antoinebachmann

Background: Had never heard of Rocco Granata. Chanced on this film on TV one evening. Started watching it because of the beautiful photography, and excellent acting. Watched it to the end.

On to the critic "Marina" recounts the early life of Italian-Belgian singer Rocco Granata (born 1938, first big success in 1959), until he starts becoming famous. One could be worried about the clichés of poor family from Calabria moving to Netherlands, father working as a miner but son wanted to only play music and sing, local population is racist and to make matters worse the immigrant starts liking a local girl, and so on - but no, this is done really well, with lots of subtlety! And the acting is just so good! None of the actors is famous, I guess the most famous (or least unknown) is the Dutch girlfriend (Evelien Bosmans), who has had several roles on local TV.

Did I mention that the photography was very beautiful, but without overdoing it either?

Well worth watching. Possibly even re-watching.

*** WARNING: some light spoilers.

Is this a top 100 film in the all-time list? Obviously not! Is this something you keep in your film collection at home? Probably not!

Is it a romantic comedy, as advertised? Nope!

So what is it then? It's a Sandra Bullock-based film, where she courageously plays a nerd bordering on autistic cruciverbist, who makes seemingly wild mental associations all the time, who remembers most everything about everything, and can't stop talking about all these things. So OK, high IQ works also. And of course she acts and dresses ridiculous.

Clearly Sandra Bullock has done some relatively serious research work to portray the character. If not in a comedy, this could be borderline award material: hey, let us pay attention to the struggles of high-IQ, borderline autistic people.

What about the rest? A fairly simple plot, with its fair share of clichés (we all have our weird sides; there are some people ready to do almost anything to fulfil their ambitions; TV news can become just too unbearably vulgar).

And so what is left? A comedy, with interesting acting from Sandra, and a rather feel- good, fuzzy feeling at the end.

What does the people want?

Had obviously heard quite a bit about this film when it came out, but when I saw that PoelVoorde was in it I just did not think that I would have the courage to go through it (sorry to be so negative but for me when he acts in comedies I find him way too heavy and not funny, and when he tries drama he is just as heavy and no good either - that's just me).

So by chance yesterday I saw this: wow!

*** WARNING: some SPOILERS FROM THIS POINT ***

Sure the initial setup, with "God" sitting at his computer, trying out stuff, being a 100 percent bad guy, is just too cliché-esque. And that's before we mention that he lives in a small apartment without even a decent kitchen, and lives mostly on beer and speculoos (a typical Belgian cookie). Plus, sorry, I never could understand the "God must be so bad if the world is such a mess" cliché. But that's just me.

But then when his daughter, Ea, leaves the home and goes in the world: wow! Before this, when she sends people the dates of their death!

I really enjoyed the actor performance of the young Pili Groyne (the character is 10, she was 12 at the time).

Many of the supporting parts were also quite good, including Catherine Deneuve who finds new marital bliss with a gorilla - yes, a gorilla!

The story itself is refreshing, cute, often quite original. Feel Good in many ways.

WARNING ABOUT THE AGE: in most of Europe this film has a legal age of 6/8, and a recommended age of 12. I agree that 12 is a minimum, and 14 would probably be better, due to: - some physical violence including a group beating up a tramp on a street - some psychological violence - a few scenes with half-naked sexy dancers

Rather boring and not funny.

The story is boring with no surprises and ends exactly where you had guessed after a few minutes.

The characters aren't credible. The acting is very average.

The script desperately tries to be funny a la Foyr Weddings and a Funeral or similar, but pathetically fails. It tries to shock with some sex but fails so ridiculously it is sad. It tries to have THE big funny scene but it fails miserably. The acting is very average as if the actors were wondering why they ended up in that thing (we know they have done better elsewhere).

It's not even particularly romantic: so not a "romantic comedy"

I'm not sure why someone would want to watch this?

WARNING number 1: spoilers! WARNING number 2: do NOT waste your time watching this!

I chanced upon this film on TV - I would never have imagined to purposedly go watch it, or pay per view.

So what do we have here: an average guy leads an average life. Then this average life changes for the worst, his place of work gets flooded, his wife falls in love with his best friend, you name it. At which point he gets sucked up into another dimension, and lands in a primitive world where a cliché primitive tribe suffer under the rule of a tyrant, and are awaiting a Savior. And of course, tell him that he is that Saviour.

