"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 !

"The Women" ~ 3/10

This kind of movie, not unlike most of women magazines, is there to make money by reassuring those poor women who cannot afford someone with a penis (for instance, a man), and who will believe that having a bunch of female friends full of advices is better than a man in your bed. Apart for those who find homosexuality worth giving up men, and thus might have a real interest in seeking female friends instead of male ones, how can such movies pretend to give any solution or consolation ?
Moreover, this movie for women, written by women, and featuring only actresses (and one male baby actor) is as stupid as movies for men, with only men, and made by men (there might be more of this latter kind, but that is certainly not a reason for creating crap...).

But the biggest scandal of the whole thing might be that it is featuring rich New York people, played by rich Hollywood people (who want their money back with interests, plus your brains in bonus), and destined to be shown to poor credule New Jersey people who certainly cannot afford such a wealthy living (nor such expensive face lifts) but will dribble all their saliva with envy.
Anyway the good point was that, unlike "male movies", they did spend at least half of their time talking about the other sex... Wait, now the problem would be to determine for which of the "male" or "female" genre of movies this actually was a good point... ? I'm not in favor of (nor against) any of the two kinds here, my advice, to those poor women (or men ?) who seek consolation after they were dumped, would be that they watch any good movie, made either by a man o a woman, that would not talk about one or both sexes, but simply about love (it seems not to exist for magazines, sorry).

Finally, Clare Boothe Luce's play has been adapted so many times, why bother watching this version, when Cukor and Fassbinder both already directed other versions ? "Because it was directed by a woman" is not a reason good enough !