Change Your Image
mister_nameless
Reviews
Un homme mort (2006)
It's sad that it died so fast...
"Un homme mort" is an extremely interesting and suspenseful TV-series... Of course, (in my opinion) it did not have the same level of _constant_ suspense present in another recent Quebec TV-s. thriller "Le Négociateur" (that I liked more), yet it managed to capture my attention from the very first minutes... These are some of the reasons:
1). The acting. That's why, IMHO, the Quebec comedians _always_ shine in their productions. It's just perfect! The actors match their respective roles wonderfully and perform at the top of their abilities. They've got all the package in there: the very cute Karine Vanasse, the veteran Michel Barrette, the "dead" (yet omnipresent) Robert Lalonde, the very charismatic Michel Dumont, and lots of other actors who are truly remarkable in other roles (I liked Isabel Richer, Romano Orzari, Lise Roy and, of course, the unforgettable Marco Ramirez the most). All the cops are very alive and believable, and so are the members of the Bank personnel. We can feel their emotions and understand their problems instantly.
2). The special effects. Well, maybe some people won't like the what seems to be the clichéd zooms, flashes (the red coloration was definitely overused IMHO) and split-screen techniques. But, they were pretty much convenient and well matching in this production IMHO. The sound effects deserve special mention. They are always very surprising.
3). The atmosphere and the plot. Even if it's not "Le Négociateur 2" (I can't wait to see this one!), the general atmosphere of the film is very well recreated. The frequent thrilling moments will have you on the edge of your seat. They are unexpected, scary and quite surprising. You'll say: "I didn't see THAT coming!" many times, while watching UHM, guaranteed. These twists are quite numerous. Also, the TV-s. has an excellent visual quality that adds to the development of the suspense level. Plus, there are some really good jokes in there. Ex: "What are you looking for on the ceiling? Spider-Man?" LOL
But, as it's always the case, the cons come along:
1). One of the first aspects I didn't like about UHM is that it had way too much financial blablabla. Many episodes are especially business-talky, so the actual crime investigation is kept in shadows for a time. This is quite frustrating, and I bet that's why it turned many viewers off in the first days of the teleserie's premiere. Simply put, the main characters are constantly piling whole LOADS of completely INCOMPREHENSIBLE financial/business/commercial information on the audience's back. Now, don't get me wrong, I like complex plots in movies with complex details. But I like also when everything (or at least a bit more than 50%) in a movie's plot is explained in simple steps. But UHM feels at times, as if it was made only with businessmen/businesswomen in mind. I must have said: "What the hell are they talking about?" like many times during my viewing of this TV-s. If you're not into business, you won't understand many small aspects, guaranteed. The main story is only a bit more comprehensible, fortunately.
2). I think that the level of violence was a bit too high here. The famous "homme mort" is cut in three pieces and they actually SHOW them lying around. Another guy has his head cut and it is delivered to one of the protagonists. Damn scary! Also, I didn't quite get why they had to kill an innocent driver in such a cruel manner. Other on-screen deaths are not less violent. Possibly, it was another reason of why many didn't like it. And they say it's PG-13 (13+ in Quebec)! No way, I say! It's R (16+) all the way, if not NC-17 (add in some sexuality/nudity too).
3). The TV-s. is, also, pretty much slow-moving. Of course, I won't call it a pure con, but, sometimes it's also quite frustrating. Like, you're beginning to watch another episode and the tension is going up real fast. You're waiting for something to happen and... nothing happens. The same situation just repeats itself over and over. Even the last episode goes the same way until the last 5 minutes.
But, I think, it doesn't matter anymore, what was good or bad in UHM, because, well... it died. Literally (no pun intended there). The production costs were way too high and, as I said earlier, more than the third of the starting audience was turned off during the first days of the UHM premiere. The second season was, thus, not greenlit and the cast/production members were deprived of another possibility to manifest their excellent skills (that's not sarcasm, no). And that's sad, quite sad...
