Topher-26 Reviews

The Zone of Interest (2023)

Vacuous piece of self-indulgence

[1/10 · 8 October 2023]

Watched this at its premiere in Cannes without any expectations whatsoever. The premise looks interesting: the head of Auschwitz lives a very paradoxically normal life with his family just behind the wall that separates them from the camp. So normal that it's filled with endless scenes of them eating, brushing their teeth, kids playing, parents reading, even sleeping while nothing else happens. Just as exciting as life in the 40's. And... that's it ! Once in a while, you can barely hear an execution or a scream on the other side of the wall while the family hardly notices at all. What is happening then is left to the viewer's imagination. Throw in some experimental, ominous and unfitting electronic music and occasional uninspired video art gimmicks and you've got a movie. There were enough ideas for a 5mn short film but it looks like the director tried his hardest to extend it into a full-length feature by all means. That was definitely not necessary. He even seemed to notice something else HAD to happen so he found something to spike this giant snoozefest a little bit: Will the husband accept to be mutated somewhere else with a higher rank ? His wife doesn't want him to, she's happy with her family life, while he's hesitant and hopes to convince the kommandantur that he can stay where they are. Big suspense. Not. Because nobody cares.

This is not a difficult film to watch because of its supposed tension (there is hardly any despite all the efforts - just go spend a weekend in the German or Austrian countryside and you'll feel just the same) but because it's unbelievably boring, uneventful and empty with shockingly stale dialogue (when there is any). Glazer is no Hitchcock, Bergman or Argento. The raving reviews can only come from people who will praise anything related to the horrors of the Holocaust. This film has nothing.

Lux Æterna (2019)

Intense and open to interpretations

[8/10 · 16 December 2019]

7 months after its premiere in Cannes (which I attended), I can't believe there is still no review of Lux Aeterna, so here is mine:

I think this film is admirable in many ways although not devoid of flaws, the main one being that for the nth time, Noé pulls the same expectable tricks with colorful lighting, flickering images and references to his classics (even just the title, "Lux Aeterna" is the György Ligeti eerie choir piece used in "2001: A Space Odyssey"), etc. So that does get a little unimaginative, especially since the atmosphere and development are very close to his latest long feature, "Climax".

That said, everything else is interesting. From the Dalle / Gainsbourg improvised dialogue (made hilarious by Dalle's very personal way of saying things - let's hope that won't get lost in translation) to the creative ways in which Noé uses the screen space. I couldn't stress this enough: *This Must Be Watched In A Movie Theater* ! Although I do enjoy smaller screens, I'm afraid a small screen won't cut it with this one. As usual with Noé, the experimental elements are present and the big screen is a must in order to enjoy them fully.

Many references are made throughout the film to Carl Dreyer's classic "Vredens Dag" from 1943, also using footage from it. It does serve a purpose but cannot really be discussed without spoiling.

I believe many interpretations of the film are possible. From mysogynistic to feminist. I'm definitely going with the latter. The end scene is intense in symbolism, deafening sound, flickering visuals and a creative use of the screen. If you suffer from epilepsy: STAY AWAY. As usual, Noé tries our patience and is into trying to shock us - but that's getting a bit old. Nothing gory though, so the faint of heart can watch. The camera flies from room to room as the crescendo builds up progressively until smothering hysteria. The film only lasts 50mn but it wouldn't necessarily have made more sense to make it any longer.

This is also definitely a film about film-making and how things go, on and off set. It's a film about actresses - how some can impose their strength or choose to go with what is asked of them.

This film will divide. Some will see it as arty, vaccuous and pointless. Others will find depth and meaning in it, but not necessarily the same meaning. I believe this is the best Noé film in a long time. Overall better than "Climax" or "Love". If you can get past Noé's antics, it is not only enjoyable, it is mostly an undeniable breath of fresh air in contemporary cinema.