Then we have to go through TONS of clichés of the genre, be it the films where the hero switches between two realities, or films where an unassuming hero is asked to be the Saviour, or films about primitive tribes, you name it. The tribesmen "talk funny", they "dress funny", there's lots of pathetic cliché jokes, the Saviors says "leaves me alone", they say, "you have to fulfil the Prophecy", and so on. He gets cocky, runs into trouble, you know how it goes. The tribe love him so they send a half-dozen half-naked girls for his enjoyment, and so on.

All this while having to withstand Poelvoorde's pretty poor acting, basically he is one of those actors who always act their own persona, i.e. are not really actors but always give you the same product, with the same clichés, the same tone of voice, the same body movements. You see Poelvorde in one film, you've seen him in all his films. I think that's the definition of not really being a great actor.

And then the cliché continues: as he gains confidence in the other dimension, this starts reflecting in his real life. He drops a job he has grown to hate. He hits his wife's lover, a cliché Argentinian (apparently they're supposed to only think about stealing your wife, but they also totally lack any courage, and whine as soon as they suffer the tiniest scratch), and everyone is surprised to suddenly see him being so manly. Then he meets another woman, who of course is charming, and loves art, his pursuit.

Then he has to return to the tribe universe to win the war. And he is made king and all. But soon the people tire of him because he has become cocky (another big cliché here).

And then he must return once more to kill the giant tyrant. And then when he expects that he's going to be fine after this victory, the tribesmen want to eat him to celebrate (the cliché being that all primitive tribesmen are cannibals, of course, of course). And as they hunt and then want to kill him, his other self, back in his own reality, enters suspended life. Think The Matrix, 13th Floor, and many, many other films.

But of course he gets saved just in time. Of course.

And then he has two women, and of course the non-wife elegantly leaves the scene. And of course the wife wants him back, he first says no I've been hurt too much, she says it was just a short-lived mistake, and all ends well.

BOTTOM-LINE is we have a film drowned in tons of clichés, many of which pretty pathetic, and a scenario that scores ZERO on originality, while the script is poor and thus many of the dialogues are just unbearable. And that's before I mention the acting - there is no real acting at all. What about it being a comedy? I think if you're a brute, or a bit drunk, then perhaps there are three decent jokes altogether. The ONLY positive in this mess, is that the photography is often quite elegant, even if they overdid it on hues and saturation to better mark the parallel reality, just in case the spectator got too bored and forgot which was which?

WARNING: SPOILERS!

(1) for a lot of detail, see Guy's review above!

(2) I chanced upon this film on TV. Did not recognize any stars, budding or otherwise. The first scene I saw was the loser brother, just back from jail and has already snatched an old lady's handbag, and his mom scowls him and hits him and in spite of being an adult, he starts crying, and she tells him, "leave the house, go get a job, and then come back!" I thought this was too cliché-y and almost zapped. Then I saw a scene with the other brother, whiter, not wealthy but with some money, a cute wife, a cute daughter and all. But who refuses to travel back to the islands to see his father on his deathbed, until his wife tells him that she can't stand the cold guy he has become. And I thought, let's watch 5 minutes more. Then pretty quickly they were at their father's bedside, they received an inheritance that seemed worthless, destroyed it... and ended up back in the day of slavery. A lot of either amusing, or more dramatic, moments where people from our day and age go back to "don't address a White unless told to speak!" and so on. Scenes with the white family a bit exaggerated, sure there were racist jokes all the time but I would hope that the whites weren't quite as pathetic (OK, the father is reasonable, and his son is courageous). Then like in all time-travel movies, they need to "fix things" in order to return to their time. Which, in this case, includes some difficult things. Such as making sure that their ancestors MATE (yes!), with one brother making sure the guy has an erection and introducing it where required, and the other brother holding the girl (both partners are asleep) and making here move so that things happen (that's at least PG13 isn't it?). And then like in all time-travel movies, especially the cult French film "Les Visiteurs", once they return they "get it" and amend their ways massively. And then, again exactly like in "Les Visiteurs", two secondary characters again damage the key paper, opening up the possibility of a "Case Départ" mark II.

