matlefebvre20 Reviews

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Glorious Tarantino

[9/10 · 3 September 2009]

Without the shadow of a doubt, Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds" is the most expensive, the most profitable, the best crafted and the most enjoyable Nazi exploitation B-movie ever made.

Tarantino is probably the most talented filmmaker of his generation and he shows us why once again with a gem of a picture. "Inglourious Basterds" is a movie which, just like World War II itself, makes the viewer experience a whole combinations of emotions before it's over. Sometimes shocking, sometimes hilarious, while also having strong emotion, suspense, fascination and absurdity, the movie is a joyous mix of war movie scenes that we never get to see in any other war movie.

"Basterds" contains a nice cast of stars who make the movie work perfectly. In the main role, Brad Pitt plays Southern-American Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of a squad of Jewish-American soldiers (and a few German renegades) whose job in occupied France can be summed up as this: go hunting Nazi soldiers and giving them a free scalping session. "Each man must carry out 100 scalps to accomplish his mission", Raine says to his crew.

The surprising Austian actor Christoph Waltz plays the part of Nazi colonel Hans Landa, also known as "The Jew Hunter". His initial role is more or less the same as Raine, but in the opposite direction. He tracks Jews and... well, you get the idea. And much like Raine, Landa is intelligent, but also very sly. He can simultaneously become as charming as a cat, as rapacious as a vulture and as dangerous as a bear. And Waltz perfectly embodies this man. The acting prize he received at the Cannes Film Festival for his Landa part was fully merited. And he should eventually be considered for the Best Supporting Actor Award at Oscar time.

French actress Mélanie Laurent plays the third character in importance in the movie: Shoshanna Dreyfus, who escaped from the cruel colonel's claws and became the owner of a small movie theatre in Paris. And when she meets the star (Daniel Brühl) of an upcoming German propaganda film, she gets to receive many high-ranked Nazi officers (including Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler himself), which would be the perfect moment to unleash her vengeance against the Third Reich.

Put all of these ingredients in the blender, press the "hi" button, add a few more juicy and spicy scenes, and then you get a full explosion of flavours, each one tastier than the others. Quentin Tarantino is an accomplished director, but his biggest talent still resides in his capacity to write stories and screenplays. If you think that age can get a hold on the great QT and tone down his explosive creative impulses, only a small glimpse at "Inglourious Basterds" will make you think otherwise. Tarantino's talent has remained perfectly intact and everything that turned his other movies into masterpieces is here to create another one.

And the main part of Tarantino's talent consists in grabbing our attention and to keep it firmly without inserting any action, nor making the story move forward in significant ways. Tarantino's dialogues are always filled with fascination and to listen to the movie without keeping much attention to the screen is thrilling. There is simply no other filmmaker in the world who can do such a trick.

And when comes the time to get into the action, Tarantino builds a story filled with twists, as well as surprising and spectacular scenes which hold the moviegoers in suspense until the very end. And you can forget all the historical veracity. "Inglourious Basterds" is not a docudrama, far from it. It's simply the kind of movie that a European director working with a tiny budget would have made if his only goal was to get a mock of Hitler and his Nazi pawns.

Don't try to get into any deep meanings regarding what you see on screen. There's absolutely no symbolic about a Jewish squad who scalp Nazi soldiers or let them live after they carve Swastikas on their forehead with a knife. Don't try to understand anything about the climax of the movie in Shoshanna's theatre, even as brutal, spectacular and unexpected as it can be. The characters' dialogues are tasty, but they are not metaphorical. The entire movie is just one big pollution.

Actually, Quentin Tarantino's entire filmography is one big pollution. Is there anything to understand in "Reservoir Dogs" ? In "Pulp Fiction" ? And especially in "Kill Bill" ? There's nothing to understand. "Inglourious Basterds", just like those movies, is nothing more than an unhealthy drug which you quickly get addicted to, even though you're conscious of its repugnance. But is there anything wrong about that? If the movie is funny, brilliant, intelligent and leaves smiles on the viewers' faces after the credits roll, frankly, what would be wrong about that?

And once again, Tarantino gives die-hard movie buffs the occasion to get into a handful of delicious movie references. Shoshanna's theatre is filled with French movie posters from the Occupation era, something film historians will love. And as for the atmosphere, we're treated with scenes which seem to come out from the more intense Spaghetti Westerns and re-worked the WWII way. And it wouldn't be complete without a few samples of Ennio Morricone's music, would it?

If you consider the sky-high expectations for this movie, "Inglourious Basterds" is exactly what we would have expected from the great Quentin Tarantino. Let's hope he'll never change his style and remain into the unconventional side of Hollywood film-making, because there's really no other man on this planet who treats cinema the way he does.

WALL·E (2008)

Even mechanical hearts can love

[9/10 · 11 June 2009]

"WALL-E" represents the perfect mix between innovation and tradition. Pixar, the supreme leader in computer animation, has conceived a feature film which expands animation to a technical level which had never been reached before while treating it with very simple narrative concepts, which we could recall from old silent movies from the era of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton.

The director of "WALL-E", Andrew Stanton, treats his movie as a huge tribute to science fiction, by inserting many different themes and concepts, such as robotics, interstellar travel, the apocalyptic concept of a desert Earth, mega-corporations and space colonization.

"WALL-E" is a family movie, but that doesn't necessarily mean that audiences have to content themselves with simple themes and ideas. And it's fine. But the fact that the movie works so well is intrinsically linked to the genius of Pixar's screenwriters. Those guys have effectively created a complex story with an extremely simple narrative structure.

The story opens around year 2800. The first shot opens on a spatial background with planets and galaxies and the camera then moves to reveal the Earth. But is that really the Earth? A first look seems to show our planet enveloped in a yellowish atmosphere, contrasting with the ocean blue to which we're so accustomed. When the camera then zooms upon the Earth, our initial fears are confirmed: the whole planet is a huge desert, complete with totally empty cities and huge towers of garbage compacted in cubes. That sight fills the entire landscape.

Those garbage towers are the work of WALL-E, the hero of the movie. For the last 700 years, his workdays are exactly the same: he picks up the garbage he finds (and he's far from lacking of work on that level), transforms it in huge cubes and organizes them in towers. But he keeps in his shelter a few objects which catch his attention and which he doesn't dare to sacrifice.

And then one day, a huge rocket arrives from the sky. From it appears EVE, a female robot whose primary function is to inspect the Earth in order to determine if it can sustain life once again. The timid WALL-E makes contact with EVE and shows her his artifacts, among them is a small plant, an ordinary discovery for WALL-E, but a rather significant one for EVE.

In less time that it takes to say it, the two robots find themselves aboard the giant spaceship Axiom, where human beings, now ridiculously obese, gelatinous and lazy, live in an Utopian lifestyle, courtesy of the Buy 'n Large mega-corporation.

WALL-E and EVE live an extraordinary and thrilling adventure during which they will fall in love. Yes, you read that well. Not only do the robots in this movie have a well-defined gender, they are also able to express emotions as strong as love.

Even if some of the robots in this movie have a language and a vocabulary as developed as humans, most of them communicate with only a few words, often pronounced in a slow and detached way. WALL-E, for example, reminded me of R2-D2, since he primarily communicates and expresses himself with electronic sounds rather than with syllables. And I think it's way better that way, because it makes him more innocent, more charming and more attractive than if he'd expressed himself with more words.

The way that these robots express their state of mind lies mostly in specific movements, body language and facial expressions. For example, when WALL-E curls up his mechanical limbs towards his body while lowering his tremendous "eyes" (actually cameras), you don't need words to explain what he's feeling. That's the same situation for EVE. She has some kind of video screen instead of a face, where luminous blue spots light up to simulate eyes. When those blue spots are arranged in her face in such or such pattern, a very precise feeling is expressed.

What a fusion! I had never seen such a convincing mix of technology and emotion in a film before. Even in "A.I.", where a robot designed to look like a boy is programmed to express love.

This masterstroke is due to the animators at Pixar, who clearly demonstrates once again who is the master in the domain of computer animation. Not only character animation is exceptional, but the presentation of an apocalyptic desert world is also breathtaking. The realism of the opening scenes is mystifying for an animated movie. There are some moments in which you could forget that you're watching an animated film.

"WALL-E" is an excellent science fiction movie, but it's also an excellent tribute to science fiction movies. Andrew Stanton has inserted in his film a lot of references to pictures such as "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Star Wars", "Blade Runner", "Idiocracy" and "I Am Legend". And in the great tradition of Disney movies, important life lessons are learned in "WALL-E", and their importance is as capital as it can be, considering the state of the Earth after humans have decided that it was easier for them to forget those precious life lessons.

However, I found very ironic the fact that a Disney picture would carry a message against mega-corporations and against the concept of brand loyalty.

Overall, "WALL-E" is an absolutely extraordinary movie. Fans of animation and science fiction will surely appreciate it for its technical and narrative qualities, but families and kids will definitely fall under the charm of those two robots and their heart-melting love story. A must-see!

Tarzan (1999)

The king of the jungle, indeed!

[8/10 · 8 May 2009]

Edgar Rice Burroughs would have once suggested that his Tarzan character would fit perfectly with animation. If that anecdote is true, then we could say that Burroughs was a visionary man. But I don't know at which point his vision would have met the one that Disney Studios used to realize their own version of the man raised by the gorillas.

"Tarzan" is among the most spectacular adventures ever made by Disney. Not only the animation is astonishingly innovative and breathtaking, but the story, the characters and the wonderful songs from pop superstar Phil Collins will undoubtedly satisfy the youngsters and the grown-ups.

Tarzan's story has been adapted to screen a rather incalculable amount of times in the history of cinema, most notably in the middle of the 20th century with Olympic athlete Johnny Weissmuller in the title role, but this "Tarzan" is the very first feature-length animated movie about the man-ape, and it takes advantage from every benefit that animation could bring in its presentation, but especially into the characters' development.

The relationship which Tarzan keeps up with the gorillas, which he considers his family, are never really convincing in live action. And the attempts made to give some personality to the jungle creatures had never really allowed the viewers to express any sympathy towards them. We just have to look at the movie adaptation of "George of the Jungle" to be convinced.

But here, the jungle animals are really likable and their depth allows to give to the story a much stronger foundation than everything that was done before. The relationship between Tarzan and his gorilla "mother" Kala (voiced by Glenn Close) is incredibly touching. Tarzan is also surrounded by funny and entertaining sidekicks, such as tomboyish gorilla Terk (voiced by Rosie O'Donnell) and coward elephant Tantor (voiced by Wayne Knight). Even Kong-like Kerchak (voiced by Lance Henriksen) is rather well developed beyond his monstrous stature, and his attitude towards "strangers" kinda recalls Shere Khan in "The Jungle Book".

And talking about "The Jungle Book", "Tarzan" inevitably sparks comparisons with the 1967 Disney classic, since both movies own many resemblances. Both of them talk about a human kid whose parents have died and who is raised by the jungle beasts. And when comes the moment of choosing their true place, between the animals and the humans, both Mowgli and Tarzan are confronted with heartbreaking dilemmas. So which one of the two movies is the best? Well, there again, it depends of your preferences. "The Jungle Book" benefits from a gallery of characters that is larger, more diversified and more elaborate than in "Tarzan". And that's probably on the weaknesses of the latter movie. Besides the gorillas, the elephants, a few baboons and one leopard, Tarzan's jungle seems to be rather huge, but also rather empty. And the musical numbers are way livelier in "The Jungle Book", and they are incorporated better into the story. The Phil Collins songs in "Tarzan", as good as they might be, sometimes give the impression that the images we see are merely a pretext for music videos which we could find on the MTV channel.

The greatest advantage of "Tarzan" on "The Jungle Book" is the quality of its animation. Beside Tarzan's jungle, Mowgli's habitat looks like a botanical garden. In order to give more dimension to the African wild environment in which the characters live, the animators at Disney have created a new animation process called "deep canvas". This process gives more dimension to the jungle, giving the realist impression that the characters are moving themselves into a three-dimensional universe. The results are astounding. The illusion is pitch perfect. Thus we could bill "Tarzan" as a 2.5D animated movie.

This process allows animators to conceive astonishing sequences where Tarzan moves from one vine to the other with the movements and the style of a skateboarder and also to create action and chase scenes which turn a trek among the branches and the vines into an authentic roller coaster ride. The images are often dizzying. Some of them might even be too much dizzying to my taste and I would have had no objection to slowing some scenes so I could appreciate them better.

That kind of new technological development clearly shows that Disney is still the number 1 animated house in the world. It also demonstrates that, in spite of the constant rise of computer-animated features, movies made in traditional animation still own their place inside our film universe. I don't want to take off anything from computer-animated movies, but I have always preferred movies made in traditional animation. I have always felt that emotions and feelings were stronger and more authentic in that format instead of in 3D animation. There are some truly touching moments in "Tarzan" and I don't have the impression that those scenes would have had the same impact had this movie been realized in 3D animation.

With the exception of Tarzan himself, there are only a few human characters in the movie and they are not among the most memorable ones. Jane maintains an interesting, but rather ambiguous relationship with Tarzan. Her father is your typical British scientist, while Clayton the hunter is not one of the most threatening nor interesting villains we have in the Disney filmography.

Beside a few glitches, "Tarzan" still is an exceptional animated movie and a must-see for Disney fans. There is no better introduction to the world of Tarzan than this movie. Of course, beyond it, there are the Weissmuller movies, but if you consider their relative absence in today's shop shelves, Disney's movies is a more-than-perfect alternative. There is no doubt that it belongs among Disney classics, along with "Aladdin" and "The Lion King".

