jfurioli_2000

The Insatiable (2006)

Surprisingly good!

It's a B movie, so low-production value, some of the direction could have use a bit more transition scene to make the movie more fluid and the space more real but...

The characters development, which is central to the movie, is excellent and keeps you hooked in. The scenes between the two main characters are strong: they are supported by dialogues that are simple but effective and both actors doing a fine job.

I watched "Wanted", with Angelina Jolie, and "Insatiable" the same evening: the next day, "Insatiable" made a stronger impression on me.

Whoever made this movie deserves a bigger budget.

Caché (2005)

Pompous and missing the point

French movie-making at its worst. The movie draws an obvious parallel between the 1961 Algerian protests in Paris and an incident that affected the entire life of a man. The incident is portrayed as a bad memory that the culprit, then a six-year old child, has mostly forgotten until he starts receiving creepy drawings and videotapes of himself and his family, as if under surveillance.

From there, it goes nowhere. Characters start acting in startling and illogical ways, emphasizing a typical trait of French movie-makers who ignore the motivations of their own characters in order to make their point.

And the point is lost. The main plot is left unresolved. The viewers are probably asked to see another less than subtle parallel with the unresolved case of 1961. The end of the movie is especially uninspired and typical of directors who cannot "wrap it up" and finish elegantly.

As a political statement, it fails to carry its message across. As a study of character, it fails as it cannot explain or hint at explanations for the main characters' actions. As a genre movie, it spectacularly falls short of common standards.

The director might do well to remember that, when he is making a movie, he should ask himself with every frame why viewers might still want to watch. In our case, my wife wanted to watch a French movie because she is learning the language. In that respect, speaking in French, the movie was successful.

8 femmes (2002)

I stopped watching after 10mn

I started viewing it, being really indulgent with the corniness and the cheesiness of the dialogue in the opening sequences, because I like Francois Ozon, and then... they started to do the lip-sync singing... I ejected the DVD right away and returned the movie. I suppose it is trying to emulate some of those fifties' movies that were all charming and fun and everybody misses but I always really hated them in the first place and I don't really miss them. I still think Francois Ozon is a gifted, talented, hard-working director but he chose an "exercice de style" in a style that does not work well with everybody. Not with me, to say the least.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Heath Ledger nails the Wyoming guy

Easy pun... but appropriate.

Had I not seen Ledger in other movies and different characters before, I would have sworn Ang Lee just hired some local cowboy to play Ennis. He walks like a Wyoming guy, talks like one, stands like one, etc. I don't know how he did it. But he did.

Don't get me wrong: this is a very solid movie, which manages to appeal to everyone, although it would seem at first that it is hard to relate to (unless you are a gay cowboy in the closet). The story is moving, the cinematography fantastic, and all of the actors performing at an amazing level.

It's just that Heath Ledger is one notch above everyone else.

L'année des méduses (1984)

Venomous

Not for everyone: one could almost dismiss it as a soft sexploitation movie from the eighties. But no.

This is about an obsessive little girl who is turning into a woman. The characters around her are here to reflect the wicked light she is shining, and emphasize facets of her personality, as she is wrecking havoc around her.

It is all then about the sexual desires of women and men. How they cheat. Whom they love. What it is that they want. What they would do to get it. Only one character is "not normal " in this movie, and this is the scary part: all the others could be us to some degree.

One flaw in this movie: the voice-over on two occasions. Obviously the director could not find a way could convey the message. Pity. Otherwise, it would have a perfect little venomous movie.

Along Came Polly (2004)

Mildly enjoyable comedy with a few Must See Scenes

This is your average date movie, nothing groundbreaking. Ben Stiller rehashes his usual underdog character and it is quite pleasurable to see him accumulates the many humiliations. Philip Seymour Hoffmans does the actor thing. Jennifer Aniston is doing Rachel making an impersonation of Phoebe, and she does it well to be truthful.

Special mentions go to:

• Hank Azaria, hilarious as a French scuba instructor. His accent is more French than French. Just pure genius. Must must see.

• Debra Messing, surprisingly believable as the shameless (ex?) wife from hell. She displays a mix of self-confidence, vulnerability, selfishness, and true concern that makes her character completely unsettling. Still, a great performance.

• Alec Baldwin in a bathroom scene... rather down played, but some actors make even the worst situations look natural.

A History of Violence (2005)

A History of Violent Movies...

So we know the story: an average Joe, loving husband, caring father, model citizen in middle America is attacked by thugs but he saves the day by defending himself and his diner when it was obvious he had no other choice and ends up killing the aggressors. He should go back to his family a hero. We have seen so many films like this one.

