sansay

I knew that views are widely divergent on the merits of Megalopolis, but that usually tells me that it's probably going to be something out of the ordinary. And that, it is. But I have to warn you: it is full of literary references. You will be more likely to appreciate if you have read a lot of books. Also, you will need to have a taste for wild imagination. Some references, aside from well-known classics from the Romans as well as Shakespeare, which are very important here: "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" both books were written by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand. She was a strong advocate of capitalism and of the importance of allowing people to keep control of their creations. Many of her ideas and of the events in the books are actually illustrated in this movie. That really surprised me because I had no idea Coppola was such an admirer of her work. I was at a time too, but I eventually read some criticisms of her work and got a bit more skeptic of some of her ideas.

Anyway, the storyline is actually much more straightforward than some reviewers seem to imply. It is a fable, as indicated right at the beginning. And, as such, it has interesting characters who want the best for humanity but don't agree on how to get there. And of course, all the struggles depicted in this fantasy, because let's face it, it is more of a fantasy than anything else, lead to consequences which the author conclude as he sees fit. And that is where I could see a lot of people having a hard time accepting them.

One thing that puzzles me is the ease with which a large percentage of the population can accept and enjoy fantasies such as Lord of the Rings, but would reject this kind of fantasy. Too close to home? Or too bizarre? I don't know.

I really enjoyed this movie. It was not so much on the emotional rather it was more on the intellectual level. I did not feel it was too long as some reviewers felt. I was curious, intrigued even, all along as to where it was going. The dreamlike imagery and the idiosyncrasies of the characters are what made this movie so fascinating to me. But I definitely can understand that it's not for everybody.

This Amazon TV show surprised me. I think it's a romantic drama-comedy in a futuristic world. The humor is all over the place, mixed in with the drama. It is also subtle at times, and after having read other reviews, realized I missed some. But, for me, the more important thing is the main line, the impossible love story. This show brought me to tears. I know one way it succeeded in accomplishing this: it took the time to develop the characters. At the beginning the budding couple is charming and amusing. Then, over the 10 episodes it evolves into a deep love story where you feel for this couple, you get engaged, you really want them to succeed, be together. And you feel so sorry when they hit some obstacles.

The ideas about a world where you can upload your mind into virtual reality have been explored many times over in science-fiction. Recently, Altered Carbon, a Netflix series based on the books by Richard K. Morgan, did a great job of extending this notion to uploading it straight into another body artificially created for this purpose. Upload has a different take. It shows us a world where it's only used to save your mind into a virtual reality, a computer construct. And it's not cheap. About that, I really liked how the inequality issues of society make it even into a virtual world. But, In retrospect, I think that the main topic is really the relationship between bios (still alive) with uploaded people. Just that fills so much of the show, as it raises so many questions. Watch it, it's a fun, wonderful show and it will gives you a few things to think about regarding your life and other's too.

At the beginning of this movie we watch the Kim family struggle to survive in our modern and advanced society. Yes, I am being sarcastic. That's all I have left when talking about a society where the hardship of extreme poverty is often contrasted with the excesses of extreme wealth. You might argue that without such problems in our society we wouldn't have so much material to work with and create such wonderful stories as the one depicted in Parasites. Good point, but I will get back to this at the end of my review.

The Kim family's struggle to survive is wonderfully illustrated with a perfect balance between funny and sad. We often feel like laughing but then, strangely enough, we also feel like we shouldn't. Something that will quickly become obvious is the connection between the members of the Kim family. They are acting as a tight unit. One might think that's normal since people usually unite against a common enemy, in this case, poverty. But it is also true that this is a family, not just a group of poor people. They care about each other. Anyway, coming back to the plot, they will interact with the rich Park family and that's all I think I should tell you. How they will do it, what will happen as a consequence is a complex plot which moves like a rise to the top of a mountain, followed by a rapid descent once we passed the peak. You will know immediately when that happens. This moment, obvious to me, was nevertheless striking and masterfully done.

As my step-daughter brought to my attention, no one is the main character, all the main characters, all 10 of them, are important, and extremely well acted. Music is used parsimoniously and judiciously as a counterpoint to accelerated sequences which help keep the plot flowing smoothly, and therefore, avoids dead times. The camera work, although sometimes creative, is most often straight to the point. It shows us the situation and wastes no time on useless but beautiful imagery. In other words, every shot counts.

This movie, while telling us an interesting story, is also a social statement. And, as I indicated at the beginning of this review, I see this as a great illustration of the consequences of living in a sick society. Sure, it is nothing new, but it brings to mind many questions. The most important to me: do we, as a species who is supposed to be intelligent, continue in the current direction, and continue to make interesting stories, or do we stop, clean up our act, and create only fantasy stories in worlds which are not our own? Note how the Kim family is actually pretty smart and resourceful. And yet, they are poor. Yeah s. it happens, and more often than not, just because of the way our society works, or rather, doesn't.

I loved Alien the first day I watched it when it came out on the French screens so many years ago. A week later I had to go back to the theater, I had to see it again. The first time was too jarring, I felt like I didn't know what happened, that this was just too perfect. Second viewing confirmed my first impression: Alien is a masterpiece.

I read a few of the user reviews here before going to watch Memory: the Origins of Alien. One thing that I really disapprove is the unfair accusations in users reviews of the second half of the movie being a feminist rant. This is simply not true. I can only recall about 3 instances of women making feminist statements. That's hardly enough to qualify a large portion of the film as feminist rant.

The essence of this movie is really what the title says: a description of the genesis of Alien. It offers numerous insights in the creative process which gave birth to this classic. One thing which most people do not know is how the plot was started and contains numerous creative ideas by one writer, Dan O'Bannon. It's was good to see the emphasis put on O'Bannon's essential contribution to Alien. We most often attribute the greatness of Alien to the amazing creature and decors created by H.R Giger and to the great direction by Scott Ridley. And yes, Giger created visuals literally out of this world, Ridley put it all together, adding his own touch here and there. But we might not have known Giger's wonderful works without O'Bannon's drive to create this movie. I felt like he was getting some well deserved recognition. And then, as others have observed, it's true that there were many other artists who contributed to this achievement. But this documentary would have to be 3 hours to give everybody his/her due.

Anyway, we get to see how many transformations Alien had to go through, many pitfalls it almost fell into but didn't (such as the original title "Star Beast"), to become as good as it gets. Watching this documentary will give you an insight into the slow, difficult process of creating a great movie. One thing that stands out in my mind is the attention given to the shooting of the critical scene of the Alien birth. This is just wonderful as you get to see how complicated this particular scene was to make, how many trials and errors they had to go through to get it right.

On the down side, I found the interviews scheme a bit choppy. It jumps too often from one person to another trying to get together the evidence of a logical evolution. I think it could have achieve that better by letting people talk a bit longer. Aside from that, I had a wonderful time watching this documentary and highly recommend it if you are a fan of Alien.

There is this bizarre notion which seems to come back in sci-fi shows recently: aliens are not intelligent enough to figure out human langages. And so we, so smart humans that we are, will have to do this very difficult job. Nevermind the fact that they have figured out ways to travel across the universe, logic needs not apply here. This is ethnocentrism and human exceptionalism pushed on us by the entertainment industry. Why do they keep doing this? They must think people will like the idea that we can be smarter than aliens. Note also that this was the main theme in Arrival. And I had the same reaction back then. It annoyed me to no end. So, in Another life, once again, aliens come to Earth, and won't even try to communicate with us. Then it so happens that the captain of the ship sent to find out where the aliens come from is also married to the only man on Earth capable of figuring out how to communicate with said aliens. Is this sci-fi or fantasy? OK you get the idea, or rather the bad ideas. Don't go looking for good ones, I haven't seen any in the first episode, and so, I gave up. Avoid at all cost!

I went to see this movie in a free preview, not knowing much about it other than it was a comedy based on Sherlock Holmes. A friend at work told me "I looked at the preview, looks like lame humor". I am usually weary of previews, they often misrepresent movies. So I went. It didn't take long for me to realize what a big mistake that was. After 15 minutes of jokes that fall flat because too big to not fail, I decided I have to get out of here. But I was in the middle, dead center of the theater, and I really hate to disturb other spectators. So I stayed another 15 minutes, until I just couldn't take it anymore. In retrospect, I think one of the problems with this movie is that it makes fun of a genius who is able to figure out what's going on by combining observation, knowledge and logic. It touches the very essence of what makes Sherlock Holmes so interesting and fascinating to most people. It tries to make Sherlock Holmes look like a fool. But everybody knows that Sherlock is anything but a fool.

