"Arthur et la vengeance de Maltazard" ~ 2/10

How in the world was it possible that Mr Besson let a five year old child enter his office and type such a stupid story ? A story where an adult living in the country would want to kill *one* bee because his son is allergic... Where the very same silly adult, who then just got bitten by the bee, would want to throw a stone at an entire beehive... And it goes on and on for one and a half hours.
I would never let MY child enter such an outrageously sick movie.

"Cinéman" ~ 2/10

Several years ago, I had this idea of making a film about a superhero whose name would be "Cinéman". His superpowers would those of cinema : travellings, flashbacks, fades, and so on.

Yann Moix had the very same idea of a title, but without any ounce of subtlety behind.

His first movie "Podium", adapted from one of his (numerous lame) books, was a complete success and a good comedy. It had succeeded because the whole movie had been made almost exclusively for one great man : Benoît Poelvoorde. It was actually the main character of the film that fitted the belgian actor, who over the years had been playing many roles, on big and small screens, in Belgium and in France, of miserly lothable bastards full of themselves who treated everyone like shit. Moreover, this also fitted perfectly the subject of the french pop singer Claude François, as himself was famous for being a big jerk with a despicable sense of superiority.
In fact, when Moix asked the hugest belgian actor ever (still Poelvoorde here) to play in the movie he had written, Poelvoorde told him he wouldn't do it unless Moix first came through publishing it as a book - which Moix did, even if the book resulted in not being interesting at all.

Anyway, after this big success, Moix wanted to write another movie for Poelvoorde. He then started making "Cinéman", but Poelvoorde and him disagreed 'about something', and finally this second movie which had also been made for Poelvoorde, had to be played by Franck Dubosc (not a bad actor but way less capable than the other, and certainly not as good as a 'miserly bastard').

There was a problem with the sound of the movie, so let's not be intolerant here, and do forget about the fact that it is a bit unbearable to see actors speaking with unsynced lips... It gives the impression the movie is badly played, like an episode of some old telenovela such as "The Bold and the Beautiful".
If you consider the plot of the movie, there is, as it were, NO such thing here. Only an incoherent story, the writer did not care to give us *even an absurd* reason for what happens.
If you like Japan and its culture as I do, you probably won't like the fact that, as always, a Vietnamese girl plays the only so-called 'japanese' character, nor the fact that Dubosc does not speak at all with an accent from Ôsaka, nor the fact that he actually does not speak japanese at all in some scenes were there still are foolish subtitles, nor the fact that the word "manga" and "anime" got mixed together once again, nor the fact that a portray of Ozu is displayed on the wall of the japanese restaurant (while so many Japanese people do not give a shit about their masters of cinema). Actually, unless you are as racist as Moix proved to be here, you will not like what was going on there.
I most certainly am the best public for comedy ever, for any form of humor makes me laugh. Here, though, _absolutely nothing_ made me laugh at all.

Had not Lucy Gordon committed suicide just after the shooting of the film and before it was out, Yann Moix might have been able to recognize there was no talent at all in his work (sua culpa) and thus could have decided not to show it to anyone (yet, he has smartly decided not to publish the book he has written before turning it into a screenplay).
Still, not only did he unfortunately decided to show it, but also to dedicate it to poor Lucy Gordon. She was a great actress and certainly did not deserve such an insult...

Of course, I was pleased by :
- seeing Marisa Berenson play Lady Lyndon again for three seconds,
- the many other references to the history of cinema,
- all the good pieces of music used,
- the way Moix used vivid colors again (he had already done it in his previous movie, but probably does not know it tends to be a bit godardesque - this would have killed him...),
- hearing a song by Anne Sylvestre (maybe for the first time in my life at the cinema, or so do I think)
- hearing the most important quote ever for any fan of the "nanar" genre in France (Chuck Norris, in "Braddock: Missing in Action III" : "I don't step on toes, I step on necks.", which became in french : "Je mets les pieds où j'veux, et c'est souvent dans la gueule !").

But knowing a lot of good references does not mean one has taste. And Yann Moix has no taste at all. He just namedrops Rossellini, Kubrick, Murnau and Keaton because he has learnt a lot of things a grey parrot might be able to repeat, but pretending to like those essential artists and hating at the same time no less essential artists such as Georges Brassens, Abdel Kechiche, or Paul Thomas Anderson, proves he is only a reactionary uncultured moron. Moix does not give any good reason for hating intellectual things, or at least no reason other than the fact that truly intellectual people _do like these things_ ; hence he just keeps on telling his hate for any form of intellect (which might be called "jealousy" ?). But when it comes to the subject of loving popular stupidities such as Louis De Funès or Claude François, Moix suddenly becomes inexhaustible...

