christophe92300

Ang Lee really managed to grasp the moods, torments, emotions of this gallery of characters and this basically is the greatest satisfaction of The Ice Storm. But what this movie lacks is a real plot and a clearer direction, indeed the scenario resembles a patchwork of disconnected, rather uneven scenes and story lines that are not that productive. There is also too many characters which induces a inevitable dilution of the story, not to mention that the common denominator, the sexual liberation in the 70's, is not the most interesting. Ultimately, the only thing that really stands out in this movie, whose cinematography is excellent by the way, is its genuine sensibility.

Sure the fight against mafia gangrene, corruption, the « one against all » sympbolic are appealing subjects but the treatment the story had is too timid. The dramatic progression is rather mediocre, the narration lacks grip, tension, it is too linear, too predictable and too slow to captivate the viewer's attention from end to end. The actors are bland, a vast majority of people by the way even consider Marlon Brando's performance as one of his best when his acting is just dreadfully inexpressive. As for the cinematography, which is also often highly regarded, it's more than OK but very academic, and often badly served by a deafening, too grandiloquent soundtrack. With 8 Oscars and a solid reputation, On The Waterfront appeared like a true masterpiece but ultimately the movie could very well be part of the overrated classics category.

The second movie of Terrence Malick's filmography, Days of Heaven depicts a dreadfully boring love triangle on a Texas farm. Once the base of the story is set, the plot could not unfold slower, there is almost nothing going on and the few things happening are not engaging at all. The scenario does not take the time to develop the characters who therefore seem completely superficial, cold or even creepy, the narrative structure is plain bad, the scenes follow each other without much coherence because of the mediocre editing with all those brutal cuts (often to the landscape) or puzzling ellipses (hard to situate the events on a timeline). The voice over weighs down even more this soulless, passionless, incomprehensibly highly regarded production.

This movie is divided into two story lines : on one hand, a very lighthearted, boring, cringeworthy rom-com , and on the other a very serious drama that brings depth to the scenario, even though the pseudo intellectualism and excess of religious references can irritate some. It's hard anyway to understand this association and draw a parallel between these two quite uneven story lines that seem to have a lot in common and that, unusually for Woody Allen, are not intertwined like one would've expected. Ultimately, Crimes and Misdemeanors is not a bad movie but it clearly lacks coherence and suffers from a more than questionable mix of genre.

In 1983, Brian de Palma, with the help of Oliver Stone, delivered Scarface, one of the most iconic gangster/mafia movie. The scenario, which depicts the lightning rise and fall of a Cuban political refugee who became a drug lord in 80's Miami, is solid overall but the movie undeniably would have benefited from a tighter editing because certain passages are a bit long, and the more the story progresses the more this lack of rhythm is noticeable, in the last 30-40 minutes it evens seems nothing is going on. Pacino is perfect in his role but you have to like the style, he's not far from overacting as often happens, and his character is so antipathetic that it's hard to relate to him which is inevitably penalizing. The rest of the cast is anecdotal, just think of Michelle « trophy wife » Pfeiffer. Scarface represents for a lot of people the quintessence of gangster movies, while other productions such as Goodfellas or Carlito's Way, from the same Brian de Palma, did a much better job.

It's hard to create a more oppressive behind-closed-bars movie than Locke, where you are stuck an hour and a half in a car getting to London with Tom Hardy giving calls after calls. At first the concept seems interesting but it soon becomes very tedious, especially since the stakes hardly manage to draw the viewer's attention, from a very banal adultery situation to this story of concrete pouring you don't quite get the point of and whose redundancy is ultimately annoying. The end of the trip is therefore a great relief because it was feeling like a drag. Nice commercial for BMW and its phone and navigation system anyhow.

The Deep End starts off pretty well and the first half of the movie turns out to be very enjoyable, the premise is rather classic but it's effective as is the mise-en-scène and editing which create this strange, enigmatic vibe. Then right after Goran Visnjic is introduced in the equation, the story and its dynamic crumble completely as if the writer had to wrap everything up in 24 hours. The plot then becomes far-fetched and the narration as chaotic as you could get, you finish this pseudo thriller, sometimes grotesque and clearly lacking intensity in it's second half, in freewheel mode on a vulgar, uninteresting, blackmailing mechanics.

This is the typical example of an average movie where everything is as academic as you could get. Indeed the story of this motorcycle and speed aficionado is depicted in a completely vapid and predictable way, with no originally or passion whatsoever, and with the use of cringeworthy grandiloquent violins that cheaply try to arouse the viewer's emotions. Granted, nothing is fundamentally bad in this movie, everything is just average. Anthony Hopkins who usually does a good job seemed as uninspired as Roger Donaldson, whose approach clearly lacked grip and was overly sugarcoated, the epic biopic turning into a dreadfully banal TV movie.

