Change Your Image
lescamer
Reviews
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
One of the best of the Indiana Jones adventures
I am no fan of Spielberg, but I must say that I am really impressed by the way he managed to continue the series so well after nineteen years. I'd say it's better than Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, but not as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Not only is this in keeping with the rest of the series, but it is made much better. The characters are complex, so are the relationships, and the photography is much better. All the bad things in the film (the anti- Communism, the corny lines, etc.) are pardoned because one can attribute them to the fact that it is Indiana Jones. With the exception of the ending, which is unforgivable. The character of Indiana Jones is very well done here. He till has the same physical health and everything that makes Indiana Jones Indiana Jones, but age has changed him subtly. However, the best acting comes from Shia LaBeouf and Ray Winstone. They have somewhat conflicted roles- LaBeouf's character tries to act tough to disguise his true wimpy nature, Winstone's constantly hesitates between his friendship with Jones and his desire for fortune.
Love's Labour's Lost (2000)
Just what it was supposed to be
Kenneth Branagh's "Love's Labour's Lost" does exactly what it was intended to do: Turn Shakespeare's play into a thirties American Musical. The result is just that. No more, no less. It is as bad as any of those miserable American musical from the late thirties-late fifties. The fact that it's Shakespeare does not arrange anything: Branagh is only really interested in the thirties aspect. Like any of those musicals, it is corny, completely artificial, has no depth. But it also funny, charming, and mostly entertaining. There are occasional times where you will laugh like a madman (one must admit that it's much better than "As You Like It"): Branagh's scream as the King of Navarre pushes the ramp Branagh is on, every second with Timothy Spall, who is hilarious ("Boy, what sign is it when a worthy man grows mel-an-choly- Hilarious, and the whole "I Get A Kick Out Of You" musical number), Miss Marple's monologue and version of "The Way You Look Tonight" , and other things. Overall, this film is nothing more- nor less- than an American Musical, worth seeing just to see how well Branagh pulled off the idea of making Shakespeare's play be exactly like a musical.
The Godfather Part III (1990)
A beautiful, elegant look back at The Godfather and The Godfather Part II
The reason for which The Godfather Part III has such a nasty reputation and is underrated is not that it is inferior, not even that it is too different from the other too, it I that it came out too late. Since it took so long to make it, people had created their own expectations for a third Godfather. If it had taken so long to make The Godfather Part II, it probably would have met with as little success.
I do not know if The Godfather Part III is the best of the trilogy- I think they are all three to different to compare them- but it is certainly the one that leaves me most satisfied. It is an elegant, nostalgic, operatic, Shakespearian epilogue to The Godfather. It possesses an irresistible, inexpressible, and personal charm.
One of the things I like best about The Godfather Part III is that it is an old man's film in every sense. It has the calm, relaxed feel of many films made by aging people- Bergman's Fanny and Alexander, Lean's A Passage to India, Renoir's Le Caporal Epingle. It is a meditation on the passage of times. Michael, Connie, and Kay have all changed but there remains a distant feel of how they were the last time we saw them. There are also these little moments that remind of us of "the old days" (Vincent's way of saying "I'll take care of it" like his grandfather Vito in the second Godfather, how Joey Zasa faintly reminds us of Don Michael in the first two film). It is a look back at the first two films through the eyes of an old Michael.
Othello (1995)
Not bad...
but could have been better. First of all, I would like to say that Laurence Fishburne's performance as Othello did not impress me. Although he is good, I think he maintains a bit too much dignity at the end of the film, making his tragedy less tragic. However, Keeth Branagh is amazing in this film. Like Glenn Close as the Marquise de Merteuil, but better, he makes Iago human, but still very sadistic. The beginning of the film is perfect. We see everything from the point of view of Iago, making us his accomplices in many ways, as he talks directly to us. Then, at the end, we lose him and Oliver Parker makes the great ending of the play way too long and we quickly get bored and annoyed at the melodrama of the last scene. Until the end, it is a great Shakespearian film. It is almost as if the same director as The Merchant of Venice (2004) made this. This is because both Parker and Redford adapt Shakespeare, not to make auteur films, like Orson Welles did, but to make them as Shakespeare would have were he alive at the time of cinema. Therefore, it would be a flawed but very good Shakespeare, but a worse auteur film.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)
Have we seen the same film?
