Reviews

I know it can be long but it's exactly, in a movie, what you are exploring with the book: this story is belonging to the precious and psychological style, wwhdn you focus only on the feelings and how they intricate themselves; it's a good reflexion in this renaissance time. The battles are also good because it was not epic in this long civil war. Everyone is apparently and frontly nice to each other ( welcome to the court) but everything is about politic and treason. So, Tavernier made a great job, with movies that are not made like this anymore and we can trust that, what he made, was the Fidel 16th century novel adaptation.

If you choose to look at this movie, it might certainly be for it cast: many of the actors doesn't need, in fact, an introduction! They play their part great despite the evidently stereotypes.

This movie is certainly not the first presenting the manicheism mob/cop; that's why the pitch looks like the Chinese "Infernal Affairs". Furthermore, the Americans and Japanese already made a remake, so why not the Korean? But finally, if half of the movie looks quite like a remake, the second parts is the twisted one and the most interesting: on the technical part, you will love the use of the zoom, the great sound especially in the fights, the use of exterior, rain and lights... ANd, on the scenarist part, you will grow attach to charisma not of one but all characters.

So love it/ hate it but give a chance to this movie because it's worth your time!

Oh yes that movie, as its youngest predecessors such as Oblivion, After Earth... , has some great visuals. But where is, as usual in Science Fiction/ Anticipation movies, the plot, the story good enough just to try to be new and imaginative? This movie is just using the same old plots, schemes and stereotypes, good versus villains, twisted evil, too good altruism or morality... and the same optimist and expired message.

I like the actors but, at some point, can't they just stopped playing the good American heroes to just be regular humans: that would level up the content of most American movies these days...

Well, you have to see it to make yourself an opinion but do not expect something new and a valuable contribution to the 7th art; it's exactly what was prised : a solid entertainment with a huge budget.

I've not yet read the short story so i will not compare.

But i do not understand all the bad critics left by some of the users (but i do respect them). Some are blaming the acting, others the story, the dialogs... But the most important here lays on the film itself and its photography: look at the space occupied by the different characters because from clear barriers it get twisted imperceptibly all along the movie.

The subject of the movie is not young adults who can't face the reality of an outside world or some older women not able to deal with their age (close-ups are still great and really narrative by themselves), it's also not about decorums and society, because it can happen and fate or destiny have nothing to do with it; it's just about a part of a life story, not ordinary but quite unstoppable.

There is more than a parallel to make with Brockeback Mountain with the movie, the characters, the story line, the making, the sound... And it didn't seem to bother years ago...

We do not have to relate to appreciate, enjoy this slice of life that tells everything with its title "Alone" or even "Perfect mothers" and "the grand mothers"...

Summer is coming at last... and with it a long series of blockbusters.

When it could have been an intelligent one with Nolan and Snyder at its head, it's basically not much more than a visual show. Yes it's a bomb, literally making neighborhood exploded (as "blockbuster" really means) but why can't we, spectators, want more than buildings going down and people looking up hoping for some savior? Acting is good even if, at some point, we have to smile imagining some of them with only a green/blue screen to act on... Special effects are obviously the strong statement of the movie (the only one?) but we know that green and blue colors are now Avatar's one so we irremediably go back to the sunny ones (especially when sun is vital to Kal-El!)but wanted to recreate the fauna of Krypton might have been a bit to much...

About the elliptic narrative writing, it works great but at the end we have a strong impression about a collage more than an actual movie. But the pact is fulfilled: we have action, drama, romance, past, present and futur (n°2 will bring once again Lex Luthor?) all tied up around one man more than one hero as the title suggest. But something is still missing: Snyder and Nolan have given us more in their past production than this demi-teintes long and fierce movie. Stop exploring the doubt, balancing between different possibilities and make a choice, assert: this self exploring period of American cinema has to come to an end by a big break in the spectator confidence as The Dark Knight or Watchmen used to be! Entertainement is not an end, it's a meaning to more: so yes go, enjoy, appreciate but criticize too!

You want Science Fiction? You have it. You want good (or great) actors? Here they are. In addition, you'll have nice pictures, special effects, and totally futurist design.

But if you want something new? Then you will pass… What is it with American cinema nowadays? You have some Top Gun Tom Cruise playing the hero type like Armageddon/ Bruce Willis, Olga Kurylenko playing the Ripley part, the "jackals" acting like some weirdo from Predators or Star Wars and AI being always questionable in the Terminator way. Have you seen the Star Wars or Matrix pursuits (or even Battlestar Galactica?)? So you've seen them all. Did you look at Neo in Matrix? Then you have some ideas of the costume type. The planet? Some Planet of the Aps...