I went in the theater not knowing what to expect since I saw headlines in the newspapers saying that the critics loved it but not so much for the general audience. I watched it and enjoyed it thoroughly. I thought it was essentially a return to classic Star Wars lore. In other words, it respects what I would expect from the original universe, the force and the struggle between light and dark sides. Essentially well developed characters, great battle scenes, lots of interesting plot turns and, lots of touching moments. Acting seemed so natural that, at times, I wondered about actors being so much into their characters to achieve this level of realism. And finally, no, I am not a great Star Wars fan. I like fantastic movies in general. I am more of a fan of good movies, and I think this is a great movie.

A couple of nights ago I went to the movie theater with a feeling of excitement mixed in with the fear of yet another Prometheus. My problems with Prometheus were of the logical nature, so many plot holes so vast that no explanation could be found to help me feel it made sense. Well, let's be honest: there are a few plot holes in Alien Covenant. But they are not as bad as the ones in Prometheus. So I am not even going to bother with that. Instead, due to what I perceive as an unfair negative reception, I will go over why I enjoyed watching it.

The whole movie is just beautifully filmed, full of sharp images, loaded with a dark heavy atmosphere, specially on the planet. The action scenes are shot in a way that combines and balances well motion and details. I really dislike movies where things just happen so fast and the camera moves so much that you can't see anything. That wasn't the case here. You get plenty of details in the fire of the action, and yet the action is happening just the way it should, with rapid fire motions. The spaceship, both space scenes, and cramped corridors are perfectly rendered. They give you a good sense of how huge the Covenant really is. And the scenes with the aliens were just perfect, horrifying and yet so fascinating. In this installment, I got what I was hoping for, a sense of re-connection to the original Alien movie. Also, a special mention should be made for the sound track. I am not sure if it's because I was in one of the better rooms, one of those with a wide screen and super duper sound system, but it seemed sharper than usual. The sounds sources where clearer than usual, not dulled by too much music... hahh now that I mention music, the score is definitely subdued in this movie. Another plus as far as I am concerned. Movies nowadays rely way too much on music to control your emotions.

Now let's talk about the scenario. The first part contains a critical moment when a decision is made, but you know without the shadow of a doubt that was the wrong decision, because, well, it's an Alien movie, so you know the protagonists are in for a sh..load of trouble. But then, further down the story line, there is this moment when the plot takes a really interesting turn in regard to androids, this is another particular aspect of this movie which I appreciated. Of course, one might complain that it doesn't get enough time, but hey, the movie is already 2 hours long. With all the that happens already, it would have been 3 hours to explore the android topic properly. Here is something else which Ridley Scott, the directory, (who directed Alien, and Prometheus) did and which I really loved: there were some of these classic horror moments when everybody in the theater reacted with anticipation and amusement, because the director staged scenes you instantly recognize if you have watched Alien (the original). But he added a little humor. It was a little like a wink from the director, to all the Alien's fans out there. It was also one of these horror moments when you know something bad is about to happen and you know who the victim is going to be and... but, hell, you know the drill, the tension, the tension rising, and then the release. When flawlessly executed you get this intense feeling of satisfaction. Don't forget that hot moment when you felt the rush of blood, not just the one out of the victims, no not that one (although yeah it sure happens a few times in this flick), I am talking the one that happened when your heart started pumping like your life depended on it. I haven't seen such a good science-fiction/horror film in a long time. On top of that it is the revival of the Alien franchise I was waiting for. I am giving it a 9 stars.

I took my 17 year old to watch this stop-motion animation last weekend. Of course my daughter loved it. It had everything she enjoys, a rich story with all the twists and turns, funny, tender, and even scary moments. All that was masterly done with this interesting visual style that only stop-motion can render, where edges are sharp and colors and textures are rich and wide ranging. I may be old but I love animation, but only when it is creative, out of the norm, one might say "fresh". "Kubo and the 2 strings" is just that, although based on ancient Japanese story telling, it feels like a pumped up, redecorated, brought up to modern standard, old tale. I read in another review a complaint about the voice not sounding Japanese, but just plain American. Funny, it never occurred to me while watching it, as I was way too taken in by the story and the wonderful magical origami. Two hours passed without me wondering what time it was... Beautiful!

