Movie News of the Day

Public Enemies: A beautiful object, but...

2009-07-03T12:43:00.002-04:00

Public Enemies is one of those admirable cinematographic objects, where it is really difficult to be enthusiastic. This new film by Michael Mann (Heat, Collateral) is perfect in all respects. Both narrative and on the interpretation or staging aspect, this drama telling the story of the famous John Dillinger is full of elements of the highest precision and quality. The filmmaker has demonstrated a remarkable effort in the details, a perfectionist, that’s obvious.

Public Enemies, movie review

Public enemy no1 at the time of the creation of the FBI, John Dillinger is a fascinating character. The gangster has indeed gained popular support at a time when several people trapped in the throes of the Great Depression, blamed their woes on financial institutions. They see the robberies of Dillinger as a form of revenge against the white-collar workers crooks who put everyone in their loss. We could also criticize Mann for not having done enough to reflect this aspect of the depression. Even if the story is camped at a time of decline and poverty, collective suffering is almost never mentioned.

The scenario that Mann co-wrote with Ronan Bennett (Lucky Break) and Ann Biderman (Primal Fear), looks rather to portray a charismatic figure, whose activities will soon raise the ire of the authorities. J. Edgar Hoover (excellent Billy Crudup), Director of the FBI, and Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), the man charged by Hoover to head the agency office in Chicago, make it almost a personal matter.

The rebellious and independent attitude of Dillinger is also annoying to the criminal organizations... everything is in place for a confrontation in which, we guess (how hard is it?), people will pay with their blood ...

True to form, Mann does not put on the dramatic aspects of history for grandstanding. He prefers to set up things, including in his story a multitude of peripheral characters, which will, of course, all have their importance. Among these, it should be noted the one embodied by Marion Cotillard (La vie en rose). In the role of of Dillinger’s lover, the French actress who appears in a movie for the first time since receiving her Oscar, can actually deliver a real composition, despite the apparent thinness of the role.

Public Enemies is also based mainly on the kind of cat and mouse game in which the two protagonists play actively. If the Dillinger’s actions are spectacular, the man remains a example of sobriety. This at least, is the illustration that Johnny Depp gives, which avoids any effect. And leaves the strength of character impose itself. Facing him, Christian Bale is just as sober, although the intensity of the proverbial actor is expressed through contained rage. Perhaps this says it all: this movie is sort of a full of opacity. Dillinger remains a mysterious figure at the end of the movie as he was at the beginning. Public Enemies remains, however, a beautiful film.

Like usual, the trailer:

Pelham 123

2009-06-12T16:37:00.001-04:00

Pelham 123, a film by Tony Scott with Denzel Washington and John Travolta could have been excellent...

Pelham 123, Movie Review

Tony Scott usually does very good thrillers, with solid stories like Man on Fire and Déjà Vu (both with Denzel Washington), and in which he raises questions in us while hitting a nerve.

In Pelham 123, the final station, the director revisits the 1974 movie, which featured Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw. Without wishing to compare the two, as this would be unfair, I still have to admit that Tony Scott’s version misses.

Screenwriter Brian Helgeland had indicated that the emphasis was placed on the relationship between the two men, the dispatcher of the New York subway (Denzel Washington) and the hostage taker, Ryder (John Travolta).

Unfortunately, that's all we finnd in the film. The scenes of action and other stories seem to have been added in the rush to fill a hole, while other facts are not explained nor really presented.

And if the relationship and the game of cat and mouse between the two men is very well portrayed, we are left hanging, wondering why Pelham 123 is concluded so quickly. Leaving us wonder if, by chance, we will be entitled to a director’s cut on DVD or Blu-ray.

Terminator Salvation (Terminator Redemption, Terminator 4)

2009-05-29T16:15:00.003-04:00

Terminator Salvation

The future hides a large emptiness

Inhuman, implacable, dark, Terminator Salvation (Redemption) gives the impression that this movie could have been done by a T-800 robot.

We can not find the fingerprint of stolidity so visible from the robot played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, or even the attitude of Zen and facetious of the liquid metal T-1000 robot played by Robert Patrick.

It is rather a dangerous and chaotic adventure that takes place, but without the qualities of the actors who made the success of James Cameron’s Terminator and Terminator 2.

The movie opens with a scene in the corridor of death. We see Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a murderer who is about to give his body to science. Several decades later, Wright awoke suddenly in 2018.

He discovers that humans are at war against Skynet, an artificial intelligence. It is John Connor, the messiah of the future, that is leading the fight against Skynet. This time, the role is up to Christian Bale.

Terminator 3 movie review

This is not a happy movie!

Surrounded by death, the Terminators and some rappers that became actors, it is more than plausible that Connor becomes serious and angry.

Whether it is appropriate to the context or not, it nevertheless leaves a void at the heart of this movie, because there are no heroes to whom we can engage in an empathetic view.

To those who say that a lighter tone would be detrimental to the nightmarish vision of history, I would like to point out that this movie is about killer machines, not reality.

Unfortunately, Terminator Salvation (Redemption, 4, or whatever), even if it has enough action and adrenaline to earn a fairly positive review, has also the same fantasy and humor of a Maytag washer.

Like usual, the trailer:

Angel and Demons: part thriller, part mystery... OMG!

2009-05-21T13:29:00.002-04:00

Vittoria Vetra and Tom Hanks in Angel and Demons

The Story: After “Da Vinci Code”, this is the second best-selling Dan Brown fitted for the big screen: "Angel and Demons". Once again Ron Howard, is the director of the movie, and again, he gives to Tom Hanks the role of Professor Langdon, an expert on religion, the best on the planet.

The Mission: His mission this time is to save the Church, nothing less. Indeed, while a newly opened conclave is meeting to elect the new Pope, and that all the senior Catholic hierarchy converged on Rome, a secret brotherhood, "the Illuminati" holds in its power the supreme institution of Christianity. OMG!

Angel and Demons: movie review

To say that "Angel and Demons" was an expected film, is a pleonasm. Okay, the phenomenon does not reach the magnitude of the wave of hysteria that preceded the release of "Da Vinci Code" 3 years ago. But Dan Brown’s church still has its zealous followers, ready to invest cinemas with their enthusiastic fervor. Especially that they were waiting for their new opus longer than anticipated due to the screenwriters' strike that paralyzed Hollywood in 2007. Unfortunately for them, "Angels and Demons" is not the full success we hoped for.

The Pope is dead, long live the Pope! Or almost. While there is the conclave intended to designate the newly elected of God and that the crowd is waiting impatiently awaiting the white smoke over St. Peter's Square, the Vatican is in turmoil: the 4 holy fathers contenders have been taken. Thats right! Kidnapped! The kidnappings were claimed by the Illuminati, a secret and secular organization sworn to destroy the Catholic Church. To help it, and to defuse the disaster, the Church uses the Cambridge professor, Robert Langdon, an expert in religions and symbols. On this path, Langdon crosses many creatures of God, including the delightful scientific Vittoria Vetra.