How can people say that it is bad? Maybe, just maybe, it is not as good as the first one. But it is still a beautiful masterpiece.
The beauty of Elizabeth: The Golden Age lies in that it mixes simple, boring historical fact with personal things of her life- Her public side and her personal side. Because that's Elizabeth. She was most of all politics, but, once in a while, she had personal problems. But even the boring politics are made wonderful here because of Khapur's masterful camera and cinematographic games as well as great performances. It is all about mise en scene, this film.
The sequel has the same relationship with its predecessor as The Godfather Part II: While the predecessor is about the transformation of the main character, the sequel is about the character's successful attempt to remain that way.
Novecento (1976)
A Masterpiece.
One of the best epics I've ever seen. Like all of the great epics, it takes its time to fully show the developments of the characters more than in other films. The ones I love are Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather Part II, Il Gattopardo, and others. I do not understand the fuss Americans make about it being a propaganda film. Of course, it is definitively one-sided but then if Novecento is propaganda, so are Indochine, The Patriot, The Deer Hunter, Doctor Zhivago. The direction is unbelievable. This is probably my favorite Bertolucci after The Last Emperor. Not a second of this five hour film seems to be wasted. It is perfectly filmed and not boring at all. The photography is perfect: There seems to be absolutely no limit to the scope of the film. It is almost as if Bertolucci had traveled in time to find the locations (Althoug it takes place in the 10s, the twenties, the thirties, the forties, and the fifties, everything looks like it was shot at the same time). Robert De Niro gives, as usual, an extremely subtle performance. He takes full advantage of the fact that we see practically all of his life in the film. He has perfectly crafted his character. Alfredo develops exactly like anyone you would ever meet. Gerard Depardieu is also very good, but his character seems to be hollow. He never changes. He is quite simply the perfect man. Donald Sutherman gives a surprisingly subtle performance. He is a complete villain, in the tradition of Tavernier, yet Sutherland manages to give his one-sided character (quite simply the Devil!) a kind of change through the years, like De Niro. Dominique Sandra is impossibly sexy in this film. Her character is very complex.
Manon des sources (1986)
A Masterpiece.
Claude Berri's films "Jean De Florette" and Mano Des Sources" are absolutely great and can be seen individually in terms of understanding things; that is, one does not need to see Jean De Florette to understand what is happening in Manon Des Sources. And you could very well be satisfied with just watching Jean De Florette. However, viewing the two films is a kind of emotional treatment. Now, I am not very much for emotion in film. But the two films are so perfectly planned to give exactly the right treatment that even I, the most heartless of film viewers, was shaken to the point of no return even after having seen it for the third time. It is the most perfect shift of point of view that I have ever seen. At the beginning of the first film, we see the Papet and Ugolin and meet them and basically "hang out with them", as would say Tarantino. Then, we see Jean's point of view of the story and feel his misery. We learn to be shocked by Ugolin and the Papet's doings. Then, in Manon Des Sources, our pity for Jean is transmitted to his daughter Manon. After that, our sympathy falls to Ugolin and the Papet. However, the films are flawed by Berri's faithfulness to Pagnol's work. There is something about the dialog that sounds fake and TV-like. Also, Berri in Manon Des Sources with Girardot and others has the same problem as Coppola in The Godfather Part III with Sofia and the actor who plays Anthony: He is too family-oriented and chooses very bad actors.
Mr. Bean's Holiday (2007)
it is pretty good
"Mr Bean's Holiday" is a tribute to Jacques Tati's "Les Vacances De Monsieur Hulot". Like Tati's film, this one is pretty much silent, with dialog and sounds of course but they are not important at all. They are more a music than something that makes you follow the plot.
Rowan Atkinon is superb in the film, much better than in the first film, as he does not have much dialog to say. Some of the scenes are hilarious. Examples: Going to the restaurant with Jean Rochefort, Bean's encounter with a Czechoslovakian filmmaker, and a scene with an American film director.
