Zero characterisation. Zero structure (a succession of sketches). Zero creativity. Since I did not care for the protagonist, I did not give a damn whether he would explode or not. There is much more stake and therefore much more suspense in “Juggernaut” (1974), another film with bomb disposal experts. Certain elements of “The hurt locker” do not make sense. Why does the first terrorist wait till the bomb disposal expert is leaving the premises to detonate his bomb ? Why does the protagonist not want to use the robot on his first mission ? How does he know the bomb is not radio activated ? One scene, the ambush in the desert, is totally unbelievable. The snipers manage to kill three soldiers from far away with plain portable machine guns when the protagonists have a hard time hitting them with a mounted machine gun. The fact that the protagonist is addicted to adrenaline is said several times in the movie but hardly shown. A little bit at the end when the protagonist prefers to return to Irak than shop with his wife and take care of his son. Which tells so much about the authors’ philosophy. One can feel very alive raising a child or working on one’s couple. It does not boil down to choosing cereals or making jacks in the boxes appear. On top of all this, the climax, if this is one, is very poor and the film carries a few clichés. Lastly, if there was a movie that proved that eratic camera shots and zoomings will never make a film alive, this is the one. "The hurt locker" is dead. The fact that American “professionals” are about to honor this movie is extremely saddening.
Reviews
9 Reviews
Cheating Love
(2006)
Much better than "On connaît la chanson"
23 January 2009
I totally disagree with Thirty Love. "On connaît la chanson" is overrated and "On va s'aimer" is better written, funnier, more creative. The only aspect of the film which threw me off is the dancing during the songs. Also, it's not fair to compare "On va s'aimer" with "On connaît la chanson" for the sole reason that they have characters singing songs. The two films don't tell the same story. I totally disagree with Thirty Love. "On connaît la chanson" is overrated and "On va s'aimer" is better written, funnier, more creative. The only aspect of the film which threw me off is the dancing during the songs. Also, it's not fair to compare "On va s'aimer" with "On connaît la chanson" for the sole reason that they have characters singing songs. The two films don't tell the same story.
Impressive art direction at the service of poor writing
7 January 2009
Impressive art direction at the service of poor writing. First of all, who is the protagonist ? Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) ? Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) ? Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) ? Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) ? Gibbs (Kevin McNally) ? The pirates as a whole ? Absolutely no idea. Second, who is with whom ? Why do they betray each other every ten minutes ? If the writers think a twist is when someone change motivations, they should go back to film school. What is left is a magnificent photography with great special effects and amazing settings. No food for thought. No food for the heart. Just food for the eye. 3 stars for the art directors, 0 for the writers.
Stranger Than Fiction
(2006)
Cowards !
1 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE and GROUNDHOG DAY have heirs. That's nice. Some concepts are not milked enough (see WHAT WOMEN WANT), some are. This is the case with STRANGER THAN FICTION. The problem, once more, is the ending. Harold Crick should have died. The literary expert played by Dustin Hoffman and Harold Crick himself agreed on that. He should die because that makes the novel a masterpiece. The problem is Hollywood is scared. Scared of losing spectators. Scared of killing a star. So they devised some crappy excuse not to kill Will Ferrell/Harold Crick. Not only the novel is not a masterpiece anymore but this is also true of the film itself. Cowards ! Down with your bloody senseless happy endings !
The Departed
(2006)
Sad, sad, sad
19 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Granted, it’s pretty well shot. Although… in between two brilliant pieces of cinema, you have many talking heads with reverse angle shots. Not easy to do away with that when you tell a story for the cinema. Granted, it’s pretty well acted, especially by Leonardo Di Caprio. But what does this movie say about life? What is the point? Also who is the protagonist? Whom are we supposed to identify with? Logically, it should be Billy (Leonardo Di Caprio) who is the honest cop undercover in the mob. But since we often follow Colin whose character has been given Matt Damon’s pretty mug, it’s not that clear. The double romance is not milked at all. It’s just shown in parallel. And on top of that too many characters play a double game. Even the bad guy (Jack Nicholson) is an informer for the FBI. One of the thugs doesn’t turn Billy in although he has understood who he is. If “The departed” is 43 on the IMDb top list, before “City lights” , “Groundhog day” and “Mr Smith goes to Washington” we are in big trouble. Sad, sad, sad.
The Silence of the Lambs
(1991)
Great but...
20 November 2006
Granted, THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is a great thriller. On a humanistic level, I prefer RED DRAGON, for its marvelous payoff at the end and for its humane characterization of the villain (played by Ralph Fiennes). But back to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Despite its grandeur, there is a huge flaw in the script. Yves Lavandier has expressed it well in his book WRITING DRAMA.
