Based on Roger Ebert’s memoirs, Life Itself,
this documentary was directed by Steve James, who directed Ebert’s favorite
film of the 1990’s Hoop Dreams, is a naked portrayal of the film critic, the
man, and the life of the most popular film critic of all time.
Presented for the first time at the 2014 Sundance Film Festival, Life Itself was also available in
streaming for those who helped raise the necessary funds to finish the
production of this feature. Filming began in 2012 and continued until the death
of Ebert to be completed a short time after to get interviews with his friends,
his wife Chaz Ebert, and fellow film critics.
Having only seen some episodes of the celebrated TV show of the same name and the first movie I can't say that I am a fan or an expert of the show. My recent viewing of Sex And the City 2 was mainly influenced by my girlfriend who loved the TV show. I am a good public when it comes to comedy, and the few episodes I've seen of the show made me laugh and I liked the reflexion it brings about the modern day woman. So don't get me wrong here I was not forced to go to that movie at all.
In their second adventure on the big screen, the four girls of New York are taken out of their comfort zone and they go to Abu Dhabi. The main plot of the movie is the marriage of Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) that tends to fall into the routine of an "old couple". The other minor plots elements are the hot nanny that upsets the mother, the lawyer that works too much for a boss that never shows gratitude and the nympho (Kim Cattral) that is having her menopause.
A movie like Sex And the City 2 is made for the fans of the show and it never pretends to become a great picture as the ones it referred: It Happened One Night and a Cary Grant picture I don't remember the title. Well, the film also refers classic films in its music, the scene when the girls arrive in the desert we hear a remix of the celebrated Lawrence of Arabia score. Well, I know critics were rude against that movie and if it was not from a celebrated TV show It would have been different. But since it was made for the fans, and for the cast too (they seem to have such fun and it made the movie fun for the audience) I would say that I had many good laughs and the fans were charmed.
This second cinematic offering is better than the first and having in mind its purpose I think they accomplished their goal. Every girl that got out of the theater had a big smile of satisfaction on their face and seemed to have enjoyed their movie.
So be aware, this is a movie for the fans of Sex And the City and it doesn't pretend to be anything else. It assumes its role perfectly.
Recently reviewed on Le Mot du Cinephiliaque, Michael Mann's Miami Vice was a precedent to this review of his film of last year: Public Enemies. I'll try not to repeat myself on some of the qualities of Mann's films, I promess. My expectations for Public Enemies were really high, first because like John Dillinger I love Gangster films. Second, because Michael Mann's pictures are always as entertaining as cinematically great. Third, because it's Johnny Depp and Christian Bale two of my favorite actors around. I liked Bale since American Psycho and Depp well since Edward Scissorhands.
The last years of the life of the famous bank robber John Dillinger(Johnny Depp), his love interest Billie Frechette(Marion Cottillard) and the man who chased him, Melvin Purvis(Christian Bale) are the subjects of Public Enemies.
Besides being the classic hide and seek chase movie, Public Enemies revisits the classic Gangster genre. Well, Michael Mann's films have this quality that I ultimely respect from a filmmaker which is to make a personal film that will make money, satisfy the critics and have its unique approach. He never makes a movie where the viewer is despised or out of its "comfort zone". The themes he visits are classics; love, duty, passion, obsession, etc. I know I'll receive tomatoes and stuff but I'd like to make a comparison of Michael Mann with one of the greatest directors of all-time: Howard Hawks. Hawks always had his style, his own way to tell a story. He did it in the "classic" cinematic genres too like Westerns, Film Noir, Slapstick, Comedies and Hawks always managed to have commercial success with his films. Well, I think Mann is the same kind of filmmaker mastering within the boundaries of successful movie business.
Another interesting topic about Mann's moviemaking is how his action scenes are efficient for the viewer. They never fell forced or useless but their major appeal is how they feel true. Linked with the action scenes are the scenes that leads to the action and that's what Mann is truly a master at. There are not that many shootings in Public Enemies, because Mann takes all his time to develop the motivations of the characters. Some frames are unusual but they don't feel arty just to be "cool" he doesn't have an exuberant style like Quentin Tarantino or Wes Anderson, but his sober "mise en scène" and deep realism that caracterize his filmmaking keeps the focus of the audience on the main elements of the movie: the characters, the story, and the dialogues.
If you haven't seen the feature I must warn you that the next section contains spoilers.