This movie is adapted from a play and it shows : the action is dreadfully static, the scenes are confined and often drag on through overlong dialogues, and the actors tend to overact. Moreover, the rhythm, which is supposed to be frenetic, is in fact rather sloppy, some passages just weigh down the dynamic of this original premise that had quite some potential comic-wise. The Lemmon-Matthauw duo still works well but the two characters are not enough on-screen at the same time which is a shame because this is one of the only positive aspects of The Front Page, one of the last, and less inspired, productions of the Wilder-Diamond association.

The opening credits tell it all, this movie is adapted from a play and unfortunately it's already noticeable from the introduction scene : the action is dreadfully stuck and the scenes are often uninspired and drag on unnecessarily in a characteristic verbosity. Moreover the rhythm is very slow, the lines and situations are for the most part so mediocre that it's cringe-worthy, and you barely crack a smile at the few, contrived gags. The Matthau-Lemmon duo, who usually augurs good things, doesn't seem convinced at all, there is no chemistry between the two and Lemmon's acting is so apathetic that it's almost bad. It's tough to find something to draw from this annoying comedy, incomprehensibly well regarded by critics and rankings.

This drama coldly and strikingly reminds us of how the disease was, in the early 90's, still very unknown to the public. The nature of the premise is inevitably appealing but unfortunately the script is very academic : statement of the facts, trial, verdict, done deal. Scenes follow each other very linearly, without much tension, and despite high stakes you never really get carried away by story whose mise-en-scène is sometimes too melodramatic. Hanks first major performance, though awarded an Academy Award, feels quite insipid, as is the whole cast in fact and the movie in general, necessary but far from being a top drama.

The Lego Movie is in the same vein as a Pixar production, this animated movie will therefore appeal to the younger audience as well as the older viewers thanks to the richness of the references and the characters density, its offbeat humour and cynicism. The cinematography and animations are beautiful but since it was made via CGCIs it's a bit hard to understand why they would want to make it look like it's stop-motion. As for the scenario, the story is well thought-out but goes maybe a bit all over the place — especially at the end —, you barely could have handled even 15 minutes more. All in all, great success for this first opus about the Lego world.

Getting together a talented cast (Gyllenhaal and the ageless Anthony Hopkins) to create such an insipid and boring movie... what a waste ! And to think that the scenario is adapted from a play, one doesn't want to imagine what it must be like. The script clearly lacks depth, there is not much going on with the characters who are dreadfully superficial and under-exploited. The lines are robotic, the actors are badly directed, the mise-en-scène is flat and the cheap pseudo intellectualism and melodramaticism oozing from this scenario are cringe-worthy. At the end you just feel you've been going in circles and lost 1h30 watching this completely uninteresting movie.

After Les Beaux gosses in 2009, everybody placed high hopes on Riad Sattouf's and was expecting his second movie to live up to his debut one but Jacky au royaume des filles turns out to be a complete disappointment. The scenario, to his credit, relies on an original and quirky background with lots of well thought out details but the plot could be summed up in one line and therefore runs out of steam very quickly. If the comic could compensate for the weakness of the script... but the few, contrived gags barely crack the viewer a smile. You finish this sloppy and endless (despite lasting only 1h30) movie in freewheel mode.

Despite the director/writer good intentions, the movie as a whole turns out to be too muddled : there is no clear line, you just drift inside this group with absolutely no dramatic tension except at the end when everything accelerates tragically. This type of subject must be tackled with grip which isn't the case here, scenes follow each other in a boring monotony and there is a terrible lack of identification with the characters especially Brandon, perfectly embodied by Hillary Swank. After barely 45 minutes, all hope for this real story is lost and the outcome therefore comes off as a great relief for a long and unproductive movie.

Long, slow, verbose, deadly boring movie with no action, no twists whatsoever. The scenario relies on nothing really interesting, there is no plot, you just follow the last, highly unproductive 24 hours of freedom of this criminal, from meeting to meeting, interspersed with flashbacks more uninteresting one from another. The direction is not inspired at all and even plain bad if you consider the numerous, intentional it seems, continuity errors throughout the movie. Choose a random director and the 25th Hour would be a complete flop, but Spike Lee, apparently still a critics and audience favorite, gets away with it.

This story of friendship and adultery turns out to be pathetically banal, and this trait is emphasized by Richard Eyre's extremely academic depiction of it. Most of the situation or relationships are contrived or don't seem very credible, and the scenes follow each other in a completely boring linearity, not to mention Judi Dench's annoying voice-over who by the way is perfect as a solitary, bitter old woman. To make things worse, the soundtrack is completely incoherent and omnipresent, not giving the viewer a rest from start to finish. It's hard to believe this movie was nominated in the most prestigious competitions, including the Oscars in 4 categories, the level of cinematographic creation being close to zero.