All in all, an enjoyable film, both funny and deep, with quite good acting actually.

Background: I like sci-fi, and I like Sandra Bullock as a fun actress. And I respect films that attempt something.

So here, Gravity attempts, I think, to show us how even in mere low earth orbit, space is this hostile environment where a human life weighs nothing. OK.

So at first, big shower of space debris. Never mind that it half destroys a space shuttle, and sends it spinning, all the while not doing anything to Sandra and George. So then Sandra panics, fine as she's not an astronaut. And George comes to the rescue, OK a bit of a macho cliché but fine given the respective parts. So then George says they have to fly next door to the ISS. So they do. And guess what, they just just make it, as George runs out of fuel, and going too fast, so there's a miracle last second catch by dangling ropes. Hmm. And then once they have stopped, ie no more momentum, George decides that somehow the ropes are going to snap...and they start snapping! So he lets go of the rope - how very courageous and macho of him! So Sandra just barely manages to reach the hatch with her last breaths of oxygen. She then removes her space suit - how totally illogical. Then as she's attempting to radio someone, a fire bursts! But Sandra just barely manages to not get the least little burn even though she's wearing very little (and looking good). And she even manages to get to the Soyouz. Then she manages to separate the Soyouz from the ISS and tries to leave. But oh wait, the parachute is blocking her, and the ropes make the Soyouz bounce back towards the ISS! But Sandra just barely avoids the crash. Then she spacewalks to separate the parachute. And just at this moment the debris reappear. And they destroy the ISS and send it spinning - but somehow Sandra doesn't even get a tiny hole in her suit! So then Sandra aims at the Chinese space station. Then wants to get the engine started - but no fuel! So she despairs and lowers the O2 to commit suicide. So then miracle, she dreams of George and he tells her to try and to remember about the landing thrusters! So she un suicides, and manages to fly to the station. Apparently she aimed to well that she makes it at once! Of course upon arrival, she's going to fast, and she just barely catches the last possible handle. Of course. And it happens to be the hatch. Of course. Once in the station, and then in the Chinese Soyouz, she gets it separated, and they fall towards Earth. As they fall, the debris that left with her, somehow passes her! Finally she water lands. Pfew! But she's not done yet: she opens the hatch and water flows in! So she has to wait for the craft to sink about 50ft down, and then leave it! But with her suit she's too heavy! So she has to remove her suit and then swim to the surface! One more lucky escape! Then she swims a mere 10 seconds and already lands on the shore. And she looks up, and the debris that were passing her on the way down, are still flying up there!

BOTTOM-LINE: could have been GREAT about the fragility of human beings in space. Loses all credibility by adopting an unbelievable, Roger Moore in James Bond style of scenario, which would be amusing in its own right, but not in this film which tries to convey a serious message.

MARK: worth about 3 based on the script. I gave it 4 because of the visual effects.

Frankly I don't understand all the enthusiasm!?

Plot? There is no real plot. OK fine there is one, a very classical arrogant successful guy hits a rock, sinks low, and then discovers generosity and helping others which makes him a better person. Yawn. OK, not yawn per se, but yawn in this film.

Acting? - Robin Williams is Robin Williams in a one man show, or close to one; he does his usual part when someone lets him, i.e. if you remove his costume in your imagination you find that you could be in pretty much any other made for Robin Williams (Patch Adams, Mrs Doubtfire, Jumanji, etc.) He overacts so much and so constantly that it kills much of the movie that isn't Robin Williams - Jeff Bridges does his usual slow-moving, quiet, I'm not really sure I understand what is going on here thing. A bit like in K-Pax in many ways. He is at his best when he plays that he's drunk. - Amanda Plummer looks exactly like, hey I am a young actress and I worked hard and watched a lot of people with some mental and behavioural issues and look at how well I can portray such a person, only no, at no time is she even remotely credible. Someone go watch Jodie Foster in Nell, or Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man. - Mercedes Ruehl shines among this crowd. She is the only truly credible character, she acts, she has presence, it works. And what helps is that she has a "nice guy" part where she is kind, lovable, generous, you name it. Her award was well deserved.