The whole film is a strong piece of Cinema. But to me, the final 30 minutes or so of the movie are just sublime. The scene where Dillinger enters in the Police station in the Dillinger squad room and looks at all the pictures and stuff about him. A place where every policeman must have dreamt to know where he is hidden and to catch the guy that is just standing there and asking for the score of the game. This is a blissful moment of Cinema. Moreover, the scene that comes after this, where Dillinger is at the movies and watches a Clark Gable picture titled Manhattan Melodrama he sees what could have been a different (happy?) ending for him. It's a fact that John Dillinger was a movie buff. The scene is not that long but its execution and the build up of the tension is just perfect. We all know how it's gonna end but just don't know exactly when, the wait is endless.
Few films have this mastery to achieve to execute a powerful effect of the "film in the film" like that and in Public Enemies it's just excellent.
From the writer of Adaptation, Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind Charlie Kaufman, comes a masterpiece directed with great mastery.
Philip Seymore Hoffman portrays Caden Cotard, a theater writer and director. He is awarded a grant to do a grandiose play that will take place in a huge warehouse. But it' the work of his life, literally. It tells his life before, his present life and even some scenes will take place in his future. This is a uncommon story from one of the most uncommon screenwriter of all-time.
The structure of the film is very deep in meaning. It is probably Kaufman's most personnal script to date too; its dense, intelligent, captivating, and intoxicating. Synecdoche, New York is sometimes the knid of film you have to read between the lines and other times the plot is evident the characters even tell themselves their motivations and anxieties. The passage through time is to the viewer to discover and instead of being annoying it just flows naturally.
Philip Seymore Hoffman is as always excellent in his role of Caden Cotard. He gives to the character his sense of desperation and inspiration. The supporting players are all inspired too and it seems that they feel privileged to be a part of the first film directed by one of the most estimated screenwriters of our time.
Besides its slow tempo Synecdoche, New York is a monument of moviemaking!
Very underrated when it came out, this adaptation to the big screen of one of the most successful television series of the 1980's; Miami Vice disappointed many moviegoers that waited for a Lethal Weapon kinda crime/comedy movie. The comedic side is never exploited in this Michael Mann film. It may be one of the precursors of the return to the 80's of the end of the last decade. In fashion, style and culture this comeback to the years when my generation was born is something more close to commercial nostalgia than simple return to basics. The 80's were a decade where "more is more" paraphrasing Mies Van Der Rohe's "Less is More". Mann's Miami Vice is an underrated masterpiece like William Friedkin's underrated To Live and Die in L.A. and you know what? this last one was made in the 80's!!!
Miami Vice is the classic cop story where two partners are going undercover in the drug dealing underworld to find the bad guys who killed their partner. At this point there's nothing really new, but as long as the story goes the multi layered plot of these two cops/friends just got better and better. Mann wants us to pay attention to every detail of the film: the many eyes we can see on posters, graffitis, paintings and the recurring thunders in the sky at crucial moments of the movie everything is precisely put in place for a reason.
The styled and uncluttered cinematography lighted with crude and natural light gives a sense of reality to the images of the film and to the choices of unusual frames that gives a subtil artistic touch to the simplistic yet modern sets.
Brilliantly cast with a strong as always Jamie Foxx and the sometimes categorized as uneven Colin Farrel that gives one of his best nuanced performances in Miami Vice. Like the story, their characters are strong and multi layered in emotions. Their friendship is unshakable and even when literally sleeping with the devil they stand together.
Of being one of the commercial flops of the summer of 2006 Miami Vice stands strong and may be one of the center movies of Michael Mann's filmography with Heat, Collateral and The Insider. This is the kind of film I can watch again and again for its interesting story as for its filmic qualities.
Of the many comedies we encounter these years, many are just stupid and some like Judd Apatow's are refreshing. Other movies like Forgetting Sarah Marshall or (500) Days of Summer have more qualities than just giving you a fat laugh. I would put John Hamburg's movie, I Love You, Man in this category; near Apatow and the last two movies cited.
Especially when the main character makes me think of me, I like the movie even more. Like Joseph Gordon-Levitt in (500) Days of Summer, Paul Rudd's Peter is a character I easily identify myself with. Well, it's been more than 8 years I'm with my girlfriend - btw, since last september fiancée - and I have some friends but none very close... My major problem is like Peter in the film: I don't take the time to call the "guys" to hang around and maintain my friendships. WHy I'm telling you that, because it resumes the starting point of the film. Peter will get married but he doesn't have a best man/best friend. We follow is quest to find the perfect guy friend. The chase could remind some catchy romantic comedies where the girl desperately tries to find the right guy for her life. It gives place to funny moments that never fell into easy gay gags or bad taste humor.