I mean, I liked it... All the ideas were quite original (the "bull" scene was excellent, IMHO, for example), the omnipresent "black ops" guys (Tavares' strike force?) were pretty cool, the action scenes (well, it's not pure shoot-'em-up action, but anyways) were well-staged and the humor was quite entertaining... But, I was very much disappointed, because the ending was quite "a la Twin Peaks" (i.e. the story was obviously unfinished)... That's how I will always remember it: an excellent, yet never finished story...
*Huge Spoilers Ahead*
...But, if we look at it from another perspective, the answers (for the main questions Who? Why? and How?) were pretty much cleared up. Kim and Paul were there alone, in the end... Alone and against the System (right, with the maj. "S")... The System that kills mercilessly because of its lust for money... No human life is valued for it... Tavares was a good example of such a System, IMHO: a true master-and-commander, a man who puts himself higher than God...
*Spoilers End*
RIP, "Un Homme Mort"... It had some really good stuff in it, but it died, unfortunately...
P.S. I heard rumors recently stating that this TV-s. _may_ be converted into a feature film (a la "Serenity")... That would be an excellent idea.
Crash (2004)
The best movie ever!
I think that the film "Crash" is one of the best movies Hollywood had ever produced. It is a very stylish motion picture that introduces us to a cold and pessimistic atmosphere, showing us the true fragility of human lives. In my opinion, a good phrase that fully describes this movie is: "You think you know who you are? You have no idea." (one of the movie's tag lines) The magnificently written story illustrates this message with excellence showing us the interconnections between numerous human destinies. People think they know who they are. But they change throughout the course of the movie leading a battle against the banality of life with violent efforts. These people feel the emotions they have never experienced before. Rage, hate, violence and racism give place to love, happiness, friendship and care. The movie's characters are breaking through dozens of obstacles on their way to survive in the cold and lifeless world they live in. By the end of this voyage, these same characters realize that incredible strength lives inside them. They completely rediscover themselves. Film director Paul Haggis chose a very unusual and difficult approach for a Hollywood film, and he succeeded in illustrating it. The people he shows us seem to be common stereotypes, but, in essence, they are not. It's really a miracle, how he could pull together such a great film with real educative values, tons of interesting personalities and stunning fate interconnections. The main strength of the film is that it all works. We never know when and how shall we pay for our own foolishness and excessive pride. We never know what awaits us in future. The message of this movie is very important to understand. If we let the inside evil guide us, we won't be able to save ourselves from the assault of bad luck. To sum it up, "Crash" is a powerful film. It is full of surprises and truly deserves viewers' attention. Of course, it also has several weaknesses. Some of the characters are not too well developed and their transition from good to evil or vice versa is way too fast (like Anthony the carjacker). Also, the ends of some film subplots are not shown or fully explained (like detective Waters' search for his brother's killer). What's more, some of the things mentioned in the film are also not too well explained (like the blank bullets in Farhad's gun). But, overall, it's an excellent film with top acting and unforgettable situations. Thumbs up!
Turetskiy gambit (2005)
An excellent film with only a few disappointing parts...
...Personally, I'm one of Akunin fans... I read almost all his books... And I find the "Adventures of Erast Fandorin" series really worth reading... The story is always interesting, the suspense is on the highest level and the action is truly unique...
So "Turetskiy Gambit" is out... And I saw it some time ago... And I must say, that it IS really an instant classic... The film has its pros, but also unfortunately (IMHO) several cons... My explanations will follow...
*Spoiler Alert*
...The beginning seemed a bit strange for me... Why is Fandorin running and shooting Turks? Hey, this bit wasn't even in the book! Besides, I have never seen this Beroyev guy, so I didn't even recognize him, as Fandorin... I even thought, that I had a wrong film handed to me... Fortunately, things arranged quite fast and I started watched... My interest grew fast... However, I didn't understand, why wasn't Fandorin able to pick up the dynamite and throw it back to the Turks? Was it fear? Strange, he was never a coward in the book... He was colder there... Oh, well...
Anyway, let's continue... Eh, what's this? Fandorin is spying on Anvar-effendi - another bit not to be featured in the book... Hmmm... I liked the part, where colonel Ismail-Bei appears on the stage... Personally, I like Kutsenko very much (his performance in "Antikiller" and its sequel was remarkable) and I enjoyed his performance in the movie... He was pretty cool, as a brave and smart Turkish Forces Commander... It was a shame, he was killed later... Of course, the question of existence of this character in the movie remains a puzzle to me, for the book never featured such a person... But I think, that this addition didn't really spoil the film...