Asterix in Britain (1986)

A very funny adaptation of the comic book

[7/10 · 9 August 2008]

Of all the Asterix movies, this is the one I love the most. The comic-book-to-screen adaptation is faithful without being too much linear (which was the problem with "Astérix le Gaulois"). The animation is much acceptable without being outstanding, but let's not forget that it's not a Disney feature.

The movie respects generally well the events of the book. The Romans, led by the great Julius Caesar, invade and quickly conquer Britain. However, a small village keeps resisting to the invaders. One of the village's inhabitants, Jolitorax, is Astérix's cousin. He goes to Gaul to ask for help and for magic potion, so his village will be able to face Roman legions.

Asterix, Obelix, Jolitorax and Dogmatix (who was not in the book) embark towards Britain with a barrel of magic potion for Jolitorax's village. But before they can yell victory, they will have to face many events and deliver great battles against Romans.

The film works well on two levels. First, it's a pretty decent introduction to a real event in history. The territory we're talking about was really named Britain around 50 BC and the Romans really invaded it at about the same era. The city of London was really called Londinium at the time and the cities of Camulodunum (Colchester) and Durovernum (Canterbury) are also mentioned.

But the story was also an occasion for French comic writers René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo to make fun of their neighbors from the other side of the English Channel. The English (or Briton) stereotypes and habits are constantly ridiculed or parodied in some way. In the original French language version, the Britons speak with a heavy accent and expressions that you don't hear in French ("Je dis", the nouns and adjectives are inverted comparatively to the French language). That's why the original version is much more enjoyable to watch.

I could roll down a long list of parodies made in the whole movie. We only have to think about weekends, the continual British bad weather, their bad culinary tastes, the fact that they drive on the left side of the road, rugby and their "funny" language.

Of all the Asterix movies, this is the funniest, and by far. The parodies listed above are obviously funny, but many gags and scenes are simply hilarious. We only have to think of the boarding of the Roman galley, the prison break, or the wine "tasting" in the caves of the Roman palace that quickly (and predictably) degenerates into a Roman orgy.

What prevents this film from ranking as high as "Astérix et Cléopâtre", it's probably the fact that the latter was turned into a musical with such excellent songs, which made that transformation simply irresistible. But "Astérix chez les Bretons" doesn't rank pretty far behind "Cléopâtre".

The adaptation by Pierre Tchernia has to be underlined and some new elements have to be mentioned, such as the double wordplay made by Caesar about his invasion of Britain. It's also very funny of seeing wooden replicas of the Big Ben bell-tower, the Palace of Windsor, and also of the Tower Bridge. The addition of Dogmatix into the story is much appreciated in the sense that it's a well-loved character and his role in the movie is very much real.

A delightful running gag stars Stratocumulus, whose attempts of informing his superior, General Motus, always end with a fall and a pathetic trip and a collision with one of the General's marble statues.

Something that doesn't change however is the somewhat ambiguous ending. It's great to see the village winning over the Roman legions, but what about the future? Will they attack once again? Will Jolitorax's village still be able of defending itself? Those questions involve that maybe the trip of Asterix and Obelix was useless.

The final words by Getafix also fall short, even if his intervention had well begun.

So, to sum up quickly, for those who love the Asterix comic books, this movie is a must-see. After all, there are few tolerable Asterix films. "Astérix le Gaulois" is too much linear, while the movies co-produced in Germany ("Asterix in America" and "Astérix et les Vikings") are not good and the live-action adaptations are not much better.

The Dark Knight (2008)

He who laughs last laughs best

[9/10 · 7 August 2008]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not the kind of moviegoer who waits to see the critics' reactions or to witness the box-office numbers in order to determine if I go watching a movie or not. Usually, my mind is made up several months before the release.

I love Batman movies, but I expected to wait until the DVD release of "The Dark Knight" to get hold of it instead of going to the theater right away. But after hearing about the numerous laudatory reviews about the movie and witnessing the box-office records being beaten one after another in so little time, you'll understand that I couldn't resist. And now being able of talking about the movie in a retrospective way, I can tell you that I would have regretted my first choice.

If "The Dark Knight" is that much praised and that much seen, it's because it's well deserved.. Whether a moviegoer is a fan of Batman or not, whether (s)he's curious about Heath Ledger's final role or (s)he doesn't give a damn, it'a movie that can satisfy anybody, independently of what's looked for.

The story begins shortly after "Batman Begins" ends. How much time, exactly? The movie isn't very clear about that, but we quickly figure out that there hasn't a lot of time spent between the end of the first movie and the beginning of the second one. The Wayne Manor is still under re-construction, so Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) and his servant Alfred (Michael Caine) have to live in a penthouse for some little time.

Meanwhile, criminals haven't been totally eradicated from Gotham City's map. And one of them, the manic and schizophrenic Joker (Heath Ledger, in the role of a lifetime and a death-time) appears and doesn't take much time before spreading even more chaos and terror in the streets of Gotham.

Harvey Dent (a surprising Aaron Eckhart) is the new district attorney in the city and his energy, his ardor, his determination and his intelligence fascinate the inhabitants of Gotham. He has fallen in love with Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal), Bruce's childhood sweetheart, and he works closely with the few honest cops of the city, all personified by scrupulously honest Lt. Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman).

Obviously, when you think about the Joker, you can imagine that it won't be an easy game to win. But even if you're anticipating a lot from him and his performer Ledger, let me tell you that you'll be completely spellbound once you see it for real.

Many journalists and professional critics imagine that Ledger could be granted a posthumous Oscar for his performance. Even if there are a lot of movies that will be released until the ceremony, and that many great roles will be unveiled before that date, I have to say that if Ledger receives a nomination, I wouldn't be surprised at all. I can imagine many of you having a suspicious look about the possibility of seeing a comic book villain awarded with an Oscar, but believe me, Ledger's performance is breathtaking and will silence many skeptics. It's simple: Ledger didn't play the Joker, he WAS the Joker. His appearance is very convincing (thank the make-up artists), but his voice, and especially his twitches with his tongue demonstrate the whole scale of his role. It's too bad that he's dead, because Ledger had everything he needed in order to become a new Brando or De Niro.

But the biggest drawback about Ledger's performance, it's that he steals almost all the publicity, while another actor who deserves some recognition is almost completely overshadowed. I'm talking about Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent, transformed at the end of the movie into Harvey Two-Face. Eckhart is astounding and he also delivers the performance of a lifetime. He is completely convincing as Harvey Dent and he is even more as Two-Face. As for his facial make-up, you can see it, but you can't believe it. It completely flabbergasted me for the rest of the movie. I think that "The Dark Knight" deserves a nomination for Best Make-up.

The story is particularly complex and the movie, with its two and a half hours, may be a bit too long. Some would say that the movie is impossible to follow, that he contains a lot of useless characters and that some scenes could have been shortened up. I shall acquiesce to these complaints, but I also think that director Christopher Nolan deliberately created a film based upon the Joker's personality: manic, chaotic, merciless and full of surprises.

Nolan proves once again his great mastery of mixing action scenes with the psychological side of his characters. The cinematography here is even more extraordinary than in "Batman Begins". Here's another man who should be awarded with an Oscar in a more-or-less distant future.

Besides Ledger and Eckhart, the other actors play their own role with professionalism. My only complaint concerns Maggie Gyllenhaal, who I think is totally miscast, especially after that Katie Holmes played the role of Rachel Dawes in the first movie. If you compare both pictures, it looks like Rachel has aged of about fifteen years between both.

This film makes us realize two things. First, Heath Ledger had a lot of potential and his premature death will earn him a place in the category of the stars dead too quickly, among with James Dean and River Phoenix. Second, Ledger's performance, paired with Jack Nicholson's one in the 1989 "Batman" proves that the Joker is the #1 villain in all of the comic book medium.

"The Dark Knight" will probably be venerated as Heath Ledger's swan song and as Aaron Eckhart's breakthrough. It will also be probably treated as cursed, considering Ledger's death, Bale's arrest and Freeman's accident. One thing is sure, it will forever be a great movie and the immutable testament of a legend gone too quickly. Hence the saying: "Only the good die young."

Ghostbusters (1984)

Some crazy stuff, some funny guys. Who ya gonna call?

[9/10 · 14 July 2008]

Combining big-budget special effects with irony and sarcasm-laden dialog, "Ghostbusters" is a one-of-a-kind sci-fi fantasy comedy as entertaining as it can get.

The movie stars Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, three graduates from the great schools of "Saturday Night Live", "SCTV" and "National Lampoon", as three "scientists" whose specialty is to detect and hunt down ghosts of all kinds. They form a team called the Ghostbusters and they offer their duties to whoever wanting to get ridden of a ghost.

After some troublesome beginnings, the team quickly becomes very popular and is able to eradicate dozens of paranormal creatures from every corner of Manhattan. They are in such demand that they need to hire a fourth crew member, played by Ernie Hudson. However, their skills and their knowledge are soon going to be rudely tested when a destroyer god from the Babylonian era is getting ready to penetrate into our world and to spread chaos in a Judgment Day fashion.

This kind of scenario could reminisce anybody of such disaster movies from the middle of the 20th century, monster movies such as "King Kong" and "Godzilla", or even contemporary blockbusters, filled with rumpus, destruction and special effects intended to terrify and provoke some panic. "Ghostbusters" is all of that at once, but it dissociates itself from the bunch in its own particular way.

Instead of presenting itself as a drama, a thriller or an action flick, "Ghostbusters" is introduced as a heavy special FX comedy. Chimeric idea? Maybe. But the result is simply delectable, because of the quality of the special effects, but mainly because of the humor brought out by the stars of the picture, beginning with the master of irony, Bill Murray.

Murray plays Dr. Peter Venkman, the unofficial leader of the group. His on-screen appearances are always delightful, his lines being almost always stamped with irony and impassive humor. Murray is very much at ease and he does whatever he wants in front of the camera.

Murray's two accomplices (and the co-writers of this movie), Aykroyd and Ramis, are not relegated to oblivion anyway and, together with Murray, the three of them have a good lot of chemistry. At moments, they can become as funny as Murray is.

Sigourney Weaver is also a part of the cast in "Ghostbusters". She plays a violinist who quickly realizes that her refrigerator could very be some kind of portal towards a parallel dimension. Rick Moranis plays her nerdish neighbor. Sometimes nice, sometimes unpleasant, it's actually very hard to really care about Moranis' character in this movie. It becomes easier when he is pursued and possessed by the Sumerian demons, but we actually do care much more about Sigourney Weaver in that situation.

Ernie Hudson, a relatively underground actor, is fairly attractive as the fourth Ghostbuster. He represents somehow the link between the ghost trackers and the ordinary people.

Nonetheless, the actors from "Ghostbusters" are generally overshadowed by the impressive special effects required for that kind of movie involving creatures from another world and innovative technology to hunt ghosts. But the actors find themselves rewarded from that move. Thus, we see "proton packs" with extremely dangerous, but extremely convincing beams. We also see ghosts that are both frightening and funny, the green wiener-eating "Slimer" being the best example.

But how could we forget the unforgettable climax starring the most unlikely destroyer in New York City history: the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man? It is without any doubt the most famous scene of the whole picture and it's not without reason. His arrival unleashes the greatest panic attack from the movie's extras, because of his menacing stature. But in the viewers' case, they can't help themselves from smiling and laughing when they see that surreal giant walking in the streets of Manhattan, even if they know that this monster is not so much different from Godzilla, save for the hideous and repulsing appearance.

So "Ghostbusters" is technically innovating, comically revealing, but it's globally some really tasty entertainment that everybody will be able to appreciate. Everyone will be able to find at least one element that will satisfy them. Those who love spectacle and eye-popping sequences will be delighted by the special effects. Others will respond to Bill Murray's lines with an inescapable smile. And let's not forget the eponymous theme song from Ray Parker, Jr. that will play in the heads of people long after they've seen the film.

So, twenty-five years later, we can still watch "Ghostbusters" without telling ourselves that this picture comes from another era. The majority of the special effects have aged well, even if some of the moves from the demonic dogs begin to look like those created by Ray Harryhausen for "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms". So, it's still easy to love the movie, just like if it was just being released.

Since the first silent movies of the early 20th century, there have been a lot of comedies that were created. But among those which tried to insert big-budget special effects to counterbalance their comic moments, "Ghostbusters" is among the best, if it's not THE best. It's really some pure crazy fun.

Ed Wood (1994)

Holy Wood!!

[10/10 · 3 June 2008]

While the majority of biopics focus on personalities who were the best and/or the most popular in what they did, "Ed Wood" tells the story of the man who is considered today as the worst filmmaker of all time. It must be said right away that the life of Edward D. Wood, Jr. is far more interesting and fascinating than those of many other popular Hollywood legends and this movie shows why.

For starters, Wood was a filmmaker who defined himself as a writer-director-actor-producer, much like his idol Orson Welles. However, unlike Welles, Wood didn't have any magic touch, he never showed any visible talent in his movies, should it be his own or those of his faithful associates.

Ed Wood is played here by Johnny Depp, in what might probably be his best dramatic performance ever. Wood is portrayed here as a fiery film buff who is well decided to leave his mark in Hollywood. His main characteristic is his unequaled optimistic attitude and this attitude pushes him to go forward, even in front of the most insuperable problems. He is always able to find a ray of sunshine inside the most devastating reviews. But in a movie like "Ed Wood", the hardest thing to do would be to find some negative in such a genius and entertaining film.