The friendship he develops is very cool and I can say I hardly been close to a friend like Peter and Sidney got. They complete each other very well and they make a great "friend" couple. It reminded of a friend that I lost track that probably recognize himself here; D.B. and J.N. call me if you read these lines... Friendship is something we don't see that often in movies because they prefer to show love or hate relationships.
I know I Love You, Man is not the greatest film of all-time or a movie life changing experience but I consider it like a efficient feel good movie with sincere laughs, light hearted and I just have to add one last thing: Rush rocks!
Available on YouTube the Oscar winner for the Best Short Animated feature is a must see! To just seize all the logos of the different brands appearing on screen and how they used them to tell a fast moving little story that itself needs a second and a third screening for the pleasure of it all.
A little gem!
---------------------------
Disponible en visionnement gratuit sur YouTube. Le gagnant de l'Oscar du Meilleur court métrage animé, Logorama vaut le clique de se rendre sur YouTube. Plusieurs visionnements vous serons nécessaires juste pour avoir le temps de remarquer tous les logos utilisés comme des éléments de tous les jours, un peu comme l'hyper commercialisation que l'on connaît de nos jours...
En plus d'une histoire vraiment divertissante Logorama est un véritable petit bijoux!
From my tender childhood Disney's Alice in Wonderland was one of my favorite cartoon for its humor (those who know me know how I like things twisted especially in my humor!) its story and the wonderful and uncommon colors of the "original" film. When I first read that Tim Burton was going to do it in film I thought no other director could bring his own vision to Lewis Carroll's oeuvre better than the king of the weird eerie Hollywood gothic films so popular has; Edward Swissorhand, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow, etc. Well, now after seing it I don't know if I liked it enough to say it was good, sure it isn't bad but that doesn't make it good for that...
Burton's film is not a remake of the 1951 animated version but the non-official sequel to it, I think it was a good idea to do it that way... It's Alice's return in Wonderland 13 years later and she has to be true to herself to conquer the Wonderland (her mind) and to conquer the lead of her own life.
The sets, the costumes, the choice of actors and the story feels right and I don't think that is the problem. It's probably Tim Burton that went with a too safe approach to make it darker or weirder or more Burtonesque... There's a little something that feels unsatisfying about Alice. The British weird sense of humor that coloured Carroll's œuvre and the 1951 especially in the tea party.
On another topic, the 3D version I had the chance to see at a IMAX theater here in Quebec City feels sloppy and sometimes unfocused. I don't know if it's gonna be like that for future 3D releases but I'm not a 100% charmed by the thing. Well, I'm not a 3D animation lover anyway, but I thought that technology corrected the sloppiness of 3D images. I may sound a purist when I write that but except the fact the studios want to get people out of their homes to go see the films in theaters, 3D didn't brought anything better to films so far.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is worth the look but I must recommand Disney's 1951 version before watching the unofficial sequel of 2010 just to compare the two stories and the different approaches on their subject.
A Sci-Fi movie set in South Africa telling the relocalisation of aliens that lived like a group excluded from society. Does it ring a bell here... Shot in a documentary style and produced by Peter Jackson: expectations were high!
We follow Wikus (Sharlto Copley, who reminded me of a young Robert De Niro) the nervous and young executive son in law of the chief of MNU in charge of the Aliens. He is designated to be in charge of the Alien deportation. The film opens with the preparations of the eviction. We follow the leader of this mission: Wikus. His team enters into the Alien ghetto until things turns bad for the mission and for Wikus...
One thing that I truly love about Science-Fiction is the parallels made with real events and how the writers manage to translate them into a fiction. Like the "Apartheid" on the Aliens in District 9 or the imminent communist attack translated by the alien in the form of a man in The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), etc. We could go on forever with the many translations Sci-fi films gave us. In this case, District 9 picks up with the great tradition of pure Science-Fiction and refresh the genre with a different approach. It does not reinvent the genre, but it gives a new breath because it's been a while since movie goers had a good Sci-Fi flick.
A very good film that deserved his unattended Oscar nominations. It has the depth to be a fun ride and make you do a reflexion on intolerance and "alien" nations.
