Change Your Image
derzu_uzala
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Voici le temps des assassins... (1956)
"Le coq au Chambertin revenu à l'huile d'olive..."
"... avec une mirepoix aillée au sang du coq, garniture de petits oignons glacés, de lardons, de champignons, fleurons en losange, accompagné de pommes rissolées persillées, farcies au foie gras du Périgord"
Such is Chef Chatelin's (Gabin) signature dish, which he proudly prepares for his newlywed young wife (Delorme), as a follow-up to a starter of "lightweight" quenelles, nothing less.
This stands as a good metaphor for the whole movie. Such a dish would have been a proud feature of a posh French restaurant 60 years ago, nowadays it is a dated relic, a stodgy hodge-podge of competently-assembled noble individual elements, which put together make for an rather uninteresting and indigestible whole.
Delorme plays a young-woman with an angel face, who soon reveals herself to be a cold-hearted, scheming monster. This was a familiar trope of the 1930s-40s movies, and a theme Duvivier used in previous works ("La belle équipe", "Panique"). By 1956 this was already a somewhat tired routine, and one cannot help feeling the movie is definitely misogynistic: all women are either mothers or monsters (or both).
The male characters do not fare much better: both leads (Gabin and Blain) are well-intentioned but exceedingly gullible. The customers of Chatelin's restaurants are not likable either, with a particular mention to the rich old guy who comes each time with a different, much younger and obviously venal, mistress - and to whom Chatelin unaccountably turns to when in need of matrimonial advice.
The movie nevertheless has its good moments: the scenes with the two mothers, each a horrible person in her own kind, who Duvivier portrays in gleeful manner (with her disheveled look and bulbous eyes, Lucienne Bogaert eerily evokes Andy Serkis' Gollum). There is also an interesting depiction of the now-vanished Paris les Halles district. And the acting is top-notch, Gabin still in top form, Delorme well-cast even if her dramatic range appears somewhat limited at times. Only Blain feels wooden, but his role is pretty one-dimensional.
All in all a watchable noir movie, but Duvivier did better in the past, and there is something stale about the movie's perspective on human relationships. Not because it's misanthropic, but because it's a petit-bourgeois kind of misanthropy.
L'étrange Monsieur Victor (1938)
Worth a watch despite its flaws
Grémillon belongs to the same generation of French film-makers as Duvivier or Renoir, all born in the late 1890s. One could add Becker, Carné and Clouzot, born in the late 1900s, to the list. Nowadays, Grémillon's legacy is somewhat overshadowed by that of his colleagues, even though it's revered by some movie-buffs like the late French director and ultimate cinéphile Bertrand Tavernier.
Grémillon's trademark style involves setting a melodrama in a very realistic background, depicting everyday's life in rather modest, and often coastal surroundings. There are a lot of exterior shots of natural and urban landscapes, in an almost documentary fashion, a focus on the material hardships of his heroes, whether in their professional or private lives. At their best, his works foretell the neorealist Italian movies of the 1940-50s.
"L'Etrange Monsieur Victor" is a melodrama with criminal and social undertones, set in Toulon, a military harbor city in the French Provence,
A respectable-looking bourgeois, Victor Agardanne (Raimu) is in fact the head of a gang of jewel robbers. He murders one of his accomplices and lets an innocent, hard-working cobbler (Blanchar) get condemned and sent to jail in his place. The drama picks up once the wrongfully convicted cobbler escapes from jail and heads back home, with Mr. Victor torn between remorse and his continued need to hide his crimes from both justice and his virtuous wife (Renaud).
The story is rather implausible overall, a sort of "Crime and Punishment" where Raskolnikov would be innocent and Judge. Porfiry would be the actual murderer - interestingly, Blanchar had played. Raskolnikov three years before in a movie by Pierre Chenal.
The whole melodrama part, in particular, is very dated, with dialogues which do not particularly inspire, and a depiction of human relationships which is very theatrical. Neither does the "crime story" fully convince: the plot is quite predictable, and Victor's would-be moral dilemma is painted in too broad strokes to be believable, the man oscillating between Mediterranean geniality and hard-core ruthlessness.
