MarioB

A bunch of young men tries to operate a night-club in a small town of France, despite the competition of an older man. Claude Zidi was never a genius, but through the years of his long carreer, he had made some pretty funny films. Most of these were with veteran stars like DeFunes, Noiret, LHermitte, Depardieu, Pierre Richard, etc. For this one, he tries with younger actors. And he fails : this movie is just awful, stupid, boring and empty. There is nothing funny here. There is no ideas and the story - there is a story ? - is predictible. And it's very sexiest for young women. Zidi thinks they're all pieces of meat. And I will never understand why we have to hear English music in a French movie. Don't waste your time with this one : there are many very funny French movies you can see, and

some were from Claude Zidi.

First of all, thanks Glaschu and vive Toronto too ! Seems that there's only the two of us who have seen this movie... This is a good quality film, in an intimate european style, but sometimes it's too

melodramatic. I'm sure that young Emile Nelligan was not really like that. The movie shows an idealization of a life of a poet: you know, the guy that always suffering every minute of the day... I think it's a myth. But I like the movie for the late 19th century settings. It really represents the bourgeois life in a very conservative

Quebec. Note that all the young poets dreams about Paris and

France. In fact, most of our best artists of that time had to go to Paris to learn and express themselves in a more free way. I had wish that the movie show us more of Charles Gill, a drunken friend of Nelligan, who was the most original poet of that time, after Nelligan. Charles Gill died in 1918 and, next year, he was published ! That shows you the difficuties for artists of that time to find ways to express themselves in the public sphere (And the complete work of Charles Gill will be published only in... 1999!). Note also the presence of the young Idola St-Jean, in love with Nelligan. She will be an important feminist of Quebec, fighting for the right of women to vote. She will also be one of the rare women teaching in an university. She will die in 1936, few years before Nelligan and the right for women to vote. For the facts about the Quebec of the late 19st and early 20st, it's a very fine movie.

That's a good question ! Because I'm only adding the same type of comments of some other users. The Coen Brothers never makes a dull film, because they don't make movies but cinema, as a part of a creative and artistic demonstration. This film is school-of-cinema stuff ! For those, like me, who thinks that USA Cinema reachs 80 % of it's peak in the 1940's,

they surely love this film. It's kind of tribute of the Film-Noir genre. The use of shadows makes me think about the Edward Dymytryk movies of 1945-1950. Billy Bob Thornton looks like a bored Humphrey Bogart and the settings of the late 1940's is simply fabulous. It's a cool film, like a J.J. Cale record at 3 AM, with a good cigarette and a glass of whiskey. It's also very slow and that's a great quality. Films are, in fact, pictures and are made to watch, not to be heard. This one is simply beautiful to see. There's also a strange sense of humour about hair !

All is already said ! But I watch this horrible thing until the end, because I have a souvenir about it. All the sequences of the Opera de Paris was, in fact, shot in my hometown of Trois-Rivières, Québec, Canada. It was done in the Thompson Theatre, which was, from 1928 to 1979, the cinéma Capitol, our own little movie palace. All the original stuff still exists today, as they were in 1928. This is really a beautiful old movie theatre. This film was made in 1999, and we, from Trois-Rivières, had fun watching the extras (all local people) come in of the old store, which was rent as the dressing room. It took one week to shot the scenes, but the crew was there for about 3 weeks, giving job to many people of my town. It's a strange feeling to see the old Capitol theatre in a movie! In 1998, there was another movie shot in the same place, starring Bette Middler. That's why I look at this horrible movie : memories from the summer of 1999 ! By the was, Mr. Nielsen was very kind to all the people of my town.

In 1925, a young country girl, knowing that she had less than a year to live, goes to the big city to learn the piano from a famous teacher. That's only an excuse to have fun, live fast, drink hard, smoke a lot, dance all night: to be a perfect flapper. After

falling in love with a Black jazz musician, she realise that this kind of life was not was she was looking for. This is a slow beautiful arty film, in a very European mood.Francis Leclerc, in his first film, shows us that he a a very good technique, creativity, imagination, and credibility. All the young actors are very good, but perhaps the star of the film, Fanny Malette, is a little bit cold... This is a very different kind of movie for a Quebec production. It shows us that North-American modernity was also present in Quebec big cities in the 1920's. Most of the times, Quebec film's about periods before 1940 shows us only the rural conservative side of our society. As an author, in 1999, I had a book, Perles et Chapelet, which presents a similarity with this film : the flappers. A filmaker have read my book (I won't tell her name!) and she said to me it had the potential for a very good film, but she said that Quebec's producers have no money to put in a setting of the past. When I saw UNE JEUNE FILLE À LA FENÊTRE, it stucks me : there are not many setting in the streets. Francis Leclerc did it with a low budget, and that's why he concentrates on the actors. I think a American or a French film about the subjects (the flappers) or that era (the 1920's) will have shown us more outside settings.