Valentine's Day is the new movie from the director who made the refreshing Pretty Woman in 1990, Runaway Bride and the two Princess Diaries. Well, not a talented firector but a veteran. He should be armed to make an efficient movie and entertain his public.
With his last movie, Valentine's Day he fails to make an entertaining and efficient. Since the succes of Love Actually we've seen many attempt to recreate the same multi stories based on different kinds of love, for example last year's He's Just Not That Into You was a complete failure and can be one of the worsts of 2009.
For Valentine' s Day it's pretty much the same, a cast of many big names, many stories that touch many characters. The too many stories set in Valentine's Day diluate their quality. Because there is not a single story that goes very far and the film has no deepness in it. They fell into clichés of melodrama. The characters are so sterortyped that they could have drew them with a big black marker.
So stories had potential but they all felt fake and unvanished. I think if the script had been reworked and some stories thrown out this could have make an entertaining and efficient film.
On the appreciation side, if I can had something to what has been said before, well I dislike the kind of movie where the producers thinks that people are stupid and that they will buy whatever story just because it's Valentine's Day in L.A.. Now I can't wait for the holidays to rewatch Love Actually and see an entertaining and efficient film!
Telling the 500 days of the relationship between Summer (Zooey Deschanels) and Tom (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in unchronological order, (500) Days of Summer is a charming American indie film.
Without falling into absolute cheesyness and thousand times seen clichés the story is taught on Tom's point of view of their relationship. Gordon-Levitt gives a strong and touching performance in his 80's indie music lover/wannabe architect greeting card writer instead. The soundtrack is amazing with forgotten bands like The Smiths, The Clash and indie rock bands of the moment like Mumm-Ra. Well, since I'm a music lover when the music of a film fell in my tastes I tend to appreciate the film a little bit more.
The character of Tom is so real and well nuanced by Gordon-Levitt' performance that I easily identified myself to him. (Well, it's easy since we approximately have the same age, music tastes, and personnalities...) Enough of me!
Summer portrayed by Zooey Deschanel who gives a very good performance in an uncommon character. Sometimes she is too distant in the character and her presence could have been a little stronger in the more dramatic scenes.
For Marc Webb, the director this is a great sophomore effort and I think he did what I would do if I someday I could direct my films; please myself with classic foreign films references... I'm not gonna list them here but let's say if you're into Ingmar Bergman you'll have a good laugh...
I truly loved (500) Days of Summer, it doesn't reinvent the genre but it refresh it in a very good way. One of the runners-up to my Top 10 of 2009.
Sam Raimi has made cult horror films for my generation of film buffs with The Evil Dead trilogy, landmark comic book adaptations Darkman, Spider-Man I-II-III (I wish I could erase this last one from my memory). He has done an excellent western "à la Leone" The Quick and the Dead and after maybe his only disaster, Spider-Man 3 (yes I say it again), he goes back to his beginning genre; Horror.
Drag Me to Hell is the story of Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) who works at a bank and attempts to earn an advancement for her career but also to impress the parents of her 1 year boyfriend, Clay (Justin Long). One day an old woman ask for a loan and to impress her boss Brown refuses to the woman who turns out to be a gypsie... The crazy gypsie curse Christine and now begind the madness of Drag me to Hell. I'm not a big fan of horror films and I don't like to be surprised by jumping creatures in calm moments but Drag Me to Hell is a very efficient movie. The directing is top notch and the horror parts are very creepy and mad. There's not much of blood or gore effects but some disgusting parts make this one a PG-13.
Even if horror isn't my cup of tea I think Drag me to Hell is a very good film and Sam Raimi sure is still one of the best filmmaker of horror films! He doesn't loose his touch at all, I think he even got better even if The Evil Dead had this juvenile urge to create and churn out something new and uncommon...
I must say that zombie movies is my favorite subgenre in Horror. From Night of the Living Dead to Shaun of the Dead I always enjoy a zombie brain being smashed. It's like they are not people getting kill; they're already dead! From Romero's films that denounced racism, consumerism and all the XXth century "diseases" to the zombie/romantic comedy of Shaun of the Dead I think that zombie flick are great. I excuse myself now of being enthusiastic. With that done we'll get to the review.