Yet it is more complex here. When someone dies, people have to live with it. When the hero kills a bad guy, is it because he is standing his ground like anyone would or because he is a killer, unlike anyone else? Can a normal man be a hero? Can we glorify him? Or does he have to be something different, hidden beneath the surface? The movie answers this question without a hesitation and it is not the answer we are used to. Some people will love it, some will hate it. I think a lot will miss the point. It is a movie about movies parading as an action flick.

The fights scene are flawless, some nervous comic relief sequences perfectly timed, the acting is brilliant especially with Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello and Ed Harris. An Academy Award of the Weird and Questionable to William Hurt who makes a pretty good impersonation of Will Ferrell (why? that is the mystery of the movie).

Otherwise, a good, solid movie delivered with precision in the execution y Cronemberg.

Grey's Anatomy (2005)

Awful - Something went wrong during Season 2

It was fun, it was witty, it was charming.

That was at the beginning of Grey's anatomy: during Season 1. Elle Pompeo was cute, Patrick Dempsey was handsome, and Katherine Heigl was gorgeous.

The second season turned the characters into selfish self-centered individuals that constantly whine about their own little selves. There is nothing enjoyable: every time a moral dilemma is presented, they make the wrong ethical choice in the name of love, friendship, whatever. Doctors must go wild when they watch that show. It is completely unbelievable.

Now, what happened to the actors: Ellen Pompeo looks like she has a stuffed nose all the time, Patrick Dempsey looks like he is about to cry on every frame, and they even ruined Katherine Heigl for me.

Damn you.

House of the Dead (2003)

Not a bad idea... but the script is awful !!!

OK we all read the reviews that it is bad. Yet, a lot of the flaming comes from people who in the first place do not appreciate B-action flicks.

So, let's be honest:

Pros: Jurgen Prochnow, good photography, okay directing for the action sequences (they are actually cheesy but fun), some cute actresses (Kira Clavel), gratuitous nudity in three separate occasions

Cons: Script is awful and characters are not consistent (e.g. the first death witnessed by the protagonists: one girl has turned in a zombie and twists the neck of one of the group of friends before she is shot by a cop: no one even looks at the guy who just died), the cutting and editing sucks and sometimes you don't understand what is happening (e.g. one second a guy is lying on a beach watching is naked girlfriend bathe, then the next second she starts drowning, and the next scene he has fallen asleep -- no sense of continuity)

So, it's not all bad, but what makes this movie tough to watch is that THE PRODUCTION DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB AT KEEPING AN EYE ON THE DETAILS. The movie is kinda fun but ruined at times but this lack of professionalism that transpires through the continuity inconsistencies.

And don't tell me it's because the budget is low. A movie like "The hills have eyes" was extremely low budget but there are no inconsistencies in the unfolding of the story.

Funny thing: in the DVD there is a documentary on Zombies in movie-making in which George Romero acknowledges difficulties to finance his own 4th "Dead" movie. And Uwe Boll has four projects in the pipe...

A Dirty Shame (2004)

Not dirty, but shameful

The premise of this movie is great: a suburbian neighborhood is slowly taken over by sex addicts. It works the same way as Invasion of Body Snatchers: the people are converted one after the other and have a sexual addiction revealed to themselves. Then they see the world only through the goal of satisfying their addiction.

The good: it is not sexy or enticing - John Waters stays away from the cheap sex flick. The addictions are mostly funny and come down to having regular looking individuals (Tracey Ullman case in point) looking gross as they totally get into their individualistic fantasies. Opposing is a league a decency that looks at the world not through individualistic eyes but trying to find what is good for all. The sex addicts take over when it the addiction becomes a social link between individuals.

The bad: the story ends after 30 minutes. John Waters then just recycles over and over the same jokes. It is like one of those "Naked Guns" flicks, except the scenes are less funny and less creative than in "Naked Guns".

It is all the more disappointing when you know how corrosive and disturbing John Waters can be. A fine example is Hairspray, that looks like a pretty harmless movie until it hits you a bit later and you realize how subsersive it is. Here it is like Mr. Waters did not know how to develop his point: the league of decency and the biblical references are under exploited.

Sadly, Johny Knoxville is a the best thing in this movie. Actually, I am being mean to him: he shows charisma and presence on screen and deserves a shot at more better parts in movies than what he usually gets.

Versus (2000)

Gangster and zombies fun for the first 60 minutes

This B flick is not a good movie, although it brings a certain entertainment value and has cult status written all over. The first part of the movie is fun, the second worthless.