Welcome to the Sticks (2008)

The Triumph of Stupidity

[1/10 · 10 May 2008]

This film is the most successful movie EVER in France. One third of the country have gone to the movies to see it over the span of 2 months or so. That should mean something, but although I do watch my fair share of lame French comedies (old and recent), I have yet to figure out what's funny about this one !

Aside from the two main actors, the rest of the cast simply can't act. The script is paperthin, the direction is awkward, and worst of all, the film is excruciatingly boring and unfunny ! It is basically an introduction to the Ch'timi culture, with their local slang and customs. Period. If learning the regional dialect when you go somewhere is a riot to you, then you may enjoy this movie - and there isn't much else to it.

Also I can't keep myself but have a thought for the people who live there and have been so unflatteringly stereotyped. They're sure to see a lot of brainless tourists over the next decade mock them using expressions from the movie. It is that sad !

25th Hour (2002)

Mixed feelings

[6/10 · 9 November 2007]

* SPOILERS HEREIN *

Hello New York reviewers: "once a New Yorker, always a New Yorker" blah blah... Mind you, everyone feels the same about their hometown - it is just very self-centered to think New Yorkers experience a very unique otherworldly feeling about their city. So Spike Lee wants to pay a tribute to 9/11 (maybe just so people in 20 years' time can watch his film and go "hey, that's what it looked like hen they were rebuilding the site..."). Fine, fair enough... and maybe the whole I-hate-everyone scene is only there to show us how in the end, he's actually going to miss all these smiling faces that he once hated. Fine, whatever, but it's awkwardly done. And many other things are confusing and annoying: - The Ukrainian friend "had no choice"... that's weak... so it means he or someone else had a motive to denounce Monty. Nothing about that. - Jake and the student: she puts his hands all over herself one minute and is in utter shock when he kisses her the next. End of story. We'll know nothing else. It becomes completely irrelevant. - The broker and his life at work: even more irrelevant. His chemistry with Jake is non- existent for such long time pals. - The editing is majorly botched. - Spike Lee, proud defender of Afro-American cinema gives lead roles to white people and small parts to black people. Just like most Hollywood directors... I wouldn't have expected that of him...

... but what annoys me more than all that is the messed-up message of the movie: Basically, "If you're a drug dealer, don't go to jail: recreate a home somewhere else. It will be tough but you can do it." In other words: "Do not take responsibility for your actions". Maybe this is not the way he meant it, but if I understood it that way (and if I did, it means a lot of other people probably did too), then the message wan't conveyed very well.

That aside, I didn't mind the pacing at all. Many reviewers expect to be entertained with action scenes or else fall asleep. I suppose they only watch American cinema to make such statements. And the acting is fine too. Just too many loose ends...

Severance (2006)

Appalling in every way !

[1/10 · 16 October 2007]

I never give such low grades and believe me, I've seen thousands of bad movies, but there's really nothing redeeming whatsoever about this one !! Soap opera acting, terrible dialogue, lame attempts at being funny or scary (if you think it's either, then you've really never seen anything funny or scary !), completely unrealistic if not ludicrous situations, a storyline probably sketched out in 5 minutes by a 14-year old who's never seen a film in his life, predictable clichés galore, laughable attempts at creating romantic or moving moments. A complete waste of time ! I don't know how I made it to the end. I was looking at the clock every 30 seconds. I really tried to give it a chance. A real insult to all the young filmmakers out there with fantastic ideas who can't finance their films. AVOID AT ALL COSTS !!

V for Vendetta (2005)

Worst piece of drivel I've seen in years.

[6/10 · 7 November 2006]

I liked Bound, hated the Matrix (and yes I "got it", thank you). The trailer already made V for Vendetta look like utter garbage but I still gave it a try with an open mind and oh my God... I wasn't prepared for this !

American actors trying to imitate the British accent by throwing around words like "bollocks", "bugger off" & "bloke", sitcom acting from Natalie Portman (seriously, does she actually get paid ? Even when she says she's starving you can't believe her), the most uninspired fighting scenes, shallow pseudo-philosophical statements, simplistic politics and morals, and the unavoidable Wachowski question: "Do you get the subtle message behind the movie ?"