Zombieland doesn't start progressively to how the earth became dead, it's already done. We follow a small group of four that will try to live as normal as they can in a world surrounded by zombies. It's not a film where you try to figure out the meaning of life or how to save the planet from being devastated. We don't learn a lesson from the story either but we embark on a ride of fun. From the opening credits which are the best I've seen in years til the end I've laugh myself out loud and I was clapping my lap all along. The many allusions to the film of my childhood (which I'm not gonna spoil for you here) was a big pleasure for me.
It is far from the many nihilistic zombie films we are accostumed. I found this film to be fresh, appealing, and a big load of fun!
Nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, written by the winners of best Screenplay for Fargo and directed by those same guys that won for Best achievement in Directing and Best Picture in 2007 for No Country for Old Men, one of the best films of the last decade. The Coen brothers are making uncommon genre films since their first film; Blood Simple (1984). They have their lots of success Fargo, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing, The Big Lebowski, Barton Fink, O' Brother Where Art Thou?, No Country for Old Men, and they have their share of flaws too The Hudsucker Proxy, Intolerable Cruelty (for the audience), The Ladykillers, The Man Who Wasn't There, and maybe Burn After Reading. In the case of A Serious Man to me it felt in the second category. I didn't had any expectations because I haven't read any reviews of it and I wanted to have my own idea on this one.
This is the story of a Jewish family in the 1960's where a teacher of mathematics, Larry Gopnik has his life splatting everywhere, his wife wants a divorce, his daughter his stealing from him, his son is gonna have his Bar Mitzvah but he only thinks of being stone, his brother is sick physically and mentally... Well, the events surpasses him and he doesn't know how to handle them. Anyway, even with all these misfortunes the Coen brothers couldn't made me care for poor Larry.
Visually its nothing like what the Coens presented to us before, it's all about grey and dull colors everywhere. It illustrate well how the story feels. On the other hand, the editing is very dynamic and helps the scenes to the wonderful script. A Serious Man is not a complete failure, the story has rich lines and the events fell in the right place. I just think that the story could have been more structured on supporting characters that are more accessories to the story than involved in it. It would have made the film more viewable, 'cause it's a very cold film.
I really enjoy the best of what the Coens have offered but I think A Serious Man is a personnal film for them and it doesn't has the deep inspiration they often bring to their better films with their dark humour and violent turnovers...
Fort du succès en librairie de son jumeau Les Hommes qui n'aimaient pas les femmes, Millénium; le Film n'a pas eu besoin de publicité très élaborée pour attirer ses lecteurs en salle. Une bande annonce accrocheuse et une affiche efficace rappelant la couverture sobre du roman ont suffi pour le Québec.
Étant l'un des lecteurs de Stieg Larsson, le film m'a paru une suite logique dans mon cheminement dans le monde de Lisbeth et Mikael. Fait entièrement en Suède et tiré du roman du défunt Larsson, Millénium; Le Film relate l'histoire d'un journaliste économique, Mikael Blomkvist, qui sort perdant d'un procès pour diffamation et qui accepte de bosser pour un ancien grand PDG de l'industrie suédoise afin de découvrir des nouveaux éléments dans la disparition de sa nièce. De l'autre côté nous voyons l'histoire d'une jeune femme renfermée et très "Dark" du nom de Lisbeth Salander mais qui s'avère un génie informatique du "hacking". De fil en aiguille ils feront affaire ensembles pour découvrir une histoire qui ose relever plusieurs tabous qui touchent la Suède d'hier et d'aujourd'hui.
L'enquête est très dynamique et les découvertes nous gardent en haleine tout le long du récit. Plusieurs scènes sont dures et ne s'adressent pas à un auditoire fragile et sensible. Cependant, c'est une adaptation sans compromis commercial et de censure. Le passé National-Socialiste de la Suède et le viol de femmes est soulevé sans fioritures et mérite d'être félicité car on réussi à ne pas dédramatiser ces éléments trop souvent passés rapidement et oubliés. La force du récit de Larsson est de passer un message sérieux dans un contenu attrayant et divertissant.
Bref, un film qui fait réfléchir et qui dénonce sans s'enfoncer dans le mélo-drame.
Depuis plus de dix ans la conquête du 3D dans le film d'animation n'a pas cessée d'évoluer. Le détail et la qualité de chaque nouveau film surpasse le précédent. Cependant, comme dans le blockbuster et le film à grand budget la qualité des effets spéciaux ne fait pas la qualité du film en soit. De plus, le public ciblé par le film d'animation est, sauf preuve du contraire, un public d'admission générale. Ainsi, pondre une histoire qui peut interpeller un vaste public et ravir tous et chacun est une tâche plus que ardue.