"Ed Wood" is directed by Tim Burton, probably the most weirdo of all mainstream Hollywood directors and the most capable of presenting the life of Wood and his motley crew of misfit collaborators in the most adequate way possible. Besides Wood, we can find the veteran star of "Dracula" Bela Lugosi (Martin Landau), drag queen Bunny Breckinridge (Bill Murray), the "amazing" Criswell (Jeffrey Jones), Swedish wrestler Tor Johnson (real-life wrestler George Steele) and TV show host Vampira (Lisa Marie).

The actors are fantastic in the sense that they are able of recreating such bad acting roles with that much conviction. Once Burton's camera starts rolling, we can see their real talent in front of us, but when Wood's camera starts rolling, they become pathetic, unconvincing and they deliver the Wood-written lines without even realizing their absurdity.

The movie is shot in black-and-white, which is frankly the only logical option for this kind of motion picture. Honestly, how could we imagine in color those sets that we can only see in black-and-white? How could we possibly imagine "Plan 9 From Outer Space" in color? The recreation of Wood's turkeys is simply perfect. The story is set in the 1950s, the era where Wood directed his worst projects: "Glen or Glenda?", "Bride of the Monster" and "Plan 9".

The 1950s, it must be said, represent the golden era of the Z-movies in Hollywood. Although there have been many classics, like "A Streetcar Named Desire", "High Noon" and "Ben-Hur", this era is much remembered for those horror and science fiction flicks interested in the atomic age and monsters derived from it. Besides Wood's masterpieces, we can also mention "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms", "It Came From Beneath the Sea" and the Japanese opus "Gojira".

The 1950s is also an era where the studio system still prevails and the directors are always at the mercy of the producers who are the supreme authority and they own a veto over every aspect of the movies. And it can even go well outside of the movie. For example, in the "Bride of the Monster" making, Wood is forced to modify his cast and even his ending in order to meet the requirements of his main financier. And for "Plan 9", he must go under baptism (and so must his friends), so a group of Baptists will finance the picture. This adds even more to the incredible, as if the movies were not enough.

Even if "Ed Wood" contains numerous scenes showing the stupidity and the lack of talent of the protagonists, there's still some fair level of intelligence emerging from the picture and some goofy statements suddenly become full of sense. For example, Bela Lugosi, even if he's been addicted to morphine for twenty years and lost nearly every bit of his talent since he made "Dracula", is able to deliver some interesting utterances, such as why the Dracula character is more interesting than the Frankenstein character and why women should love the classic 1930s horror movies from Universal.

The actors from the movie are all tremendous, but two of them clearly stand above the others. Johnny Depp plays his Ed Wood role in an immaculate way. He knows how to write a script, how to shoot a picture and he's able to detect some qualities in people that very few would be able to see. That's why he casts Loretta King (Juliet Landau) just by watching her commanding in a restaurant.

Depp also seems to be very comfortable when comes the time of wearing women's clothing, just like Wood did in real life as a transvestite.

In the case of Martin Landau, the scale of his (Oscar-winning) performance is difficult to surround. Simply said, he is better as Lugosi than Lugosi himself was. His Hungarian accent is perfectly convincing and he delivers very interesting quotes ("This is the most uncomfortable coffin I've ever been in"). His relationship with Wood is touching and extraordinary. Lugosi finally meets someone who still believes in him and who is able to find him some new work.

"Ed Wood" is without a doubt the greatest Tim Burton movie for the moment. The Ed Wood story couldn't have been directed by anybody else than him. Instead of ridiculing Wood, which would have been too much easy and far less interesting, Burton seems to celebrate him and making him a symbol for those who idolize movies and absolutely want to leave their mark in Hollywood, whatever the result be good or not. "Ed Wood" is the ultimate proof that cinema is far more than a job and an art. It's mysticism.

Being John Malkovich (1999)

"... this is a very odd thing. It's supernatural, for lack of a better word."

[8/10 · 28 May 2008]

When we talk about bad movies, we often say that they are so because they are weird, strange or because they don't make any sense at all. But "Being John Malkovich" is just too much weird and too much complicated to be rated as a bad movie.

John Cusack stars as Craig Schwartz, a struggling puppeteer who lives with a dog, a talking parrot, a chimpanzee and an almost unrecognizable Cameron Diaz as his wife.

Craig badly needs money, so he takes a job as a filing clerk and he works for a New York firm located on the seventh-and-a-half floor of a Manhattan building.

Things just get even stranger when Craig discovers a secret tiny doorway that leads him directly into the mind of actor John Malkovich (played by John Malkovich). After having lived a quarter of hour into Malkovich's head, Craig is ejected from it and mysteriously finds himself on the side of the New Jersey Turnpike, just outside New York City.

Craig and his new colleague Maxine (Catherine Keener) have the idea of making people who want to live the same experience pay for it. So, Craig and Maxine "rent" Malkovich's mind fifteen minutes at a time and people become a famous Hollywood actor for that amount of time.

"Being John Malkovich" is directed by Spike Jonze, better known for his numerous music videos, and masterfully written by Charlie Kaufman. His screenplay is brilliant and of an almost unreached level of originality and perfectly allies surrealism and the philosophy of mind.

Jonze evidently does a great job in the director's chair, with some astonishing and breathtaking moments. Unfortunately for him, Kaufman is the real star of this movie and so is his simply unreal and completely crazy story. At some moments, we could find ourselves wondering what does Kaufman have in his mind, if he didn't simply put his brain on autopilot and went on a wave of automatic writing.

Only a few examples are enough to illustrate my point of view. First of all, we get to know that Craig's wife works in a pet store, but is it a good reason to keep a dog, a talking parrot and a chimpanzee named Elijah in their apartment? And then, we get to wonder how can people work on the seventh-and-a-half floor of a building. And when we finally get the "rational" explanation, we wonder why we asked that question instead of shutting up.

And the characters we get to meet are not any more normal. The first example is the secretary who interprets every word wrong. Then, Craig's new boss, Dr. Lester, who is 105-year-old and who drinks almost exclusively carrot juice, which explains why he "pisses orange".

But except the surrealist moments, the movie is also one of the most thought-provoking and philosophical motion pictures of the recent years. Actually, 1999 seems to be the year of philosophy in Hollywood with the releases of "John Malkovich", "The Matrix" and "Fight Club".

The film cleverly plays with the themes of identity, celebrity and the body/soul union. Is living for a moment as a famous person is worth it? Is it legitimate? And if it was really possible, would there be a real danger of "playing" with a person like the characters of the movie do? "Being John Malkovich" is an intellectual comedy drama unlike any other. And the first term is the most important of the three. With such a mix of surrealism and philosophy, it's definitely not a movie for the weak minds. You have to love these two things and complicated stories as well, or else you're gonna quit on this movie about halfway through.

And the most controversial aspect of the film is the relationship between Maxine and Cameron Diaz as long as the events pass. There are moments that are gonna put some people away, if they are not instantly outraged and/or scandalized.

With everything I've said about the movie, there's only one adequate way to describe it : it's a movie that takes chances. And this attitude gets rewarded by the viewers' admiration and amazement.

I perfectly understand that it's not everybody who's gonna love "Being John Malkovich". But I believe that it's a movie that deserves to be watched. Not necessarily loved, but watched for sure. Because we have to salute the originality, the eccentricity and the vision of every artist involved into this project.

"Being John Malkovich" is one of the rare proofs that we can both stimulate our mind and our moralities by watching Hollywood actors. And this fact is enough for us to appreciate the movie as a whole.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

The best since "Raiders of the Lost Ark"

[8/10 · 22 May 2008]

He's back... for our greatest pleasure.

Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) has aged, but he is still the great adventurous thrill-and-treasure-seeking archaeologist we all know. And this time, he embarks himself into his most extraordinary and most sensational adventure since the first time we saw him in 1981.

The movie opens in 1957. To make a quick calculation, that's nineteen years after the events of the third movie and it also corresponds exactly to the lapse of time that passed in our own time. The Nazi villains have been replaced by the no-less dangerous Soviets, and most especially the icy black-haired scientist Irina Spalko, played with mastery by a perfectly convincing and terrifying Cate Blanchett. She's probably the greatest adversary in the history of the franchise.

After the Ark of the Covenant, an Hindu sacred stone and the Holy Grail, the MacGuffin of this new adventure is a mysterious crystal skull from an ancient south American civilization linked to the Maya people. This skull, we quickly discover, is actually linked to a civilization endowed with a superior intelligence. In other words, extra-terrestrials. By the way, the movie opens in the famous Area 51 and references to Roswell are made.

The crystal skull seems to be some kind of key that would allow to its owner to discover the city that the Spanish Conquistadores called the Eldorado.

Dr. Jones is accompanied this time by a young motorcycle-riding greaser named Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf). He will also meet in his trip the professor Huxley (an eccentric John Hurt) and none other than Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), the female hero of the first movie, "Raiders of the Lost Ark".

We can see from the beginning that Indy is getting old outside, but that he is also as fiery and fearless inside as he was nineteen years ago. And throughout his adventures, we realize that he is not the only one. Director Steven Spielberg and executive producer and screenwriter George Lucas bring some immensely contagious energy and fun to this fourth volume. It seems that they drank from the Holy Grail from "The Last Crusade" themselves. "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is made with a feeling of found youth and we can easily take a liking to it at each scene. The result is the best Spielberg movie since "Saving Private Ryan".

The action scenes are as exciting to watch as they were before and the characters are puzzling and hide all kinds of surprises. However, it must be said, the surprises in this case can arouse all kinds of reactions. They can be very divergent, depending of the viewer.

First, there's the Mac character, played by Ray Winstone. What he does in the movie is never really clear and his usefulness here becomes very questionable. We could have gotten rid of him and it wouldn't have changed anything to the movie, except maybe an economy of a few minutes in the playing time.

Then, the link that exists between Indy, Marion and Mutt is revealed halfway into the movie and it can make many jumping. And the die-hard fans of the franchise have a great change of scratching their heads wondering if the screenwriters made a mistake or not. But I don't want to say too much neither. You have to see it by yourself and believe (or try to believe it).

And even if the Indiana Jones series are based on exoticism, action and improbabilities, there are limits not to trespass. We might have been repeating this for the last twenty-seven years, but Indy is not Superman. But there are moments in the movie where the filmmakers seem to forget it. And add the fact that he's now sixty-something years old.

From the beginning, we can see surrounded by above a hundred Soviet soldiers in a huge warehouse and he's able to escape miraculously unharmed. Action isn't missing, but the small amount of realism doesn't take too much time before totally fading away. And a few moments later, we can see Indy surviving even more miraculously to a nuclear explosion... I think I've said enough.

However, these mistakes are quickly forgotten once the movie ends. The final events in the jungle are a moment of pure enjoyment and it's the best time to insert what are probably the only CG images of the movie. We can't believe our own eyes.

And the action scenes not generated by computer aren't bad either. Especially the action scenes and the chase scenes by car and by motorcycle. And let's not forget the duel between scientist Spalko and young Mutt.

I just hope that this fourth film is the final one on the list. Not because I didn't like it, far from it. But the climax makes me believe that we don't need to add more. And even when Indy comes out of the darkness after nineteen years, to add a fifth one would only be an easy marketing trick.

"The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" will attract as much money to the producers as the highly magnetic namesake skull, but viewers and especially the fans of the series will also get satisfied. And the latter will get sure that this fourth film is precisely not a simple easy marketing trick and that the will and joy of shooting an Indiana Jones adventure just wrapped up the creators and it can only have positive consequences.

So you all Indiana Jones fans, delight yourselves! You have waited enough. Appreciate with as much joy and as much fun this gift of the gods that the greats Steven and George offer to you. And you will be grateful.

The Sword in the Stone (1963)

Good, but the magic touch is missing

[6/10 · 8 August 2007]

"The Sword in the Stone" is the Disney version of the Arthurian legend, adapted from the first of four books by T.H. White telling the life events of the young Arthur, before he became king. It is also the last feature-length animated film from the company of Uncle Walt to be released before he died. In addition, it is the first solo effort of Wolfgang Reitherman who would later direct other great animated movies, such as "The Jungle Book", "The Aristocats", "Robin Hood" and "The Rescuers".

The movie was released in theaters on Christmas day 1963, almost one month to the day after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This dark moment in American history established a striking and timely parallel with the dark atmosphere prevailing in England as depicted in the animated film.

"The Sword in the Stone" begins by the death of a heir-less king. One night in London, an astral light comes down from the sky and a sword lodged in an anvil itself embed into stone mysteriously appears. On that sword (which will be later known as Excalibur) are inscribed these words: "Whoso pulleth out the sword of this stone and anvil is rightwise king born of England". With nobody being able to accomplish the impossible feat, England remains king-less and the period now known as the Dark Ages begin.

The movie then shifts to the great hero Arthur himself who is only a not-so-smart puny runt nicknamed Wart (Rickie Sorenson). Venturing into the forest, Wart literally falls on the house of the powerful and wise, but absent-minded wizard Merlin (Karl Swenson) who lives there as a hermit with his educated pet owl Archimedes (Junius Matthews).

Merlin, convinced that the young Wart is destined to a great future despite what his physical appearance could reveal, begins to learn him about great life lessons in his fashion by changing him into a fish, a squirrel and a bird.

In general, I'd say that the film is not bad, far from it, but it is also far from being excellent. The plot is generally short and somehow empty, but it also contains some rather useless over-long passages.

But there's absolutely no doubt that this picture has a lot of ambitions and it has things to show to its audience. In fact, "The Sword in the Stone" is one of the most instructive Disney movies for the kids, not only because of the number of lessons that can be learned, but also because of their clarity and their direct character, which make them easy to catch and understand.