There remains a cast which deliver excellent and sometimes highly enjoyable performances. Raimu is a delight to watch, and Renaud is very moving. The two however, make for a very ill--assorted couple, beyond the needs of the script: it feels sometimes that they are playing in two different movies. Blanchar is the weak link of the cast, with a grating fake Provençal accent and a stilted and exaggerated acting style straight out of the silent films area. Viviane Romance has a small part as his wife of loose morals, a role she will reprise in several other pictures.
To be watched for Raimu and the depiction of Toulon in the late 1930s, Grémillon-style. For a movie featuring the framing of an innocent man over a background of social strife, check Duvivier's masterpiece "Panique" (1946), which is hugely superior.
Il mattatore (1960)
A launchpad towards better Gassman movies
According to the Italian Wikipedia, this movie was adapted from an eponymous Italian TV show. It consists of loosely-assembled sketches where Gassman is given a free hand to go through various characters and disguises.
The whole thing is watchable, of course, but suffers from the lack of dramatic tension since there's barely a storyline. Besides, most sketches were possibly funny 60 years ago, now they bring a smile at best - you see the gags coming from a distance. Gassman is of course a terrific presence, but in some episodes he's completely over-the-top.
Strangely enough, the most endearing moments of the movie, as far as I'm concerned, were some "transition" sequences which show peeks of everyday's life in the Italy of 1960 - scenes with Dorian Gray, the restaurant sequences, shots of the poor Roma suburbs...
All in all a minor movie.
Gone Girl (2014)
Where has David Fincher's talent gone....?
Gone Girl is a well-crafted movie, well-shot, well-played, and... and I guess that's it. It's also quite long, rather dull despite its pretense to be a thriller. All of it is, in the end, quite hackneyed - all the characters are stereotypes rather than actual people, and it's hard to care of way or another what's going to happen next. The fault lies mainly with the scenario (I haven't read the novel the movie is adapted from). The whole story is supposed to be about ambiguity: whose fault is it when a marriage spiral downwards? Are we dealing with a disappearance, a murder, or something else? Can a normal-looking person be evil? This is the type of stories Patricia Highsmith, amongst others, made a living out of: just think of "The talented Mr. Ripley". But Gone Girl is just flat: the problem is not so much that the two main characters are not likable - they are much worse: they are not believable. And most secondary parts: family, police, media... are also caricatures, something created to fit the story purposes rather than how actual people behave in actual life. This is the stuff that makes acceptable TV shows on rainy evenings. It's not good enough when you sit for two hours and a half in a movie theater.
Reprise (1996)
A "Citizen-Kane"-like documentary
For sure, "Reprise" cannot pretend to the status of landmark in movie history. It's nevertheless a profoundly moving and eminently engaging film. Director le Roux has used the 1968 newsreel "la reprise du travail aux Usines Wonder" as a very original McGuffin (or very original "Rosebud", if you want) in order to track back two decades of French social history through a series of interviews. Like in "Citizen Kane", with each interview we feel the pieces of the puzzle -in that case what was the daily life in a French factory in the suburbs of Paris from the 1960s to the 1980s - falling into place. Brilliantly constructed, intellectually challenging and an absolute must for anyone interested in social relationships (or simply in human portraits).
Batman Begins (2005)
Dear God, please make this movie disappear off the "IMDB Top 250"
As I write it's rated #102 (apparently it has lost a few places since someone else wondered how it could be "top 70th movie of all times"). Otherwise I wouldn't be wasting the 5 min needed to write this.
I watched BB in August in a holiday resort when it got out, and that's exactly what it deserved. A moderately competent (n-th) Superhero movie. Christian Bale does look the part, so does Gary Sinise as Lt Gordon. And Cilian Murphy is an interesting, if under-used, villain. Plus the imagery is nice to look at, and it's always a pleasure to see Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman -oops, almost forgot Rutger Hauer-, even in slightly pointless cameos. Lastly -I'm in a charitable mood, I'll throw that in as a "pro": the movie obviously derives part of its inspiration from Frank Miller's excellent comic "Batman: Year One".