Dans le cas de Up, c'est un travail réussi. La qualité des images et des animations est parfaite. Du côté de l'histoire, on nous transporte comme seul les plus grands classiques de Disney ont su le faire. C'est un des cinq meilleurs films d'animation de tous les temps. La force du récit est qu'il comporte une histoire où l'on ne considère pas les enfants comme des idiots et où l'imagination est au rendez-vous. L'imagination, c'est la première valeur et la première qualité que l'on devrait nous imposer lors de notre naissance. C'est l'essence de la soif de savoir, de la curiosité, de la création, du surpassement de soi et le premier pas vers la solution à tous nos problèmes.
Up nous raconte l'histoire de la vie de M. Frederickson qui vient de perdre sa tant aimée épouse avec qui il vécue une vie presque remplie. Une seule chose lui a manquée et il pourra y remédier grâce à son départ avec sa maison soulevée par des milliers de ballons gonflés à l'hélium. Se grefferont à lui le jeune scout Russell, le désopilant Doug et le criard Kevin. Bref, on passe en leur compagnie un voyage drôle, agréable et charmant et pas seulement pour les enfants!
Retournant à son style plus contemplatif et mesquin (lire ici: mesquin envers son auditoire) que son précédent Broken Flowers, Jarmusch nous offre un film proche de la perfection. J'écris bien proche et non parfait. Son personnage principal, joué par De Bankolé, est un homme de peu de mots et de peu d'action. L'acteur nous livre une performance hypnoptisante et captivante. Sa quête nous reste inconnue jusqu'au dénouement final, qui je vous le dit, vaut le détour.
La réalisation de Jarmusch est encore une fois très efficace et à mon humble avis l'une de ses meilleures. On y retrouve ses obsessions habituelles; les nombreuses références au Cinéma des années 50 et 60, des personnages dessinés au marqueur noir et coloriés au ridicule, une histoire sans trompette ni fanfare ainsi qu'une panoplie d'acteurs de talents. Chaque élément énoncé, montré et traité fait rapport à l'histoire et tout élément est à considérer. C'est un Cinéma pur et tamisé. Seul bémol, il demande une bonne connaissance du Cinéma pour en apprécier ses valeurs profondes. C'est un film qui me fait penser à un bon vin que l'on paie 30$ la bouteille mais que l'on n'aurait pas les papilles pour en apprécier toute les qualités.
De plus, la bande sonore est réalisée par un band très intéressant du nom de Boris et qui se prête parfaitement aux atmosphères du film.
Finalement, Jarmusch nous évoque une guérilla qu'il a entreprise depuis ses débuts au Cinéma et qui se résume dans le titre de son oeuvre; The Limits of Control. Pour cinéphiles avertis seulement.
From the director of Juno and Thank You for Smoking, Jason Reitman son of Ivan, presents a sometimes romantic / sometimes drama / sometimes comedy / sometimes off-beat film of a man Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) who's job is his perfect life; he is hired by companies to fire people all around America. He loves to travel and he loves the fact that he has no strings attached anywhere. Until, his dreamjob meets technology and new advancements. Well, I don't want to ruin any punch to anyone, so my summary will end here. I think it's a very good story.
I enjoyed Juno and all its teenage goofyness melancholy and I haven't seen Thank You for Smoking yet. But, I had many problems with Up in the Air that doesn't seem to fit into comedy or drama or romantic comedy. I don't need a film to be defined as clear as black and white but sometimes the situations don't fit into any genre and some scenes go everywhere. On the other side I disliked the fact that they had to put scenes of interviews with people who had been fired who express their feelings and their motivations to make the film more human. It's a cold film and the color I could put on that movie is definitly Grey. Like Bingham's apartment, it has no personnality and you don't want to stay there.
Anyway, the film is off-beat but it's not like if you're stuck in a traffic jam, it flows right and the rythm is good. I really liked the story but in my opinion, it was not well exploited. The first act goes really well but after I think some strings are messed up big time. For this reason I think it's the kind of movie you like when just watched it. And then, five years later you don't really need to see it again and you don't really want to either.