At the time of this writing, IMDb rating for Repeaters was only 5.8.

Last week, a good friend of mine recommended this movie to me, and even though we do not always agree on what is a good movie, I watched it, and I am very glad that I did. This movie explores one of the most intriguing premises: what if today was to repeat itself indefinitely, and you had the freedom to do what you want and remember everything you did and what happened, every time the day repeated itself? What would you do? This is the privilege, or the curse, that befell on three drug addicts in a rehabilitation center. It is a privilege if you can learn what you did wrong and use that knowledge to improve the events of this day. But it can be a curse if you see it as a damn trap out of which there is no escape.

The story unravels at a nice steady pace, and things are quickly evolving toward some pretty dramatic situations. The performance of the actors was decent enough, and the director should get recognized for putting together a very logical sequence of events despite the complexity of the story. I am pointing this out because I noticed how often some movies add confusion just for the sake of being creative. Although I generally appreciate the effort, sometimes it's just better to keep things simple so as to get the story across effectively and memorably. And this is particularly important when the story includes many very interesting ideas such as the duration of the time loop, what if it's infinite, what happens if it ends, how will you know, death and time, does what you do have any effect on the "real" time line, and, come to think of it, which one is the "real" time line. Then, when you have all the details of such a story straight and clear in your mind, it's so much easier to mull over them later, as I did, and still do.

This movie relates the story of a young peasant girl who has to go work in a brothel to help her family in post war Japan. It is partly based on a true event that occurred in 1950, where the Kinkaku-ji temple in Kyoto was burned down by a 22-year-old novice monk (see wikipedia for details). What to say about this movie... Some good some bad. The acting is decent, if a bit excessively theatrical at times. The photography is very classical with beautiful compositions and interesting angles. The story explores two important society issues: forced prostitution and bullying. Unfortunately some inadequacies prevents it from reaching the heights of a masterpiece. One of the glaring issues my wife and I had was this odd picturing of a brothel as a pleasant place where all is well among all the girls and the well meaning Madame. It seems so far fetched, so unlikely, that I kept wondering if this director had ever visited such an establishment. Also, some of the comments regarding the girl made by her first customer seemed very strange and even abnormal to us. I can't reveal them here, but they surprised us greatly. On the other hand the purity of the love story and the drama brought about by the iniquity of society was quite touching. So, yes, I would say it's worth watching, just not as good as I was hoping for.

A man called Luis, while attempting to escape capture by authorities, gets shipwrecked on a deserted island. He discovers some buildings abandoned long ago. But suddenly people appear on the island, coming to settle down in the buildings, scaring Luis into hiding. After a while Luis gets more daring and tries to find out what is happening.

This movie is the French interpretation of the 1940 prize winning book "La invención de Morel" by Argentinian writer Adolfo Bioy Casares. Since I haven't read the book (yet) I cannot tell you if it is faithful. However the description on Wikipedia seems pretty close.

Although the development is a bit slow it pays to be patient. "L'invention de Morel" is a story of love, and the frequent pair of genius and madness. It's also a philosophical essay on death and immortality. The story progresses as the man shipwrecked on the island discovers what is behind all the strange events he's observing. We follow him step by step as he unravels the mysteries of the island. Most of the film evolves through the voice over of Luis as he writes a journal. This is at the source of an aloofness that keeps all your emotions at bay. The absence of music, except the one brought by the visitors, also contributes to this feeling of detachment. However, what matters most is what Morel did. And this is what will keep coming back in your thoughts later.

Luis' final actions left me quite puzzled. To such a Cartesian mind as mine, it made no sense. But perhaps if you are left alone long enough on a deserted island and there is not even a remote chance of returning to civilization, perhaps then, one might decide that this is the best outcome.

steve-599 from Connecticut wrote the text below, 15 May 2013, and I have to say, I agree 100% with him.

