I've been so impatient to see that since I was in the credits! But I knew (by reading the scenario, participating to the footage, seeing the rushes...) it would be a piece of garbage. Well I'm not surprised: I was right! The scenario and dialogue are very weak. The humour doesn't work at all. Only Sophie Le Tellier makes you smile with her great talent. The other actors are not all bad but I have to say it was hard for them to show their talent with so weak characters and stupid quotes! Well, almost everything is bad. That's strange to see that a film like that will stay in my memory because my name is on the credits!
Gosh i wasn't expecting such a bad film from Eastwood! I have not liked all the movies I saw from him (I found Space cowboys very bad for example) nor really loved any to be honest, but I wan't aware that he made such a crap film! Heartbreak Ridge is one of the most clichéd film I've ever seen.
Its directing and editing are very weak, its cinematography is generally quite poor (apart from some Sergio Leone look-alike shots like this beautiful close-up on Eastwood's eyes), and its acting... well I have to admit that I unfortunately saw this film on French TV and it was badly dubbed (dubbing is already something I generally can't stand but it's even worse when it's that badly made!). So I couldn't judge the "voice-acting" but just the "body-acting", and I found it generally either over-acted or under-acted. Some sequences are just awfully static. I also couldn't judge the dialogues but I suppose the dubbing generally kept the main aspect of them so I suppose I would have hated the original dialogues too!
As for the subject of this film, it's kind of silly: army and war are shown like games. There's nothing serious enough nor funny enough to allow us to think that it could have been a kind of critic of army/wars. So it sounds like a clichéd stupid patriotic speech, without any real touch of humanity and reflection on consequences of conflicts etc. A useless movie, really...
Movies that catch so immediately your eyes and your heart are so rare! From the very first moments you feel like you're entering an intimate auto-documentary, and even if you quickly understand that's fictitious, the tone is given : one can detect it's kind of real-life, genuine, human ! The granule of digital video symbolically takes us inside the main character, who is painting his own portrait himself in a simple neo-romantic narration. Of course, while he's speaking to Sundra, Julián is speaking to us so that it's even easier for us to be caught up in his life. Strangely the film never falls into voyeurism, even during the few quite erotic sequences. It's intimate but also really prudish and sincere: so far away from TV reality shows!
The feeling of authenticity is strengthened by a not inconsiderable part of improvisation palpable and well done that tends to compare the movie with John Cassavetes's work. « It's for you ! » also seems to be a successful hybrid of theatre and cinema, a heir of a less pretentious and less eccentric underground cinema, and a declaration of love to so many things ! Bruno Lázaro Pacheco seems to enjoy an alternation of rhythms, laughs, tears and sometimes a kind of contemplation with nearly abstract and purely aesthetic shots: plane tracks in the sky, graffiti
The main virtuosity of this movie is its use of digital video. Unlike lots of films, it isn't only about saving money here. The digital media and the filming process are directly included in the narration, giving the director and the audience a character status. And let's not forget the aesthetic potential of video that Bruno Lázaro Pacheco use with magnificence ! A proof that we can make great cinema without film! A movie that would deserve to be a lot less confidential! 10/10
I've seen this short animated artwork at the Biennale of Contemporary Art of Lyon in 2003. The hypnotic music made of chimes and percussion sounded like a weird lullaby and spread its atmosphere in a big part of the museum. It was kind of calling the visitors from the entry, guiding us to the dark little room where the movie was screened. And directly I was catch by this quite amazing atmosphere. The inexorable repetition of this 4 minute film was adding something more to the worrying dream that was shown on the screen. This was all about paradox: the dark combination of black and blue (almost purple) was personifying the frightening appearance of the sequence when white and pink were showing some more dreamy joyful look. Horses and trees were mixed with soldiers and bubbles, in an animation that was somehow both jerky and smooth. Half a dream, half a nightmare. And a feeling of being at ease in our uneasiness... or the contrary! In a word: strange... but great.