A very good and senstive piece of work for Mr. Leclerc. Let's hope many other films from him !

This is a fast 4 or 5 minutes comedy, in the tradition of Mack Sennett's films. Everybody runs all the time and gets knocks. There have been thousands af shorts like this one in the silent era, but it's rare to see them today. I saw it on TV, at the end of a Douglas Fairbanks film. There was only that title : Soup to nuts. No actors, no director. Thanks to IMDB to help me find this one ! The story ? A butler gets the house all messed up ! That's it, folks!

Francis Veber is a master of intelligent French comedy. For years, he make us laugh. It was hard for him to follow DÎNER DE CONS, a very unique movie and a big success. But Veber dit it very well with this one. Great cast from veterans French stars, funny situations and dialogues, and Veber shows us again his big quality : the film is fast. Just 1 hour 20 minutes. Never too long ! A good comedy is always fast! Let's hope nobody in Hollywood will think about a remake. French comedies are always funny when they stay French.

Good acting : bad story, bad movie. I heard this kind of statement a thousand times about American movies. People who wants to see a certain actor or actress will always go to see them in any kind of movie. Because I love Cate Blanchett, I watch this from minute one to the end. Cate was sensitive and very good, so are most of the actors. This is the only good point about this bad film. It's full of clichés (storm, shadows, thunder, rain, slow motion) and stereotypes (women are victims, chief of police is almost dumb). It's also badly written, and so and so directed. But, like in 90 % of most American films, it's easy to see the bad guy, the killer : it's the only character who smokes cigarettes. That's what I called propaganda. I hope to see Cate Blanchett in more European films.

Baseball is a great sport, but an horrible subject for movies. Except perhaps for EIGHT MEN OUT, or films where the sport is not the principal subject, like COBB, FIELDS OF DREAM, FEAR STRIKES OUT or BULL DURHAM, a comedy. Every time someone tries to make a serious film about baseball, it always fail. Billy Crystal offers us nothing original. His film is full of clichés : abusive slow motions (on the crucial moments, of course) stupid special effect when we see the ball coming right to us, horrible heavy orchestral muzak (on the crucial moments, of course). But the two young actors, Pepper & Jane, are doin' a very fine job. Also, Crystal offers us a good early sixties set. Hey! How about a movie about Barry Bonds breaking McGwire record ? And, in a few years, how about a film about Vladimir Guerrero breaking Bonds record ? I hope that some day Spike Lee will make his movie about Jackie Robinson. That will be the best serious baseball movie of all time.

Emily Watson was fabulous in BREAKING THE WAVES and wonderful even in a bad film like ANGELA'S ASHES. She is the kind of actress I want to see all her films, because I'm sure she will always be good. But here comes Trixie and... I can't believe that this great actress have been involed in such a ugly mess! The best work from Emily is her films made in European countries. So please, Emily, don't ever came back to the USA for making movies. The only way you could express yourself in a intelligent way is in European films. So please, stay there, and leave the mess to American actresses. They're good at it.

It's a film about a French speaking musical band, CANO, from English speaking province of Ontario, in Canada. These eleven young people live together put everything in common. On stage, they look like that. No leader, everyone's sing, no stars. More 20 years later, it sounds very hippîe! They all look like hippies! I remember seeing them live in 1977. I was listening to their three albums all the time. But today, it sounds very very old... CANO produced a strange mixture of folk and progressive music. They have a beautiful and talented female singer, by the name of Rachel Paiement. It's a shame for Canadian music that she disappears

with the hippie dream of CANO. This film captures the problems of the band, with administration, with the idea of putting all things together. It's a bit long. Live shots are very good. One thing strange about this film is that CANO sings in French, are part of a French minority in an English canadien province, but here, they all speak English while not on the stage! This film is a like an old photography : we look at it with smiles of nostalgia. And how much hairs all these people have !

