Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
See it
21 August 2022
Is it a good film? I don't know. I am not sure it is the real question here. Is it worth it? Hell yes. It is more tought provoking, intense, weird, vital and important then 99.5% of the movies out there. So give it a try. At worst, you will see wonderful actors and maybe learn a few things about recent history. At best, you will see something else that cinema can be, besides super hero movies and entertainment.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Spectacular and touching
23 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe the rating for this film is so low. The actors are amazing, the settings are spectacular, the war scenes are blood curling, the story is for grown ups with adult subjects. That's from a time when cinema was still truly a spectacular and noble art, and extras, sets and explosions were not all CGI and green screens. If you are not horrified when the Italian army retreats and the doctor is shoot, you have no heart. Sure you can argue forever to know if the movie is faithful or not to Hemingway. But forget that, it works perfectly well on its own. Enjoy!
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Entertaining but not great
5 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Was it worth 10 years of wait? No.

Is it entertaining? Yes.

The biggest problem is the story is full of holes and the pacing is not great. While it worked fine in the shorter tv format, it is quite frustrating that characters come and go totaly randomly, that some have one or two lines, that some actions that could have been interesting are skipped, but that some scenes that are not very interesting go on and on (like the opening and the sport match).

Even Lancelot only have a stint and no character development: what is he doing with Mevanwi, why does he hide Guenievre? Don't know. How did Arthur ended up in slavery when we last saw him in Roma? No idea. And the numerous flashbacks to the young Arthur bring nothing to the story or backstory.

Still the lines are funny, the costumes crazy, the music great and it's heartwarming to see all those actors again.

But in the end, it feels more like a supercut of tv skits then like an actual movie. Also, I am pretty sure the upcoming film will focus on the younger generation of characters introduced here, Star Wars style.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Family First (2018)
4/10
Annoying
15 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Those have to be the most annoying characters/actors I have seen in a long time: the crazy younger broher, the violent dealer uncle, the weeping alchoholic mother. Ho, and the good-guy-who-is born-in-a-criminal-family-and-wants-secretly-to-go-away-from-the-violence-but-can't because, loyalty and stuff, you know. In brief, a cheap copy of gangster movies from the 70s.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Something is missing
2 November 2018
The actors are wonderful, the photography is somptuous, yet something is missing. The film fails to reach the epic and tragic dimensions of truly great contemporary westerns. The story is too sketchy and the background stories of the characters too naive. The movie also fails to transmit the true darkness and irony of the book, which are not limited to gun violence. It all wants too feel raw and edgy but is really just beautiful but void.
17 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/11: The Falling Man (2006 TV Movie)
6/10
History or personnal tragedy?
14 September 2018
Very interesting to make a film about a single photo, its an original approach to 911. For the life of me, I cant understand why the so-called jumpers were morally condamned by some people, and ignored by many. They were victims too, no matter how they died. The film tries to explain that, but it doesnt dig deep past a few people personal quest. Those people are very generous and courageous to speak about their loved one. But the film is too cautious to lead to a real reflexion about history and its narrative.
3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Fascinating but incomplete
3 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I dont know what part, if any, of the truth this documentary shows, but it it interesting to see the human side of the fbi and cia agents. Some seem to live with a burden I wouldnt want to share. They make fascinating and excentric characters.

