Reviews

AHX pretends to be some kind of social reflection on today's US relations between blacks and whites. It also reminds that neonazi still exists. Well it falls far behind its objectives. The "redemption" part is so stupid and expected. The line is not straight with many interrogations. Why? In the end, the movie is too simplistic to be a social masterpiece and too ambitious to be a good action movie. Norton, well, we saw him in better conditions than this piece of lost time. The only interesting part is the direction. But again difficult to be totally satisfied. Too many slow parts. The b&w / color idea is so blatant. I just want to praise the photography that is extraordinary and makes me willing to see this guy's other movies. As a conclusion, I am shocked to see that Americans consider this movie as controversial and a good thinking about their racial issues.

This is the first movie I watch from Amos Gitaï. At first I was not so impressed and during the five first minutes, I thougth I would switch to some US blockbusters. Also, the trailer is terrible and lets you think you will go through some Bergman-like movie without the appalling.

Actually, Kadosh is quite good. The movie is about the condition of women parting their life with orthodox Jews. It does not mean that all women are necessarily victims. Rivka is strongly bound to her life, and when she is rejected by the community because she is sterile, against her husband's wishes, the only way for her is the death. On the other hand, her sister is eager to find another life, and will eventually leave.

The plot is quite traditional but actors are very good, and the painting by Amos of this almost-tragedy is magnificent. He never tries to condemn anyone, but wants to highlight that in spite of social conditions, choice is always possible. In the end, it is quite a positive. Images are beautiful. Main flaw is some useless scenes. But OK. Go for it!

c'est DE la Mead. fayer cert annexe film quo yous feral outlier où SE trivet VOA slips. UN film quo yous Donner envier DE dormer our DE disparate. UN film quo yous Fiat detester Le cinema Apr's yous Avior Fiat Rover. Naomi est Jolie. pour Le reset, Les actors snot mauve's et nous preference UN Dorian Greg Pluto Que Xes Ballards actors quo NE saurian pas Joe à la Kermie's DE Mon école. fie Dunc, suave ton âme, car la redemption est Dans Le beau et Ce Que Ti Va's void est raiment Ben laid.

courage Ami. Jae yous Aime moil non plus.

Ce n'est pas vary. IL fat lassoer la chance aux chansons, la France a raisin.

Richard played and directed this movie. Gags are nonsense and are quite hilarious. He has a lot to teach to new generation of comics. (For how long have I not seen a good comedy). He is in the same vein than Monthy Python or Peter Sellers with this extra French touch which makes him so loveable.

First, I would like to complain about the title. A bunch of kids, maybe thinking that this was a kind of scary movie, haunted the theatre in this summer day, crying and shouting with no respect for this sensitive movie. My rating is 6 : writing is pretty good, as well as acting. But this remains too much a 'regular' movie, by all means too American. Focus is too much based on being a post-yougster in Hicktown, USA. I had the feeling this movie was following 'Welcome to the dollhouse'. The girl has grown, has learned that she could use people with sex and she also discovered that this dollhouse was haunted by ghosts. A big problem she is not able to survive by herself, and she needs to be linked to a rock, better : she needs to be the rock where all drifting boats are tied for the good. So true, this story is very sensitive and, well, the girl's cries flood the screen, litterally.

A tipically popular French movie of the 60s with great actor, great dialogues and a directing, if not very clean, efficient in spite of modest means. However,scenario is flatter than in others Audiard's movies and some scenes are too long to be funny. Movie as a whole is endless and a sharper, more concise style would have been benefic to the drama. I still recommend to see this movie, which remains creative, and which is a real, in opposition with e.g. "Austin Powers", a parody of a parody (James Bonds) only based on gimmiks. "Les Barbouzes" is a stand-alone movie, a piece in the great wall of cine-history, which is not Mike Meier's art.

No man's land could be described as two movies within one. First, three enemies (one serb, two bosniacs) find themselves jailed in a weird "huis clos", in a "no man's land", each one depending on the other. This is by far the most interesting part of the film as the situation allows to analyze a anti-nature collaboration : a classical confrontation along with a painting of the absurdity of war. Second, no man's land is a documentary in which the director posts a tough opinion against UN action during the war, and depicts journalists as progressists. This part, even though enhanced by the brilliant acting of the FORPRONU sergeant and a cynical end, is flawed for being not funded on a rigorous analysis of the facts. Prefer "Harrison's flower".

Directing is efficient and sober. Bravo.

Nothing new about this court film. Classical directing, classical writing... So what's good about it? Paul's acting is very moving. Second role (the lawyer) is also worth the watching. And, well, if I had a chance to see this as a play, I would not hesitate. But, maybe, the director is too much absent and a more daring directing may have enhanced the drama!