*** "Now, to be fair, this movie deserves a 6, but I feel I have to downgrade to 3 to offset the 85% of the viewers who don't seem to realize it only deserves a 6 or less, not a 7.9. Yes, the visuals and action and scariness are not bad, and the movie could easily be a 9 based on that if it had a plot. But the plot fails so spectacularly that is is painful, yes painful, to even reflect on it in any detail. It just makes no sense, cannot withstand even the teensiest probing. Nothing any character does follows from anything. Nothing about the society holds together. The only thing that lets me get to sleep at night is the comforting thought that the screenwriters didn't care whether any element of the story made any sense, they were only looking for visual appeal. The movie can only be enjoyed by non-English speakers (without subtitles), and those who are immune to thinking." ***

After watching this movie I was wondering "well what was the point? And where is the Sci-Fi? So, there is this only woman who is miraculously pregnant and we have to get her to a safe place, against all odds. Fill the show with a lot of violence, action, misery, and decadence and a few heart warming moments, and you have your typical big Hollywood production. This is a "lowest common denominator" type of movie. Here is a list of what's missing: 1. How did humanity get to this point? 2. What is so different with Kee that she was able to conceive? 3. What will be done to use the knowledge resulting from the investigation of question 2 for healing humanity?

I saw this cartoon in France when it came out with my daughter, who was 8. We both really enjoyed it at the time. Later I got a copy from friends in France, and we watched it again. There are some flaws, but on the whole it's an excellent story about the dangers of ignorance, the beauty of dreams, and the wonders of the unknown. Some monkeys leave in the canopy of the forest and do not dare to come down to the dark, far away, unknown bottom as they see it as a dangerous place. But when one of them, more daring than the rest finds his way down there, he discovers a lot of amazing facts. The characters are well defined and interpreted (at least in the French version, I haven't heard the English) and, even though the animation is sometimes choppy, it gains back points with the pure beauty of the decors. And sometimes if the story meanders, it is to spend the time necessary to add some "human" touches to the characters. There is a morale too, but I will let you discover it for yourself.

I just come back from watching religulous. I had a great time. Bill makes a lot of fun of all those silly things people actually believe. Obviously since I am an atheist I really enjoyed this movie, and I know that most believers will reject it altogether. But there is one thing that just occurred to me as I read through the comments here, it's the fact that, yes, people like me do not go around advertising their atheism. And I saw someone writing that this was why the religious people would always dominate. Well there you have it now though... Bill Maher's movie is definitely a non-believer statement, and a wonderful one at that. I am also painfully aware that it won't change anything in the sad state of affairs in the USA. But at least it's one solid step in the right direction. Now, why do I say "worrying" in the title of my review, well it's because I think that Bill's got it straight regarding the dangers of religion. How can you expect people to make rational decisions when they reject the teachings of the very same science that provides them day in and day out better lives?

I just finished watching The namesake. The movie starts with an event which will be the key to the message. Yes, this is a movie with a message. And although this is already a big plus in my book, it's also delivered with a mastery which a lot of "would be directors" should learn from. I didn't know Mira Nair until now. A few months ago, I started watching A Monsoon Wedding, but my girlfriend of the time, being Chinese, just couldn't handle it (go figure!) Anyway, I am now really intending to get back to that movie and even explore all of Mira Nair's movies. The story is about a couple of immigrants from India coming to live in Boston, and their experience with life there, far away from their culture, but more importantly, the reason for their first child's namesake. I will not divulge here so many details as others have already done... sometimes sadly enough in too great details for my taste. What I want you to know is that this movie will highlight some of the real important things in life, and help raise your awareness of how much we take them for granted. There are so many beautiful, both fun and sad, moments in this movie that I didn't see the time fly. And then some great views of life in India, the rich cultural background, so full of colors, of ceremonies and rituals, that makes you want to travel there to see it first hand (yes, yes... I now know where will be my next big trip) Please do yourself a favor, rent and watch this definite masterpiece.