It's the first time I've watched the whole show and it was fun as I expected! Fun because most of the songs were kitsch! Fun because of the costumes, choreographies, etc... Fun because the French commentary was hilarious: Laurent Ruquier reading the sms that Geluck, Fogiel and other of his famous friends were sending to him during the show, Elsa Fayer commenting the show with sincerity, freshness and humour (and rating 2/20 almost every candidate!). Fun because of the Turkish persenter's hair! Fun because my parents and I played to the voting game. Fun because some few things were not that crap: Turkey's ska band was certainly the best, Ukraine's winner was fun to watch, French candidate was not that bad compare to former French entries, Serbia-Montenegro had a great music (what a pity the singer didn't have the same quality), Germany sent us a non-Eurovision-like candidate, and Russian teenager was cute to see and hear (with Kamel Ouali's choreography that is certainly the only good one...) The worse? Well, I suppose the egocentric gay disco diva from Bosnia is part of them, among the Austrian boys band, the Maltese old-fashioned duet and the Romanian symbol of vulgarity!
An amazing maze through Russian history. Let your eyes be your keys to unlock the doors.
Sokurov is not the first man to try make a one-shot movie. Hitchcock was probably the first with "Rope", and he would have done it in one single shot if it was technically possible at the time. More recently Mike Figgis attempted to approach the problem differently with "Time Code" ( one screen divided into four simultaneous images , each of them, a single shot ). But even so, "Russian Ark" is a tour de force! If an unedited movie is always a challenge, this one is almost provocative. Making a movie with more than two thousand actors, an amazing number of costumes and props, and in no less a place than the Hermitage, involving scenes in more than thirty of its rooms, would be impressive in a conventional movie, but shooting it for a duration of more than one and a half hours without a single cut is just crazy! I suppose the famous French cinema theorist Andre Bazin would have loved this movie. Of course Bazin and other defenders of unedited sequences are correct about one thing: that you can feel more involved in a movie that is free of the distractions of editing. Coinciding with the apparent current invasion with reality TV, this movie seems more realistic than these awfully edited shows. The filmmaker has fewer opportunities to cheat, with a single shot. Of course cinema will never be reality: it was, is, and will be an IMAGE forever. But a single shot accompanying the characters through a whole movie is an amazing thing, to attract us and to make us feel we're part of the story. Naturally there are some disadvantages with a single shot, if indeed we can regard them as such. Apart from the technical difficulty involved, the problem is to have something to show all the time. Indeed there are some quite lengthy scenes in "R.A" that are either tedious or meaningless, but since an unedited film is closer to reality than any other kind of film, the question is: aren't there some moments like that in our lives? Don't we wait sometimes? Naturally, lots of people would contend that they don't go to the cinema in order to be bored (possibly because their own lives are filled with enough tedium), but the fact is that cinema is quite an eclectic art: you can find American blockbusters made simply for fun, or to wash your brain, and otherwise you can access movies that are more "clever"(and that does not mean that blockbusters are necessarily "dumb"), but it is worth acknowledging that some cinema is concerned with values that have no connection with fun or frivolity. This may seem obvious, but it is an essential consideration if we are to do justice to a brave new film like "R.A", and let us come back to the movie and the way it deals with the single shot: the 'empty' sequences manifest a mirror of life, and in that case a reflection of the life in Russia especially. We can appreciate Sokurov's rationale for making an unedited movie: that is , the camera is subjective; indeed our actual physical vision is not cut in real life (even if you close your eyes for a moment, your vision is not 'cut' but only blackened for a brief period.) Not only does the single shot give a feeling of reality, but it also makes us think we are the character whose eyes are replaced by the camera. The character's eyes became the camera, then the screen, then OUR eyes. There is a double indirect connection between the character and us. In Noah's Ark, all of the animals are in pairs. In "Russian Ark", the VISION is double. That leads me to discuss the character's voiceover. The voice might have been a bit odd for the audience because it seems that it was pasted, since it was recorded after the shooting and then added to the movie, and so the movie partly loses its unedited quality, due to the sound. During the first minutes of the movie, we feel no connection between the image and the voiceover, but as we continue to follow this character through the 'maze', we're getting closer to him thanks to the 'eyes', and then we accept the voice. Indeed, don't we hear our own voice differently from the way we receive other people's voices? If the voiceover has a strange murmuring quality, it is because it manifests as our own voice! This effect may not work for everybody, but it worked (sometimes) for me. If the single shot and the voice are employed to project us into the 'action', the subject is quite fascinating and challenging as well: relating three centuries of Russian history by using the Hermitage Museum in St.