All the previous doesn't change the fact that BB is on the whole a disappointment. Poorly scripted, poorly directed. The Himalayan sequences are just ludicrous and the action bits are, I found, badly edited: it's hard to keep track of what's going on. I hardly think the excellent Liam Neeson will proudly reminisce of this low-point in his career.
Average popcorn movie. OK but definitely below expectations
Les visiteurs (1993)
Overrated cult movie (in France)
I guess the main thing to be said about "les Visiteurs" is that it hardly makes sense for a non-French-speaking audience to watch it. I shudder to think what it sounds like dubbed, for instance. Plus the elements of French satire are probably not transposable elsewhere.
I laughed to tears when I viewed "les Visiteurs" when it was released in France 15 years ago, where it was an immediate box-office hit. Now I must admit it mostly brings a smile there and there. Of course it's me being 15 years older but the movie just hasn't aged well. The directing is mediocre at best, the cheap CGI is horrendous, and Marie-Anne Chazel's character as a tramp grates on one's nerves. There still remains the altogether funny plot, the hilarious performances by Reno, Clavier and Lemercier, as well as the (then) cult dialogs.
Watcheable if you like French comedies, but don't get your hopes too high. In the same vein "Les Bronzés" (part I & II) is far superior. And incidentally Les Visiteurs part II was embarrassingly bad.
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
If it's a "love or hate" movie, I loved it. Maybe Eastwood's best?
MDB is a movie I adored when I saw it when it was released - even though my expectations weren't too high despite the raving press reviews, as I'm not interested in boxing. Seeing it again recently on DVD I loved it as much.
So I've sifted through the (quite numerous) "hated it" IMDb reviews to try to understand why so many people didn't share my sense of wonderment at what I think is another Eastwood masterpiece. Apparently bad reviews fall in 3 categories: - people who were expecting a boxing movie (Rocky VI) and were disappointed. I can respect that but hey, what can I say? Wrong expectations. - people who disapprove of euthanasia, or who don't like sad movies altogether. Thats' OK, "tous les goûts sont dans la nature" (there's no accounting for taste?) - lastly, quite a lot of people -obviously cinephiles, some of them even Eastwood-fans (as a director) thought the movie was clichéd (simplistic plot, bad dialogue, stereotype characters, etc). Well, I can respect that - probably the movie IS clichéd and simplistic. Clint Eastwood the director has sometimes been compared to John Ford, because his art as a director goes right to the heart of the matter (the heart of human nature?) despite/through a deceptive simplicity. Maybe being foreign (ie French) had something to do with the fact I didn't find the dialogs corny, as some people apparently did, or wasn't annoyed by the "Southern White Trash" portrayal.
Anyway... I just thought (still think) MDB is an absolutely wonderful movie, moving beyond description. It's compassionate but not melodramatic, it's beautifully directed and acted. It's a story of people who try to reach for the end of the rainbow, and ultimately fail - a parable of human condition, depending on your metaphysical outlook. Personnaly I can't think of something more moving or beautiful to spend 2-some hours with.
Forrest Gump (1994)
Repulsive
Because my English is not quite up to the task, I'm going to borrow the words of another reviewer from the UK: "a nauseating piece of reactionary twaddle". Frankly I couldn't put it better - this is right wing propaganda at its worst; all the more so because it's wrapped in (mostly) competent directing and acting (although Gary Sinise's "performance" is frankly irritating). Sorry let me rephrase and apologize to right-wing people, who are entitled to their political views: this movie is (bordering on) fascist propaganda.
There is so much to love about America, "Forrest Gump" brings out the worst in it. An insult to anyone's intelligence - I hope it gets remembered as the "Leni Riefenstahl's movie" of the Reagan area.
The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Popcorn movie with a bad sense of deja-vu
For me "The Bourne Ultimatum" is definitively the weakest of the (generally overestimated) Bourne trilogy. It boils down to a rehash of Bourne 1 & 2: spies hunt Bourne, Bourne escapes and/or kills spies, Bourne escapes keystone cops, Bourne wins another car chase. The plot is virtually non-existent, and incidentally -granted that action movies do not strive for realism- I was a bit surprised how easily it was to get into a CIA building and steal top-secret files those (bad, obviously bad) CIA agents are willing to kill to protect.