I didn't know what to expect with this movie. I don't even recall why I put it in my Netflix queue. Probably a friend of mine recommended it. Although I knew already that I think highly of both Forrest Whitaker, and Jim Jarmusch. So I guess I had an idea that this was probably good times ahead. And let me tell you people, I was not disappointed. During the almost 2 hours this movie lasts, I didn't think one second that such scene or that one was too long. This goes completely against some of the critics that I have read in here. I don't know how anyone who's got some critical abilities could come up with such complaints. If you want to see a movie with real dead time, please go see Caché by Michael Haneke. (seriously, you probably don't want to watch this movie)

Anyway, I am not about to relate all the events that happen in Ghost Dog. It's been already done by so many people. And yes, the concept of the assassin following the Samurai's code in the midst of the Mafia world is just a wonderful idea. And this movie certainly contains a lot of great concepts. Such is the one where Ghost dog's friend, the ice-cream guy speaks only French. This is really fun to watch, as they both figure out what the other one was saying despite the language barrier. True friendship goes beyond that barrier!

But there are a few other observations I would like to make. It seemed strange to me that the Mafia gangsters were always watching cartoons. Sure they are other clues to get us to see how incompetent, and uncultured they are. For instance they can't pay all their dues, they haven't paid the rent in 3 months, they sit in the back room just playing cards, etc. But the cartoons? I think that this could have been avoided. Also, the scene of the killing through the sink was a bit too far fetched for me.

On another hand, there is this mysterious dog. What did he symbolize? Was that the animal spirit who tried to remind him of his duties? I loved also the handing over of the Samurai's code book to the young girl. Truly a key moment for us to realize that he's done. His mission is over, and he will follow the code of the samurai all the way.

What else? Ah yes, excellent acting from Forrest Whitaker, but this is probably not really surprising to anyone who knows him.

I highly recommend this movie!

I just watched Irma Vep last night. And I have to say that I enjoyed watching this movie for many reasons. Evidently Maggie is one of the reasons. Beautiful of course and good actress to boot. But beyond that, we have a lot of other things that kept my interest alive all along. This movie presents a self examination of French movie making, thereby justifying the accusation of "nombrilisme" (narcissism) by the reporter interviewing Maggy. This seems to be one of the themes here. A close look at the movie making process in France where a certain lack of coordination seems to be the rule, where a director launches the movie making only based on a whim. And in this case, it's the idea of having Maggie Cheung play the main role of a character in a remake of a 1915 silent movie. What really becomes interesting is the way she gets into the role and really becomes Irma. But I will leave you to discover how and when. At any rate, the movie has the funny effect to make you wonder if French movie making is in that bad a state that it can come up with such an interesting product.

I am French and I must say this is a rather disappointing movie. It starts well with an interesting event in which 5 persons are involved. Then we follow each of them in their own thread of life, switching from one to the other without any connection. This kind of scheme usually leads to some interesting plot where destinies cross each other. But not there. It just goes nowhere. And then it's real, real slow. I usually am an admirer of movies where you get the time to think, to observe an interesting scene. But not here. In this film many scenes linger on without any reason at all. It feels like we are just put on hold! What a bore.

I watched La vie et rien d'autre, about a year ago. Well, it stuck with me. And I really wanted to see it again. So I watched it a second time. And some things became clearer to me. The central message obviously that war sucks, that war is a disaster for everybody. And nothing should be done to hide this truth from anybody. That's Delaplane's belief, that's his fight, his moral code. And yes, there is a love story coming to interfere with his dull and depressing duty. Why people can't see that a man such as Delaplane could not handle love, specially while in the middle of such an ugly struggle? I read some negative comments about this film. I just could not understand that. This is a beautiful movie, touching, a bit slow certainly, but the topic does require that we take time to learn all the details so as to better understand the nature of this human drama. What pushes all these people to look for remnants of their loved ones, just to have proof of their death. For what? This we may never understand for not having to live through this. Go ahead, watch this movie. It's not a big action movie, no, it's a reflection movie. A movie that a lot of people who see war as something that's glamorous should have seen, but probably never will... alas!