I think the real problem is that people seem to think that the Wachowski brothers are the kings of allegory and that this actually is a good movie ! What do these people watch or read the rest of the time ? This is truly scary. No wonder the author of the book refused to have his name mentioned in the credits.

Now, I 've never been able to give a 1 to a film but I think this one really deserves it. It was already painful and embarrassing to watch from the very first minutes. You're definitely better off watching the B-movies that inspired it: Fantomas, Sgt. Kabukiman NYPD, the Abominable Dr. Phibes or an episode of Zorro... At least, they don't take themselves as seriously.

Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring (2003)

Maybe amazing for those who've never seen an Asian film...

[7/10 · 22 September 2006]

*spoilers herein*

The problem is that this film could have been much better but I think the director just kept shooting himself in the foot. First of all, the title gives away the whole point of the film. As you're watching the "Spring" segment, you already know this is going to be another one of those life cycle stories... Why not choose another title then ? At the end of the "Summer" segment, the Master says that lustful acts can lead to murder *nudge nudge*, next thing you know, he finds an article about his disciple in the newspaper wrapping his fish... Why are these scenes necessary ? The disciple stabbing the floor with his knife full of blood was clear enough, and would have had a much more surprising effect on the viewer than having the whole murder thing spelled out for us beforehand. Finally, the disciple becomes the master and there is a new disciple, as if this had to be an unavoidable cycle... which it doesn't. So, the director says he wrote the whole story in 2 hours and made a point not to alter any of it, and I believe him as this story is cute but superficial as a Paulo Coelho novel. It certainly doesn't have the depth of most works by Mizoguchi, Kurosawa, Kobayashi, Ozu or even Koizumi and Kitano. Still, it's watchable, thanks to the acting, cinematography and nice settings, and can be a nice introduction for some shallow Westerners to Asian cinema.

The Specialist (1999)

Eyal Sivan's response to forgery accusations

[5 August 2006]

The IMDb guidelines do not allow me to display the URL to this article. You know how to find it. :)

"The Spielberg archive took six years to point out presumed defects in the film, and that indicates the extent of the archive's efficiency," said director Eyal Sivan in response to the complaints against him. "The archive betrayed its role as the body responsible for preserving the Eichmann trial materials." Sivan says that when they began work on the film, the archive offered them 68 hours from the trial. Only after searching did the production team find the rest of the materials, "which were stored in the bathroom of the Hebrew University law faculty. I personally worked for seven months cataloging all the reels we found. We saved all the materials, at our own expense, transferred them to a digital format, and even gave the original copy to the state. Spielberg's people accuse us of editing and of taking things out of context. It's strange that people who betrayed their role are raising such a claim."

Sivan replies to the complaints against "The Specialist" in four words: "We made a film," with everything that implies - editing and adding effects. "After the film was screened for the first time at the festival in Berlin, we emphasized our cinematic work, both in the press and in the book we published afterwards. All the materials we used underwent treatment. We added lighting. We touched up the picture. And still, the claim that we added external laughter to one of the scenes is a lie. The film's sound was taken from the audio tapes of the trial."

In regard to the witness who did not reply to the question "Why didn't you resist?" while in the original another witness was asked about that, Sivan says: "Most of the witnesses were asked the same question. It's true that there's editing here, but it's a film. Hausner's opening speech lasted for three days, and in the film there's only one minute. Did we commit fraud here as well? 'The Specialist' is not the Eichmann trial, it's a film from the archives of the Eichmann trial." And why were Hausner's shouts at Eichmann placed in the wrong context? "The Eichmann trial lasted for nine months, whereas the film lasts for 123 minutes," replies Sivan. "Spielberg's people have to remember that their job is not to make movies, and our job is not to do archival work."

Regarding the blurring of the picture in order to create a similarity between Eichmann and Hausner, both with their backs to the camera, Sivan says: "Did I place them next to one another? Is it my fault that they were both bald and dressed in black? Moreover, had I not presented this scene, would the Spielberg people still have asked why I cut the scene? Of course not!"

