Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo
All reviews - Movies (7524) - TV Shows (9)

A good movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 26 November 2012 11:00 (A review of Faits divers)

Once when I went to see my sister in France, I borrowed her a box-set with some documentaries directed by Raymond Depardon. Depardon is pretty much unknown here in Listal and also abroad, I guess, but he has a decent reputation in France, above all, as a documentary maker (as a matter of fact, I have seen none of his fictions but I’m not sure if they are any good). Personally, I really like his directing style. Indeed, there is no comment whatsoever, no music added. Basically, you have to make it up on your own the significance of what you just saw and I thought it was a rather spellbinding approach. Ok, I have to admit, the whole thing was pretty bleak and rather depressing to behold. Indeed, basically, we follow some lost souls and criminals and their confrontation with the police force and what a thankless job… Honestly, I haven’t never been a fan of cops in general but after watching this flick, I kind of felt sorry for them. Here, we are really far from the glamour and excitement of your typical Hollywood feature and the only thing you get is the bleak reality of some usually sordid proceedings. To conclude, even though it is not really a cheerful flick, I thought it was a really well made and rather fascinating documentary and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in this genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A good movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 26 November 2012 09:01 (A review of Labyrinth (1986))

It is one of those 80’s classics I wanted to watch for many years. Eventually, I thought it was rather difficult to judge this movie. You can actually sum up this movie with the animated owl at the beginning. On one hand, it looked terribly cheesy and was not really convincing. On the other hand, more than 25 years ago, it was the very first attempt at a photo-realistic CGI animal character and, from this point of view, it was actually quite impressive. I mean, the story was decent but nothing really original and I never understood why in so many of those movies (see also ‘The Neverending Story’ or ‘The Chronicles of Narnia’), the main character starts in our world and, then somehow, travel to some fantasy realm. I understand that it is a probably a way to allow the viewers to identify themselves with the main character but it is a rather tiresome and boring gimmick since you have to wait for a while before the adventure finally get started. Furthermore, at least 3 times, they suddenly started to sing a song and I thought it didn’t match at all with the rest of the movie. Adding to this, those songs were really average even the ones sang by David Bowie. Concerning Jennifer Connelly, I was rather neutral concerning her. I mean, it was pretty neat to see her when she was very young but I can’t say I was really impressed by her performance. Still, I enjoyed most of this flick anyway. Indeed, the whole thing looked really awesome with some great monsters/goblins/weird creatures. Not only they looked great but the way they moved was also really impressive. In this age of CGI overdoses, it was really refreshing to see some physical effects. Like I said before, even though the plot was nothing really original, it was still entertaining enough. To conclude, in spite of its flaws, I thought it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 25 November 2012 12:49 (A review of Wyatt Earp)

Basically, it is one of those movies I wanted to see for many years, even though it has a lousy reputation. Eventually, even though it was supposed to be a great epic, it unfortunately ended up being a really dull Western. It wasn't really bad, the poster was pretty cool, the opening scene was really awesome and there was a decent cast but the whole thing was still really disappointing to watch. Indeed, right after the great opening scene, the whole thing became rather boring to watch. I mean, it takes Wyatt Earp 1 hour to finally become a sheriff and even though it was pretty neat to see the always dependable Gene Hackman portray his father, it also removed a lot of mystic around this legendary character. Imaging if in 'The Good, the Bad and the Ugly', they would spend a 1 hour long about a flashback explaining that Clint Eastwood was actually a very nice guy before he got unlucky and became a ruthless killer. It doesn't sound really exciting, does it? Even after that, they keep throwing at you a lot of information which probably was historically correct but it was so loosely connected, I didn't care much about it. Eventually, when Wyatt Earp finally became the badass Sheriff we have all heard about, even then, the whole thing still didn't produce much excitement, I'm afraid. Basically, this movie is one of those numerous vanity projects made by Kevin Costner in the 90's (see also 'The Postman', 'Waterworld' and even 'Dances with Wolves'). To conclude, even though it remains watchable, I think I'm really generous with my rating but if you love the genre, it still worth a look though.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 24 November 2012 07:15 (A review of The Invisible Circus)