Unfortunately, towards the end, everything is screwed. Dialogue becomes important for understanding what the hell is going on, corny clichés take place. For example, a French woman ends up loving Mr. Bean.
Valmont (1989)
A masterpiece.
Milos Forman's masterpiece is visibly inspired by Truffaut and Renoir in that it is very filled with human emotions and contains absolutely marvelous characters studied to the nth degree. Like Tarantino once put it, the characters are not prisoners of a plot. Like DE Laclos, Forman has managed to create characters that are so well made that they seem to actually exist. Valmont is playful and, despite its subject matter, harmless. That is what I adore with Forman: Drama and horror is always showed in his films (In this, Valmont is killed in a duel, Merteuil ha lost her best friend, Cecile has lost her innocence, a baby is born without a father, in Amadeus, Mozart dies alone and uncelebrated and in poverty, Salieri is jealous to death and becomes a complete nut) but it is never made a big deal of, suggesting that while horror does exist, it is a part of life.
Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
A great film
about perversion and love. Les Liaisons Dangereuses is probably the best love story ever told. I, of course, am talking about the love affair between Valmont and Merteuil. The performances in Dangerous liaisons are absolutely great. However, the dialog as pronounced with an American accent sounds very fax, especially the dialog between Merteuil and Valmont. Their story is great because of its total originality, even today. Valmont is madly n love with Merteuil and completely devoted t her. Merteuil also loves him very much, but she is devoted to somebody else: Woman power. And her passionate love of Valmont is very much an obstacle to her taking a revenge on the male sex. Therefore, she has to show even the man she loves the most that she is above her sex. Her devotion to her cause is even more stubborn than Madame De Tourvel's. Stephen Frears'film is a masterpiece in which explores acting as hypocrisy and love as warfare. However, the film fails in the way that Frears seems to be directing more a play than a film. Though its original source is a play, the film is a film. It should therefore be made as a film. What I have noticed about Hampton is that his screenplays are beautiful to read but imputable on film. The only two people I know who have managed to write beautiful screenplays that have ended up as being great films as well are Peter Shaffer and Ingmar Bergman.
Les liaisons dangereuses (1959)
Vadim's masterpiece
This is one of the three best adaptations (This, Valmont, Dangerous Liaisons). People seem not to like it but I loved when I saw it. Maybe this is just because i read it before i read the novel and it was the first adaptation i saw. But, whatever, you say it is Vadim's best film. the updating in this film is ten times better than cruel intentions, which simply does not work in terms of update. Cruel Intentions does not make us very well understand the big deal about screwing Cecile. Even though it is not as much of a big deal in this film as it would have in the 18th century, it is still pretty big. I also love the idea that Valmont and Merteul are husband and wife. Although it changes some plot things from the novel, I think it works because of its simplicity and it also gives an excellent reason for what they do: They do it, selfishly, so as not to destroy their own relatonhip. Gerard Philippe and Janne Moreau's acting is absolutely superb. It is completely realistic and, like Yves Montand and Daniel Autel in Jean De Florette, it makes us realize that what they do is something we could as well unlike John Malkovich and Clenn Close in Dangereous Liaisons who are way too evil to be believed or understood.
The Untouchables (1987)
The Most Overrated Film of All Time
With Scarface, The Untouchables is the most overrated film of all time. I guess Ennio Morricone's musical score, Sean Connery's performance as Jimmy Malone, Murruhm's photography, and Robert De Niro's performance as Al Capone are absolutely great and the costumes are good but, let's face it, what else? Kevin Costner's performance as Eliot Ness is not only bad but it is possibly the most annoying performance of all time. I am not even exaggerating. It is nothing but a shoot-'em-up film. The characters are simple and there is the maddening American theory of good and bad throughout the whole thing. It has aged a lot. Perhaps not as much as Scarface but still... It also features a horrible screenplay. It is unbelievably corny and cartoon most of the time.