No it's not spoilers, it's basic knowledge! Where is vision?? Cinema vision?

What is it with this kind of Cinema? I think that America needs enemy, it's part of it identity (and I'm not judging that): that's why they (screenwriters because I haven't read the comics) have to express some common reality because SF always has been about present time. So, what are you trying to say? That you don't know anymore who's your enemy? But it's always about the same basic idea: showing off because 'I have the biggest one' (I'm talking about guns and size obviously!): shoot first and ask question later seems to be the same appropriate response and I'm tired of that monologue.

Yes, there is no dialog anymore in this cinema: it's just a one-way ticket with no substance. Where is optimism or better realism? (light) jokes? Why does it want to appear so serious when it is just empty? You pay for entertainment (and earring you neighbors trying and failing to be discreet to eat!), and you fill yourself with some inappropriate moral because some of us, just being realistic, don't like the "middle thing": choice is about extremity because you act upon your belief for some pointless moment.

Expectation? Stop!!

You can have a good time: just leave your brain and knowledge of SF outside the door! You might even laugh in this American movie for American people (because who cares about Super Bowl and tourism artefacts? Do not forget to preserve art and carpets when this is the end of the world… to blow it off at the first chance maybe?)

I"m french, i knew the story even before i read the books, i later heard the french musical and i recognize in this movie some of the musical themes (but so few). All that to say that my opinion could have been compromised. But I also love cinema, and i can separate and analyze to forge an opinion, leaving my background behind myself.

But what is this?? This version lacks of every single drop of the original characters, scenes, themes developed... I hardly recognized the speech because it is so empty: this movie in a huge void filed with some acting and songs. Even the cast seems poor and i normally love the actors/actress. The only one that i can't really stand normally (anna Hathaway) is actually the one giving her best, and Javert Crowe seems to save both the original songs and the strong believes of the inspector but appears to be half-in half-out of his performance.

They could have had something great, but it is just an empty shell, a long one not well managed in duration, film making, and shooting. Take the opening scene: OK with quickly learn who is who and why... but what does it mean about the characters and their environment? Just their emptiness before they find their goals in life? Well, the shooting seems to go in that direction. And the close-ups in each songs, what are they supposed to mean? Proximity, extreme feelings? That's not the point: we have to see those miserables and the film gave them up by the filthy decorum and it's just too much. OK it's staged, it's a musical but it's not a cynical comedy as it looks like here...

I'm still glad to have seen it because i can judge and now i really want to go back to the books and some french adaptations. But why Hollywood (and cie) always seems to look for the tragic, exaggerating the drama by some powerful (but just awful) voices and music, some sad eyes, and poor dialog's???? a good story suffices by itself, a great one survives and lasts in memories and does not need to be act upon!!

Just try another recipe at some point, just make cinema with reason and eyes, not only with a strong heart and bad influences...

We all know that American cinema can't help itself to do remake of foreign films... That's why i saw Brothers before this original danish movie. When in this one all appears to be shot in steady cam, the American way tries to put some melodramatic trigger.

This version is about feelings, about situation and personal change: life make us evolve like every decision we take and nothing is good or bad, there is a lot of in between. The chose to accumulate the short shootings, practically no music or just a few notes on one instrument,are trying to bring us along this day to day story really well interpreted. The characters in their flaws or every day basis are believable, there is not so much emphasis like in the good but too much American film. It's in their nature to modify, adjust the deepness of the movie and after seeing this 2004 version, we actually miss something: this authenticity.

In both versions, dialogs, ellipses are exactly the same, but characters turned out to be different. We actually have to exact opposite films and this is a real challenge to see both.

Yes, the boy wonder is back, here lays today a new master class on cinema. You, who are fond of Western (THE American genre), you will see, since the initial credit in red scarlet letters, that the 60's and 70's and their "chefs d'oeuvre" have been brought back to life! Shots, films, colors, sets... everything is here for a true "hommage".

Except for the true violence and the blood throwings, you will not think, for 2/3 parts of this movie, that you are in Tarantino. Exit (at least partially) the delicious dialogs, the trashy one and the false philosophical one. After all, this is slavery and Tarantino seems apologetic: no false tears, but amazing and despicable human conduct. Forget the false debate, it's not about truth, not about reality but about condition and every situations, taken as a all, are part of History. But it could not be called a Tarantino session, if the last part of the movie was not his usual "we accelerate it all and it will blow to your face" scenes! Amazing how all his characters seem to culminate and reveal their true potential at the same breaking point.

