![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/934/131934.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years ago on 12 January 2013 11:15
(A review of
I'm Not There)
I find it really difficult to judge this movie. Indeed, I thought it was pretty good, probably the most original biopic I have ever seen but, honestly, I thought the whole thing was a little too damned alienating. Back then, when I was a kid, my dad would listen very often to Bob Dylan so I have some very fond memories of his music but,I must admit it, I was and still am rather oblivious about his music and the guy himself. Of course, I have heard about his sudden sometime even bizarre 'transformations' but not much more than that I'm afraid and I think it is imperative to really know the man and the songs to fully appreciate this movie (I really wonder what my father would think of this movie but I'm pretty sure he wouldn't care for it). Actually, this flick reminded me of two other movies I saw recently. The first one is 'Accross the universe' which was another interesting experiment, making a movie using the songs of the Beattles. The other movie is 'Cloud Atlas' in the way that it intermingled various stories with different timelines, constantly switching back and forth between the stories and with a very thin connection between those tales. Personally, I thought it was better than 'Accross...' because the story was more intriguing and the experiment was much bolder whereas 'Accross...' was just a standard musical. However, I did prefer 'Cloud Atlas' because, even though it took me a while, I was eventually able to connect with the whole thing whereas it never happened here and some bits, especially the one starring Richard Gere, were just way too obscure for me. Still, the directing was really good, there was a great cast involved and it remains a very original feature. To conclude, even though it is definitely an acquired taste, I thought it was pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in experimental movies.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/274/6793274.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 11 January 2013 10:18
(A review of
Salvador (1986))
I already saw this movie but since it was a while back and since I have it on DVD, I was quite eager to check it out again. For many years, Oliver Stone had been a struggling director and at the time of production, he thought that this movie was going to be his last chance, having already made 'Seizure' and 'The Hand' which were both failures. However, in 1986, he made two movies which both managed to be, at least critically, successful. Of course, we all remember 'Platoon', crowned with the highest prize, in my opinion the best movie about the Vietnam war and rightfully considered as his magnum opus. However, we tend to forget the other movie he made back then in 1986, a movie so overlooked that it did not even have a wide distribution in the United States. Eventually, it was re-released after the success of 'Platoon'. Anyway, it is actually a damned fine picture. Indeed, it is one of those edgy movies that Stone used to make before going soft. The subject was topical with some very good performances, even by James Belushi, usually one of the least interesting actors I have ever seen. James Woods, a really underrated actor, gave here one of his typical nervous performances and I think he was really good in this. Anyway, to conclude, it is actually a pretty good movie and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Oliver Stone's work.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/844/604844.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 11 January 2013 09:45
(A review of
Whatever Works)
Even if I have lost faith a long time ago in Woody Allen, I still keep watching his new movies once in a while, for old times' sake. Some of them (a very few) get some good reviews but, in my opinion, he hasn't done anything really great for at least two decades. Anyway, this movie was a very average one, that's for sure. This time, Larry David plays the typical Woody Allen character but this version was even more obnoxious, vicious and mean than usual. At least, he was very funny and some of his dialogues were just hilarious which is something Woody Allen still can deliver. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about the other characters. Indeed, the character played by Evan Rachel Wood and her parents were just terrible. Indeed, I thought that Wood was really not convincing or maybe it was just that her character was just poorly written, I don't know. It was just striking that the main character was really interesting whereas this young girl was just some pathetic caricature. To make them a couple was also rather ridiculous as if Woody Allen still needs to believe that a 20 year old girl could still fall for someone like him. To conclude, in my opinion, it is one of the weakest movies directed by Woody Allen, even worse than 'Scoop' or 'Cassandra's dream', fortunately, Larry David made the whole thing watchable and I guess it is worth a look if you are die hard fan of Woody Allen's work but don't expect anything remotely amazing before watching the damned thing.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/094/153094.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 11 January 2013 05:43
(A review of
A Few Good Men)