<Spoilers ahead>

In the first part of the movie, an encounter in a forest between prison escapees and yakuzas turn sour. However, as dead start coming back to life, it becomes incredibly fun to watch the characters shoot their way through all this mess. The action sequences are rather well-crafted (really!!) and make up for the total vacuum in the character design section: not one is convincing.

In the second part, the main villain shows up, the plot is revealed and a few secondary characters are added although they bring no value to the drama. The main villain has no charisma and does not interact well with the hero, the new secondary characters have nothing to bring to the table and are just plain evidence of a poor script and the action gets less enjoyable for some reason.

<end of spoilers>

In a nutshell, it is well filmed, the action scenes are rather good but it becomes ridiculous and lame when after the first hour, you cannot yet be drawn to the character and let yourself be carried by the story. It is not because the plot is weak, it is because the movie is poorly conceived.

I give it a generous 4 out of 10.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

Spotless Movie

It happens once in a while: a masterpiece. Far beyond Adaptation and Being John Malkovitch in quality and depth.

"Sunshine" is about the way we build our memories, the way we mix them with our present lives and how we sometimes try to suppress these memories. It is a masterpiece in the sense that, although it appears simple, all the crafting and hard work of the director, the actors and of course the writer are not apparent: they serve the movie humbly, silently and efficiently.

I could go on and on about the superb acting, but this is besides the main quality of this movie: "Sunshine" resonates with the viewer's own memories and works as an echo of what we have all felt at one point or another of a relationship. It touches you on a personal level because as the memories of Joel are being erased, you are moving back in your own. The very reason why you feel for the actors and their story, although it can be completely different from yours, is that the way you remember things is playing on the big screen.

When you walk out of the movie, you cannot help but think of the one you love and the ones you used to love, remember how they led you to make the choices you have made and how they have been a part of you and your mind ever since.

Sex and the City (1998)

It has ended, for good or worse

It started as a witty fast-paced television show 6 years ago. Looking back on the early episodes, I cannot get over how smart and subtle it used to be and how they could fit so much content into one little 25-minute show. Every scene was an echo or a reflection to another, all were linked by some underlying theme that would be Carrie's article of the week, summarized in a catch-all phrase.

Then it turned into a soap. The series started to focus on Carrie Bradshaw and not on being single and living in the city. It was all about looking for love, sure, but once Carrie and her friends became more dominant than the ideas that they were supposed to serve as vehicles, it was all over.

I regret the soapy seasons 4, 5 and 6. I also regret that the writers used the same easy story arc for three of the girls: they find their perfect match before finding love in the most unlikely partner. But maybe this show is an accurate symbol of what most people think a relationship is after all: a thrilling fast-paced ride in the beginning, which turns later into a boring soap.

It is finally over. I will watch again the early episodes in a few months, just to remember Sex and the City at its best. I suggest you do the same.

Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2003)

Awful Mexican B-flick

We have been spoiled by Quentin Tarantino, who keeps telling us that a few B-flicks were actual masterpieces. Robert Rodriguez is Quentin Tarantino's evil twin, reminding us that B-flicks were actually very bad and unwatchable.

This one is beyond bad. Too many characters. We do not care for one second about the main character because he has always the same facial expression (the T-1000 was more expressive). The plot is full of holes and yes it matters because it makes you question even what you just saw desperately trying to understand why.

Then it's full of cliches. Mexico looks like a banana republic in that movie and not like an emerging country. All bad guys are plaid by Americans and all heroes by Spanish guys. With in the end a love letter to the International Brigades of the Spanish Civil War. And the hero donning the Mexican flag. Duh.

The action scenes are all ridiculous and no... I am sorry... it is not enough to shoot people from different angles shooting at stuff that explodes to become John Woo. It also requires work and talent and here it seems Robert Rodriguez is lacking both.

One man makes the film watchable at times. Johny Depp. Even cast in a bad movie, with a bad scenario, with a bad character and bad lines, he manages to shine.

In conclusion, while El Mariachi was a nice B-flick, because it kept sticking to some basic rules of storytelling, OUATIM fails miserably, from the same mistake many filmmakers do: I want to stuff so many things in my movie, but I don't have enough talent to make it all fit together.

Rob. Please. Go to back to amateur filmmaking. And stop the nonsense nationalistic daydream about Mexico.

Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)

A bloody tribute to samurai movies, kung fu movies and the 70s

Kill Bill is at heart a pulp story: an assassin left dead by her former partners takes on the whole squad when she awakes from a 4-year coma.

Now what makes Kill Bill special is all the references to kung fu movies (Bruce Lee, Street Fighters), to Samurai Movies (Yojimbo), to 70s series (Green Hornet anyone?). Tarantino combines everything he loves and he knows his audience is secretely craving. All the nerdy stuff that is now becoming mainstream, that we were all ashamed to watch before, Tarantino is giving it a little push in the spotlights.