Temporally located before the "Da Vinci Code" which constitutes a sort of prequel, "Angels and Demons" in the same mystical-philosophical-scientific-religious-adventurous mess that makes the success of Dan Brown. Filmed partly in Rome and in a reconstituted Vatican (not crazy, the church would not allow this film lay in holy places), the movie, it must be said, capitalize a maximum on its reputation. Hence a nagging impression, from the earliest scenes, of general laziness, of a policy of least resistance.

Yet, Tom Hanks does exactly what is expected of him: to embody the cool and famous professor. Ron Howard, is also exactly where you would expect, or at the crossing of paths of "Indiana Jones" and "The Name of the Rose", supporting the tension when expected by some active music, emphasizing movements with by-dives and dramatic traveling, skillfully alternating pursuits and visits to places name in The Vatican guide for dummies, in short, applying the instructions that the perfect director for a thriller should apply. Same comments for special effects, dialogues, Ewan McGregor etc.: everything is perfectly in its place, everything fulfills perfectly the function that it was assigned. Only the abracadabra outcome plays a false note on an otherwise absolutely perfect partition.

So then what? Why this feeling of well I don’t know? Perhaps precisely because, in "Angels and Demons", everything is mechanical. Nothing exceeds, nothing, nothing disturbs the well-oiled gear, purring quietly. And all of a sudden I have an illumination: "Angels and Demons" is simply without soul. For a film about religion, it's just crazy.

Our opinion: With such a dramatic load, Ron Howard is in charge. Images of Rome are sumptuous, the action scenes conform to today’s thrillers. The young Italian scientist, played by Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer, forms a hell of a duo with Tom Hanks. It has a dose of adrenaline and one gets strong reminders about the history of Catholicism in order to seize the dazzling intuitions of Langdon in his hunt.

Over all a good movie.

The trailer:

Star Trek: the other side of the final frontier

2009-05-14T16:43:00.004-04:00

The 2009 Start Trek Crew

As if his immersion in the small world of Mission Impossible enabled him to succeed, precisely, the impossible, Star Trek filmmaker JJ Abrams restores the luster it had lost. While respecting the creation of Gene Roddenberry, he even boldly, with this 11th film in the famous franchise to make almost a clean sweep of the past to start new.

Star Trek 2009 - Movie Review

How to succeed to 10 films and six television series of up to 180 episodes each? By returning to the beginning, meets JJ Abrams (Lost, Alias) through this feature, simply called Star Trek. Exit the successors of Kirk and Spock, we revive the famous crew of the USS Enterprise at a time when the members are young cadets in search of a prestigious place in Starfleet. Their first mission is not easy. They must quickly deal with Nero, a powerful Romulan of the future who wants to change the course of history.

Brilliant scenario

Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have laid a fantastic scenario, where we deepen the characters and their motivations without neglecting the action scenes, a lot of which depicts fighting with bare hands, typical of the early TV episodes. We learn how the relationship developed between the impulsive James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and the cerebral Spock (Zachary Quinto), but also with the doc "Bones" McCoy (Karl Urban), the charming Nyota Uhura (Zoe Saldana),

Hiraku Sulu (John Cho), whose knowledge of fencing is already useful, Pavel Chekov (Anton Yelchin), who is not yet major, and the faithful Scotty (Simon Pegg), who is there ready to take care of the engine room of the ship. The fans will love the winks to the series past, many without being supported, such as "I have been and ever shall be your friend." Also not forgotten either, some tasty comedy segments, which seems to have the gift of arriving at the right time.

Strong distribution but ... discrete

The heroes of Roddenberry are self-sufficient. This is probably why JJ Abrams did not feel the need to use celebrities to support his film. However, distribution is up to the task. Unlike some television series of the franchise, where the play was questionable, here everyone does an excellent job. Pine portrays an irreverent and cunning Kirk with great ease, while Quinto embodies a tormented Spock, in whom everything is in the unsaid. As for the other team members, although they are more discreet, they find a way to shine.

It could still compliment the energy of the realization, the abandon of aesthetic kitsch in favor of modernity and realism, interesting photo work or the special effects, dramatic without being excessive, but more clever is the recycling of old travel and time anomalies. This permits the first appearance of Spock (Leonard Nimoy, brilliant), and especially the birth of a parallel world, releasing the movie creators of the heavy past of the franchise.

This summer blockbuster of before the summer becomes an attractive gateway to a universe who, in 40 years, has become dense and complex, even daunting for the uninitiated.

Is this the first of a series of adventures for a new generation of trekkers? All the evidence points to it, including the resumption of the legendary monologue, "Space, The Final Frontier", served as dessert.

Like usual, the trailer:

State of Play, good old journalism

2009-04-23T14:32:00.004-04:00

Helen Mirren, Robin Wright Penn, and Rachel McAdams in State of Play

Always exciting and well-interpreted, "State of Play" recalls the time not so long ago where paranoid suspense held us spellbound by its carefully plotted story, not by its spectacular action scenes. Maybe not a classic, but certainly one of the most intelligent entertainment movies of the season.

State of play: Movie review

In Washington, a conspiracy is going on against a well-intentioned politician (Ben Affleck). His assistant was found dead and it is perhaps not a suicide. In their investigation, an experienced journalist (Russell Crowe) and a young recruit (Rachel McAdams) are beset by closed doors and people who suddenly die. The more they ask questions and the more it appears to confuse (us and them). In a city where secrets are kings, watch out.

Good journalistic films are rare. Apart from the classic "All the President's Men" and a few exceptional works including "Network" by Sidney Lumet, "The Insider" by Michael Mann, "Zodiac" by David Fincher and "Shattered Glass" by Billy Ray, excellent feature films addressing these scenes are not numerous. Without falling within this narrow category, "State of Play" has the merit of escaping the pack of primarily ubiquitous large productions by effectively recycling an eponymous series presented by the BBC in 2003.

After great documentaries and a very strong "The Last King of Scotland", filmmaker Kevin Macdonald returns to fiction. His style is still developing and sharpening its authenticity, the fact remains that its staging nerve is extremely effective. The rhythm is almost never at fault, and the tension follows a crescendo. He also knows how to alternate verbal jousts with some more muscular sequences, which are generally used to advance the story.

The premise is not too complex and never too thick. Three screenwriters may have ransacked the literature of John Grisham and Michael Crichton, the result stays tangible, both intellectual and very accessible. In the lot, it is surprising to note the presence of Tony Gilroy, which has a history far more developed and interesting than its previous achievements "Michael Clayton" and "Duplicity". Humor invigorates the plot, while the major themes explores dangerous friendly relations, the difficult protection of sources and the long process of investigation which may be short-circuited by the "entertainment" side of information.

The interpretation is of first order. Russell Crowe explodes on the screen by playing a perfect cynical and unwavering reporter. Ben Affleck proves he can also be a good player using his sensitivity. Between these two main characters are many imperturbable figures, including Rachel McAdams who is much more than the beautiful teammate of service, Jason Bateman in a small friendly dingy, Jeff Daniels as a disconnected Senator, Robin Wright Penn as devoted wife and Helen Mirren as a dictator editor who will make roar with laughter all her admirers.