Even though it seems like ages ago, there was a time when every single movie directed by Rob Reiner was a big hit, critically and usually also financially. I mean, just check his track record : 'This Is Spinal Tap', 'The Sure Thing', 'Stand by Me', 'The Princess Bride', 'When Harry Met Sally...', 'Misery'. This great combo started in 1984 and was ended by the dreadful 'North' released exactly 10 years later in 1994. This movie was the last one in this impressive serie. Basically, it is a rather standard court drama taking place in the military world. What makes it better than the usual flicks in this genre was first of all the very solid directing by Rob Reiner. He managed indeed to make one exciting thriller. The other great thing about this movie was the cast (Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, Demi Moore, Kevin Bacon, Kiefer Sutherland, Kevin Pollak, Christopher Guest, Noah Wyle, Cuba Gooding Jr.). Back then, Tom Cruise was a huge megasuperstar, every single of his movies were some huge hits, Demi Moore was one of the most popular actress, things have changed a lot in 20 years... Anyway, even though both of them were pretty good, they were eventually both blown away by Jack Nicholson who gave once again an impressive performance, playing against type an uptight conservative high ranked soldier. At the end of the day, you won't learn anything really new with this film but you will be really entertained, that's for sure. To conclude, it is a really solid court room thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/409/2943409.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 11 January 2013 08:50
(A review of
Tout feu tout flamme)
You might not know who is Jean-Paul Rappeneau but he is actually one of the most highly regarded directors in France. You might have heard of his version of āCyrano de Bergeracā which had some success also abroad. Anyway, apparently, even though Rappeneau had a very long career, starting in the mid-60ās until the 2000ās, he has made only 7 movies so far and usually with 7 or 8 years in between (a little bit like Terrence Malick). Anyway, since his productivity is pretty low, you could expect that each and everyone of his movies would be a great masterpiece, especially in this case, with such a cast (Yves Montand, Isabelle Adjani, Alain Souchon, Lauren Hutton). Unfortunately, I thought this movie was terribly boring. The tone of the whole thing was really frivolous and it was made this way on purpose but I found it really difficult to care about the plot, above all, if the characters themselves didnāt care about it either. I donāt know, they all try to convince you that they all have a jolly good fun but I wasnāt convinced, far from it. I havenāt seen many movies starring Isabelle Adjanie (only 11 out of 32 films) but it is so far the most disappointing one(behind, of course, the dreadful āDiaboliqueā). To conclude, even though it was watchable, I thought it was a really average flick and I donāt think it is really worth a look, even if you are interested in French movies.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/742/3497742.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 10 January 2013 09:05
(A review of
Hollow Man (2000))
For Paul Verhoeven, it was his 3rd critical flop in a row and it was basically the end of his career in the US. Honestly, even though it seems to be considered as one of his weakest movies, I don't think it is really so bad actually. Indeed, it is basically a very dark version of this famous story with some awesome special effects, even for today's standards. As usual with this director, the whole thing was pretty violent and (very) sleazy, and at some moments, it almost felt like some pretty neat introduction to some super villain. Unfortunately, I must admit it, the dialogues were terribly cheesy and, even though the cast was decent (Kevin Bacon, Elizabeth Shue, Joshn Brolin), the acting was pretty average. Above all, the story was just pretty weak, especially during the ending which seemed to come out from some very average slasher flick. Honestly, while watching it, I couldn't help thinking that Verhoeven didn't care much about this project and didn't really try to exploit the very interesting ideas displayed in this story. And, indeed, later on during his career, Verhoeven did admit that got involved in this project because it was the only film he could get off the groundĀ at the time. Anyway, in spite of its flaws, I still think it is actually a decent flick and it is worth a look, especially if you are interested in Paul Verhoeven's work.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/632/29262632.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 10 January 2013 09:42
(A review of
The Last Detail (1973))
This movie is one of those cases when you expect a masterpiece but eventually, it doesnāt really blow you away. I mean, I kept hearing some very good things about this flick so I had some very high expectations. Donāt misunderstand me, I still think it is a pretty good flick but there was never a single moment when I thought that the whole thing was either hilarious or really brilliant. Basically, it is a rather funny and sad comedy, definitely more interesting than your standard mainstream comedy, but I had a hard time caring about those characters and what they were going through. Apparently, all the profanity was back then a big deal and they thought off removing it completely but 40 years later, there is nothing really shocking about it. It is the only movie directed by Hal Hashby that I have seen so far but I thought that his directing style was pretty good and I will probably watch his other movies such as āBeing Thereā or āHarold and Maudeā when I get the opportunity. Concerning Jack Nicholson, I thought he was pretty good but if you donāt like his usual hysterical foul mouthed characters, you wonāt like this one either. I donāt know, I really wanted to connect with this movie but it just never happened, maybe I should re-watch it at some point and give it another shot. Anyway, to conclude, even though I thought it was a little bit disappointing, it still remains a solid and original comedy and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/905/20165905.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 10 January 2013 09:04
