Reviews written by registered user

5 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Avatar (2009)
6 out of 13 people found the following review useful:
It doesn't deserve its position nor its score, but..., 18 February 2010

I still give it a 1/10 because it clearly doesn't deserve 8.6/10 at the global rate and it doesn't deserve to be 53rd in the TOP250.

But this movie is not a waste of time or money. OK, the story is very weak (you don't need to see the movie for the story, you've already seen this over and over again), and the dialogs are weak as well... BUT (and this is a big BUT) you DO want to see this movie in the cinema, with 3D goggles, because it's a masterpiece when it comes to special effects, CGI and 3D. I have no words to describe it, it's mind blowing, that's what I can say.

Besides, this is the first time it has been done so well (3D movie, I mean), so you don't want to be the one in the group talking about it that never saw it properly. This is not a movie to download, this is actually not a movie to really talk about, this is an experience you just won't forget. And even if in a few years we'll have a bunch of 3D-movies very well made that will also blow our minds off, this is the first one, it's a turning point in the film industry, and Cameron deserves the credit of having taken his time to accomplish this spectacle.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Not a proper Terminator, 3 December 2009

What did we get before from Terminator movies ? A big and strong robot, played by Schwarzy, walking towards firing cops completely unharmed and either being disabled by some stunned civilians or disabling an even more evolved robot named T-1000 or T-X. You also get lots of humor, either from the reactions of the terminator (the basic Schwarzy humor, finding completely normal some of his amazing abilities, some critical situations or some troubling decision one could have to make in those situations) or from John Connor as a teenager discovering his control over that amazing robot or as a young adult being used to chaotic situations like the ones depicted in the Terminator movies. This is the "Terminator" idea, it has worked 3 times, because "YES" I believe Terminator 3 was a success and was made in the true spirit of that franchise.

Terminator 4 is a big flop in my point of view. Connor is now in the military, while I expected him to be more of a fighting civilian, isn't that what the resistance is supposed to be ? This Marcus Wright character comes out of nowhere... Sam Worthington playing him could probably work a lot more on his acting skills (so could Christian Bale for that matter). The humor is gone, Schwarzy's gone (replaced by some look-alike for about 10 seconds), John Connor is actually gone as well since he's now some kind of Rambo... Shortly said, the reason why people liked Terminator movies up until now is that it wasn't like this T4 movie.

It's like going from Predator 1 to Predator 2... same enemy, but completely different movies, and the second one sucked ! The reason why we like sequels like the "Bourne" ones, or the "Ocean's" ones, or even the "Lethal Weapon" ones, is that you get the same characters, the same humor, the same kind of set up and thus you keep the same public. Change all that, you just changed fans.

3/10 for the visual effects and the bike-terminators, those ones were actually really cool !

Valkyrie (2008)
11 out of 29 people found the following review useful:
2 hours lost, 25 November 2009

I have two words, and you can apply them as well to the effort of the film makers as to the (falsified) assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler depicted in it : Ambitious, but rubbish !

As some other IMDb users explained in their comments, this movie fails to point out the real reasons for this assassination attempt : they felt Hitler was completely crazy, and they wanted to get rid of him to take over and do a better job. Col. Claus von Stauffenberg was as racist as his fuhrer, and so were all those generals on his side. Jews, Poles, Russians and anyone not being a blue eyed blond sucker answering to the name of Hans or Heinrich or whatever were considered by them as subhumans or worse. This movie tries to point out some good people within history's most guilty nation for committing crimes against humanity, then it gives some sort of explanation for why we never heard of such Germans back then.

You also get the sense that the behavior of the characters in military environment is much more American than German. It's like having American troops, but they're just dressed as Germans. So you never really have the impression that you're in Nazi Germany.

History = wrong

Entertainment = absent

Tom Cruise's performance = rubbish (he doesn't even get the "ambitious" adjective)

1 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
Tarantissimo !, 23 November 2009

There are a lot of bad comments about this movie, there are as much bad comments in fact as there are good or even excellent comments about it.

First of all, this movie is typically made for the Tarantino-style fans. It's not a war movie, it's not a simple drama, it's not a history movie either, it's a Tarantino movie. And as a Tarantino movie, this clearly deserves a 10. Now I gave 9, because as a Tarantino fan myself, I just hope (and I know) that there's even more and better that could come from this special, yet excellent, director.

Why does everybody compare Tarantino movies to Pulp Fiction ? Pulp Fiction was a damn good movie, but you can't say it's his best. It's just... when I watch a Tarantino movie, whether it's Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill, Death Proof or now Inglorious Basterds; not only am I not thinking about or comparing it to any other Tarantino or non-Tarantino movie, but also I am actually not even evaluating the movie itself. He just makes scene-by-scene kind of movies I think. You have to listen to the dialog, admire its simplicity and complexity at the same time. You have to remember it's fiction and that his characters are not based on true stories in their attitudes, but that they are mostly the archetypes of their types. You're following a story, like you would with any other movie, but with Tarantino you're interested in the different characters and how they interact with each other.

Inglorious Basterds is, I think, just another little story that could have happened during World War 2. The interesting parts are the confrontations between different parties, like the German officer and a French farmer hiding Jews, the secretly disgusted and disguised Jew girl and a German hero or the British secret agent and the Gestapo officer. This movie shows for example how clever the Germans were, how bold the Americans were and even what cowards the French were. It's about an uneven battle and how things could have come down to particular situations.

Now, did I want to see more cruelty towards Nazi's ? Yes. Did I want to see more of Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz ? Yes. French being my mother tongue, did I feel like the French parts could have been better regarding the vocabulary and grammar used ? Yes. (because I have to admit, in Tarantino movies, characters always use typical accents, vocabulary and grammar... and the French scenes sounded a bit like the actors were reading their lines instead of speaking naturally, can't say anything about the German parts as I don't speak it very well) Would I rather have had Marion Cotillard in Shosonna's role than ex-porn-director-now-awful-actress Mélanie Laurent ? Definitely ! But I'm not going to disregard all that's good about the movie, I am definitely going to see this movie again, and more than once.

5 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Very bad movie, 23 November 2009

You won't be happy with this movie if you really like the story of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. It is the product of a big lack of creativity and respect for the original story.

I think the main problem is that they obviously tried to make this movie as if the story happens for the very first time, which is very wrong to begin with because you can't expect viewers to rediscover the whole thing with such a worldwide known story.

Apart from that, you really won't be satisfied either by the performance of the cast, or the "new plot" for that matter. It contains virtually no suspense, everything from the beginning until the end is very predictable and even the actors seem to have no interest at all for playing in this movie. When the movie ends, it gives you the feeling that they wanted to give you an idea of what it would have been if the events occurred to Henry Jekyll today instead of the late 19th century, but they were either incapable or they wanted it to be done very quickly (a bit like you didn't want to put too much time or effort in your school work last night, so you just applied some basic rules to it and did nothing more, hoping for a reasonable note).

So since they wanted it to look like it's a new story, let me put it this way : If Robert-Louis Stevenson had not written the story in 1886, but this movie would have been the original story, you can be sure nobody would even remember the title some 120 years from now. I give it a 1/10, only because 0 is not available.