Finally, this movie should have been the one Thierry Ardisson had the idea of in the seventies (as he too had a similar idea with a similar title).
Finally, "Last Action Hero" was already so very complete in this "genre" (the genre where someone goes into the 'wonderland' of cinema), that you'd better watch it even for the 20th times than ever having the idea of watching "Cinéman" once.

PS : I would like some psychanalist to explain me why the 'homes' in Yann Moix's movies always have 'problems' (as it seems 'drawing homes' has always been a great way to analyze children). In "Podium" there was a test-house and a locker room, and here in "Cinéman" it is an abandoned building receiving asbestos removal...

"Jennifer's Body" ~ 2/10

This movie is so bad that when I saw it in Paris today, someone left the theatre 15 seconds before the end and activated the fire alarm of the building (sic ! and sick too !).
Apart from a (sometimes) good cinematography, the whole thing is messy. Those who made it probably thought this mess could represent the average teenager stupid mind which cannot fit their changing body ? They thought wrong, anyway...
The most horrible fact is that pretending to be "cool", "funny", or "emancipating", this movie is actually full of the awful and extremely regular american puritanism.
Diablo Cody has been better inspired...

"The Descent : Part two" ~ 2/10

There are two ways of considering that movie.

Firstly, it would be to think it as a comedy. Not that bad, then, there are a few (almost unintendedly) funny moments.
Secondly, considering it as a thriller/horror flick would then make anyone lose 1 hour and 34 minutes in an useless stupidity.

The United States' capitalism and imperialism have brought the entire world to a consumer's society that produces waste-of-space-waste-of-time movies just so that they can sell pop-corn, Coca-Cola©, and feed easily-frightened young women with fears to help you morons get laid - since the young ladies will jump in your arms at any apparition of a monster, or sometimes perhaps even a hand landing fastly on a spall...
A very large part of thriller and horror films (since people like Shyamalan think they are able to write or direct such movies) include absolutely *everything* the very master of the genre (Hitchcock) said one shall not do in order to frighten people : that is to say none of those wannabe directors could make a movie without some suddenly-ripping-your-ears-off music, nor without moving the camera or the actors in every directions so as to prevent you from seeing that the make up of the monster was bad...
Where is the time when the simple melody of an ice-cream truck or of a wristwatch alarm used to put us spectators into terror ?

Let's face it : the new horror flicks, often remade from good oldschool - "goldschool" ? - horror classics, are just a new xenophobia found by Hollywood's pioneers in what I would call "terrorist capitalism" (american capitalism taking advantage of spreading fear to the world in order to make consumers spend their money). Instead of threatening us (thus twisting our minds with fear) with something fully understandable that most certainly _will_ happen the next hour (as action movies -even recent- have been able to borrow from Hitchcock and others), they just try to terrorize xenophobe pop-corn eaters every 30 seconds with something unknown and impossible to grasp, because it might come from "hell", but we did not see it long enough to let us learn what it really was, something that always comes with unbearably loud noises, shouts, and music. This stupid way of directing being the same every 30 seconds, for the whole feature movie length, someone not too dumb may come to the state where they are not frightened any more after 1 minute of film, and just get more and more bored - if it was not laughable for the characters stupid actions...

Personally, I am not afraid of anything of this kind. My rational mind _knows_ horror movie monsters are puppets, knows horror movies hemoglobin is red paint or tomato sauce. But that (maybe twisted ?) rational mind of mine might get pavlovianly triggered into dread by the mere hearing of a nursery rhyme or of a nurse whistling, or also by the view of a soon to go off bomb under the table while people around are casually discussing baseball, just because I already _knew_ what the threaten is...

Finally, the only part of this movie that was a bit hitchcockian (hence, good) was the scene where a dumb character finally finds a good reason to put handcuffs from his hand to someone else's, while they both are chased by dreadful spelunking monsters in a deep cave. We already know it's lethally stupid, and yet they keep on keeping the handcuffs on...