In the same language, Sivan also replies to the question as to why he cut short Meyer's testimony, in which he mentions Eichmann's coarse manner of speaking. "Had we presented only the part where Eichmann is a rude man, the Spielberg archive would have asked why I didn't use the scene in which Meyer testifies that he was a nice man."

Regarding the claim that Freudiger's testimony is an editing of two meetings, Sivan says: "That's an outright lie. The Spielberg archive has an old ideological approach, according to which memory is more important than history. It's more important to them to show the witnesses than to discuss the past. Freudiger's testimony at the Eichmann trial is extraordinary because the audience in the courtroom came out against Freudiger and accused him of collaboration."

Les clefs de bagnole (2003)

Genius !

[9/10 · 14 March 2006]

In France, people tend not to understand absurd humour. The Francis Veber vaudeville type of comedy and vulgar, obnoxious stuff such as "Les Bronzés" are what they like best. No wonder the critics slagged off movies such as "Les Clefs de Bagnole" or "RRRrrrr !". They don't even understand what can be funny about these films. However, if you're into Monty Python humour, or the wackiness of Steven Soderbergh's Schizopolis, chances are you will definitely elevate "Les Clefs de Bagnole" to the rank of a cult classic. I found this to be highly refreshing as well as a great satire of film-making and the movie business. Highly recommended to all open-minded people worldwide !

Les sous-doués (1980)

French cult classic

[9/10 · 9 March 2005]

An absolute must-see for those into teenage comedies. I really wish this one was distributed worldwide as it is somewhat reminiscing of Animal House and The Breakfast Club, but just much, much funnier.

The plot: The story of a bunch of students in a tiny private school. Always up to no good, they end up blowing up part of the school. As a result, they can be sent to jail or... pass their baccalaureate. Since they are absolute losers, they'll come up with the zaniest tricks and devices to cheat during both the written and oral exams (both supervised by the police !). This film is a riot from beginning to end, and after that, you will never forget the "Learning Machine" or Mr. Bruce, the sports teacher.

April Fools' Day (1954)

Awesome script !

[8/10 · 24 December 2003]

This story is an awesome vaudeville that keeps you wondering how it will end as it gets more and more intricate and confusing for the characters. Everything is tight and plausible. Note that this is the first time you can see Bourvil and Louis De Funes in a same film (9 years before "Le Corniaud" !) despite De Funes's short appearance as a fishing guard. Why this film has remained so obscure is beyond me.

*SPOILERS AHEAD ??*

It's hard to talk about it without giving too much away and ruining the fun of it. However this is how the story unfolds: Emile lies to his wife to go fishing with his son instead. He visits his cousin Annette who tells him he should go fishing on her lover's land - a very wealthy married man. The fishing guard spots him, fines him and decides to report the incident to the wealthy man since Emile said he had his authorization through his cousin Annette. Unfortunately, his wife picks up the phone and later tells her husband about this man Emile fishing in their river. He doesn't mind about that but is more troubled about the kinship between Emile and his mistress Annette. As his wife wants to investigate further about Emile and Annette, her husband gets nervous and pretends to know Emile who supposedly saved his life at war. His wife insists to have him and Annette for dinner, wanting to meet the man who saved her husband's life and thinking Annette is his fiancee (from what her husband told her). Emile accepts after the wealthy man threatens Emile to tell his wife that he goes fishing instead as he found out from Annette.

Confusing ? Maybe when I tell it, but the dialogue is great (Audiard of course) and the film is paced without any loose ends in the script. The story goes on past this memorable dinner scene to take the characters into crazier situations and they even manage to make the film end in a way that works. Now what more do we need ?!!

