Reviews

A rather frustrated, lonely and long suffering vicar's wife suffers a little accident which cleaning a statue of the Virgin Mary as a result of that her had becomes "possessed" for lack of a better term and begins to have a life of its own, with strange and supposedly funny consequences. Well, I have to say, not only I did not laugh once (the timing of the comedy seems to be off most of the time and every single scene goes on for twice as long as it should), but also the filming of it seemed to be very student-like and quite pedestrian. And finally the whole scene of the discovery of "self pleasuring in the bath" has already been done in a very similar way in "Pleasantville" and even there it seemed to be out of keeping with the rest of the film. Very disappointing.

For a start I was very pleased to see how respectful Spielberg was with the handling of the original material. After all, this is the man who wanted to turn Harry Potter into an American, combining several books into one (A bad, bad, bad idea Steven!). The story of this film actually combines several of the Tintin books, but as far as taking liberties that's where Spielberg stopped. Everything else is precisely how the Belgian creator, Hergé had imagined it: with that same sense of adventure, mystery, intrigue, action and fun. In other words the same mood and atmosphere that made the comics so successful (at least in Europe) and incidentally, in a way those same elements that were also at the centre of one of Spielberg's classic, Raiders of the lost ark.

Spielberg pays homage to Tintin's creator right from the start by having Hergé himself appearing as a street artist drawing a portrait of Tintin the way we are used to see him in the comics: pure genius!

On the whole I must say that I wasn't as bothered as I thought I was going to be by the motion capture animation. In fact you stop worrying about it about 5 minutes into the film. The characters look more cartoony than realistic and that helps getting away with the fact that their eyes (especially Tintin's) are slightly dead. This is first and foremost still an animated film (I can place a bet right now that it's going to be nominated at the Oscars next year, and probably it's going to win one too!). One thing is for sure: it does look magnificent! From the moody dark shadows reminiscent of those film noir from the 40s, to the great vistas straight out of a David Lean classic, the impeccable cinematography (Spielberg is even credited as Lighting Consultant) is not just beautiful but impressive and atmospheric.

Spielberg in his first animated venture (and his first use of 3D too!) looks like a little boy who's just been told he can do what he wants for his birthday: he appears to be liberated from any restriction he may have had on a normal feature film and seems to have a lot of fun in finding new beautifully inventive ways to transition from one scene to the next in a way you could only do in animation (or with a lot of very expensive CGI): Spielberg's camera floats, glides, flies, moves through glass, shoots straight into mirrors and gives us views which would otherwise been virtually impossible and yet, most of the times it's never showy, it's never forced or indulgent.

It's like watching a master at work who knows exactly where the camera should be at which time. It all culminated with one of the most impressive and perfectly executed chase sequence ever portrayed on screen. Impressive not just because of its pace and its edge-of-your-seat thrills, but also for its meticulously choreographed technique: in fact it takes place in just one impossibly-long shot, which adds to the tension and to the sense of fun. If you ever wondered why didn't they just film the whole thing for real, that sequence alone (which by itself is worth the price of the entire ticket) should serve you as an answer.

I just wished that same tension and fun of that sequence had been present throughout the rest of the film. Don't get me wrong, this first adventures of Tintin is a roller coaster ride like few others. Essentially it's one action set piece after another, and yet somehow I felt there was a strange tendency to resolve problems much too quickly. It's almost as if Spielberg was so preoccupied to get us to the next action sequence that he almost forgot how to makes like the one we were watching. I give you a few examples: a chase sequence at the front of the film, ends much too soon before it has time to climax. Later on there's a scene where Tintin has to steal a key from a bunch of sleeping goons. A lot of time is spent setting up the dangers and then just when the sequence is about to get fun, Tintin gets the key. There's another scene where Tintin faints close to the propellers of a plane and once again he gets saved much too quickly.

The comedy aspect of the film is a bit of a hit and miss: the Inspector Thompson and Thomson are obviously aimed at the younger crowd, but they're also the weakest characters (we had a glimpse of that in the trailer itself, as one of them falls off the stairs: a scene which in the theatre where I was, full of kids, was received with dead silence), on the other hand Captain Haddock is perfect. I don't know whether it's the script, or Andy Serkis's performance or both, but most of the jokes around him seem to work perfectly. Same goes for the little dog Snowy who is in almost every scene of the film, even if just in the background licking a massive bone in the desert. The audience I was with seemed to love him and so did I.