Filming / editing / pace? - something just doesn't work. Some bits are terribly terribly slow and without much if any content, but yet not achieving any particular depth that would justify this slow pace. Some bits are full of agitation and screaming but not sure why. Oh and there is the Red Knight which isn't really that useful and seems lifted directly from Baron Munchausen (where Robin Wiliams had a part btw).

Bottom-line? Not a good arrogance meets punishment meets redemption movie. Average to downright terrible acting (or at any rate, overly dominant and very monotonous). Issues with pace. Terry Gilliam has made several films that I really like - but this one just doesn't work for me, sorry. And I really, really don't understand all the super-positive reviews, I just don't. Is no one going to scream, "hey the king is naked!" ?

So George Clooney, for once, is a bad guy: he flies from city to city, and each day he does the dirty job of firing people, so that the HR people don't have to do it. He has a huge experience and knows how to manipulate everyone so they don't negotiate, protest, you name it. A real bad guy.

Of course he has no time for any life. So he lies to himself that this is his life, and wouldn't want to be married, have children and all. Says he is happy occasionally seeing the same woman. Totally classical, totally un-surprising plot. Very boring.

As time goes by, and because he gets influenced by a new hire perhaps, he starts thinking a bit more than usual, about whether it might not be nice to marry one day perhaps. So at one point he tries his luck surprising his lover at home - only to find that she is married with children, and he is just her toy boy. Again, totally expected, un-surprising, boring plot.

So well what can he do, he goes on with his life. Of course there is still a small nice side to him, so he writes a superb recommendation letter for the new hire, so that after several weeks of firing people with him in many cities, she can finally get a real, noble job.

The acting is boring. Booooring. Clooney is supposed to be surprising in a role where he is not a good-looking doctor, or a good-looking and fun thief, but a bad guy - but he's not that good at it. The young new hire is OK but also rather boring. The lover is probably doing the best job but is not seen enough.

The photography is dull, of course it's probably by design? But it's still rather dull. Except perhaps some close-ups on the people getting fired.

And really, the story is so un-surprising, weak, that it's difficult to bear until the end without going preferring to go to the fridge for some ice-cream, or just zap to another movie.

Warning: various spoilers here and there.

The story: A (charismatic, good-looking) man in his mid-40s, is a partner in a "bad financial firm" which "cruelly" wants to force the companies it owns to perform their best, even if this includes de- localization - all this might be considered fine in the US or UK, but for mainstream socialist France, it is considered bad... ;-) He must drive to his daughter's wedding, and of course being a bad guy, he has never really paid much attention to her after he divorced his mother. He makes the trip with one of his daughter's ex-boyfriends, and says such "bad guy" things that the younger man prefers to walk. So the here is a really, really bad guy you see. Then his car breaks down. All he finds to rent, is an electric model "Zoe" by Renault (very heavy- handed product placement, though not so positive as autonomy proves a big issue). Then he picks up a (charismatic, cute) girl; she is immediately attracted to the guy, his looks, his charm. The fact that he has a daughter. That he cares about the planet enough to drive an electric car. So she has him drive her back to her parents'. Who find him charming of course. And the girl of course has a serious artsy job (she restores old paintings). Only problem, her father is the owner of a firm that the bad guy's financial firm, had put under pressure to de-localize. But he shuts up so as not to spoil the moment. Then he drives her for an interview for her dream job - and she gets it. And they celebrate. Then she discovers that he was the bad guy who put her father under pressure. So she leaves, and the bad guy decides to change. He leaves his financial firm and gives away his 50pc shares (not he does not sell them to his co-partner: he gives them away). In exchange for this gift he asks for a 20 year leniency to let the father's firm continue to operate in France. Also he goes to his daughter's wedding. He makes a great loving charming speech. He dances wonderfully with her. He is OK that she is already 4 months pregnant. He loves her Arab husband (early in the film he hated Arabs). In other words: he changes from super-bad, to super-good, pretty much all at once. He is so kind and loving and good and wonderful that it becomes almost worrying ;-) Then he drives back to the parents' house, explains that he has become a great guy, they buy it, he says that love made him do that, he asks the girl to marry him, she accepts.