Remember. To help Clarice understand Buffalo Bill's mentality, her superior (Scott Glenn) suggests she visit another serial killer, Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Lecter is reputed to be fiendishly manipulative. Clarice is warned by her superior: "You tell him nothing personal. Believe me, you don't want Hannibal Lecter inside your head." The warning is clear-you do so at your peril. Soon afterwards, we learn that Lecter has driven the man in the next cell to commit suicide. And it is very clear to us that Clarice will need to be extremely cautious. When Lecter, at their first meeting, asks her questions about her private life, we feel concern. When, at their next meeting, Clarice starts to talk about herself, we fear the worst. But nothing happens-Clarice opens up but suffers no consequences. Her superior's warning and Clarice's subsequent attitude do not lead to a payoff.
I was disappointed by this unkept promises since it represents a lost opportunity for further conflict. But there is more to it than that. If the writers had established a close link between Clarice's confidences and Lecter's subsequent break-out-the former contributing to the latter, for example-not only would the film have gained in rigour and unity of action, it would also have shown more clearly that in order to catch one dangerous psychopath, the FBI trainee has been obliged to allow free another, much more dangerous psychopath. In other words, the powerless of American society would have been demonstrated more convincingly.
Another missed opportunity.
Remember. To help Clarice understand Buffalo Bill's mentality, her superior (Scott Glenn) suggests she visit another serial killer, Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Lecter is reputed to be fiendishly manipulative. Clarice is warned by her superior: "You tell him nothing personal. Believe me, you don't want Hannibal Lecter inside your head." The warning is clear-you do so at your peril. Soon afterwards, we learn that Lecter has driven the man in the next cell to commit suicide. And it is very clear to us that Clarice will need to be extremely cautious. When Lecter, at their first meeting, asks her questions about her private life, we feel concern. When, at their next meeting, Clarice starts to talk about herself, we fear the worst. But nothing happens-Clarice opens up but suffers no consequences. Her superior's warning and Clarice's subsequent attitude do not lead to a payoff.
I was disappointed by this unkept promises since it represents a lost opportunity for further conflict. But there is more to it than that. If the writers had established a close link between Clarice's confidences and Lecter's subsequent break-out-the former contributing to the latter, for example-not only would the film have gained in rigour and unity of action, it would also have shown more clearly that in order to catch one dangerous psychopath, the FBI trainee has been obliged to allow free another, much more dangerous psychopath. In other words, the powerless of American society would have been demonstrated more convincingly.
Another missed opportunity.
Broken Flowers
(2005)
It's not art, it's incompetence
3 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
It's so easy to set up a mystery, ask audiences to wonder, to crave for the answer and then not solve anything. Future spectators, be warned! You will never know who sent the letter. You will never know who is Don Johnston's son. You will never know what all this journey did to the protagonist. And you will wonder what was the point of all this. We already knew Jim Jarmoush was unable to structure a narrative, only capable of making segment movies, features that are made of shorts glued one after the other. In BROKEN FLOWERS, it's one former girlfriend after the other. Now we know he can't even respect his spectators. This is not art, this is incompetence. CITIZEN KANE is art. At the end of the film written by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles, the journalist (William Alland) does not know what "Rosebud" means (and he will never know), the mystery has not been solved for him, BUT the writers have the respect, the decency, the intelligence, the... competence to give the answer to the audience.
The Ten Commandments
(1956)
Boring and cheesy spectacle
21 December 2005
I don't believe a word of this story (the magic, oh, oh, oh! the power of God, ah, ah, ah!) but I wouldn't mind having a good time. Unfortunately, it's interminable. The actors look ridiculous. Yul Brynner is constantly showing his pecs. Charlton Heston is taking himself too seriously (as often) and Anne Baxter is so far away from "All about Eve", "A Royal Scandal" or "I Confess" you might think it's another actress. The same goes for poor Edward G. Robinson of "Little Caesar" and "Double Indemnity" fame. The director is so proud of his settings, costumes and special effects he succeeds in making the spectacle tiresome. The ten commandments" rings false and stinks of the worst Hollywood.
The Girl from Paris
(2001)
Poorly written
5 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Some of the themes in this movie are attractive for popular audiences : the return to country values, life and death in nature, a woman's bravery, old people's loneliness, and so forth. Alright. But writer-director Christian Carion is unable to exploit them and tell a story to the fullest. He should hire a professional writer to help him put his sensitivity through. So many dramatic elements are planted and never pay off. What about this parachutist we see once in a while? Is this only a metaphor for something? Can't its storyline have an ending, and therefore a meaning, other than something symbolic left to every viewer's appreciation? When a death is announced at one point in the narrative, you expect it is Adrien's (Michel Serrault) because it has been largely planted that he is to disappear. Surprise, it's Jean's (Jean-Paul Roussillon). OK, fair enough. But then, why is Adrien's death never presented? We should have seen how Sandrine (Mathilde Seigner) manages at the farm without the help and presence of Adrien. None of that. On the whole, this film is a narrative waste of good intentions.
Tell Your Friends