genjiattack

The Dupieux Inception made me laugh so much, I never know what to expect but it's an intergalactic foot every time, plus I love Dali! A little tripoté of actor to embody Dali, a divinatory Dali, timeless, in a film that seems to resume the end of 2001 without any limit. I won't be able to tell you what it means, but it's pretty crazy! No limit in time, logic, meaning?

It is the story of an interview, in a dream, in a film, in a painting, in an interview, in a dream, in a film, in a painting, etc, etc... It is crazy and I love and for me, it is Jonathan Cohen who gives the most life to the eccentric character, it is an absolute treat to see him take all the tics of the master!

I recommend to those who like the Dupieux style, the others, will be completely strawberry, as every time:D.

There are films that sometimes have no luck when I look at the critical notes (and elsewhere) sometimes they did not find their audience, sometimes they did not know how to come out at the right time. And then there are those other films that are considered good films, see very good films, when he doesn't deserve it that much, the spectacle that overwhelmed the audience and the plastic of the fiction surpasses the emotional reality coupled with a disproportionate promotion.

1917 disappointed me and left me with a bitter taste, because if the exercise of the sequence plan is, it must be recognized, magnificently successful, it nevertheless leaves the same sensation as Gravity once reached its end: To want to make a sequence plan a film at the perfect rhythm, The result is a large eight with a taste for attraction that seems to have escaped from a video game or theme park. 1917 not being the only one in these years 2010-2020 to make cinema, a leisure at the discount with easy shortcuts to more too stir its spectators.

1917 is a film of technician and in this sense it sends the very heavy, the visual performance is hallucinating, the photography as well as the staging offers a grandiose plastic with real moments crushing by the number of appearing on the screen in this pyrotechnic show millimeter. But this is all it offers, this wanting yet authentic in what it will make us live and tell us (from where the text implanted here is there to hang it to reality), it however already slashes the historical reality for the sake of the show (as in video games in fact) but it is especially in horror that it is most visible, become a joke or a step of luck, diluted in a few contemplative shots to bring a touch of poetry supported by music that ensures the rhythm. The film however acts as a mirror of the main characters on the spectators, the nativity takes precedence over the cruelty of reality and the good feelings sweep away any traumatic reality.

The emotion is therefore never really there, the depth of the characters either, because this war does not exist and these actors who play soldiers either. It's not nice war, it's not a video game cinematic, people are not nice and good feelings like ideals quickly fall apart. Camaraderie is much stronger when it all exists as betrayals, enemies are not all traitors and for all this, the history of cinema is filled with excellent films much more honest on the subject. Spielberg himself great craftsman of entertainment, had not forgotten to talk about the essentials, Nolan neither. The factory war not heroes, it manufactures horror, dead and nothing else... And as such 1917 could almost seem like a propaganda film.

After for Sam Mendes it is little to be wanted, hence these two characters, came on discord to do a part of Call of Duty and who make it a canvas or take full eyes on their TV 4K. It's cinema will tell me, yes, but it's cinema and cinema and there clearly, the only thing I saw is a beautiful video game cinematic, empty of real meaning and therefore without flavor, but not much more, at least not what I call "cinema".

Sticky, hermetic, incomprehensible, paradoxical but also particularly clairvoyant, Hard to be a god is a film that reveals in its second viewing what is, it must be admitted, particularly difficult in view of the experience he puts his spectator through.

And yet this film is a mirror of Russia so radical and powerful, that it would be a shame not to take the time to see what it describes and tells us. Everything says there from the first shots, the only introductory voice-over giving all the keys of understanding before submerging us in the terrible molasses that Russia is currently living.

"It is not the earth. It is another planet, identical, 800 years late..." "... And the local grey castle reminded the beginning of the Renaissance..." But the Renaissance is not produced here. Just a reaction to something that almost didn't happen..." "It started by destroying the university, the way of thinking. And a hunt for thinkers, sages, bookworms and talented craftsmen. Some fled to the nearby Irukan. It was better there."

I could go on, but it is the poor Russia that we are talking about, dragged through the mud, the fiend, leading by a man erected as a god who plays the flute with the sound of jazz that opens and closes the film, surrounded by men at his service treated like animals. Untouchable, in-tuable, who leads his world on a quest that leads nowhere, neither for him nor for his people.

The characters look at the camera regularly, as if to question the spectator in front of this grotesque and terrible spectacle, the spectacle of a people dragged in the mud, a mess like no other in this universe. Russia is preparing to suffer under Putin, a film that is increasingly topical today, which resembles a cry for help in the face of a sudden arcaism that destroys everything starting with its own children.

A beautifully disguised and yet so brave speech in such a country, which makes "hard to be a god" a work as powerful as terrible.