Lulu on the Bridge (1998)

Awesome multi-layered film

[7/10 · 20 May 2003]

***MAJOR SPOILERS***

A lot of people seem to compare this to Jacob's Ladder. I understand the connection but what makes Lulu On The Bridge a better film (in my opinion of course) is that it's not only about Harvey Keitel's character but also about Mira Sorvino's and her longing for someone she can be in love with. She's indeed not just a fantasy but a real person as the final scene confirms. I think the combination and interaction of these two characters makes this film much more intense than Jacob's Ladder. As for the people who think the ending is a "plot twist" - I can't believe it wasn't already clear to them what this was all about. There are many many hints throughout the film (maybe too many actually) to make sure you understand that it's all just taking place in the head of Harvey Keitel's character. It's a bit sickening to see that a shallow movie like The Sixth Sense with Bruce Willis is considered as being more subtle than this when it's just as predictable but also much emptier.

I'm really looking forward to seeing Paul Auster's next film !

Love Vertigo (2001)

Great !

[8/10 · 6 March 2003]

I loved this film. Exploring a man's uncertainties and temptation for another woman as he is about to get married, directed in a "Groundhog Day" fashion. This is really fun and witty. An awesome first film from the writer of Etienne Chatiliez's "Tanguy". Not to be missed !

Chasing Sleep (2000)

Probably better if you haven't seen "Lost Highway" before

[7/10 · 4 February 2003]

This is a pretty good thriller. Better than I expected. However, ahem... you can't help but see the director's influences... I mean, David Lynch's "Lost Highway" (the punch in the face waking the protagonist from his daze, the way he vanishes into dark hallways, and many more details...), Christopher Nolan's "Following"(not for the structure of the story but more for the direction, dialogues, etc.) and occasionally Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining" (especially the bathtub creature episode).

Despite the gathering of borrowed imagery, this film still develops an obvious personal style and a precise direction. All in all, a very good first film owing also a lot to Jeff Daniels's performance. Hopefully, the next one will be less obviously influenced.

Live from Baghdad (2002 TV Movie)

DISINFORMATION GALORE

[1/10 · 3 February 2003]

It was often publically proven that Naira, the girl who supposedly saw the babies die in Kuweit from the unplugged incubators (312 of them as confirmed by Amnesty International then) turned out to be the daughter of the Ambassador of Kuweit in Washington, DC. and never set foot in Kuweit in her life. (Amnesty International later realized their mistake).

The movie suggests that the American journalists were kept from investigating further inside the hospital by the local Iraqi police. The whole thing being a lie, this scene makes obviously no sense.

After the broadcast of this woman's "testimony" shocking the world population, George Bush Sr. got the authorization 2 days later to attack Iraq.

Of course, the only kinds of journalists represented in the film are from CNN and FOX, notoriously known as being the most government-controlled media "news" companies of the "free world".

Please do not let this film serve as a history book. It only serves the purpose of disinformation aimed at the masses. Praising a political film based on propaganda is more serious than voting for a comedy. A little research to verify the facts beforehand might be necessary.

Requiem for a Dream (2000)

Trendy garbage

[3/10 · 24 January 2003]

If you've seen Rush (1991), Drugstore Cowboy and Trainspotting, you've seen it all, and better.

Requiem For A Dream is nothing else but fancy camera shots, superfluous abusive scenes destined to shock the audience (yawn...), and a vacuous storyline. I'm sure the teens love it.

*spoilers*

I found the mother to be the only interesting character of the entire film. Her dreams of fame and fortune seem unreachable, she's a widow, and thinks her prescribed drugs are harmless. She's misinformed and alone. It is just a very sad situation. In the meantime, the 3 brainless kids play wilfully with fire (and get burnt), fully informed of the danger, just trying to be smartasses. Too bad, they lose. Expectable. Good riddance. End credits.

This is basically a 2-hour anti-drug commercial. Period.

*end spoilers*

After "Pi" and then this, I sincerely hope Darren Aronofsky's next movie is not once again about the protagonist on drugs. It's already getting old.