But I would have liked to see these lessons more treated on-screen when Wart becomes king. Merlin predicts celebrity and a bright future to the young monarch, but the young boy has no idea how to govern a state. It's at that moment that the learned lessons should have emerged and Merlin should have mentioned them.

After all, Wart's adventures with his mentor brought out the three most important characteristics of a good king: wisdom, love and intelligence. So "The Sword in the Stone" is for kids what Machiavelli's book "The Prince" is for adults.

Unfortunately, even if it's instructive, "The Sword in the Stone" loses points when it comes to the capacity to wonder, astonish and entertain. The animation is often spoiled and the sets are visibly nothing more than static colored paper sheets on which animators make mobile characters streaming in and out. It's a colorful movie, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it is alive.

And yet, the dark atmosphere of the movie is also reflected in the presentation. Some people will say that it's OK since the pictures adequately re-create the era and the society at the time, but let's not forget that we're talking here about a children's movie. In such a case, the dark (and not much cared over) images become depressing, boring and not much enjoyable to watch.

There's also a cruel lack of lively songs, which looks pretty bad for an institution like Disney. The songs go so much unnoticed that it becomes almost impossible to remember their titles.

There are some great moments however. The teaching sessions were Wart becomes an animal, accompanied by either Merlin or Archimedes, are entertaining and they lead to exciting and dangerous moments, where there's no lack of thrills for nobody. The best moment remains the magical duel between Merlin and the witch Madame Mim (Martha Wentworth), where the two opponents ceaselessly change themselves into different animals and give a high-level spectacle of which we are the lucky spectators.

The three main characters are also unforgettable. Wart's psychological evolution is well tangible. We can see at the beginning that he is puny, clumsy and naive, but also full of potential. And as he learns, he finds the courage to confront his adoptive tutor Sir Ector (Sebastian Cabot) and even his powerful teacher Merlin.

The magician himself is presented as somebody who is wise, but also absent-minded, which renders him quite funny. Unfortunately, he often loses himself into his futuristic anticipations, which leads to pathetic anachronisms and uninteresting discussions.

Archimedes is also intelligent and resourceful, but he is also touchy, cynical and often very grumpy. It means that we have as many reasons to like him as we have to hate him. And unlike Merlin, Archimedes prefers to keep both feet on the present ground, rather than thinking about the future.

"The Sword in the Stone" is not one of the greatest movies of Disney's career, but it nevertheless remains an instructive and funny picture, the kind of work that only Walt and his partners can make.

Batman & Robin (1997)

Batman reviews, part IV: The bottom of the barrel

[2/10 · 31 July 2007]

During the 1994 movie "Ed Wood", after somebody had just pointed out of a rather flagrant mistake in the scene which had just been shot, Wood answered: "Haven't you heard of suspension of disbelief?" I guess that it's this declaration which fuels "Batman & Robin", one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Starring three heroes as well as three villains (let's rather say two and a half), "Batman & Robin" is at the same time the fullest and the emptiest episode of the Batman series, fueled by unequaled pretensions and ambitions and obtaining results which are nothing more than pathetic.

Batman (George Clooney) and Robin (Chris O'Donnell) are facing Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger), a college professor whose research to find a cure to the fictitious MacGregor syndrome (from which his wife suffers) has gone terribly wrong, provoking a mutation which makes that he cannot survive anymore to temperatures higher than zero.

Meanwhile, Pamela Isley (Uma Thurman) becomes another victim of mutation after his colleague professor tried to kill her. She transforms into Poison Ivy, a nature beauty whose charms bewitch men and whose kisses are venomous.

Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy have totally opposite plans and have apparently no reason to team up, but that's what happens anyway and Batman and Robin have to thwart their evil plans.

Add Bane (Jeep Swenson) who was once one of the most intimidating villains of the comic books, but is now a simple non-talking savage who takes the part of Poison Ivy's servant. There's also Barbara (Alicia Silverstone), the niece of butler Alfred (Michael Gough), who discovers the "family secret" and joins in the action under the name of Batgirl.

The movie lasts for two hours and five minutes, but five minutes are wide enough to convince anyone of the foolishness and the absurdity of this mediocre film. And not necessarily the first five minutes. Anywhere in the movie, we can find ludicrous sets, poorly conceived action sequences and one-dimensional characters, all of this is leaded by an abysmal script from Akiva Goldsman and directed by Joel Schumacher of whom we could ask if he really had the taste and the motivation to proceed to the production of this movie.

When you look at the actors, you could ask yourselves why Arnold Schwarzenegger is top-billed. In the 1989 "Batman" movie, it was worth it because Jack Nicholson (as the Joker) was by far the greatest actor of the lot. In the case of "Batman & Robin", I guess that it's the actors' salary which determined their position in the credits since Schwarzenegger received about $20 million for his role.

The question now is: why did he receive so much money for such a shabby performance? His terrible one-liners and puns about ice have become instant classics, but for the wrong reasons. His plans doesn't make any sense and where do these henchmen come from and what is their interest in working with a man whose only interest is to save his sick wife? There again, "suspension of disbelief"...

Uma Thurman plays the Mother Nature role in this film, but with such a performance, her credibility has been just passed under the lawnmower.

As for George Clooney, it's not his performance that is disappointing, but rather the fact that he plays a character he's not made to play. He's probably the most charming Bruce Wayne of the series, but also the least interesting, since he doesn't display any tortured soul or psychological scar. Those characteristics have been better handled by Michael Keaton and Val Kilmer. And his girlfriend Julie Madison (Elle Macpherson), where does she come from and what is her role here?

The only good point about Clooney came well after the movie's release when he famously declared: "I think we might have killed the franchise." Well, a fault confessed is a half redressed.

As for the two young heroes O'Donnell and Silverstone, they're not bad, but not interesting either.

The city of Gotham, previously a very Gothic city filled with Metropolis-inspired expressionist buildings, is now assaulted by ridiculous skyscrapers and monuments shaped like giant people, whose origins go back to "Batman Returns" (remember the Max Shreck speech in the beginning?).

The Batmobile is almost unrecognizable and is now a convertible, just like if somebody intended to mix the vehicle of the '60s TV series with the one from the Tim Burton films. Batman and Robin own an upgraded arsenal of completely silly technological gadgets, the worst being the skates magically going out from their boots. And what could I say about their costumes equipped with dim-sized nipples and filmed with useless close-ups on their posteriors?

It's difficult to pick up the worst scene of all, since there are so many of them. But there are three which go above the others. Bronze medal: the scene at the end where Batman tries to convince Mr. Freeze to abandon his quest for revenge is utterly pathetic. Silver medal: the auction where old bachelors bet on girls with flower nicknames look like a convention of luxe pedophiles looking for prostitutes. It's not only ridiculous, it's offending. And the gold medal: this image of Poison Ivy holding a flower with a viper head seems to be taken from an Ed Wood picture.

It is so sad for Batman, whose franchise has known very glorious and happy times, that he has to be treated so miserably by people having more interest for their wallets than for the fate of one the most appreciated superheroes in the world. And for movie fans, I think I've just said it, but the movie is not only ridiculous, it is offending.

And since Mr. Freeze seems to have a knack for ice-related puns, here's one more: this movie will leave you cold.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

Incrediddily-bly funny

[8/10 · 27 July 2007]

Some people could ask themselves why it took so long, that is almost twenty years, for the Simpsons producers to transform the adventures of the most-known family in America into a full-length animated picture. Some less-popular TV series, such as "South Park", only waited a few years to see a movie based upon their stories. But once we see the final result, complaining is the very last thing possible to do.

Obviously, "The Simpsons Movie" must obey to two crucial rules which are applicable when a movie is based upon a TV series :

1- Never take 90 minutes when 30 minutes are enough.

2- Never modify an important aspect which concerns the characters.

"The Simpsons Movie" owns a characteristic that is even more difficult than other TV series adaptations. Many series from the '60s, such as "The Dukes of Hazzard" and more evidently, "The Fugitive" re-told their whole storyline within two hours. "The Simpsons Movie" shouldn't do that for the series is still aired today.

But "The Simpsons Movie" avoids every trap and presents the best of what it has to offer: an avalanche of gags, satirical sequences and absurd scenes, all packed into an unforgettable 90-minute hilarious adventure.

The movie is extremely well made, the script is tightly built, the characters never lose a bit of their punch and attacks and cheap shots are nicely done. The result is an extremely funny and absurd comedy, a rare gem among the comedy genre.

The characters need no presentation, so let's go to the story. Before going any further, it must be specified that there are many subjects into the storyline, but one of them is more prominent among the story. And this subject is precisely the most tempting for the satirists: politics.

Lake Springfield is becoming so polluted that the situation becomes more and more urgent and the citizens of Springfield have no choice than curing the problem. But as you guessed it, Homer comes ruining everything by dumping a silo full of liquid manure into the lake. The EPA gets involved and the government cuts Springfield from the rest of the world by enclosing the city under an enormous glass dome, just like futuristic cities seen in some works of science fiction.

Able to escape from the inhabitants' fury, the Simpsons flee towards Alaska and try to begin a new life there. But circumstances will do that they will have to save Springfield themselves... as well as their family union.

To be honest, I don't remember having laughed as much while watching a film than with "The Simpsons Movie". Some sequences are so full of gags that we risk of choking ourselves or having a heart attack. I thus decided to stop eating popcorn so it wouldn't happen to me.

The die-hard fans of the TV series won't be disappointed of the film, far from it. The movie makes a good use of recurrent themes talked about for so many years in the TV episodes, such as the Homer-Bart relationship, Lisa falling in love, the marriage of Homer and Marge in crisis, the Simpsons family discovering an exotic place and the city of Springfield vs. the American government. And none of these subjects is misplaced or inappropriate.

The only element that is not appropriate is the suddenly growing relationship between Bart and Ned Flanders. It is supposed to highlight the fact that Bart is growing more and more distant from his father, but it should have been made more adequately than that way.

The script is so well written that even the most obvious technical mistakes become quickly forgivable. I obviously make mention of Arnold Schwarzenegger who is depicted as the President of the United States, when somebody who is born outside of the U.S. cannot become president. But if this gag would have been deleted, a nice quantity of laughs would have been deleted at the same time.

But it must be said that the movie is masterfully handled by entertainment geniuses. Conceptors took many subjects which have been publicly ridiculed so many times and kept the most they could. There are a lot of subjects, but some are more memorable than others, such as: rock activists, government agents, Disney, industry and even Fox parodies itself, which happened more than once in the series.

The usual title sequence has been heavily modified for the movie. There's still a punishment for Bart, but the sacred couch gag has been left aside, which is a great disappointment.

On the artistic side, nothing bad to say. The animation is first-rate and special effects have been used to create shadows and to make the pictures more three-dimensional and thus, more realistic. This is a privilege that TV episodes can't afford.

And to counter-balance funny scenes, the producers use dramatic scenes whose efficiency goes sometimes beyond of some straight-forward dramas. Finally, there's everything in that picture!

Many guest stars have appeared along the years and the movie makes no exception. We can see Albert Brooks in a key role, as well as Green Day and Tom Hanks as themselves.

Some scenes will undoubtedly become classics soon. We only have to think about Spider-Pig, Homer and Bart fixing the roof and Bart who cruises the street naked on his skateboard after his father challenged him to do so.

Matt Groening and his band of collaborators have successfully taken up the challenge. "The Simpsons Movie" might be the funniest comedy of 2007 and perhaps one of the best of the 21st century. And I don't think that its freshness will fade soon. It's really a splendid comed'oh.

Uh, I mean comedy...

Batman Forever (1995)

Batman reviews, part III: The beginning of the end

[4/10 · 25 July 2007]

From the beginning of the title sequence of the movie "Batman Forever" and from the first dialog between Batman (Val Kilmer replacing Michael Keaton) and his butler Afred (Michael Gough), we can feel that there's obviously something in that movie that makes things different from the first two Tim Burton movies.

And what follows for the next two hours corresponds exactly with what you were expecting. The film is far less dark and it is fulfilled with action, explosions and gaudy images, just like a James Bond flick. It is obvious enough that the new director Joel Schumacher has a vision which is the opposite of Burton's one.

Schumacher seems to be a filmmaker who grew up with the campy TV series from the '60s which starred Adam West and Burt Ward. The movie "Forever" looks like a conjugation of that series and the atmosphere from the Burton movies and Schumacher never hesitates to include references from that series and the first two films. Unfortunately, this is a disastrous move...

At the very beginning, we assist to a gravity-less confrontation between Batman and coin-flipping, disfigured gangster Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones), whose only purpose is to give an introduction without rushing anything in. By the way, we assist to the introduction of Dr. Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman), a psychologist who tries to seduce Batman, but she falls in love with Bruce Wayne.

One night at the circus, Two-Face kills the members of the Grayson family, an acrobat group, except the youngest one Dick (Chris O'Donnell). Bruce Wayne then offers to Dick to accommodate him. But the boy quickly discovers his host's secret. Progressively, Dick wins Wayne's trust and he's allowed to become Batman's sidekick, Robin.

At the same time, the Riddler, aka Edward Nygma (Jim Carrey), arrives. Nygma is the inventor of the Box, an apparatus having the capacity of picking up cerebral waves and transmitting them directly to the Riddler's brain.

While the first two movies only counted three main actors, this one has no less than five major characters. And of these five characters, two are good, two are bad and one is rather average.