And finally Tintin himself which in this whole 3D world is probably the most two-dimensional character. Aside from the fact that he seems to get a kick out of solving puzzles and getting into adventures, we know very little about him. I'm not really blaming Spielberg for that, this exactly how Tintin was in the comics, but I do wonder if some character development would have been really seen as sacrilegious by the hard-code fans. Certainly not by me.

My full review here http://wp.me/p19wJ2-ro

Whatever you might be expecting from "Friends" star turned-director David Schwimmer, get ready for an unexpected surprise, because this is certainly not it. Trust is in fact quite a mature and complex drama about an even more mature and complex subject and though it might not be perfect, it certainly deserves a lot of credit and respect not only for tackling such a story, but also (and mostly) for its restrained approach throughout. The film is not preachy, nor it pretends to have all the answers: it doesn't offer any solution to an impossible situation and for most of its length, it manages to avoid the obvious clichés from the genre and just when you think you've seen it all before and it takes an unexpected and clever turn. Schwimmer is aware of the complexities of its story and carefully manages to keep his vision very well balanced. He is subtle in his style and in the staging and direction of some truly great performances. At the centre is the amazing performance by Liana Liberato as Annie, the teenage girl who befriends a stranger online, Charlie, who she thinks he's about her age. Once the truth comes out (don't worry, this happens quite early on in the film, so I'm not really giving away anything), and Annie discovers that Charlie is actually a lot older than he used to claimed, she's first taken aback, but slowly begins to feel more and more attached to him, as she thinks he's her first love and the only one who really understand her. Ms Liberato despite her early age seems to have a remarkable understanding for that adolescent naïveté, that awkwardness and innocence that most teenagers seem to have and she portrays Annie to perfection, with all their weaknesses and strengths. "Trust" is certainly not an easy watch. The scene with Charlie the "predator" in a motel room sitting on a bed next to Annie, is one of the most uncomfortable I've seen in quite a while: but like in all the best movies scenes of this kind, the tension is created by what you know and your expectations, not by what you see. And gracefully (and thankfully) Schwimmer shows us just about enough to get the idea across without exploiting the moment. Schwimmer is actually an activist in the field of rape awareness in real life and his understanding of the complexities of the issue is certainly apparent on the screen. If you hear David Schwimmer talking about this film you'll hear him saying that this is really a film "from the point of view of the father". And undoubtedly Clive Owen takes the centre stage at some point in the film (and as always he's pretty good too), but interestingly those are the parts I thought were probably the least successful in the film, all leading up to that final scene which felt to me a bit forced and actually slightly too melodramatic. However these are just small points in an otherwise really powerful film, which should actually be a compulsory watch in schools and among teenagers. In reality, in the UK the film is rated 15 and in the US is R rated: which once again shows the usual close-mindedness of classifications on both side of the pond. Hopefully some kids will get to watch it anyway either on DVD or thanks to mature parents. Oh, and that end credit sequence, which seems almost tagged on as an afterthought, is one of the creepiest thing in the film and leaves you with a really uncomfortable feeling as the credits roll, which I guess is the point of the film. On that respect, it's a success. moviegeekblog.com