"State of Play" is maybe the "Primal Fear" of the new millennium. Barely believable scenes (sometimes with implausibility) are part of the whole party, except that they are overshadowed by a hectic subject that hits our curiosity at the outset. The rhythm, the generally fair and sometimes great interpretation and the many twists and turns are all together so many reasons to join the entertainment and the enjoyment of this movie, more thought than the average, where the players think before acting. Better enjoy it before the summer season brings with it its pyrotechnic effects and its abuse of testosterone.

Like usual, the trailer:

Knowing - The perfect predictable misstep movie

2009-04-06T12:35:00.003-04:00

Rose Byrne in Knowing

Knowing is a very awkward film about the end of the world. Perhaps one of the most awkward ever.

Knowing, movie review

The film certainly seems promising at first. John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), a widower father, a professor at MIT, discovers that a series of incoherent numbers in a time capsule from 50 years predicted the exact date of disasters in previous decades. But what is most disturbing is that it predicts other future disasters.

The director Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City) does not skimp when it comes time to stage dark and confusing visions. In the first third of the movie Knowing goes at a sufficient rate. Afterward Nicolas Cage plays the superhero who dodges the shrapnel, the bodys in flames, twisted steel and glass rain.

The scenes are long and uninterrupted, but ultimately they seem more ridiculous than stunning technically.

ABSURD FINAL

John Koestler also investigates the story behind the existing encrypted predictions, which leads to the girl (Rose Byrne) of the sinister schoolgirl who had scrawled the fatal predictions during the 1950s. He learns that the old lady, long since deceased, had the habit of hearing voices (presumably the words whispered by foreigners dressed in black) voices who are now after Koestler's son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury).

One of the many missteps of Knowing is that the meaning of the numbers is not so difficult to decode. The wide use of special effects is detrimental to the thriller aspect of the film. The premise is undeniably fascinating, but it would have been better served by a smaller budget. In addition, it should have remained focused on the center of interest, and not rely on explosions, but on the psychology, the mood and suspense.

Instead, the scenario becomes increasingly wobbly until it reaches critical mass: the last fifteen minutes of the final are quite absurd. So much so that the only question that comes to mind is this: how people involved in a film that deals with futuristic predictions could have been unaware that their production would be a disaster?

Like ususal, the trailer:

Duplicity: between love and revenge

2009-03-20T12:21:00.002-04:00

Julia Roberts in Duplicity

With Michael Clayton, Tony Gilroy already plunged into the maze of the corporate world. With Duplicity, his second feature, the author continues to explore through a still refined approach, although this time is so much fun.

Favoring a very fine writing, Gilroy offers a cleverly constructed story, through which one can address several issues simultaneously, including a plot of sentimental nature, which in this context, not end up in dark excesses.

Duplicity, movie review

The tone is set from the start with a scene where competition between two industry groups is illustrated by a physical attack in slow motion by two heads of two major pharmaceutical companies. Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti embody these managers, who, under the stunned look on their respective entourage, come to blows on the tarmac of an airport where their private planes are waiting. They fight over the development of a revolutionary product whose formula has been the subject of much negotiation.

Gilroy, who first established his reputation as a screenwriter (he left his mark on the trilogy devoted to Jason Bourne), goes back to the source of the conflict. He focuses especially to describe, with many flashbacks, which are scattered like pieces of a fascinating puzzle, forming the dynamics that characterizes the relationship of the two protagonists of the history, who are pulling the strings behind the scenes. Or so they believe.

When they meet for the first time in Dubai in 2003, Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) and Ray Koval (Clive Owen) act as secret agents. Her at the service of the CIA in the United States; him for MI6 in Britain. They spend a night together before she leaves with his documents.

Ray will continue to pursue then one who has cheated him, but never the viewer can guess the real motivation behind this quest. Love or revenge? Thus, each new encounter between the two characters will be spotted - nice find - by the same dialogues, although presented in a new light.

The fates of the two heroes clash in this story to the effect for a new career. Having left their respective government agency, they now work for two competing firms.

Very aware that they will probably never find a better life partner, as they are obviously made to understand each other, these two people must not only operate to satisfy the requirements of their employers, but also manage their natural reflexes - you can not trust anyone - in their personal lives.

As part of the best Hollywood tradition, Duplicity distills formidable humor without yet never truly claiming the status of a pure comedy. Although swimming in full fantasy, Gilroy still manages to make quite credible the world that he portrays.

The supporting characters are also well treated. Beyond the qualities of writing and staging, Duplicity will succeed because of both stars. Five years after Closer, Julia Roberts and Clive Owen share a new complicity on the screen. And find here characters that suit them perfectly.

Duplicity is high-quality entertainment.

Beautifully written and directed this new film by Tony Gilroy is one of the best entertainment movies of the season.

Like usual, the trailer:

Watchmen, the adaptation of a monument

2009-03-03T16:06:00.003-05:00

Malin Akerman in Watchmen

Published in the form of 12 booklets, between 1986 and 1987 by DC Comics, Watchmen is immediately seen as a brilliant graphic work, signed by two masters of contemporary comics, Alan Moore for the text and Dave Gibbons for drawings.

In between a psychological and a political novel, a sociological and metaphysical analysis, the characters and the plot serves a very dark and disillusioned view about human nature, with fragile and fallible superheros, obsessed, neurotic, and assailed by doubts and flaws.

Deeply philosophical and complex, Watchmen brings rave reviews. And for a very long time, this double plot, based on the principle of flashback and reverse timeline is classified as a work apart, impossible to be adapted to the movies.

The movie project began with Terry Gilliam (The Brothers Grimm), before passing into the hands of Darren Aronofsky (Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler), followed by Paul Greengrass (the Jason Bourne saga). All threw the towel to work on other projects. Eventually, Zach Synder (Dawn of the Dead, 300) will be elected (or is it selected, or something).

Both brilliant and talkative, rapid and aggressive, the Watchmen movie (out in theaters Friday) demonstrates the difficulty of carrying out this colossal task.

Watchment - Review

New York, 1985. We are in an "other" America: a world shaped by fear and paranoia. The United States won the Vietnam War through the superheros. President Nixon begings his fifth term. The cold war with the USSR is in full swing, with the permanent risk of a nuclear explosion. Masked superheroes are part of everyday life and the Clock of the Apocalypse - the symbol of the tension between the USA and the USSR - indicates permanently five minutes before midnight.

After the assassination of a former colleague, the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), masked misanthrope and paranoid vigilante, tries to find the perpetrators of the crime. With very few clues, he understands that the killers are likely to threaten the lives and reputations of all the superheroes of the past and present.

He then resumes contact with his former team, starting with the Night Owl (Dan Dreiberg) and Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman). Together they formed a motley group of superheroes, even if only one of them, Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), has real powers. The Night Owl has retired. Dr. Manhattan, led to the victory of the GI in Vietnam, working for the government, along with Ozymandias (Matthew Goode).

Gradually, Rorschach, helped by the Night Owl and Silk Specter, finds a major conspiracy related to their common past, a plot that could have catastrophic consequences for the future of the planet. The mission of the Guardians is to protect humanity ... But when they will go into action, who will look after them? Who hold them accountable? As the eponymous comic, Watchmen, the movie, offers a powerful vision, one of deconstructed superheros in a disoriented world.