So: this is a fairytale of sorts. The main actors are charming, good-looking and all. The photography is often very beautiful, with perhaps a bit too much artsy posterized look a la Olympus, often overly saturated and overly warm colors. The story is not believable at all where the hero changes overnight from super-bad to super-good, but it remains a cute fairytale. And a cute feel good story.

People who like cute feel good stories with good-looking main actors will be happy and say it's a 7. Intellectuals who like difficult don't feel good stories with tortured characters and ugly actors, will want to leave the room at once and say it's a 2.

"Battleship" is a "guys flick" that contains a ton of clichés of the genre, and a fair number of inconsistent or at least illogical elements. But, the pace is pretty good, the special effects are generally good, and Rihanna is even not that bad an actress! ;-) So all in all you've got something worth watching with (guy) friends, ideally on a day when your brain is a bit tired and you've had a couple beers already, and you'll enjoy it. On the other hand, anyone looking for something intellectual, original, etc. should definitely look elsewhere!

WARNING: some SPOILERS (not on the plot though): - you send a message out at the speed of light. Yet within a couple of MONTHS, not only has that signal reached a planet about 20 light years away, but its inhabitants have arrived! - classical good disciplined brother vs. loser but more fun brother. In the end the loser ends up as the best ever man on earth - classical "government people" don't understand the situation at all but still insist that the military go out and crash more planes against a forcefield - classical bad guy in love with the best girl who is also the daughter of the most important older guy. And then said bad guy proves so so good that he gets the girl, and is accepted by the father - aliens with advanced technology prefer to use Earth's dated technology to transmit to their home planet - aliens with advanced technology have a non-tainted glass window to protect the bridge of their super-duper spaceship. So all it takes is to get the sun to shine in their eyes, and a couple sniper shots at them, and bingo! - aliens who possess powerful weapons, including flying cogwheels that can eat through a battleship in a matter of seconds, or destroy a whole airbase in less than a minute, still leave an older docked ship so that it can take a shot at them later... The same older ship is left alone by the aliens because it has pointed its canons away for a second. So advanced aliens consider a weapon a threat only when pointed at them? Hmmm. - an older docked battleship can be restarted and be readied for combat in a matter of minutes by a team of a half-dozen older crewmen plus a couple youngsters - aliens who have established a force-field of several miles radius, are apparently unable to establish small force fields around their ships to protect them from simple ammunition from Earth. Makes for a more balanced fight - but still illogical. - if you prevent four alien scout ships from communicating back home, then their mother planet will never send other ships to check what happened to them? Hmmm.

For me Interstellar ranks right up there:

• strong story. Sure, some of the themes might have already been used in either films or books, but the fact is that this film puts them together in a solid and enjoyable manner. And it's not just strong: it's beautiful, and moving. So you don't have to be a sci-fi buff to enjoy it.

• strong characters. I've heard some people complain that some characters were thin - I wholeheartedly disagree and on the contrary, I find that the key parts are very solid and credible. I have also enjoyed it that the actors have pretty much all been used outside of their perceived comfort zone, or at any rate the standard kind of parts people general give them.

• beautiful photography and beautiful special effects. I mean all the scenes on Earth are just truly beautifully photographed, period. As for the special effects I think it has been advertised enough (and I don't want to spoil anything) how a top astrophysicist has advised on some key natural or artificial objects that play a key part in the plot.

• lasting value. Clearly the film at times looks back at "2001 A Space Odyssey". But unlike many who've tried this before, it actually manages to come up with a couple extremely memorable scenes of its own. Well done!

So is there nothing wrong with Interstellar? Sure there is! There is at least one plot hole or at least wrong logic (can't say more or else would reveal some plot). And there are a few things in physics that don't add up at all: such as how strong gravity would have to be to slow time down by over 60'000 times (so strong that you and your spaceship would be ripped to shreds and a planet could not even exist); or that when you travel to a zone where time is slowed so much by gravity you get affected on the way in then back and not just while sitting there; or how it is that you need a 3-stage rocket to lift off a spacecraft from Earth, but later on the same craft lifts off a similar size planet off its own power. But frankly, somehow I found I could put these matters aside and still have all my enjoyment. it's just one more case of "too bad they spent so much time getting the black hole and the wormhole right, but got so much of the rest of the physics wrong".

Watch it!

The Hangover is truly funny. But it is better than funny.