-Petersburg! It is particularly interesting to see that Sokurov has employed a kind of sci-fi convention to communicate the idea of two men wandering through corridors of history. That creates a kind of duality between past and future. Lots of things reminded me of Tartovski's "Stalker" (another Russian metaphorical and metaphysical sci-fi film); the slowness, the strange unexplained situations, the odd dialogue, the loneliness of the characters, and the fact that the unreal part of the story is neither visible nor barely discussed, which probably suggests that Sokurov chose a sci-fi approach more as a simple narrative device rather than any desire to make a sci-fi movie. To have cast a non Russian character to help Sokurov to look at his country's history more objectively, is a wise decision. And so he refrains from any temptation to make a glorious kind of propaganda film: instead we see a well measured film which yields an exposure of positive and negative aspects of Russian history and culture. The film's element of satire ensures that there is no indulgence in the self-congratulatory that is evident in the worst of US cinema. Well, to be honest, I think I did not know enough Russian history to really understand this movie because it can be very confusing without that knowledge. (I had the exact same concerns with Rohmer's "l'Anglaise et le Duc"). But on the other hand, it encourages the viewer to learn more about Russia, and to see this movie again to enjoy it more. It is also the kind of movie that makes you regret that you do not speak the original language, obviating the absence of more genuine comprehension. Actually it is quite talky, and not everything is subtitled: sometimes you cannot identify which character IS subtitled, and it becomes it a bit more confusing. In spite of any negative remarks, partly due to (any) spectator's ignorance of Russian culture, this movie is generally rewarding and worth seeing. I should add that the shots are generally beautiful: the exterior scene in the snow is stunning, but regrettably too short! And the ball scene is also sublime Just watch it with a Russian-speaking friend who has an encyclopedic knowledge of Russian history, and it will be even better! Otherwise just let your eyes be your guide: after all we don't understand everything that occurs around us in our lives! 7/10
This movie is confirming what we thought about Vincenzo Natali: he prefers to ask "How?" than "Why?". Although there are more explanations in "Cypher" than in "Cube" or "Elevated", the movie is more focused on the way the character is trying to get rid of his problems. Of course the heroes of Natali's movies are always trying to find the causes of what occurs to them but they realise step by step that explanations would not help them. Therefore Natali's movies seem to have a more philosophical meaning than expected. If fantasy/sci-fi components are almost permanent in his movies they are only excuses to show the craziness of human beings and to display the fact that humans are dangers for humans themselves! The danger never comes from where you expect it to come in Natali's films and that's why it doesn't matter to try to find the source of Evil: it can be anywhere! And you cannot go backward to resolve problems so reasons of problems appear to be useless. Natali is also confirming that he's trying to get rid of his own claustrophobia by making 'shock therapy' movies, even though the claustrophobic angle in "Cypher" is less obvious than in "Cube" or "Elevated". Is he actually saying that Evil can only be beaten by itself? Well his characters are also generally trying to use Evil against itself. But against all expectations, Natali's films are not that Manichean. Every character has something bad and something good in himself. To finish with the subject of "Cypher" and its meanings, I have to say that it's less good than "Cube" but it couldn't have been better. Let me explain: at the end there are some few explanations that first seem to be a bit disappointing. Indeed the "Cube" mysterious end was not repeated here but on the other hand a lack of explanations would have been weirder in "Cypher" and quite unpleasant. The end was harder to build in "Cypher" than in "Cube" and the kind of funny twist at the end of "Cypher" seems to be the best compromise that they could find. (Natali is probably experiencing the difficulty to overcome the hard task to make a second movie after a welcomed first movie as "Cube".)