And we love him for that. And we love the fact that all those people who pretend to understand Kill Bill have no idea where all that stuff is coming from. Culture is everything in art. Movies are no exception.

The Matrix Reloaded (2003)

A third of the Matrix Reloaded is not worth seeing (minor spoilers)

One of my teachers told me once: when you are writing a paper, you have to ask yourself, every line, every word, why should anyone take the time to read this ?

This is exactly what the Wachoswki brothers did not do with the last part of Matrix Reloaded, although they had previously done it so well with the original Matrix.

Special effects are great and inventive, the characters look just as cool as before, the story in itself has one or two interesting twists (not much more than that) and one welcome new character played by Lambert Wilson (the bad guy is French (sortof) and he lives in a trendy hotel bar surrounded by supermodels).

Unfortunately, during the first 1h and a half, a great deal of sound and fury builds up a great climax: the (amazing) car chase on the freeway and then... oh god, how are we going to end this? The last 45mn are excruciatingly painful to watch, as the movie tries to speed up and to squeeze in the last and although crucial elements of the story. This last part looks hastily done and devoid of any punch, especially after the climax: it actually looks like a teaser for the next movie, or rather like the quick summary you have in TV series, before the opening credits (except it is at the end, they could have started it with a voice-over "on the next matrix..." without surprising anyone)

The Zion scenes (especially the party) could have been shorter, the action scenes (the Smith fights, the Seraph fight, the fight with the Merovingian guards) could have been shorter to (1) make the movie shorter, (2) dedicate more time and better direction to the last part in which the main plot twist is unveiled.

Go watch it until the car chase, and then go home to read an online summary of the last part. It will be less painful for you.

Cavale (2002)

What is terrorism ?

It is when you alone know the truth and the rest of the world is controlled by the enemy. You can trust no one since the enemy corrupts everything. You must use all means since the enemy is so much stronger than you. This film shows you from the terrorist perspective his path out of jail and back to his struggle from 15 years ago. First, you are with him, escaping the police, fleeing, contacting former comrades and then, little by little you get to know the face of his murders. The question is here: how can one justify such acts ? Well, Bruno, the terrorist, cannot. When he starts arguing, he can only repeat over and over the same mantras without confronting the reality under his very own eyes. And then the corollary question: if 15 years later, when the world has changed, a terrorist can resume his fight while he is the only one left, what to expect in a time where many think his cause is just ?

Wise Blood (1979)

Strong performances, weak storytelling

It has often been the weak point of John Huston and it is once more in this movie: storytelling. And again here is a well crafted movie, with strong characters, superb acting (especially Brad Dourif and Amy Wright), good direction I might even add but it does not have much to say. These characters are so much "out of the world" that it is almost impossible to relate to them or just understand them. Worth watching for the characters, and I am amazed how much Alyson Hannigan (Buffy, American Pie...) looks and play alike Amy Wright. Has she ever seen this movie, I wonder ?

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)

Not a good movie, even by Star Trek standards

One day, the might make a Star Trek movie that can be enjoyed and understood by someone who is not a trekkie. But even before they do that, they should make a movie that can be enjoyed by the ones familiar with Starfleet lore.

As a movie, it has no dramatic intensity whatsoever: you see everything happening and you don't care. The actions taken do not look real: the fights between the two main ships, the super-weapon that takes 30 minutes to be fired, Will Ryker moving his fat body and jumping through a disposal chute, Android data obviously and aged man now...

From a Stark Trek perspective, it holds well together: the crew prevails because they show higher morality and unity facing an enemy who lacks both. This is the main point of Star Trek. Still, you cannot help but wonder why Shinzon is going after the Federation (why not the Klingons, why not the Dominion ?). It seems pulled out of a hat. Why, in the same way, does he have to warn Picard about what he is planning and not launch a surprise attack ?

I could start as well on the special effects but I will not go further than saying that when a ship blows up, it would be good if it did not look like some balsa wood exploding in slow motion.

Once again, Stark Trek writers are so used to feed any crap to the trekkies that they do not care about (1) movie making, (2) story telling and (3) consistency in the Star Trek universe, which might be the worst of all sins.

Even by Stark Trek standards, and that is to say very little, this is a bas movie. I give it a 3.5/10, for the performance of make-up artists.

The Good Girl (2002)

Solid intimate drama with no lead actress

There are two reasons to talk about this movie: (1) the movie itself, and (2) Jennifer Aniston's shot at being an actress

(1) the movie is good. It deals with a 30-year old woman, Justine, married to a unexciting husband and living in a mid-sized Texas town. No significant friends or family around to provide relief to this isolated couple with no children.