First there is the plot: friends wake up in a hotel room and can't remember a thing. But although this is quite good already, it is only the starting point. What is truly funny, and truly creative, is their subsequent quest: there is a wealth of original ideas, of unexpected things, in all 2x or 3x more material and ideas than is found in your average flick.

And, the acting is quite good, perfect for this kind of film. No one is THE star, no one takes themselves too seriously.

'nuff said. Go watch it!

"Kinky Boots" is a fun feel good movie with a bit of a twist.

The acting is solid to very solid, with characters who have depth and credibility.

And the story is a true story, so what is more to ask?

*** WARNING: SPOILERS ***

I really enjoyed this (true) story of the heir to a once prestigious shoe factory, who doesn't feel he connects with the business (although he grew with it and knows it inside out), and then finds out that business is in deep trouble.

And then instead of walking away and selling the walls at a good price, he decides, because of the memory of his father and grandfather, but more importantly because of all the workers who need a job, that he will do his best to save the business. But how?

By chance he ends up attempting to protect a drag queen from attackers on the street, gets beaten up, comes to his senses backstage from the show, and later sees a broken heel on one of the boots - and has the idea to make boots for drag queens! He completely fails at first, but then thanks to the help of the lead drag queen Lola.

And then things move on, and we're giving a nice but not at all boring lesson of "money isn't everything", and about respecting differences, all differences.

And then there's a happy end, of course.

Perfume: the Story of a Murderer, does a very good job of doing justice to what is a very interesting and original book, but certainly not an easy thing to turn into a script and then a film.

It would be a huge spoiler to even touch on the story, so I will not. Suffice it to say that the hero has an exceptional olfactory sense, which has enormous implications about the way he perceives the world, is able to see through the small or bigger lies of life, and then one day decides to help himself thanks to this superior sense.

The acting is superb, the lead character perfectly and horribly credible. And it is beautifully filmed.

Excellent.

(warning: mild spoilers)

take a simple but cute idea, the desperate guy abandoned by his fiancée, flies from the UK to the US (supposed to be Maine, but actually filmed in British Columbia), chooses his destination because the town is called "Hope", and on day two meets the cutest sweetest girl in the whole region, but also with a wild fun side so you don't get bored.

add some pretty solid names in acting: Colin Firth (sure he was less famous then), Minnie Driver. Add a cute blonde who can act namely Heather Graham. In the "supporting" roles put actors of such caliber that they can do much better than just "support": Mary Steenburgen, Frank Collison, and of course Oliver Platt (who was nicely leaner back then).

so, in theory, you could have done something bordering on the very good, cute, touching, powerful, and so on.

but, unfortunately, the script lacks power, the direction lacks power, the whole plot logic could have been made both better and denser.

so at the end of the day, we're left with a film which is fine to watch on a lazy evening with the wife, and has its cute moments - but could have been seriously better. Maybe it was too ambitious, too big budget a film, to good a crew of actors, for director Mark Hermann. Too bad.

Frankly I do not understand how Mel Gibson could have thought this has anything to do with the Christian message, ie basically be good to others.

The whole film is about the torture inflicted to Christ, depicted in long graphic detail which is sickening and can only appeal, as far as I'm concerned, to people inhabited by strong masochistic or sadistic tendencies.

As for the good things Jesus said, the positive messages, there is pretty much none of that.

It's as if Mel Gibson wanted to do a sado-masochistic film, and he thought this would be a good excuse. It is said that he had mass celebrated every morning and all - I frankly don't see why.

This is a truly pathetic movie - not technically, but in its message.

Technically of course, it is well-made, and it was a tour de force to use only the languages of way back then.

But overall it's probably one of the very least useful or enjoyable movies of all times.

WARNING: potential spoilers!

So here we go, another mother-daughter, lightning-induced body swap.

So is it boring!

NOT AT ALL! In many ways it's much more fun, and creative, than "Freaky Friday" ever dared to go. The mother and daughter dislike (hate) each other much more. They give it a real real go at spoiling the other's life and on all dimensions: professional, love life, you name it.

And the actresses are unknown and so give it a real honest go, which isn't quite the case of Jamie Lee or Lindsay in "Freaky Friday".

So yes, the copy can sometimes be massively better than the original.