Call me childish, call me narrow-minded, call me a "blockbuster-junkie", call whatever-you- want, but to me this is the perfect films! Such a bold statement might require some explanation (which hopefully I will be able to give in this post) and certainly begs the question: what makes a film perfect? I believe a perfect film is one that can be watched over and over again: a film that you never grow tired of and that whenever is on TV and you stumble across it, you end up watching. A perfect film is one of those where you struggle to pick up one favourite scene, because they're all so good. A perfect film is one of those you really wouldn't change anything about it and where all its elements (story, direction, acting, music, cinematography, editing and so on) come together in a such a way that it's virtually impossible to choose one over the other. Raiders is 30 years, but still shines as if it were made yesterday… except that it wasn't because, as we all know "they don't make them like this anymore". I still remember going to the movie theatre when it first got released (Yes, I'm giving away my age: clearly I'm not a teenager!) and being absolutely blown away by it. At the time there was nothing like it (and arguably, that's probably still true today). Ever since then people have been trying to imitate its winning formula, and, needless to say, most of them failed miserably. Just to give you an idea of what I am talking about (and to prove my point), just think of Lara Croft, Prince of Persia, National treasure, The Mummy Trilogy and even those films inspired by the Dan Brown's books: well, those are the most successful ones… Enough said. I won't even go into the list of endless B-movies. Right from the word "go", from when the summit of the Paramount logo dissolves into a Peruvian mountain (a Visual device which will become the trademark of the entire series), you know you're in for something which is not only original but clever and handsomely made. What follows that logo is probably one of the best first sequences of any action movies ever made. The mysterious forest, the haunting music, the bloody statue, the group of explorers, the old map, the hidden cave, the pulsating tension, the crawling spiders, the giant web, the deadly traps, the decomposed body, the big scares, the golden idol, the sliding door, the traitor, the whip, the rolling boulder, the French baddie, the wild Hovitos, the arrows, the chase across the fields, the swinging vine, John Williams's "raiders theme", the snake on the plane, the jokes breaking the tension: and all this is just within the first 10 minutes!!! It is such an incredible edge-of-your-seat beginning that after that the film can afford to launch into a very long scene with some massive exposition And I haven't even mentioned the hero himself, Indiana Jones. Harrison Ford deserves a lot of credits for the success of this film. Who knows what would have happened if Tom Selleck had played the role: he was the first choice, after all (I will be eternally grateful to Magnum PI). Harrison Ford manages to make Indiana Jones strong and frail at the same time, funny and sad, invincible and weak. Indy is a hero but he gets hurt, tired, dirty and sweaty. It doesn't matter how far-fetched and over-the-top the action might be, Ford makes it feel real. Spielberg directs it all with clockwork perfection but he's also able to improvise on the spot and use it all to his advantage (most famously, the now-classic scene where Indy shoots the sword-man, which as we all know by now, was pretty much improvised on the spot). He orchestrates it all with a mastery that's never showy and always serving the story and the action as he uses all the tricks in the film-maker book: long lens shots during a chase sequence, a tracking shot across the desert to show the scale of the landscape, a single one- take shot during a drinking competition.

He also knows exactly how to pitch the film: helped by a carefully crafted script, all the improbabilities are always levelled by humour, the action is always counter-balanced by actual dramatic scenes, the magical sense of wonder is always routed to reality and however cartoony some of the characters might be, they're always incredibly detailed. Paul Freeman's Belloq is not just a baddie. There's so much more to him: the care and attention he has for Marion, and whole untold back-story and a passion for archaeology he shares with Indy are enough to give him more depth and somehow make him more scary. He also gets one of the best lines in the film: "we are only passing though history, this… this IS history" What started off as a tribute to those Action Saturday Matinée that Spielberg and Lucas loved so much, here becomes a roller-coaster of sheer invention, cracking action and incredible fun. So many scenes are now become classic iconic moments in movie history, whether it's to do with snakes in "well of Souls", or ghost-like creatures during the opening of the ark, running though the streets of Cairo, or fighting with a bald guy by a plane out of control, in a secret chamber underground, or in a massive warehouse with thousands and thousands crates (incidentally, one of the best "last shots" of any movie!!). This is so much more than just pure escapism: this is a manual of "storytelling with pictures". moviegeekblog.com

What really makes me angry about this film is that behind the preposterous, pretentious, tediously slow, shockingly simplistic muddle of philosophical clichés, there was actually a good story waiting to be told by a potentially great director. Those scenes with the kids for example (whose acting was particularly graceful and natural) were indeed nicely handled and gave you a little hint of how much better the film could have been if only director Terence Malick had been a little bit less full of himself. Instead he decided to cram it all with heavy, pretentious, superfluous, confusing and rather conventional voice over, plastered all over the soundtrack, preventing his audience from any emotional response to the film. All that was enhanced even more by the constant choral musical score (including requiem from Bach, Mozart, Gorecki, Respighi, Holst and God knows how many others) which gave the film the same monotone feel throughout. It's as if there was only one gear controlling the pace of this film. The parallel with Kubrick's 2001: A space Odyssey comes quite natural: in a way this film has the same ideals and touches most of the same grounds as Kubrick's classic and because of that, dare-I-say, falls into the exact same faults: the sketchy narrative, overblown abstractions and the slow pace. By while in Kubrick's' case, those "faults" were also counterbalanced by the gripping relationship between man and machine and a strong sense of wonder towards heaven and earth, in the case of Malick's Tree of Life, there's a certain pompousness which makes it really annoying. Also it is both too inaccessible and too obvious. Finally Malick's detached style makes it really hard for anyone to care: in my very humble view the film should have been much more focused on the central story. There was absolutely no need to show us the beginning of the Universe, nor the end of the dinosaurs age (incidentally, the dinosaurs looked better back in 1993 when Spielberg made Jurassic Park!). In fact, there was probably not even need for Sean Penn to be there at all: everything the film wanted to tell us was right there within the central story of the American family in the 50s. And there was definitely no need for that terribly smultzy and contrived final sequence which was supposed to show the end of the world and give us a vision of "heaven" but actually ended up looking more like some outtakes from the actual film's wrap party, with all the actors re-uniting again and congratulating each other on how good they all were. Or was it just Malick's own version of the finale of the TV series LOST? Everything in the film is heavily soaked in symbolism and religion. I read somewhere that Brad Pitt's character was supposed to symbolise the "Old Testament" and his wife was the "New Testament". I did noticed that the two of them were never shown talking to each other, and if they were it was always through a glass or from far away or even off-camera, preventing us from hearing their dialogue or to see them interacting with each other. But does all this stylish trickery and heavy subtext really make the film any better? Certainly not for me. In fact it is all too disappointingly literal and frustratingly patchy that in the end it just comes out as cold and distant. So much so that I just couldn't really care about anyone in this film… and for a film that's about life and love that is a terrible fault. All these attempts to elevate the small-scale, intimate family drama by inter-cutting cosmic sequences of the beginning of the universe in order to give a deeper meaning to the soul- searching of the characters are finally not enough to compensate for a lack of dramatic involvement and in the end, they just overwhelm the actual story. Even the beautiful cinematography by Emmanuel Lubezki (where everything seems to be filmed at magic hour) becomes self-indulgent, repetitive and tedious. There's only a certain amount of trees, waterfalls and shots of glinting sun flaring at the lens you can take. It's hard to believe that this is only Terence Malick's 5th feature film as a director since 1973. The Tree of Life has all his distinct signature trademarks (the beautifully photographed shots of nature, the use voice over and music and the themes of the film themselves), but are they just trademarks or is he actually making the same sort of film over and over again? Whatever the answer is, apparently all this was enough for the judges in Cannes, where it won the Palme d'or back in May 2011. People in Cannes said that Malick is not really a real film-maker but more of an "artist". But as somebody once said "to make art is to fail" and he clearly does fail with this film, mainly because he just tries too hard. If only he hadn't aimed so high, he would have certainly made a better film, but as it stand "The Tree of Life" is an epic failure

I should probably start by stating few facts about my position with Green Lantern and superheroes in general.

First of all my only little knowledge of Green Lantern came actually from an episode of "The Big Bang Theory", other than that, I didn't even know there was such a comic until I read that Martin Campbell was going to make a movie. In other words, I wasn't really a fan (and let me spoil you the surprise: I'm still not one!!).

However, I always try to be as open-minded as possible, in fact I was quite excited to learn something new about a new superhero. The fact that I hardly knew the existence of Green Lantern had nothing to do with me not liking the film: I wasn't a fan of Thor either, and yet I did manage to enjoy the film for what it was (here's my Thor review) and as far as the X-Men I knew next to nothing when the first Bryan Singer movie got released and still liked it. Finally, I should also point out that I have nothing against comic superheros either (in fact I still consider Spiderman 2 one of the best action movies of the last few years!).

Green Lantern opens with a very confusing prologue, visually unoriginal and heavy in exposition, characters and soulless CGI. And as it got louder and louder, more and more frantic the whole thing got even more confusing. I must confess, the film lost me right from the word "go", but I decided that it didn't really matter: "It's a comic! How hard can it be?" I said to myself. Thankfully I was right and when finally the action cuts to planet Earth I was able find my bearings again, though never fully comfortable.

Once we are finally introduced to our hero, played by Ryan Reynolds, I realise that I wasn't the only one who didn't really know how to take this film. Reynolds seems to be just as confused as he plays the character sometimes with a complete straight face and sometimes with a smirk irony as if he knew that the whole thing is just preposterous. He's likable enough, but sadly lacks of any emotional depth. The only thing left to marvel at, is his perfect body which only made me even more annoyed and jealous: in fact it distracted me even more as my mind started to wonder "when was the last time I actually went to the gym?"

Director Campbell, never really seems to be in control of what's going on and instead he decides to cram the film with as much noise as possible hoping it might distract his audience from thinking that this is actually all a bit of a mess... The result is that sometimes even some of the dialogue gets lost (though I'm prepared to bet that despite those 4 writer being credited, I didn't really miss much). Campbell clearly feels uneasy with this universe and doesn't quite know what to make of it. The whole philosophical side is just ridiculous, the action scenes are too messy, the special effects underwhelming and the love story is so flat that it becomes redundant.