And now, let's speak about the stylish beauty of the movie! Again, Natali is making a very good sci-fi movie with few special effects. Wouldn't it be the best way to make a sci-fi movie? Far better than some meaningless and dull use of special effects in movies as the latest episodes of "Star Wars"? As in "Cube", Natali worked with cinematographer Derek Rogers, production designer Jasna Stefanovic and visual effects supervisor Bob Munroe, who created a quite simple but very beautiful atmosphere. As for the music, it seems that Michael Andrews is a twin of Mark Korven because their respective musics for "Cypher" and "Cube" are both perfect for the claustrophobic and mysterious ambience of Vincenzo Natali's movies. The performance of Jeremy Northam is just fabulous in a sort of schizophrenic role, and the short appearance of David Hewlett (who was already in "Elevated" and "Cube") is a major moment of the movie. As for Lucy Liu, it seems that she's here more to make the movie a bit more commercial but her presence is quite appreciable and her performance is good. As a conclusion, I have to say that I was also delighted to see a kind of homage to Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" and Hithcock's "North by Northwest". A very good moment. (7.5/10)
Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a brainless moment'! 2/10
This derisory version of reincarnation is extremely funny and refreshing! A few years before `Dogma' and `A life less than ordinary', French director Pierre-Yves Touzot showed delirious angels, all perfectly performed by only one man. Indeed Denis Dommel transformed himself from one scene to another with majesty. Such majesty that it's sometimes difficult to think that it's him again! Thus he performed not less than 7 angels, all very different but all funny. Writers Touzot and Hadmar ridiculed the idea of reincarnation and also gave us a message of equality by giving the role of Saint-Pierre to an Arabic actor (Karim Yousfi), showing that maybe all the religions are the same!
Otherwise the production design is simple but perfect for the story: immaculate walls and furniture, without any shadow! The cinematography and the sound are also brilliant for the context, as well as the crazy new version of the song `la Dirladada' which brings us in totally mad ending credits where we discover that Denis Dommel took a different name for each of his angelic roles by making 6 anagrammes from his real name! (By the way, are we sure that Denis Dommel is his real name?!).
Actors are pretty bad, the sound is awful, the black and white seems to be here to hide some technical defects, the story is not very original but well-done and the direction is quite good by showing different points of view of the same action. In fact the best is the `Pulp Fiction' kind of thing with the unchronological editing showing different points of view. Therefore it's not a bad movie but it's not unforgettable!