But despite its technical prowess, the accuracy of its casting, and his desire to remain faithful to the original work, Zach Synder is faced with a dilemma: how to compress into two hours such a gigantic narrative, dense and unusually complex, with recurring flashbacks, and 40 years of history between the America of 1939-40 and that of 1985?

Where the director is successful in terms of staging, special effects and atmosphere, the writers, Alex Tse and David Hayter (X-Men 2 and X-Men 3) fail in style: the film runs in length (2 h 43). "I can not decently say that it is a short film," says the filmmaker. "But it is the condensed version of that I can offer fans without feeling that I have betrayed."

Watchmen fans will certainly enjoy themselves, also newcomers, because the world of comics of Alan Moore is different from what they know of the "traditional" superhero. But in a story about retired heros, more in reflection and contemplation than in action, some sequences - especially the more metaphysical ones with Dr. Manhattan - are ethereal, if not soporific.

In short, it is with these characters evolving into a gray area between good and evil, that Zach Synder comes closest to the essence of Watchmen. A scenario less talkative, more divided, and especially with more rhythm would have made this movie an unforgettable one. As it stands, Watchmen runs the same risk as any other adaptation: mixed disappointment for some, and act as a repulsive for others.

Like usual, the trailer:

Push - the movie

2009-02-06T14:09:00.003-05:00

Push, movie poster

People similar to all other living yet with extraordinary gifts: telekinesis, clairvoyance, and other oddities. They represent more than just curiosities, they are real issues. They are sought by the division, a unit of government that practice internal experiences in order to make weapons of war. Perpetually on the run, the survivors take refuge in Hong Kong and decide to unite their powers to resist these agents. They must save a young woman who escaped from the clutches of the division

Push – Movie review

The earthquake Heroes finally shook the empire of great heroism. By its serial deployment better suited to the essence of the urban mythology of comics, the TV series by Tim Kring has changed all that and has almost obscured the power, yet so dazzling, film on the subject. Without the response of the 7th art messianic face on TV in this area (the beautiful season 3 of Heroes definitely confirms its absolute monopoly of the latter), Push nevertheless deserves to take a tangent.

We must overcome a bitter foretaste of déjà vu to the premise of the film by Paul McGuigan: a community of anonymous people with super powers is pursued by a bunch of technocrats, eager to own the potential warrior side of their future guinea pigs. No power to each superhero here: each belongs to a caste predefined (telekinesis, manipulative, media ...). Like a role-play, individual complies with the standard collective identity and its torment is thinner in a group of pure efficiency.

But now the writers have had the smart idea to move the battle in the streets of Hong Kong, where the anonymity of the mass and financial strength equals New York (ground “par excellence” of the comics), the interior side and artisan bonus.

If Push manages to be so... well, it is precisely because of this unlikely hacked synthesis cinema-truth (some scenes were shot in the street, allegedly without nets) and a mix between Hong Kong cinema and culture geek. This aspect may be what suits best to Push. Both the action scenes were out of their reluctance to use digital effects, a facility normally used for this type of exercise, like the camera style to the shoulder and the refusal of mounting strobe manage to cleverly hide the minor budget with which the film is struggling. Feeling confirmed by the race scene in a fish market: although approximatively staged, McGuigan eventually touched us by his willingness to connect to a pan of Asian action cinema (one can think, like in Tsui Hark circa The Blade).

Without imagining Marvel trading against the exoticism of Chinese ghosts and flying swordsmen, the director probably had the good sense to adapt his production to the energy of a city that fascinates him. Too bad if the story is lost in endless upheavals and in the pointless play of the actors (we note however the happy return of Dakota Fanning and her blue eyes), efficiency is well conducted. The final battle, in the form of a tribute to wu xia pian-Hong Kong (Liu Chia Liang and its 36th and Chambers of Shaolin), finally giving me the impression of being in front of a hybrid, uneven but perfectly incongruous.

Like usual, the trailer:

Bride Wars: Avoid the married!

2009-01-12T13:27:00.001-05:00

Each year, the films that come out in the dining room, first weekend of January we want to strangle us with the popcorn that we lost in our soft drink. Bride Wars is like these.

Surprisingly similar to its counterpart last year, 27 Dresses (which has not beaten What Happens in Vegas for the worst film of 2008), Bride Wars tells the story of two childhood friends whose weddings are listed the same day to the schedule of the Plaza Hotel in New York.

Each refusing to postpone the date of the ceremony, thank you, a war breaks out between two young women.

From beginning to end, the obsession with marriage all over the place. A whole scene and several aftershocks were even on the high priestess of bride, Vera Wang.

There is nothing wrong with that. Girls need their romantic comedies, like the guys insist Iron Man is the best film of 2008.

But Bride Wars is so tasteless and garish that it makes Julia Roberts of the 1990s look like a Katharine Hepburn of the 1940s.

Light is not always a bad thing. But it needs something to support it – at worst a Graham cracker!

The only good thing that emerges is of this Bride Wars is Anne Hathaway, who refuses to be lowered by the pathetic scenario and does not cause any damage to her title of "female star under 30 years who is the more fun to watch."

Unfortunately, she faces Kate Hudson, which is devoid of talent. All the goodwill Hathaway has is destroyed whenever Hudson opens her mouth. Although no one could save Bride Wars, I think only Hathaway has been spared.

Slumdog Millionaire - review

2008-12-29T10:54:00.003-05:00

Slumdog Millionaire

SUCCESSFUL, COMPLETE AND EXCITING

Lets go straight to the point: Slumdog Millionaire is the movie that was the most exciting, entertaining, original, innovative and surprising I had the opportunity to see in the last year.

If I had to develop my top 10 best films of the year, Slumdog Millionaire would be more than timely.

The author of these lines did not remember seeing a movie this year as successful, exciting and complete in all aspects.

Adapted from a novel by Henry Fielding, this new movie by the always excellent Danny Boyle (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later) rests on a great idea: Jamal, a young participant in the Indian version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, is the subject of an intensive interrogation after winning the top prize at the famous TV game show.

WHY?

To the police, Jamal, who never went to school, has to explain why he knew all the answers to questions initiated by the animator. Has he cheated? Did someone give him the answers? Or has he just been lucky?

Bringing us back to different moments in the life of Jamal, a young man who grew up the hard way in the slums of Mumbai, the scenario is particularly clever and well put together. Buoyed by the eclectic and rhythmic music of M.I.A. and by the outstanding performance of a cast of young Indian players, Slumdog Millionaire is Boyle's best film since the unavoidable Trainspotting.

Using as much of Bollywood as Hollywood, the British filmmaker tells a beautiful love story that falls short, what am I writing, IS a fairytale, and he does so while providing a portrait of the evolution of modern India.

His film is both simple and complex, punch and realistic, funny and moving. A real movie, daring and fun. A master stroke. A Must see!

Like usual, the trailer.

Burn After Reading – Review

2008-12-22T14:18:00.004-05:00

Burn After Reading

Osborne Cox, an analyst at the CIA, is asked to attend a super secret meeting at the headquarters of the Agency in Arlington, Virginia. Unfortunately for him, he quickly discovers the purpose of this meeting: he is fired.