Impressive firt movie for director Louis Bélanger. This is a slow and strange drama, about the solitude of a aging man and

the puirsuit of happinness for a young woman. Very good work from the two stars, Arcand and Moreau, and a wonderful sense of images from the director. Intelligent use of the music, mostly accoustic blues. The film is a little bit bluesy too! Movie like this one, and many others over the ten last years, makes us proud of the cinema in Québec and in Canada.

We saw that hundred of times. From Sidney Poitier to Hollan's opus, and Gérard Depardieu did one too in France. I think Bette Davis has one in the 1940's. This is a Hollywood forumula movie : no surprise, no creativity. From the start, we know how it will end. Meryl Streep will win in many ways! And the little spark that makes some movies unforgettable? No need for that spark! We had a good star and a lot of cute children (who had problems, of course). I don't mean to say that this is a bad movie, I just mean to say that when I want to see a movie, I want to had real emotions, new ideas. Nothing's like that here. Just for fans of Meryl Streep. She's doing her a job as a pro.

Quality movie from that fine director Anne-Claire Poirier. The problem is that the story is almost the same as The Big Chill : friends, now all over 40, reunites, and the fun becomes tragic for some of them. It removes originality to the film of miss Poirier. But, on the other hand, this film is far superior to The Big Chill. Cinematography is much better, so is the actors. But I have also a little problem with the actors : most of them are over 50, and they suppose to play 44-46 year old people! But this is sure a very fine picture, with warm emotions.

Very provocative director Morin really got me with this one. For 1 hour and 27 minutes, I thought that this was real... I was shocked, very disturbed and afraid. But when I saw the killing of the policeman for a second time, near the end, I said to myself : oh oh! That's the big error of the film... One viewer said it's like a Blair Witch film. I think it gets further... Are these people really comedians? They're all very incredible! There are no full names in the titles. I'd like to know who is the young woman playing Mado... She's amazing! I saw that movie on television, very lately. I had it now on tape, but I don't think I will never live it the way I did the first time. Brrrrr...

First movie for Guylaine Dionne. She also write it, in a very wonderful way. This is an intimate journey of three generations of women : a little girl, her mother, her grandmother. The journey of the little girl is for the future (searching for her father), the journey of the mother is for the present (shooting photos for her work) and the journey of the grandmother is for her past (looking for her first love). This is a kind of

tender road movie. This is a good piece of art. Cinema is also a way to express the creativity and Guylaine Dionne had done it in a very warm and intelligent way. This is shot in beautiful black and white. I hope to hear again from this talented new director.

This is weird stuff! It's about a famous rock band from Quebec (French Canada), Offenbach, who was in France one year, in 1974. The filmaker shot them in day to day life, in a house were the guys lives and pratice their music. This is kind of direct cinema, with no script, no direction, no intentions. We see the musicians having a lot of fun with grass and beer, in a way that was very familiar to rock fans who were there in the 1970's.

Sometimes, lead singer Gerry Boulet gets bore with the constant presence of the camera. Drummer Wezo seems to do too much in front of it. At last, we, the spectators, are very very bored too. But, in many ways, this is an important document about the way of life of rock musicians in the 1970's, away from the stardom and

limousines. Very popular in Quebec, Offenbach was unknown in

France. The live sequences are the best, but there are not many. We see the band rocks in very strange little places, like in a bar during a motorcycle race. We hear the band and the motorcycles! And there's fight betwen drunken French. The sequence where Boulet sings Edith Piaf classic L'Hymne à l'Amour is a must to see and hear! This is the true sense of soul and blues! I read that the band dislikes the experience of being stuck in this house with all these cameras all the times. They get angry with each other. About a year later, half of the band says goodbye and Offenbach will carry on with Boulet, Johnny Gravel and new musicians, while Lamothe, Wézo and Harel will form Corbeau. The soundtrack of this movie was a huge hit in Quebec at that time, but is now a very rare record ! Those were the days, you know...

Howard Hawks did a very great funny movie in the 1930's : Bringing up Baby. So, many years later, he said : let's do it again, but in another way. Paula Prentiss had the very same character than Katharine Hepburn in Bringing up. And Rock Hudson had a very similar character than Cary Grant in the thirties classic. There's also one similar scene : the broken dress of Maria Perchy. You can see it in Bringing up baby. Another viewer said there's also similarities with a William Powell movie. I don't mean that Man's Favorite Sport is a bad movie. But I do think that's it's not very original, there's no new ideas in it. For me, that's the great problem, even if I had pleasant moments watching it. Paula Prentiss is very funny, even with the shadow of Katharine Hepburn behind her in every minute of this movie...

