"The Adventures of Tintin" ~ 3/10

I was outrageously insulted tonight, by seeing how far from Hergé's masterpieces Spielberg has been bringing Tintin to the big screen...
The story has nothing to do with the books, but still that's not the problem, as one could argue that by messing with the whole plot of the comic books, this new story will also please those who know Tintin's albums by heart.
Almost all the characters look ugly, but still that's not the problem, as ugly Tintin live action movies, as well as ugly Tintin animated movies, had already been made in the 60's. Of course, we did not need another ugly Tintin, but still that's not the problem.

The problem is that Tintin's very essence was never truly grasped, neither by Spielberg, nor by those who wrote the screenplay for this film.

The original character of Tintin is the very symbol of purity, at least according to Hergé's western and/or christian standards. Tintin actually is a christic character, not some funny superhero giving justice as a pretext to not abide by the law and fly by night above the city...
Never would Tintin have glowing eyes by the sight of a treasure of gold and jewels. By being purer than a human, Tintin is human in a more than humanist way. And Tintin's not enjoying his adventure just for the fun of it. He's always moving towards justice and humanism, because he knows about the bigger picture. Tintin has to make things right, for "the people". Tintin was, according to De Gaulle himself, De Gaulle's only international rival. One might say, in the same way that Jesus Christ had been to Rome and its emperor.

As for Haddock, well, here again, the very essence of the character is absent from the movie. Of course, Haddock is a drunkard. But the purpose of this character is not at all to express morality. Tintin is already there for that purpose.
Thus, Haddock would never become a real sober man, and Tintin would very soon give up trying to cure this indispensable alcoholism. Never would Haddock become a role model for young people reading their adventures. Because he is there to even the balance, vis-à-vis Tintin's lack of warm-bloodedness ; he is there to express rage, excitation, agitation, hunger, thirst, and the whole range of feelings which one real and true animal (as all humans are) has to be. Haddock is there to express quite the opposite side of Hergé, all that is not Tintin, all that Tintin cannot be.
The original comic book Haddock's way of swearing and cursing, is never ever gross. Here, the english translation of the comic books themselves might have misleaded a little bit the filmmakers, but in this movie Haddock is not saying enough of those beautifully chosen scientific or cultured words that made him so uniquely human, charming, funny, and inspiring.

I won't even try to explain the way other characters are disappointing to a tintinophile like me.
I won't even try to explain that the way actors pronounce "Karaboudjan", while trying to make it sound "more french", is completely ridiculous. If Hergé had been so bad at thoroughness when making his work, Tintin's books would be as (little) valuable as stupid old pulps, and Spielberg would instead have made whatever superfluous superhero movie that Hollywood has left for him.
I won't elaborate about John Williams' surprisingly tasteless music. Usually that's what I prefer in Spielberg's movies.

Some people would use religious, legendary, political, or philosophical characters as role models ; others would take characters from poetry, literature, arts, as role models... My role model is a bit of everything, among all that : Tintin. I have been growing with Hergé's search for purity through Tintin, since I can read. But one might argue that a role model is exactly what Spielberg is looking for through his cinema, and therefore, lacks, and doesn't know how to transcribe.

In conclusion, let's say this movie is about an adventure moving in all directions with some stupid battles as american kids might like to watch (then they become adults and want to watch Indianapolis or Monster Trucks car crushing fun, if not buy a gun and shoot at things...), one or to gross belches, and a bit too much of that useless drama Americans have been inputting in everything they touch.
But it is not Tintin, it is not the international, political, christic, pure, character of Tintin. It's only another Actor's Studio english speaking character we see everyday in every TV series, sitcom, movie... The characters faces never move as Belgian nor French people would do, but just as Anglo-American actors (and maybe humans...). But James Bond and Indiana Jones might suffice, for that purpose.
Breathing life into Tintin using 3D mocap might exactly be the big problem when dealing with a completely pure and blank character such as Tintin (Tintin's original drawn face has only a small curve for a nose, two small points for the eyes, a small mouth, and very rarely, some eyebrows, the latter being the most expressive marks one could see under Tintin's tuft).
Spielberg would never have had the balls to use someone acting as a real Belgian does. Too bad.

PS : I would add that the best adaptation of Tintin so far, is the animated series dating from 1991-1992, by Stéphane Bernasconi. Not absolutely true to the comic books, but never treacherous.

"Coquelicot-zaka kara" ~ 8/10

The new Ghibli movie, and second film made by Miyazaki Hayao's son Gorô, is way better than his previous "Gedo senki".

Some things would still deserve attention, such as the drawings themselves (when you work for the prestigious Studio Ghibli, which is famous also for their magnificent watercolour backgrounds, you cannot afford a character design as bad as the Dragon Ball Z or Pokemon series...). Moreover, the animation still lacks... animation! One might expect from Studio Ghibli a few more images per second (even their short movies have better movements). And my last complaint should be about the opening scene, with the "breakfast song", which looks a little bit like one of those stupid japanese TV commercials...

Anyway, the story being set in a rather realistic 1963 Yokohama, Miyazaki Gorô gets closer to Isao Takahata's realism, than to his father's magical imagination. That might be a very good point : there's no need for another Hayao Miyazaki, but using Studio Ghibli's capacity of creation combined with historical realism and social criticism has always resulted in masterpieces ("Hotaru no haka", "Omoide poro poro", "Heisei Tanuki Gassen Ponpoko"), and following this would not be a mistake.

The description of japanese society is very interesting, and still echoes nowadays, even if it would be difficult to imagine, in this 2011 Japan flooded by tsunamis of junk-culture, young boys and girls able to create anything as great as the fairly open-minded "Quartier Latin" depicted in "Coquelicot-zaka kara".

The use of Sakamoto Kyû's song "Ue wo muite arukô" (one, if not the most famous Japanese song ever) anchors the film in reality, along with several views of Tokyo during the sixties. Anyway all this realism does not prevent the movie from remaining idealistic enough to be interesting. This is also due to the fact that real adults are all absent in one way or another, or present only through the prism of past wars, and no obstacle seems to prevent those young dreamers to pursues their ideals...

The soundtrack music is good and subtle enough not to ruin the charm of this pretty little film (too much music was the biggest mistake of Studio Ghibli's last movie...). The theme song melody makes me feel as if Joe Hisaishi was there also in the movies he didn't take part in (and I wouldn't mind this influence to be real ^^).

While some references to his father's cinema (and probably manga too), and to other Ghibli movies ("Karigurashi no Arrietty" for instance) can be noticed here and there, and Hayao Miyazaki helped him with the script, with "Coquelicot-zaka kara" Gorô Miyazaki is starting to show some real talent and personality. I just hope that by keeping up the good work at Studio Ghibli, he will one day be worthy of Miyazaki senior.

"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 !

"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.

"Paranormal activity" ~ 3/10

Despite a good trailer showing the audience attending the public premiere of the film and freaking out, there is almost nothing but some stupid american standard couple (he's a wannabe homeworking trader, she's a student, they live in a huge house in San Diego...) with the weird idea of filming themselves while asleep, and hoping to catch a demon...
At least for once they picked up normal people from real life, and not a whole bunch of bikini bimbos to get slashed in the movie.
And there was one good quote from "Monty Python's the Holy Grail" (there are no bad quotes from this, anyway ! ^^).
That's all. :-(