sossalemaire Reviews

Games of Love and Chance (2003)

A disaster...

[2/10 · 29 March 2005]

This movie's a disaster. Yes, it shows french suburbs the way they are. But that's the only good thing you can say about it ; frankly, how can you be interested in seeing almost 2 hours of stupid suburban kids yelling at each other, insulting each other all the time ? French critics are ecstatic, this movie has won 4 cesars (french equivalent for the Oscars), but it's just a dull vision of dull people. I've seen enough of that verbal and physical violence myself to get any pleasure from this deeply boring movie.

I've read critics saying it was a refreshing vision about french suburbs. I guess they think it's refreshing because you don't see drugs or guns, and it is "in" to say that these kids have some sort of raw inner strength only waiting to be applied to something good. Yeah, think again, they're really that violent at each other, but they don't study Marivaux in real life...

Watch it at your own risks.

Bowling for Columbine (2002)

A european point of view on all this

[6/10 · 18 November 2003]

This documentary was rather good, though examples are very politically oriented (What about some goulag images from Russia or death penalty in China instead of these japanese people killing chinese, french soldiers during civil war in Algeria and nazis?). The answer to the main question, why are there so many murders with guns in the US, is barely given; there are just some hints, mildly supported by not that accurate examples and statistics. Also, some facts are just plain false, many dates for example.

But what strikes me in this movie is something that I had already seen in "Mars attacks!" (which I hated). This movie is seen as very disturbing in the US, like "Mars attacks" was, though it only states the obvious, using statistics and news available to anybody reading a newspaper regularly; it was just the same in Mars attacks, in which there was no subtility at all in the critic of american society. The thesis defended by the author are not revolutionary either. So are you that bad informed in the US? Are you so manipulated by the media that this simple documentary stating public facts available to anybody disturbs you that much? How can it be that in a country with a very strong local political power (compared to France, the example I know best), you're so little interested in the life of your community that obvious facts like that are unseen? This question seems much more interesting to me than the debate about the freedom to have a gun: as a french man, who made his military service time, and used a weapon during that time, I can tell you that there's no question for me that weapons should be forbidden. The power you feel when using a weapon seems so dangerous to me, it seems so easy to be attracted by this "dark side", it's frightening. So please, even if Michael Moore has as many stupid ideas as he has good ones, don't forget to listen to the good ones, your society will only get better...

Sexy Boys (2001)

Not that bad after all...

[5/10 · 1 February 2003]

I'm gonna write it in english, though I doubt many people outside France have the occasion to see it...

I was introduced to this movie by a french TV show talking about DVDs, done by a rather funny guy who is used to bashing "navets" as we call bad movies in french. He said that while seeing the movie, he could imagine the producers discussing about making a teen movie with some pretty girls (check), gross scenes (check), a guy masturbating with some food (check), to ride the wave of American Pie. So I told myself it would be a "navet" to remember. In the end, I think the producer scene imagined by that guy was quite realistic; but the director managed to make an enjoyable movie with it, with weak or boring moments (some scenes seemed to be there just to make the movie a little longer), but with good moments. The actors are lovable, not always very good, but at worst adequate. Armelle Deutsch is great (she's just my type, that helps...). It's not an "all out attack" comedy; there are calm moments, and actually a much much better understanding of how young people manage their love lives than american pie. That's the kind of movie that I can't help liking, though I see many flaws in it (acting, directing, mandatory scenes for the genre that are just boring). Thus, I give it a 5/10.

Battle Royale (2000)

Starship Troopers from Japan!

[9/10 · 1 October 2002]

Having lived in Japan recently, I'm not astonished at all by this movie; you have to understand that kids are like gods there, and the ones we see in the movie lived during the bubble economy period, when japanese people could at last get some reward for working so hard for 40 years. Thus, children or young people ranging 0-30 years old in Japan have only known prosperity and easy money, are impregnated with occidental culture of selfishness, and they no more understand the values of working your soul out and giving everything to the group their parents so dearly cherished.