The pace is completely off and for a film of this kind which last just under two hours, I found myself looking at my watch way too often. The editing is just as uncertain as the rest of the film, as Stuart Baird seems to be randomly cutting to wide shots and close-ups, irrespective of what the action would require and not taking into account that a film in 3D should really hold its shots for much longer, otherwise the 3D effect is lost on its audience. But then again, who cares about 3D! This is another of those films that's been converted into 3D after it was filmed (and my God, it shows!!) and I suspect will have a very short life in this form: many people will probably watch it on DVD or on TV anyway, so why bother cutting it for the 3D format. Those action scenes, particularly at the beginning, are so fast that you really have no idea what's going on.

It doesn't really help the fact that there are way too many characters, obviously introduced to us because of a possible sequel (clearly set up in the end credits with a silly plot twist): after all today it's all about franchises, isn't it? (Bloody hell, Warner, aren't you happy with your 8 Harry Potter films and your never-ending Batman?! Do you really want to embark into another franchise? ).

Peter Sarsgaard plays a sleazy over-the-top baddie without a proper script to allow him to actually be one of those really good baddie. Mark Strong is pretty much wasted, not to mention Tim Robbins in what is possibly his most forgettable role in years. Angela Bassett plays is as if she's been told "you're not allowed to show any emotion, in fact deliver those lines thinking of something else...". Even Geoffrey Rush who probably had a couple of hours spare in his schedule was just happened to pass by the film set, lends his voice for one of the character sounding pretty much like one of those Owl from that film by Zack Snyder.

Finally James Newton Howard's film soundtrack (who I usually really like) is as derivative as all the rest. Not bad, but certainly unremarkable, just like the film itself.

In the end, this is probably out there with some of the most disappointing comic book movies of all times (Elektra, Daredevil, Spawn, The Avengers). Its main crime is that it thinks is a lot better than it is... and it must have cost a lot of money too!!

One positive note: I did like the costume...

Last year (2010) YouTube launched a campaign, supported by executive producers Tony and Ridley Scott, asking everybody with a camcorder to record a day in their lives. Fast forward a year to 2011 and director Kevin Macdonald and editor Joe Walker (never an editor has been more crucial to the making of a film), release their documentary to the world and to the same people who actually filmed it. Apparently 80000 videos for a total of 4500 hours were submitted from 126 different nations. The result is a film that tells the story of a day on Earth, and precisely the 24th of July 2010: 24 hours in the life of ordinary people. Their stories, their images, their thoughts, all linked together by an incredible work of editing and a rousing soundtrack by Harry Gregson- Williams. You can argue that some of it might be slightly heavy-handed (a shot of a cow being killed on camera is then, non very subtlety, cut together with a man eating from a bowl of spaghetti), but some of the choices are absolutely inspired (montage sequences of people getting up in the morning or having breakfast or simply walking). It's the amalgamation of all these little snippets of life that makes the film an incredible watch and in the end it ends up actually telling a story as the ordinary becomes extraordinary. The film starts at midnight as people are still asleep in most places: some night shift workers are already at it, some wild party animals are still up from the previous day, but generally speaking it's a quiet start. Within a few minutes, we are treated by a sunrise montage from all over the world as people are getting up in the most remote corners of the globe. They have breakfast, some of them go to work, others stay at home, somebody shaves for the first time (a very funny scene!), somebody decides to lay in bed for a bit longer, and somebody else begins a new "empty" day: loneliness might be just around the corner… Despite the sometimes over-indulgent choice of editing and the ever-present soundtrack the film still manages to capture that pulsating realism of modern life through simple gestures, looks, words and silences as the similarities and (many) differences are exposed. But just when you are about to think "is this film going to be just a long montage sequence?", then the film suddenly slows down and you are actually treated to real moments into people's life (well, I say "real", obviously there's a camera filming so I suppose it's "a version of reality", but that doesn't diminish its value nor its emotional impact on the audience). For example, quite early on a little boy of probably 4 is woken up by his dad who's filming the whole thing (I seem to remember they were in Japan or thereabout): we stay with them for a while as they talk about seemingly mundane things: the boy is incredibly sweet, the house is strangely messy. Then dad says "let's go and say 'hi' to mom". They move to a corner of a room where we see for the first time a little shrine with a picture of a woman. Together they light an incense and pay their little morning tribute to the mom. It'a quiet moment that tell a thousand words: no need for commentary or any explanation. It's clear these two have been doing this for a while. It's clear they are incredibly close to each other. Mom is gone. They are both alone, but they have each other… We fill the gaps in an instant. It's an incredibly poignant moment. This time there is no music playing underneath. The director knows when to manipulate its audience and when he should take a step back and let us make our own mind and feel what we want to feel. Life in a day is full of simple moments like this one. So simple and yet so powerful. Don't worry, there are a lot of laugh-out-loud moments too. Generally speaking the film is edited in such a way that shows a certain optimism that comes with the beginning of a new day and yet is some cases, this fades away for some as we approach sunset and go through the night by which time loneliness takes over the weakest ones. It's a beautifully constructed device, which might be a bit contrived but it works perfectly. In the end, this is a film about everything: rich countries and poor countries, smiles and tears (quite a lot in my case, I must confess), day and night, life and death, animals and humans, man and women, whites, blacks, gays, straights, children and very old people, happiness and desperation. We are all there, with our fears, our idiosyncrasies, our routines, our doubts, our weaknesses… Everybody will come out of it and will probably remember something different. Each of us might identify with a different moment in the film. One thing is certain: you will never forget it. It might not be a complete masterpiece, but there is so much good stuff in it that makes you forget the slightly sugary moments and the most heavy handed ones. This was my favourite film of the year so far and definitely the most intense emotional experience I've had in a long time.