Cox does not take it quite well. He returns home in Georgetown to write his memoirs and drown his troubles in alcohol - not necessarily in that order. His wife, Katie, is dismayed but not really surprised. She has an affair with Harry Pfarrer, a married federal marshal, and she decides to leave Cox.

Somewhere in a suburb of Washington, light years away, Linda Litzka, employed in fitness club Hardbodies Fitness, is struggling to focus on her work. The only thing of interest is the magnitude of the aesthetic surgery that she wants to get. She is counting on her colleague, Chad Feldheim, to do her job in her place.

Linda is barely aware that the Director of the gym, Ted Treffon, is crazy about her, although she mets other men through the Internet.

When a CD containing information for Cox’s book accidentally falls into the hands of Linda and Chad, both decide to take advantage of this windfall. While Ted is worried, convinced that "nothing good will come of all this," events soon go out of control, causing a series of meetings as dangerous as funny ...

Hum, let’s try this again...

There is this analyst fired from the CIA (John Malkovich), left by his wife (Tilda Swinton) who has an affair with a marshal (George Clooney) who only thinks about sex and jogging. Then there is the coach of a gym (Frances McDormand) who only thinks about her next aesthetic operation and her colleague (Brad Pitt), nice guy but kind of limited. Finally, there is a mysterious CD containing very secret information ...

Review

John Malkovich from this crazy plot, and the Coen brothers, must really had fun concocting this crazy spy comedy, totally implausible but whose effects and tone have voluntarily been shifted in order to gives us some sort of a miracle. The actors are not afraid of being ridicule. I laughed a lot at this exchange of views between cynical corrupt people and stupid happy people. The whole turns into an irresistible satire of the CIA, an heavy machine that has become completely paranoid, not only of others, but itself (in my opinion).

Like usual, the trailer...

“The Day the Earth Stood Still”: Save the planet!

2008-12-09T15:21:00.004-05:00

Jennifer Connelly in “The Day the Earth Stood Still”

Usually it's Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger who takes charge of things and do all the saving. But this time, one wonders who can save the planet, attacked by extraterrestrials in the science-fiction movie spectacular "The Day the Earth Stood Still", released next Friday on the screens.

“The Day the Earth Stood Still”: movie review

It is panic when defense officials and scientists realize that a flying object absolutely unknown is approaching Earth at a speed of 300,000km/h and is about to crash on Manhattan and its eight million inhabitants. All radar, protection systems and air defense mechanisms have been neutralized, the Terrans are defenseless.

When approaching our planet, however, the UFO slows down and lands smoothly in Central Park. It is a huge ball of light from which emerges a humanoid wrapped in plastic. The humanoid form walks and reaches out to one of the scientists attending the landing, Helen Benson (Jennifer Connelly), but the military shoots it (him, well whatever it is supposed to be).

After some good old medical treatment, the extraterrestrial regains consciousness and, speaking in our language, presents himself (itself, well whatever) as the special envoy of “a group of civilizations”. It has human form (Keanu Reeves), says to be named Klaatu, and wants to speak to world leaders to warn them of everything we already know about (except, maybe, all the other huge balls of light landing all over the world).

All those other giant luminous balls that landed everywhere and the invaders that come with them, seem to have taken full control of the Earth, its communication networks and its defense. In the panic, the traditional confrontation between the politico-military and scientists, between the power (or what remains of it) and knowledge (or our lack of). But here, the power is gone, and our knowledge does not know much.

Klaatu as, in fact, come to Earth to warn people that his “group of civilizations” has decided to save the planet. But by eliminating its inhabitants, who are trying to destroy the planet gradually for centuries: Delete the inhabitants of Earth is now the only way to save Earth.

The scientist Helen Benson, who helps Klaatu to escape the military premises in which he is detained, flees with him, accompanied by her young son. Will she be able to change his mind? And he himself does he have the power to do the same for all the invaders who have invested the planet?

Directed by Scott Derrickson, "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is the remake of a science-fiction movie of 1951 by Robert Wise, the famous director of "West Side Story" and "The Sound of Music", who died three years ago. At the time, the alien Klaatu came to lecture the inhabitants of the planet in the middle of the Cold War, accusing them (us) of not being able and not agreeing of loving one another. Today, in this remake of early 21st century, ecological disasters have become major threats to Earth and justify its rescue by the will of extraterrestrial to suppress Earth people in order to restart the planet.

Even if the story does not lack suspense, its peculiarities are cumbersome and the staging is rather heavy, as is the interpretation of certain characters: as Secretary of Defense, Kathy Bates, for example, has the lightness of the hippopotamus of "Madagascar-2". In contrast, Jennifer Connelly is a bit too discreet and Keanu Reeves adds even more in sobriety. Black suit, thin black tie, much less credible than in "Matrix", his only instruction seems to be: frown and especially, do not to smile.

The spectator will smile at a certain naivety in the script and a too spectacular staging, but will probably taste the excitement that the story brings and will certainly have some questions about pollution, global warming, the rivalries between Earth and all those kinds of things that threaten the survival of the human race if it does not change its behavior.

The moral of this is made by a wise but optimistic scientist: "At the edge of the precipice, we change."

Like usual, the trailer:

Elegy: sex and confidence

2008-12-03T11:09:00.003-05:00

Kingsley, Penelope Cruz in Elegy, by Isabel Coixet

An older teacher who falls in love with one of his students. In itself, the subject is nothing new, but when the two lovers are called Ben Kingsley and Penélope Cruz, the film deserves a look. Spanish director Isabel Coixet found the right tone (although a little frozen) to adapt to the big screen a novel by Philip Roth, “The Dying Animal” renamed Elegy for the big screen.

Elegy: movie review

The title refers to a poem about death, grief and regret. In the circumstances, we understand that the relationship between David, a professor of literature and estimated art critic, and Consuela Castillo (Cruz), a beautiful Cuban with haunting sensuality, will not permanently be rocked by beatitude.

Recognizing that this sumptuous union will fail because of the vast difference in age (over 30 years), Kepesh will still develop a contradictory attitude with towards Consuela. The fear of losing her (coupled with a unsuspected jealousy found in him) and the refusal to engage himself towards her, will be a constant battle in the mind of this Don Juan who has always claimed loud and clear his "emancipated manhood".

Suddenly, the man contemplate the emptiness of his existence and the consequences of his choices in love, between one (other) older mistress (Patricia Clarkson), his friend and confidant on the decline (Dennis Hopper) and a son who thinks little of him (Peter Sarsgaard).

Isabel Coixet installs an atmosphere conducive to unveiling feelings, a woman's touch and a different approach in staging, all careful and restraint.

Coixet films the frolics of the two lovers with a sensual modesty. Nothing gross, only subtle. The moods of this teacher at odds with himself give this intimate movie (narrated in voiceover by the protagonist) a grace that should please fans of existential contemplation, but to the misfortune of those less likely on "Scraping sores"

Elegy, the trailer:

Australia: Souvenirs from Australia

2008-11-26T12:39:00.002-05:00

Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman in Australia

Baz Luhrmann is a special case. Talented, very gifted for swelling and exuberance, the director of Moulin Rouge, in its cinema, goes beyond the threshold of good measure and he assumes this approach without any discomfort. Australia gives him, in this regard, the opportunity to indulge his instincts and allows him to focus fully on its proverbial approach of more "and "even further".