And though I'm aware it's of course exagerated, ironic and cynical, I think Fukusaku makes a statement with this movie. "You want to be individualists, work on your own, forget the teaching and suffering of your parents? Let's roll! But I'm not sure you're gonna like it...". He does it in a provocative way, because he likes violence (he says it himself) and because it helps him to be heard. If I had to compare it to an american movie, I would compare it to Starship Troopers; great fighting and slaughtering scenes used to convey a message. The two movies had exactly the same effect on viewers and journalists, maybe it was even more violent with BR: some people said that it was nazi film-making, some said it was genius (I rank in the second category of course). Actors are also very good (Kitano is just his perfect self, the guy coming from previous battle is great, the two youngsters in love are such a good caricature of japanese teen TV series stars). One thing you have to understand is that only the situation is exagerated in this movie: the rest, the way japanese kids behave today, is the exact truth, no more, no less.

Let's hope it can be a part of a wakeup call for this generation in Japan, or they will be in great trouble.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)

visually stunning, beautifully directed but a little messy

[7/10 · 20 September 2001]

This movie is really a must-see, because of Ang Lee's impressive direction, the marvelous performance by Chow Yun Fat (as usual), and the incredibly choregraphed fight scenes. Yet, I wouldn't rate this movie as one of my all time favourite because of the plot which is too messy; I felt a little lost during the (very) long intermission of the stolen comb, and some scenes, while creating some of the atmosphere and introducing the characters, were a little too long. Translation hurts this movie for sure, even if it was a perfect one; I speak japanese well enough to follow movies in japanese, and many times when I read subtitles I feel the impossibility to translate idiomatic expressions; I had this impression many times during Wo hu cang long (though I don't speak chinese). Unfortunately, you can't fully appreciate this kind of culture-empowered movies without knowing and mastering the culture. Anyway, it's a must-see. 7 out of 10.

Dune (1984)

May the Christ be with you...

[7/10 · 20 September 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Lynch has done a marvelous job recreating the atmosphere of Dune; a world caught in-between feodal political organization and sci-fi technology (space travel, laser guns, protective magnetic shields...); but he fails with the plot.

This review is a BIG SPOILER, so if you haven't seen this film, go away.

Where do these weirding modules come from? That was the question I asked myself when I had to make a comparison between the book and the movie in an english course (I'm french, as you can see from my poor english).

In the book, Paul knows pretty well he's going to launch the Jihad, millions of crazy warriors willing to destroy the known universe, get their payback for their centuries of wandering in the galaxy as the Zensunni. But he decides to do so, to get his own revenge from the Harkonnens; he deliberately chooses to be their messiah, using the missionaria protective, fooling them (a very important scene is the one where Paul meets Gurney Halleck again; he kills one man with his knife, and he imagines the legends that will be held that he had killed 40 or so with bare hands). Herbert gives us a user's guide on "How to become a messiah".

What? But messias are not built, they are born half god, half human; it just can't pass through on the screen in a mainstream american movie. So after all, Paul does not fool them, he's the messiah; the fremens are not blood-thirsty warriors, killing with knives and whatever they can grab, using their children as shields, they kill with clean "sound weapons"; Harkonnens are more evil than ever, and stupid too (which is not the case in the book; they're cruel, brutal, but not stupid). And after having killed Feyd-Rautha, with his fur coat, Paul is just like a Christ who saved the galaxy from tyranny. This is a dramatic shortening of Herbert's views and ideas. Only remains Lynch visual talent, Toto's score and Sting's very good (though short) performance as Feyd-Rautha.

Blade Runner (1982)

Best sci-fi ever

[10/10 · 20 September 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Perfect music by Vangelis, perfect acting by Harrison Ford and Sean Young, haunting performance by Rutger Hauer, Ridley Scott at his best, SFX almost up-to-date, what can I say?

Well, I could say only one thing: this movie, a masterpiece of its own, is again a proof that Philip K. Dick's work is very hard to translate into a mainstream movie.

SPOILER AHEAD!!!

In the book, Rachel has sex with Deckard in order to prevent him from killing the other replicants. She does it as a job for Tyrell Corporation, in a sense. And Deckard ends up thinking that only child born humans are humans, man built androids are not. Dick answers one of his main question in this book: What is humanity? The movie gives the opposite answer. Rachel is human for Deckard, maybe more human than Bryant or Tyrell. This is Scott's sacrifice to the happy ending. Director's cut end is less happy (how ridiculous was this extended lifespan story?). My end to the movie would s ee Deckard kill Rachel while she's asleep. Some would say the actual end gives the movie more power by leading the audience to think Deckard is a replicant. How about a man who protects himself from mere sexual desire by killing a machine? Not a happy end, I know...