And there is a lot to say about them: our fellow "devils", Django and his love one, are not only unbreakable but really growing in presence scenes after scenes.Both more human than the White folks, and savagely fierce. The beloved Doctor could be some kind of Doc Holliday, well educated, dentist, nice appearance and... hell of a killer when his fellows "Monsieur" Candy or "Big daddy" are archetypes of their generation. Even the supporting roles are great: you have seen some in Westernish production (like the Moonlight guy from Justified) and you will recognize Tarantino's favorite, Samuel L Jackson ahead, but first go back to see some Kill Bill, Death Proof. There is more than just a touch of the same style in all his movie, with some close-up shots you will enjoy the winks!

Despite the Candy land and the Suggar daddy, life in those areas is nothing sweet and tasty. You have a taste of blood lingering in your body and the editing (amazing) is here to help you remember. When you think that there has to be a bottom to strongly violent inhuman behavior, you will fall in a the rabbit hole... OK, you can feel bored at some point, asking yourself "is that it?" but this kind of cinema has always more to show, more to convince you and feel appreciated. Yes the story has some hole in it, but think of Django unchained as a puzzle with pieces that you can contemplate separately but that, all in, do the trick! The final touch, which makes this movie even better than the last, is absolutely the score: rich, different, well adapt, strong and natural... This score is everything at the same time! This movie is cultural, it has an atmosphere, a scent of wonder, it's the Tarantino.

Why can't we do that kind of movie anymore? ... a lot of tension, many humor, a little violence and great but simple story, a recipe we seem to have lost!

There is a lot of Vertigo tension and some idea of the futur humoristic ton he will use in Marnie, but there is especially one great couple of actors. One of the best acting part for Cary Grant and the villain played by James Manson is actually a nicer guy than the introducing Thornhill. There both majestic and the little blond in the middle is both a woman and a girl, adjusting the tone perfectly. The characters are full of surprises and mysteries, they all played some double game ...in a game for freedom!

The idea is basic -some twisted identities- but the shots and the tense music are still amazing! You can recognize Hithcock work everywhere: he spends as much work on the form and the background of his movie and this is a true lesson of Cinema.

We still enjoy his movies at this point and this is quite a collection of master pieces!

Some movies, like wine, improve in times. This is one of it. Not that it was bad the first time but, pieces after pieces, you see much more...

Well, you can be seduced by the acting, the romance, the historical background or the Indians way. But it's finally an all-together thing that makes it really great: sequences extremely violent are succeeded by narrative scenes, and the tension, the suspense builds itself part by part, little by little until the wonderful final and the full dramatic score. Yes there is some big twists from the original text from Cooper but the adaptation gives us more, in particular with the Magua character who is not just a villain but a man whose honor and past dictate the present conduct like...Munro his very same enemy.

Let say that everything in this movie just tend to greatness.

You might choose how ever you want to see this movie: historical purpose,golden age of Cinema, gossips around the Taylor/Burton which contaminated the film...

Well, you might choose but not necessarily watch it without feeling all of this! This is not historical: the facts are here, they composed the movie as a dyptic centered around the character of Cleopatra but that is all. Except all the characters are exceptionally well written: from the aging Ceasar revival by the love of that childish but proud woman, to the confident Marc Anthony who is conflicted by his passion and his duty, his power and the useless man he feels he becomes, to the great Cleopatra, experiencing true love for the first time... They all are devastating, they all are human, evolving in Ancient times like they could be just today. And they were who they incarnated: Rex Harrison/Caesar is just this strongly experienced actor, Elizabeth Taylor is Cleopatra,famous since her young age, queen of the studios, inflexible. But still a woman, falling for her partner on screen, Richard Burton, a strong man more into Shakespeare than into the show business... and there is something that becomes appealing: the fame, the money, the success, all of that provided by his Cleopatra, the rumors and the scandal.

All of that were the ingredients to sold this four hour movie to a greeding audience. Yes they are some both and ancient Romeo and Juliet, some archetypes of desire and lust on screen but there is also great and deep dialogs, strong acting, wonderful sets... The sum makes it an epic movie, tying us up to our chair to follow destinies, to dive in those shinny 60's of eternal fame!

There is much to say about this movie than the poor summary: it is about two journalists and feminism but it is also about passion. And a devouring one, one that shines across screens and times.