At no time the movie falls into simplistic ways, never giving easy answers, never judging the characters, just showing them as they are and where they are coming from. You will feel for even the worst of them. Depth is provided by an amazing supporting cast: Mike White and Tim Blake Nelson are amazing and Jake Gyllenhaal is possibly a star on the rise.

Direction is sober but efficient and gives enough comical relief to carry you throughout the whole thing without losing interest or feeling too depressed. It is not a sad movie, despite the subject.

(2) Jennifer Aniston cannot act at this level. That is the main problem, she does a decent job in this movie, but her part is too important for her. She is supposed to carry the whole story on her shoulders and she is obviously limited by a lack of screen presence and charisma. An actress like Robin Wright Penn could do it, Julianne Moore could do it... She cannot.

Obviously, Aniston got a much bigger part in this movie than what she sould have had due to her "Rachel" fame, and not to her acting skills. She is good at doing "Rachel". She might even learn to play difficult parts like this one in the future. But today, she is not ready and it shows on screen as the comparison with her supporting cast is cruelly not in her favor. She looks like a young actress trying to copy say... Nathalie Baye in Venus Beauté Institus.

Then again, it was a considerable challenge for Aniston, who does, again, a fair, decent job... but not quite the real thing.

7/10 for the movie - 5/10 for Jennifer Aniston

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

You have to know at least a bit of Homer's Oddysseus to fully enjoy it

Guys,

I read a lot of comments about the lack of plot in this movie.

It is no ordinary movie: it is a mirror of Homer's Oddysseus. I thought it was pretty obvious, but I am afraid not. Every episode is a copy of what happened in this old Greek tale: even the main character played by Geroge Clooney is named after Ulysses.

The movie then becomes interesting because it is fun to recognize the transposition of the story to the South of the first part of the century.

One bad thing though: Tim Blake and John Turturro sound perfectly southern but George Clooney, although acting quite decently, CANNOT act with a southern accent.

Because of this, I give the movie only a 7.

Dick Turpin (1979)

Britain's finest

So simple. Napoleon's blockade in the early 1800s. British smuggler swashbuckling in Normandy and Kent. English officers are the baddies (I don't remember seeing any French baddies).

All episodes are the same: escape from the British police, save the idiotic young sidekick, get the girl aka barmaid, kick the captain's butt, the captain is humiliated by the commander, kick the captain and the commander's butts. end.

So... what was so great ? ha ha ha the music of course ! The theme is completely amazing. It's been 20 years and the only reason why I remember this crappiest of all piece of ol'rubbish British TV from the late seventies is the music.

The French counterpart of this series is called Schulmeister, l'espion de l'Empereur, and it takes place during the same period of history with a former smuggler from Alsace, a fat version of Asterix, turned into an Imperial Commissioner (wow) and enforcing Napoleon's way all over Europe. Much more fun. Jacques Fabri is Schulmeister and Roger Carel is Hamel the sidekick.

But the music sucked. Big time.

Prince of Darkness (1987)

Good does not always win

SMALL ENDING SPOILER (but really not much)

One thing must be told about Prince of Darkness that makes it a horror movie apart: the horror does not come so much from the situations, or the threat what is in the canister. The horror comes from the unfolding of the plot. In the end, you will be left with a very unfamiliar movie: you have been cheated all along and there was no way to avoid what happened. The ending was unavoidable, from the beginning.

Without this twist, the movie would be just another sci-fi horror movie without much interest. But this way of telling the story, this of bringing you in the same situation as the character, realizing what has really happened only in the end puts everything together and brings the whole to another level.

It is definitely worth watching.

La sentinelle (1992)

Dark, haunting story about memory and growing up

A student in medicine finds a severed head, well preserved and embalmed, in his luggage, on a trip from Berlin to Paris. His father is the late French ambasador in Eastern Germany. Why the head is here ? Where does it come from ? Why him ? For what purpose? He doesn't know. At first, he forgets about the head and tries to make friends, builds his life and keep studying but... he soon becomes obsessed with the head. Since he is the only one to know then he bears the responsibility to find out why and for what... The movie starts slowly and gains in intensity as the story develops. The cast is remarkable and the characters are all touching. The magic of the movie is that it possesses the same complexity as a Dostoeivski novel (really). It works in a very subtle way, making its way unnoticed to your mind and memory... I did not like it the first time I saw it, but months after, years after, La Sentinelle came back haunt me... and I had to see it again, just like I sometimes read over again a book that has depths I missed the first time.