Surprisingly, the actual raid and the murder of Bin Laden are never shown in anyway or form. It is problematic that the violence and moral pitfalls of the hunt stay very abstract, except for a few comments on black holes and torture.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Too many things
6 February 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I am very ambivalent about this film. It is a real pleasure to see so many great actors, all at the top of their game: Colin Farrell, Keira Knightley, Ray Winstone, Thewlis. But the script is all over the place and in the end, deeply unconvincing. It is as if the filmmaker couldn't make up his mind about what story he wanted to tell: a story about celebrity? cinema? gangsters? a love story between a star and a nobody? revenge? redemption? Maybe a better writer could have pulled it, but it is not the case here. Just the duel between Winstone and Farrell would have made a great movie, but why throw in a traumatized movie star, and a nymphomaniac sister and a killer producer and who the hell was Joe that was killed in the beginning?! It is just too much, too many useless characters, to many storie lines, too hard to believe, too much plot holes. Still it is weirdly entertaining, thanks to Winstone and Farrell's wonderful charisma. It is really a case where the actors pleasure and work almost redeem a very, very bad script.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bad filmmaking
12 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, if you have seen the 3 Paradise Lost films or the 48 Hours coverage there is nothing new here. The film explains yet again why the WM3 are innocents - which is difficult to doubt - and tries to find another suspect, like Paradise Lost 3 did with Byer. Even if the man in question is guilty, it should not be up to a film to make accusations and substitute itself to a court of law. Paradise Lost 3 proved you can easily be wrong, even if all the evidences seems to be there. A lot of questions about he film itself are left unanswered, like why we see almost exclusively Damien and so few of Jason and Jessie. Did they refuse to participate? Were they left aside by the production? The implication of Peter Jackson and his wife is weird too; listening to him we have the impression he financed and directed all the process leading to the liberation of the 3. Moreover, a lot of things are pointless, especially the part with Stevie Branch sister's. What are we to make of her ordeal? She had a difficult life, but it doesn't prove anything. Last but not least, the film is incredibly badly filmed and edited. I don't remember having seen so many useless images in a documentary in a long time. It is like every time she doesn't have an image that goes with the sound, the filmmaker turns to meaningless images of cars, chairs or whatever. There is no visual imagination here, which is kind of frustrating giving the power of the subject.

If you know nothing about the case, this film can work as a summary, but nothing more.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Gangster (2012)
7/10
Messy but entertaining
24 July 2013
I knew nothing of the film when I saw it and it was a good surprise. Sure the storyline is messy and full of holes, and it is difficult to understand what is going on and why, especially in the first part. But the film is full of energy, action and the actors are great. Krisada Sukosol Clapp makes a great action hero ; he is both scary and touching, making his character deeply human. Apart from being a gangster movie, it is too a historical film of epic proportion; a lot of work went into the recreation of the 1950s and 1960s. I don't know if the depiction of Bangkok in the fifties is historically accurate, but it a interesting to see those gangsters with Elvis, James Dean as heroes and rock and roll everywhere. True or not we believe this vision of the past and of Thailand's history. Not to be missed if you are a fan of gangster films!
10 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sweetwater (2013)
8/10
Interesting
21 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
As far as contemporary western goes, this one is very good. The obvious influence of There will be Blood and Terrence Malick can be annoying, especially in the opening sequences. But then the film find is own identity in a very dark, even macabre, humor and a very nihilistic view of human nature. It give some real piece of anthology, as when the pastor wake up to find the sheriff sitting at his kitchen table with two dead bodies he just digged out; or when Sarah shot a voyeuristic shop owner up the ass. The plot, as the title points out, is one of revenge, but it is not that important. Obviously, the director is more interested in characters and actors then storytelling. All the actors are fantastic, and are allowed to give creative, over the top performances. The result is both fun and unsettling to watch, even if it is sometime frustrating.
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Shadow (II) (2009)
2/10
Avoid at all cost
14 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I am very very very patient with horror movies, but this one was just unbearable. It is a big mess of ideas stolen from many films : a survivalist twist from Deliverance, the monster from Creep, a bit of torture porn from, well, anywhere. And, ho! a reference to our troubled times of wars and fears - which is just plain shocking because it exploits a real tragedy to pretend the film has a meaning. Add disposable actors, ridiculous hunters-with-big-trucks-and-dog, maybe haunted forest lost very far from civilization and you have a headache. The end doesn't explain anything, it just justify the lack of coherence and originality of the scenario.

That kind of films give to the horror genre its bad reputation!
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Broke Sky (2007)
7/10
A good surprise
13 October 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I knew nothing about this film when I saw it, but it turned out to be a good surprise. The atmosphere is weirdly sympathetic, the humor very twisted, the best is made of the idea of the two characters being roadkill cleaners and the actors are fantastic. Joe Unger is very good, going from a nice looser to a very creepy and haunted man.

Unfortunately, the big "secret" in the characters past is rather disappointing. It is like if the filmmaker had lost confidence in his story of the 2 guys' jobs being menaced by technology and decided to add a big dark "punch" out of the blue.

Still, it is a great little film for lovers of the macabre.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed