"Le Baltringue" ~ 1/10

What would anyone expect from a movie written and played by the worst presenter (Vincent Lagaf') on the worst french TV channel (TF1) ?
Of course my intention was not to *have a good time* when going to watch this shit in one of the only two theatres distributing it in Paris. Anyway, I confess that I was challenged by a very good friend of mine, who knows I go see every single movie out on the big screens in France - even these kinds of things the very existence of which is unconceivable. Thus, the aim of this critic is not exactly to tell you that "you ought not go see a movie so dumb you probably did not even want to know it was made", but to respond my friend's desire of reading what could possibly be told about something which does not deserve its mere existence to be told...
So, let us talk about it : not only are the gags totally uninteresting, but also did the direction and editing destroy the rhythm of the few scenes some of the actors were able to perform normally. Philippe Cura was way funnier as the bodyguard in the "Caméra Café" series, and Vincent Lagaf' should have stayed on the (moron-aimed and shitty) most watched television channel in France (where he has always belonged).
The rest of the cast and the absolute stupidity of the movie (written by Samy Nacéri's talentless brother) made me think to these good old sixties' and seventies' french "nanars" with nanar-specialized actors like Paul Préboist, Darry Cowl, Michel Galabru, and so on.
Maybe in 30 years some extracts of this movie will be screened at the 36th "Nuit Excentrique"... Until then, they do not deserve to be watched. Ever.

"Invictus" ~ 10/10

Clint Eastwood's brilliance brings to the big screen a story not only of sports and politics, but the very essence of the values and energies conveyed by such a great human adventure as rugby. Particularly the parallel between the rugby's third half time and Nelson Mandela's post-apartheid power of forgiveness.
The director even uses the post-9/11 fear of planes to tell a pre-9/11 story (that is, History, but the way Hollywood would) : the airplane scene did not happen the way Eastwood shows it here, and yet it surely is the most dramatic interpretation that prevails when trying to fill up our chests of real emotions.

"A serious man" ~ 8/10

The Coen brothers' most personal movie is particularly exceptional in their filmography, with a story more intriguing than their first film, a tendency to lean towards bizarre and odd situations darker, more acute, and less humoristic than in all their previous films. Humor is less present but still very powerful as it is put in parallel with very disturbing things (the ending credits said "No Jews were harmed in the making of this film.").
And the ending is a beautiful conclusion to a magnificent and yet somehow minimalistic work.

"Un prophète" ~ 10/10

2009's best film of the year, THE masterpiece which deserved Cannes' Palme d'Or. Had Isabelle Huppert been impartial as President of the Jury at the Film Festival (she weighted in favor of her friend Haneke so that he could win with an uninteresting movie...), and hadn't a french movie already (unworthily) won the Palm in 2008, "Un prophète" would have got what it truly deserved, and not "just" the Grand Prix.
Abdel Raouf Dafri's story is excellent, the description of life in prison very accurate and realistic. Tahar Rahim, Niels Arestrup, Reda Kateb, and the whole rest of the cast of actors, everyone is perfect here.
I did like (Jacques) Audiard a lot, now I consider him as one of the finest directors in french cinema. His use of slow motions, and of partly blinded frames is both aesthetically and metaphorically justified (absolutely exceptional !). Only a genius could make the most intense and beautiful film with only images of a brutal and ugly world, such as life in and out of jail. Except for very few seconds of images showing an airplane's wing above the clouds, and, later, waves on a sandbeach, there are hardly any shots of something _not dull or ugly_ in 155 minutes. And yet I fell in love with every single second of this entire movie.

I've seen it 4 times in theatres, and invited myself 4 people to watch it with me. I now urge you to see it if you haven't yet !

"Une semaine sur deux (et la moitié des vacances scolaires)" ~ 5/10

A pretty little film with a simple regular story of love and divorce. Although being played by good actors (children and adults), there's a big accumulation of clichés and déjà vus (conflicts between parents and children, use of trendy musics - among which Cat Power's "The Greatest", diary narration in voice-over...).
French cinema could do better. Ought to do better.

"The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" [fr="L'attaque du métro 123"] ~ 4/10

There was a time, back in the eighties, where action movies, although featuring worse special effects than today, were sometimes realistic enough to somehow deserve our appreciation. Even though it was a bit too spectacular to be realistic, for one cop on holiday (and without shoes !) to take down himself all of the bad guys in a skyscraper, a masterpiece like "Die Hard" had everything to please its audience (good actors, good story, good humor, and a very efficient direction).
Why, then, does a gifted director like Tony Scott (brother of the great Ridley) always use such bad screenplays for his movies ? I am still astonished to think that "Domino" was directed by him, and written by Richard Kelly ("Donnie Darko" writer and director).
Now, "The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3" is not completely bad but the story just doesn't fit any reality, and there are those unbearable moving camera shots which only prove the lack of inspiration of the director in some scenes... Too bad this one was not directed by one Andrzej Bartkowiak !

"Avatar" ~ 3/10

Of course with such a budget, there _has_ to be something good.
But what ?

The story is way too simple, completely expected and manichaeic ; the imaginary world, fauna, and flora involved are beautifully created but never very far from existing exotisms (so not that much imaginative), and finally it almost sounds immoral : using so much money just to recreate an historically wrong metaphor about Americas' and America's births, and the many wrongdoings perpetrated at these different times - after all, in "Titanic" they did not take the right to make such historical changes, and the boat _did actually_ sink in the end... Or did it not ?