Australia - movie review

Luhrmann offers an epic drama served like they formerly used to be (with the great feelings that accompany them), and orchestrates a grandiose melodrama like almost nobody dares to do today. He magnifies his stars, take a jealous care to compose perfectly refined pictures in which no detail, however small, is left to chance. He also lovingly films wild landscapes of his home country as if his life depended on it. To cap it all, he paints his film with an insistent musical score (courtesy of David Hirschfelder), in which the violins have all time it takes to trickle their way.

Just as François Ozon draws on great movies of the past to develop some films full of references, Luhrmann also plays this game in depth by taking the means to meet his ambitions. Australia is Gone with the Wind crossing Giant, with detours that recall The African Queen and Out of Africa, as well as some classic western. In other words, one enters a world here that is greater than nature, although camped in a real world and peppered with factual truths, this movie still belongs in a world of pure fantasy. In a way, Luhrmann is an accomplice of the viewer, as he offered him a show where the rules are set in advance. To the latter to subscribe or not to what he offers.

Nicole Kidman, always excellent, lends her features to Lady Sarah Ashley, an English aristocrat who suspects her husband of having an affair, sails to Australia to join the latter, owner of a large domain. The arrival of the young woman in the Outback also gives rise to scenes of comedy, of course, articulated around the cultural lag. While the Second World War is about to burst, the Lady discovers that she must address herself to the management of the domain. She also has to team up with a cowboy somewhat boorish (Hugh Jackman, in great shape) to keep operations afloat. The story obviously plays with the relationship between the two protagonists, which evolves very quickly to something else, but Luhrmann take this opportunity to integrate a less glorious part of the Australian history, the institutionalized racism against Aboriginal people. Lady Ashley will notably try to save a little boy from the authorities who, by law, should be recovered by the government, since he was born following an "illegal" union between white and Aboriginal.

Even if it is full of excesses of all kinds, the first part of Australia is very attractive, especially that it emanates and gives a real pleasure to whoever likes movies. However, the final act is so overdone that it comes very close to ruin everything. The Japanese bombing of Darwin makes the Atlanta fire of Gone with the Wind look like a camp fire, and the (many) false finals suggest how Luhrmann has had a difficult time to conclude. The outcome of the story, shamelessly sentimental, is far from convincing and is borderline ridiculous.

But there is still Nicole and Hugh ... And a very epic big screen show.

Like usual, Australia’s trailer:

Changeling – a quest for thruth

2008-11-18T14:19:00.003-05:00

Angelina Jolie in the "Changeling"

Since its venerable "Mystic River" in 2003, Clint Eastwood is part of U.S. filmmakers the most important of the decade. He proves it again with "Changeling", a more minor work that offers the chance to Angelina Jolie to put us in full view of her talent (not always well orchestrated in the past). A true story that will make you quickly respond.

Changeling – movie review

In 1928 in Los Angeles, the existence of Christine (Jolie) is on the verge of toppling. Her son has just disappeared without trace. Four months passed and the police eventually find him. But at the reunion, the mother quickly despairs: the person who stands before her is not her offspring. To avoid a terrible scandal, the police force her to take the toddler and after multiple refusals they decide to intern her! However, there are good Samaritans out there that can help her, including an activist Reverend (John Malkovich) who knows how to use his loud mouth.

Clint Eastwood has his own style, more similar to Frank Capra’s than Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu. His films are always very academic, with a classic staging where the personality of the author is not always apparent. This technical refusal leaves him looking like a master of his medium, with this beautiful musical score (his!); that falls in the right place to convey emotion without too much stress. On this angle, surprises and risks are rare, which is not necessarily a bad thing (the example of the excellent "Atonement" is conclusive).

He draws his story in two ways that continue to intersect. First there is this personal quest of a mother in search of her own flesh. Angelina Jolie, still fresh from her memorable contribution to more than hectic "A Mighty Heart", gives us another intense performance. Her play is not too exagerated and despite her mix of white teeth and always abundant makeup, she generally acts very well, at a laureate level at least. Her character is so strong that it often overshadows the others, not always well developed and sometimes even Manicheans. In secondary roles, John Malkovich makes us smile, Jeffrey Donovan abuses of grin, Colm Feore plays a villain with good intentions and Amy Ryan surprised us by her intensity.

These rifts and confrontations serve causes that transcend the private sphere to bear on the public stratum. The role of the police is taken for a walk with its image. Like this stifling of difference and an alternate reality, muzzled as these women who are internment for reasons beyond comprehension. A few causes that the former favorite actor of Sergio Leone operates in details. And they are not the only ones! Why not make fun of this judicial system, often deficient, to titillate the birth of cynicism of dealing with authorities and even to criticize the death penalty as an instrument of vengeance? Multiple fronds from a filmmaker who has nothing to lose without necessarily mixing well the venom.

"Changeling" does not have the classic power as "Letters From Iwo Jima," "Mystic River" and "Unforgiven". The story shows some lengthy moments, the pace is not always supported and characters could be better developed. But the time period is perfectly recreated, showing us a wonderful Angelina Jolie who gained one of her best career character acting. Her dismay is palpable and it is well rendered in a very good movie.

Like usual (well nearly) the movie trailer:

The Holocaust seen thru the eyes of a young boy

2008-11-14T13:52:00.005-05:00

Vera Farmiga plays the mother of the young Asa Butterfield

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas - Review

Mark Herman presents The Boy in the Striped Pajamas, a beautiful and tragic film that makes us see the Holocaust through the eyes of Bruno, a German boy of eight years. The young father moved his family near the Auschwitz camp, where the boy improving ties with a Jew, Shmuel, he met in secret along the fence of the camp.

But there can be a happy ending.

Q- Have you felt the pressure of addressing a subject like the Holocaust that has been so well treated in films such as Schindler's List and La Vita è bella?

A- Several people have mentioned his two films and others. But the new James Bond will show the film and, you know, nobody wondered if it would be a good film of espionage. Reading the book on which the film is based, I knew that this was a new and we dealt with the topic in a new perspective: that of a child, a German child. One point of view quite innocent.

The question that kills: How was it possible that Germans do not see what was happening?

A- It's very difficult to make the generations of today how people at that time knew little. The characters in the film represent various classes of German 1940s. Several people knew nothing of what happened, but, of course, several others were aware of everything.

Q- You participated in writing the screenplay. Does the fact that the book is the story from being sent to a youth problem?

A- Yes. In the book, everything is described in terms of Bruno, and is written for children. If I kept this in mind, the film was annoying.

Q- You do not show everything that happens in the concentration camp before the end of the film. Have you made this choice because you feel guilty to stage such horrors?

A- In the best horror film, you do not experience the bad guy until the very end ... And Bruno believes almost from beginning to end, it is just a farm. We have received complaints because our camp in the film did not look quite the real camps. But it was our choice. It was a challenge to present a place that might have looked like a farm from afar, but was actually a concentration camp.