The rest of the film follows the book closely, but some changes to the story do occur sometimes... I liked the big air balloon scene - it was a brilliant novelty, as for me... The gay duo scene was hilarious in the beginning - watch Fandorin yell at those poor guys... "It's an army, not a bordello for Christ's sake!" Kinda reminds me of the operator (Tolik) character from "Nochnoy Dozor" and his menacing yell: "THAT'S NOT HER MOTHER!!!" lol But the rest of the scene turns out to be rather bloody... Well, it's a good twist however...
*Global Spoiler Alert*
But the ending... Oh no, how could it be? Why did Akunin simplify the story to this point in the script? Yes, it was pretty predictable, who the spy really was from the beginning given the strange circumstances of his introduction... But in the book it was no more than a distraction... The real spy thing was much better developed in the book... So, I don't understand, why was Perepelkin ("Kazanova" from "Menty") made the main villain (Anvar), rather than d'Hevrais (and yes, it's d'Hevrais, not D'Evre, as it's written in the "Cast" section here), who was the villain in the book... As for me, I think, that this simplification was totally unnecessary... For an Akunin fan, like me, it's a disappointment...
Also, the ending action sequence with Fandorin fighting Anvar was a bit lame... Varya killed Anvar, not the great Fandorin... And _he_ was so weak - he didn't even manage to wound the spy seriously... That's a major disappointment for me...
*Global Spoiler Alert ends here*
*Spoiler Alert ends here*
Now, I will explain the major pros and cons: Pros: The casting is fairly good... The only disappointment I found was the main role... I don't know - somehow Beroyev gives a bit wooden performance (IMHO)... Viktor Verzhibitskiy is great as Lucan, the Romanian colonel... Great and charismatic... Olga Krasko (Varya) was just as I imagined her while reading the book - a beautiful, but extremely naive young woman... Baluyev (general Sobolev) is in his usual war-hero-and-great-master-and-commander role... It suits him well... Kazanzaki (he is credited as Kazinaki on IMDb - LOL) was also, as I imagined him... Mizinov (Savelich from "Russkiy bunt" and Gryaznov from "Marsh Turetskogo" - sorry for the pun here) is great too... Zurov is a bit strange here - somehow I think it's not a role for Pevtsov (IMHO again)... McLaughlin was too, as I imagined him... Petya reminded me, of course, of Tolik from "Nochnoy Dozor"... Now I don't even know, who is funnier... But the actor I liked the most, was Didier Bienaime (d'Hevrais)... Boy, was he cool! His smile, his calm way of speaking - it was just perfect... What a shame this actor died... *sigh* Memory eternal...
The general atmosphere of a spy thriller...
The costumes and the decors...
The special effects (although, I didn't understand, what were these falls from the suddenly appeared mountains in the beginning)...
The changes to the story (except the ending)...
The action (although sometimes the camera moves way too fast, like in "Antikiller 2")...
The suspense...
Cons: The battles... Way too short... *sigh*
The war atmosphere... That's what I find the most disappointing (it's #2, the ending was #1)... In my opinion it wasn't well recreated...
Beroyev's acting...
The ending and the identity of the real spy...
...Anyway, that's it... "Gambit" is a good movie, even an excellent one, but it could have been much much better...
I hope to see "Statskiy Sovetnik" soon... People say, it's even better...
Mister Nameless.
P. S. The last strange thing - why do they make a film on "Statskiy Sovetnik" (the 6th book) after "Turetskiy Gambit" instead of "Leviafan", which is supposed to be the 3rd book in the series? This question still bugs me...
Le négociateur (2005)
An excellent action/thriller/drama!