When watching Carnet's third film, you'll be excused from drawing some obvious comparisons with the 1983 hit classic the Big Chill: not only the story of a group of friends gathering together for a holiday and ending up taking their skeletons out of the closets is a fairly familiar territory, but also the way the film itself is handled, with that mixture of comedy and drama and a constant (and most of the times fairly random) soundtrack of old American songs playing in the background. The film starts off with a spectacular piece of cinematic bravura: a one take wonder which serves as an introduction for the rest of the film (though I must confess it's so perfectly well choreographed that actually makes you expect the big surprise that's about to come). Unfortunately this perfectly well-timed sequence is a rather isolated example in an otherwise indulgent and over-long film. In fact, after the striking beginning it takes at least a good 30 minutes before the actual holiday (and the real film) starts. Thinking back at it, with hindsight, it would have been quite easy to cut all that part out and set it all up just during the holiday. It would have also brought the film down in length from those 154 minutes. Yes, the accident sequence was very good, but did we really need to see it ? But aside from few indulgences, once the film actually gets going it is a real delight. There are some individual very funny moments (the one where two friends get stranded on a boat gets my top marks…) and generally speaking the inter-relationship between all the various characters is beautifully portrayed and very well observed. Of course, the whole things couldn't be more French and, seen from the eyes of a foreigner, all the so-called clichés that you would expect from these sort of people seem to be there: from the hysterical dialogue, to the wine drinking, the talk about sex and to the fact that they could all end up in each other's bed… and just when you think you've seen it all, a man shows up with a baguette under his arm (really!). However none of that takes anything away from the genuinely affecting drama that unfolds under your eyes. And just like in "the big chill", underneath the surface and all the laughs, there's an impending sense of nostalgia that permeates the atmosphere. All the performances are top-notch; so much so that they make real even some of the most far-fetched situations. These could be friends who spent most of their life knowing each other. François Cluzet, resembling more and more Dustin Hoffman, gets some of the best lines: his storyline about a man who's just been told by his best friend that he's in love with him, is probably the most original and definitely the most entertaining. Everything else is pretty standard for this sort of "re-union" films and yet perfectly enjoyable and very engaging. But while some of the characters work better than others, sadly it's the women that are most two-dimensional (with the single exception of Marion Cotillard) to the point that more than an hour into the film I was still not quite sure about how many where actually there. The film runs slightly out of steam towards the final act where the dialogue becomes more forced and a certain tendency to give every character a cathartic moment starts to creep in. The tearful drawn-out ending to the notes of Nina Simone's version of "My Way", however moving, was probably a step too far and where subtlety really went out of the window. On the whole it felt like a very personal film made by a director who should have been kept more on a leash by a more watchful producer. There's absolutely no excuse for a film of this kind to be so long! And yet, despite all its weaknesses I'm still giving it a thumb up. Would I watch it again? Definitely not. But I certainly did enjoy it the first time around