Q- Did the young players know what the Holocaust was before starting shooting?

A- They are very young, not really. This is not my role to tell them what it was. It is rather the work of the schools and their parents. And, in some way, perhaps it was best they did not know too ...

A movie must!

Here is the usual trailer:

Zack and Miri Makes a Porno prude

2008-11-07T14:00:00.004-05:00

Elizabeth Banks in Zack and Miri Makes a Porno

Influenced by the current Judd Apatow currently sweeping American comedy, "Zack and Miri Makes a Porno" remains a true Kevin Smith film. Between language and daring incredibly prude salacious scenes, the film takes the bias of the romance. Although minor, this success eventually leaves a thin smile on our lips.

Zack and Miri Makes a Porno - Review

When money is scarce, problems occur quickly. That is precisely what happens to Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks), two roommates who are no longer able to pay their bills. To cover their debts, accomplices decided to recruit people to realize their own porn movie. Everything would be in the best of worlds if these long-time friends were not secretly in love with one another ...

The career of Kevin Smith resembles that of several other filmmakers. After excellent first films ( "Clerks" and especially "Chasing Amy"), this director has prevailed in uneven works ( "Dogma," "Clerks II") before running out of breath and give birth to stories ("Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back," "Jersey Girl") which left his fans waiting.

However he does not disappoint on his "Zack and Miri Makes a Porno" Without doubt that the burden is much less abrasive than before and that the treatment of the story makes it affordable and fully commercial, but Smith has not denied his style.

The narrative, predictable at the first image, serves us a cute love story. The film works because the duo is always on top of things. Seth Rogen does not force his play. Facing him is a sparkling Elizabeth Banks who soon seduces us with her good and communicative humor. Around them are archetypes often credible and comical, which prevents all of it to turn into a big farce.

The recent controversy on the famous censored poster, the title and the interventions of American censors could distort the ensemble. Despite its sexual dialogues, "Zack and Miri Makes a Porno" is surprisingly sweet and prudish. In fact, it resembles the recent "Young People Fucking." Virtually nothing is shown. Rather, the humor takes over, which is not worse.

These sequences are meant to be humorous and are generally successful, even if the balance between good and bad taste is not always achieved. The most irresistible moments are these false adult film titles that borrow heavily in popular culture, from "Star Wars" to "Brokeback Mountain" and going through several successful Arnold Schwarzenegger movies.
Without ever putting his career in jeopardy, Kevin Smith gave birth to a sympathetic and eminently entertaining movie. If he films once again existence through his eternal adolescent eye, it will put sunshine in the existence of the public.

Hellboy is my alter ego

2008-10-29T16:12:00.001-04:00

Hellboy II

Hellboy II: the legions of gold cursed – Interview

Guillermo Del Toro continues the adventures of Hellboy in a second strand rich creatures
Hellboy (Ron Perlman) resembles the devil: it is red, he often sees red and has horns.

Except that this creature is a nice devil. It also has a very fifties rocker rebel feel and a taste for Cuban cigars. In the second part of the adventures of this character, Guillermo Del Toro installs his hero in life as a couple. He lives with Liz (Blair), and between domestic concerns and her crazy boss, he faces a prince determined to wage war to humans. The characters are whimsical and funny, the visuals as rich as those of Pan’s Labyrinth, for which Del Toro won three Oscars. This Mexican filmmaker signs a fantasy film and lets his imagination run far, far ahead.

Hellboy is partly autobiographical. How do you find yourself in it?

In his everyday home life, the idea of becoming a father, his way of acting. I went through everything he feels. The film is full of very small details of my life. Basically, Hellboy is me. It's my alter ego.

Is there a link between Frankenstein and Hellboy?

Mike Mignola, who created, said: "It is a mixture of me, my father, Frankenstein and a gorilla!"

From where does your fascination with monsters come from?

They represent so many things! I find most fascinating to create. The essence of art is to interpret ideas and concepts that do not exist. It is essentially its sole function. Creating monsters is a challenge ... because they do not exist!

The small creatures in the film who eat the bones are terrifying. They look like evil fairies!

When I was a child, the little tooth ferry terrified me. I wondered what was happening with my tooth. I imagined it grazed it for the calcium!

Ron Perlman, who plays Hellboy, said that your creatures are more human than humans!

I agree - but in the film, not in real life! I wanted to show people in a less praising light. The monsters are more interesting than the humans Hellboy saves. Here, the wicked sometimes more than the moral than the kind.

Contemplating Hellboy 3?

I would love to resume the story where the film ends.

W. : Father, I will be a president

2008-10-20T13:32:00.002-04:00

Josh Brolin as the President

How to describe the course of George W. Bush without falling into the trap of caricature? How to echo a singular destiny without having real neutral position? How to get a proper perspective on an administration - still in post - which we will probably measure the impact - some would say the damage - over the decades to come? The challenges Oliver Stone had to face were great, and probably impossible to meet.

The third film that the director of “Born on the Fourth of July” makes on an American head of state, after JFK and Nixon, is indeed anecdotal. And whoever entertaining it is, this portrait tells us nothing that we did not know already.

Bringing to the screen a script by Stanley Weiser, with whom Stone had already written Wall Street a little over 20 years ago, Stone tries to explain the Bush "conundrum" by dotting his story with multiple flashbacks, mainly by evoking a time when the black sheep of the family was doing multiple pranks to attract attention. The main thrust of the story is mainly heading to the father-son relationship; tensions with Bush father (James Cromwell outstanding) is, according to the authors, in the heart of the very foundation of more radical philosophy of the son.

The movie makers linger here to show "Dubya" (Josh Brolin) at meetings with his staff while war is looming in Iraq following the attacks of September 11, 2001. This is where is developed a strategy for finally finishing what the 41st president, his to soft father in his view, had begun 11 years earlier during the Gulf War without going all the way through. We can certainly assume that filial ties have had a role to play in building W., but Stone here actually demonstrates how little subtle of an explanation he is offering -- psychology for a three year old.

Also this film shows Bush in two distinct versions. The first focuses on the rebellious spirit of a spoiled child, unable to achieve anything without dad not pulling the strings behind, and the second refers to the man who in the mid-80s, changes from drinks to God. The one that also begins to "hear the appeal" of a political career.

The ascending on the religious policies of George W. Bush is expressed mainly in scenes which are integrated the most famous statements by the president in this regard. Stone also uses archival footage to recreate the most famous episodes of the of "W" presidency, including the address to the nation, the war in Iraq (and the famous banner "Mission Accomplished" on an aircraft carrier), without forgetting the infamous pretzel with which the president has chocked on while watching football. Pity that George W. Bush election campaigns have been completely ignored. They would indeed have a little better illuminated the reasons that made this man - portrayed here as an innocent victim of his ignorance - was able to seduce a part of the electorate so big that he was able to get a second term as President.

Failing to be really, W. is still a funny film, that one might even look at times as if it was a skit on Saturday Night Live. The tone remains a caricature, and some players do not have the opportunity to go beyond this first level, including Thandie Newton in her curious personification of Condoleeza Rice. However, Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney), Toby Jones (Karl Rove), Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush) and Ellen Burstyn (Barbara Bush) reach without too much difficulty to look like the real characters.