"Tricheuse" ~ 2/10

This movie is the very proof that a bad use of camera, lighting, music, dialogs, and editing can ruin a simple script played by good actors. Although the story was not that bad (let's say good enough for what should have been a comedy telefilm), even if one could hardly find a truely moral character there, sadly the whole form of the film is as pathetically awful as the worst crap french television can produce.
Yet, I still love Soualem and De Fougerolles, and I pity the very idea of them in this shit.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" [fr="Transformers 2 : La Revanche"] ~ 2/10

This huge shit is the result of an american toy seller (Hasbro) who decided in the eighties to create an animated series based on Japan's awful way of making animation (that is to say without animating much...), so as to sell new robot toys to poor brainwashed kids.
Whilst the 1984 TV animated series and the 1986 very bad animated movie where just shitty enough to sell toys, the two recent Michael Bay films actually are United States of Paranoia's new weapon of mass destruction, hence making director Michael Bay a war criminal.
Indeed, when America's overwhelming movie distribution annihilates every other single culture in the world to replace it with those kind of imperialistic propaganda productions, and shows this ugly behaviour throughout the productions themselves, like for instance the symbolic and destructive act of using a hammer to practice archeology excavation (perpetrated in this 2nd movie), they just keep on provoking world's hate for America. This hate might well be passive for the countries were you can find it : when America tries to show France as a coward country which does not want to struggle against dictatorship and/or terrorism, America just tries to hide how pitiful they felt when they knew that without France's ability for military actions and strategy, they would just send their numerous and inexperienced soldiers to get killed. Those Americans who got hated did start themselves, by hating the very country that, in the whole world, does best defend every other culture (France is the biggest movie producer of foreign movies in the world). And in "Transformers 2", they keep on insulting Egypt, France (who's prick enough to come to Paris just to spit snails because they cannot open to food other than obesity-makers ?), Africa, China, you name it...

I wouldn't even comment the cinematographic side of this production, except maybe for this : despite the lack of animation in the 86 movie, it was at least drawn well enough to actually see the robots, while in this 2009 movie you just try to understand what's going on, as the robots are too detailed in their design to actually see them on screen.

Hollywood shows war in so many movies (often with French bad guys...), that I wonder how a people who suffered so many deaths by going on wrong wars can possibly produce such war-entertainment ? And how can a man direct "Schindler's List" and then produce such a negationist movie ?
Two very plain jokes (I remember having laughed twice in front of this film, but I don't remember why) won't cover the fact that this movie is guilty of contributing to the world's destruction (I wouldn't even dare imagining how many gallons of gas they burnt in the atmosphere with the dozens of big military vehicules shown here...).

The very existence of such a shit is a shame.

"Underworld: Rise of the Lycans" [fr = "Underworld 3 : Le soulèvement des Lycans"] ~ 2/10

Except for the widely-déjà-vu-ish-Lord-of-the-Ring-stylized sets, and Bill Nighy, this movie's not even worth a vampire fang.

"Dragonball Evolution" ~ 2/10

A very bad mix of japanese, chinese, and even indian stuffs, adapted from an already rather messy mix of japanese, chinese and indian stuffs.
I don't recall any omikuji in a kung fu temple where you greet people by saying "Namaste"...

"Blood: The Last Vampire" ~ 2/10

Some jerk (obsessed-with-films-which-have-the-word-dragon-in-their-title/bessonesque Chris Nahon...) saw "Kill Bill", heard the "Pulp Fiction" soundtrack, and might even have seen Production I.G's "Blood: The Last Vampire" and its derived products...
Then he decided to base this film on the very rule he's probably been living his whole life with : the audience of a "wannabe hollywoodian" movie shall be full of morons who cannot tell the difference between a Chinese, a Korean, and a Japanese (and maybe even between an Italian and a mafioso, a Muslim and a terrorist, an African and a slave... ?), and who can't pay attention to the actor's chinese or korean accent, in english, of the "Japanese" characters...
The main actress was so much better as a "Sassy girl", or even in the recent "17 again" ! And why on Earth did Clint fucking Mansell had to take part in such a dull shit, just to imitate his own "Fountain" soundtrack (masterpiece, btw...) ?
Not only did California become the fifth economic power on Earth, but it now has to brainwash the world even with the help of probably-cheaper-than-Japanese Chinese actors, like any other industry... Please next time be honest and put a "Made in China" sign (or "Made in Korea" for animation) ! And please Mr Nahon don't tell anybody you come from Paris !