It is probably one of the most osbcure movies starring Cameron Diaz but it is not half bad, actually. Even though Cameron Diaz tends to play over and over again some kind of annoying hysterical chick, from time to time, she tries other things and the end result is usually rather interesting ('The Last Supper', 'Being John Malkovich', 'Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her', 'My Sister's Keeper'). This movie is one of those. I mean, it is not entirely successful as it tends to overly romanticize the time period but I still enjoyed most of it. As a matter of fact, Diaz doesn't even have the lead part and you only see her in flashbacks. The lead was played this time by Jordana Brewster and it was only her second part. Brewster is a rather charming actress and she was not bad either in this movie, however, her career never really took off and she is now stuck in the dull 'Fast and Furious' franchise. Eventually, the best thing in this movie was Christopher Eccleston, an actor I always admired since I discovered him in 'Shallow Grave' and he is definitely one of those criminally underrated actors. To conclude, even though it is nothing really amazing, I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you want to see Cameron Diaz in something else than her usual fare.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A good movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 24 November 2012 06:25 (A review of Rise of the Guardians)

What a nice surprise! I had some rather low expectations concerning this movie but since Nick, my step-son, was really enthousiast, I thought we should give it a try anyway. Eventually, I really enjoyed it and, as a matter of fact, I do believe it is one of the best animated features produced by Dreamworks, way better than the terribly overrated 'How to train your dragon' for example. First of all, the animation was really great. After watching so many CGI animated flicks, I should get used to it but I thought it was just really gorgeous. Furthermore, I thought that the story was actually pretty good. Indeed, for once, they took some time to develop the main character, Jack Frost, and I really cared about him and what he was going through which was something I terribly missed in 'How to train your dragon'. The main flaw, I guess, is that I wasn't really sure about the tone. I mean, the whole thing was still too childish for teenagers and grown-ups but I also thought that it was also too scary for young children so I'm not sure if it will eventually find an audience. Anyway, I thought it was pretty good, against all expectations, it is one of the best animated features of the year and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 23 November 2012 09:16 (A review of Stone)

When I heard about this movie, I was thrilled. I mean, come on! A movie starring both Robert De Niro and Edward Norton, it really sounded awesome. But then, when it was released, it received a very lackluster reception so I became rather skeptical. Eventually, it was indeed pretty disappointing. A while back, De Niro and Norton (with Brando! that was an awesome cast) also did together 'The Score' and even though it was also a rather weak movie, at least, it was a fun watch. I wish I could say the same about this flick... I mean, it was not really bad, there was a promising start with a great confrontation between the 2 masters but the development was far from being satisfying. Basically, you have only 4 characters but none of them were properly developed. Above all, Frances Conroy had the most thankless job since she had barely anything to say and just looked really sad during the whole thing. Milla Jovovich had more to chew on with her character and gave honestly one of the best performances but, still, at the end of the movie, I wasn't sure what was going on with this woman. Robert De Niro gave also a solid performance, I mean, he always does even if the movie stinks but it was the same thing with Jovovich, you never got the opportunity to know him, to understand his predicament. Eventually, Norton was the biggest disappointment. His performance was not bad but it reminded me of 'American History X', one of the most overrated movies in my opinion. Indeed, pretty much in the same way, Norton starts really convincingly but, somehow, his character completely changes and the transformation was way too hard to swallow. Here, he started as a trash-talking convict, than became really depressed and finally ended up as some kind of mystical guy... Still, even though the whole thing was rather poorly written, I still can't really dismiss this flick. Indeed, the beginning was pretty strong and they were some good ideas out there, it's just too bad it didn't really work. To conclude, it is nothing really amazing but I still think it is worth a look though, especially if you are interested in the actors involved.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 23 November 2012 04:06 (A review of Bowfinger)

Those last years, I have seen many movies starring Steve Martin and Eddie Murphy and I was honestly rather shocked about the low quality concerning their work, especially dealing with Murphy. Basically, most of their movies were just pretty bad, it is as simple as that. However, when I read that this movie starring the both of them was pretty good, I started to get optimistic. Furthermore, it was directed by Frank Oz, a rather decent director, so there was a good chance we actually had a winner in our hands. Eventually, even though it was a decent effort, much better than Murphy’s or Martin’s usual output, it was still nothing mind-blowing though. I have to admit, there were here and there some hilarious scenes, absolutely, but also a lot of boring or uninteresting stuff as well in my opinion. Above all, I thought the original concept was actually great but, unfortunately, it was rather poorly developed as it was just an excuse to throw as many stupid jokes as possible to your face. To conclude, even though I thought it was rather disappointing, it still remains a decent comedy, probably one of the best Steve Martin or Eddie Murphy have made during the last 20 years, and I think it is actually definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 23 November 2012 08:43 (A review of Caligula)