This was the debut of the famous Tracy-Hepburn couple and love is all you can see and everything you remember about this movie. And the script was so fun! Hepburn is refreshing playing a working girl when Tracy is naturally an easy guy, deeply fond on this woman at first sight.

Public was laughing at the time and we are still doing the same now because time as change, society too but great movies don't seem to age like this star couple, still making us dream!

What is the prey without the abuser? When do we stop being victim?

This opus is more conventional than the original first having a crew, a haunted hotel, multiple horror figures but it is still enjoyable! The acting is surprisingly good despite the clichés: Stockholm syndrome, rich father, lovely daughter and gi joes... The less? When the house was in the first movie something confine, personal, resourceful, reassuring and imaginative, the abandoned hotel is so far away from the comfort zone and doesn't work has easily as the first place.

The great? But there is some anthology moments and some really good editing: especially in the in and out of light scene. And, we are so glad to see the Arkin/ Collectioner duo back again! Despite there on going relationship, maybe there is still more to add to there story?

Let's see and enjoy...

I can't say i'm a big fan of the genre but sometimes you have some great movies with interesting footages,scenario, acting or just picture.

This one is just that: not any famous actors but interesting acting! The gore/torture doesn't hold back anything, they don't had too much screams or loud music: the movie is just self sufficient and it's really refreshing! In this context, we truly see here some imagination and inspiration: away from every clichés,we can actually enjoy the perspective of having some nice cinematographic movies and not just a whole of nothing like it's so many times the case. They do manage to keep some suspense and we grew in anticipation to know more...

Who says frustration is bad?

This movie is unique. But if you are familiar with Sodenbergh style, you will recognize is special photography, score, editing and cryptic dialogs. You have to follow every scene, watch out for every detail and, until the end, you will be lost. As usual, you will have your answer given part by part due to the numerous timelines and characters. So yes it's an action movie but, it privileges slowness, giving us time to appreciate the acting and the stunts: there are so realistic and opposed to the Hollywood usual style that this is refreshing. You actually follow some natural characters, humans with their differences and emotions, but drowned in their own agenda: nothing is like it seems and everything becomes peculiar. Nice and uncommon but quite hard to follow.

I've seen it three times now: first in 3d 24f/s in french, second time still in french in 3d 48f/s and finally in English. All i have to say for the 3d version is that we truly have some really great experiment when we see the 48f/s: so yes, we have to adjust first because the images seem so fluent, like some real life shooting, but when we obtain an amazing deepness in the footages and we can actually have the time to register with the corner of our eyes every details from the "nature" kind of scenes to the "combats"'s ones. Some might feel dizzy but, as for everything, you adjust easily! It's actually the second best 3d i have ever seen.

Then, if you are a fan of the books, the first trilogy, the Tolkien graphic universe, you will have a bit of a disappointment because yes we will recognize elements from the first trilogy (quotes, natural geography,winks...)giving us a strong impression of déjà-vu! But, because we know the involvement of Peter Jackson and his previous crew on the others films, we naturally trust him again to give us a wonderful show: from the story to the editing, the visual effects to the score reviving the old themes, the old crew and the news ones, we can acknowledge some genius work... And just try after all, for a moment, to forget all footages you have ever seen about the Middle Earth and his characters and benefit from a fresh point of view!

Like others, i had doubts: one tiny books but three films? Commercial envy? Hubris to bring back success? Yes we could have had something great with Guillermo del Toro (co-credited for the scenario before leaving the adventure), but are we not secretly (or not) enjoying the fact that once again he is the leading captain? We cannot deny that we are definitely attach to that Middle Earth and Hobbitts or Dwarfs are truly coming to life. By the way, Martin Freeman is adjusting perfectly in the younger shoes of Ian Holm when Richard Armitage is finally managing to obtain international interest becoming a deeper and darkener Thorin than in the book.Not to forget the entire dwarfs fellowship, the crazier than ever Gollum, and the frightening bad guys (make up or digital).

Being fair, it's not the best film ever but you have every ingredients to tie us up to our seats: at every moments of the movie, you will find yourself caught by one element in particular. And after the nearly three hours and the credits when you could have recognize the names of so many who have worked on the LOTR, you will tell yourself: "OK, i forgot what it was more than 10 years ago when we have to wait for a whole year and here we are again, already growing in anticipation"!

I really love to watch novel's adaptations. If you look only at this movie, you will see some historical drama with good acting and photography and nice twists... but not much more (and i really like Jim Caviezel). But read or remember the book: it is the only one that 15 years after, still give me such a strong impression... I do understand the change made in the script for a 2 hours drama, a modern audience... but, along the way, they forget the true and intimate part of the book: the essence is gone! So call it other wise but not "the count of Monte Cristo". This book has known many adaptations so look for the french one with Jean Gabin or the TV series with Gerard Depardieu: you'll have another look at this story!