(A review of
The Omen)
After watching the remake which was terribly underwhelming, I was really eager to check the real thing. First of all, I was really surprised how little you see this āDevilā during the whole movie when he is in fact the central character. Even though it was surprising, I was still able to understand this choice. Indeed, since you are dealing with a child, you canāt really risk that the audience get attached to him,Ā especially when you are planning to have the father killing him with some rusty knives.Ā Furthermore, you canāt really expect a 6 years old child to act as if he was literally the āDevilā. Still, since Damien was barely on the screen, barely talked and didnāt really act in a threatening way, why should we actually fear him? Eventually, it was not really a frightening horror flick but I still think it was pretty good though. First of all, the masterstroke was to cast such a high caliber actor like Gregory Peck in the lead part. Apparently, it was Peckās last successful movie and he managed to give some gravitas to his character. I also enjoyed Richard Donner's effective directing. For Gregory Peck, it was basically the end of his career but for Donner, it was actually the beginning of his feature film career and with his following directing gig, a small movie called āSupermanā, he became quickly one of the most promising directors at work back then. To conclude, coming back to our main feature, even though I donāt think it is really a masterpiece, it was still a pretty good horror flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/059/7363059.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 9 January 2013 10:33
(A review of
Secret Agent)
Since Iām a huge fan of Alfred Hitchcock, I was really eager to check this movie. It is one of the oldest he has made I have seen so far and, I have to admit, it is not one of his best movies but I still think it was pretty good. It was also nice to see a younger John Gielgud (it was his 4th movie only) and the rest of the cast was pretty good as well, especially the always dependable Peter Lorre. Basically, it is one of those typical spy films made by Hitchcock (check the titleā¦ You donāt get more generic than this!). Still, I thought it was really enjoyable. Indeed, even though it is almost 80 years old (!), even though you donāt have gadgets like in the James Bond movies or some awesome action scenes like in the Jason Bourne movies, I thought it was pretty neat as I still have a weak spot for those good old spy features where the focus was on the political intrigues and the dubious characters with several agendas. To conclude, even though it is probably a minor effort, I thoroughly enjoyed this flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in Alfred Hitchcockās work.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry
![](https://lthumb.lisimg.com/177/234177.jpg?width=140&sharpen=true)
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 9 January 2013 09:09
(A review of
Silk)
I wasnāt sure what to expect from this movie but since I have a weak spot for Keira Knightley, I thought I should check it out anyway. I always wonder why she always shows up in costume dramas instead of some more contemporary stories. Anyway, I thought that this one was honestly pretty boring. I mean, you see the main character going on some huge trips first to Africa and then several times to Japan but I never felt any excitement about those travels. Indeed, they kept telling you that those trips were really hazardous but, honestly, really nothing remotely thrilling actually happened. I know, this movie was not supposed to be an adventure flick but a romantic one but even on that level it failed to deliver the goods. In my opinion, even though they tried to give some deep romantic meaning to the proceedings, I thought it was just some typical Western sexual fantasy about a silent and docile Asian woman. Furthermore, I think that Michael Pitt is a decent actor but he is not what you could call āleading manā material. Or maybe it is just that his character was so terribly passive, I donāt know. Still, I make it sounds as if it was a very bad movie but it was definitely not worthless. Indeed, the photography was beautiful, with some very nice shots and the music was pretty good too. Honestly, I think the whole thing had some potential and I was wondering what a director such as Terrence Malick would have done with this material. Anyway, to conclude, even though it was rather weak, it still remains a decent period piece and I think it is worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
![](https://i.listal.com/images/marseilles/chat_16.gif)
0 comments,
Reply to this entry