost entire Ewing family taken in kind of hostage in the Southfork ranch by a pair of Texan losers in search for revenge for having their wives sleeping with J.R. and Ray! This is the kind of adventure you'll only see in some episodes of the two first seasons of that show. Never so much action and suspense will be provided in one single episode once the saga takes its definitive form around 1980. There's also here an good occasion to meet a young Brain Dennehy delivering a powerful performance as one of the betrayed husbands. The true nature of each character is revealed as well and for the very first time, Linda Gray gets a chance to impose a vulnerable character beyond the icy appearance. A damn good episode even Dallas-haters could enjoy watching .

The Golden Girls (or what is left of them) running a hotel!? What a lousy concept! Why on earth would they take such a risk, considering their total lack of experience? That's what this watchable but rather depressing pilot is trying to explain. Actually the 3 girls never really get a chance to deliver a funny line. Situations are more than tired and the new characters won't succeed in making you forget the absence of the essential Dorothy. You'll also have this sad feeling of watching a bad remake of "Fawlty Towers". Regrets! You will only feel regrets for how hilarious they once were and how plain uninteresting they suddenly get. Should have stopped on a good impression. Now, it seems wasted and pitiful.

"Dracula Père et Fils" was never an excellent film. At the most, it was a sometimes funny vampire satire with good psychological aspects out of the Oedipal conflict father/son and sociological criticisms concerning the immigrants, not so well treated in France.

But to be honest, I admit it was a bit of a deception. The film director Edouard Molinaro himself has lately called it a "failure", despite the fact he had succeeded in hiring Christopher Lee to incarnate ' the Count" (Dracula is never mentioned in the original version) opposing him to a totally different kind of an actor (Bernard Menez, who is actually very proud of this film). The concept here is quite similar to another unfunny vampire comedy "Tempi Duri Per i Vampiri" where Lee was opposed to Renato Rascel.

One should see this movie just to appreciate the almost perfect French accent of the British star who has almost entirely shot it in that foreign language.

Mister Lee has claimed on several occasions he did dub the English version.

I must be one of the rare French moviegoers to have seen the quite different American version and to be able to evaluate the mess they did on the soundtrack.

Most of the dialog has been changed to some ridiculous vulgar trash. The haunting music score by Vladimir Cosma has been misplaced or changed in favor of new music bits, supposedly to speed up the rhythm of the film.

But they didn't hesitate the butcher the editing either: from the 100 min. in its original form, they reduced it to 79. Not only they shortened it, but added some repetition of Lee opening a door and speaking to a concierge with several stupid accents. Not only unnecessary, but very dull! This scene was initially part of the story and is suddenly supposed to be an hilarious illustration of movie shooting. Appalling!

I have heard Roman Polanski had to suffer similar treatments on his masterpiece "Fearless Vampire Killers" (never try to compare this one to Molinaro's flick, by the way!)

Not every one has the talent of Woody Allen to transform a Japonese spy movie into a comedy as he did once (admitting it in a prologue) with "What's up Tiger Lily?".

In conclusion, here are two different films out of the same celluloid: "Dracula Père et Fils" is a not so good film worth seeing however. "Dracula and Son" is just awful and should be placed alongside with the Raymon Burr's version of "Godzilla".

If you get a chance to watch this movie, just do it! That's an order!!!

The leading couple is simply excellent. The natural setting, at first enchanting, becomes more and more frightening. The atmosphere couldn't get more gruesome. Only Australian films succeed in creating so much thrills. You'll never go to the beach the way you used to. Jaws made you terrified at the idea of getting wet, Long Weekend will convince you in staying comfortably at home on holidays. What is the fun of getting lost in nature like that, anyway?

The ecological message of the script, pretty obvious, never interferes with the suspense of the story. The main characters, evidently archetypes of the modern couple, are apparently doomed from the very beginning. However, the audience gets a weird masochistic pleasure in witnessing their nightmarish destiny.

Long Weekend is an unknown masterpiece that must be seen urgently. Please do!

In theory, a disco comedy can only be attractive. If you have liked classics like Saturday Night Fever or the underestimated Can't Stop the music, you could be on the false impression that Rollerboy is necessarily one of those forgotten teen-comedies you'll have fun watching.

On the contrary, it's a total failure. Ovidio G. Assonitis, the producer who have ruined James Cameron's first feature Piranha2, decided he could direct a "disco hit" on his own, providing he had some fresh music and solid supporting actors.

Alas! Nothing of the sort. None of the songs could be worth mentioning and the cast is either filled with unbearable hams (Eddie Deezen or Paul Benedict, both awful!) or unexpected but totally misused guest star (Christopher Lee who could have been funny if only he had been given a little bit more to do). At first, the audience could be charmed by the bitter-sweet tone of the film, but very soon, the sour feeling of being cheated at prevails. This pointless little love story couldn't be more irritating. None of the so-called gags works and the terrible acting of the leading couple makes the disaster complete.

No matter how hard you'll try, you'll never like this one.