On the plus side it's still entertaining, Joan Allen is still a great actress, and the Waterloo Station sequence is inspired.
La caduta degli dei (Götterdämmerung) (1969)
Worth watching even though it has not aged well
It's interesting another IMDb reviewer of the "Damned" refers to Bertolucci, because the same parallel was on my mind - though not with "the Comformist" (which I haven't seen), but with "1900". Both movies deal mainly with the rise of respectively Nazism in Germany and Fascism in Italy, both take liberties with historical truth (although Visconti is -remotely- closer to the fact), both are political statements in the guise of artistic extravaganzas, both can boast an international stellar cast... which is a problem in both cases, as for instance Dirk Bogarde is not very believable as a German industrialist (!!) Anyway, while I consider "1900" a total failure, at least "the Damned" makes for interesting viewing. The story shouldn't be taken too seriously -it is completely over-the-top : incest, drugs, pedophilia, murder, cross-dressing with a dash of Shakespeare and politics. But the experience is on the whole visually compelling. The "parti pris" of treating the rise of Nazism as an opera (Visconti was by the way a famous opera designer) is rather successful. Some of the sequences are quite visually arresting -the Night of the Long Knives (which, unless I'm mistaken, was filmed in Bad Wiessee where it actually took place), or at the end, the party signaling the definitive rise to power of the Nazis. Not Visconti's best by far, but interesting (or hugely irritating depending on your frame of mind).
Incidentally, for those who enjoyed "the Damned" I recommend watching Minelli's "the 4 Horsemen of the Apocalypse" which is to a large extent similar -historical silliness redeemed by visual splendor- and rather better.
Novecento (1976)
overblown tripe
As a memorabilia of what leftist propaganda (wich I've got nothing against per se) was in the 1970s, "1900" is vaguely interesting. As a movie, it sucks big time. The issue is not that it's long -I love Visconti or Tarkowski- it's that it's long AND silly AND pretentious. And incidentally a huge waste of talents, given the stellar cast. My 2 main problems with 1900 were: 1) the story (or rather its political bias). During 5 hours you are presented to a piece of political "perspective" which would be more to the point in an old Walt Disney cartoon: Fascists are a minority of bad, ugly, pervert, and eyes-rolling murderers (how they came to power in Italy appears to be mystery, by the way). Landowners are (obviously) decadent, lazy, with a hint of sexual impotence. Communists are hard-working, beautiful, saint-like beings - their political aim appear to peacefully sing "the International" while toiling in the fields. Apparently, Mr Bertolucci learned his XXth Century history in "the Good, the Bad and the Ugly". 2) the soundtrack is awful. Apparently all actors are post-synced, so that de Niro's voice can be heard in the English version (but it doesn't look like he was actually saying his lines while the film was shot), Depardieu in the french version etc... Besides the music of Morricone -I'm sorry to have to disagree with some of my fellow IMDb reviewers- is quite bad.
After a couple of hours (and despite the temptation to call it a day) I watched the rest of the movie hesitating between consternation and plain hilarity. In the end I just chose the latter.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Just embarrassing
My God what a letdown! OK good news first: the first 15-30 minutes (until Indy & Son leave for South America) are quite enjoyable, you feel they managed to pull it off after all -despite the dreadful press reviews. After that, unfortunately, it just gets worse and worse - to the point of leaving you hugely tempted to walk out before the end. As so many IMDb reviewers stated already, the main issue is the atrocious script (?), which is both boring (no story, just some ride in the Indy theme park) and ludicrous (aliens! for Steven's sake!). Besides the characters (??) are paper-thin - one has to pity Hurt and Winstone for being associated to this. The attempts at humor (???) just fall flat. And the whole Indiana-Jones-gets-a-family-at-last scene is the most embarrassing moment I've been subjected to in a movie theater since the Tobey-Maguire-makes-his-bad**s-dance in Spidey 3. Last but not least, the CGI are just ugly - like they had to put some in the movie but didn't really know what for. A very mediocre movie - and a blow to all Indy fans :(