If you feel the need to watch disturbing movies with content, I'd rather recommend "Seul Contre Tous (I Stand Alone)" and "Irreversible" by Gaspar Noe, "Repulsion" and "The Tenant" by Roman Polanski, "Possession" by Andrzej Zulawski, "Sombre" by Philippe Grandrieux, "Les Amants Criminels" by Francois Ozon, "Last House On The Left" by Wes Craven, "Tetsuo (The Ironman)" by Shinya Tsukamoto...

Good luck sitting through these !

The Piano Teacher (2001)

Pseudo-smart vacuity under the giftwrap...

[18 September 2002]

Isabelle Huppert is a great actress - she has always been and will probably always be. Of course, Michael Haneke's cinematography is very nice although it shows occasional glimpses of Hanekian pretentiousness, but worse than that: this film is useless. Only a shocker. Haneke and Huppert say in interviews that this is a film about control. It is mainly an apology of misogyny.

*major spoilers*

So the woman is disturbed. Fine. She obviously can't control herself much anyway. Nothing forces this guy to hang on to her. He doesn't help her either: he just criticizes her (that's how much he loves her). Then he becomes violent towards her (and her mother !) repeating several times that (poor) men shouldn't be turned on so much or else it just drives them crazy. Consequence: he beats her up and rapes her. Let's not forget how many times he mentions that it's all her fault... Thanks Mr. Haneke, we couldn't get the message the first time around.

Conclusion to this brilliant film: he gets away with it and she kills herself.

Morality: Do you feel uplifted by this junk ? Has it opened your mind about anything you hadn't thought of before watching it ? Did you even just have a good time watching it (leave alone the great performances) ? Is this leading anywhere ? Answering "no" to even just one of these questions already makes it a bad film. I answer "no" to all four.

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Typical over-rated Hollywood garbage (a few spoilers)

[15 August 2002]

I tried to give a chance to this film on 3 different occasions.

Unfortunately, this movie is so bad that it is impossible to focus on what's going on because watching insects fly by your TV screen is more captivating.

The idea of Tom Cruise hanging by a rope not being supposed to touch the ground or the walls was definitely lifted from "The Treasure Of Four Crowns" (1982) and there's nothing less plausible than a helicopter in a tunnel anyway...

All in all, this is just another bad movie by very over-rated (yet eclectic) director Brian De Palma whose most successful films had mainly a good story (that he rarely wrote). "Mission: Impossible" is the ultimate proof that a movie is worthless without a good story, no matter how famous the director is.

How Emmanuelle Beart wasted her time and talent being a part of this money-hungry production is still a mystery to me.

Love Will Tear Us Apart (1999)

You can actually watch it in fast forward !

[9 August 2002]

"Slow" does not necessarily mean "boring", but in this case it does. You can see amongst other things a kettle boil for 30 seconds and countless scenes of people just sitting there without a word.

The story of a hardcore porn video retailer cheating on his wife with a prostitute... Doesn't sound appealing, does it ?... Well, there's barely more than that going on anyway...

Most of the time, the cinematography and the choice of colors are rather nice but is that enough to make this movie interesting ? I doubt it.

Amélie (2001)

Good, but not all that.

[6/10 · 23 April 2002]

I know I really may sound like a party-pooper but I just didn't find this film all that great. However, the lighting is gorgeous and the guy should have definitely got an Oscar for that. Audrey Tautou as Amelie is perfect (her talent was already perceivable in "Venus Beaute (Institut)" despite her small part in the movie), and Jeunet's touch is there - maybe a bit too much actually, given how reminiscent it is of his cinematography on the City Of Lost Children (not to say identical).

There are also numerous cultural references for which I'm dying to see how they were translated into other languages, and the surprising presence of comedians who are well-known to the French audience to add to the fun (Yolande Moreau, Jamel Debbouze, Ticky Holgado, ...).