This movie might be very well done technically (above all when it comes to the subject of 3D, and especially the depth of field that comes up with), but ideologically it's a big crap : hippies and tree huggers only get by if helped by a Marine ! Maybe was it even a consumable insult ?

What's the point in quoting two of the most important pro-environmental filmmakers of our days (Godfrey Reggio and Hayao Miyazaki), just to show that war is the answer and solution to an environmental and geopolitical issue ?

...

2010.01.22 : After some long thinking over this awfully immoral movie, I decided to lower my vote from 6 to 3/10. The world does not deserves such Hollywood propaganda trying to make you believe they care about environmental issues. Hence, 3 points lost for immorality.

"Astro Boy" ~ 3/10

This movie might be the biggest insult to a major author (hence, Osamu Tezuka here) since "I am Robot" featuring Will Smith (it does still hurt when I write about that shit !).
Even with great voicing actors such as Nicholas Cage and Bill Nighy, the movie is just fun enough for some 4 year old stupid children who would not give a shit about what one of the most important mangaka did create.
Tezuka's manga influenced the entire production of comic books in his time, and since this very formatted media has not seen many changes, one may say Tezuka is still influencing the biggest part of the current comic books production, 20 years after his death.
The most horrifying fact, according to me, might be that such a bad movie is hiding Osamu Tezuka's own production as an animated-movie director ; he was one of the best directors ever in this field, even if his best works were not the old series adaptations of "Testsu-wan Atom" ("Astro Boy"), but short films he made at the end of his life, such as "Jumping".

"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.

"[Rec] 2" ~ 6/10

This sequel does not have the spontaneity the first opus had, spontaneity which gave the entire flick such a frightening style. Anyway the good point of this second movie was the way they found a good story to follow the - already very good - first one.

"A Christmas Carol" [fr="Le Drôle de Noël de Scrooge"] ~ 5/10

Dickens' story is beautifully represented in this movie. And Dickens' London is shown in a way we would never had hoped to see...
As for Zemeckis, he's now far from his best movies, but that might still be better for 3d cinema to be made by such a good filmmaker ?
Anyway, the best Christmas animation movie ever was (and probably will ever be) "The Snowman", and Zemeckis should stop trying to compete with such a huge masterpiece.

PS : it was good to have Jim Carrey and Cary Elwes together again in a movie !

"Zombieland" [fr="Bienvenue à Zombieland"] ~ 7/10

Contrarily to the strange poster of this flick, "Zombieland" came out to be a very good comedy. The best part is when a secret guest star enters the film...

"Le vilain" ~ 8/10

This new Dupontel flick is a bit less dark than "Bernie" and "Le créateur" but still very fun. Dupontel keeps on his idea of a 'social cartoon', with much talent, and wonderful actors, amongst whom Catherine Frot and Bouli Lanners, both in very original parts.
The best improvement of all, here, was Albert Dupontel himself : he's really become an extremely good actor in his own craziness, with an improved comical talent.

"La famille Wolberg" ~ 6/10

Nothing much original in this movie, except the fact that it's the first time François Damiens gets such a non-comical character. And also, the fact that it was out in theaters just 2 weeks after Jocelyn Quivrin's death.
Beautiful actors in a simple family story, and very good choices of music.

"La domination masculine" ~ 10/10

It is so rare to see feminism nowadays in a movie, and above all in a movie that you can see in theaters. The only way you could not learn, laugh, cry, while watching this masterpiece documentary, would be because you are anti-feminist (and therefore, one of the morons we had a glimpse at, in it). Or worse, you could be Éric Zemmour, who actually tried to stop "La domination masculine" from being shown to the world (how can someone be so proud of their penis when they actually don't have balls ?).

"The Road" [fr="La route"] ~ 8/10

A beautiful adaptation of McCarty's story about a father and his son being among the last "carrying the fire" of humanity, in a world that falls apart.
The actors and the music are great, and everything as perfect as it could be.

"Le concert" ~ 8/10

The best scene of this movie is, obviously, the last one, the one with the concert announced by the title. The one in which Mélanie Laurent actually entered a trance state whilst filming (sic).
The rest is good comedy with great actors (Berléand, Abelanski...).

And Mélanie Laurent gets the most beautiful part, once again well deserved as she's now the best french actress of her generation. Allied with Tchaikovsky's divine music, the whole thing is really worth the watch (and the listening to, thanks to Sarah Nemtanu's violin).

"The limits of control" ~ 9/10

Ten days ago, I had a dream which led to the idea of a film a bit similar to what Jim Jarmusch did in his new dreamy movie.
As he said himself prior to the projection, it's something to watch as if we were under the influence of hallucination mushrooms, which, seconded by Christopher Doyle's mad cinematography, proves to be the best way to appreciate this wonderful flick.
This international cast of actors is all good, and Rabinowitz's editing sometimes astounding.
An excellent movie, according to the way I love dreams and cinema joined together.

"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...

"G-Force" [fr="Mission-G"] ~ 4/10

Not a very interesting movie (except maybe for Bill Nighy and the voicing actors), although there are a few spectacular action scenes. The end tends to get a bit fast, as is the way they beat the bad guy.