Josh Brolin also offers an excellent composition in the role of "Dubya", even to the point where imitation is sometimes disturbing.

However, will moviegoers really want to go see a movie on one of the most hated presidents in recent history? That’s another story.

Body of Lies: a thriller with a bang

2008-10-16T09:37:00.000-04:00

Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe share the poster in this Ridley Scott film, Body of Lies, a movie one must see.

Body of Lies: Review

Adapted from a novel of journalist David Ignatius. A Body of Lies is a hard film, which shows the underside of the work of the CIA in the war against terrorism.

Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) is working in Iraq. Responsible for establishing contacts with informants and infiltrate terrorist cells, it is constantly satellite link with Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe), an employee of the CIA based in the United States, which provides information and advice. Following an incident that goes wrong, Ferris was posted in Jordan, where he must track down a formidable terrorist leader, but it will also work with government forces and choose their allegiance.

The scenario, as complex as a novel about Jason Bourne, is made by the hands of a master at the keyboards: Ridley Scott, who introduces with great clarity the web of lies and falsehoods woven by the agency to overcome its enemies. Betrayal, double - even triple - play and false confessions are part of this deadly game of cat and mouse where two visions of the United States are opposed: the usual vision (portrayed by a Russell Crowe as cynical as one can desire) and the human vision (explained by a perfectly credible Leonardo DiCaprio).

Some argue that the movie is a bit too long and sometimes violent, and is not advisable for a young audience (I agree). Fans of American politics will come out a little more disillusioned. Ho well...

The usual Body of Lies trailer:

The Eagle Eye is in the line of sight of Big Sister

2008-10-09T12:07:00.004-04:00

Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan

When Steven Spielberg had the idea for Eagle Eye, cell phones and BlackBerry were not really into the masses. So he put his idea on ice, waiting for the real introduction of these new technologies to give some credibility to the project.

Eagle Eye: review

Twelve years later, now that progress has been made, Spielberg decided to move forward with this project. He entrusted to DJ Caruso (Disturbia) with the task of bringing to the screen this suspense-flavored science fiction, where two strangers (Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan) are involved in a race against the clock to execute orders a mysterious female voice with a Machiavellian plan against the U.S. president and members of his cabinet.

Big Brother (or Big Sister ...) knows everything in the life of this couple forced to team up, absolutely everything. The technologies of communication and surveillance are ways for the mysterious caller to guide Jerry and Rachel in a fantastic game of cat and mouse. All this while an FBI agent (Billy Bob Thornton) is never far behind to understand, in dribs and drabs, that the two supposed cyberterrorists are not those who one might believe.

This voice has not chosen this couple at random from the telephone book. Jerry (LaBeouf), a young man without stories, has a twin brother, who died while working without the knowledge of his family, as an agent for the U.S. secret services. However, the brain behind this conspiracy needs his alter ego to pursue its mission. The young son of Rachel (Monaghan), a single mother, is the other key to the success of the plan.

Halfway between an episode of 24 hours, of Nick of Time (with Johnny Depp) and a HAL of a Stanley Kubrick film, the Eagle Eye is efficient in its first part, despite the proliferation of implausibilities. It is in the last right that everything goes wrong, while the confusion and the unveiling of pieces of the puzzle leaves us stunned, to say the least. If the guy who makes the movie has worked hard in the beginning, it was doing triple time the end ...

American patriotism, national anthem as a bonus, is in the epilogue, defending the thesis that violence against the government is justified when it is to safeguard the freedom of the people that becomes itself a threat to this freedom .

Big Brother (and Big Sister) watch out, the watch is on you!

A good movie. Here is the trailer:

Flash of Genius

2008-10-03T12:07:00.002-04:00

Flash of Genius

Detroit, 1960.

During a family trip by car, the engineer and professor of ethics Robert W. Kearns has a flash of genius: the creation of intermittent wipers.

Having developed an effective prototype, the inventor submits to the car manufacturer Ford who, having shown an interest, withdrew without explanation.

A year and half later, Kearns discovers that the new Ford cars are equipped with its intermittent wipers. It will not be until the late 1970s before he can bring Ford in court for the theft of his invention. Pugnacious but without money, Kearns chose to represent himself, assisted by Dennis, the eldest of his six children.

Flash of Genius Review

A good movie and Greg Kinnear is very good.

The film felt too constrained and too focused on the primary movie subject, Bob Kearns. It could have been much better by installing a bit of side-story from the clashing characters points of view.

Bob Kearns low point in the movie also seemed to happen with no run-in, abruptly in the plot twist, so much so that one might feel like he missed something.

Lauren Graham offered a excellent performance, as did Dermot Mulroney's limited screen time. Overall I liked the movie but I had the feeling that more could have been done to fill some gaps.

Michael Moore: His free film on Internet: SLACKER UPRISING

2008-09-25T13:47:00.002-04:00

Michael Moore

The unresting Michael Moore is now officially in the U.S. presidential election (sort of) by putting online for free his new documentary, Slacker Uprising.

Available on several Internet sites since September 23 in the morning, Slacker Uprising, as the entire work of filmmaker polemicist (Sicko, Fahrenheit 9 / 11, Bowling For Columbine), is a real charge against the Republicans and especially against his favorite crooked symbol, George W. Bush.

At seven weeks of the presidential election in the United States, the objective of this new movie is simple: convince young Americans who do not usually vote to use their right to vote (against the best of the Republicans, John McCain of course).

Strategic

On his website, Michael Moore said he wanted to give this 97 minutes movie for free to his fans in order to thank them for their support, as we approach the 20th anniversary of his first film (Roger and Me).

But the release of this new documentary, in full presidential campaign, is above all, very strategic. Moore, who shot this film in 2004, kept the release of this documentary/movie as close as possible of the current elections. And at a time when Internet plays a larger role than ever in the campaign, the filmmaker has chosen this powerful vehicle to launch his film.

Slacker Uprising, which I saw last year at the Toronto International Film Festival (under the title Captain Mike Across America) is a documentary relating the American tour that Moore had made during the five weeks before the presidential election of November 2 2004.

Manichean

During those five weeks, Moore went through the country from one end to another, stopping in about sixty cities and preaching his views before crowds of up to 15 000. The aim of this tour was the same as the movie relates today: convince young Americans to vote.

To make his point, Michael Moore uses the same Manicheans tricks that in his previous films: rhetoric whistleblowers, imitations and parodies of Bush, testimonies of veterans of the Iraq war and parents who lost their son, with, as a bonus, the participation of stars, singer Eddie Vedder and actor Viggo Mortensen amongst others.

Self

Orator and skilled improviser, Moore uses a lot of humor, for example offering a young man some underwear or bags of noodles in exchange for his vote...

But despite its good intentions, this new documentary is far from being as effective as the previous ones. Redundant, Slacker Uprising lacks pace and barely bites. But most annoying is that this movie as a documentary is built on a rock tour that takes on the appearance of self promotion by the filmmaker who presents itself as a star.

It remains to be seen if this film will help Moore to finally win one election...
Slacker Uprising is available free on several websites, including www.slackeruprising.com