This black comedy is well-done, mostly thanks to the performance of Dieudonné and Jean-Christophe Bouvet. The shots are beautiful, the direction and the lighting have everything for a good film-noir, the sound is also exceptional but the permanent music during the movie is quite annoying! Moreover this music is rather kitsch and repetitive... in a word it's tiresome! But the main drawback of the movie is not the music: it's the almost total lack of suspense! Unfortunately the end can be expected very quickly! But the tone of the film and the dialogues are luckily here to improve that! 6/10
*Warning: this comment may contain a spoiler at the end! (but you'll be informed again before it so you can read the start without worrying!)*
The title means `I want you to sleep!' and they don't have to tell us that because it's more enjoyable if we sleep! This movie is a catastrophe! Never a film has shown a relationship between an adult and a teenage girl so badly as this one. It tries during 1 hour ½ to discuss the problem of a pseudo-paedophilia in a very strange way and it awfully fails. Even if -contrary to me- you didn't like `Lolita' or `Léon' (`the Professional'), believe me: they are better than this! `Dormez je le veux' was certainly too ambitious compare to what it was able to do! The direction, the story, the lighting. every technical or `artistic' detail in the film are closer to a bad French TV-movie than a movie for cinema. (By the way I saw it on TV and I'd never heard of it before when it was supposed to have been released!). It's impersonal and it alternates between a `politically correct' way to tell the story and a too ambitious way to do it. Moreover it's naively stupid sometimes so it becomes a little bit shocking but not for the reasons we could expect at the start. Only some few sequences are a bit more ambitious and daring, e.g. when young actress Céline Milliat-Baumgartner is in the bed with Féodor Atkine or when she appears topless. In fact most of the time there is a lack of daring and when the film dares more it maybe dares too much -mostly if you compare to the rest- and very badly! It's an inconsistent road-movie with different acting skills. Atkine is quite good in his role, Catherine Frot acts very well in a role which is perfect for her (a `disconnected' woman like in `Un Air de Famille'.) but unfortunately she has a little role, François Berléand is also brilliant in the 2 different roles he has (but like Frot he's too absent!) and Jean-Louis Loca is quite bad. The young Céline Milliat-Baumgartner has to improve her acting skills even if she's OK. Her little resemblance to Nathalie Portman is a bit disturbing during one scene: indeed at one moment, Cora (Celine Milliat-Baumgartner) says to the hotel receptionist that she's Katz's (Feodor Atkine) wife! Doesn't it remind you another scene with Nathalie Portman and Jean Reno in a movie called `Léon'? Hem. To finish with let's speak about the only very good scene which allowed me to give a generous 3/10 instead of 1: the end! (*so don't read what's next if you don't want to know the end!*). What a pity that the movie is not all the time as good as the end where Cora tries to put a baby to sleep by hypnotising him (and in English!). Finally some original and interesting thing!
Unforgettable masterpiece! Germans have found their new master!
Time is money... and Tom Tykwer is the time-maker! Germany's new genius has made an exciting tryptic by controlling Time (with a big `T'!) with an incredible majesty. The idea of chance was never shown so well before and the idea of `anything-can-happen' has reached its peak in this movie. The three parts are amazingly built and each detail can be important. Contrary to most of the movies the spectator can't expect everything; each meter Lola runs, each corner of each street, each character, and each second can be a surprise. And we run with her during the whole movie wondering what can happen next second although we don't really do that for our own lives! And this movie is just about life and about the fact that every detail can be important: everything can change something else, and we can choose some things but not all. In the movie Lola and Manni try to control their own `destiny' (but can we talk about destiny or fate in this film or about chance?); of course they can't: some things are not connected to them and Tykwer uses video system to film that, I mean every shots that don't involve neither Lola nor Manni. This is one of the numerous examples of well-used techniques in `Lola Rennt'. Do you need another example? OK let's talk about the way Tykwer uses photographies! They allow him to speak about the future, which is very interesting because photographies are generally about the past, about memory, about remembrance. And photos are still and Tykwer speaks about time with them. How can you better talk about time by mixing past, present and future at the same time like Tykwer did? Aesthetically and technically the movie is perfect for the story: Tykwer follows the rhythm of Lola's running by making a quick alternation of shots (with the help of editor Mathilde Bonnefoy), beautifully combined with the techno music he also composed with Johnny Klimek and Reinhold Heil. Of course sometimes Lola stops or the story focuses on Manni who waits for her, and Tykwer takes advantage of that to make the spectators think more about what's happening... and also what happened and what will happen! Therefore Lola, Tykwer and the audience are all able to breathe again for a while before continuing their epic race for life! Roberto Benigni told us that life is beautiful, Tom Tykwer showed us that life is just life! So let's run and try to catch the Time!
The mix-up is not very original (we can guess the end very easily) but this one-shot movie is well-done anyway. The performance of Johanna Menuteau -alone in front of the door (i.e. the camera)- is very good although being a little bit too theatrical sometimes, and she's quite funny and charming. She uses her voice and her body like tools to create a relationship between her and a virtual partner. Dialogues are good and spicy, the direction and the construction of the shot are rather elaborate, and the final music is nice (especially the violin). To conclude: a good moment. 7/10
This short movie is a jewel! It brings us in a very strange world which is not very understandable but which is finally quite close to our world of incomprehension. For that Didier Flamand used a weird language, showing (like Tati already did a long time ago) that people don't understand each other even with the same language. And the weakness of languages is well shown here!
Flamand created a new language by mixing French words and foreign tones that mostly sound German. German? Hem It's quite ironic when you see the "Hitler-like" mustache of Jean Reno in the movie! And this leads us to think about Chaplin's "Great Dictator". "la Vis" is really influenced by Chaplin or Buster Keaton because of the beautiful black and white shots, the "mute" sense of humor, the old captions at the beginning, the way Reno acts and the production design which reminds Chaplin's `Modern Times'.
Thus the mixed influence of Chaplin and Tati works very well, and the special atmosphere can also remind Jeunet and Caro's "Delicatessen" mostly for the craziness of the characters. The actors are perfect, especially the magistral Jean Reno, and they should deserve a standing ovation because of the difficulty of their roles. Therefore it's an amazing mad movie and the end is splendidly burlesque! 10/10 and the movie really deserved all the prizes it won everywhere in the world.
How can't you rate this movie with 10/10? I admit to say that this movie is not very entertaining but the goal is not to tell you a story but History! This is the first `real' movie of cinema history (`le Prince de Galles' was first but it was not technically perfect enough ) and it has an undoubtedly huge international value. These people that you can see finishing their working day in the movie had the chance to participate to a historic moment, becoming the first persons to be able to see themselves moving! And above all the shot is a beautiful shot! And it's very moving when you think about the first persons to have seen that! What a moment! Historic for science first (because the Lumiere brothers first invented the cinematographe for scientific reasons) and for art later. A movie to venerate!
... but they could have made such a better movie! Almost everything is disappointing in the movie from the scenario which could have been much better and funnier to the promising cast who seems to have been very lazy about their performance! Robert De Niro is not always very convincing when he `cries', Billy Crystal is less funny than he used to be, and Lisa Kudrow's character alternates between a `Friends' weird Phoebe' style and a normal and not interesting style! Nevertheless there are some few very good scenes but a few ones because just one came to my mind! It's the parody of the scene of `Godfather' where the Don is shoot! Very good parody! What a shame that the movie is so irregular! (5/10)
PS: I prefer the French title which is `Mafia Blues' (a little bit more original...)
Almost everybody who read Stephen King's novel will agree to say that the film does not bear the comparison. The film is too fast and forgets far too much to concentrate on the psychology of the characters. On the other hand the film has a big chronological problem compare to the novel, we get lost a little bit and everything does not seem logical: for example how can Billy and Chris foresee the blow of the bucket before knowing that Carrie goes to the ball? Simply because the film is too fast! Therefore the film can be a good horror film (but not more) for those who don't know the book and almost a disaster for the fans! Especially that the atmosphere is not completely there either and the actors are rather weak besides the impressive Sissy Spacek which almost saves the movie by herself! And what to say about Brian De Palma's obsession for Hitchcock? Unable (once again) to impose his own style, he goes as far as copying in a hideous way some details of "Psycho" (the music, the knife ), but so significant and so famous details that we start to think of the other movie during some seconds by wondering which film we are watching! Anyway the conclusion is simple: read the novel or wait for somebody else to make a better adaptation! (4.5/10)
One of the best short movies ever! A very clever idea!
I've never seen any Austrian movie before and I would have thanked God to have made me tape this short movie if I believed in God!!! This is an excellent experimental movie which develops a very interesting idea and clever new technics which consist in animating photocopies of pictures. Moreover Virgil Widrich wrote the right story to stick with the technics. And the result is amazing: the aesthetics are very good and the special effects well-done. But it's not all: Zlamal's music is very moving and Johannes Silberschneider performs his several roles with majesty! At the end I felt very strange and wondered a lot of things but above all I thought about problems of cloning humans! Generally I thought about the dangers of homogeneity: can we become all fools?... But I won't tell you more because suspense is so important in cinema!
Watch the TV-serie: it's 20 times better than that!
As the cartoon ("Madeline", 1990) is intelligent and funny, as the film is a disaster! The scenario is very poor and déjà-vu and contains lots of mistakes or illogic and unbelievable things. (For example Uzbekistan was independent only after the fragmentation of the USSR thus had no ambassador when the film takes place!) But the most disastrous is the vision of France by Americans who seem to know nothing! Even if the story takes place in the 50s, many things are cliché. You will tell me: " yes but it is a movie for children, we don't care! " It is exactly where the problem is! Young Americans will believe that France is always like that and it won't help either France for its image or the USA for their knowledge of the world! The worst is to see that the movie wants to show that you should not judge people's appearances (I speak about characters of Pepito and Lord Covington) but on the other side it judges the customs and the life of the non-English-speaking countries (not only France) too fast! And what to say about the absurd mixture of the French and English languages? That adds a little bit of ridiculous to the movie, that's all! As a Frenchman, that even made me smile often by imagining first of all that Americans who look at the movie don't understand anything and then that some "bilingual" situations would be a little bit stupid in the true life! In fact it is maybe the only thing which made me laugh in the film! I don't understand how some Frenchmen agreed to co-produce this movie!
Otherwise the actors are mostly very bad: only France McDormand appears to be a little bit better (but we wonder why she was in this film so far from the spirit of the Coen brothers!), the French actress Chantal Neuwirth is rather good also (but the film won't allow her to go out of the anonymity in her country!) and the young Hatty Jones is only one more child who will certainly never play a leading role again even if her performance remains correct!
To finish let's speak about some positive points: the film manages to have a few feelings and the ending song is a good lively song for a film for children. Conclusion: 4/10 even if I admit that the children can spend a good moment!...
PS: I have nothing against Americans, I just have pity for them when I see that a lot of Americans know just their own country or their own state!
Jean-Luc Delarue produces and hosts this show (on the national channel France 2) with a quite sensible manner. He has this special gift to be able to control his guests and his public with an impressive charisma. And above all, he manages to show different things with a clever way, not like in most of the talk-shows which are made just in order to choke or to entertain the viewers. (e.g. not as other shows Delarue produces as "C'est mon choix")
In this show we don't feel like encouraging voyeurism! It's just made in order to inform us about different things in the world life! And when you start to see one "episode", you can't help watching it until the end and you go to bed very late! This is the only real drawbacks of the show: it's too late on TV! Anyway thank you Jean-Luc to have (finally) made at least one good talk-show! That might be the only one I think is interesting...
Just Brittany Murphy's performance is interesting!
My title shows what I think about this movie: just Brittany Murphy's performance is interesting! She's very nice and amazing and I almost voted 7 for the movie thanks to her (but I finally put 6!). The rest is simple and "déjà-vu"! Douglas is quite good too but the story is a little bit boring sometimes and the direction and the cinematography are really not original... And I DON'T want to SAY Another WORD for this movie!...
This episode of "Halifax f.p." is the first I have seen and I was very impressed by the performance of the beautiful teenage actress Emily Browning! I hope that she will have a good career in her future... Otherwise, this TV serie is not really original but well-done and it was a good evening for me! It reminds me some TV series I saw in my country (France) like "Julie Lescaut" or things like that... But I didn't really enjoy the lighting (like in most of the TV series!). Nevertheless the story was not so politically correct as the TV series in general!... To conclude I want to congratulate another time Emily Browning who I hope to see more!...