Now WHERE do you find this on DVD, I'm not sure. And given that the film is from 2000, if no DVD is to be found now, the chances are low. Which really is too bad.

WARNING: some big spoilers follow below: - the daughter ruins her mother's class by becoming the cool wild teacher, and before that she ruins her image by dressing "cool" - the daughter ruins the teachers' year-end party by getting really drunk and saying out loud who beds whom and why all the budget goes to the gym not to computers - the daughter makes the mother look like an irresponsible fool who shouldn't be awarded child custody given that she dances half-naked in the living-room - the mother breaks up with the daughter's boyfriend, by kissing the man she is in love with, who happens to be a teacher who is then greatly shocked to have been kissed by a student - the mother screws up all the social network of her daughter by denouncing a drug dealer, and this leads to the house being massively tagged in revenge

(Warning: some light spoilers) Is Idiocracy a great film? Nope. Is it funny and fun to watch? Yes! It has a lot of amusing things going on, and it is quite critical of how we live today but sending the message in an ironic way which possibly works better: Litter: Earth is covered in litter, because no one cared to recycle or even just litter less (just like in Wall-e, and not that different from Soylent Green although the latter was way less funny). So covered that one day there is the Big Avalanche.

Intelligence: People are idiots because they spend their time eating and watching TV, and having sex (or thinking about it). And that's precisedly what a lot of media seem to be wanting from us. As a result the dumbest people are happier and have more kids and thus have come to dominate the world.

Brands: Brands have become so powerful that one has even displaced water as "just good for the toilet", and displaced it so much that people even water crops with an energy drink! Politics: the growing mediatisation of politics has led to a president who is very cool but can't do a thing.

Apart from that, how's the acting? it is goog enough for what is required. And the story? Pretty funny.

WARNING: spoilers. WARNING: spoilers. WARNING:spoilers. *********************************************************

Story: the story is great, and while not believable, makes sense in the universe of fantastic films. A car that has such force that its owner can fall in love, change, and become madly possessive, that's pretty striking. A car that can have feelings, defend itself, attack, kill, that's also pretty good. Of course Christine is not the only "living car" in movie history - Herbie would be another example - but Christine is way more possessive. Even beyond Christine herself, the film is great at showing what to exclusive loves can do to the lovers.

Filming: average, very average. The images do their job like on any B-series but there are few above average shots. Except for the one of the burning Christine chasing one of her killers - a classic.

Acting: the acting stinks. It's poor, it's sometimes hardly believable at all. I guess it gives a sense of freshness, of "I hired pals from high school to do it". But it's really below par, and makes the film less pleasurable to watch. Only the leading part, that of loser Arnie Cunninghma, is a bit credible, at times - but even he is not that good. At the end of the day it's either a few secondary parts - the garage owners - or more importantly, the car, that are the better acted parts.

Directing: does the job, but nothing stunning.

Editing: the pace is generally OK, does its job though nothing to write home about.

Bottom-line: great story, would be well worth a remake with a better director, better filming, better actors - all of which should not be too difficult to get. Maybe they spent too much time / money / energy on the several cars needed for the film, and saved too much on the rest.

(warning: potential spoilers ahead - warning: potential spoilers ahead)

story: moving, disagreeable, nasty but fairly credible story, that dwells into the depths of the human soul. Crime, and obsession. And a few other things such as retirement and one's decline into old age.

acting: Nicholson is just stunning in this. There are films where he overacts because the part demands it (the Devil in the Witches of Eastwick, the werewolf (Wolf), the Joker (Batman), or in Anger Management. And there are films, like this one, where he just acts the part - and makes a stunning job. He is just so perfect at all times, one totally forgets that it's him acting, that it's not really the story of a cop going into retirement.

filming: pretty good quality, some beautiful images. Excellent choice of pace.

directing: great job by Sean Penn. Nothing more to add.