"Le negociateur" ("The Negotiator") is a very good film (TV-series it is although), that tells us about the dangerous aspects of a radio journalist Michel-Andre ("Mac") Cloutier's job as the negotiator, a person, who conducts negotiations between the criminals and the police. If you liked "The Negotiator" movie of 1998 featuring Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey, you'll surely like this Montreal masterpiece, because there are similar aspects treated in both films and of course a well-developed thrilling atmosphere. However, "Le negociateur" features a better (IMHO) character development and it shows more interesting negotiations cases.
Although I wasn't born in Quebec (I'm of Ukrainian heritage and I live in Montreal for only 4 years), I must say that the atmosphere of the time period shown in the TV-series and the decors illustrating this period are very convincing and well done (i.e. cars, buildings interiors, clothes, etc.). This is already a very big plus for the film.
But the very first thing I liked about these series is the way the characters are portrayed. Frederic de Granpre is very convincing in his role of Mac. Cloutier is smart, courageous and has a good sense of justice. He's not afraid to enter a gas-station and confront two daredevil robbers, who just took his sister and some other guys as hostages. He's not afraid to develop and "unholy" alliance with Le Chat ("The Cat"), a notorious criminal, who killed so many people. He's a truly amazing protagonist.
Roc LaFortune is simply superb as Mac's eternal rival - the captain Sylvio St-Louis (or "Sly") of the Montreal Police Forces. Even if he's acting stupidly sometimes, while doing his duty (he's an overzealous policeman who's ready to eradicate every criminal, who stands on his way), he's very cool to observe. Smoking a cigarette in a somewhat neat way, St-Louis casts a very special look on the spectator. It's unforgettable. Several comical situations occur with this character during the series. His phrase: "Lebel! Two sugars, one milk!" mentioned during the gas-station operation made me laugh so hard. By the way, sergeant Jipi Lebel (Jacques Lussier) is Sly's second-in-command, a cop who's very funny, but who tries to be serious (of course, he fails :)). Also, he's a favorite Sly's punching-ball. It's fun to watch their quarrels.
Two singers are also cast in "Le Negociateur": a veteran Quebec singer Eric Lapointe (playing the role of Le Chat - The Cat - a hardened criminal Mac confronts in the first two episodes) and Stephanie Lapointe (Colette, Mac's sister) - a new singer Quebec got acquainted with by Star Academie. I like them both as singers. And I also liked their performance. Eric is perfect for Le Chat's role (except the physical appearance he's also got this special voice of a true criminal). Stephanie is good too with a role of somewhat rebelling girl, playing a guitar in a band.
There's also Hector Dupuis (Julien Poulien, who also played the priest in my favorite Quebec film "15 February 1839"), Mac's friend and a photographer. I liked very much his special way of talking with his favorite line "Rule #1 in business...". It was very sad to watch the last episode in the series, where his life came to a sad conclusion.
There are other interesting characters in "Le Negociateur"... Each one is unique with his own fears and sentiments... The ones mentioned above are my favorite... But, overall, all the cast is very well picked and they give an excellent performance...
...The film has several good action sequences, but it's not a total "shoot 'em up" style of film. It's a drama, a thriller, and a good one. In particular, the third episode ("La station-service") is my favorite, featuring one of the best hostage rescue operation/building surrounded by police schematics I've ever seen. Other episodes are not less interesting. You understand all the hatred Mac has for Sly and vice versa... You understand all the difficulties endured by Mac's wife, Evelyne, because of Mac's profession and the sudden appearance of his son born from another woman... You understand all the risk experienced by Mac... Even the villains in the series are not your average typical villains... Each one of them has a convincing background story, like Mario Dube or Denis Pigeon, for example... Even Le Chat is particular...
Overall, if you like thrillers, you'll like it... There are no bad things I'd want to say about these TV-series... Well, except maybe the camera job (it's moving almost always, like in the battle scenes of "Saving Private Ryan") and the events flow (sometimes the story progresses somewhat too fast and some key scenes end way too simple - for example, I didn't really get, how Benoit Sorel was liberated and where are "Les mal-aimes" have gone)...
But, in general, this is a masterpiece... I hope to get the DVD one day...
And, of course, I'm waiting for the second season of "Le negociateur"... The story is far from its end... There are questions left unanswered and, of course, I would like to see some new thrilling negotiations cases...