Murder by Decree (1979)
Good
I must say it's a good film although it has aged TREMENDOUSLY. It is very atmospheric. It also contains excellent performances from James Mason and Christopher Plummer. The atmosphere of evil is perfectly done. It has only been equaled perhaps by Bergman's The Serprent's Egg. However, it has some very sloppy things: For example, the overdone speech by Holmes at the end as well as the last image we see of the little girl. There is also the very neo-realist-Italian- style-over-drama which I detest at the end of the scene with Genevieve Bujold. Some say that it is one of the best Ripper movies ever made. I believe that. However, on the Sherlock Holmes side, it fails: The character development is very empty and the overall way he is characterized is not well studied at all.
The Good German (2006)
the good German
the problem with the good German is that it is not original in any way.
it looks completely like a forties film. the average forties film is not very good. the only amazing forties films were really Casablanca, Les Enfants Du Paradis, Notorious and some few others. But what Soderberg is doing is only an average forties film, therefore making quite limited. George Clooney I was a little disappointed in. His acting is very hesitant and he looks like he is hesitating between being forties or not therefore resulting in an empty and hesitant performance, It also seems that he tries to imitate an average actor of the forties but what he does not seem to understand is that there were some very good actors in the forties: Bogar, Grant. Cate Blanchett is more sexy than ever before and she does a splendid job at acting well but just well enough for an actress of the forties. Definitely the best actress of today. she has to get an academy award. Toby Maguire also does a very good performance, mixing the stereotype of the asshole war opportunist and pimp with the young rebel stereotype. However, he does not have the talent of Blanchett and, unlike her, he acts too well for a forties actor. Also deserves a Best Supporting Actor Academy Award.
A Passage to India (1984)
A masterpiece
This film is absolutely great. Surprisingly, it is. like Bergman's The Serpent's Egg, enormously underrated. Many people know Doctor Zhivago yet very little people know A Passage to India, even though it is clearly better.
The main character, played by Judy Davis, is, with Lawrence, the best character Lean ever showed. She could easily have been a conventional aristocrat a la Titanic.
There is a very epic and mysterious feel in this film which must be extremely difficult to manage.
The fact that it comments on English colonialism is not important. Lean wasn't the first and not the last. But, it is the way that it is completely unconventional that it makes it great. Judy Davis not fall in love with someone else. The Indian becomes bitter. The mother-in-law is lovable
The Black Dahlia (2006)
What can I say? It's DePalma
DePalma always does this: His films seem to be good graphically but not in anything else. As in "The Untouchables", "The Black Dahlia" is visually astonishing but the screenplay is not necessarily bad but not DePalma. "The Black Dahlia" is an infinitively complicated story and DePalma makes it so visually stunning that we are more interested about it than the story, which we must follow to understand what it is. Also, the photography and just the way it is told is very late 40's film noir (Wilder and stuff) but too much so. A good film is not melancholic. The acting also could be better. As usual, DePalma lets the actors do what they want without directing them and as usual, the acting fails. We expect a character study or good character development, where is it?
Marie Antoinette (2006)
An original film
Clearly, Sofia has inherited Francis's talent. Like her father, she is very good at making us identify even in a period film and character study. But I'm not here to compare Sofia with Francis. I saw it in Nantes before it came out in the US and I think that for a French audience it must be very annoying to have a French figure told in a very American way. It is more about an American girl than an Austrian girl: The way Marie simply lives in her rich world and parties with friends without wondering one second if the outside world is as lucky as she is. Clearly, Sofia Coppola identifies with Marie: Like her, she is the daughter of a king, she has always had everything she wanted, etc. What I love about this film is tat it is the ultimate biography: The film may take place in the 18th century instead of the 20th and 21th, she may be Austrian instead of American, she may be the daughter of the king of Austria instead of the king of American cinema, her name may be Marie instead of Sofia, but it is very much a collision between the two. Sofia Coppola even deforms history a little to make it more clear that it is Sofia's story and not Marie's. She even goes as far as to make us listen to her own favorite music which Marie could never possibly have heard. In a way, Sofia has the same basic talents as her father- elegance, character study, character identification, a floating story- but where her father is very Italian and manly, she is very American and girly.