First of all, the story of Sherlock Holmes has been brought to the screen so many times and by so many great directors (Buster Keaton, Billy Wilder) that for a long time nobody wanted to touch the myth. Anyhow, Guy Ritchie (Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) was the chosen one to bring back with an allstar cast the greatest detective in London's History.
The movie opens with an action sequence planned to immerge immediately the viewer into the film. As well planned and spectacular as it is, the sequence destabilize us and we have to concentrate onto the charaters to understand what really goes on. The photography is really dark and we don't discern really well the actors in the shadows. I must say, that the film is pretty dark all the time and that sometimes it gives a good atmosphere for the scenes but other times it's just too dark. After the first sequence where Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) capture Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) the film slows down a bit and the mise-en-scène of the story takes place. Lord Blackwood is hanged for black magic and murders. The real story starts when the body of Lord Blackwood disappears from his grave.
The big story of Sherlock Holmes is the investigation of the criminal that we all attend. Also, it has the subplots of love, friendship and stories that came before the main plot. The relationship between Holmes and Watson is interresting and really funny. They look like an old couple, well it's the classic friendship story with the jokes and the relations like The Sting or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The two main actors complete well each other and I must give a special mention to the vilain played by Mark Strong who was very credible.
Sherlock Holmes is a funny film that is worth seing and that doesn't reinvent the genre but that refresh the quality of what a blockbuster has to present these days. The only thing that tickled me a little was the many action scenes that felt to me as too many even if they were well orchestrated... And where the hell did Sherlock Holmes learned Kung Fu!?!
7/10 A review by Michaël Parent
Dans un premier temps, l'histoire de Sherlock Holmes fut maintes fois adaptées au grand écran et par de brillants réalisateurs (Buster Keaton, Billy Wilder). C'est probablement pour cela qu'il n'avait pas été réadapté depuis un bon bout de temps. Guy Ritchie (Snatch , Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) fut le cinéaste choisit pour faire une nouvelle adaptation du plus grand détective de l'histoire de Londres.
Le film commence avec une séquence d'action dans le but d'immerger complètement le spectateur dans le film. Aussi bien planifié et orchestrée soit telle, cette séquence déstabilise le spectateur qui cherche qui personnage est à l'écran. De plus, la photographie est très sombre et certaines fois on ne distingue que très peu ce que l'on voit dans l'ombre. Après cette première scène ou Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) et Watson (Jude Law) capturent Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) l'histoire ralentit et la l'histoire se met en place. Lord Blackwood est pendu pour meurtre et magie noire. L'histoire débute avec la découverte de la disparition du corps du meurtrier.
Sherlock Holmes, le film, possède une enquête telle qu'on s'en attend mais aussi plusieurs sous histoires (amours, amitiés, anciens amours) qui sont plus intéressantes que le récit principal. La relation entre Holmes et Watson est vraiment bien jouée par les deux acteurs qui se complètent bien à l'écran. Ils forment un duo très comique de deux amis se connaissant presque aussi bien qu'un vieux couple. Mention spéciale à Mark Strong qui nous offre un vilain très crédible.
On ne réinvente pas le genre ici mais c'est très rafraichissant de voir un bon "blockbuster" avec de bonnes qualités réalisé par Guy Ritchie. La seule chose qui m'a un peu énervée personnellement, sont les trop nombreuses scènes de bagarres qui peuplent le film même si elles ont superbement été tournées...
Pour toute personne intéressée par le Cinéma je vous présente ici une lecture incontournable pour votre culture générale et qui permet à tous de saisir l'histoire du Cinéma ainsi que l'approche personnelle qu'avait Alfred Hitchcock vis-à-vis du média et de ses propres films. Écrit par François Truffaut l'un des visages les plus important de la Nouvelle Vague française cinéaste inspiré et critique des Cahiers du Cinéma ayant des connaissances encyclopédiques.
Dans le livre Hitchcock on nous présente une série d'entrevues entre ces deux grands du Cinéma. Réalisées sur plusieurs années, ces entrevues sont menées par Truffaut qui laisse une grande place au maître du suspense à s'exprimer sur les thèmes, les forces et aussi les faiblesses de ses films. Certains détracteurs de ce livre comme Ingmar Bergman, ont dit que la personnalité prétentieuse de Hitchcock prend toute la place et qu'on n'en voit pas l'analyse de ses travaux. Malgré les faiblesses du livre il reste tout de même incontournable!
François Truffaut, avec la collaboration de Helen G. Scott, Hitchcock, rev. ed., Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984.