A wonderful true story, some great actors, great music and shooting makes it a very good dramatic movie. We have to acknowledge the work of all the crew and researches for this movie as we can see it in the end titles but... But if this story is true why add so much dramatic effects to it? We already are living the drama alongside with this family; more than a nightmare it's a radical change in their personal life and in History too. I personally think that the music (a great score by the way) is just too much, and the casting is not really fair with this Spanish family... But maybe are they trying to put this story at some universal point of view? Kind of an "evry one" story and not only their?

We didn't forget the 26th/12/2004, so why push it that way? And do not write on screen "true story" on the beginning when you put at the end "inspired by" and dedicate the last minute of the end credit (a few stand to see this!) to the personal thanks of Maria...

See it as a movie, and you will enjoy your time, see it as a biography of the events and you will be disappointed. There is a line between entertainment and reality.

If you know the previous work of the director, you know his genius in the action scenes (wanted, night watch, day watch): you have fun because it's to much unreal, this is what we in fact expect in that kind of movie.

Imagine Timur B as the Russian Tarantino, with less fun but the same kind of strong characters. What he lakes in the scenario (but quite imaginative if you realise they managed to tied up a historical figure to such an absurd vampire background!), he manages with the visual and the techniques: the director knows as to make a good entertainment and when you see all those wonderful unrealistic action scenes (real chain of events) you practically see a ballet so well orchestrated than you can only admire the work.

So, don't miss this funny version of a myth: freedom.

With this movie, we literally reach a new step in James Bond's history. This movie is a real turning point not only in the franchise but in cinema too. I'm not saying that this is the best film ever but it's a real interesting point of view.

On of the great thing in the JB franchise is the opening credit: they give an inside, every time, of what will occur in the movie. And these one is quite an history, leaving many questions at the end like what is Skyfall but one certainty: we will learn about really deep about the inside of Bond, and what we will see might be torturous. This actually is a movie with an wonderful actor playing a spy who will at some point have to stop acting, the same for M too. Those two are opening themselves to the audience, and the close-ups, the pause in their dialogues, the way the camera acts around them... reveal so much more about what they can not tell. You have two different times: one before, and one after the opening credit. Before, this is the action Bond, after this is the human Bond. And in that story you can literally see the novels, see the words of Ian Fleming becoming alive. The story is well constructed, might be predictable at some point but the interesting part lays in the characterization of every single one of the character: good or bad, young or aging, male or female, primary or secondary role part... You may pick and admire how this movie constructs himself around actual questions, actual ones : who am i in this owl wild world? what is my purpose? can i evade from my destiny? does even destiny or fate exist? Whatever you decide, choosing to focus on philosophy over action or vice-versa, Skyfall will be the answer. Finally, are we entering in some new era of modern cinema? Like the old golden age, is the cinema not creating itself again? Remember, the glorious period when the cinema was a big entertainment where we could explore the limits of a relatively new form of expression and experiment, but at some point the public concern became a part of the art letting some concern and crepuscular movies take place. I think it is happening again today, redefining and rewriting cinema as a way to question not only the society but ourself as a part of it: we saw it in super heroes (like in the Dark knight, and Dark Knight rises...), dramas (revolutionary road, the kids are alright...) and even comedies or cartoons! we finally are stepping up from the anonymity we hide into... and some like Bond are doing it on the big screen thanks to some really great and human scenarios.

In "The Client's list", we have the economy -crisis- as a severe background but a housewife who seems really compelled to buy non essential things. I can understand the difficulties of that family but why the big SUV, the new boots, and apparently the new kitchen: didn't she hear about savings? So that situation leaves her with no other choices than to accept to be a masseuse (despite the strange definition of the job) and put aside her apparent morality... And what about her so-called clients! all so wealthy and good looking! because everyone knows than the ugly ones don't have the same needs than the first category... Seriously!?! Do i have to add that i'm not convinced by the relationships being developed between all the protagonists... none of the characters seems to act natural but trying to enter a category: you have the brave strong mother, her cheerful friend, her tormented brother-in-law, the jealous co-worker... Finally what do we get of that show? a remedy to financial crisis: moral crisis! or how to flip a problem for a new one... I don't advise that show except if you're looking for something easy to process, you just have to watch and you will forget it!