It's Val Kilmer who's that average actor. His performance is correct, without being exceptional. We feel that he doesn't own that glum and tortured soul which Michael Keaton owned so well in the first movie. However, he is not insensitive and we can notice some moments of melancholy when he dreams about his parents' murder. He might be intelligent, but when he tries (and succeeds) in finding the Riddler's real identity, nobody can fall for his mental capacities. To sum up, his performance can be ranked in-between both Keaton roles.

After Vicki Vale and Selina Kyle, it's Chase Meridian's turn to fall in love with Bruce Wayne. But she is boring and often annoying, having practically no role to play, but the traditional damsel-in-distress role.

But it's Tommy Lee Jones who is the worst of them all. And yet, he was the ideal guy to play this part... if only he played it the right way. Jones' legendary serious and imperturbable mood should have been the main ingredient for Two-Face, but Jones decided to go over-the-top and transform himself into a wild man. And these are the results : he acts like a moron when he's happy and when he's not, he reacts like a child who has been stolen from his lollipop. One technical mistake involves that Two-Face flips his coin until he gets the option he wants, while it's not the way it works in the comics. But I have to admit that his make-up was pretty good and convincing.

On the good actors' side, we first find Chris O'Donnell who is surprisingly successful as Dick Grayson/Robin. We can feel his boiling and impetuous temperament after the murder of his family and the parallelism of this drama with Bruce Wayne's own tragedy acts like some sort of catalyst and brings out Wayne's dark memories, adding a slight, but essential psychological side to the film.

But it's Jim Carrey who steals the show as the Riddler. Contrary to Jones, Carrey plays his part like any other role he's played before, that is by being exuberant and maniacal. And he's so sensational that he unavoidably provokes laughter from the audience, should he act sensefully or not. Besides, I think that it's there that Jones made his mistake. He saw what Carrey was doing and thought that it was great, so he tried to act the same way. He just didn't realize that it wasn't working in his case.

Anyway, the whole movie is exuberant and over-the-top. This should explain the overabundant use of more-or-less adequate gadgets. The Batcave, which was previously a sinister place, now looks more like Q's headquarters. I was strongly disappointed to see the Batmobile rolling on the side of a building with the help of a grappling gun. And the idea of the fireproof cape under which Batman hides is frankly ridiculous.

Gotham City's architecture doesn't really change, but its peaceful and calm look is transgressed by the apparition of ludicrous billboards, like the giant luminous eye. And how could we forget the the incredibly stupid replica of the Statue of Liberty?

So, overall, "Batman Forever" is an attempt to make the franchise more accessible to those who didn't appreciate Tim Burton's dark and bizarre treatment.

But it's not necessary to be a fan of the series to realize at which point Schumacher's movie is silly and ridiculous. The director can try to redeem himself by strewing his work of references to win over the nostalgic ones, but it changes absolutely nothing. It can even make things worse...

"Batman Forever" might be superior to its 1997 sequel "Batman & Robin", which slightly rises its value, but it's far from receiving praises.

Batman Returns (1992)

Batman reviews, part II: A fair sequel

[7/10 · 25 July 2007]

After an excellent first movie, Tim Burton is back for the next revisionist adventures of the Dark Knight. Only, this time, there are two super-villains.

Burton keeps it going and presents an even darker and more disturbing vision of Gotham City, forsakes somehow the psychological side of the superhero and focuses more on giving more action, chases and technological gadgets for this first Batman sequel.

The movie opens on the apparition of the Penguin, played by Danny DeVito. The Penguin keeps many characteristics coming from the original comics, like his arsenal of umbrellas, his short and chubby stature, his kick for birds (especially penguins) and his top hat. However, many modifications have been made, mainly to remain faithful to the dark and sinister atmosphere which already prevailed in "Batman" and which stays in "Batman Returns". These changes are mainly mirrored in his appearance, since he's now presented as deformed, with fins instead of hands, a long beak-like nose and his grotesque clothes.

The Penguin comes up to the surface after having lived his whole life in Gotham's sewers. He tries to find his parents only to discover that they're both deceased. Machiavellian businessman Max Shreck (Christopher Walken) then suggests the Penguin to present himself in the elections to become the mayor of the city, with less-than-altruistic plans.

The other villain who jumps into the game is Catwoman or more commonly, Selina Kyle (Michelle Pfeiffer). Kyle is Shreck's awkward secretary and when she discovers her boss' malevolent plans, he throws her of the window. But mysteriously, after a group of cats gathered around her body, Kyle gets up, goes back home, where she goes completely berserk, and creates her feline alter ego.

It's now up to Batman (Michael Keaton) to come to terms with those two new adversaries who each have different plans and objectives.

The Penguin is accompanied by henchmen who look like a group of artists having escaped from a freak show or from the carnival from the movie "Something Wicked This Way Comes". As for Catwoman, she's a thief and she falls in love with Batman. The situation gets more complicated when the real people, Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle, begin to feel a particular affection for each other.

The Penguin and Catwoman team up to discredit Batman and arrange things so Gotham's citizens would turn up against him, which would make things way easier for the Penguin and his election plans.

It must be said that their plans are meticulously prepared and greatly imaginative. Let's say that their actions are more convincing than the Joker's ones in the first movie.

But in "Batman Returns", the characters are generally more two-dimensional than in the first movie. The psychology of the characters is far less explored and it's the general presentation who wins in that case. Not only do the look and the costumes of the characters are carefully prepared, but the action scenes also are.

The Penguin's presentation is fairly good. He's ugly, grotesque and frightening. His den is no less either. The Catwoman costume, made of leather and 'claws' is appropriated for such a dark picture.

Many gadgets appear in "Batman Returns". Some are original, inventive and useful, while others are frankly ridiculous. I didn't like what looks like some kind of 'batarang' which automatically hits the enemies one by one and the Batmobile which 'auto-mutilates' to escape from the police cars. However, the Batsuit's retractable wings is a brilliant idea.

Gotham City still is a Gothic, dark, disturbing and postmodern metropolis. But the atmosphere is different somehow. The action of the film is set during the Christmas period, which is even more bizarre. We could almost assert that it's some kind of test from Burton's part before the director would launch himself into the production of "The Nightmare Before Christmas". At one certain moment in the movie, we even see sunlight, which didn't happen at all in the first movie.

The dialog is sometimes bizarre, should it be intentional or not. It can lead to lengthy, boring and disconcerting scenes. But there also are grandiose lines, such as the one where the Penguin distorts the most famous line from David Lynch's movie "Elephant Man". And we must not forget that scene where Catwoman meows in front of Batman and the Penguin, just before the store behind her blow up.

I also loved the scene where Bruce Wayne and Selina Kyle become aware of each other's respective alter ego. There's visibly something that happens in their minds at that precise moment.

"Batman Returns" is far from being perfect, but it's a much acceptable result nevertheless, especially with such expectations from the public's part. You must notice that if there's something difficult in the film industry, it's to make a sequel from an already acclaimed and popular hit picture. But Burton succeeded in his challenge.

And when you look at the Batman movies which follow "Batman Returns", that is those from Joel Schumacher, the value from "Returns" heightens even more. Some people would even say that this movie is a consolation prize. But while this film is not as good as the first one, it must be appreciated. And it's not necessary to force yourself. It comes all by itself...

Batman (1989)

Batman reviews, part I: An excellent start

[9/10 · 24 July 2007]

The story of Batman is a story full of ups and downs, surprises and disappointments, redeems and crashes. Of all superheroes, Batman is probably the one who had the most interesting and hectic career so far. Since his debut in the American comic books in 1939, the Dark Knight never stopped from catching the imagination of youngsters and not-so-young-sters, should it be with comic books, TV series, toys, collecting items and so on...

But it's probably the 1989 film by Tim Burton that remains the height of Batman's career. It's by far the most profitable work in the history of the Dark Knight and also maybe the most representative, because it's its visions of the superhero and of Gotham City that still predominate in popular culture, even after the release of the Christopher Nolan movie "Batman Begins" in 2005.

In this super-production from director Tim Burton, it's Michael Keaton who pulls on Batman's cape and the suit of Bruce Wayne. In Gotham City, everybody knows Wayne, since he is a very wealthy man with a philanthropic side and living in a sumptuous mansion with his butler Alfred (Michael Gough).

However, for the majority of the city's inhabitants, Batman is only a rumor and those who claim to have seen him appear as credible as people who pretend to have seen Bigfoot, extra-terrestrials or the Loch Ness monster.

In this first movie, Batman's adversary is none other than the Joker (Jack Nicholson). An interesting fact: it's for the moment the only Batman film to have only one villain. But we have to admit that it would have been a shame to team up the Joker with another criminal who wouldn't be able to handle a candle for him.

At the beginning of the movie, the Joker is Jack Napier, the right-hand man to gangster boss Carl Grissom, played by Jack Palance. Grissom is responsible of the corruption of many policemen throughout the city. One night, Grissom sets up a plan to kill Jack via the corrupted police, best exampled by Lt. Eckhart (William Hootkins). However, with Batman's intervention, a chain of events will lead to the birth of the Clown Prince of Crime himself.

If the movie has been such a great success, it's because it works on numerous levels. And it all begins with the actors.

If it's Jack Nicholson who is the top billed actor on the posters and in the opening title sequence, it's not for nothing. He's by far the best actor of the movie. While he's just correct as a simple gangster, his Joker transformation allows him to truly reveal his extraordinary abilities. Wearing his ceaseless grin, his purple and teal costume, his clownish make-up and his green hair, Nicholson adds even more with his manic character and his extremely macabre humor, trademark from director Burton.

Michael Keaton, who was under-estimated because of his comedic roles, is very surprising. His Bruce Wayne character is pleasantly mysterious and tortured, often making forget that he is a millionaire and owner of a large company (which is not even mentioned at all in the whole movie).

Robert Wuhl, another comedian turned dramatic actor, is also efficient in his role of a serious and shrewd journalist who tries to break the Batman mystery.

Kim Basinger plays Vicki Vale, a photojournalist who works with Wuhl, but she falls in love with Bruce Wayne. Her performance is correct, but Keaton and her visibly develop no chemistry.

If there's another character that should be added to that list, it's Gotham City itself. Designed with a master hand by Anton Furst and Peter Young, Gotham's architecture blends post-modernism and German expressionism to perfection, creating a unique mix of "Blade Runner" and "Metropolis". And the sinister look of the skyscrapers and the buildings reflects pretty well what's happening in the streets of the city. At the beginning of the movie, we see tramps searching garbage cans, prostitutes wandering in the streets and bandits attacking everymen, making alleys hazardous places.

The Batmobile and the Batwing are also mentionable.

The soundtrack and the songs are simply remarkable. Danny Elfman's music is terribly contagious and Prince's songs are not only good, they're placed at the right place at the right moment. We only have to think of the museum sequence in which the Joker and his thugs commit an obnoxious crime : vandalizing and destroying artworks.

There's also that iconic scene where the Joker throws $20 million to the people in Gotham's main street and kills them thereafter. The image of a man falling to his death with bills in his hands is especially striking.

The Joker is probably the greatest villain we have ever seen in a comic-book adaptation. And because of the magnitude of Nicholson's performance, it is doubtful that somebody could beat him someday.

"Batman" is full of classic moments and it would be almost impossible to list them all. It's difficult to say whether it's the greatest superhero film ever or not, but it's undoubtedly the one which launched the superhero movie trend, which still goes on stronger than ever today.

"Batman" is strewn with little imperfections here and there, but we hardly notice them and they have little impact on the movie's quality. Despite these insignificant mistakes, the legacy of "Batman" is almost impossible to estimate. And even if Christopher Nolan gave a different direction to the franchise with, should it be said, an excellent movie ("Batman Begins"), he has failed to replace the imagery from Burton's vision in popular culture. And that's what gives to Burton's movie even more prestige.

The Matrix Revolutions (2003)

The second sequel cure

[7/10 · 19 July 2007]

Do you know the first sequel syndrome and the second sequel cure?

The first sequel syndrome happens when the sequel in question is of far inferior quality from its predecessor, often because it uses the same formulas, but the result gives a pretentious look to the final cut of the movie. Generally, it means more action, more explosions, more spectacle... and less brains.

The second sequel cure refers to the process which involves that the director or the producer (or both) becomes aware of the mistakes made in the second movie and tries to correct them by presenting a third movie that is closer in presentation to the first movie or by changing almost everything to avoid feelings of déjà vu or pretension.

"The Matrix" was exceptional, a real masterpiece. "The Matrix Reloaded" was suffering from the first sequel syndrome. But the Wachowski Brothers applied the second sequel cure and this gives "The Matrix Revolutions", a far more satisfying effort than its direct predecessor, without reaching the level of perfection of the original one.

The storyline of the third film starts immediately after the end of the second one, thus putting a contrast with the latter which began six months after the end of the first movie. Neo (Keanu Reeves) is unconscious in the real world, but his mind is elsewhere, somewhere between the Matrix and the Machine world.

The bad news is that the Machines are about to attack Zion (with their 250,000 sentinels) and the humans' chances don't appear to be very high. Neo and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) are thus heading for Machine City where they hope to find a way to stop the war.

The Matrix series, somehow like the Star Wars saga, lies almost entirely on visual content and much less on the characters. They can be cardboard, it doesn't stop the filmmakers.

What I didn't like from "The Matrix Reloaded" was the special effects which looked rather 'recycled' and simply upgraded from the first movie. The sequences of the fight and the highway crazy chase looked interminable.

What I liked from "The Matrix Revolutions" was the freshness brought in the treatment of the special effects and the fighting sequences. Apart from the final fight between Neo et Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), the special effects and the action sequences are almost all set in the real world. That means that the effects of bullet time and time-slicing are somehow left apart. This single fact is already a positive thing.

I especially liked the fight between Neo et Smith (as Bane) inside the Logos ship. The climax, where Neo see a fiery Smith, is profoundly chilling and almost look like a horror film extract.

I also appreciated the performance from Ian Bliss, who plays Bane who is possessed by Smith. Bliss is spectacular in his ways of re-creating Smith by speaking like him and by having the same facial expressions. A big cheer for him.

But it must also be said that Smith himself got promoted in a way of speaking. He was the main villain in the first film and only one of the main in the second one. But here, he finally completed his transition from simple villain to super-villain, a bit in the style of Lex Luthor or the numerous James Bond enemies.

The Battle of Zion is also of a prodigious grandeur and magnificence. The battle is long, but it is so captivating that it never becomes interminable.

In fact, nothing is interminable in "The Matrix Revolutions". Not even the final combat between Neo and Smith. Both fighters are about from the same strength and their confrontation is long. But unlike the fight between Neo and the clones in the second movie, it is not interminable. And there's a reason to that: everybody knows at that moment that the upcoming battle will be the last one. So we want to see all how it's going to end, regardless of the amount of time it will take. But it must be said that the Wachowski Bros. know how to make the suspense last.

What sparked controversy among fans, ordinary moviegoers and film critics is the film's conclusion. And in a sense, I support them. The movie's ending is terribly complex, perhaps even more than the legendary final puzzle from "2001: A Space Odyssey". But in another sense, it's better that way.

Why? Because the conclusions from the first two movies were so simple and banal that they sadly looked like a typical ending from a Hollywood flick. The ending of the third movie (and consequently, the whole series) shows that there's some creative renewal from the directors' part and succeeds in showing that the series remain intellectual until the very end, even if it has lost some parts previously.

To summarize all of this, we can take the famous phrase of the Oracle (Mary Alice): "Everything that has a beginning has an end" and change it for: "Everything that is mysterious has an explication". And like any ambiguous ending, it will become the target of many speculations by the fans of the series, thus showing that the Matrix stimulates the minds till the end.

There also are mystical, almost poetic moments, like that famous scene where the Logos goes over the dark clouds of the "desert of the real", allowing Neo and Trinity to see the real sun for the first time.

"The Matrix Revolutions" mixes up the purity with the artificiality. The purity of eternal love between Neo and Trinity and the purity of the battles set in the real world. The artificiality of the special effects, of the machines and of the Matrix itself. And this blend of the real and the fake works without causing any malfunction, or almost.

After a disappointing first sequel, "The Matrix Revolutions" fulfills its task and makes sure that the series doesn't crash down.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

Reloaded, you say?

[5/10 · 14 July 2007]

Reloaded, the Matrix? In a sense, it's true... But in another sense, it's far from it...

More explosive than ever, more spectacular, containing more action than the client could ask and far less satisfying than the first episode, "The Matrix Reloaded" is nothing more than a very ordinary sequel...

The story from this second act isn't set directly after the events of the first one, but some time after. The clues are rather obvious anyway. Neo (Keanu Reeves) already knows Zion very well and also its inhabitants, while at the end of the first movie, he hadn't set a single foot there before.

To be more precise, I think that it is set six months after "The Matrix".

The story from the second film follows Neo in his quest to destroy the Matrix. The Oracle (Gloria Foster) informs him that to get through with it, he must reach the Source, located on a building level where "no elevator can go and no stair can reach". But first, Neo has to find the Keymaker (Randall Duk Kim), the only person who can give him the access to the door which leads to the Source.

This mission will not be without any pitfall for Neo. The Keymaker is kept prisoner by a rogue program named Merovingian (Lambert Wilson), shaped as a Don Juan-like man who is obsessed with the French language at the point that he learns nearly every insult from it. Merovingian is surrounded by many more-or-less interesting henchmen who are not worth the potential of our favorite super-cool hero. Except two strange twins (Neil and Adrian Rayment) who can transform themselves into invincible ghosts. These two characters are undoubtedly the most interesting villains after Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving).

And talking about Agent Smith, you thought he was dead, didn't you? Don't you believe it! Because he's back! He's as powerful as he was before, but he acquired the capacity of copying himself as many times as he pleases. This makes the matters even more difficult for Neo and the other protagonists.

If you're the kind of viewer who got an eye on the action scenes in the first movie, then be sure that you won't get bored here. Because there's plenty of action here...

The special effects used in the first movie all come back and they're usually upgraded by the Wachowski Brothers, so they can get to a superior level. After all, why would they change a winning formula? But there's an answer anyway: it's less surprising. The reason why "The Matrix" was so breathtaking is because the effects of bullet time and time-slicing appeared like something new and innovating. But what is done here is recycling...

It seems that the Wachowski Bros. haven't learned from Stephen Sommers when he made "The Mummy Returns".

In the first movie, the main dish in terms of action was the ultra-stylized slow-motion lobby fusillade, made to look like a John Woo movie sample. This time, the main dish is more conventional, because it's a high-speed pursuit on a busy freeway. Besides, it's the only scene from the movie that hasn't been shot in Australia, because it was actually shot in a specially-built highway in Alameda, California. The chase is spectacular and provides a lot of high thrills. However, it looked interminable to me.

The first battle between Neo and the Agent Smith clones is also interminable. The fact that the Wachowskis experiment new kinds of figures to impress us is actually not-so impressive. By moments, you can also clearly see the artificial Neo doing the CG stunts. I think that we should not see those kinds of scenes, especially in such a movie, where advanced technology is the only true thing that drives the picture.

But what truly strips the interest of "The Matrix Reloaded" from "The Matrix", it's the reject of addressing philosophical issues to the characters and viewers at the same time. "The Matrix" was interesting because of the numerous spiritual questions that it raised, most notably about the definition of reality. The second movie tries to redeem itself by giving to its characters the occasion of asking questions that are nearly impossible to understand and even less to answer, which doesn't fix anything up. "The Matrix" was complex, but it stayed sufficiently clear to be understood by the everyman and the everywoman. "The Matrix Reloaded" is just too much difficult to catch.

"The Matrix Reloaded" is definitely spectacle-oriented. And in more ways than one...

Not only are there really epic action sequences, but the sequence of the Zion cave is also made on a big scale, with hundreds, if not thousands of extras. We can see Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) pronouncing a speech reminiscent of Winston Churchill in the Battle of Britain, followed by a lengthy and perfectly useless sequence of dances and proto-primitive musics.

In short, "The Matrix Reloaded" is not a bad movie, but you must really be a big fan of the Matrix franchise to appreciate it.

I don't know what the third movie will look like, because the first two were so different in style than we cannot really predict what will be retained. Ideally (and obviously), the best thing to do would be to combine the best elements from the first two pics, but it's easier to mean it than doing it.

So, will Neo accomplish his destiny? Will everybody survive? Will humanity be victorious over the machines? To take an already well-known question: "What is the Matrix... end?"

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)

The darkest comedy of them all... and one of the funniest too!

[10/10 · 2 July 2007]

When "Full Metal Jacket" was released in theaters in 1987, it was said that the timing couldn't have been worse because of the huge success of the movie "Platoon" the year before, without adding the quantity of Academy Awards picked up by the Oliver Stone film. However, in January 1964, it was the exact opposite that was said about "Dr. Strangelove".

Today, the Cold War issues remain present, but they're far less important than the scenario that was being drawn at the end of the year 1963, that is the moment where this classic Stanley Kubrick comedy was shot. It was the time of the "Freezing War", the scary Cuban Missile Crisis was still fresh in the collective mind and the young President Kennedy was just being assassinated.

That's when arrived this movie, which dared to show a nuclear apocalypse with a comic eye. But what could have been funny in there? It's possible to laugh of the mishaps of somebody other than ourselves, but when everybody is concerned, it's far less funny. Just remember the 9/11 aftermath, when rumors of WWIII surfaced...

But Stanley Kubrick, being a master of virtually every genre, conceived an astoundingly funny comedy, skilfully mixing the suspense from a man-made end-of-the-world with the absurdity of the characters who act in, sometimes without knowing it.

Kubrick worked with a talented screenwriter in the person of Terry Southern, but especially with prodigious actors. I'm evidently referring to Peter Sellers, whose three roles entered into the legend, and George C. Scott, whose role quality rivals with his Oscar-winning performance of General Patton in the movie "Patton", released six years later.

Based on the theme of the failure to communicate, the movie is set in three different places. Primo: the Burpleson Air Force Base, headed by General Jack D. Ripper (Sterling Hayden), a psychotic obsessed by fluoridation which "saps and impurifies all of our precious bodily fluids". His aide de camp is Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake (Sellers), a timid but highly competent English officer who doesn't buy Ripper's theories.

Secundo: a B-52 piloted by Major "King" Kong (western star Slim Pickens). We see Kong and his crew (which includes young James Earl Jones) preparing themselves to the nuclear strike and composing with unexpected difficulties which will provide even more thrills.

Tertio: the Pentagon or more precisely, the War Room. It's there that the three most interesting characters of the story are located: President Merkin Muffley (Sellers), General Buck Turgidson (Scott) and hilarious mad scientist Dr. Strangelove (Sellers). They try to communicate with drunken Soviet president Kissoff, but in vain.

"Dr. Strangelove" is among the greatest comedies ever made, but this statement isn't based upon the quantity of laughs that the movie unfolds. In fact, the first time I watched it, I only laugh wildly twice: when Turgidson stumbles in the War Room and when Dr. Strangelove is struggling with his uncontrollable alien right hand.

Instead, "Dr. Strangelove" plays on tongue-in-cheek humor and the absurdity of the characters, as well as some subtleties. The best example is the impossible names of the characters, which have almost all a sexual connotation. There's a list: Merkin Muffley, Turgidson, Kissoff, de Sadesky, Bat Guano and Jack D. Ripper. We also laugh of improbable messages or writings, like the post in the base on which it is written: "Peace is our profession", at the moment where soldiers are fighting each other. There's also the useless " NUCLEAR WARHEAD – HANDLE WITH CARE".

It is obvious that the movie wouldn't have been so successful without the exceptional performance of its three main actors. Peter Sellers is remarkably all-round and he's an unequaled master with different accents. His Dr. Strangelove role is probably the greatest of his career, even if the character himself appears on-screen for about ten minutes only.

George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden and Slim Pickens are the other mentionable actors. Scott is very funny with his character who spends most of his time at chewing gum, making ridiculous facial expressions and insulting the "Russkies". Hayden is disturbing with his perpetual cigar and his monologues about fluoridation and "Commies". The orders he gives to his troops before the base attack are particularly absurd, especially when he says: "Don't trust any man, except if you know him personally". As for Pickens, he will always be remembered for his idiot but enjoyable-to-hear speeches and for his cowboy hat which he wears until the end, during the most memorable scene, where he rides the bomb like a matador riding a bull in a rodeo.

Not only is this movie very funny, it's also very pessimistic. How many times do we speak of prejudices and no-confidence between people? Even at the end, when doomsday is unavoidable...

And I've almost forgotten to mention the precious aid from production designer Ken Adam. Without him, there wouldn't be no War Room, this fictitious but pop culture-iconic room. The interior of the B-52 is also well-made.

However, the plane exterior is the main problem of the film. To suspend a plane model in front of the camera with a Russian land background is a big disappointment, especially when we know how fussy director Kubrick is.

But from the opening title sequence, where a plane refueling looks like a jumbo-size sexual act, to the final scene, where a sequence of nuclear explosions is accompanied by the famous Vera Lynn song "We'll Meet Again", it's guaranteed that "Dr. Strangelove" never bores. Even if universal peace happens someday, we'll watch this movie with a large smile and a satisfied mood. That's what we call a timeless classic...

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 (2004)

...if you watch the first volume

[6/10 · 16 June 2007]

I still have difficulties to believe that this insipid and ordinary dish is the sequel of the ultra-spicy and tasty "Kill Bill Vol. 1".

With the incredible spectacle shown in the first part of this epic four-hour-plus movie, my expectations were very high for this sequel and conclusion. Perhaps that it's just me, but maybe I've put the bar too high. Or perhaps that Quentin himself did with the blood pool of the first volume.

At the end of the first volume, The Bride (Uma Thurman) already killed Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu). So there were only Budd (Michael Madsen), Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) and her boss Bill (David Carradine) to annihilate.

The major difference is that director Quentin Tarantino visibly gave a more conventional taste to the second volume. And if there's one character trait that QT doesn't own, it's the fact of being conventional. It's almost like if somebody slapped him on the fingers while lecturing him of calm himself and behave better. Anyway, if it's the case, I'd really like to meet that person and tell him/her my way of thinking.

This section of The Bride's story (who must be called by her real name Beatrix Kiddo) began pretty well however. The black-and-white opening about the church where the initial massacre happened is original and the massacre itself is never really shown, which gives a "Reservoir Dogs" taste (it happens to be the movie in which Madsen plays the greatest role of his career).

The fact that the shootout happened in a church during a wedding repetition acts like some kind of sacrilege. Just like the katana duel in the snow-covered Japanese garden in the first movie.

Like always, Tarantino tries to pay homage to many film genres in the course of the same feature-length film. But here, it doesn't work very well when you compare to his other movies. The first part, which is supposed to pay tribute to the spaghetti westerns from Sergio Leone, falls short. And there's one good reason for that. The word 'spaghetti' hasn't been taken just like that. That precise word is used because of the supposedly huge amount of blood shown on-screen. But it seems that we're running out of currant juice. Moreover, the cinematography is supposed to be minimalistic, which is not the case here either. Images are not elaborated nor especially stylized, but they're not minimalistic either. Tarantino can try to include samples from Ennio Morricone on the soundtrack, it doesn't improve the situation.