Like most of the viewers, it is its infamous reputation that made me watched this flick. Basically, I just wanted to check it out if it was as bad and/or as shocking as everybody was thinking. Eventually, it might sound weird, but I don’t think it was that bad at all. Indeed, since this movie dealt with Caligula, the most decadent Roman emperor, I thought this movie eventually fit the man quite well. Indeed, the main character was just despicable, mad, tyrannical, and indeed, you had a few hardcore sex scenes here and there but it didn’t really bother me. As a matter of fact, it might sound odd but I think those scenes made the movie even more surreal. I’m not saying that those inserts were a good idea but I don’t think they really ruined the movie. Basically, it was pretty much like watching ‘Gladiator’ on acid. There was also a pretty good cast (Malcolm McDowel, John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole, Helen Mirren) even though they had no idea what they got into and most of them have subsequently completely rejected the movie. Don’t be mistaken though, it was still far from being a good movie. Indeed, the pacing was really terrible, the editing was amateurish and the whole thing was frankly quite messy. Still, all those flaws added to the surreal effect given by this movie. Basically, it is a completely decadent flick about the most decadent time in human history. To conclude, I might be mistaken, it might just be some total worthless trash (Roger Ebert really hated it), but personally, I think there was something still spellbinding about it and I think it is worth a look, if you don’t mind watching a totally depraved picture.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 22 November 2012 10:17 (A review of The Living Daylights)

Even though I had seen most of the installments starring Sean Connery and a few starring Roger Moore when I was a kid, I was rather oblivious concerning Timothy Dalton tenure as James Bond. Anyway, 20 years later, I thought it was time to watch his flicks. Personally, I think they made a nice try with him to make the franchise a little darker than it was. Eventually, it was too soon, the audience was just not ready, especially following the fluffiness provided by Roger Moore’ s installments. Furthermore, the makers didn’t really dare to make it too violent or too realistic but this Bond was definitely a precursor to the one portrayed by Daniel Craig 20 years later. Timothy Dalton has been praised as being the closest representation to what Ian Fleming meant with James Bond and also criticized because he managed to make only 2 movies which weren’t really successful and the franchise stopped after him for 6 long years. Personally, I think Dalton did a pretty decent job, I liked the tone of this flick and there were of course some pretty neat action scenes. Jeroen Krabbé, one of the best Dutch actors, was also a pretty cool villain. Eventually, I think those movies were not really successful above all because the franchise was rather in a bad shape in that time, following 12 years of Roger Moore. I never cared about Roger Moore incarnation of James Bond and it is pretty obvious he was James Bond for far too long and it became detrimental to this franchise at some point. To conclude, even though this movie is nothing really amazing whatsoever, it remains a decent James Bond installment and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A good movie

Posted : 11 years, 4 months ago on 22 November 2012 09:42 (A review of Forgotten Silver)

In a few weeks, I will see ‘ The Hobbit’ which might end up being the best movie of the year (I really hope it will be that good). In the mean time, I thought it was time to watch this little TV feature directed by Peter Jackson. He made this movie more than 5 years before making ‘The Lord of the Rings’ , just after ‘ Heavenly Creatures’ and just before ‘ The Frighteners’ . Back then, he wasn’t yet a huge Hollywood mogul such as Steven Spielberg, Georges Lucas or James Cameron. He was just an exciting upcoming director from New Zealand making his small movies and most of the mainstream audience had never heard of him. Of course, in the 2000’s, this all changed, for good or bad. Anyway, I thought this flick was a decent mockumentary, even if it was pretty obvious from the start that it was a fake and I can’t believe that some people would fall for it. Still, I thought it was pretty enjoyable and there were some hilarious bits here and there. I thought also that the Black and White footage was pretty awesome and really convincing. It was also pretty neat to see Peter Jackson so often not only behind the camera but also in front of it. To conclude, even though it is nothing really mind-blowing, it remains a pretty cool mockumentary an it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Peter Jackson’ s work.


0 comments, Reply to this entry