I watched Les Mots Bleus last night. I felt very much taken at times by the emotions triggered by a very intimate film making. Alain Corneau takes you very close to the characters and their feelings. And the acting is so perfectly nuanced, so delicate, and therefore closer to the truth. This is one quality that is extremely important in psychological movies such as this one. Sylvie Testud reminded me of Isabelle Huppert in La Dentellière. Same very sensitive acting. And it's interesting that I recently saw Stupeur et Tremblement, by the same director, and they are very different movies, something I really appreciate in a director, this ability to explore totally different type of story and in very different ways. Sergi López is also a great actor. He is so convincing, the way he delivers his father's story at the restaurant... it gave me goosebumps. And of course, let's not forget Anna, the center piece of the whole movie, beautifully interpreted by beautiful Camille Gauthier with this fascinating stare of hers... ouafff! Great acting, great movie making, go ahead, see it, it's definitely worth your time.

This movie sucked big time. I agree with all of those who complained about the abusive and unrealistic cursing, specially when coming from the cops. It makes no sense that educated people whose job it is to run investigations would keep talking like that all the time. But even if you choose to suspend disbelief on that matter, there are just too many inconsistencies to be able to let yourself taken in for the ride. Other viewers have described them very well, so I thank them for saving me the time. I also felt a great disappointment since I used to think that Martin Scorsese was a great director. Well no more I guess. Just another big commercial production which just doesn't fly... Too many heavy weights and too much pandering to the lowest common denominators, this recipe usually favored by Hollywood only succeeded in giving me an indigestion... buuurrrp!!!

while watching this movie, I was really tempted to stop it, and return the DVD. You see, my ex-wife pushed it into my hands, telling me how great that movie was. I didn't want to watch it because I knew it was very violent. Well, I should have stuck to my original decision.

Violence is presented as an art form in this movie. As if seeing fountains of blood spurting out of people's bodies was a beautiful sight... Sigh, it seems to me that we are back to the roman times with people cheering as the martyrs were being fed to the lions.

So what of the cinematographic skills of Tarantino? Well, yes, I too detected some reuse of master's techniques. I heard the spaghetti western music and saw its very very close-up shots. I got the De Palma's split screen, and the Carrie scene all covered with blood. Even the big fight scene had been done before in one of the Zatoichi's movies. And there were a few others too, but really, what's the point of going on and on? On one hand, we have a pretty simple plot (I am not going to go over that here, others have done it very well) and on the other a director with a vision made up of the great masters ideas. OK, Tarantino does know how to direct a movie, and some of his use of the great masters influence is acceptable, but... here I thought it was just too much. Combined with an overly simple story and an excessive level of violence, his overuse of others grand ideas becomes just that, a succession of tricks. As far as I am concerned, violence and cinematographic tricks are just no substitute for a good story, no matter how many of them you mix into the pot.

I went in really having no idea what this movie was about. I do that sometimes so as to get more surprise, in essence to get more out of the experience. Well in this case I was not only surprised but even amazed. Nothing that I was expecting was coming out as I thought... ohhh yes, except at the end. The final was the only logical way to conclude such a strange story. And interestingly enough, that too goes against common sense, whereas in regular movie, the final is often an attempt to surprise the viewers.

Of course this is a farce, of course it makes no sense whatsoever. But the point is that it's funny and clearly out of this world. So, once you get the idea, all you have to do is let yourselves be carried by the flow. In fact, after a while I was even playing with possible next victims... but I was fooled all the time. I am just too Cartesian, hehehe!

At any rate, it does take a special sense of humor to appreciate this movie. The acting by all the seasoned actors is just right, cool, no exaggeration, just enough to get the story moving along, however weird it might be.

In conclusion, this is a very unusual and therefore interesting movie.

In this complicated story we follow the steps taken by journalist/writer Daniel Salmon to uncover the truth about murders in the town of Hyères in the south of France. A rather cold blooded writer this Daniel Salmon, and not easily deterred by people dying around him. I think this is not a bad movie even though there isn't much action in it. What counts is more what's not said, what stays hidden from us. The events in this movie will not surprise anyone, because, thanks to a much higher level of access to information, we see so much corruption these days in the highest levels of society. But you might be left to wonder, as I was, what is pushing this writer to keep at it while people are dying around him. The weird part is that he's not even from that city, Hyères. So, what's pushing him to take chances, and endanger other's lives. I don't know. As much as I hate corruption, it's just hard to get sympathetic with such a character. The facts exposed, the way people in position of command in a city can use illegal acts, downright to murder, remains interesting. Specially when you know that it is based on a true story.