There's an obvious reference to the zombie films of George A. Romero which almost becomes a moment of unintentional comedy.

While Volume 1 was definitely based on the presentation, Volume 2 is definitely aimed at character development and at moments of introspection and souvenirs. It's probably that brutal change of tone that is so uncomfortable.

But it nevertheless benefits to some actors. Carradine impresses, not necessarily by his performance by itself, but by his capacity to remember so many lines and so many monologues by heart.

Hannah is the most frightening killer of the group, because of her dirty character, her menacing face and her sinister blindfold above her right eye. Her fight with Thurman is exciting and the scene where Thurman pulls out her remaining eye is very hard to stomach and remains the most powerful image of this portion of movie.

And we know at which point Tarantino is far from being sentimental. However, the scenes where Beatrix appears with her daughter (which Beatrix thought of being dead) are surprising and comforting.

Now I'd like to go back to Carradine's monologues. It's true that the characters talk much more than they fight in this second volume. Some people would even say that it's another Tarantino trademark and that it's the point that made "Pulp Fiction" so interesting. However, here, characters are rather boring and their conversations are not very catchy. Let's say that Bill's superhero speech is far from the level of the famous "Royale with cheese" of Vincent Vega.

On the cinematography level, there are not many things to underline. There's only the first chapter, entirely in black-and-white, and the scene from inside the coffin that are really interesting.

To sum up, almost all of the publicity and the fame of "Kill Bill" are built around the first volume. Volume 2 is good nevertheless, but we could compare the effect to a cold shower poured on a burning body. If both sections are put together, it would enhance the second part, but it would risk to harm the first one. And obviously, because we're so impressed by the first part, we desperately want to watch the second one. But what do you want...

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

"Kill Bill" is absolutely extraordinary...

[9/10 · 15 June 2007]

"Revenge is a dish best served cold"

Almost everybody knows this proverb. But not necessarily its origin. That's alright, because nobody really knows where that famous phrase comes from. Not even the well-read Quentin Tarantino. In the case where you wouldn't have noticed it, Klingon is the name of a race in "Star Trek". But seriously, do you really think that I'm writing a review to discuss the origins of an expression that every school kid knows?

So, it's supposedly a dish best served cold...

Yet, Tarantino, perhaps unconsciously, strikingly makes that proverb lying. Because revenge in "Kill Bill Vol. 1" is not served cold, but rather dangerously hot, with flavors so explosive that sensitive stomachs will assuredly throw up their dinner.

Even well before he made "Kill Bill", Tarantino was already known for his skillful conjugation of extreme violence and aestheticism. We only have to think of the ear-slicing scene in "Reservoir Dogs" or too-many-scenes-to-give-a-specific-one in "Pulp Fiction". Tarantino completed his violent scenes with numerous references to popular culture in other scenes. Here, Tarantino puts popular culture aside and concentrates almost only on grape juice scenes.

The simple story of revenge is complex nevertheless. Uma Thurman plays 'The Bride'. She is a member of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, a team of assassins composed of herself and four other members. Their boss is named Bill (David Carradine, whose face is never revealed in this episode).

The Bride seems to have left the organization so she could marry and have a child, but her former colleagues show up at her wedding and kill everybody. They think they've also killed The Bride, but she miraculously survives after being shot in the head, even if her assailants cruelly took her baby off her body.

You would have guessed it, The Bride then wishes to get revenge upon her former colleagues by killing them one by one, and Bill as well, hence the title (surprising, isn't it?). This first episode shows The Bride attacking Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu).

Faithful to himself, Tarantino presents his story in a fragmented way, just like if there was simply no other alternative to his methods.

The Bride quickly liquidates Vernita and we learn at the same time that O-Ren has already been killed. So the rest of the story is presented as a flashback and we know what will be the final result. What we don't know is that Tarantino is about to provide us with a breathtaking show of martial arts fights and extreme violence like nothing ever shown before in the history of cinema.

Tarantino really is a living encyclopedia of violence and ways of presenting it. For almost two full hours, the child prodigy from Knoxville, TN shows an exhibition of violent scenes and practically each one is different from the other ones. With such an amount of violence, naturalism quickly lets devolves into surrealism and, at some moments, shock and disgust become laughter.

Volume 1 is almost completely set in Japan, so it's without any surprise that Tarantino takes benefit of the occasion to pay tribute to Japanese film genres and popular culture. Just by seeing what he had done before with other well-known genres, it's not very surprising that QT concentrates on that kind of genre. I'd even say that it was only a matter of time.

And for a fan of Japanese culture like myself, I had a gorgeous feast. It all begins with the short anime, as surreal in its violence than the rest of the film. A superb homage.

The scenes where The Bride drives her yellow motorcycle towards the streets of Tokyo wearing a yellow suit are an homage to Bruce Lee, but it also strangely reminisces the famous anime feature "Akira". And the suit seems to come from the 'sentai' sub-genre, which gave us the already-forgotten "Power Rangers".

We also have to remember that we cannot dissociate Japan from video games. The spike ball linked to a chain used by the young terror Gogo (Chiaki Kuriyama) seems to be a reference to the early titles from the "Sonic the Hedgehog" franchise.

But how could we forget the Japanase sword fights? This amazing spectacle provokes incredibly high thrills during minutes that fly away as fast as the heads of The Bride's victims. Tarantino shot nearly all of the fight scenes in the famous Shaw Bros. studio in Hong Kong and called upon many action choreographers and martial arts specialists to re-create the atmosphere of old Hong Kong movies.

It's true that all of this stuff can shock. Tarantino is aware of it and even takes pleasure from it. How then would you explain the final fight between The Bride and O-Ren? Why would it be shot in a cute and innocent Japanese garden covered with pure white snow? Seeing this natural beauty, we could almost shout out "Sacrilege!" when Tarantino soils the snow with red blood.

But QT is pitiless. He fully trusts his own skills and those of his crew. We have to say that he really is prodigious. He never slows down, even if his last movie has been made in 1997.

For QT, everything in his movies is a question of appearance. It's still true here. Besides the examples already mentioned, we can add the mega-fight that suddenly goes from color to black and white and another one which takes place in a room plunged into darkness except for a blue screen in front of which fighters only look like dancing silhouettes.

With such a beginning, expectations are very high for the following. I must confess that I'm barely able to wait.

Mystic River (2003)

Drama with a capital D

[9/10 · 15 June 2007]

In today's cinema, there are dramas and there are Dramas. A drama is often not much more than a generic term used to designate a movie which doesn't suit in any other category. For the general public, the definition for drama is so much innate that it becomes almost impossible to give it. Instead, a Drama is a movie that catches the viewer in his/her deepest depths at the point that he/she feels exactly the same feelings and the same emotions than the characters portrayed on screen. And "Mystic River" is a Drama.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, "Mystic River" tells the reunion of three childhood friends in less-than-enjoyable circumstances. The movie begins in a street from a residential neighborhood in Boston at the end of the '70s. Jimmy, Sean and Dave are playing street hockey when they decide to write their names in a part of sidewalk whose cement hasn't dried yet. However, they're caught by "policemen" and the latter bring Dave with them.

Cut to present day. Jimmy (Sean Penn) is an ex-convict, owner of a small store and father of three children. Sean (Kevin Bacon) is a divorced homicide detective. Dave (Tim Robbins), whose life dramatically changed since the car event, lives peacefully with his wife and his son.

Jimmy's oldest daughter Katie (Emmy Rossum) has been found murdered in a park. Sean is assigned to the case and his relationship with Jimmy is a factor that stimulates him even more in this sordid affair. Dave is also sympathetic to Jimmy, but several clues picked up by Sean and his partner Whitey (played by Laurence Fishburne) start to make believe that Dave could actually be a prime suspect in that affair.

The movie lays on a solid story, immaculate direction, but especially on the strength of its three main actors. Talking about that, two of them (Penn and Robbins) received an Oscar each for their performance in the film. Penn is a society rebel, shown by the sidewalk episode and his two years in jail, but he also has a heart and the sadness and the revolt that he shows after his daughter's murder are sincere.

Bacon does his job very professionally, but he's not insensitive to the fact that the murder he's investigating concerns his childhood friend. And just like Jimmy who's bruised by the murder of his daughter, Sean also has to come to terms with his own divorce.

Robbins is the most fascinating of the three. He had the bad luck of being the one taken in that car and this traumatic event is well-reflected in his face. Very often, he looks more like a beaten dog rather than a middle-aged man. Even if he's imposing physically speaking, he remains nevertheless the weakest character among those we see on the screen.

The story of "Mystic River" is adapted from the novel of the same name by Dennis Lehane. Such a story is unusual for a filmmaker like Clint Eastwood. And yet, it's probably his best non-Western film as a director. It all demonstrates that Eastwood is a film virtuoso, should he be in front of or behind the camera.

Even if the story is originally from Lehane, screenwriter Brian Helgeland must be credited for his faithful and skilfully successful adaptation.

The movie immaculately shows how one single event can affect so many people and, at the same time, how this event can reunite people. The story is terribly realistic and shows the fragility of child life and never attempts to restrain the impact of pedophiles on youngsters. It's very courageous from Eastwood's part.

Add to that an explosive, merely believable climax and you'll obtain a strikingly poetic and tragic, almost Shakespearian taste.

Eventually, the good old question "what if?" comes to the major characters. It's obviously a unanswerable philosophical question, but it still refers to that painful day when everything changed for three boys who were innocently playing street hockey...

"Mystic River" makes a very good development from a simple story that will finally last for over two hours.

As for the mystery of the murder of Jimmy's daughter, the investigation is imaginative and suspenseful and, as for every good mystery story, the revelation of the guilty is surprising.

But we don't fairly get interested to "whodunit" when we see the pain and the emotions of the characters. Especially the male ones. It's good to see men sharing their emotions. It's yet surprising from a director like Eastwood, who had mainly worked on macho films during the major part of his career.

"Mystic River" is an eloquent example of how the past can affect a life in the present. It's also a very courageous film about pedophilia towards young boys.

The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

Aaargh!!! It's Hannibal Lecter!!!

[10/10 · 31 May 2007]

There are characters who make their entrance in the movie world in such a spectacular way that the actor or actress which played that character risks to be associated with him/her for the rest of his/her career. It's notably the case for Clarice Starling, but especially for Hannibal Lecter. From the moment they appeared for the first time, it became evident that Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins would forever be remembered for their iconic roles.

I have to say that it's Hannibal Lecter who impressed me the most. And that's not only the case for me. I allow myself to tell you that anecdote which happened to me. My sister is some kind of horror buff and I decided to test her by showing her "The Silence of the Lambs". She passed the test successfully but I'll always remember her reaction during the famous ambulance scene when the movie is two-thirds over. When Lecter puts off his mask to reveal his face, my sister instantly gasped. This demonstrates without any doubt the formidable power of Dr. Lecter. His only very presence is frightening. We see him and we are afraid, period.

"The Silence of the Lambs" is the first horror movie in history to be rewarded with the Academy Award for Best Picture. And believe me that it deserves that prize. The Oscars for Foster and Hopkins' acting roles also are. We often associate horror films with ghosts, demons, monsters and other creatures which come from the imaginary and the supernatural. But nothing is more horrifying than what appears real and very plausible. Alfred Hitchcock has already shown that in "Psycho" and director Jonathan Demme raises the bar with this adaptation of Thomas Harris' novel.

The story involves Clarice Starling (played by Foster), a student at the FBI Academy who is also a specialist in serial killers. One of her superiors, Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn), asks Clarice to interview the terrifying psychopath Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter (immaculately played by Hopkins) who is also a brilliant psychiatrist, so he could deliver clues which would lead to the capture of Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), another serial killer actively searched by the FBI.

Lecter accepts to help Clarice, but only to the condition that she feed Lecter's sordid curiosity by confessing herself about her childhood's worst souvenirs.

Why is Lecter interesting himself to Clarice's worst days? Does he want to weaken her? Does he want the bad guy to win? Or is he only a sadist and a pervert? I would go with the latter affirmation.

I think that it is useless to specify that, of all the characters, Hannibal Lecter is by far the best and the most fascinating. The other characters describe him in such a frightening and horrible way that we fear him well before we see him for the first time. And when we see him for the first time, we instantly remark his cold and menacing eyes, as well as his disturbing grin.

Himself a serial killer, we can consider Lecter as one of the worst (or best, depending on how you read it) villains in the history of cinema, even if we see him killing only once. And precisely, his attack is very stylish. He kills both policemen on the strains of Johann Sebastian Bach's "The Goldberg Variations" and once he accomplished his work, we see him stained with blood, just like a painted how has just finished from making a new painting. That scene establishes a shocking parallel between murder and art.

But Lecter is only one side of this story. In fact, he's only a sub-plot. The true story involves Buffalo Bill's actions. Bill, brilliantly played by Levine, acts in nearly the whole Midwest, but his victims always are rather fat young women. Unlike many movies which hide their killer until the very end, we often see Bill in this film, even if we don't know his true identity, nor the frightening motives of his crimes until the end. The only thing we can discover about Bill is his appearing mental problems which push him to kill.

The horrors of the film aren't limited to the killers themselves. The movie is strewn with blood-chilling naturalistic images, especially the images of corpses who got parts of their skin removed. And how could we forget this unbearable image of the dead policeman with an open abdomen posing like an angel who is about to take off?