The movie starts off well with the introduction of Kirk Douglas as a frustrated journalist in search for the scoop that will get his career back on track. The rescue of this man trapped in a cave then appears as the perfect subject, Tatum will even delay the rescue for his own need. This situation depicts perfectly the human flaws who is shown as unscrupulous, cold, opportunist, and highlights the power of the media. Unfortunately, the plot runs out of steam as minutes go, the mechanics becomes a bit too repetitive and the story even completely goes in circles during the very long last half hour. Too bad because this cynical, pessimist critique was totally visionary for its time still remains pertinent to this day.

What's striking from the beginning in Double Indemnity is the quality of the dialogs, as often happens with Wilder. Granted, this was made in the 40's so some turns of phrase seem a bit pompous or outdated, but lines fly and follow each other with a remarkable fluidity, without any downs. As for the rest, the movie comprises every characteristic of the film noir genre whether on the form or content, from lighting to the voice-over or the typical characters. The plot is implacable but some elements are not very credible, like the emerging romance for example. The Machiavellian scheme and the investigation that follows it lack suspense, tension, and the outcome turns out to be a bit disappointing because it's rather telegraphed although it perfectly concludes this noir which probably remains Wilder's most iconic.

Despite an engaging premise, the treatment of patients suffering from Encephalitis lethargica, Penny Marshall delivered a totally academic movie. The story of this doctor and its discovery is depicted without any ounce of originality, everything is predictable and unsurprising from start to finish, and while you were expecting a powerful drama, you just end up watching a dreadfully banal and uninspired movie where every scene seems more melodramatic than the one before thanks to the schmaltzy violins. Robin Williams does the job rather well but what is intriguing is the cast of Robert De Niro in such a limited role that doesn't fit him. Conclusion : not a bad movie, but not a good one either.

Manhattan Murder Mystery basically comprises every characteristic of a bad Woody Allen movie. The plot is ultra basic, not to say simplistic and unfolds in a total linearity. A lot of scenes are just extremely talkative, drag on, and often give the impression they serve only one purpose which is Allen's annoying and unfunny mannerisms. The twists and turns are predictable, often completely ridiculous and have no effect on the viewer whatsoever. As for the plot, it fizzles out by a totally far-fetched justification. And what about the sloppy direction, these approximative shots and big zoom-ins worthy of the worst productions ? There is clearly nothing to save from this long, slow and boring Woody Allen's.

The problem with The Insider is that this movie is too long : 2h30. Michael Mann clearly could have, and should have, shorten the duration of a good thirty minutes because the action is completely diluted and the plot drags and drags on especially in the last half hour where everything seems to be stuck. Moreover, the big revelation supposed to be exposed is that tobacco is bad for your health, something so evident these days that this story seems completely absurd. Apart from the solid performances of Russell Crowe and Al Pacino — who for once isn't overacting —, there is not much to draw from this movie which sorely lacking density and where everything is a bit too over-dramatized.

Surprisingly, Non-Stop turns out to be much better than expected. Sure, the movie isn't the philosophical one and the plot on which the movie relies on is nothing original but it's rather well packaged : the direction is pretty good, the cast does the job, the scenario is pretty dynamic thanks to the regular twists, and the search for the bad guy's identity and the way our US Marshall is going to find out quickly set off the viewer's curiosity. The only disappointing aspect is precisely that the final twist and the justifications of this plane hijack are really far-fetched, something more rational would have clearly been beneficial.

Though the historical fact, this « Monuments Men » group, is interesting and certainly deserved to be tackled, what Clooney made of it is completely flat and bland. The movie boils down to a succession of totally disjointed, anecdotal short scenes, where protagonists are under developed and coherence nowhere to be found, indeed most of the story lines don't fit together at all and flow in disorderly fashion. The scenario therefore turns out to be completely uninteresting and it's with great relief that you finally get through this unspired Clooney movie who unparently relied too much on his cast of friends and forgot what actually matters : a good script.

The beginning of the movie, almost silent, arouses a real curiosity and shines with its fluid rhythm and especially its perfect direction. But once you've reached the 45 minutes mark, the scenario starts going in circles and the plot struggles to catch a second wind.

Even though some scenes are very good like the confrontation inside/outside the house, this vengeance story doesn't meet the expectations aroused by the excellent introduction. The movie lacks depth and density especially in the second half, and the plot completely fizzles out as minutes go.

To be noted : Macon Blair's solid performance.