Conclusion: well worth seeing, and seeing again. IF I KNEW SEAN PENN, and NICHOLSON, personally, and if I had lots of money, I'd ask them to please IMMEDIATELY start the filming of another story by Duerrenmatt with an ageing cop: SUSPICION. A nasty story of suspicion around the famous and sinister Dr Mengele (live operations in the death camps during WWII), with the retiring cop ready to sacrifice is life (and undergo torture) just to find out. Based on the job Sean Penn did with The Pledge, he'd make a great job of Suspicion, no doubt. And based on what he did in The Pledge, Nicholson would just be beyond words. SO, PLEASE, ANYONE WHO KNOWS THEM, please forward this OK? ;-) many thanks

(warning: potential spoilers - warning: potential spoilers)

story: there isn't really a story, I mean it can be summarised in 4 words: "the bad guys return". Countless films are based on this, and on how quickly the bad guys revive / return, and on how quickly the good guys get up to speed to save the world.

acting: acting does not really count here, leading parts are fantastic / crazy heroes, who by definition over-act 90 percent of the time. Sure the actors deliver - but this is not a place where great actors will make a difference (and this may not be a film whose target audience will care).

filming: the non special effects scenes are OK. The special effects scenes are numerous and often very well done.

pace: pretty good pace, though all in all it is quite predictable.

some ideas directly lifted from elsewhere: - the final scene where the hero gets rid of the huge monster by burning it from insides, rings a bell? Yep, lifted directly from MIB! - when she gets angry, the girls can unleash very powerful flames, and even shock waves and explosions. That's right - lifted from X-Men

what about having a hero who is really from Hell, what about expanding on the theme of his developing a "good guy" personality just because of a better environment? Not enough time for that - basically the guy is just good for some reason, and he never wonders why, or wonders about Hell, all we know is that he prevents his horns from growing, and he is pretty much indestructible (at least bombs powerful enough to destroy a monster with the mass of several whales, leave him unharmed).

Bottom-line: average fantasy / sci-fi film, good special effects, funny at times. 6 out of 10.

story: very solid, credible story (well, it is based on a real story after all). Very moving also. Full of philosophical lessons, of things that apply to Life, not just motorcycle racing.

acting: very solid acting, obviously Hopkins stands out and why shouldn't he, since he is such a great actor to start with, and because of the script, dominates most of the scenes anyway. He is just great. Great actors can play many / any part, and Hopkins proves it once more.

pace: excellent, lots of changes in pace, feels "just right".

images: good to very good quality, some superb shots actually. overall, way above average.

This is easily a 9. Michel Serrault, known more for comic roles in the earlier part of his acting career, does a stunning, even worryingly stunning job of impersonating Dr Petiot, a legendary French serial killer.

He is just so believable at every and any moment in the film, that the actor completely disappears behind the character - only the very best ever achieve this feat, and when they do it is only in a handful of parts at best.

The whole story (a real story which happened in 20th century France) is so powerful, so sinister - it makes for a very strong film that one remembers for a long, long time.

This is a fairly faithful staging of Lady Windermere's Fan, by Oscar Wilde of course. In natural settings rather than on a stage. Beautiful natural settings, it being the Amalfi Coast.

As for the rest: don't bother.

Acting? Very poor overall. Helen Hunt doesn't act well - not that she ever did act well, so not exactly a surprise here. Scarlett Johansson can't act either, and this we also knew - what is less nice is that her physical features are quite unpleasant; so it the idea was to use anyone young irrespective of their acting capabilities, why not use someone better-looking? Male characters are as dull as can be, far from what some real actors have done with those characters, on a stage I mean. Tom Wilkinson, as Tuppy, acts so well in comparison with the others, that he stands out like a major star, even though he has only a rather secondary part.

Photography, filming? Very poor. This is supposed to have largely been filmed on location. But somehow, despite the wonderfully beautiful region, the camera hardly manages to show us much. What a waste! Other things are ridiculous: there is a supposedly large birthday party, but it takes place with no more than about a dozen visible guests, in a room that looks to be about 200 sq.feet small. Then, at the time of the party, one scene takes place in someone's home office (no spoilers hence no names), and that office happens to be about twice as large as the room the party is held in. All this in a villa that looks to offer about 15'000 sq.ft. of living space, at the very least. Absurd.

Bottom-line: better to see it on stage, in a theatre, with good actors. Or go see it to enjoy the quality of Tom Wilkinson's acting. Or go if you are a die-hard fan of Scarlett Johansson.

I gave it a 6 - of course the play itself deserves maybe 8-9, but I'm grading the mess they made of it.