There's also a good dose of suspense, especially at the end when Clarice is chasing Bill in his labyrinthine basement. The climax of the pitch-black room while Bill is wearing his night goggles to see in the absolute darkness is breathtaking and holds suspense until the conclusion. At this moment, we're totally absorbed in that cat-and-mouse game at the point that we totally forget Lecter's existence.

"The Silence of the Lambs" is an excellent example of the horrors of the criminal acts and of psychological horror aroused by childhood traumas. Overall, the film is an immense metaphor about the horror of modern world and wants to get sure that the viewer leaves weakened and less in security than before he got inside the theater. The sinister soundtrack of Howard Shore adds to the already sordid atmosphere and the Q. Lazzarus song "Goodbye Horses" adds even more with its broken notes which resonate and give goosebumps. Personnaly, each time that I hear that song, I start thinking about Buffalo Bill who cross-dresses in front of the camera with that song playing in the background.

"The Silence of the Lambs" is a grandiose spooky symphony well-carried by Foster and Hopkins whose roles are already a part of the legend. The numerous references of the movie in the popular culture keep it well alive more than fifteen years after its release. Everybody, at least those who are able to stand horror images, should watch this movie at least once in their life.

Taxi Driver (1976)

He's God's lonely man... and we love him!

[10/10 · 30 May 2007]

"Taxi Driver" comes to the screen on the year of the bicentennial of the United States of America. It should be a year of celebration, pride and solidarity. However, the atmosphere of this masterpiece from young Martin Scorsese (he was 33 at the film's release) inspires the very opposite. "Taxi Driver" wants to be depressing et pessimistic and its vision of America, especially of its supreme city, is everything but happy.

The story of "Taxi Driver" is about Travis Bickle, a young insomniac ex-Marine who takes a job as a taxi driver. He tours the streets of New York City, which are continually populated with prostitutes, pimps and 'Negros' from Harlem with the jazzy music of the pleasant Bernard Herrmann soundtrack. Travis' only wish is that someday "a real rain come and wash the scum off the streets".

It's Robert De Niro who plays Travis and he lives in his character like in a second skin. When we see him in the beginning, he seems to be absolutely normal and he looks like all of those innocent characters whose only desire is to have a good worthwhile job, even if it should be tiresome or boring. However, we can quickly perceive that he's the only person of his kind and he's also about to blow off.

Desperate to connect with others, Travis invites Betsy (Cybill Shepherd), a pretty young woman who works for the electoral committee of Senator Palantine (do not confuse with the emperor Palpatine, even if the spelling looks alike), for a date. Travis, however, makes a gross mistake when he brings her to a porno movie, the only hobby that Travis knows.

After buying a rather unreasonable number of firearms from a black market vendor, Travis' mental state quickly deteriorates and he becomes addicted to violence with the miniature army that he bought and his days in Vietnam don't help him. He simulates shootouts in front of his mirror in his apartment and of these simulations lead to the now famous monologue "You talking' to me?".

Eventually, Travis tries to "save" a young 12½-year-old prostitute named Iris (Jodie Foster) by attempting to persuade her to free herself from his pimp Sport (Harvey Keitel with long hair). It's at that moment that Travis breaks down.

He shaves his hair and adopts a Mohawk hairstyle and he becomes almost unrecognizable. He attempts to assassinate Palantine himself (which would infamously inspire John Hinckley), and in one of the most terrifying sequences I've seen in my life, Travis launches a blood bath by killing all those who want to get too close from Iris.

Describing himself until that moment as "God's lonely man", Travis then gets a lot of attention in the media for courageously killing gangsters and saving a little girl from NYC's decaying culture and then sending her back to her parents. Everybody sees Travis as a hero. But is he really? By attempting to erase the 'scum' off the streets, he practically became part of it. It's a vicious circle. It's a pessimistic vision from Scorsese on the indomitable city of New York, a world without mercy where nobody can get off without being affected.

"Taxi Driver" is very bold. And it's for that reason that it remains so striking, even more than thirty years later. It's a very crude film. Its presentation is crude. Its vision of the world and of the city are crude. And especially, its violence is crude. We see little violence, but when it comes out, it doesn't leave anybody indifferent.

The violence that Travis manifests at the end of the movie is simply the fact that he makes visible to everybody what was previously invisible because it was kept hidden in his mind. We can assist to the deterioration of his mental state and we feel that he could crack at any moment. In the end, with good thinking, the violence that he shows is shocking and terrifying, but it's not that surprising.

It's definitely a worrying look, not only upon New York, but also America in its entirety. New York is not the only city in the United States and its problems are not unique to it. "Taxi Driver" is the story of an idealist who wanted to change the world and make it better. And he decided to do it without caring too much about the means.

The movie's ending is ultra-violent, but the bad guys are dead anyway. Is it a happy ending anyway? I think it's the choice of the viewer. Everything depends on how the viewer takes on Scorsese's vision. If the viewer decides that it's a happy ending, it means that he/she is optimistic and believes that it is possible for us to change the world in a good and significant way. If the viewer believes that it's a sad ending, then he/she is pessimistic and doesn't believe that we can really free ourselves from the mess that is American society.

In the end, it can summarized this way: if you think it's a happy ending, you're like Travis Bickle. If you don't, you rather are like Martin Scorsese.

"Taxi Driver" won the prestigious Palme d'Or at the Cannes Festival in 1976. It's a fully deserved honor, because it's a really revolutionary film. I wonder that if it didn't win the Oscar for Best Movie (an honor that rather went to "Rocky"), it's only because it was too hard for the jury's taste who wasn't ready to accept the reality or who refuted Scorsese's ideology shown in the movie. They preferred a typical film with a happy ending rather than a cold and cruel picture destined to cause some discomfort in the population.

However, it's a very enjoyable discomfort. Unless you prefer to live in your inside world.

Men in Black (1997)

Cosmic rhymes with comic

[7/10 · 23 May 2007]

The less that we could say is that movies about extra-terrestrials are becoming more and more fashionable. It's certainly the most fertile period for alien movies since the '50s. At the time, these flicks were some kind of Cold War metaphors that promoted anti-communism and McCarthyism and were disguised as tales depicting an invasion from outer-space. Today, it's mainly a very valuable excuse for developing special effects and ultra-sophisticated animatronic creatures. Only, in the case that's picking our interest right now, there's something different.

It must be specified beforehand that there are different kinds of alien movies. The first kind is the invasion film which dominated the silver screen in the middle of the twentieth century and which seems gaining in popularity since recent box-office successes like "Independence Day". The second kind is the benign alien movie a la "E.T." where space invaders are kindly and inoffensive and where humans look like a primitive form of life in the universe.

"Men in Black" belongs to a third type that we don't see much often. We could call it the alien comedy. It's a film genre that is not much approached and which releases even fewer great successes on the box-office side as well as on the critical side. There has been "Mars Attacks!", but critics didn't hook to that kind of iconoclast humor from Tim Burton. But with "MiB", they will get hooked for sure.

"Men in Black" stars the endlessly serious Tommy Lee Jones and the rising star Will Smith. Jones plays the role of K, a MiB agent, that is an organization which monitors extra-terrestrial activities on Earth. K hires Smith (re-named J) after he successfully pursued an alien in the streets of New York City.

Their first mission together consists in recovering a galaxy (because it seems that the size doesn't have any importance) on 'Orion's Belt'. Their adversary is a 'bug disguised' as Edgar (Vincent D'Onofrio) who is also searching for the galaxy. With the passing of the events lived by the two agents, we gradually discover the Men in Black world, their weapons, the different species of extra-terrestrials who live on Earth and what their job implies (and it's not included in any job guide...).

It is hard to define what is the 'meat' of the movie. It could be the duo formed by the two principal actors, the futuristic gadgets which will make salivate those who have an eye on advanced technologies or it could also be the aliens, who are CG, played by actors with special costumes or remote-controlled. In fact, there's a little bit of all this. But I'd say that the most interesting moments are those which make the audience laugh wildly.

In that case, it's Will Smith who's the best. In a performance that seems to be an evolution from his hot-shot role in "Independence Day", Smith is incredibly funny and wacky and he always provides good laughs, should it be for moments of physical comedy or when he makes the use of jokes and irony.

And what could be better to complete a jester role than combining it with its total opposite? This fact makes that the movie enters in the category of 'odd couple' films. We must admit it, Jones plays his role with professionalism and his serious and his calm of stone give him a particular look in the tongue-in-cheek style. The sequence of the car in the tunnel with Elvis Presley's "Promised Land" playing in the background is the best example. In fact, the only moment where he laughs, it's when he tells a joke that is so appalling that the viewer could only laugh of him and not of his joke.

I also fairly loved the famous segment where K and J's boss, Zed (Rip Torn), displays pictures of real-life people who are supposed to be aliens themselves. In the lot, I've spotted Steven Spielberg (I've always told myself that he had to be from another planet), Danny DeVito (who redefines the 'little green man' term) and Sylvester Stallone (who apparently had difficulties to get rid of his extra-terrestrial accent). And at the end of the movie, we also learn that Dennis Rodman would be an alien too, which wouldn't be too surprising for obvious reasons...

I've been somehow muddled by Vincent D'Onofrio's performance. Was he really there during the entire movie moving in such a mechanical way? Or was he played by a giant-sized animated puppet by moments? Anyway, in both cases, we can only raise our hat.

I wouldn't say the same thing for principal actress Linda Fiorentino who looked very annoying. The end of the movie is also ambiguous.

Special effects are mentionable. Aliens, even if they are totally peculiar, are well-conceived, should it be with the help of computers or from Rick Baker's hand. It must be said that the fact that the story is an adaptation of a rather unknown comic series (which also proves that comics' adaptations do not always involve superheroes), there must be a special treatment that should be brought to the presentation because comics images are rather stylized. The final result is more than satisfying.

In a genre not much approached like the sci-fi comedy genre, "Men in Black" is probably the greatest representative of it since "Ghostbusters" in 1984. It's a very funny thrill ride that you would want to see again and again...

Predator (1987)

Good action picture, but it could have been great

[6/10 · 10 May 2007]

It must be said right now: "Predator" is one of the rare good action movies to see the light today. The problem is that it could have been great...

Starring the indestructible Arnold Schwarzenegger, "Predator" is an audacious and inventive movie, doing a great mix of action, science fiction, horror and exotic destinations. And that just before the film's director John McTiernan come up with his masterpiece "Die Hard".

Schwarzenegger plays Dutch, an American military officer dispatched somewhere in Latin America. His crew has to find and rescue a small group of American hostages captured by guerrillas in the jungle. According to Dutch, this mission seems to be only a walk in the park (or in the rain-forest, if you prefer...).

In fact, it is. The guerrillas' camp is quickly knocked down by Dutch and his mates and the Latino soldiers of fortune are all eliminated. But neither Dutch, nor anyone of his colleagues could have predicted what would follow...

In the way of the Xenomorph in "Alien", the soldiers are killed one by one in an horrible and disgusting way by what looks like to be an invisible figure.

The Predator, thus we have to name it, is rather an extra-terrestrial whose 'hunting' outfit contains super-powerful weapons, an ultra-perfected camouflage mode, a mask that looks like those from Polynesian people and a rasta 'hairstyle'... By the way, we get to see its true (and very ugly, should I say it) face at the very end of the movie only, simply to imply that the people who are responsible of the presentation do not twist their thumbs...

The movie "Predator" starts pretty well. The three skinned corpses give a gruesome foretaste of things to come and they are even more convincing than those that we would see four years later in the famous "Silence of the Lambs".

In fact, the soldiers are killed one by one and each one in a different method. So it avoids to give a repetitive mood to the film and it also avoids from giving to the viewer a feeling of non-surprise. On the contrary, horror and gore are always there, victim after victim.

But what really draws the attention, it's the Predator itself. Its creation and its movements required the use of very sophisticated special effects for its era and nothing has been left at random in order to make the creature even more frightening and also more exciting to watch.

What made the movie famous, it's probably the audacious, ingenious and inventive use of the thermal camera. This method strengthens the existing parallel between "Predator" and "Jaws". Not only that the two main 'antagonists' kill their preys one by one, but we never really see them in the first hour. Instead of that, a special viewing point is taken for each of them. In "Jaws", it's the underwater swimmers' legs. In "Predator", it's the thermal camera.

We must not forget the enemy's 'camouflage' either. Remember: the time is 1987. That means: no computers. Because today, recreating the curved mirror-like effect would be a child's play. But in the context of the time where the movie was created, it was a prodigious technique. And even today, it still stuns, even if it became easier.

The greatest adversary of the Predator is also very good. Schwarzenegger is surprising in this film and his stature of former bodybuilder helps him instead of attracting prejudices, because he's not the only character in this movie who has mountains instead of biceps. In fact, I think that it's his best role (after the Terminator, of course).

And to crown everything, the jungle becomes an entity within itself, as in "Platoon", thus fueling the thrills that give the Predator hunt.

Unfortunately, the movie contains massive mistakes. In fact, "Predator" is an almost-perfect film for the first hour, or hour and a quarter. It's when there's only Schwarzenegger left to kill that everything changes. The action scenes, which were previously well-orchestrated and rather realistic, suddenly become laughable and ridiculous. Instead of killing Dutch, the alien doesn't seem to notice that he's there at all (problem of vision?) and when it has the possibility to kill him single-handedly, it doesn't. Why? I imagine that it's because the story has to end well and the hero must survive. Dutch also builds traps in order to kill his enemy. But just by watching his actions, I searched in vain, but I couldn't find the instruction manual in the scenery...

Fortunately that "Predator" has a strong start, because the falling in the final act would certainly have annihilated it. Still, it's a good action picture that is worth seeing.