This story was very popular at that time in France : the first version was made only 8 years prior to that one. The theme song was also very popular among children! I remember singing that when I was a kid in the sixties! But, today, I saw this childish movie with adult eyes and I think it's got too much noise, howling, confusion in it. Bourvil plays a one dimension character and he's boring after a while. Périer is very fine as the hero, so is

the so cute Dany Robin! See this today as a good example of simple entertainment from France in the fifties. The film makes fun of the French Revolution, but some jokes are very weak.

I was expecting a B-Movie French musical. After all, Dhéry, Blanche, DeFunès were superstars of low budget French films of that time. And it is in color! But I have hallucination in this unbelievable one hour 30 of pure mediocrity. Musical numbers are awful, and comedy is absolutely boring and stupid. And the songs? What songs? This is just a succession of bad numbers, one after another. The only one very rare thing about that thing is the nudity of women. It was not familiar at that time. In fact, some numbers are just there to show us topless women. It adds to the mediocrity! And try to find young Michel Serrault, the future great actor of French cinema, in a bit part as a musician, in his very first movie. Good luck!

Two aging stars of the French Cinema (Morlay and the great Simon) are the only two reasons to have a nostalgic look at this little film. The two are doin' very fine, while the rest of the cast is over acting. Michel Simon plays a simple old man with a lot of love for his only daughter (Choureau). She falls in love with a doctor's son and he don't understand why. The story is too simple, too conservative, without a spark of imagination. This is the kind of movie that was very popular in small towns of France during the 1950's. It was always the first part of a double feature.

In the old days, movie theatres always presents a double feature. The star film was a big production, and the first film of the program was a B-Movie. In the USA, Republic pictures made a lot of these low budgets movies. We have the same in France. André Hunebelle was the king of the low-budget French films in the 1950's. Note that B-Movie don't mean Bad Movie. It's just a bit cheapier than the star film. Here's we have a playboy newspaper man (Rouleau) playing the detective better than the dumb detective (Roquevert). We also have bad oriental men. They're also dumb and laughs in a very funny way (Gnark! Gnark! Gnark!). And, of course, we have blondes (who are not so dumb!). This is a fast action movie, with funny dialogues. This is perfect for a sunday matinee double feature in 1950! But today, we can look at it the same way we look at Republic Pictures. Martine Carol will be a star of this kind of movie, so is Raymond Rouleau.

This is one of the most beautiful movie I ever seen. This is a masterpiece of intelligence and cinematography. Splendid camera work and a brillant integration of music and bit of spoken words. It also captures the essence of childhood. It's simply pure poetry. Remember that films are made to be seen: in early days, it was moving pictures. Here we have that essence: we see pictures. No need to listen, no need of dialogues : just pictures, as beautiful as a painting, as photography. I'm very happy that the other viewers loves this film. But I'm a little bit sad to see that it just got 6 or something out of 10 votes. See it again and again. Taste it a lot of times.

The idea is not new. The idea is dangereous. I think Mel Gibson made a film similar... While I was watching this, I was thinking how stupid it should have been with Julia Roberts or Harrison Ford in it. But because it was made with a low budget, because the actors are not stars (both guys are very good), because it's away from Hollywood, it goes on very well, and had some sort of sincere credibility. The finale is a very warm touching love scene. Independant low budget films are the only ones representative of the US cinema. This is a good example of just simple quality film without millions or stars, or Oscars, or anything silly of< that sort.

How I have fun watching this! Every five minutes, there's a cliche. A BAD cliche. When something seems to go well for poor little Natalie, hop : there's goes a bad vibe! Of course, there's an alcoolic, a tornado, the guy who wants to be famous in California, a baby named Americus (Gosh...) and it ends with a wedding. What else? So much! Every time, my girlfriend and I were laughing and shouting : No! No! Stop that! It's ridiculous! It reminds me of the Italian melodramas of the early 1950's, or the USA Z movies of the same 1950's. Reminds me a lot of these awful soap opera of the afternoon. And worse than everything : it is very very conservative. This is the new Dearest Momie.