On the commented version of the DVD (at least the French pressing), Jean-Pierre Jeunet makes references to Frank Capra (the scene in the bar between Amelie and Nino), Wim Wenders (the man and the box in the phone booth) and Sergio Leone (the shot of Amelie in the train station) - the problem is that the same kind of scenes shot by these directors have an intensity that is light-years away from what I felt watching "Amelie Poulain". The commentary is actually concluded by the filmmaker stating that he couldn't care less for the anachronisms in the film.

Overall, you get an arty comedy directed to mass audiences with a very thin plot that everyone can understand without thinking too hard, and a good cast performing below their usual abilities. The whole wrapped up in a fairytailish package that, even if it is cute and without much pretense, still keeps me wondering if it is uplifting enough to come out of the movie theater with a big smile on your face, and the will to change the world like so many people seem to experience after watching this film.

Breezy (1973)

What an underrated movie !

[8/10 · 3 February 2002]

I can't believe this movie was only graded 5.6/10 (as of today) !! Even though this will obviously remind you of Kubrick's "Lolita" (1962), Clint Eastwood makes an incredibly promising debut as a director. His style is already intact. The development is simple and yet subtle, the acting is great and the lead cast is absolutely adequate. I was really pleasantly surprised and I deeply regret not taping it given its unavailability for sale. Unfortunately, this is yet another gem lost in a sea of mediocrity.

The Beach (I) (2000)

Great for teenagers

[31 January 2002]

This movie is not terrible. It is watchable. To me, it looks obviously directed to a 12-year old audience and was unfortunately marketed as a movie for everyone, hence the general criticism.

Di Caprio is much better in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" and "The Basketball Diaries". Virginie Ledoyen is much better in "Fin Aout, Debut Septembre" or "Jeanne Et Le Garcon Formidable" and Guillaume Canet is much better in "Barracuda" or "Je Regle Mon Pas Sur Le Pas De Mon Pere". You can also see both Virginie and Guillaume in "En Plein Coeur". Even though the latter is a very average movie, at least their performances should convince you that a movie like The Beach is not worthy of their talent.

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

Hardly credible... MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD !!!

[14 April 2001]

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD !!!

Brilliant film, it's true, the actors are amazing, but too many twists and flaws make the whole situation hardly credible in my opinion.

So the servant turns out to be the husband who used to direct Norma in her films and he has now become her slob who perfectly accepts the presence of this other man (Joe Gillis) in her life just because he wants his wife to keep living out her fantasy... that's a bit hard to swallow.

And why does Joe feel so trapped ? I never quite got that ! So he has people trying to repossess his car ? Big deal. He could hide in a million other places and still work on his script with Norma from there... he doesn't *have* to stay at her place if he feels uncomfortable there (that is before he starts finding advantages in her wealth) ... but somehow he feels he has no alternative... yet he does.

Anyway, despite these two major flaws (and other minor flaws), the film remains extremely enjoyable 50 years after its release.

After watching this movie, I find funny to notice the growing interest of people for psychiatric cases in movies ("Psycho", "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", "Birdy", "Whatever Happened To Baby Jane ?", "Rain Man", ... ).

From Hell to Texas (1958)

Decent western...

[7/10 · 12 April 2001]

This is a very decent film. For some reason, it doesn't seem to be available on videotape and I think it's a shame given how much stuff out there doesn't deserve to be on VHS.

I didn't think it was neither great nor terrible, rather average in my opinion but with a nice continuity and good editing. Some of it was a bit cliché but as I said, it remains decent and enjoyable.

7 / 10

This Is Spinal Tap (1984)

Why all the fuss ???

[8/10 · 31 March 2001]

Indeed, this movie is a nice satire but it's really only funny at times. Actually, the guy I was watching it with left halfway through the film and I was dying to turn off the TV when the end credits started rolling (but I didn't because the movie carries on during the credits).

It's okay... it's meant to be absurd and make fun of the rock bands that reason and live the way the characters do but still, I expected more than this...

The amp to 11, the vanishing drummer, the piano piece, all that was funny but definitely not hilarious !... If this is supposed to be hilarious, where do you place Monty Python then, for instance ?

I think it deserves a 5 out of 10.